| Author |
Message |
draganm
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 8990
Location: Colorado
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 03, 2009 2:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| WayneB wrote: | I don't understand anything you just said, but it looks like there is room for improvement on my system.  Are you saying my raster is so small that I am giving up potential sharpness?
But if I make it much bigger, I will be farther outside the existing wear pattern, and the picture on the "new" phosphor will be more obvious, maybe even much more obvious if the picture is sharper. |
oops, sorry about the techno*babble. Basically the active portion of the tube face is traced by the electron gun, like an old type-writer. The gun's beam activates the Phosphor. How accurately that gun traces determines many things especially sharpness. As you squeeze the size down, especially with high scan rates like 1080P, the ability of that gun to paint the picture accurately goes down. This is because it has less time to sweep and re-set itself for the next pass. On the Vertical resolution and 1080P60Hz, it has to paint 1080 lines 60 times a second. That's really cranking for 10 to 14 year old Analog circuitry.
| WayneB wrote: | What is "typical" for H and V size for a 16x9 screen?
...Wayne |
90H and 12 to 17 V.
I don't see any bad burn on your tube. I little wear on the edges of the screen is a good trade for more light output and sharpness. At least that's how I feel about it, other people might have a different opinion.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
WayneB
Joined: 24 Dec 2008
Posts: 113
Location: Victoria, BC
TV/Projector: Marquee 9500LC Ultra
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 03, 2009 5:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Dragan,
Thanks for the explanation.
So, you would rather see me make the raster a little wider, overlapping into more of the unused phosphor, and increasing the vertical to keep a 16x9 ratio.
I think I actually had it that way when I took this photo. That is when I noticed the brighter vertical bands on the sides. This made the center of the picture look "duller" (because it was showing the wear and the edges were not).
Wear lines visible by differences in brightness of the image
At that time I was at 105 inches throw and I moved it back to 108 inches and decreased the raster width.
I got confused at this point. Your guide says if the image is too big, move the projector forward. Yet when I made the raster smaller (and the resulting image was smaller), I had to move the projector back.
(It may have been a combination of getting the right width, but making the 16x9 ration work at the same time)
So if I make the raster wider, that will make the image bigger and I will have to move the projector forward again.
That might explain why Dave Turco has his projector at 105 inches, with the same HD-10GT17 lenses, but then he has new tubes, so he has a wider raster.
I will try to take some pictures of the raster where it currently is, so I can understand it better.
Thanks for the help....
....Wayne
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
draganm
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 8990
Location: Colorado
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 03, 2009 6:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| WayneB wrote: | Hi Dragan,
Thanks for the explanation. So, you would rather see me make the raster a little wider, overlapping into more of the unused phosphor, and increasing the vertical to keep a 16x9 ratio. |
well that's I would do, but it's up to you to decide which you prefer. To me that little bit of wear isn't something I couldn't live with.
| WayneB wrote: | | I got confused at this point. Your guide says if the image is too big, move the projector forward. Yet when I made the raster smaller (and the resulting image was smaller), I had to move the projector back. |
ummm, that's all the same thing. 
| WayneB wrote: | | So if I make the raster wider, that will make the image bigger and I will have to move the projector forward again. That might explain why Dave Turco has his projector at 105 inches, with the same HD-10GT17 lenses, but then he has new tubes, so he has a wider raster |
.right.
With the raster expanded and wear showing (PJ scooted forward to maintain screen size), I would expect the picture to be sharper. IF it isn't, or the difference isn't noticeable then either
a) your magnetics alignment is off and the electronic focus is compromised. There's a simple guide here to do this
http://www.etechvideo.com/techtip9.htm
I suggest doing the Red tube first as it's the easiest to both see on the screen and get to physically.
or
b) your electronics as whole is just old and tired to the point where any increased performance advantage of maxed rasters/longer re-trace times isn't isn't being fully realized.
At the very least you should be seeing a slightly brighter picture with raster (H-size) opened up and more of the tube Phosphor being used.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dturco
Joined: 06 Feb 2009
Posts: 3778
Location: Eastern Shore Maryland
TV/Projector: Runco DLP VX-3000i Marquee 9500 parts doner
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 03, 2009 7:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I had the same problem understanding this part too.
WayneB wrote:
I got confused at this point. Your guide says if the image is too big, move the projector forward. Yet when I made the raster smaller (and the resulting image was smaller), I had to move the projector back.
It is written correctly. It's a problem of perspective you'll ask yourself I'm looking at the tube, or the screen at this point, What, huh?
Both are correct if the image on the tube is to big it is spilling off the sides off the screen at that point. So move the P/J forward to make the image on the screen smaller/ fit the screen /more tight-ly focused on the screen.
That raster is a bitch. I have had GOZER every where from 120" to 95" from the screen and adjusting raster and machine each time along the way.
I think I'm going to be using raster at 87 H 30 W 108" from the 100" diagonal 16x9 screen [87" viewable] when I ceiling mount next week.
I'll be using this method
http://i136.photobucket.com/albums/q167/none74/BlackPipeMount1backsmaller.jpg
So there will still be some room for adjustment.
Oh by the way I don't have new tubes they are slightly and evenly worn.
_________________
Firefly rules. Can't stop the signal.
http://www.hulu.com/firefly
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WayneB
Joined: 24 Dec 2008
Posts: 113
Location: Victoria, BC
TV/Projector: Marquee 9500LC Ultra
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 03, 2009 7:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| draganm wrote: |
| WayneB wrote: | | I got confused at this point. Your guide says if the image is too big, move the projector forward. Yet when I made the raster smaller (and the resulting image was smaller), I had to move the projector back. |
ummm, that's all the same thing. |
You are right! It is clear now. But the fact remains, I WAS confused. 
| draganm wrote: | With the raster expanded and wear showing (PJ scooted forward to maintain screen size), I would expect the picture to be sharper. IF it isn't, or the difference isn't noticeable then either
a) your magnetics alignment is off and the electronic focus is compromised. There's a simple guide here to do this
http://www.etechvideo.com/techtip9.htm
I suggest doing the Red tube first as it's the easiest to both see on the screen and get to physically.
or
b) your electronics as whole is just old and tired to the point where any increased performance advantage of maxed rasters/longer re-trace times isn't isn't being fully realized.
At the very least you should be seeing a slightly brighter picture with raster (H-size) opened up and more of the tube Phosphor being used. |
Thanks for the explanation and the link. Curt did the magnetics just before I bought it, so I think they are OK.
Another point of confusion was that I was under the impression (probably from Graham Johnson's DVD Setup Guide) that you center all your values (to 50 on the Marquee ???) and try to get your physical setup as close to 50 as possible before trying to adjust the image with electronics. That is why my H size is at 55. Perhaps that only works on a 4x3 screen and not so well on a 16x9. ???
| dturco wrote: | | I have had GOZER every where from 120" to 95" from the screen and adjusting raster and machine each time along the way. I think I'm going to be using raster at 87 H 30 W 108" from the 100" diagonal 16x9 screen [87" viewable] |
So, if I maxed my raster, similar to yours, I should be a little closer than 108", since I have a 16x9 72" viewable screen?
I can adjust my ceiling mount between 105 and 108 without having to take everything down and physically move the ceiling mount. Right now it is as far back as it can go at 108". It was as far forward as it could go when I took the picture above, but I don't believe I had it perfectly squared to the screen that time. That may account for my thinking it looked better the second time (smaller raster=further back).
BTW, why did you name your beloved projector after an EVIL entity? (or is it a marshmallow?)
...Wayne
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
draganm
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 8990
Location: Colorado
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 03, 2009 8:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| WayneB wrote: | Another point of confusion was that I was under the impression (probably from Graham Johnson's DVD Setup Guide) that you center all your values (to 50 on the Marquee ???) and try to get your physical setup as close to 50 as possible before trying to adjust the image with electronics.
...Wayne |
I'm not familiar with that guide but that certainly isn't true for a Marquee. The only thing that should always be at 50 is contrast and BOW. I don't know of any other geometry setting that will wind up at 50, even in a good set-up. Heck,even electromagnetic focus for each tube can be anywhere from 30 to 60 depending on the tube and how the yokes stack up.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dturco
Joined: 06 Feb 2009
Posts: 3778
Location: Eastern Shore Maryland
TV/Projector: Runco DLP VX-3000i Marquee 9500 parts doner
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WayneB
Joined: 24 Dec 2008
Posts: 113
Location: Victoria, BC
TV/Projector: Marquee 9500LC Ultra
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 03, 2009 9:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| draganm wrote: | | I'm not familiar with that guide but that certainly isn't true for a Marquee. |
Thanks. That is the problem with making assumptions on information about other projectors. Graham's Projector Setup Step-By-Step DVD is based on a Sony projector I think. Still it was very useful to me.
https://www.curtpalme.com/forum_archived/viewtopic.php@t=4346.html
And that is also why I appreciate so much that you, and the other Marquee owners, share their experiences and knowledge with newbies like me. Thanks.
| dturco wrote: | | This might shed some light on how GOZER came to be named. |
Nope, that certainly is NOT the Stay Puff Marshmallow Man.
Dave, re that ceiling rack system. How stable is it? It looks like a slight bump (or mild earthquake, or walking on the rafters) would slide it out of position.
...Wayne
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dturco
Joined: 06 Feb 2009
Posts: 3778
Location: Eastern Shore Maryland
TV/Projector: Runco DLP VX-3000i Marquee 9500 parts doner
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 03, 2009 10:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The stability, as in not moving from the set position, will be done with a piece of hose on each bar and hose clamps to wedge against the eyelets. That should keep it keep it from moving, Earthquakes not withstanding.
_________________
Firefly rules. Can't stop the signal.
http://www.hulu.com/firefly
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mr. Green
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 1394
Location: Calgary
TV/Projector: Marquee 9501LC / NEC 9PG+
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 04, 2009 12:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| draganm wrote: | I think having the PJ with maxed rasters and a little wear showing is better than squeezing it down and losing resolving ability. The wear looks fairly minor and even to me so it shouldn't be distracting. .  |
I agree with Draganm. I am nowhere near "inside" the wear area. It seems most people read "raster should be no closer than 1/2" from the edge" as "raster should be 1-2" from the edge". I dunno, it just seems that way every time someone shows a picture of a worn tube, it's only a tiny burnt rectangle on the huge tube face.
Mine has a noticable wear pattern (similar green rectangle), but you only see it in white scenes. When a movie is going full on action, you don't see it. I'd max the raster and just not watch any movies with a winter theme until you can replace the worn tube.  I'll take some screen shots at some point.
_________________
You can be young only once but, you can be immature forever.
Current Projector Marquee9501LC with PS3 (BLu-Ray) at 1080P LOVE IT! Screen is an Elunevision 120" 4:3 (2.4 gain - no hotspots). (also own a NEC 9PG+)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mr. Green
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 1394
Location: Calgary
TV/Projector: Marquee 9501LC / NEC 9PG+
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 04, 2009 12:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Dave, re that ceiling rack system. How stable is it? It looks like a slight bump (or mild earthquake, or walking on the rafters) would slide it out of position.
...Wayne |
It comes down to budget really. Personally with 200 lbs hanging from the roof, I prefer my cheif mount:
http://www.curtpalme.com/forum/album_page.php?pic_id=716
http://www.curtpalme.com/forum/album_page.php?pic_id=721
http://www.curtpalme.com/forum/album_page.php?pic_id=802
I think the weakest part holds 300 lbs. The strongest 600 lbs.
I think the whole thing cost $250 USD (special order from a high end store), but most guys don't need the 4-6 foot extension arm. you can get a 6" Threaded pipe and the works would be $125ish (new). I've seen pieces for a lot less on the bay.
_________________
You can be young only once but, you can be immature forever.
Current Projector Marquee9501LC with PS3 (BLu-Ray) at 1080P LOVE IT! Screen is an Elunevision 120" 4:3 (2.4 gain - no hotspots). (also own a NEC 9PG+)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WayneB
Joined: 24 Dec 2008
Posts: 113
Location: Victoria, BC
TV/Projector: Marquee 9500LC Ultra
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 04, 2009 12:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mr. Green wrote: | Personally with 200 lbs hanging from the roof, I prefer my cheif mount:
|
I don't know what type of mount I have. Curt supplied it with the 9500 and I assumed it was a standard Marquee mount. I like it because you can move the projector left/right/up-down about 3 inches in any direction. It also had the handy extra hole in the projector-side of the mount that allowed me to install my raising-chain eyelet.
....Wayne
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mr. Green
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 1394
Location: Calgary
TV/Projector: Marquee 9501LC / NEC 9PG+
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 04, 2009 1:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
If it looks similar to the one in the last picture, then it's the standard mount. I need the extension so I grafted the cheif mount to it.
I just looked at your photo's again. It looks like you have the standard mount + something that looks similar to the cheif mount. Looks good.
_________________
You can be young only once but, you can be immature forever.
Current Projector Marquee9501LC with PS3 (BLu-Ray) at 1080P LOVE IT! Screen is an Elunevision 120" 4:3 (2.4 gain - no hotspots). (also own a NEC 9PG+)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
draganm
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 8990
Location: Colorado
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 04, 2009 2:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mr. Green wrote: | | I dunno, it just seems that way every time someone shows a picture of a worn tube, it's only a tiny burnt rectangle on the huge tube face. |
yup. If there is existing light wear , just ignore it and max that sucker out to avoid this
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WayneB
Joined: 24 Dec 2008
Posts: 113
Location: Victoria, BC
TV/Projector: Marquee 9500LC Ultra
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 04, 2009 2:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| draganm wrote: | | Mr. Green wrote: | | I dunno, it just seems that way every time someone shows a picture of a worn tube, it's only a tiny burnt rectangle on the huge tube face. |
yup. If there is existing light wear , just ignore it and max that sucker out to avoid this |
OK, I'll give it a try....
....Wayne
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
perisoft
Joined: 29 Aug 2007
Posts: 2920
Location: Ithaca, NY
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 04, 2009 3:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
You know, the burn on that tube seems odd - have you ever seen a projector which has been set up that has a nice, orthogonal rectangle on the tube face? No - because of the geometry and lenses you always end up with a kind of ) ( thing on the tube face... or ) ( on the screen if you've reset everything to midposition.
The only explanation for wear like that I can think of is if somebody sent a full-chat signal to the thing and accidentally had the PJ reset... If you deliberately set up a projector, how would the wear pattern look like that?
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
