|
As this forum is rarely used anymore, we've locked it. Feel free to browse and read. Questions? Please reach out to us directly. Cheers! |
|
 |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Person99
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
Posts: 4899
Location: Flower Mound, TX
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 15, 2010 5:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| garyfritz wrote: | People who don't see rainbows are fortunate. DLPs are a good answer for them.
For me, I've never seen a DLP I could stand to watch long-term -- and that includes yours, Dave.  Watching something like Ice Age it's no problem, but any dark scenes with moving bright areas show lots of inappropriate color. It's kind of the visual equivalent of ticks & pops on a vinyl album -- very distracting.
I'm hoping the LED projectors will cycle the lasers fast enough that even I won't see the rainbows. |
I'm no way suggesting that a single chip DLP is the be all end all of projectors. I agree they dont' work for all. I will say that I've watched 4x, 5x, and 6x color wheels and the faster, the less or the shorter the rainbow is.
Also, I don't buy the "some people are sensitive" any more. I don't think it is an eye/brain thing. It is how you watch movies. If one watches movies like most people, where they are looking at what the director "wants" you to look at, then you see very few, only in scenes like you mentioned. If you dart your eyes around the screen (especially at a rate the is a multiple of the color wheel speed), then you see more.
So, if you are glance all around the screen while watching a movie type, a single chipper will likely never work for you. But Gary, you only saw it all temp set up on the old CRT screen while the CRT was still hanging. I wish you could see it now that I've got it mounted properperly, tweaked to hell (both in PJ and Lumagen), and on the Wilsonart CIH screen--I think you'd be kind of impressed with it, even if you see rainbows.  Let me know next time you are in Dallas.
But, my main point was, the "reasonably" priced digitals are awesome now. My Zenith Pro 1200x was $30K new. I remember when Sony's first vaunted $25K 1080p machine came out. We had a local guy yank his NEC XG tute sweet to put one up. It was impressive despite bad on/off and ANSI. I remember when DLPs that were not as good as ones you get now for $1500 cost $12K. I remember when the first JVC RS came out at $6K and Guy was yanking XGs out like crazy replacing them with JVCs.
But now, we have projectors under $3K that blow away the $12K to $25K digitals of just 5 years ago. They pretty much blow away CRTs too. Times are good for us comsumers.
_________________
Dave
A train station is where the train stops. A bus station is where the bus stops. On my desk, I have a work station....
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Spanky Ham
Joined: 22 Mar 2006
Posts: 5643
Location: Comedy Central
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 15, 2010 6:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dave,
I believe that is cowsumers.
I don't know about rainbows, but on occasion I have got a headache watching my Marantz. This could be from a number of factors including to close of viewing distance, so I won't totally blame DLP.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Person99
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
Posts: 4899
Location: Flower Mound, TX
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 15, 2010 6:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Spanky Ham wrote: | Dave,
I believe that is cowsumers.
I don't know about rainbows, but on occasion I have got a headache watching my Marantz. This could be from a number of factors including to close of viewing distance, so I won't totally blame DLP. |
Just as an FYI, when I was first testing DLPs, my wife got a headache and I thought "uh oh", but it turns out it was just because the image was too bright (temp mounting made them image smallish and very bright). Once placed the way I was going it and it only end up at about 16 ftL, my wife's headaches went away.
Course, the Marantz is not overly bright, but how small is your image?
_________________
Dave
A train station is where the train stops. A bus station is where the bus stops. On my desk, I have a work station....
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Person99
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
Posts: 4899
Location: Flower Mound, TX
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 15, 2010 6:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| WanMan wrote: | | I chose poorly by saying perceiving black, vs. perceiving 'black level' in a scene. |
For instance, take a scene from Men in Black. Any old daytime scene in which the two leads are in their white shirts and black jackets in broad daylight. The perceived level of black, in how it is represented, is quite good on almost any technology, including those digital technologies from five years ago.
In another example, take the scene from Dirty Harry in which Harry walks down a dark alley, at night, trying to follow what he believes might be the killer. He stands on a trash can, but get's pulled down and beaten up. This is a very dark scene (one of my favorites), and it is one in which the technology affords your perception of black level to be something completely different.[/QUOTE}
Umm, that is exactly why the JVC looks so good. On your CRT, the black in that bright scene is not even close to black. CRTs are HORRIBLE at intrascene contrast, an LC can't even get 200:1. So, the black is VERY gray, but looks black to you do to the white.
Same thing happens on a digital. Except, on my digital, that black part of the bright scene is WAAAAY darker than it is on your CRT (giving my image the "pop" on bright scnenes).
Now, my non-DI machine is pretty good down to an APL of about 20%. 15% not too bad at all, nothing to complain about really. Now, hit 10% and you are correct, the low on/off makes the image a bit washed out and too gray.
However, the new machines both have better on/off and "tricks". Just like the black in the bright scene is not close to black but looks black, you can lower the light ouput of the PJ to get the low APL scenes looking great because the brights don't have to be as bright in comparison.
The only downside of the DI is the "pumping" when you see it actually adjusting. That is because they are mechanical. The JVC does not do this. It does it with voltage controlled polarization filters, thus it is immediate and you never see the "trick" in action, it just looks great.
Your dark scene will look just as good an most of the new digitals as it does on your CRT (maybe better because it will likely have better shadow detail). It is just getting into that scene that might have the hiccup. But, the JVCs do not suffer this hiccup.
_________________
Dave
A train station is where the train stops. A bus station is where the bus stops. On my desk, I have a work station....
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Spanky Ham
Joined: 22 Mar 2006
Posts: 5643
Location: Comedy Central
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 15, 2010 8:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Person99 wrote: | | Spanky Ham wrote: | Dave,
I believe that is cowsumers.
I don't know about rainbows, but on occasion I have got a headache watching my Marantz. This could be from a number of factors including to close of viewing distance, so I won't totally blame DLP. |
Just as an FYI, when I was first testing DLPs, my wife got a headache and I thought "uh oh", but it turns out it was just because the image was too bright (temp mounting made them image smallish and very bright). Once placed the way I was going it and it only end up at about 16 ftL, my wife's headaches went away.
Course, the Marantz is not overly bright, but how small is your image? |
It is about 8 feet wide or so. I was sitting maybe 10 feet back. This is one of the reasons I wanted the Sony, so I could reduce the screen down to about 7 feet wide.
You may be correct about to much brightness having an effect. I haven't been bothered by other demos, but I haven't watched them for long periods of time. This will be moot in the next two years as LEDs take over.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
huggy
Joined: 02 Aug 2008
Posts: 927
Location: Melbourne,Australia
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 15, 2010 8:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm curious as to whether the Rainbow effect will dissipate over time. As Dave pointed out,I'm thinking maybe it's the side effect of "knowing what to look for"
Maybe over time as one stops looking for them or even forgets about them,the separation becomes less evident or even non existent.
Dave
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ecrabb
Forum Moderator
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 15909
Location: Utah
TV/Projector: JVC RS40, Epson 5010
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 15, 2010 9:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dave (Person99),
I've been looking around, I've seen plenty of good digitals, and I'd be really happy with some of the advantages... Curious what you think, though...
I'm really depth-constrained in my room, so no AT screen for me... But one thing I could do is go to a slightly wider scope screen and go CIH. I'd gain several benefits beyond the obvious. First, my 1.78 image is really too big, and gets cut off for viewers in the back row; that issue would get solved. It would also let me raise my center channel for better dialog localization and less HF attenuation for the back row folks.
So, question for you... You're always talking about how amazing even $1500 digis are... Now, I'm really not a big fan of single-chip DLP... I don't like the "digital" quality of the picture... I think it's a combination of the subtle rainbows even on the newer machines, as well as the "digital flicker" or "mosquito noise" - something most people probably don't even really notice. But, remember I like to sit close, though - about 9-10' from my 8' wide screen, and I'd probably 9-10' from a 9'-wide screen...
I am surprisingly impressed with the Panny AE4000... I think that looks like a really decent machine. But, do you think there are any other $1500-2000 machines I might be interested in? I like the zoom capability on the Panny for AR switching...
Nothing I'm going to do within the next year or so - I'm just kicking ideas around at the moment.
Thanks,
SC
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garyfritz
Joined: 08 Apr 2006
Posts: 12088
Location: Fort Collins, CO
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 15, 2010 9:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| huggy wrote: | I'm curious as to whether the Rainbow effect will dissipate over time. As Dave pointed out,I'm thinking maybe it's the side effect of "knowing what to look for"
Maybe over time as one stops looking for them or even forgets about them,the separation becomes less evident or even non existent. |
Some people "stop looking for" ticks and pops on vinyl albums. If you can do the visual equivalent, you might learn to stop seeing rainbows.
As Dave said earlier, it has a fair amount to do with your viewing habits. Some situations -- like a bright object moving rapidly across a dark screen, like headlights at night -- are going to show up rainbows for almost anyone. (Though some people don't seem to notice or care.) But that's fairly rare.
BUT if you tend to dart your eyes around the screen, looking at this and that -- then you are are LOT more susceptible to seeing rainbows. Any dark scene with bright spots in it is vulnerable to showing rainbows if you sweep your eyes rapidly across the screen.
If you tend to focus on the center of attention in the screen, and don't scan around the image, then you might never notice rainbows.
I find them most annoying with B&W movies, since the flashes of color stand out like a sore thumb. It's a lot easier to ignore them in a color film.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Spanky Ham
Joined: 22 Mar 2006
Posts: 5643
Location: Comedy Central
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 15, 2010 9:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ecrabb wrote: | Dave (Person99),
I've been looking around, I've seen plenty of good digitals, and I'd be really happy with some of the advantages... Curious what you think, though...
I'm really depth-constrained in my room, so no AT screen for me... But one thing I could do is go to a slightly wider scope screen and go CIH. I'd gain several benefits beyond the obvious. First, my 1.78 image is really too big, and gets cut off for viewers in the back row; that issue would get solved. It would also let me raise my center channel for better dialog localization and less HF attenuation for the back row folks.
So, question for you... You're always talking about how amazing even $1500 digis are... Now, I'm really not a big fan of single-chip DLP... I don't like the "digital" quality of the picture... I think it's a combination of the subtle rainbows even on the newer machines, as well as the "digital flicker" or "mosquito noise" - something most people probably don't even really notice. But, remember I like to sit close, though - about 9-10' from my 8' wide screen, and I'd probably 9-10' from a 9'-wide screen...
I am surprisingly impressed with the Panny AE4000... I think that looks like a really decent machine. But, do you think there are any other $1500-2000 machines I might be interested in? I like the zoom capability on the Panny for AR switching...
Nothing I'm going to do within the next year or so - I'm just kicking ideas around at the moment.
Thanks,
SC |
I think the Epsons are pretty good.
The pj arena should be evolving in interesting ways over the next two Cedias. First, Epson is supposedly coming out with their own LCOS panels. This to me will be an interesting development, as it either means lower cost LCOS and/or better performance. Second, LEDs should be both better and lower in cost over the next year and a half. Unfortunately, the fly in the ointment might be 3D. I hope the manufacturers don't focus on 3D at the expense of improvements in other areas.
Oh, I forgot to add that I am not sure that Dave's price points apply for everyone. I still think an 8" LC or 9" is better than most of the lower cost digitals. The difference is when you are going CIH. Another thing that is forgotten is the used market. Energeezer picked up a JVC RS2 for $1700. I can see those being at $1k by next year.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
greg_mitch
Joined: 03 May 2006
Posts: 5320
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 15, 2010 11:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ecrabb wrote: | Dave (Person99),
I've been looking around, I've seen plenty of good digitals, and I'd be really happy with some of the advantages... Curious what you think, though...
I'm really depth-constrained in my room, so no AT screen for me... But one thing I could do is go to a slightly wider scope screen and go CIH. I'd gain several benefits beyond the obvious. First, my 1.78 image is really too big, and gets cut off for viewers in the back row; that issue would get solved. It would also let me raise my center channel for better dialog localization and less HF attenuation for the back row folks.
So, question for you... You're always talking about how amazing even $1500 digis are... Now, I'm really not a big fan of single-chip DLP... I don't like the "digital" quality of the picture... I think it's a combination of the subtle rainbows even on the newer machines, as well as the "digital flicker" or "mosquito noise" - something most people probably don't even really notice. But, remember I like to sit close, though - about 9-10' from my 8' wide screen, and I'd probably 9-10' from a 9'-wide screen...
I am surprisingly impressed with the Panny AE4000... I think that looks like a really decent machine. But, do you think there are any other $1500-2000 machines I might be interested in? I like the zoom capability on the Panny for AR switching...
Nothing I'm going to do within the next year or so - I'm just kicking ideas around at the moment.
Thanks,
SC |
I was super psyched about the AE4000 but spending just a few nights in the CIH forum over at the A*site gives me the understanding that most CIH diehards put up their nose at zooming for CIH.
I just can't quite wrap my head around paying $2000 for a projector and another $2000 for a lens...there has to be a better way.
I was almost set on getting an AE4000 and then "slumming" it by zooming to see if I would care...but now I don't know.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WanMan
Joined: 19 Mar 2006
Posts: 10270
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 16, 2010 12:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Person99 wrote: | | WanMan wrote: | I chose poorly by saying perceiving black, vs. perceiving 'black level' in a scene.
For instance, take a scene from Men in Black. Any old daytime scene in which the two leads are in their white shirts and black jackets in broad daylight. The perceived level of black, in how it is represented, is quite good on almost any technology, including those digital technologies from five years ago.
In another example, take the scene from Dirty Harry in which Harry walks down a dark alley, at night, trying to follow what he believes might be the killer. He stands on a trash can, but get's pulled down and beaten up. This is a very dark scene (one of my favorites), and it is one in which the technology affords your perception of black level to be something completely different. |
Umm, that is exactly why the JVC looks so good. On your CRT, the black in that bright scene is not even close to black. CRTs are HORRIBLE at intrascene contrast, an LC can't even get 200:1. So, the black is VERY gray, but looks black to you do to the white.
Same thing happens on a digital. Except, on my digital, that black part of the bright scene is WAAAAY darker than it is on your CRT (giving my image the "pop" on bright scnenes).
Now, my non-DI machine is pretty good down to an APL of about 20%. 15% not too bad at all, nothing to complain about really. Now, hit 10% and you are correct, the low on/off makes the image a bit washed out and too gray.
However, the new machines both have better on/off and "tricks". Just like the black in the bright scene is not close to black but looks black, you can lower the light ouput of the PJ to get the low APL scenes looking great because the brights don't have to be as bright in comparison.
The only downside of the DI is the "pumping" when you see it actually adjusting. That is because they are mechanical. The JVC does not do this. It does it with voltage controlled polarization filters, thus it is immediate and you never see the "trick" in action, it just looks great.
Your dark scene will look just as good an most of the new digitals as it does on your CRT (maybe better because it will likely have better shadow detail). It is just getting into that scene that might have the hiccup. But, the JVCs do not suffer this hiccup. |
I guess I'll have a chance to find out, Dave. I took reception of a B-stock RS20 today. Of course, its been several years since I've done a digital setup and don't even have any equipment. Not even sure who to rent some equipment from.
_________________
Trust no one. Absolutely no one. Advice of the board.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bucketfoot
Joined: 17 Mar 2006
Posts: 698
Location: Centennial, CO
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 16, 2010 2:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| greg_mitch wrote: | I was super psyched about the AE4000 but spending just a few nights in the CIH forum over at the A*site gives me the understanding that most CIH diehards put up their nose at zooming for CIH.
I just can't quite wrap my head around paying $2000 for a projector and another $2000 for a lens...there has to be a better way.
I was almost set on getting an AE4000 and then "slumming" it by zooming to see if I would care...but now I don't know. |
I'm doing a poor man's CIH with my RS2 and loving it. You will see no consensus on this over at the A site and tons of arguing.
The bottom line for me is the people with a lens are happy with their setup, while the same thing can be said of those zooming. Frankly the only reason I would go with a lens is the convenience factor.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garyfritz
Joined: 08 Apr 2006
Posts: 12088
Location: Fort Collins, CO
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 16, 2010 2:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
That's what I'd do too. I'm sure there are a lot of people who are happy with their lenses, but I'll bet there are a lot more people who are quite satisfied with zooming and are happy to have their $2000 !!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ecrabb
Forum Moderator
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 15909
Location: Utah
TV/Projector: JVC RS40, Epson 5010
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 16, 2010 3:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| greg_mitch wrote: | | I was almost set on getting an AE4000 and then "slumming" it by zooming to see if I would care...but now I don't know. |
You shoulda gone to the "HT Crawl" the CR guys had last winter, Greg. There were a couple of setups there I think you'd have been quite impressed with. One was an AE4000 zooming setup, and I could easily live with it. I didn't do any critical viewing, but there was nothing "low class" about that setup... I'd say the only negative is that the 1.78 material is noticeably brighter than the scope image... But, then that happens with a lens, too though I don't know if it's to the same degree.
Regardless, after seeing several relatively inexpensive digital setups, I could easily live with an RS2 or AE4000, and IMHO, it DEFINITELY wouldn't be worth dropping the bucks on a lens - not for those of us not making big bucks, anyway.
SC
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garyfritz
Joined: 08 Apr 2006
Posts: 12088
Location: Fort Collins, CO
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 16, 2010 3:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Do you use the lens with scope material, or what 1.78? I *think* it's with scope, and if so, then that's probably going to make the scope images even dimmer compared to 1.78. You're going to have some light loss from the lens itself.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
greg_mitch
Joined: 03 May 2006
Posts: 5320
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 16, 2010 3:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Most of the lens now seem to be horizontal expansion so in theory you could probably leave the lens in front of the image and watch 16x9 all squished but most move the lens between scope and non-scope content.
(noob to CIH so I am just learning about the techniques)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
greg_mitch
Joined: 03 May 2006
Posts: 5320
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 16, 2010 3:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bucketfoot wrote: | | greg_mitch wrote: | I was super psyched about the AE4000 but spending just a few nights in the CIH forum over at the A*site gives me the understanding that most CIH diehards put up their nose at zooming for CIH.
I just can't quite wrap my head around paying $2000 for a projector and another $2000 for a lens...there has to be a better way.
I was almost set on getting an AE4000 and then "slumming" it by zooming to see if I would care...but now I don't know. |
I'm doing a poor man's CIH with my RS2 and loving it. You will see no consensus on this over at the A site and tons of arguing.
The bottom line for me is the people with a lens are happy with their setup, while the same thing can be said of those zooming. Frankly the only reason I would go with a lens is the convenience factor. |
What is convenient about a lens?
It seems the AE4000 would be just as if not way more convenient if you are already zooming for CIH. The lens zoom and focus memory should be standard on every projector over $1500.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WanMan
Joined: 19 Mar 2006
Posts: 10270
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 16, 2010 9:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ecrabb wrote: | | greg_mitch wrote: | | I was almost set on getting an AE4000 and then "slumming" it by zooming to see if I would care...but now I don't know. |
You shoulda gone to the "HT Crawl" the CR guys had last winter, Greg. There were a couple of setups there I think you'd have been quite impressed with. One was an AE4000 zooming setup, and I could easily live with it. I didn't do any critical viewing, but there was nothing "low class" about that setup... I'd say the only negative is that the 1.78 material is noticeably brighter than the scope image... But, then that happens with a lens, too though I don't know if it's to the same degree.
Regardless, after seeing several relatively inexpensive digital setups, I could easily live with an RS2 or AE4000, and IMHO, it DEFINITELY wouldn't be worth dropping the bucks on a lens - not for those of us not making big bucks, anyway.
SC |
I think the reason is simple for those with projectors battling low calibrated lumens. They want to use the entire panel's worth of lumens. Of course, with something like the Epson (not advocating, mind you), there is oodles of calibrated lumens and using zoom and masking seems to do the trick.
Anamorphic lenses are just way over priced, IMO. Seems you are suppose to feel lucky if you find one for $2K of less as I am seeing good lenses go for $7K and higher.
_________________
Trust no one. Absolutely no one. Advice of the board.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garyfritz
Joined: 08 Apr 2006
Posts: 12088
Location: Fort Collins, CO
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 16, 2010 1:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
...which just floors me. It's a simple anamorphic lens for God's sake. Why does it cost more than a professional Canon über-zoom??
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bucketfoot
Joined: 17 Mar 2006
Posts: 698
Location: Centennial, CO
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 16, 2010 1:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| greg_mitch wrote: | | What is convenient about a lens? |
Convenient in comparison to my RS2, where I have to do a manual zoom and lens shift.
I absolutely agree that shift/zoom memory needs to be the standard.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Forum powered by phpBB © phpBB Group
|
|
