CurtPalme.com Home Theater Forum

perisoft · Joined: 29 Aug 2007 Posts: 2920 Location: Ithaca, NY

Thanks to my best friend and Curt, I now have a working G70. My birthday present (from the friend, not Curt) was a new neckboard; I put it in tonight and - lo! correct output from the green tube. It seems stable ramping up and down, ran fine for a couple of hours, so, hey, I'm prematurely celebrating.

Thumbs Up

Now I just have to get it set up well, figure out how to hang it, and install the sucker.

ecrabb · Posted: Mon Oct 18, 2010 2:19 am Post subject:

Rock on!!! Wait till you get that bad boy dialed in and start watching bd at 1080p!!!

Congrats and happy birthday!!!

SC

jeffslife · Joined: 17 Apr 2010 Posts: 4190 Location: ohio usa

my G70 (so far) is at 1080i and its amazing. I cant wait to get it to 1080p, with alot of help from the community.
Right now I'm just gonna enjoy the view for awhile.
If I can set it up ANYONE can.
buy the ticket, ride the ride.

**AnalogRocks** · Posted: Mon Oct 18, 2010 3:48 am Post subject:

Nashou66 · Joined: 12 Jan 2007 Posts: 16171 Location: West Seneca NY

perisoft · Joined: 29 Aug 2007 Posts: 2920 Location: Ithaca, NY

Yep. I've gotta get the red and blue dialed in; right now the basic astig (set with the physical rings) is good on green, but lousy on R/B. I can't even get R/B resolving 1080i60 after getting the electronic astig as good as possible; the corrections aren't enough.

Beyond that, I think it's pretty much good to go. Like sc and others have said, not much to adjust in there.

I'd like to come up with a better way to mount it than with the 808 (though I could hardly find a worse one). I'm thinking I'm going to keep it in the same position and move the screen forward the right amount to get the image width correct, since it'll be sharper anyway, and sitting on the floor in front of the couch is actually pretty impressive now.

I've still got to mount it right, though, and give myself some room for adjustment. Because of the geometry of my room, it has to hang about 8" below the ceiling (its 'top' down that far) and STILL tilt down a bit. That makes getting the physical setup right difficult. Ideally you'd want five axes (sway/surge/yaw/Z/pitch), though giving up Z wouldn't be too bad since you can compensate with pitch, and Z is essentially arbitrary now anyway - tall enough so you don't whack your nogin on it.

Not having the $ for a 'real' mount, it's going to be a matter of coming up with a homegrown system. Luckily we have some experience holding up heavy things and manipulating them accurately - though I doubt I'll be able to manage a servo controlled projector mount!

garyfritz · Joined: 08 Apr 2006 Posts: 12088 Location: Fort Collins, CO

Sure, just mount the screen and the sofa to the same servo-controlled mount, and... wait...

CIR Engineering · Posted: Mon Oct 18, 2010 2:12 pm Post subject: Re: G70 saga - it's working!

CIR Engineering · Posted: Mon Oct 18, 2010 2:14 pm Post subject:

barcoed · Joined: 26 Feb 2008 Posts: 65 Location: Cambridgeshire, UK

Congratulations on getting the beast going! Thumbs Up

I too run 1920x1080p 48/50/60 and love it. Interlaced is too ziggy during pans for my taste.

I’ve noticed there appear to be at least two different types of C-Block for a G70 (physically different); are they freely interchangeable?

ecrabb · Posted: Mon Oct 18, 2010 3:58 pm Post subject:

perisoft · Joined: 29 Aug 2007 Posts: 2920 Location: Ithaca, NY

CIR Engineering · Posted: Mon Oct 18, 2010 10:00 pm Post subject:

VideoGrabber · Joined: 09 Apr 2006 Posts: 933 Location: Michigan

> Do an 800x1920p 72Hz resolution for wide screen. <

Craig, I don't mind you getting your rez numbers in the "wrong" order, but mind your p's and q's. Wink

It's either 1920x800p, or 800px1920. What you wrote implies 1920 progressive scan lines, which ain't happenin'.

No argument about the AAS recommendation. I've been espousing that ever since Bjoern Roy clued me in on it, many, many years ago. Great way to put bandwidth to use on the horizontal axis where you need it, vs. burning it up in the vertical on black bars.

perisoft · Joined: 29 Aug 2007 Posts: 2920 Location: Ithaca, NY

At this point I'm not sure if I can do an 800p res, since I'm going to be using media center 7 for playback (oddly, it's the only thing I've found so far that will play things smoothly, with the correct audio, and no desynch...). Unless it auto-switches, it's probably not worth the effort - but I might try a setup for grins if I have the time to see what the difference is.

CIR Engineering · Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 12:46 pm Post subject:

CIR Engineering · Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 12:46 pm Post subject:

VideoGrabber · Joined: 09 Apr 2006 Posts: 933 Location: Michigan

Craig wrote:
> Oh and... http://archive2.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=737385 <

Yes, I was glad to see you post that, 4 years ago, almost to the day (back in Oct'06), since apparently it wasn't as well known as I had thought at the time.

My introduction to the concept was from Bjoern Roy, Sep, 2001 (9 years!):

"For each ratio from 1.33:1 to 2.76:1, i use a display resolution that has exactly those proportions, for example 1440x780 for 1.85:1, or 1920x820 for 2.35:1. I call this concept 'active area scanning'. This means that the beam never 'scans' any black bars, only the actual image content. This optimizes phosphor decay and thus increases brightness or tube life."

He discussed it many times over the years in the A forums (I'm not going to dig up all the links), until he (like many other CRT luminaries) eventually stopped posting there.

Another of his contributions, unique at the time, was CIA (vs. the common CIW and the later popular CIH). CIA never seemed to catch on much, though personally I could never tolerate either of the other options. CIW just kills scope impact, especially when transitioning from 16:9, and with CIH one or the other of the two ARs always seemed too large or too small. (I.e., if 2.35 was just right, 1.78 was too small. And if 1.78 was just right, then 2.35 was too large.) But that was just me, and an opinion evidently shared by few.

"One of the special things about my home theater is, that i am neither using a constant height scenario (like you would with a 2.35:1 screen), nor a constant width scenario (like you would for widescreen movies on a 1.78:1 screen), but rather a 'constant area' methodology. That means 2.35:1 movies are displayed at full 9' width with 46" height. 1.85:1 movies are shown at 8' width, but at 52" height. 1.33:1 material is a little less than 7' wide and 61" high. This is made possible with a CRT projector and my 4-way maskable screen. 'Constant area' projection is IMHO by far the best methology, because the brains 'size sensation' is perceived through area, not width or height."