| Author |
Message |
wildchild22
Joined: 16 Aug 2008
Posts: 185
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 2:11 am Post subject: foot lamberts nec XG |
|
|
Well I have been calibrating my nec xg 1352lc. I have a complete light controlled room and chromapure is only reading 6 foot-lamberts of light on my diy blackout cloth 110 diag 16:9 screen. I was floored. I thought I was getting 14+. I do not find the projector dim at all.
I have 100% light controlled room painted all black I have even took black electric tape and covered over anything that emits light. Black scenes are so black I cannot see my wife sitting right next to me looking in her direction.
I wonder if a high power would give me 14+?
Anyone have any results between a 1.3 gain screen and a blackout cloth?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
garyfritz
Joined: 08 Apr 2006
Posts: 12088
Location: Fort Collins, CO
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 2:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
XGs are rated at 1100 peak lumens. That's with the full 4:3 tube face lit up. With a 16:9 raster you'll have at best 75% of the max lumens or 825 lumens.
FtL = gain * lumens / sq ft. BO is 1.0 gain at best. 110" diag is 95.8" x 54" = 5166 sq in = 35.88 sq ft. 1.0 gain * 825 lumens / 35.88 sq ft = 23.0 ftL ??
Hm. That's a lot higher than I would have expected for that size screen, but I don't see any error in my calculation. My 8500 is rated at 1200 lumens and I only got about 10-12 ftL on my 100" BO screen.
It's going to depend on your contrast settings and on the image you displayed. Were you displaying a full-screen white field, or just a smaller white square? CRTs can't drive the full screen at full brightness. They run out of current and the brightness goes down as the amount of white on the screen increases. It will also depend on the size of your raster. A smaller raster means fewer photons to spread across the screen.
Higher gain will give you more ftL off the screen. A 1.3 gain screen should increase your ftL by 1.3. High Power screens aren't ideal for ceiling-mounted projectors because they bounce light back to the source, like a stop sign. The gain is highest right at the light source, and drops off rapidly as your eye gets farther from the projector lens. In my HT, with a CRT hung from a 7'10" ceiling, High Power looked awesome when I was standing up, but it had a lower apparent gain than my BO screen when I sat down.
Last edited by garyfritz on Wed Jan 19, 2011 2:24 am; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| 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: Wed Jan 19, 2011 2:22 am Post subject: Re: foot lamberts nec XG |
|
|
| wildchild22 wrote: | Well I have been calibrating my nec xg 1352lc. I have a complete light controlled room and chromapure is only reading 6 foot-lamberts of light on my diy blackout cloth 110 diag 16:9 screen. I was floored. I thought I was getting 14+. I do not find the projector dim at all.
I wonder if a high power would give me 14+?
Anyone have any results between a 1.3 gain screen and a blackout cloth? |
1.3 gain ain't enough to even worry about. High power screens are problemmatic.
Forget everything we've said. If you happy with the picture now, the 9500 will be even better.
_________________
Firefly rules. Can't stop the signal.
http://www.hulu.com/firefly
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wildchild22
Joined: 16 Aug 2008
Posts: 185
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 2:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
my reading was from a white window @100 ire from a dvdo test pattern.
I am running 42 brightness and 60 contrast
I find it great .
How much better is a 9500? I never seen a crt before I picked this one up. I think it looks pretty good.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MikeEby
Joined: 24 Jun 2007
Posts: 5237
Location: Osceola, Indiana
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 2:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think your interested in 3D...To me brightness was the big weak point when I tried to run 3D on my XG. Ghosting was a slight issue but the image with my 110" 1.0 Parkland screen was very dim because of the handicap imposed by the glasses. IMO it was really hard to watch because of it.
A HP screen might help a lot but projector placement can be very critical to the installation. IMO 2D brightness is total acceptable, it's not anywhere close to Cliff's stack in brightness but looks very decent there is way I would consider it dim.
This is why I threw in the towel and bought the cheap $500 Acer for 3D, the little bastard throws damn nice 3D image. For 2D the NEC kicks it ass.
Mike
_________________
Doing HD since the last century!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wildchild22
Joined: 16 Aug 2008
Posts: 185
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 3:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
I actually had a the acer but never got 3d on it. I sold it before I got the glasses. I have a cheap samsung plasma 720p that does 3d.
The plasma does 3d great.
The acer I found unwatchable in 2d the worst rainbow effect I have ever seen. Real bad for movies like underworld. (movies with a lot of dark scenes and bright whites) It is like a stobe light.
How is the acer for 3d?
For testing brightness would you recommend putting on my samsung glasses and viewing the nec? Will that give me an idea of brighness?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wildchild22
Joined: 16 Aug 2008
Posts: 185
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 3:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
What did you use for 3d on the nec? Can you list the glasses emitter and source.
| MikeEby wrote: | I think your interested in 3D...To me brightness was the big weak point when I tried to run 3D on my XG. Ghosting was a slight issue but the image with my 110" 1.0 Parkland screen was very dim because of the handicap imposed by the glasses. IMO it was really hard to watch because of it.
A HP screen might help a lot but projector placement can be very critical to the installation. IMO 2D brightness is total acceptable, it's not anywhere close to Cliff's stack in brightness but looks very decent there is way I would consider it dim.
This is why I threw in the towel and bought the cheap $500 Acer for 3D, the little bastard throws damn nice 3D image. For 2D the NEC kicks it ass.
Mike |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MikeEby
Joined: 24 Jun 2007
Posts: 5237
Location: Osceola, Indiana
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 5:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| wildchild22 wrote: | What did you use for 3d on the nec? Can you list the glasses emitter and source.
| MikeEby wrote: | I think your interested in 3D...To me brightness was the big weak point when I tried to run 3D on my XG. Ghosting was a slight issue but the image with my 110" 1.0 Parkland screen was very dim because of the handicap imposed by the glasses. IMO it was really hard to watch because of it.
A HP screen might help a lot but projector placement can be very critical to the installation. IMO 2D brightness is total acceptable, it's not anywhere close to Cliff's stack in brightness but looks very decent there is no way I would consider it dim.
This is why I threw in the towel and bought the cheap $500 Acer for 3D, the little bastard throws damn nice 3D image. For 2D the NEC kicks it ass.
Mike |
|
Your right the Acer sucks for 2D...Lots of RBE...3D it's rare to see rainbow, 3D performance is IMO very impressive.
I used the NVidia 3D Vision and an HTPC. The emitter was the one that came with 3D Vision Kit along with the glasses. 3D vision does have known issue with CRT's you probably read Kris' s thread. I don't really have any issue with 3D Vision with the Acer. For me the most important thing was emitter placement, mine is right above the screen. I covered up the dumb green LED with a piece of electrical tape. I only loose sync if I turn my head 90 degrees to the screen, then when I turn back it re-sync without issues.
My major problem with 3D is lack of good content. The studios have all tied content to hardware purchase which really limits what's out there. I honestly can't say I have really enjoyed a 3D movie so far. Most movies I've seen so far have weak plots and or bad acting. The 3D effects are great but after you get past the WOW factor of 3D and really watch a movie everything I've seen is marginal at best.
What I've seen so far is:
Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs...Ok but would be much better for kids.
Cats and Dogs...SUCKS!
Resident Evil - Afterlife...Meh...Good 3D but I'm tired of Zomby movies, Milla carried the show, the other actors blow...Dialog was about as bad as a George Lucas flix.
A Christmas Carol...I would rate this one the most enjoyable.
I have but haven't watched:
Piranha
Step it Up
Dispicable Me
After I watch these there's not much coming out in the near future.
The one movie I haven't see yet in 3D is Alice in Wonderland. I've seen it in 2D and did enjoy it...Problem is I've seen it already now...I'm not sure I want to pop $35 to watch the same movie again but in 3D.
Mike
_________________
Doing HD since the last century!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
