|
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: Fri Mar 07, 2008 4:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Phil Smith wrote: | | Ridebreck wrote: | | Don't get me wrong, Walter. I knew that you wouldn't have any problems fixing it. It was just a little bit of good-natured ribbing. I'm no digital fanboy - I just happen to own one (that hasn't gotten but a few hours of use in the last several months). |
Matt,
Why is that? You haven't been watching many movies, or you've been watching your downstairs TV? |
Matt and I talk about this all the time. We are both in the same boat. It seems when you have a dedicated theater and kids, the theater never gets used enough! By the time you get the kids in bed, and with work the next day, and everyone tired from the day, you just don't go up to watch a movie. 
We watch the downstairs TV most of the time. It seems that at best, we watch 3 movies in a week. Most weeks we watch maybe 1. My projector gets less than 15 hours per month--that's less than 200 hours per year (that's why bulb life does not worry me). I hope in 5-8years or so when my daughter is older we will squeeze in more movies in a week, but I don't see my viewing going up much in the next few years. : 
_________________
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 |
|
 |
Phil Smith
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 7717
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 4:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
I have to ask, at 200 hours use a year, why even bother? Spend the HT money on a nicer downstairs TV.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Person99
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
Posts: 4899
Location: Flower Mound, TX
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Phil Smith wrote: | | I have to ask, at 200 hours use a year, why even bother? Spend the HT money on a nicer downstairs TV. |
Because downstairs doesn't have as nice of sound (and can't practically). Also, I don't know of an 8' wide TV, do you?  Lastly, this is why I really want CIA or CIH. With a 16:9 screen, all you really have is a big TV--I want a THEATER! So, in a sense, I agree with you. If you are going to have a 16:9 screen, just by a 73" TV and sit closer for movies. There is only a minor difference.
My goal is a CIH set up with a 10' wide scope image. That makes movies special!
About the money though, look at it this way, there are guys that spend more on motorcycles, or boats, or other hobbies than I've spent on the theater, and some of them use those things less than 200 hours per year also!
_________________
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: Fri Mar 07, 2008 8:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Person99 wrote: | | Spanky Ham wrote: |
Dave,
I am having trouble getting my head around your budget and everything you plan to purchase. Could you lay it all out and your budget for each item? My guess is you are buying these:
Digital -
PJ - $?
Scalar - $?
Anamorphic Lens - $?
Screen - $?
Masking - $?
If that is correct, then my advice would be to go with an 8" blend. The TVone is supposed to be including most of the features that people look for in a good processor plus blending. Two of the cheaper models should set you back about $2500, which is around the price of the other vps these days. The only other thing you need is another pj. My advice would be to sell the Barco and get two 8500LCs. The blend would solve both your desire for 2.35 and installation issues. You would also get the added advantage of lumens and a much sharper image running each pj at roughly 1080x815p@72. I am not sure if your new house would be able to accommodate the blend. In that case, don't move there:). |
This is an interesting (and highly desirable) idea but would cost more. Let's forget the screen and masking expense as regardless of the solution, these are the same.
For arguments sake, lets say I'll use a scaler for a digi solution. For my purposes, the scaler just needs to:
1) Deinterlace film-based 1080i.
2) Do frame rate conversion of film content to 24 Hz.
3) Perform the scaling for the vertical stretch.
A used lumagen HDP for $750 is quite capable of performing all these operations well (and does the vertical stretch as well as many other scalers costing more).
As for the anamorphic lens, I'm not sure if I jump in all the way at first and spend over $2000 or not. There is a very good chance that I would start with a coated two prism solution for $600 since I'm going to have a curved screen to handle the pin cushion, the Lumagen can handle the color temp differences from the lens, which only leaves me with some CA at the edges. So, lets say I do that. So, that means the budget is:
Lumagen HDP - $750
Lens - $600
Projector - ?
If I got a used RS1 say, that would be $3200. That would put the total cost for this stuff at $3850. Now, if I sell my PJ, tcoders, HD Fury, dtrovision, Jean port 3 barco module, calbes, extron, etc (all the stuff no longer needed), even a low ball puts this at over $2000. So, my out of pocket for the above is less than $1800.
There is no way I can sell what I don't need plus my PJ, then get the TV One scalers and 2 good 8" PJs for anything close to $1800. Two good PJs plus the TV One will cost me about $5500. I won't be able to sell as much stuff as the other scenario, so my out of pocket will have to be at least $1000 higher--but worth considering.
8500 LCs are hard to find (let alone two). But, even if I could, I wouldn't want them. I'm soooo not impressed with the Marquee picture. NEC XGs are too loud (in fact, getting a quieter PJ is an advantage of the digital--virtually no background noise would be nice) which means I'm likely to have to go with two G70s and the parts hassles that come with.
The questions I have, hasn't TV One said they were going to do a good blending scaler for over 1 year? Why should we believe it will ever come and it will be good?
| Spanky Ham wrote: | | Actually, I would say wait for the new Sony LCOS that is supposed to be around $2500. |
So, after typing the stuff to advocate the blended CRTs, your conclusion is to buy the new Sony LCoS? |
The last comment first. I guess I should have made that a new paragraph. The last sentence goes with the previous two in relation to a new house. You said the new house wouldn't be able to accommodate a CRT unless I read that wrong.
Now after reading everything, I am not sure what to say. I am like Phil in that I had my pj as living room HT. It seems like most people with dedicated HTs don't seem to use them a lot.
On the digital side, I would say that I am not sure if there is going to be any dramatic improvements coming along in the next year or two. LCOS may be pretty well maxed for right now. I know JVC seems to have just optimized part selection for the RS2 to increase the specs over the RS1. Sony may not be pouring the money into R&D after dumping RP. This applies to DLP and LCD as well, since RPTVs may be extinct in the next year or two. Unless a laser, led or 4th panel pj comes out, you may be standing pat tech wise for awhile. So for the digital, I would say it would be a used RS1 as waiting for something better this year or next may be huge gamble. I know I mentioned the Sony, but it is just a lower priced less featured oriented LCOS. It sounds like you don't like the Sonys anyway.
This brings you to the blend. I think your math is a little off, but you are probably correct that your overall investment may be close to $5k. There are probably some ways to reduce this, but I would say that this is good figure to work from. I understand your reticence, but look at it in this way. If you have a working blend on 6/1/08, then you should get ten years of use out of it. It may take digital five more years to catch up to CRT in on/off and motion, but even at that point you don't have to upgrade or sidegrade as the differences probably won't be that dramatic. Of course, I could be wrong. If you do go digital, you will be on the continuous upgrade path. Plus, I will start calling you DallasHoyafan. I was originally anti-blend, but after looking into it now I can see the benefits if the barrier of entry is around $2k. To me, blending has breathed new life into CRTs especially for the scope crowd.
On the TVone, I can't say much about it as I haven't followed it till recently. It does look like they are listening to this crowd especially Andy. I know Chuchuf played with one and really liked it, so at least the blending side is good. I can only hope that they follow through with the scaler side.
Oh, if you do go with a blend, then you will be in all three of your categories. I guess that would make you King Big Dick!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Phil Smith
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 7717
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 9:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Person99 wrote: | | About the money though, look at it this way, there are guys that spend more on motorcycles, or boats, or other hobbies than I've spent on the theater, and some of them use those things less than 200 hours per year also! |
That's a good point.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Phil Smith
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 7717
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 9:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Spanky Ham wrote: | | Now after reading everything, I am not sure what to say. I am like Phil in that I had my pj as living room HT. It seems like most people with dedicated HTs don't seem to use them a lot. |
I was trying to not to mention my HT Eric, but it really does seem like living room HTs are the only ones that actually get used. Sure, they're not at performance level of a dedicated HT, but they fit much better into a family's daily routine. A much more practical, usable system.
I realize this doesn't matter to most people, and they want a dedicated HT, regardless if it's not used much. 
Dave I don't understand your distaste for 16:9. We're just now entering the age of HDTV, and you act like it's old hat. 16:9 is da bomb!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
drice1234
Joined: 07 Oct 2006
Posts: 1309
Location: Allen, Texas
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 9:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | My projector gets less than 15 hours per month--that's less than 200 hours per year |
I had checked my hour meter back in January when I have had it for about a year. I had put 660 hours on it and it seemed like I used it quite a bit. That is an average of 12 hours a week and with everything that is going on as Dave points out is quite a bit. Of course since we got a Wii for Christmas my 5 year old is running up the hours on the PJ but he thinks it's pretty cool that the tennis players are the same size as him. I am trying to figure out a way to convince the wife that I need to set up the D50 in another room for games once I get the 1209 going in the HT room.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Spanky Ham
Joined: 22 Mar 2006
Posts: 5643
Location: Comedy Central
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 9:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Phil Smith wrote: | | Spanky Ham wrote: | | Now after reading everything, I am not sure what to say. I am like Phil in that I had my pj as living room HT. It seems like most people with dedicated HTs don't seem to use them a lot. |
I was trying to not to mention my HT Eric, but it really does seem like living room HTs are the only ones that actually get used. Sure, they're not at performance level of a dedicated HT, but they fit much better into a family's daily routine. A much more practical, usable system.
I realize this doesn't matter to most people, and they want a dedicated HT, regardless if it's not used much.
|
You know it is funny that I used to sit down and fire up the pj at night and find that HDNET movies was playing something that I wanted to watch. If I had dedicated theater, then I probably wouldn't have watched half of those movies. My brother in law bought a Mits RPTV for like $6k around 2002. He put it in a dedicated room down stairs. I bet the TV has been watched for less than 500 hours, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was 200 hours.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Person99
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
Posts: 4899
Location: Flower Mound, TX
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 9:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Spanky Ham wrote: |
The last comment first. I guess I should have made that a new paragraph. The last sentence goes with the previous two in relation to a new house. You said the new house wouldn't be able to accommodate a CRT unless I read that wrong. |
May not. I'm not yet sure if there will be a new house, and if there is, some of the ones we've looked at would not be CRT friendly if you will, and that would extend to blend friendly.
But, in the current house, or one that could handle the CRTs, you are correct that a blend is better because the PJs are closer.
| Spanky Ham wrote: | | On the digital side, I would say that I am not sure if there is going to be any dramatic improvements coming along in the next year or two. LCOS may be pretty well maxed for right now. I know JVC seems to have just optimized part selection for the RS2 to increase the specs over the RS1. |
That plus, vertical stretch, plus a real color management system. but I think you are correct, the digis are getting pretty close to their mature point and advances will likely be less slow.
But, I would argue that an RS2 is on par with a good 8" LC machine. At this point, it comes down to what trade-offs you are willing to make.
| Spanky Ham wrote: | | This brings you to the blend. I think your math is a little off, but you are probably correct that your overall investment may be close to $5k. |
With the CRTs? $3000 for PJs and $2000 for scalers. Is that what you are thinking?
| Spanky Ham wrote: | | I understand your reticence, but look at it in this way. If you have a working blend on 6/1/08, then you should get ten years of use out of it. It may take digital five more years to catch up to CRT in on/off and motion, but even at that point you don't have to upgrade or sidegrade as the differences probably won't be that dramatic. Of course, I could be wrong. |
Actually, I think you are pretty darn close to on the money here. And those are some good points. My fear of a blend is also, I've never seen two displays in my life that could be calibrated to look EXACTLY the same. Every blendzilla set up has different looking right and left sides. That concerns me a little.
| Spanky Ham wrote: | | If you do go digital, you will be on the continuous upgrade path. |
Not if you start with an RS2 because I agree with you that there is not much more they are going to do with it in the next few years.
| Spanky Ham wrote: | | I was originally anti-blend, but after looking into it now I can see the benefits if the barrier of entry is around $2k. To me, blending has breathed new life into CRTs especially for the scope crowd. |
I think the barrier to entry needs to be less. Given that there are some not bad anamorphic lenses for under $1000 and decent performing $3000 1080 digis with built in vertical stretch are pretty much here--so $4000 gets you a pretty decent scope set up. That means to really hit the sweet spot, you have to be able to do an 8" blend for less than $3000 IMO.
But, you have me thinking. I'm going to ping Kim again. There has to be a simple way to do contrast modulation in the analog domain, even if it means we waste bandwidth. Basically, all we need to do is vertically stretch just like for a digital (so a 1920x1080 signal instead of 1920x817 so we don't see scan lines). Then have a box which does two things:
1) 1x2 distribution
2) A left output with constrast modulation on the right side and a right output with contrast on the left side. The curve of the modulation should be able to be consistent, so just a knob for each side to adjust the start point. If Kim could build that for about $300, you could use any scaler to drive it.
OK, I'm off to post in Kim's forum and find a couple of G70s.
| Spanky Ham wrote: | | Oh, if you do go with a blend, then you will be in all three of your categories. I guess that would make you King Big Dick! |
I'm sure many already think I'm a Big Dick But no, I have no need to spend $50,000 on projector(s) just for bragging rights.
_________________
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 |
|
|
Phil Smith
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 7717
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 10:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| drice1234 wrote: | | Quote: | | My projector gets less than 15 hours per month--that's less than 200 hours per year |
I had checked my hour meter back in January when I have had it for about a year. I had put 660 hours on it and it seemed like I used it quite a bit. That is an average of 12 hours a week and with everything that is going on as Dave points out is quite a bit. Of course since we got a Wii for Christmas my 5 year old is running up the hours on the PJ but he thinks it's pretty cool that the tennis players are the same size as him. I am trying to figure out a way to convince the wife that I need to set up the D50 in another room for games once I get the 1209 going in the HT room. |
You're getting good use out of your HT. I don't think there are many other HTs that rack up those kind of hours.
I use my PJ form 2 to 4 hours almost every night, sometimes more on weekend days. I guess I average about 3 hours a night. That puts me at about 1,100 hours a year. 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Phil Smith
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 7717
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 10:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Spanky Ham wrote: | | You know it is funny that I used to sit down and fire up the pj at night and find that HDNET movies was playing something that I wanted to watch. If I had dedicated theater, then I probably wouldn't have watched half of those movies. |
Same here! There is some good stuff on HDTV that I would miss, or would watch on a regular TV (and not enjoy as much) if I had an upstairs or downstairs HT.
Jay Luft had an HT on the first floor right next to his family room in his old house. I think he also used his a lot because it was just as convenient as the family room. And I guess convenient can be defined as next to or close to the kitchen.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ridebreck
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 943
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 10:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Person99 wrote: | | Phil Smith wrote: | Matt,
Why is that? You haven't been watching many movies, or you've been watching your downstairs TV? |
Matt and I talk about this all the time. We are both in the same boat. It seems when you have a dedicated theater and kids, the theater never gets used enough! By the time you get the kids in bed, and with work the next day, and everyone tired from the day, you just don't go up to watch a movie. |
What Dave describes in one huge reason. The other is the damned writers strike. Usually at this time of the year my wife and I would be watching 24 every week along with other shows like Las Vegas, Greys Anatomy, House, and some others. (yes, I watch Greys Anatomy with my wife...fire away...) Another big reason is that I got a big promotion in December and until I get a few more people hired, it's only myself and another guy to shoulder twice the work load that we had last year. Needless to say, I've been working my ass off. Lately, the time that I would usually spend upstairs in the HT has instead been spent downstairs working until 1 or 2 AM every night.
_________________
"Hooray Beer!!"
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Person99
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
Posts: 4899
Location: Flower Mound, TX
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 11:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Phil Smith wrote: |
Dave I don't understand your distaste for 16:9. We're just now entering the age of HDTV, and you act like it's old hat. 16:9 is da bomb! |
16:9 is a wonderful screen aspect ratio--FOR A TV!!!!!
When you go to a theater and watch a scope movie, do they show it at the same width of a 1.85:1 movie only shorter? Hell no. That is not how it is supposed to be shown.
When you go into a theater, do you look to see the AR of the movie and sit in the middle if it is 1.85:1 but in the back row if it is 2.37:1 (to make the image the same width but shorter)? Hell no. You sit in the same place, so all movies have the same height.
Many many movies that we all enjoy to watch in our theaters are scope movies. Scope movies on a 16:9 screen are less impactful and less immersive. In other words, less fun. Let's see, here are some of my favorites to watch with people for fun:
1) The Matrix -- scope
2) The Incredibles--scope
3) Serenity--scope
4) Empire Strikes Back--scope
5) LOTR (all) -- Scope
Why in the world would anyone want these movies to be less impact-ful and immersive than say Get Shorty (1.85:1)?!?!? They are not in the theater. But they are on your 16:9 screen.
If you value the experience of movie watching, you are going to want them shown correctly. A tiny 2.35:1 image on a 16:9 screen makes a "home theater" not much better than a big 16:9 RPTV.
It really is that simple.
_________________
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 |
|
|
Phil Smith
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 7717
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 11:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Person99 wrote: | | If you value the experience of movie watching, you are going to want them shown correctly. A tiny 2.35:1 image on a 16:9 screen makes a "home theater" not much better than a big 16:9 RPTV. |
Well you keep referring to how big the picture is. That seems to be the criteria for your definition of a good HT experience. Well 2:35 on a 96" wide 16:9 is still BIG, especially compared to a RPTV.
Which brings up the question: Ratio-wise, how much closer do you plan on sitting than you currently sit? 0.5 to 1? Don't you already sit pretty close? I guess you're going for the tennis match viewing experience. 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Phil Smith
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 7717
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 11:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ridebreck wrote: | | Person99 wrote: | | Phil Smith wrote: | Matt,
Why is that? You haven't been watching many movies, or you've been watching your downstairs TV? |
Matt and I talk about this all the time. We are both in the same boat. It seems when you have a dedicated theater and kids, the theater never gets used enough! By the time you get the kids in bed, and with work the next day, and everyone tired from the day, you just don't go up to watch a movie. |
What Dave describes in one huge reason. The other is the damned writers strike. Usually at this time of the year my wife and I would be watching 24 every week along with other shows like Las Vegas, Greys Anatomy, House, and some others. (yes, I watch Greys Anatomy with my wife...fire away...) Another big reason is that I got a big promotion in December and until I get a few more people hired, it's only myself and another guy to shoulder twice the work load that we had last year. Needless to say, I've been working my ass off. Lately, the time that I would usually spend upstairs in the HT has instead been spent downstairs working until 1 or 2 AM every night. |
So you normally do use your HT on a regular basis, including watching TV. You shouldn't let work get in the way of that!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Person99
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
Posts: 4899
Location: Flower Mound, TX
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 11:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Phil Smith wrote: | | Person99 wrote: | | If you value the experience of movie watching, you are going to want them shown correctly. A tiny 2.35:1 image on a 16:9 screen makes a "home theater" not much better than a big 16:9 RPTV. |
Well you keep referring to how big the picture is. That seems to be the criteria for your definition of a good HT experience. Well 2:35 on a 96" wide 16:9 is still BIG, especially compared to a RPTV.
Which brings up the question: Ratio-wise, how much closer do you plan on sitting than you currently sit? 0.5 to 1? Don't you already sit pretty close? I guess you're going for the tennis match viewing experience. |
I talked about this in my first post a bit. When my wife and I go to the theater, we sit in a location that makes a 1.85:1 movie the EXACT same relative size as the front row of our theater--which is what we like. When we sit in that location for a scope movie, the height is the same, the width is greater. Not so in our theater--the scope picture is smaller, significantly smaller in relative terms to the theater.
It really is this simple, if the director intended for the movie to be shown with black bars above and below it, they would project it on a 1.85:1 screen in a movie theater that way!!!!!
Let me ask you this, if you are going to use a 16:9 screen, why not just buy a 73" RPTV? You can sit at a viewing distance that gives the same experience as a bigger projection screen.
_________________
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 |
|
|
Phil Smith
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 7717
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 12:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Person99 wrote: | | Let me ask you this, if you are going to use a 16:9 screen, why not just buy a 73" RPTV? You can sit at a viewing distance that gives the same experience as a bigger projection screen. |
You know it's not the same. I know it should be, but it's not. I can't tell you why, it just isn't. It's not even close.
How's that for a technical answer? 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Person99
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
Posts: 4899
Location: Flower Mound, TX
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 12:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Phil Smith wrote: | | Person99 wrote: | | Let me ask you this, if you are going to use a 16:9 screen, why not just buy a 73" RPTV? You can sit at a viewing distance that gives the same experience as a bigger projection screen. |
You know it's not the same. I know it should be, but it's not. I can't tell you why, it just isn't. It's not even close.
How's that for a technical answer? |
Actually, I agree, but you get my point.
_________________
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 |
|
|
MikeEby
Joined: 24 Jun 2007
Posts: 5237
Location: Osceola, Indiana
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 4:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
I agree with you Dave on CIH, now I am about to the point where a 16:9 screen looks about like a 4:3 did 10 years ago. But also I think to get the true cinema effect you need at least 10-12 feet in width.
I was lucky enough to have a few minutes with Ken Whitcomb last weekend, I purchased a used pre/processor from him and he was kind enough to drop it off on his way home from Michigan, it turns out he grew up not far from me too, anyway I asked him about an RS2 he told me 2 interesting things, to get a bright enough picture one should probably not exceed an 8’ wide screen & the primary colors are off on the unit and to correct this you really should consider a Lumagen. For me this was not good news, and has got me thinking about blend.
Just for shits and grins Sunday I took the time to really tweak out the focus on my XG. It was always a little soft on the right side so jumped in with both feet and messed around with the magnetic focus I also came up with some interesting techniques but are outside the scope of this thread. But now I have what I call an almost digital sharp image.
As a final part I my playing I setup a custom resolution of 1066X800 on my HTPC, basically ½ of a blend. I have been working on my own version of the old YXY program for stretching out Power DVD to fill a CIH screen and to my dismay will not work with the current build of PDVD so I backdated to the July 07 version and stretched the image both vertical and horizontally to be the equal to half a blend. I can say with half a blend the WOW factor is very high, I could only imagine what the full picture would look like, with 2 projectors. There is so much detail in 1080p (800 effective on 2:40 film) image it shocked me, perhaps blending two 8” projectors could really affordable option.
Did you see my post AVS for the C2-260s TVOne blending solution? These look like they might be a very affordable bending option. It would probably be in the range of $1500 C2-260’s and of course another projector.
Mike
_________________
Doing HD since the last century!
|
|
| 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
|
|
