Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 90
  1. #1
    Class of the clown GMichael's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Anywhere but here...
    Posts
    13,243

    N. Abstentia and your new room...

    N. Abstentia,

    I have a few questions about your wonderful new HT room.

    1) What kind of paint did you use for the screen?
    2) Why did you choose a projector over LCD, plasma, etc...?
    3) Is the picture just as good?
    4) Will it work for normal TV?
    5) What cables did you have to run to the ceiling?
    6) How far do you have it from the screen?
    7a&b) Do you know how long the lamps last & cost to replace?

    Sorry for all the questions.
    WARNING! - The Surgeon General has determined that, time spent listening to music is not deducted from one's lifespan.

  2. #2
    Forum Regular N. Abstentia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,671
    SUP! I appreciate the questions actually

    1) I used flat grey. Seriously. The kind of paint you can get anywhere. I got mine at Lowes, it's just a light grey. The results are spectacular.

    2) I've always wanted a projector, and LCD/Plasma was never really an option because of price. I couldn't justify spending $6000 for a 60" plasma when I could get over 120" with a projector for $1200...and that's including the screen.

    3) I think 'just as good' is subjective. I'm sure LCD/Plasma would be brighter and crisper, but it's also much smaller and costs 5 times as much. For a living room LCD/Plasma might be a good choice (especially if you have a lot of light in the room) but for a theater room a projector is the way to go.

    4) Yep, works perfectly! Watching Nascar and football in HD on a 125" screen is quite an experience. Of course it works great for non-HD stuff also.

    5) I ran a component, s-video, and DVI cable. Right now just using component.

    6) It's 18 feet from the screen.

    7) I think the lamps are good for 3000 hours and are around $250 to replace. It probably varies depending on the projector. 3000 hours is close to having the projector on for 8 hours a day every day for an entire year, so bulbs should last close to 2 years for me.

    Let me know if there are more questions or you need specific pictures of something!

  3. #3
    Da Dragonball Kid L.J.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Posted in da cut
    Posts
    3,577
    Did you use any sound absorbing matl for the walls or in the room?

    If so, what matl and how much did it cost?

  4. #4
    Class of the clown GMichael's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Anywhere but here...
    Posts
    13,243
    Cool, thanks.

    So you ran the coax from the cable company to your HT sound system and then the S-video and DVI to the projector? Um what's a DVI cable? Right now I use component video and an optical sound cable to the TV.

    Building a house and I'd like to have the cables run before the walls are finished. At this point they haven't even cleared the lot of trees yet. Still lots of time for me to think up more questions. Maybe the next one I ask should be, did I leave anything out that I should be asking?

    I really like the idea of a projector. out of the way with a big (huge) screen.
    WARNING! - The Surgeon General has determined that, time spent listening to music is not deducted from one's lifespan.

  5. #5
    Forum Regular N. Abstentia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,671
    Quote Originally Posted by L.J.
    Did you use any sound absorbing matl for the walls or in the room?

    If so, what matl and how much did it cost?
    No sound treatments yet, but I'll probaby get a few of those acoustic tiles eventually just to break up the walls.

  6. #6
    Forum Regular N. Abstentia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,671
    Quote Originally Posted by GMichael
    Cool, thanks.

    So you ran the coax from the cable company to your HT sound system and then the S-video and DVI to the projector? Um what's a DVI cable? Right now I use component video and an optical sound cable to the TV.
    Yeah kind of but I have DirecTV instead of cable. It goes to the Tivo receiver which has the optical audio output and of course the video outputs. All the components to go the A/V receiver then the video cable goes from the receiver to the projector.

    DVI is digital video interface which is nice because unlike component, it does not convert the digital video to analog. However I don't have anything with a DVI output! I just ran the cable for future use since the projector has a DVI input. I also thought about running HDMI but I figured by the time I replace this projector, HDMI would be obsolete anyway. It'll be time to drop another cable regardless.

    Best advice I can give on cables is to install anything you think you might possibly need.

  7. #7
    Class of the clown GMichael's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Anywhere but here...
    Posts
    13,243
    Thanks,
    Did your Optoma H31 DLP show up yet?
    WARNING! - The Surgeon General has determined that, time spent listening to music is not deducted from one's lifespan.

  8. #8
    Forum Regular N. Abstentia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,671
    Oh yeah, I've had the projector for a couple of months now. I had it set up in my storage shed while testing screen paints

    I update my in-progress website (see below) whenever there's a major development..there's pictures of the screen, screen shots, and the cables which you asked about.

  9. #9
    low on funds high on hope
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    south of reality
    Posts
    90
    N. i was looking at the projector you have and the resolution is 480p. Did you not go to a higher resolution b/c of price or b/c you were happy with the pic quality? i am curoius b/c im looking into projectors, but this resolution seems kinda low compared to what i'm used to. i have a 55' widescreen sony lcd projector that has a resolution of around 1300x700i and i use a 1080i upconverting dvd player. of course my tv costs me triple what you paid and is < half the size i was just wondering your subjective thoughts on what you have and if you have compared it to higher resolution projector pictures? thanks
    spl or die.

  10. #10
    Forum Regular N. Abstentia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,671
    Well to be honest I really don't know much about resolutions and 480 and 1080 and what not. I demo'ed the H31 at a shop while on a beach trip (no shops local at all) and of all the places I went it was the best looking projector I saw for under $5000. I was kinda bummed when he told me it was $2100, but was very happy when I got back home and started to do research and found that it was $1100 online. So price was really the major concern, but on the same token I personally saw no reason to spend 3 times as much on a higher resolution projector. They just didn't look any better. I've looked at a lot of projectors over the last year and honestly just never saw anything that looked any better than the H31, plus the shops had actual screens and not just paint.

    Just out of curiosity, what's the advantage of a 1080i projector? What is the native resolution of a DVD?

  11. #11
    low on funds high on hope
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    south of reality
    Posts
    90

    don't quote me, but...

    i belive that the native res. of current dvd's is 480p. however, when you buy an upconverting dvd player, it can convert it up to 780i for component and 1080i with hdmi (which is what i use) i also believe that the new hd dvd's will be 1080i native and dolbydigital.com says their soundtracks will be 100% lossless which is pretty exciting news. so i guess the advantage of a 1080i projector only comes with an upconverting dvd or in the future hd dvd or hd tv currently. . i also looked at some graphs and at 1080, progressive scan and interlaced merge, therefore 1080i will be used, b/c p has no advantage. i need to research some more to make certain, but i believe this info is pretty accurate but for the next few years, a 480p projector looks like a good choice.
    spl or die.

  12. #12
    Forum Regular N. Abstentia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,671
    Yeah like I said I'm no expert by any means, but everything I've read says that 480p is better than anything i...or interlaced.

  13. #13
    Audio/Video Nirvana robert393's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    216
    Quote Originally Posted by N. Abstentia
    Yeah like I said I'm no expert by any means, but everything I've read says that 480p is better than anything i...or interlaced.
    Very nice setup, congratulations! If you are anything like me you will have many hours of pure enjoyment from you HT! But, if you have not experienced true 1080i, you will be blown away. 480p is not even close to the PQ 1080i (or 720p!) presents. I don't know where you read "that 480p is better than anything i...", but don't believe it!

    And their is LOTS of HD tv out their. With Dish network (which now owns VOOM) I get a total of 23 HD channels!

    Anyway, enjoy your setup. It looks awesome!
    Robert
    Projector: JVC DLA-SX21U (LCOS 1.5m Pixel)
    Lens: Panamorph PSO-SX21
    Screen: 133" 16:9
    AVR: Denon (Flagship) 5800
    LRC-Mains: Definitive Technology (Flagship) BP3000-TL
    Surrounds: Atlantic Technology (Flush-Mount) System 20eSR
    LFE-Subwoofer: Sunfire True Subwoofer
    HD Satellite / DVR: VIP DVR622 Receiver (30+ Hrs of HD)
    HD VCR: JVC SR-VD400US Pro D-VHS (True 1080i transmission via Component)

    Dedicated Home Theater Specs & Pics

  14. #14
    Forum Regular N. Abstentia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,671
    Well I think the big thing is that even though 1080i has more scan lines, it still suffers from interlacing which is why 480p or 720p is preferred over 1080i. Plus if a DVD it natively 480p, is there any advantage to upconversion? Can you add things that aren't there to start with?

  15. #15
    Da Dragonball Kid L.J.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Posted in da cut
    Posts
    3,577
    When I first got my 2910, I sat and watched Finding Nemo in both 480p and 1080i over and over. My simple eyes could not see a difference. 480p is gonna give you a flawless picture. With your DVI you could take advantage of a digital connection, but you would have to drop money on a new DVD player. I think in the end, a 480p over component is enough to be happy with.

  16. #16
    Audio/Video Nirvana robert393's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    216
    "Well to be honest I really don't know much about resolutions and 480 and 1080 and what not."

    OK........

    "Well I think the big thing is that even though 1080i has more scan lines, it still suffers from interlacing which is why 480p is preferred over 1080i."

    Oh yeah....right, HD REALLY SUCKS.....LOL!! You got to be kidding! Well actually, I will take note of your admission above.

    Seriously, you may want to stop while you are ahead. Surely you are not going to continue with the argument that 480p is superior to 1080i.

    Enjoy the 854x480 resolution of the H31. It gets really great reviews for projectors at it's level. http://www.projectorcentral.com/optoma_h31.htm
    Projector: JVC DLA-SX21U (LCOS 1.5m Pixel)
    Lens: Panamorph PSO-SX21
    Screen: 133" 16:9
    AVR: Denon (Flagship) 5800
    LRC-Mains: Definitive Technology (Flagship) BP3000-TL
    Surrounds: Atlantic Technology (Flush-Mount) System 20eSR
    LFE-Subwoofer: Sunfire True Subwoofer
    HD Satellite / DVR: VIP DVR622 Receiver (30+ Hrs of HD)
    HD VCR: JVC SR-VD400US Pro D-VHS (True 1080i transmission via Component)

    Dedicated Home Theater Specs & Pics

  17. #17
    Forum Regular N. Abstentia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,671
    Well if you'll read you'll see I never actually said '480p is superior to 1080i' because if you'll also notice I said I'm by no means an expert on the matter.

    All I know is this..after demoing 1080i and 420p I preferred 480p because 1080i still suffers from interlacing. I couldn't justify the price difference to go with 1080i, and I'm obviously not alone. I know what I saw. I'm glad to see that others see the same things as me.

    I guess I just don't understand scaling...how can something that has only 480 scan lines be improved by adding something that wasn't there to start with? Does it just make up stuff to put in those extra scan lines?

  18. #18
    Suspended Smokey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Ozarks
    Posts
    3,959
    Quote Originally Posted by N. Abstentia
    All I know is this..after demoing 1080i and 420p I preferred 480p because 1080i still suffers from interlacing. I couldn't justify the price difference to go with 1080i, and I'm obviously not alone. I know what I saw. I'm glad to see that others see the same things as me.

    I guess I just don't understand scaling...how can something that has only 480 scan lines be improved by adding something that wasn't there to start with? Does it just make up stuff to put in those extra scan lines?
    I think there might be some mixed up issues here. You right in that regard that upscaling 480i to 1080i (by the way, native DVD is 480i) will not yield any improvements. One can not have something that is not there to begin with. So if source is DVD player, a HD projector does not nessacary yield a better picture in HD mode Vs 480p mode.

    But if source is HD (1080i or 720p), then there is no question that HD-ready projector’s picture quality will be better than a projector that is only 480p capable. Although it is true that 1080i is interlaced, but compare with 480i or 480p, it got twice as much resolution vertically, and horizontally. So HD picture is 4 times better

  19. #19
    Forum Regular edtyct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    1,370
    I'm arriving late to this party; forgive me if I'm missing the point. The 1080i format, if original to the source, is flat-out better than 480p, based purely on resolution (scan lines or pixel counts). No controversy exists on this matter. Any controversy about the relative quality of interlaced vs. progressive revolved around which of the two first HD formats, 1080i or 720p, was better at showing motion. Many experts felt that 720p was more coherent in that respect--thus ESPN's use of 720p. Other broadcasters preferred it as well. But most people would be hardpressed to notice a difference.

    DVD as we know is an interlaced format--480i, which nearly every DVD player under the sun nowadays can convert to progressive, with 3:2 pulldown for films and video deinterlacing, for a suitable digital display. Few displays can do as good a job at deinterlacing as DVD players can, but most external scalers do a better job than either DVD players or displays. Deinterlacing, especially video deinterlacing, is an extraordinarily complicated affair, requiring a buffer for the source data to undergo analysis for interpolation to one degree or another. This is how Faroudja made its name, as did Silicon Optix, DVDO, and others. Scaling these days is a fact of life, and though, as Smokey says, it can't create something out of nothing, it can work wonders creating something out of something. Under normal circumstances, however, a 480 panel is at an advantage for showing current DVDs, since scaling them to a higher native resolution usually softens the picture and/or adds artifacts that aren't in the original. But the eye can be fooled, and upconverting 480 inside a DVD player for digital transmission to a microdisplay has been shown at times to result in sharper resolution on test screens than unprocessed 480i or p. That's basically how the cheap little Vizio DVD player with its pioneering DVI connection made its name.

    One more thing: 1080i often undergoes no deinterlacing, because of its already high resolution. The new upconverting 1080p displays, however, have changed that trend, but certain higher-end scalers also can process 1080i to p for suitable displays.

    Ed

  20. #20
    Audio/Video Nirvana robert393's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    216
    Quote Originally Posted by N. Abstentia
    Well I think the big thing is that even though 1080i has more scan lines, it still suffers from interlacing which is why 480p or 720p is preferred over 1080i. Plus if a DVD it natively 480p, is there any advantage to upconversion? Can you add things that aren't there to start with?
    Couple quick things here:
    1080i doesn't "suffer from interlacing". It is as good a picture quality as avalable today (ok....there is a very valid argument for 720p if fast motion is involved ie, sports).

    Your statement above "which is why 480p is preferred over 1080i" is utter nonsense. Preferred by whom......experts?

    FYI, DVD is NOT native 480p, but 480i and you are SCALING to 480p.

    Your statement of "Can you add things that aren't there to start with?" can be best answered by you since DVD is 480i and you are using processing methods to get it to 480p. Your SCALER is "adding things that aren't there to start with"....how do you think it looks?

    Hope this helps clear things up a bit for you..........
    Robert
    Last edited by robert393; 10-19-2005 at 10:05 AM.
    Projector: JVC DLA-SX21U (LCOS 1.5m Pixel)
    Lens: Panamorph PSO-SX21
    Screen: 133" 16:9
    AVR: Denon (Flagship) 5800
    LRC-Mains: Definitive Technology (Flagship) BP3000-TL
    Surrounds: Atlantic Technology (Flush-Mount) System 20eSR
    LFE-Subwoofer: Sunfire True Subwoofer
    HD Satellite / DVR: VIP DVR622 Receiver (30+ Hrs of HD)
    HD VCR: JVC SR-VD400US Pro D-VHS (True 1080i transmission via Component)

    Dedicated Home Theater Specs & Pics

  21. #21
    Forum Regular edtyct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    1,370
    The knee-jerk response that a scaler/deinterlacer can't add anything to 480 that isn't already there in the first place shouldn't obscure the fact that a good signal processor has to do a lot of creative work to succeed. The more complete, and subtle, the snapshot of the digital data that it uses to construct its interpolations, the smoother the picture. To state simply that nothing new can be added to an original source that wasn't there in the first place shortchanges the ingeniousness of signal processing. If it were true, all signal processors would be created equal; they aren't. In the case of 3:2 pulldown for films on DVD, since the deinterlacer simply repeats fields to produce the appropriate frame rate, the degree of inventiveness is limited, though some 3:2 pulldown implementation is better than others. But video deinterlacing is more arduous, since none of the original fields were ever part of the same frame. To make a progressive stream out of them requires a good bit of design and analysis.

    Ed

  22. #22
    Forum Regular N. Abstentia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,671
    Quote Originally Posted by edtyct
    I'm arriving late to this party; forgive me if I'm missing the point. The 1080i format, if original to the source, is flat-out better than 480p, based purely on resolution (scan lines or pixel counts). No controversy exists on this matter.

    Ed
    That sums it up good for me, and explains why every 1080i display I demoed was outperformed by 480p....the source was not 1080i. It was all done with DVD and not HD broadcasts.

  23. #23
    Forum Regular N. Abstentia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,671
    Quote Originally Posted by robert393
    Couple quick things here:
    1080i doesn't "suffer from interlacing". It is as good a picture quality as avalable today (ok....there is a very valid argument for 720p if fast motion is involved ie, sports).


    Robert
    You might want to read up:

    1080i - 1080 interlaced; one of two formats designated as high-definition television in the ATSC DTV standard, with 1,080 vertical pixels by 1,920 horizontal pixels. The i stands for interlaced, as opposed to progressive scanning, used in the second HDTV standard, 720p. Contrary to myth, 1080i is not superior to 720p; 1080i has more scanning lines but also suffers the disadvantages of interlaced scanning.

  24. #24
    Audio/Video Nirvana robert393's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    216
    Quote Originally Posted by N. Abstentia
    You might want to read up:

    1080i - 1080 interlaced; one of two formats designated as high-definition television in the ATSC DTV standard, with 1,080 vertical pixels by 1,920 horizontal pixels. The i stands for interlaced, as opposed to progressive scanning, used in the second HDTV standard, 720p. Contrary to myth, 1080i is not superior to 720p; 1080i has more scanning lines but also suffers the disadvantages of interlaced scanning.
    By your own admission you have not actually viewed HD, you may want to actually view HD before you keep digging your hole deeper...LOL!!

    Look, you got a nice ($1000) projector (Native: 854x480 Pixels), ENJOY IT!!!!!!!!! But don't try to "sell" the idea that 480p is better than HD, just because you are not able to reproduce anything close to HD with your projector. Their are those of us that HAVE THE CAPABILITY to reproduce HD....and know the difference.........

    Robert
    Projector: JVC DLA-SX21U (LCOS 1.5m Pixel)
    Lens: Panamorph PSO-SX21
    Screen: 133" 16:9
    AVR: Denon (Flagship) 5800
    LRC-Mains: Definitive Technology (Flagship) BP3000-TL
    Surrounds: Atlantic Technology (Flush-Mount) System 20eSR
    LFE-Subwoofer: Sunfire True Subwoofer
    HD Satellite / DVR: VIP DVR622 Receiver (30+ Hrs of HD)
    HD VCR: JVC SR-VD400US Pro D-VHS (True 1080i transmission via Component)

    Dedicated Home Theater Specs & Pics

  25. #25
    Class of the clown GMichael's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Anywhere but here...
    Posts
    13,243

    Projector Central says.........

    One of the first things you notice when you begin to shop for a home theater projector is that they come in different resolutions. That becomes Mystery No. 1 for the typical buyer—which resolution is best? And it is an important question, because getting the right resolution, or more to the point—avoiding the wrong resolution—will help you get the best possible picture relative to the amount you pay for it.

    Most people looking for home theater projectors want to go with the widescreen, 16:9 format that is the native format for HDTV. There are three popular 16:9 resolution formats at the moment. The first is 854x480, the second is 1024x576, and the third is 1280x720. Since these are all progressive scan displays, they are designated as 480p, 576p, and 720p resolutions, respectively.

    First off, let's debunk the common notion that higher resolution is always the better deal. That is simply not the case. Most of the current 480p projectors produce outstanding results with both standard definition and HDTV signals. In terms of performance for the money, they clearly represent the best home theater value we've ever seen in the industry. Well, that is, if you live in the world of NTSC 480-line video. Assuming you do, your DVDs and standard television signals all have 480 lines of active video information, and the 854x480 projectors are designed to display them line-for-line without any vertical scaling. That produces the sharpest possible image from these sources.

    Now, contrary to what you might imagine, stepping up in price to the next highest resolution, 1024x576, does not give you a sharper picture from DVD. Remember, you only have 480 lines of video information on that DVD. The projector cannot create additional picture information beyond that which it gets from the signal. So a 576p projector needs to take that 480 lines of information and redistribute it over 576 lines, a process which is called scaling. The best you can hope for is that it does a really good job at scaling the image, and if it does you won't lose much sharpness. But generally a picture scaled into a non-native format like this will appear a bit softer than it does when it is displayed in native 480-line format.

    So why bother with a higher resolution? Well, the higher resolution does give you two benefits. First, since there are more pixels, there is typically somewhat reduced visible pixel structure. That means you can sit a bit closer to the screen without seeing the pixels. Second, there is the possibility of getting a slightly better HDTV picture. That is because the HD signal, which is either 1920x1080 or 1280x720, is being compressed into an array of 1024x576 rather than the lower resolution 854x480 array. Since the 576p model has more pixels, it has the potential to retain a bit more detail in the HDTV image.

    However, these two advantages are minor. Pixelation on even the 480p DLP projectors is modest at best. Stepping up to 576p reduces visible pixelation somewhat, but it does not eliminate it. Meanwhile, the process of compressing an HDTV signal into a lower resolution array, no matter what it is, will always cause some loss of image detail. So whether it is compressed into 480 lines or 576 lines, the difference between the two is subtle at best.

    The basic question then is this: Do you want to lay out more money to gain subtle improvements in pixelation and HDTV acuity, while compromising the sharpness of your DVD picture? Most people would think this is a dubious trade-off. Yet this is the value proposition being offered by the 1024x576 resolution projectors in the NTSC world.

    On the other hand, everything changes if you live in a country where PAL or SECAM is the video standard. These systems deliver 576 lines of video per frame, rather than the 480 lines per frame of NTSC. So in this environment, the 1024x576 resolution projector is the ideal solution for DVD and standard definition video. Indeed, Texas Instruments dubbed their 1024x576 DLP chip the "Matterhorn" because of its unique applicability in the European market where PAL and SECAM are established standards.

    Back on this side of the Atlantic however, the 1024x576 projector has become a solution in search of a problem. Except for those living in Brazil and Argentina, nobody in the Western hemisphere has a 576-line video source. So on a 576p projector everything must be scaled in a manner that represents an unattractive compromise for both standard definition and high definition sources.

    The reality is that today's latest model 1280x720 resolution DLP projectors sell for under $3,000, and you can get the latest 1280x720 LCD projectors for under $2,000. The drop in prices of the 1280x720 models has left the 1024x576 projector aced out of the game in the western markets. There is no price point at which it would make sense to step up from 480p, but forego the incremental expense to get to 720p.

    So in the NTSC world, if you want the best DVD picture quality for the money, the best 480p models deliver spectacular DVD quality and amazingly good HDTV as well, for a mere $1200 these days. If you want to allocate more in your budget for a projector to eliminate pixelation and get much sharper HDTV, there is simply no point in taking the interim step to 1024x576. The move to 1280x720 (or even higher), is the only move that makes sense.
    WARNING! - The Surgeon General has determined that, time spent listening to music is not deducted from one's lifespan.

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •