# New Projector



## mutelight (Oct 6, 2008)

So my old projector was getting a bit long in the tooth so I decided it was time for an upgrade. Ended up going with the Panasonic AE4000 as I have been more than happy with my plasma from them. It has completely changed the experience in the living room. The image size to quality ratio is staggering.

http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/6050/roomon.jpg
http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/2572/sizej.jpg
http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/9730/lostz.jpg
http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/2550/baraka.jpg


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Yep, that's a great projector.

Are you going to get a scope screen or stick with 16:9.


----------



## matt (Jan 12, 2010)

I just pooped a little. How big is that screen?!


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

Awesome! Any lights on shots of the setup?


----------



## mutelight (Oct 6, 2008)

spartanstew said:


> Yep, that's a great projector.
> 
> Are you going to get a scope screen or stick with 16:9.


I am probably going to stick with 16:9 since a fair amount of HDTV and gaming go on in the room.



matt1124 said:


> I just pooped a little. How big is that screen?!


Haha, it is 108".



Grentz said:


> Awesome! Any lights on shots of the setup?


Thanks. There is a link in my signature with more shots of the room.


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

Thats sweet! Whens the "projector warming party"?


----------



## mechman (Apr 29, 2006)

I wouldn't trade my projector for anything! Something about a large image...

Which screen did you go with? Is it white or a gray?


----------



## BudShark (Aug 11, 2003)

I recently put in a 106" with the Panny AE4000... it is a phenomenal projector... I just wish it had direct IR input or an IR port on the back (since I'm not serial control...).

Still need to do some work with it related to the auto scoping.


----------



## BudShark (Aug 11, 2003)

spartanstew said:


> Yep, that's a great projector.
> 
> Are you going to get a scope screen or stick with 16:9.


I've got a 16:9 on mine - but I'm limited on width due to a window and a corner. 

With that said, the Panny has an auto-scope feature that detects and uses a mechnical block to reduce lighting in the non-picture areas. It is a phenomenal feature.

Someone did a comparison picture (I'll hunt for it) showing a black frame, the Panny mechanical masking, and a non-masked image. The light bleed into the Panny masked area was minimal at best - closer to the reflection on a black felt frame than to a non-masked black-bar.

Granted, anywhere you have white screen its going to have reflection. If you went with a gray its darn near close enough to say a scope screen or physical masking is a waste - its that good.

I have a white screen and we bought some felt to do a scope masking - but I ended up returning it because it became a why bother.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

BudShark said:


> I've got a 16:9 on mine - but I'm limited on width due to a window and a corner.


Yes, that makes a difference.

Most rooms are limited by height, so going scope makes sense (because you can still get the same size 16:9).


----------



## DBSNewbie (Nov 3, 2007)

How well does the Panny do with ambient light in the room? I am considering getting the AE4000, but have not seen any places that have it set up in their showroom.

Our den has a lot of daylight coming into it from the kitchen and breakfast nook, which are adjacent to the back of the den and I am concerned how well (or poorly) the new Panny will perform in that environment.

I've seen its predecessor (AE3000) in a setup where we allowed some daylight to come into the room (no direct sunlight onto the screen, though). I remember the image being a bit washed out. But, of course, the picture was great in total darkness.

From what I read from online reviews, the AE4000 is better in brightness and overall image quality than the AE3000. But, it is enough to overcome ambient light?


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

The lumens output is still a little low for being really good in some ambient light. But I do not know for sure on that model...never seen it in person.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

DBSNewbie said:


> How well does the Panny do with ambient light in the room?


Not well.


----------



## DBSNewbie (Nov 3, 2007)

Grentz said:


> The lumens output is still a little low for being really good in some ambient light. But I do not know for sure on that model...never seen it in person.





spartanstew said:


> Not well.


I was afraid of that. Although, I am hoping that the OP would post some pics with ambient light in the room so that I could get a better idea for myself.

On a side note, the only ideal projector for our needs that I have seen in person (of reasonable size and weight as to not be so overwhelming on our den ceiling) is the Sim2 C3X Lumis. The image it threw was just as good with ambient light compared to other projectors in light-controlled environments.

As a matter of fact, the lumens output on the Sim2 was so bright that we had to dim it down a bit when we had the room in total darkness.

I'll never forget how vivid and crisp the colors were. Unfortunately, the Sim2 is a bit pricey and way out of my league.


----------



## mutelight (Oct 6, 2008)

It is definitely bright enough to have ambient light in the room but you will sacrifice black levels. (Obviously as with a projector you are adding light to a surface and if there is some there to beging with, that is your base) But having the ceiling lights on and watching casual sports, etc. it is plenty bright.

I don't have any photos of those conditions but it is is easily watchable, just not all that great looking due to the light spilling on the screen.


----------



## mechman (Apr 29, 2006)

Any time there is ambient light in a room, picture performance drops. But if the ambient light is controlled enough so that it isn't shining directly onto the screen, then it shouldn't be a problem. Proper room setup is fundamental with a projector setup.

I think Art at pj review stated that the actual measured lumen output was fairly similar to my old Mitsubishi HC3000. Which was around 450 lumens.

To give you an idea of what ambient light can do to your blacks, here are three photos. One is completely dark (except for a back hallway light ), the next has what I would consider a large amount of ambient light - the back 5 can lights are on 100%, and the final image is of all the lights on 100% - including the two cans in front of the screen shining directly onto it.




























I have ambient light in the room most of the time. My wife is generally doing a crossword or a sudoku while I watch some of my shows. The amount of light that we have is less than the middle picture by about 50-60% or more. It is more than enough light to read and not so much to affect the image that much.

Again, proper preparation is key to any projector setup. Keeping the lights from shining on the screen and putting them on a dimmer is a good place to start.


----------



## DBSNewbie (Nov 3, 2007)

What do you have hanging in front of the screen? Are you testing out other screen materials?


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

He must be. I was wondering why the image doesn't fit the current screen.


----------



## mechman (Apr 29, 2006)

It's one of the things I do. I've tested a lot of screen materials. I moderate at a home theater forum.



















And I've developed a few too.


----------



## mechman (Apr 29, 2006)

spartanstew said:


> He must be. I was wondering why the image doesn't fit the current screen.


They were the only pictures I had of lights fully on, lights half on and lights out. And the picture is supposed to help show the difference between the two panels. So it's zoomed in a tad.

And I don't have a single shot of my current screen but this one is of my last one which I accidentally ruined.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

Trying to figure out how to ask this question...I currently have a Sharp 46", and when I get about 4 feet from it, I can notice the PQ defects (DirecTv source) which are not noticable from my normal viewing point of 11 feet from the screen.

If I was to create a theatre in my spare room, with a nominal viewing distance of 10' from seat to screen, at what size screen would be the sweet spot between awesome and being able to see PQ defects that would drive me nuts? 

How does upconverted SD (like all the current preseason baseball games) look?

Ive really wanted to make a theatre for a long time, this projector sure looks nice. I havent priced the screens or ceiling mounts, but dont want to spend that kind of money if it looks crappy in a smaller room. A 12' x 12' room is all I have to work with.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Davenlr said:


> If I was to create a theatre in my spare room, with a nominal viewing distance of 10' from seat to screen, at what size screen would be the sweet spot between awesome and being able to see PQ defects that would drive me nuts?


100"



Davenlr said:


> How does upconverted SD (like all the current preseason baseball games) look?


Depends on what you're upconverting with. I watch SD occasionally on my 126" screen from about 12.5' and while it's not HD, it's fine.


----------



## mechman (Apr 29, 2006)

THX recommends screen size (diagonally) divided by .84 to get the proper viewing distance. Stew hit the nail on the head. 

I don't like to watch any SD content on my setup. Some sources are better than others though. My local station that broadcasts hockey occasionally though is downright awful. As was the Columbus feed last night.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

Im not upconverting. DirecTv is sending out the games on the HD RSN's that way. Its obviously upconverted, or at best, anamorphic 480 sent out at 720p. Thanks for the 100". I notice the Panasonic says it can be sized from 40" to 240" or something like that, but the Epson 8500 lists 100" screen size, but doesnt say if it can be changed. If I go 100", from the top corner of the room, that puts the bottom of the picture a little closer to the floor than Id like. I would have to build a false wall out about 2" across the back wall to cover a window, and then sheet rock that, and paint it with the special paint, or get a screen. Ill have to do a lot more reading I think.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

mechman said:


> THX recommends screen size (diagonally) divided by .84 to get the proper viewing distance. Stew hit the nail on the head.
> 
> I don't like to watch any SD content on my setup. Some sources are better than others though. My local station that broadcasts hockey occasionally though is downright awful. As was the Columbus feed last night.


So with my 46" Sharp, I would get the approximate PQ artifacts at (46/.84)/12=4.5' as I would with 100" at 10' correct? So if my Sharp looks ok at 4.5' then the 100" will look about the same?

...and my mother always said sitting close to the tv would ruin my eyes. I have glasses, does she know more than THX?


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Davenlr said:


> Im not upconverting.


Something will. If it's hooked up directly to a 1080p projector, than the PJ will do the upconverting. If it's hooked up to an AVR, then the AVR might do the upconverting.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

spartanstew said:


> Something will. If it's hooked up directly to a 1080p projector, than the PJ will do the upconverting. If it's hooked up to an AVR, then the AVR might do the upconverting.


Ok, I wasn't asking the question correctly. Yes, I am up-converting 720p to 1080i with my DirecTv receiver, but THEY are up-converting the 480i wide screen source to 720p. I think a better way to ask this would be a question you already answered, how does SD material look. While I try not to watch SD, sometimes there is no choice (local news, DVDs, DirecTv channels that say they are 720p or 1080i but the stations themselves are sending upconverted content.

So, I learned that for my room a 100" screen is optimum...good since both projectors have that size listed in their specs, and my room (once I remove the ceiling fan which would undoubtedly be in the way) is the optimum size for a 100" screen, and its available for use. So far, so good. I was looking at screens, both manual ceiling mounted, and permanant frame mounts (which are much more expensive, I would have thought the opposite), so the next step is to study up on screens.

Thanks guys.


----------



## mechman (Apr 29, 2006)

When you need help with your screen let me know. I'll have a few questions.  Will there be any ambient lighting? Windows? Do you like to have lights on or off (percentage)? What color is the ceiling, walls and floor? And are you willing to change them?

And that Epson 8500 can go quite large for a screen. It's quite bright. You have to get as large as 126" before the foot lamberts drop below optimum.


----------

