AVS Forum banner
1 - 20 of 21 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,428 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I am looking to stack 2 XGLC's and wonder if anyone else is running the same setup and what their experience is like?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,079 Posts
I could do soon...maybe.


I have stacked Xtras, it's not easy.


Twice the heat, twice the noise, blurrier image. But very bright.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,510 Posts
Consider a torus with 3.0+ gain material instead.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,871 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by YONEXSP /forum/post/15452371


I am looking to stack 2 XGLC's and wonder if anyone else is running the same setup and what their experience is like?

With the XGLC's you have the control ability to do a side by side stack like with my G90's. If your concerned about driving the electronic's hard then you can do an over/under stack.


Set up properly, you will double your light output, double your on/off contrast, and double your ANSI performance. You will not have a "blurry" picture at all. Best of all, you will be able to accomplish this with out "high gain" screens which will also give you better uniformity as well.


Let us know how it turns out!


Cliff
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,428 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
ok, GM and Cliff Sorry Mark are pushing me to go that way. If nothing else it will be fun. I've done blending so this will be something different


When I had the to old XGAC's I tried a quick stack and did like the punch ion the image compared to a blend even.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,801 Posts
Hello


Either version of Stacking, with 16:9 aspect, means at best you are using 75% of the tube phosphor. With 2.35 aspect that drops to 56%. Side stacking requires H Linearity slammed to the limit, along with lens side-side focus, and edge convergence also. Throw ratio is about the same as with one projector.


Edge Blending allows 95% phosphor usage for 16:9 viewing and maybe 75% for 2.35. The projectors shoot straight on with minimal geometry or convergence correction, and the finicky convergence is limited to 15% where the overlap sits, not the entire screen. Brighter, sharper, and a throw ratio around 1.0 enables larger screens in smaller rooms. With correctly aligned tube magnetics, need to touch up the overlap zone is 3-4 times a year. Tube wear is less since more phosphor is lit. Screen widths of nine to fourteen feet are supported; a 1.0 gain fabric is advised; constant width configuration is recommended; 4:3 viewing is not supported at full width.


.

.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,355 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim in Phoenix /forum/post/15456042


Hello


Either version of Stacking, with 16:9 aspect, means at best you are using 75% of the tube phosphor. With 2.35 aspect that drops to 56%. Side stacking requires H Linearity slammed to the limit, along with lens side-side focus, and edge convergence also. Throw ratio is about the same as with one projector.


Edge Blending allows 95% phosphor usage for 16:9 viewing and maybe 75% for 2.35. The projectors shoot straight on with minimal geometry or convergence correction, and the finicky convergence is limited to 15% where the overlap sits, not the entire screen. Brighter, sharper, and a throw ratio around 1.0 enables larger screens in smaller rooms. With correctly aligned tube magnetics, need to touch up the overlap zone is 3-4 times a year. Tube wear is less since more phosphor is lit. Screen widths of nine to fourteen feet are supported; a 1.0 gain fabric is advised; constant width configuration is recommended; 4:3 viewing is not supported at full width.


.

.

Tim I am planing to finally set up my blend, most say fr a 2.35 aspect you use more phosphor, but your the blend expert and say 1.78 will use more.

this is the dilema I am haveing now since I have a 12 foot wide 1.78 screen.

I dont know what do go with. I could test out both since I will first set up the blend on the floor. Can you also explain why CIW is better for a blend than CIH? I originally wanted to stick with CIW but everyone is pushing CIH for a blend.

I also remember you saying you used a 1.92 aspect ratio, why?


Athanasios
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,439 Posts
No question blending would be better but the $$$ is much higher too. I do think a side by side might be pushing it, one little trick I did with mine to get 1080p72 geometry to be decent was to input the 1080p signal then adjust the reference raster centering of course making sure the raster did not go past the tube edge. It's been running that way for a year with no issues. Most of my electronics are near nominal except for keystone. One of the biggest down side of multi XG setup is fan noise...One is bad enough 2 would be unbearable without a hush boxes.


Mike
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,428 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
Fan noise i can fix, as I did in the past. Blending would be nice, but as before costs a stupid amount of money.


How did Art and others do side-by-side with PG's in the past and the G90's without issues?


Mike, how do you get the focus right with the odd angle?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,439 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by YONEXSP /forum/post/15458089


Fan noise i can fix, as I did in the past. Blending would be nice, but as before costs a stupid amount of money.


How did Art and others do side-by-side with PG's in the past and the G90's without issues?


Mike, how do you get the focus right with the odd angle?

Oh...Im not stacking. But I think there would be enough adjustments. If I were going to try I would do a floor mount side by side setup first. See if you can get good results, then mount on the ceiling, its way too much work to mount those bad boys then not get the results your after. What size screen are we talking about?



Mike
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,801 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by nashou66 /forum/post/15456785


Tim I am planing to finally set up my blend, most say fr a 2.35 aspect you use more phosphor, but your the blend expert and say 1.78 will use more.

this is the dilema I am haveing now since I have a 12 foot wide 1.78 screen.

I dont know what do go with. I could test out both since I will first set up the blend on the floor. Can you also explain why CIW is better for a blend than CIH? I originally wanted to stick with CIW but everyone is pushing CIH for a blend.

I also remember you saying you used a 1.92 aspect ratio, why?


Athanasios


Hello


Constant width lights up more phosphor and demands less bandwidth in the projectors.


I started looking at screen sizes and aspects with a big piece of 1.78 art store canvas tacked to the wall, which I used for weeks before ordering a Luxus Deluxe. I watch a lot of satellite HD and wanted full width. 1.78 seemed too tall somehow, and put the projectors into my kneecaps, so I elected 1.92 and 107" width which kept my first projector in the same spot, and you would not see a problem unless viewing huge circles. For me it was space constraints, for others it is just personal preference. You will want a 1.0 fabric in any event, this is well known.


.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,439 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by YONEXSP /forum/post/15458491


110" screen. Are you blending?

No, but I run [email protected] it was a little tricky to get the image centered on the tube I used the reference raster centering to do that. I considered a blend but I would mean totally revamping my theater I wasn't ready to do that with crappy economy right now. 110" wide should be good for stack, my 92" wide single projector setup is really pushing it.


The TVOne blend cards looked good and the price was right, until I read some reviews that were non-complementary. My green tube is starting to show some wear and I not even sure I can get a replacements. So I might only have a year or so left on the dark side, sad I know.



Mike
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,428 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
I am running 110" with my single XGLC. I run the image right to the edge of the raster with Powerstrip. the image looks great I think.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,439 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by YONEXSP /forum/post/15459325


I am running 110" with my single XGLC. I run the image right to the edge of the raster with Powerstrip. the image looks great I think.

I thought my image looked great, then I saw Cliff's stack. It took me 2 weeks before I could turn my projector on. It just looked dull and lifeless, now I have gotten used to it again and it looks ok, but this stuff is addicting.


Mike
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,871 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeEby /forum/post/15459418


I thought my image looked great, then I saw Cliff's stack. It took me 2 weeks before I could turn my projector on. It just looked dull and lifeless, now I have gotten used to it again and it looks ok, but this stuff is addicting.


Mike

Don't feel bad big dog. I felt the same way after seeing Art's stack for the first time.



Cliffy
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,510 Posts
I use an XGLC135 and I recently changed screens. I was using a 110" screen sprayed with the original Screen Goo (supposedly around 1.8 gain). It was decent if a bit dim.


A friend gave me his Vutec pearlbrite 3.0 gain material a few weeks ago. It is waaaaaaay brighter and the improvement in image quality is stunning. It's punchier than when I had my old 6PG on a 65" 1.3 gain screen. The Theatertek logo is so bright it hurts the eyes against the dark black background. Right now it's sitting flat on my old screen so there is a wicked hotspot in the center. A torus eliminates that and gives the same excellent brightness across the screen.


Personally I would rather have a torus than a stack or blend.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,428 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesse S /forum/post/15460961


I use an XGLC135 and I recently changed screens. I was using a 110" screen sprayed with the original Screen Goo (supposedly around 1.8 gain). It was decent if a bit dim.


A friend gave me his Vutec pearlbrite 3.0 gain material a few weeks ago. It is waaaaaaay brighter and the improvement in image quality is stunning. It's punchier than when I had my old 6PG on a 65" 1.3 gain screen. The Theatertek logo is so bright it hurts the eyes against the dark black background. Right now it's sitting flat on my old screen so there is a wicked hotspot in the center. A torus eliminates that and gives the same excellent brightness across the screen.


Personally I would rather have a torus than a stack or blend.

I brew my own screen paints, have for years, I usually end up with something with positive gain and no hotspotting so image brightness has never been a problem.


If I could buy a torus I would, but building one is way to much work for me
 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Top