AVS Forum banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
332 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I thought that some people out there might be interested in some numbers I've gotten from my Colorfacts unit and my 5500 with a Panamorph. I ran the full on:eek:ff contrast ratio test with and without the Panamorph. The 5500 is set at factory levels for contrast and brightness and gamma is set to normal. Colorfacts produces two measurements of light intensity, one at black and one at 100% white. What units these numbers represent, I don't know. Nothing I could find in the documentation explained their value. None-the-less, here they are:


With Panamorph

380:1

Low 296.37

High 112590.6


Panamorph slid out of way

378:1

Low 248.8

High 94025.9


The bottom line is that the measurements with the Panamorph are 19% greater than without (with divided by without).


For 5500 owners, in dynamic gamma mode, the contrast measures at 473:1 and in cinema mode it's 292:1. I really haven't done any tweaking. I'm saving that for when my Firehawk arrives. Colorfacts doesn't look at the screen, but I do - so tweaking starts when the screen arrives. :)


Chuck Davis
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,151 Posts
Nice post, Chuck.


I did a simple test similar to yours a few months ago and found about the same increase on my G11 with/without the Pannie. Around 22%, if I remember correctly.


This may explain the theoretical 33%(original) claim of brightness increase with the lens. Perhaps since we know the glass and oil does indeed induce light transmission loss......and some of us are seeing around a 20% increase in brightness levels.........and it's been mentioned that the light loss approximates 10%, the math would add up pretty close. 33% theoretical increase minus 10% transmission loss equals 20%.


Totally hypothetical of course, but it does add up. :D


I'm sure you've posted this before, but what do you think of the Panamorph on your 5500 overall?


Chris
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,667 Posts
I posted similar results. Some have claimed extinction with the Panamorph. There are multiple hypothetical explanations.

1) The orientation of the Panamorph makes a big difference.

2) The coatings on later prisms aren't as good as the earlier ones.

3) Bogus measurement.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,092 Posts
The other big thing that comes into play with the Panamorphs effectiveness is your projectors overall uniformity.


If you have poor uniformity with your projector, the normally unused letterbox pixels aren't as bright as the pixels in the center of the image.


When those pixels are activated and the Panamorph is put into placa those pixels don't contribute as much.


All in all I'm glad VSR revised their brightness increase spec to something more reasonable.


-Mr. Wigggles
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,587 Posts
Chuck

What are you scaling the 5500 with ? A HTPC ?

My Panamorph returned a 22% brightness benefit over letterboxing to my current XGA Dlp. Its a good improvement, but I find the extra pixels for HD or upscaled Dvd are of major benefit. The image is just smoother and deeper. A good freind has a Minolta light meter so I will have to measure contrast ratio with and without the Panamorph before I sell the Dlp for my new 16:9 Dlp


DavidW
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,460 Posts
For a (crude) photo comparison of a 16:9 projector without a Panamorph and with, please click the gallery button above.


I don't have a Colorfacts (too much $$$) and don't even have a light meter (yet).


Comments welcome.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
332 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
CCLAY wrote: "I'm sure you've posted this before, but what do you think of the Panamorph on your 5500 overall?"


I like the way it eliminates the borders for 16:9 mode, which is all I use. It does add a film-like appearance by softening the picture somewhat. The picture is not as crisp with the Panamorph as without. I bought the Panamorph during the power buy, before I got my 5500. I never want to see pixels and the 5500 with the Panamorph makes them all but invisible at any distance.


DavidW wrote: "What are you scaling the 5500 with ? A HTPC ?"


Yes, a HTPC with a Radeon and AccessDTV. I use Zoomplayer with the ATI filters. I also run a Dish 6000 through the 5500.


Chuck
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
327 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by ChuckD
CCLAY wrote:


It does add a film-like appearance by softening the picture somewhat. The picture is not as crisp with the Panamorph as without. I bought the Panamorph during the power buy, before I got my 5500. I never want to see pixels and the 5500 with the Panamorph makes them all but invisible at any distance.


Chuck
Chuck,

The pixels on the 5500 ARE ALREADY all but invisible at any distance. To see any pixel structure at all, I have to get as close to the screen as reading a book. The fill factor is quoted at 93%.


It worries me a bit that the Panamorph softens the image somewhat because this is one of the criticisms that has occasionally been levelled at the SX5500, prompting explanations that the panels are slightly out of alignment - which they usually are on all LCDs.


I daresay with the Panamorph you're getting a theoretical fill factor of about 95-96% but in practice about 100% because of the imperfections or limitations of the prism and possibly slight errors in focussing (nothing's perfect!).


However, I don't want to sound negative. I'm really trying to be objective. An extra 20% in brightness is most welcome but what would make the Panamorph a real winner is an ability to actually increase in real terms the vertical resolution of an anamorphic source. More pixels do not add up to increased resolution if the native resolution of the source is already being displayed. It may make the image smoother and more filmlike but this is not a quality which the SX5500 lacks to begin with.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
332 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
barryz - I'm not an advocate of the Panamorph for the 5500. I'm not against it, either. I ordered the Panamorph before I got my 5500 because of the power buy. $1,200 seemed like a good price. If I had seen the 5500 first, I may not have gotten the Panamorph. The panels on my 5500 are not out of alignment. As I said, without the Panamorph, the picture is crisp. By this, I mean perfectly in focus and every pixel can be seen if you get close enough to the screen (Real close.) I'm just trying to offer some information for those who may be considering the combination.


Chuck
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,667 Posts
I use a Panamorph with my G1000. The extra brightness is noticeably and helps. A brighter SXGA would be preferable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,587 Posts
While watching copy write, I guess the wrap up in Widescreen Reviews recent test of the Panamorph says it best. Lets look at it from the point of view that everything helps to get a little more film like presentation. I have had a lot of time with the Panamorph as I was one of the first people to get one, and I find more up side than down-side. once you understand how best to tweak it you really do get more out of any projector. My best friend has a Jvc G15 with 1365x1024 and he has had his for the same period and both of us agree it was well worth it.

Quote:
Conclusion

Despite a few problems, most of which are not likely to be noticed on real-world images, the Panamorph does, as advertised, significantly improve the display of 16:9 images on digital projectors that use 4:3 or 5:4 panels. The increase in vertical resolution it provides is likely its most important benefit.

Widescreen Review Issue 61

- Alen Koebel- June 2002


DavidW
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top