Projector People

[psg]

I have been living with this pj for several weeks now and still love it. Just an amazing picture! It is quiet, versatile and just a huge deal for the money. I'm not big into the current state of 3D, so this should do just fine for several years.

One place here has ir for C$2019, but the place that gave me a letter saying I can buy anything in the store with 50-month financing with no interest has it for C$2400.

Eastporters has it for C$1949, but I need to buy a screen from them at the same time. Problem is I want the projectot first in order to figure out what screen size I want. I might go 2.35:1 format since this projector can auto lens shift.

Question for you guys...

Is zooming contant height on scope screen a pain?

---

The only $2000 or less projector with
lens memory is the Panny 4000, but I assume people have constant height
setups on a scope screen (without using an expensive anamorphic lens)
using other projectors...



How big of an issue is it to manually zoom to fit the screen when you start a movie?



The Panny 4000 is disappearing from stores and Panasonic replaced it
with a cheaper projector that doesn't have lens memory and a lesser
pictures (or didn't replace it, really). I could still get it, but a
local store where I have some credit doesn't have a good price on that
particular model.



If it's a non-issue, I could be looking at other projectors in the
C$1500 to C$2000 range for a basement room with no windows. I don't
have a screen yet and will be using a sheet to figure out what size I
want (max of 118 inch wide scope if I don't go acoustically
transparent). Maybe the Epson 8700UB.

[merkin]

I've had a benq for about 3 to 4 yrs. picture quality is great. Plenty bright but you still need some light control in the room. Mine is in a walk out basement man cave. I do not like lamp life though. I have to run it on high elevation settings and bulb lif is still under 1500 hours. Bulbs are expensive. I'm thinking at next bulb replacement I'm going to another brand like the panny. I have a 6 foot by 4 foot screen and football and movies are excellent. I don't watch Bill O reilly or anything like that on it to save bulb life. I do like watching the Major golf tourneys on it thought.

[Youthman]

Is zooming contant height on scope screen a pain?

After having the zoom memory on my Panny, I cannot imagine having to manually adjust zoom and focus every time the aspect ratio changed. Even your previews are usually in 16:9 while your movie may be in 2.35:1. It's just a super sweet feature and one of the primary reasons I chose the Panny.

[psg]

Thanks Youthman,

How noticeable are the unprojected areas of the side of a scope scrren when zoomed-in to 16:9 content?

I guess masking with curtains must be required because those areas will be whiter than bottom and top bars on a 16:9 screen that is getting projected balck on them, right? Side masking would not be optiomal for me, so maybe I should keep it simple and go with a large AT 16:9 screen and live with the bars on top and bottom...

[garyrc]

My screen is 2.35:1 and I've never noticed any "extra" width when viewing movies wider than 2.35:1. It must get absorbed with my 2" velvet border which from the sound of it, is what you are looking to do.

Matter of fact, the ONLY difference I see is between 4:3, 16:9 and 2.35:1. I have mine set as a CIH (Constant Image Height) setup so at no time do I ever have grey bars at top and bottom. The only time I have grey bars on the side is with 4:3 and 16:9.

O.K., this is getting interesting. I really want a 2.35:1 screen, and based on your last post, I have few questions about yours (and also about your Panny):

• Have you shown movies known to be 2.2:1 such as most 70 mm formats, e.g., 2001: A Space Odyssey, Baraka, any film in Todd-AO or Super (not Ultra) Panavision 70, and found that there are not
  very thin black or gray bars at the sides? I think archivist Robert A.
  Harris said that this popular 70 mm aspect ratio ends up more like
  2.23:1 on Blu-ray. So, with constant height (CIH) where would the .12 without any image go? [2.35 screen width -- 2.23 image width = .12 space at the sides
  for black or gray bars). Of course these images were meant to be a bit taller
  for their width than 35 mm 'Scope, and were originally projected on a
  much larger screen overall (about 25% higher and much wider) to give the
  impression of tall objects towering over the audience (I remember the
  ships' masts & rigging in Around the World in 80 Days, 1956),
  while still presenting a panoramic image. While we could zoom out to
  make the edges touch the side screen borders, I can't think of a way to
  slightly increase the screen height for 2.2 (2.23) on a 2.35 screen. I
  wonder if the Panny could be adjusted to automatically fill the screen
  from side to side with a 2.23:1, and just sacrifice some of the image
  height (preferably at the bottom). Or, could the Panny either be doing
  that right now, or (worse) stretching the image to fit 2.35:1?
  
  

• Now
  for something really different. Have you projected films known to be
  2.76:1 (in Ultra -- not Super -- Panavision 70, or in MGM Camera 65 ...
  like Ben-Hur in it's new Blu-ray issue) and found that there are not rather big black or gray bars at the top and bottom? Either that, or having to zoom out so the extra width (2.76 -- 2.35 = .41) is spilling over on the wall beyond or behind your screen?

Thanks.

[garyrc]

Thanks Youthman,

How noticeable are the unprojected areas of the side of a scope scrren when zoomed-in to 16:9 content?

I guess masking with curtains must be required because those areas will be whiter than bottom and top bars on a 16:9 screen that is getting projected balck on them, right? Side masking would not be optiomal for me, so maybe I should keep it simple and go with a large AT 16:9 screen and live with the bars on top and bottom...

Having blank whiter areas was always what we used to do with 35mm
color slides, and it was not annoying. The screens were square; mine
was 50" x 50" and the aspect ratio of the slides was 1.5:1 .... for a
horizontal slide the whiter area was above and below, and for a vertical
slide the whiter area was to the right and the left. No problem,
especially with horizontal slides. We recently hauled out the projector
and showed old slides to a group including a few people about 20 who
had never seen color slides. I asked if the white areas bothered them
(since they were used to black bars) and they said no. There was also
some amazement as to how sharp, smooth and detailed Kodachrome II slides
taken with a Nikon were.

As to amateur movies back in
antediluvian times, Super 8 mm, "regular" 8 mm, and 16 mm never fit
most screens, since their Aspect Ratio wasn't really square, and , once
again, the white areas were not a problem.

If I were you, I'd go for the grandeur of a 2.35:1 screen. My cardinal rule is: If the director decided to use wide screen, he or she wanted the picture bigger in area, not smaller.

[Youthman]

How noticeable are the unprojected areas of the side of a scope scrren when zoomed-in to 16:9 content?

Most of the movies I watch are wider format. The times I do watch 16:9, it is noticable until the movie starts and then your eyes just focus on the image since there is so much contrast between the projected area and the grey area.

I guess masking with curtains must be required because those areas will be whiter than bottom and top bars on a 16:9 screen

As mentioned, I never have grey bars on top and bottom. Only left and right. I found those to be less distracting during a movie. With 16:9, the screen fills the height of the screen and only the width has grey bars on left and right. With 2.35:1, it fills the entire width and height of the screen. I do not find that masking is necessary in my setup. Would it help provide more contrast, absolutely. Is it necessary, I personally do not think so.

[Youthman]

Sorry but I have not seen any of those movies so I cannot comment on those particular aspect ratios.

I
wonder if the Panny could be adjusted to automatically fill the screen
from side to side with a 2.23:1, and just sacrifice some of the image
height (preferably at the bottom).

The AE3000u has 3 zoom memory presets. I created two...one for 16:9 and one for 2.35:1. I have not found the need for another but in your case, you might want to create one for another aspect.

Or, could the Panny either be doing
that right now, or (worse) stretching the image to fit 2.35:1?

The Panny does not stretch the image. You are simply zooming in the image (enlarging it) until the image fills the width of your screen and the top and bottom grey bars are extended above and below your screen (which are not noticable once the movie starts).

[jjennings2510]

I'm really surprised no one has mentioned JVC or Optoma. Optoma projectors are pretty good. Don't have all of the bells and whistles of some of the more expensive projectors such as lens shift etc but they have really good picture quality once calibrated. I have the HD65 model which is a 720p model projector. The picture was good before calibration but once I got a screen and used my calibration disc to adjust the contrast, brightness, rgb gain etc the picture was outstanding. Now lighting control is needed for this projector as well but in a dark room you can't beat the big screen experience. brightness would be brighter if I downsized my screen but i love 120" lol. I upgraded from a 40" Samsung lcd tv....now the sharpness is a little on the soft side compared to the samsung tv but thats the only complaint I have. Also with that model being an entry level model the shadow detail is a little disappointing too. Details in dark movies or scenes tend to get lost and blend in with the black....but overall I'm impressed. I was worried if the pq of the projector would hold up to my lcd. But it does. I do have a friend that has a JVC DLA X3 projector and wow....pq on that unit is pretty amazing. All of the DLA projectors get rave reviews. He only uses his for movies...I use my optoma for everything....games...movies...and comast hd....to maximize bulb life I always run the fan at high speed and only turn it on if I'm going to run the projector for a hour or more....short watching sessions kill the bulb life....all in all I think you would be satisfied with a projector...as far as aspect ratio....can't really comment on that...since i game and watch comcast hd I prefer 16:9....but have no complaints when watching blu rays that are 2.35:1 because with the image being so big the black bars don't take away from the movie experience for me....hope that helps.

[garyrc]

Sorry but I have not seen any of those movies so I cannot comment on those particular aspect ratios.

In that case, allow me to recommend the following, all shot on 65 mm negatives and printed on 70 mm, with 6 channel sound that was ahead of its time, and sometimes superior to modern digital:

In 2.76:1:

Ben-Hur (Blu-ray -avoid other formats)

In 2.2:1 (my favorite aspect ratio):

Lawrence of Arabia (restored by R.A. Harris, the Blu-ray seems to be delayed, but will be worth waiting for!)

2001: A Space Odyssey (Blu-ray --avoid other formats. Landmark film, numinous, archetypal, hypnotic. Sit close to your screen, crank up the sound, and go with it --soak it up.. Some people need a second viewing to appreciate it. One New York critic hated it, then found himself going back for a second time and gave it a rave review, calling it a "masterwork." Zeffirelli wrote Kubrick: "You made me dream eyes wide open").

Patton (wait a bit ... the first Blu-ray sucked so bad because of too much digital processing that they are reportedly re-doing it. Follow it on the Blu-ray forums to avoid the repackaged same old disk, and be alerted to the new one when it comes out.)

Ryan's Daughter

Baraka (no dialog, just images and music)

Far and Away

Hamlet (1996 ...hope the Blu-ray is a better transfer than the DVD ... if so, well worth it)

Around the World in 80 Days (1956 ... wait for a Blu-ray in the future. The best realization of Jules Verne on film [winner of a Verne society award], involving photography and one of the best soundtrack recordings, with a literate script. Sit close, and crank up the audio to experience the impact of the original, which played well into its second year in 70mm)

Grand Prix a texbook on the effect of different lenses, from telephoto to breathtaking wide angle shots from cameras mounted on the cars. Otherwise, not much.

...and if you like musicals (also in 2.2:1):

Oklahoma! (wait for a Blu-ray restoration .. the original 70 mm had a "reach out and touch it" quality -- current versions are faded)

West Side Story

The Sound of Music

[psg]

How about the BenQ W6000?

It was fairly expensive but I can get it for C$1500. It's a DLP, but has fairly good lens shift (so i could ceiling mount it) and zoom (so I could zoom out to 2.35:1 constant height if I went that route).

[psg]

Hopw nobody will tell me to stay away because I just pulled the trigger!! [H]

How about the BenQ W6000?

It was fairly expensive but I can get it for C$1500. It's a DLP, but has fairly good lens shift (so i could ceiling mount it) and zoom (so I could zoom out to 2.35:1 constant height if I went that route).

[merkin]

Hopw nobody will tell me to stay away because I just pulled the trigger!!

How about the BenQ W6000?

It was fairly expensive but I can get it for C$1500. It's a DLP, but has fairly good lens shift (so i could ceiling mount it) and zoom (so I could zoom out to 2.35:1 constant height if I went that route).

I will like to here how you like your BenQ. Mine is the PE7700 about a 5 year old model DLP 720p. Picture quality has always been excellent and project has performed flawless. Like I said earlier is that the bulb life has been extremely short and never even close to advertised life. I run it on high altitude which means faster fan speed to try and help preserve bulb life. That also means more noise. I wish you good luck with yours and I am interested on how yours holds up.

[guitarman]

I've been using my W6000 for a few weeks now, and all I can say is Wow. With minimal calibration, it looks great. Very bright, so I'm using Econo lamp mode from 15' onto a 120" 1.1 gain screen. Too bright in Normal lamp mode. At any rate, PQ is better than both my 52" mits and 65" Tosh DLPs.

[psg]

Love the W6000!! I can't believe the picture quality I am getting projecting onto a stretched $12 bed sheet!! Can a $1600 screen really be that much better? Sure, I'd get the convenience of an electric screen, but how much of a diiference will the image be? night and day? Subtle? In between?

[jjennings2510]

Love the W6000!! I can't believe the picture quality I am getting projecting onto a stretched $12 bed sheet!! Can a $1600 screen really be that much better? Sure, I'd get the convenience of an electric screen, but how much of a difference will the image be? night and day? Subtle? In between?

You won't have to spend $1600 on a motorized screen but I would recommend you get some kind of screen. They do have cheaper good quality motorized screens such as those made by Elite Screens...You can also search the internet for other direct dealers...but I had my projector projecting onto a wall for awhile...and the quality was great...but once I put up an actual screen the picture got a little better and held up better against sunlight and ambient light. Not only that but my sharpness improved and everything in general seemed better....my blacks seemed blacker and my colors had more "pop" to them....I toned it down a little by calibrating the projector but everything still looks great and still has that dlp pop....so I can def say it will make a difference. especially over a sheet because even tho it looks good a sheet allow a lot of the light to go through it.....I guarantee once you get a screen the detail of the picture will be even better....including shadow detail etc....so just look around....not saying spend a fortune on a screen but I think the investment will be worth it....plus if you have to have some ambient light in the room the screen will hold up better to light and will not wash out as easily

[psg]

Thanks!

I have 100% light control, but the place lights up with the projector alone and the walls are not black. The screen will be expensive for two reasons:

1. At 120" diagonal, it needs to be tensioned to avoid waves.
2. Initially I thought I could have the screen bottom at the edge of my center La Scala and the top right up to the ceiling, but we find that arrangement a bit high for the first row only 10 feet away. So the screen will have to be acoustically transparent in order for it to be dropped lower and partially hide the La Scala.

Oh well!

[jjennings2510]

Oh ok. I gotcha. Well the elite cinetension 2 acoustic screens are kind of expensive...but the prices I've seen from doing a quick google search range from $1100 to $1400....so that sucks....but how about this? How handy are you and how much room do you have in your theater room? I'm sure as you already know fixed screens are a little cheaper. So have you thought about building a false wall of any sort? I know it sounds like a ton of trouble but you could end up saving a lot of money. Setup a false wall to hang the fixed acoustic screen on....with a recessed cutout for the La Scala....

Or you can do the wall paint thing....they do sell the "screen paint" for the walls that will allow you to paint a screen on your wall....and you can even paint or build a border around it....if you build one velvet does the best job at absorbing ovespray light from the projector....I don't think it will match the quality of a screen but I do think it will be better than the sheet. I have heard mixed reviews on the screen paint. But the people that take their time and do it seem to enjoy it. If you don't want to do any of that I guess the sheet will do. LOL. Only thing that matters is keeping YOU satisfied.....congrats on your projector purchase as well...nothing can beat a 10 foot screen! I also have a 120" screen with my projector. Movies and gaming are great but I always have to readjust....when i go back to watching my lcd everything seems so tiny! lol. Anyways hope your theater will contine to bring you lots of joy

[psg]

Thanks, but the screen has to be retractable. It drops in front off a plasma (currently 50-inch but there's room for a 68-inch in that inset) and partially blocks a door to the kid's TV/play room.

The Elite cinetension2 acoustic would fit the bill, but it's hard to find in Canada. projectorsuperstore has it for under US$1100 but then I'd have to find a way to pay for it (they don't take Canadian bank credit cards?), ship it here and hope it didn't get damaged, and deal with brokerage etc. I don't think I'd end up saving anything over an Elunevision screen, which has the advantage of being Canadian.

It's amazing how you can spend $200 or $2000 on a 120" electric screen! I hope the price difference is worth it.

[psg]

Going to go with the Elunevision tomorrow morning...