AVS Forum banner

41 - 60 of 4837 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
672 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by TzungILin /forum/post/0


6. The throw ratio is about 1.8 to 2.2:1 (about), the offset is 27% (of vertical height), sorry that this may not fit everyone's installation.

TzungILin - Just to be absolutely clear, is the 27% (of vertical height) referenced to:


a) the centre of the screen ?

b) the top (or bottom) of the screen ?


If it is b) is the offset outside the screen or inside the screen ?


A numerical example might be helpful. Sorry if this has already been adressed.


Thanks,

Brent
 

·
Central Scrutinizer
Joined
·
8,301 Posts

Quote:
In your case, I agree, but not everyone who will buy a video projector like the HD81 already has a scaler, and even if they do, it may not be as good as this one looks to be, with the Gennum and the flexible input switching. I, for one, would be happy with it as it is, since I have an HDLeeza I want to get rid of anyway. I think the processor included with this bundle is better than what I have right now. I would definitely like to see them offer just the head unit separately, but if I were to buy one, I would get the combo anyway.

Yes, I agree with you wholeheartedly. I am in complete agreement that the two package solution is superior to having the scaler built into the projector. My point is just an addition to what you said - since the head and scaler are two separate units, hopefully connected by a HDMI cable, why not keep the scaler optional in order to please everybody? It's kinda like the audio receiver vs. prepro/power amp situation. Separates offer greater versatility and options.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
100 Posts
Well, in the end Coretronic/Optoma is a company, as such they need to have a high customer orientation but also secure their yields, of course they are dependent of each other.

Yes, lens-shift mechanism let alone can be done tomorrow(CAD drawings, Raytraycing, establish correct dimensions, manufuacturing establishment, Design for Robust construction/ assembly/manufacturing etc)


As kuebler already said, the profit window in this market is small, very small. Even worse(for them), the pay-off time has increased. High start up(like in this case) and warranty HIGHLY affects the profits. A product that misses the market within the "correct" time frame (hello benq) can misses 1/3 or even more of the potential life cyle profit. Being in time but 50% overspent budget normaly only cut profit with 3-4%.

so they better start doing something about it NOW, but then..


As for introducing LATE engineering changes, it will have a devasting affect in final verification and quality. Don't! espacially if the R&D and production aren't located in the same country.


In this case, the update is minor(from the 910 model) so there may be no need for a extended start-up phase requering low production(yet still they need full speed in this phase)(training, set up machines, inspection etc). Therfore ramp-up can start.

So both load and capacaity paramteters can be "undercut" this way.


So it isn't really about "a lens shift mechnism"


Yes i agree with bob, Falk and the rest of you BUT!!

On the other hand, this CAN't be a suprise for Optoma??


They need better customer orientation.

Really, did TI called them last week and told them about a 1080p dmd with DC3 manufacturing ?


No they didn't....


Did customers started to ask about lens-shift and 1080p projectors last week?..


No they didn't...


i blame it on TI AND optoma =)


Still, i am looking forwad to the product AND i do like optoma.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
329 Posts
Thanks for starting thread so quickly, I have a RUBY on order and was still a little gun-shy about the purchase. But this makes it easier for me, because I know the HD81 wont fit, even if I removed the ceiling fan completely. This does look like a great projector though. I love the idea of being able to move your equipment around the room where ever you want, and keeping dvd and set top box cables to a minimum length. And I have always wondered why so many projectors come in bright reflective colors when the whole idea is to get the room as dark as a cave. Hope every one catches on, I personally like the black look much better, regardless of what it does to help improve the picture.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,338 Posts
Did Sony rush the Ruby to market? I have been on the fence awaiting news from the DLP camp. The Sony was never intended for screens over 100". How could Sony ignore so many projector users wanting to upgrade to 1080P buy selling a $10,000 projector that has such low lumens? Should buyers of the Sony be forced to replace their current screen in order to use a "high gain alternative" in order to have a "large" viewing experience.


I also never recall anyone chastising Dwin with their choice of a "2" box solution on their dlp projectors or Runco?


Every projector has strengths and weakness's that each purchaser must weigh before the make a purchase based on their install needs.


This constant bashing of DLP and the slant that "Sony is the Only" is fruitless.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
417 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by TzungILin /forum/post/0


6. The throw ratio is about 1.8 to 2.2:1 (about), the offset is 27% (of vertical height), sorry that this may not fit everyone's installation.

Useless for me also. I wont be able to upgrade my H79 either. I'm guessing anyone with 8.5 foot or less ceilings wont be able to ceiling mount this projector.


I would have to lower my screen about 4 inches to utilize a 27% offset. My 8 foot ceilings just wont allow it.


Brad
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
852 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by gmanhdtv /forum/post/0


This constant bashing of DLP and the slant that "Sony is the Only" is fruitless.

What bashing? Most of the comments here are from DLP owners who want to upgrade to a 1080p DLP, but are disappointed with the mounting limitations of this projector.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,895 Posts
Now I hope that the "offset" is within the screen as some suggest. My apologies to HiFiGuy1 as he was trying to get me to understand that this was a possibility. I had not heard of it before. With my low ceiling that might just work if the pj is at the outer reach of the throw distance.


Hope still lives
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
23,903 Posts
I was possibly looking to upgrade to this PJ as well. But given the parameters, I doubt I could either. I guess I could try Optoma's future flagship HD83 or HD84 when they include all the features. I like having lens shift. I am spoiled on it. Besides, wouldn't a 3 chip 1080p PJ be worth the wait? People tend to get over excited when a new product comes (I do as well), but let's not forget how excited they were over the H79 and other great pjs as well. Now hearing some of the specs and features (or lack there of) is turning this into a killjoy for me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,282 Posts
Just joining the chorus. I was cheered by the early news on this piece. But, the combination of limiting throw in concert with such a high offset are potential deal killers for many. Not just a few, many. I believe (personal opinion only) that most of us have 2 interests in this pj: good brightness output for use on large screens and a resolution to meet Ruby and others. So, it would seem counter-productive to me to have such a very large offset. The larger the screen (which is why you want all that brightness to begin with), the worse the offset becomes. They tantalize you with how nice it looks on a 135" Studiotek - BUT - the avg. HT probably has 8' or possibly 9' ceilings. Do the math. The min. throw on that would be 18 or more and require ceilings of 11' or so for normal setup.


You'd have to mount that size screen about at floor level or slightly above to get it to work! Even using a 123"d Firehawk (which was my original choice for my new HT with 8' ceilings but all else flexible), you are looking at a 9' wide screen, yielding 60" ht. This means mounting at about 16" or a little more above the screen. Just assuming an 8' ceiling requiring a pj mounted as close to ceiling as possible (assuming at least 8-10" of clearance below ceiling for mounting) results in:


ceiling (8') = 96" minus 10" mount clearance

pj mount position = 86" minus 27%offset (16") for 60" high scrn (123"diag)

max top of scrn (offset)= 70" minus scrn physical ht of 60"

bottom scrn to floor = 10" left for center speaker, etc and abnormally low viewing angle


This pj screams for a larger than Ruby screen, but needs a 10' or higher room to do it and a potential throw distance starting at about 16.5' and rapidly growing with screen size and desire not to minimally mount so close.


Too bad, unless I misread it, this PJ had all the potential but the very large offset amount works against its proposed use of brightness for large screens. It seems to miss the room conditions of its intended audience to a large extent. I don't mind the 2 box solution, I just want it optional so I can use my box of choice. All of this is really disappointing after such initial terrific reports. Sounds great for those of you with really tall rooms or those willing to seriously downsize the screen, but when you do that, you eliminate the brightness advantage and enter Ruby territory with 3 chips and better contrast. A real mix of conflicting specs. Too bad.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,827 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by HiFiGuy1 /forum/post/0



27% outside the image height is fairly substantial, but for me it would be better than the alternative you suggested where it is inside the image height.

Same here.


I actually have tall ceilings (10 feet high) so while this will technically work for me, I would still prefer the flexibility of having a lens shift.
 

·
Central Scrutinizer
Joined
·
8,301 Posts
Guys, I was half joking when I suggested that the 27% offset might possibly be within the confines of the screen - It was more like wishful thinking. Since then I discovered that this projector uses a business/presentation light engine, and it would be very typical to have a 27% external offset for such a unit (think large board room with projector mounted on table). Unfortunately this is not optimum for us home theater folks. But please don't get your hopes up thinking that the 27% offset might be within the screen borders - the chances of this are almost zero.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,201 Posts
Bob,

Definitely with you on that, but it is at least a possibility, and I would very much appreciate a direct response for us from TzungLin himself as to the specifics of the offset (from screen center or edge, positive/negative offset, etc.). I am not holding my breath, though. Actually, it works fine for me the way we already think it will be, I am just hoping for the sake of my basement-enhanced AVS brethren that it will work for them. I can't really afford one yet anyway, even if it fits, unfortunately.
 

·
Central Scrutinizer
Joined
·
8,301 Posts
Ok, I've created a sample installation so that people could get an idea of what 27% offset will mean in real life. I am going to use a standard 8' (96") ceiling for my example, and I am going to assume that I am able to build a "hugger" ceiling mount for the projector in order to get it within 4" of the ceiling. Also, I am going to use my actual screen, a 16:9 100" X 56" wall mount (114" diagonal) with 1.5" frame all around. Here's how it fits:


96" total height

92" high is center of lens (4" down from ceiling)

77" high is top of viewable screen (I rounded off 15.12" to 15" - top of frame would be 78.5" high)

21" high is bottom of viewable screen

19.5" high is bottom of frame


Using a 114" diagonal screen in an 8' room, "hugging" the ceiling with the projector would then leave you with 19.5" below your screen to place your center speaker, or you could mount it above the screen since your screen will be 78.5" down from the ceiling (Edit: oops, that's 78.5" up from the floor), giving you 17.5" above to work with.


Now, if you increase the size of the screen, don't forget that the screen will need to mount lower on the wall, as the 27% of screen height offset will increase as the screen gets larger.


If you use a more normal mount with a drop of 8" instead of 4", shift everything down 4".


You can also "fudge" things a bit by tilting the projector in order to mount the screen up higher and/or use a larger screen, but make sure you have a fairly wide black border to absorb the slightly trapezoidal image that will result from tilting the projector.


I have provided this example just so that people can get a feel for how this projector will or will not fit into their particular plans.


I have a 7' ceiling and my center speaker speaker measures 72" X 18" X 18" (yes, it really is that huge!), so unfortunately the HD81 won't work for me.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,749 Posts
It would work for me, but I would also prefer a lens shift. I'm not in that big of a rush, but I admit that this projector is tempting. I would like to see a big improvement over my current 720p DC3. I don't sit that close to the screen so I'm not sure how much of an improvement the 1080p would actually be. With this projector I would require a new screen also as I currently use a 92" wide HighPower.

I think a 10 ft. wide screen would work quite well.


Noone here here has to make a decision now as the projector is not even available yet, and by the time it is there may be some other choices in the works and I guess it may even be possible that lens shift could be added. I would also like to know about lamp price and how many hours it is rated for.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,023 Posts
I'm out too.....fixed 27% offset makes it a non-starter for my installation...


Looks like I'll have to keep my Sharp 12K till Q3 and then get the 20K.
 

·
Central Scrutinizer
Joined
·
8,301 Posts
Oh yeah, and one more thing - retroreflective screens like the High Power and Optoma's own Graywolf would not be recommended in these types of installations. You'd be best to stick with angular reflective screens with such a large offset.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,827 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Sorel /forum/post/0


Ok, I've created a sample installation so that people could get an idea of what 27% offset will mean in real life. I am going to use a standard 8' (96") ceiling for my example, and I am going to assume that I am able to build a "hugger" ceiling mount for the projector in order to get it within 4" of the ceiling. Also, I am going to use my actual screen, a 16:9 100" X 56" wall mount (114" diagonal) with 1.5" frame all around. Here's how it fits:


96" total height

92" high is center of lens (4" down from ceiling)

77" high is top of viewable screen (I rounded off 15.12" to 15" - top of frame would be 78.5" high)

21" high is bottom of viewable screen

19.5" high is bottom of frame


Using a 114" diagonal screen in an 8' room, "hugging" the ceiling with the projector would then leave you with 19.5" below your screen to place your center speaker, or you could mount it above the screen since your screen will be 78.5" down from the ceiling, giving you 17.5" above to work with.


Now, if you increase the size of the screen, don't forget that the screen will need to mount lower on the wall, as the 27% of screen height offset will increase as the screen gets larger.


If you use a more normal mount with a drop of 8" instead of 4", shift everything down 4".


You can also "fudge" things a bit by tilting the projector in order to mount the screen up higher and/or use a larger screen, but make sure you have a fairly wide black border to absorb the slightly trapezoidal image that will result from tilting the projector.


I have provided this example just so that people can get a feel for how this projector will or will not fit into their particular plans.


I have a 7' ceiling and my center speaker speaker measures 72" X 18" X 18" (yes, it really is that huge!), so unfortunately the HD81 won't work for me.


Good work Bob!


Still looks like this will be a close call for those with 8 foot ceilings, especially if they have a larger screen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,201 Posts
Bob,

Excellent point to make about angular vs retro-reflective screens. It is even more important to heed this advice when a projector has a substantial offset.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,675 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Sorel /forum/post/0


Falk got this pegged perfectly. Optoma threw a 1080p DMD in with a business projector light engine and then connected it to an external scaler in a huge rush to get a 1080p to market. The best of intentions...


Sony caught TI with their pants down and now manufacturers like Optoma are forced to rush something to market. I blame this on TI, not Optoma.

That explains why it looks just like a EP910 with a different lens.


On making the scaler optional:


I have (or will have) a nice Gennum scaler in my Anthem D2. I'd probably sell the included scaler and think of it as a rebate. Should fetch more than $2k on the open market? It's pretty much bleeding edge.


Ken
 
41 - 60 of 4837 Posts
Top