CurtPalme.com Home Theater Forum

[crt nuts]

Hello all

I was wondering what I could possibly do to improve my picture sharpness from my V1 with HFQ LENSES. What , pray tell is the best screen size for the HFQ's. At the seated position , just behind pj (ceiling mounted) , it looks ok but once you start moving closer to the screen you notice softness of edges.
I also notice that my red (with c-element) has thicker lines on grid patterns than the other two tubes. Cannot seem to change this although I do see red convergence has quite a bit of drift until at least 45 min of warm-up time (seems excessive) has elapsed.

I have to say that I preferred the look of my 8500 with HD145 lenses as far as colour and sharpness goes. Maybe its because they were on different screens and or screen sizes. I was using a 8' wide screen on my 8500 and now I'm just over 9' on my V1. Its hard to say anything of the glycol unless I drain it first. My full white screen is pretty white with no shades of yellow at all.

8' was a Hurley superglow
9' is a Seymor Ice white

Any advise guys .

MG

[Nashou66]

The sharpness loss might be due to the weave of the seymore.

Maybe cleaning the rear heat sink and adding a better thermal non conductive heat sink compound will help stabilize convergence.

Also try this loosen the reds LC mounting bolts, after an hour tighten them when the PJ is fully converged.

Nashou

[draganm]

[stridsvognen]

I agree.. Put the rear heat sink from your 8500 on to your VV1 and see if convergence gets more stable.

Im quite sure its thermal, so some new silicone tape, and tighten the clips.

I also have a 8500 a VV1 and a 9553 with HD10E lenses.

You should consider the latest MP VNB and VIM mod, it will kick sharpness ass. And white will pop pop pop.

Just make sure your tubes are in good condition.

No cap change will make much improvement unless the old ones are total burned out.

How old and how many hours is on the machine.?

[crt nuts]

[crt nuts]

[draganm]

[stefuel]

I know this will raise some STINK NUGGETS among the LC crowd but a AC projector should and will be sharper then a LC
projector. It's the trade-off you make for better contrast. If someone tells you they can make a 8500LC as sharp as a 8500AC, I have a bridge to sell you.

[stridsvognen]

[Nashou66]

the glycol

It is true, my 1 on 1 off lines were tighter with the AC tubes in the longbows but the halo-ing killed any chance of eliminating the blend zone so I had to go LC.

But AC is Sharper than LC no doubt about it.

Nashou

[ecrabb]

Which AC lens to which LC lens? It is inaccurate at best to state categorically that "AC is sharper than LC".

SC

[Nashou66]

Hd 144 and HD 10E and yes AC was sharper with the Blend resolution I was using on each PJ 1064x800@72.

I never looked at any other res more closely. But that was the first thing I noticed when I swapped to the 9 inch tubes.
But the Contrast ratio was soooooo much better and no Halo's, I never realized how bad the halos were on AC till i went LC.

Nashou

[CasetheCorvetteman]

Hmmm, i must say the HFQ900s i have on my CineMAX seem to be every bit as sharp as my HD144s on the RUNCO DTV991, when viewed with an electronic blur in order to set for phosphor grain with binoculars.

There would be hardly anything in it.

[mp20748]

[stridsvognen]

If we stick to the Marquee 8500AC vs 9500lc, then i think some of the sharpness someone notice is the fact that the AC is brighter, and need less contrast to put out the same light, and then there is less bloming.

A direct comparison here ill prefer the LC on all parameters, other than light output.

Ill say that i might get close in the center of the screen, but just the ansi contrast and the halo thing on AC washes out more sharpness than there were to begin with.. In my opinion..

Not saying that there is no such thing as a AC projector that is sharper than a LC projector, im sure its just a matter of finding the right brand tube lens combination then you will get a wors LC machine than the best AC.

So just the fact that a CRT projector is a LC don make it good. Am i wrong.?

[CasetheCorvetteman]

I dont think blooming has anything to do with it, the P19s are brighter with less effort than the tubes used in the 8500

The XG exibits no noticable blooming at all, and i cant say the CineMAX does either until you push it WAY up.

[stridsvognen]

[CasetheCorvetteman]

Never, i dont generally bother comparing low-mid range projectors with high end units.

But id expect considering how good you claim they are they wouldnt suffer blooming so easily.

Im really quite amazed you think the 8" tubes in AC housings would push out the same or more light than the 9" tubes in LC housings, let alone with less effort.

[fragzero]

Using the technique described in Kal's calibration guide i have measured 19 ftL with my tubes maxed.

That was an 808 + HD144's with the same tubes a 8500 uses.

There must be a reason why, maybe it is because in a 8" tube the beam has to move less distance from left to right making it possible to increase the strenght at each point?

[CasetheCorvetteman]