407 replies to this topic

[Sati001]

Hi Guys,

Sorry, I know this has been asked many times and I have gone throught alot of threads but still not sure what's the correct answer for me. I am really confused with this and will really appreciate some help.

I am planning to buy Panasonic ae7000u for dedicated theater room - 4.7 m x 4.4 m (screen wall - height 2.7 m). I saw LP Morgan 132 manual masking screen demo and absolutly loved its cinemascope. But for 16:9 aspect, my first impression was the screen ia not grand enough and wasted too much screen space on sides. But the whole focus was on cinemascope, so not sure if 16:9 was Ok or not.

I will be using my project to watch foxtel (sports, movies), blu-ray movies and xbox/ps3 games.

Considering all of the above, what is the screen size and aspect radio you guys recommend for me.

Many thanks for the help.

Regards,
Leo

[Sati001]

Just to add more information, below is screen dimension in both aspect ratios for the LP morgan screen
width height Aspect Ratio 2285 1285 1.78 3085 1285 2.35

Let me know what you guys think

[Quark]

While there are guidelines around screen size vs viewing distance, a lot of it comes down to personal preference.

If you're going to be watching a lot of 16:9 material (e.g. sports, gaming, many animated movies) you may prefer to go with a Constant Image Width (CIW) rather than the Constant Image Height (CIH) set up you saw.  I'm not aware of much in the way of masking systems for CIW, but seem to recall that Prior (one of our members) is intending to offer it as an option with his masking set up.  Other members have gone DIY for masking.

Your best approach may be to defer your screen purchase and try projecting on a wall for a while until you know what works best for you.

I watch a lot of scope movies and sit ~4m from a 130" scope screen i.e. about 3 times image height in a CIH set up, which is probably the maximum you would want to consider in CIH.

[bbar]

Sati001, on 10 April 2012 - 09:25 PM, said:

Just to add more information, below is screen dimension in both aspect ratios for the LP morgan screen
width height Aspect Ratio 2285 1285 1.78 3085 1285 2.35

Let me know what you guys think

From this I believe you are considering a 130" scope screen versus a 105" 16:9.

I believe the LP Morgan screens are 1.1 gain but could even be 1.0 gain.

Based on this the Panasonic AE7000 is not bright enough to zoom to a 130" scope screen according to PJcentral and another calculator site - http://www.eliteproj...lculator.com/   .

If you sit around 3X height which is a reasonable distance, then sitting at 3.5 metres is a good distance for that room as it leaves 900mm behind to back wall. This will provide better acoustics to sitting at the back wall.

As you watch TV and play games on it I would suggest a 16:9 would better meet your needs given you are fixed on the Ae7000. You could even go to a 110" 16:9 and sit at 3.8 metres.

If not then a 130" scope screen would give you the best of both as you would have a full 105" 16:9 image for HDTV and games and some Blu-rays and  a full 130" scope image for scope Blu-rays.

You would need a brighter PJ with auto zoom capabilities though.

Choices may be limited to the Mits 9000 or the JVC X30 which are more expensive than the Panasonic and would probably need to go to a screen with a minimum of 1.26 gain such as the Oztheatre screen. You may want to go Oztheatre screen anyway for the extra brightness.

[Quark]

bbar - a good point on the brightness issue, especially as the lamp ages and lumens decrease.

Other projector options if you go CIW are the Epson 9000 and BenQ W7000 - both are very bright and would light up a very large 16:9 screen.  Note that neither has lens memory, so not suited to a CIH set up.  Not sure if the Epson is still available at the group buy price.  There's also a proposed group buy on the BenQ - apparently with some very good pricing, but not sure if Yorac has reached the minimum numbers yet.

[mmu16]

I believe the OP's choice of PJ is a good one since the Pana can do both CIW/CIH with its lens memory which the Epson and BenQ can't.  As bbar said, try the OZTS Majestic Evo 3D screen which is a 1.3 Gain screen and is of fabulous quality + price.  Going 130 scope with a OZTS + Pana 7000 would cover all bases.  Good luck!

[blybo]

mmu16, on 11 April 2012 - 01:18 PM, said:

I believe the OP's choice of PJ is a good one since the Pana can do both CIW/CIH with its lens memory which the Epson and BenQ can't.  As bbar said, try the OZTS Majestic Evo 3D screen which is a 1.3 Gain screen and is of fabulous quality + price.  Going 130 scope with a OZTS + Pana 7000 would cover all bases.  Good luck!

Agreed. I also think projector brightness is a personal decision too. I have an older Sanyo Z5 (720p) that I manually zoom to my OZTS 130 scope screen and think the image is more than bright enough despite what calculators tell me... And I've got about 800 hours on the lamp too.

1 limitation of the Pana 7000 is it needs to be mounted lower than the top edge of the screen for the auto zoom/focus function to work. For this reason the X30 will be #1 on my shopping list when funds and SWMBO allows a new projector. We have a rear riser and people would have to duck under the Pana when standing on the riser.

[Sati001]

Thanks guys for the reponse,

I am tilting towards the following two screens
1 - 130" 2.37:1 Majestic Fixed Screen w Evo3D
2 - 132" LP Morgan Manual masking screen.

Basis my discussion with the installer, I should have the projector at 4.25 meter from the screen. I used http://www.projector...culator-pro.htm basis which I can put max of 134" screen for 2.37:1 aspect ratio, which will give 74 nits brighness.

Do you guys think I am pushing it too much ?

Appreciate the help.

[bbar]

Sati001, on 11 April 2012 - 04:24 PM, said:

Thanks guys for the reponse,

I am tilting towards the following two screens
1 - 130" 2.37:1 Majestic Fixed Screen w Evo3D
2 - 132" LP Morgan Manual masking screen.

Basis my discussion with the installer, I should have the projector at 4.25 meter from the screen. I used http://www.projector...culator-pro.htm basis which I can put max of 134" screen for 2.37:1 aspect ratio, which will give 74 nits brighness.

Do you guys think I am pushing it too much ?

Appreciate the help.

LP Morgan screen does not have high enough gain to get required brightness for the life of the lamp as I believe it is a 1.1 gain screen only. The Oztheatre screen is a 1.26 gain screen so should provide a brighter image for a longer time.

It is also unclear if the stats at pJ Central are for a 'best' mode setting or another like Dynamic.

This PJ calculator site has the 7000 at a lot less brightness in 'Best' mode.  Best mode is typically one of their Cinema settings or the like which is a preset to get close to the D65 standard for film.  This PJ calculator is from a forum member on another forum and I believe based on real experience.

http://www.eliteproj...calculator.com/

It shows Panasonic at 14.5FL at 4.25 throw on a 1.3 gain screen in 'Best' mode.

Edited by bbar, 11 April 2012 - 05:53 PM.

[Sati001]

Thanks bbar,
"It shows Panasonic at 14.5FL at 4.25 throw on a 1.3 gain screen in 'Best' mode." - Is this bad or acceptable brightness ?

[Owen]

The Projector Central Calculator uses manufacturers specified maximum brightness which is useless as no projector gives it rated output when calibrated for accurate colour. If you divide specified light output numbers by two you will get a reasonably close result. Therefore you cannot expect more than 10fl or 35nits from an AE7000 with lamp on full power projected on a 130" screen with 1.3 gain.
As the lamp ages output will fall even further.

[Sati001]

Owen, on 11 April 2012 - 09:21 PM, said:

The Projector Central Calculator uses manufacturers specified maximum brightness which is useless as no projector gives it rated output when calibrated for accurate colour. If you divide specified light output numbers by two you will get a reasonably close result. Therefore you cannot expect more than 10fl or 35nits from an AE7000 with lamp on full power projected on a 130" screen with 1.3 gain.
As the lamp ages output will fall even further.

OK. thats not exciting news. Is there any other projector you guys recommend which will work better for 130" scope screen at 4.25 meter distance ?

Thanks for the help.

[:)]

bbar, on 11 April 2012 - 05:51 PM, said:

LP Morgan screen does not have high enough gain to get required brightness for the life of the lamp as I believe it is a 1.1 gain screen only. The Oztheatre screen is a 1.26 gain screen so should provide a brighter image for a longer time.

It is also unclear if the stats at pJ Central are for a 'best' mode setting or another like Dynamic.

This PJ calculator site has the 7000 at a lot less brightness in 'Best' mode.  Best mode is typically one of their Cinema settings or the like which is a preset to get close to the D65 standard for film.  This PJ calculator is from a forum member on another forum and I believe based on real experience.

http://www.eliteproj...calculator.com/

It shows Panasonic at 14.5FL at 4.25 throw on a 1.3 gain screen in 'Best' mode.

its an excellent calculator that I've myself verified and at 200 hours point its pretty spot on for my pj just making sure its drop off is 10% I've found it to be rather than 20% it has as defaults. just need to also ensure other parameters are selected correctly ie the correct colour mode lamp setting and other selections. I'm also one as suggested by that calculator to be  wanting something in the range of 16-22 fl. as prefer the pop. mines sitting on 22fl and loving it

but then personally am more for the smaller screens with the pop and sharpness at right distance rather than larger screens with less brightness and softer look. its a very personal thing this kind of stuff Id suggest to the op maybe head out check out few projectors suggested in this thread and work out kind of brightness / screen size at viewing distance will tolerate and all that maybe help with decision

[mmu16]

You also need to consider optimal seating position with your screen size and rear speaker positioning. The bigger the screen, the further away you need to sit.    I'm running a 140" OZTS scope screen and my ideal seating position  puts me just over 5m from the screen (THX recommendations - lots of info on this can be found in our forum).  With a 130" scope, you would probably be close to 5m for ideal seating position, which would be a problem since your room is 4.7m long end to end. Advice would be not to assume the full length of the room is available for seating since you need to factor in the positioning of your rear/surround back speakers (need to sit 'before' the surround speakers).  Best is to scale down the size of the screen to get the best outcome (speaker positioning, seating, throw etc.).  Also, most modern PJ's have more than enough brightness to throw an impressive image so don't worry about that too much.

Edited by mmu16, 13 April 2012 - 12:25 PM.

[Quark]

mmu16, on 13 April 2012 - 12:16 PM, said:

You also need to consider optimal seating position with your screen size and rear speaker positioning. The bigger the screen, the further away you need to sit. I'm running a 140" OZTS scope screen and my ideal seating position  puts me just over 5m from the screen (THX recommendations - lots of info on this can be found in our forum).  With a 130" scope, you would probably be close to 5m for ideal seating position, which would be a problem since your room is 4.7m long end to end. Advice would be not to assume the full length of the room is available for seating since you need to factor in the positioning of your rear/surround back speakers (need to sit 'before' the surround speakers).  Best is to scale down the size of the screen to get the best outcome (speaker positioning, seating, throw etc.).  Also, most modern PJ's have more than enough brightness to throw an impressive image so don't worry about that too much.

I suppose this reiterates the point about seating distance being a matter of personal preference.  Sitting 5m back from a 130" scope screen is about 3.9 times screen height rather than the typical 3 times screen height.  Fine if you normally prefer to sit towards the rear at the theatre, but won't suit everyone.

The Pana 7000 is going to be marginal zooming to a 130" scope screen, even with 1.3 gain (actually 1.26 gain for OZTS).  If you go with that combination, the picture will probably be (just) OK at first (given you have complete light control in a dedicated room), but expect to be changing lamps way, way before their normal end of life.

[mmu16]

Good point Quark, the seating and brightness requirements are mostly down to personal preference. I prefer to sit a bit further back and the THX 36 degree seating calculation is just perfect for me.  My theatre room isn't exactly a batcave but I find my X30 on normal lamp mode projecting to a 140 scope OZTS screen to be plenty bright.  As you said its a personal preference. Best option is to get the pj and project onto a blank wall to find out the best screen size/shape prior to buying the actual screen.

[blybo]

Quark, on 13 April 2012 - 01:18 PM, said:

I suppose this reiterates the point about seating distance being a matter of personal preference.  Sitting 5m back from a 130" scope screen is about 3.9 times screen height rather than the typical 3 times screen height.  Fine if you normally prefer to sit towards the rear at the theatre, but won't suit everyone.

The Pana 7000 is going to be marginal zooming to a 130" scope screen, even with 1.3 gain (actually 1.26 gain for OZTS).  If you go with that combination, the picture will probably be (just) OK at first (given you have complete light control in a dedicated room), but expect to be changing lamps way, way before their normal end of life.

Brightness too, is personal preference. As I said previously, my Sanyo Z5 and screen is set up almost exactly as the OP wants and the image is fine, despite falling well short of what some calculator deems appropriate. I set my room up knowing this projector would be replaced in the not too distant future so did so as I would of for a X30 and wasn't expecting great things but the image is plenty bright enough in pure cinema mode. The resolution and contrast could certainly be better but that's to be expected with 6 year old technology.

oh yeah, I sit 3.5-3.8m from the 130 OZTS screen and our back row is just over 5m from the screen. Initially my wife preferred the back row but now is acclimatised to the scope screen.

Edited by blybo, 13 April 2012 - 03:53 PM.

[Sati001]

hi guy

I went and bought the projector on friday to project it on wall and see what screen size I like.

I am projecting it on wall about 3.5 meters away and sitting about 4 meters from the screeen. I setup the screen first at 130 16:9, liked it but at 120, the peformance I get our of projector is breathtaking. And, as such not much difference in experience between 130/120 for me.

Another thing is on 130 16:9 content looks too big, so looks like 120 is a more like what I preffer.

What i am thinking is, if I can get such a great picture on wall, should i spend 1500 on high end screen or get fromselbyacoustics for $426 ?

Do you guys thinkg $1000 extra is good investment ?

[:)]

if was me I'd go the wall for a while. no harm and gives you time to adjust make sure comfortable size picture on various material both good to average to poor.  over years come across quite a few using walls to very good effect. most do end up going screens and I do think benefit with a quality screen. but yeah given can project on a wall to a result happy with not something have to rush into

[Quark]

As Al said, no need to settle on a screen size yet - make sure you get the right sized one - the initial size impact will ease after a couple of weeks.

I've got an OZTS screen - after seeing a number of different makes of screens in action this, for me, represented the best quality/value option - YMMV.  Some factors below to consider in screen choice.

Some cheaper screens (not sure about the Selby ones) can produce moire effects when there's a pattern on the image (like when you look through two sheets of flywire).

The Fidelio velvet surround on the OZTS screens is also excellent (way better than anything else I've seen) for absorbing overscan (you generally want a little overscan, as some sources can produce flickering lines top and bottom).

The other factor to consider is screen gain - cheaper ones are generally 1.0 - 1.1, whereas OZTS are 1.26 for the standard material.  If you go for a large screen, a little extra gain will help with brightness - remember your lamp will lose brightness, especially in the first 100 hours.

Edited by Quark, 15 April 2012 - 05:28 PM.

[bbar]

Quark, on 15 April 2012 - 05:27 PM, said:

As Al said, no need to settle on a screen size yet - make sure you get the right sized one - the initial size impact will ease after a couple of weeks.

I've got an OZTS screen - after seeing a number of different makes of screens in action this, for me, represented the best quality/value option - YMMV.  Some factors below to consider in screen choice.

Some cheaper screens (not sure about the Selby ones) can produce moire effects when there's a pattern on the image (like when you look through two sheets of flywire).

The Fidelio velvet surround on the OZTS screens is also excellent (way better than anything else I've seen) for absorbing overscan (you generally want a little overscan, as some sources can produce flickering lines top and bottom).

The other factor to consider is screen gain - cheaper ones are generally 1.0 - 1.1, whereas OZTS are 1.26 for the standard material.  If you go for a large screen, a little extra gain will help with brightness - remember your lamp will lose brightness, especially in the first 100 hours.

+1; and for the most [not me of course...lol], a screen should last a lifetime; so best to settle on the right size and then get a good screen. PJ's may get changed every 4 years but I would think a quality screen should last 20 or more.

[mmu16]

Hey Sati,

Congratulations on the purchase of the PJ! What did you end up getting in the end?

[Sati001]

Thanks guys,
Projecting on a wall was a great advice. Now that i can see the screen, I can know for sure what screen size I like the best. I am going to project on the wall for a week or so more, before making up my mind about it.

Hi mmu16, I have bough Panasonic ae7000u and it is producing amazing picture. For me it is better then going to the theater, absolutely love the picture it is producing.

[:)]

Excellent choice in pj sati, and sounds like really enjoying result. Yeah I think wonderfull really these days what can acheive in the home with a pj this level and so easily exceed what you get in the commercial theatres

[...]

Sati001, on 16 April 2012 - 09:55 PM, said:

Projecting on a wall was a great advice. Now that i can see the screen, I can know for sure what screen size I like the best. I am going to project on the wall for a week or so more, before making up my mind about it.

This is what I did (with a similar viewing distance, 3.9m) and ended up settling on a 110" 16:9 screen.

While there was a temptation to get a larger one for the WOW factor, I found the 110" best for all viewing over longer streches, both 21:9 (cinemascpoe) and 16:9 (a surpring proportion of movies and most other content)

At the end of the day though, it's what you like and feel comfortable with that's important, after all you're the one who's going to be watching day after day!  

Edited by ..., 16 April 2012 - 11:13 PM.