Heritage_Head Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 (edited) What's best mode? And either way your gonna calibrate in your own room so beat mode won't apply it will be your mode period. Eco most likely of all dark. So in my opinion you are paying more money for slightly better black. If I had the money I'd do it. Period. But to me the panny was worth every penny. And in youths case for bartering it will be worth so much more. Projectorreviews.com measure them in lots of modes. But best mode is calibrated. Every room will be a little different but that number is going to be really close in a dark room vs a dark room. For light output its the best way to compare two projectors. The jvc costs more and is in a different price point. It is under 3k street price like the title of the thread says under 3k. I have said that for better or worse they would both be great projectors. Just adding more info on the jvc. The jvc dla35 is the rs46 just in a different color. Edited November 20, 2014 by Pro-Cinema_Head 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Youthman Posted November 20, 2014 Author Moderators Share Posted November 20, 2014 I could not find those JVC Reviews on projectorreviews.com. I did find this comparison from a user on Amazon - Brightness good. Measurement with a cheapo lux meter PT-AE4000U 158lux with new bulb in normal mode. DLA-RS45 130lux normal mode, 182lux in high power mode (3D). So it's a little dimmer in normal use but bright in high mode. Seems like if the Panny 4000 is brighter than the JVC RS45 in mormal mode, the Panny 8000 would be even brighter than the JVC. I may not ever have a "best mode" as I'll likely run it in Eco Mode and use the Disney Calibration Disk to try and calibrate the projector myself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heritage_Head Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 Some reading. Lots pop up when goggling. Best mode is after Calibration. Help me choose - JVC RS46 vs Panasonic AE-8000 - AVS Forum Panasonic PT-AE8000U Home Theater Projector Review ... JVC DLA-X35 Projector Calibration and Settings | Projector ... JVC DLA-RS46 | Projector Reviews - Information on Projectors Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heritage_Head Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 (edited) Had I not been able to get a deal on the jvc rs45 I would have a panny hanging in my ht. It was between them and it wasn't an easy choice. So if I was you I would get the one you can get the best deal on. Edited November 20, 2014 by Pro-Cinema_Head Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Youthman Posted November 22, 2014 Author Moderators Share Posted November 22, 2014 The lamp warning came on a few days ago on the AE3000u.....I originally thought about buying a new bulb and selling as I figured it would be easier to sell with a brand new bulb but I'm questioning whether or not it is worth putting money into a new bulb before listing it. Any thoughts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Youthman Posted November 22, 2014 Author Moderators Share Posted November 22, 2014 Maybe I'll hold onto it until we get the new screen built and try and sell the Projector & 103" screen together. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NBPK402 Posted November 22, 2014 Share Posted November 22, 2014 I would just sell it now, and get your new projector... Bulb price is not going to be reimbursed on sale I think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heritage_Head Posted November 22, 2014 Share Posted November 22, 2014 How much would the bulb cost on that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Youthman Posted November 22, 2014 Author Moderators Share Posted November 22, 2014 Yeah that's what I'm thinking too Ellis. Bulbs are $175-$300 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TasDom Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 You've probably seen this but just in case.......1699.00 for the 8000 is a great deal http://www.projectorpeople.com/projectors/projdtls.asp?itemid=27643&itmname=Panasonic+PT-AE8000U&sid=GRPA&pi_ad_id=56538417915&gclid=COjp6e2KlsICFeURMwodOgUA9w 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Youthman Posted November 25, 2014 Author Moderators Share Posted November 25, 2014 Thanks Tasdom. I had not seen it but just emailed it to my customer who will be the one buying the unit (doing a barter deal with him). 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garyrc Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 (edited) Just today, I even considered changing from a 2.35:1 CIH setup to a 16:9 and masking down for 2.35:1. This would allow me more flexibility with projectors, less costly projectors, and it would give me a larger 16:9 image. IMO, when the filmmakers decide to use 2.35:1, they are wanting, and expecting, a bigger image than if they use 1.85. Almost all good commercial theaters of the widescreen era, or now, for that matter, use common height, so the image expands for 2.35. Using a 16:9 screen, masked, gives us a smaller image for 2.35 films, and the masks may make it look smaller yet. I dislike the term 16:9, because, unless you do the math, it is not obvious that this 1.78:1 is not widescreen, but narrow screen, i.e. narrower than any aspect ratio American films were using at the time it was marketed, the narrowest modern theatrical image being 1.85:1 2.35:1, in my mind, is the best compromise. It is adequate, more so than 1.78, to display 2.89:1, 2.76:1, 2.39:1, 2.35:1, 1.85:1 1.78:1, 1.66:1, and 1.37:1 Edited November 28, 2014 by Garyrc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Youthman Posted November 26, 2014 Author Moderators Share Posted November 26, 2014 Almost all good commercial theaters of the widescreen era, or now, for that matter, use common height, so the image expands for 2.35. Yes, that's the way our local theaters are setup. Using a 16:9 screen, masked, gives us a smaller image for 2.35 films, and the masks may make it look smaller yet. Actually, it depends on how you look at it. A 12' wide 16:9 screen is still a 12" wide 2.35:1 screen. I know what you mean though. My point was either format I chose, it would still be the same width so why not go with a 16:9 screen since it would yield the same size for 2.35:1 (width wise) but would make for a larger 16:9 screen but in my setup, it's more appropriate and looks much better with a 2.35:1 screen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Youthman Posted November 26, 2014 Author Moderators Share Posted November 26, 2014 I spoke to my customer and it looks like he will not be able to order the projector until the first of the year. That will likely be around the time we begin working on the new front wall. I can't complain since it won't cost me anything out of pocket, just lots of labor hours. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garyrc Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 I know what you mean though. As you see, I'm talking area, not width. A larger area, everything else being equal, provides greater impact, involvement and immersion, which is what I think filmmakers want when they go to 2.35. While 16:9 screens increase the image area of formats in which the filmmakers have not opted for "large," they reduce the image area of the very films the filmmakers have visualized as "large." IMO, filmmakers also like the difference widescreen can make in the power of the storytelling, which can depend, to some degree, on area. I saw Ben Hur (2.75:1) in 70 mm about six times in the most elongated form of 70 mm, Camera 65, aka Ultra Panavision 70, and it was very intense, without a dull moment. The several slower paced sequences seemed like refreshing, restful oases, compared to the overwhelming intensity of most of the picture. Later, when I viewed it in letterbox, first on a 1.33:1 TV, then on a very large 16:9 screen, I thought I must be wrong; the slow parts were pretty slow, and the whole movie seemed toned down. Now, on our 130" wide (not diagonal) 2.35 screen, sitting close, even though Camera 65 requires small bars top and bottom even on a 'scope screen, BH has its old impact back, and the oases with it. Canadian research psychologist D. E. Berlyne included size (area) among his cortical arousal increasing variables (Berlyne, Aesthetics and Psychobiology). Size aside, interesting takes on wide screen lexicon and syntax can be found in an article I think is called "CinemaScope and After" by Charles Barr, reproduced in several film books, and probably online (what floats to the edge of the screen in River of No Return). In the special features of The Way We Were, director Sydney Pollack has some good comments about advantages of using 'scope. About the only thing people agree about concerning the French New Wave film Last Year at Marienbad is that 'scope is used brilliantly. I have seen it small and large, and small nearly destroys the hypnotic effect, while large helps it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boxoffice Buff Posted December 2, 2014 Share Posted December 2, 2014 Panasonic AE8000 has been marked down to $1599 at B&H Photo Video. This price break is on top of $100 rebate and an additional year of warranty from Panasonic. Now you get more bang for your buck! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Youthman Posted December 3, 2014 Author Moderators Share Posted December 3, 2014 Unfortunately, my customer has to wait till the first of the year before he can purchase it. Said his accountant doesn't like for him to make purchases at the end of the year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heritage_Head Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 (edited) Cant he just pay in cash? And you could buy it now and he would pay the total you paid when he can. Edited December 3, 2014 by Pro-Cinema_Head Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Youthman Posted December 3, 2014 Author Moderators Share Posted December 3, 2014 Not sure how you pay B&H in cash. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Youthman Posted December 3, 2014 Author Moderators Share Posted December 3, 2014 And I don't have a desire to tie up $1600 of my money just to get it now. I'm patient and have no problem waiting a month or so. I believe Wakejunkie is about to start on the new front wall so it will be on schedule with the rebuild. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.