AVS Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 60 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,223 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I have:


- a new Toshiba MT8 (Infocus ScreenPlay 7200 clone)


- very good nightime light control


- an 18 foot distance to seating position


- a plan to buy a Stewart Firehawk that's microperfed


- plenty of 1080i HDTV sources (OTA, HBO/SHO-HD, D-VHS, HTPC / accessDTV) and of couse 480P DVD


Should I get a 110"+/- Diag. of 123"+/- Diag Screen?




Murray Kerdman
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,209 Posts
With an 18 foot seating distance you will want at least a 123" diagonal screen. The MT8 should have no problem handling an even larger FireHawk in a light controlled room should you decide to go even larger.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
610 Posts
I agree with Scott 100% I have a 7200 with a 102" diag (90" wide = ~31 ft sq) and a 11.5 ft (1.5 width) prime seating distance. I use a neutral density filter to cut (low power) light output in half to get a brightness of ~ 21 ft -l.


A seating distance of 1.5 width is considered optimal by many. If you were to follow this guideline, it works out to a 144" wide (~ 160" diag, 81 ft sq) screen. Go for it if you have the room width and the money. You would still get 22 ft-l in high power mode (1200 lumen / 81 ft sq *1.3 screen gain).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
750 Posts
Murray,


My wife and I just went through the same decision (well, we had smaller screen sizes...). Our "first" row of seats is at about 13.5' and the second row is at 18.5'. A local dealer told us to go with a screen "no bigger than 96", and probably 92" is as big as you'd want". Before ordering the screen from [email protected], we taped some newspapers to the screen wall in 110" and 96". We didn't project anything, we just looked at the size. We decided that the 110" would be fine and, perhaps the second row would be the "primary" seating position if the PQ wasn't great from row 1.


We do not regret the larger screen one bit. The bigger screen was the far better choice and we are certain that we would have regretted the smaller screen.


HDTV looks fine from both rows. DVD at 480p looked okay, but very grainy, with a lot of "noise" on the picture that was visible. It was truly like sitting in the front row of the movie theater, but the electronic noise (similar to compression artifacts) in the picture made it lass desireable (but still acceptable).


The kicker is when we bought the DVI-enabled Bravo D1. This removed every bit of electronic noise. The front row is still close, but there is no longer the compromise in PQ. Yes, the second row yields an apparent increase in sharpness (just like my 13" TV looks sharp from 10' away). But, the front row seats are great, even with the huge screen and the relatively low quality of DVD. With HD content, it is hard to get too close to the screen.


Do you have multiple rows, or is 18' the only seating position?


My opinion is that, at 18', the larger screen will be better by giving you more of the "big screen" experience. I can tell you for sure that, at 18', the 110" is fabulous. Since you have so many HD sources, the HD content (e.g., DVD-HD) is only likely to grow, and the screen is expensive and less likely to be replaced for a while, I would suggest going for the larger screen.


In the end, it is a matter of preference. My wife and I wondered why we had built the theater if we weren't going to have an obscenely large screen in it. If being too close to the screen bugs you, then the smaller screen will still make you happy.


One additional thing to consider. I definitely see rainbows on my 7200 no matter where I sit. I notice the rainbows when I shift my eyes from one part of the screen to another. To the extent that a larger screen increases the movement of your eyes, it might increase the perceptibility of rainbows. I didn't think I was hyper-sensitive to rainbows, but I notice them at almost every viewing. They aren't a huge deal to me, as the stunning picture makes me forget about them as I get engrossed in the program. No one else in my theater has every complained of them and I don't point them out (for the reason that I suspect people would start noticing them if pointed out).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
66 Posts
I have a SP7200 in a totally light controlled room with 132" wide (152" dia) Firehawk screen. My average seating distance is 18.5' (row 1=16' and row2=21'). Only when watching poor quality source, like a zoomed-to-fit letterboxed dvd or a Playstation game, do I need to sit on the back row. With 1080i source, even the 16' first row is fine. I use the high-power setting and the picture is awsome! I would review the need for micro-perf on the Firehawk, Stewart will make it but they don't seem to recommend it and there aren't many installations using this combo.

John
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,936 Posts
Wow!

This thread is very helpful to me. I'm planning to buy the 7200/Dalite HiPower combo and after having read at PJcentral.com, I decided to go with a
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,223 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
I watched CSI in HDTV last night at 123" +/- on my off white/taupe colored wall.


You guys are right, the size at 16" feet back (different seat/different wall) was not too big at all.


Isn't it true that I can namually adjust the zoom and focus to create a 100" image on a 150" screen (example)- and then switch back?


If the PJ is at say 18 feet back and I use the 123" screen, am I giving up much in the way of brightness as opposed to being at 16 feet back and 110"? screen?


Is the High pOwer/Bright mode needed at 123" +/- and does that age the lamp (and/or other components) that much faster- run hotter and louder (fan)?



Murray Kerdman




Why would I need a neutral density filter?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,223 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
John


"I would review the need for micro-perf on the Firehawk, Stewart will make it but they don't seem to recommend it and there aren't many installations using this combo."


Where is it stated/written that a microperf FireHawk is a poor choice?


I already have L+C+R built- in speakers, so it's an issue for me.


Murray Kerdman
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
610 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by mkerdman
I watched CSI in HDTV last night at 123" +/- on my off white/taupe colored wall.


You guys are right, the size at 16" feet back (different seat/different wall) was not too big at all.


Isn't it true that I can namually adjust the zoom and focus to create a 100" image on a 150" screen (example)- and then switch back?


...It depends on how far back the projector is. You can't be more than ~15 ft back to project a 100" screen


If the PJ is at say 18 feet back and I use the 123" screen, am I giving up much in the way of brightness as opposed to being at 16 feet back and 110"? screen?


...123" wide screen = ~ 43 sq ft, 1200 lumens / 43 sq ft * 1.3 gain = 36 ft-l

...110" wide screen = ~38 sq ft, 1200 lumens /38 sq ft * 1.3 gain = 41 ft-l



Is the High pOwer/Bright mode needed at 123" +/- and does that age the lamp (and/or other components) that much faster- run hotter and louder (fan)?


...Low power cuts light output ~ 20%. Using above you would still get 28 ft-l on a 123" wide screen in low power. Most (but not JHOUSE) would say that's plenty.


...Low power increase 7200 bulb life from 2000 hrs to 3000 hrs and will also allow fan to run at low (quieter) speed.



Murray Kerdman




Why would I need a neutral density filter?


...I'm using it because I find absolute black levels on a 102" FireHwak too bright for my tastes. ND Filter cuts black levels in half but still leaves picture bright enough.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
610 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by mkerdman
John


"I would review the need for micro-perf on the Firehawk, Stewart will make it but they don't seem to recommend it and there aren't many installations using this combo."


Where is it stated/written that a microperf FireHawk is a poor choice?


I already have L+C+R built- in speakers, so it's an issue for me.


Murray Kerdman
I don't know about perf FireHawks but you could use a .95 "gain" GrayHawk with microperf and still get an image that is bright enough for a light controlled room (especially in Hi Power mode but also probably in Low Power mode).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,223 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
What's the argument for perf 95 "gain" GrayHawk over a perf FireHawk? at 123" +/-?


Murray Kerdman
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,209 Posts
The two main advantages of the FireHawk over the GrayHawk is the higher gain of the FireHawk and its greater rejection of ambient light. The GrayHawk has two main advantages over the FireHawk including wider viewing angle and lower tendency to hotspot. The wider viewing angle of the GrayHawk can be a significant consideration if you have seating that extends to or beyond the outer edges of the screen. The potential for hotspotting increases as the throw ratio of the projector decreases. I believe that Stewart recommends a minimum throw ratio of 1.5 times the screen width for the FireHawk.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,319 Posts
In your situation, I would go for an 11.5 foot wide Stewart Firehawk.


james
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,223 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
James


"In your situation, I would go for an 11.5 foot wide Stewart Firehawk. "


That would be one "mondo" image size at 158.33 diagonal (and an expensive screen especially in microperf)!


inches feet meters

INPUT

Image Width 138.00 11.50 3.51


OUTPUTS

Image Height 77.63 6.47 1.97

Image Diagonal 158.33 13.19 4.02

Projection Distance, short throw 205.97 17.16 5.23

Projection Distance, long throw 287.50 23.96 7.30

Image Offset 12.65 1.05 0.32



Murray Kerdman
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
66 Posts
Murray,

I was planning on buying a Firehawk micro-perf screen several months ago and discussed this with Stewart customer service on two different occasions. Apparently the fabric is very fragile. Initially they had problems even manufacturing it because it goofed up their perf machine. They said they would do it for me as a special situation per Don, but it was not a "regular" item. However, they did tell me they had made several and there were no complaints from the users. If I had built-in speakers, I would go with the Firehawk and micro-perf it before I went with something else.

John
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,223 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
John


I talked briefly with Don at CES and think that based on the price of a microperf 10-12 foot wide FireHawk, I may call him directly to get his take on how "special/delicate" these are today.



SO, at 1.5 times width (i.e. 18 ft back) 12 foot/144 inches wide doesn't seem outlandish--


but--- at 1.3 times width (i.e. 18 ft back) 13.85/166 inches is...YIKES!


Thoughts?


Murray Kerdman
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
66 Posts
Murray,

One of the considerations I had was the possibility of upgrading my projector in a year or two, even though I just bought it. So I bought a little bigger than the 10'6" max smpte size Infocus recommends. I like big screens, but I don't think I would recommend going larger than 12' at your 18' seating distance though with current lumen/resolution of the 7200. For our screen at 11'; my wife prefers the 21' viewing distance all the time, both kids prefer 16' row. Visitors are so amazed, they don't seem to have a preference except one instance of a lady that gets motion sickness real easy, she sets at 21' and is ok.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
639 Posts
i have 12 ft wie screen. at 18 feet its good, at 21 feet its good. thats w a sharp 8000, so the hd2's will only be better. also i think the firehawk material doesnt allow a 12 foot wide 1 piece height.fwiw
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
639 Posts
i have 12 ft wie screen. at 18 feet its good, at 21 feet its good. thats w a sharp 9000, so the hd2's will only be better. also i think the firehawk material doesnt allow a 12 foot wide 1 piece height.fwiw
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,223 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
I am told by the local Stewart rep (not the factory) that they max out at 123 diagonal for the FireHawk with Microperf.


Anyone know for sure?


Murray Kerdman
 
1 - 20 of 60 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top