| Author |
Message |
fastscot
Joined: 08 Sep 2006
Posts: 12
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2011 4:06 pm Post subject: Light output comparison of 8" vs 9" Marquee |
|
|
Has anyone compared the overall brightness of a Marquee 8500LC ultra with the 9500LC Ultra on the same size screen? Is there a significant difference? I'm running an 8500LC Ultra with HD-10GT17 lenses on a 132" screen. The picture is excellent but just curious if upgrading to a 9500 would be worth it.
Neil
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
dvh99
Joined: 25 Dec 2009
Posts: 2158
Location: nederland
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2011 5:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
tubeface area of a 9inch is 1,265625 as big as a 8 inch tube so for 3 tubes that is 3,75 compared to 3 of 8inch tubeface area.
in real world this isnt true cause we project 16:9 or 21:9 or 22:9 and the tubes are 16:12 aspect ratio.
but in short  , i think you will need to see it for yourself to decide if you believe it is worth it.
i have a 9500ultra and love it  .
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tim in Phoenix
Joined: 21 Oct 2006
Posts: 4409
Location: Phoenix
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2011 5:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hello
You would enjoy ten percent more light output And higher resolution, and the best news is nine inch tubes will bolt right into your existing projector. I have sets of superminty nine inch Marquee tubes here complete with yokes and covers; e.mail (ehometech @ earthlink.net) or pm me for info.
.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Curt Palme
CRT Tech
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 24396
Location: Langley, BC
TV/Projector: All of them!
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2011 5:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
You won't get an increase in brightness, but you will get more resolution and the tubes will last about 30% longer.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dvh99
Joined: 25 Dec 2009
Posts: 2158
Location: nederland
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2011 5:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
how can you not get more brightness when a bigger area is lit?
_________________
1 answer always poses multiple questions.
marquee 9500ultra HD10L moome hdmi1.3 v3+ some mods.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Curt Palme
CRT Tech
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 24396
Location: Langley, BC
TV/Projector: All of them!
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2011 5:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Read the specs. The 9500 is rated at 1300 lumens, any other 9" set is rated at 1200 lumens, same as any 8" set.
I've never seen a difference between an 8 and a 9" set in brightness, but have seen a big difference in resolution... both sets being properly set up of course.
Tim may be right, you may get a 10% increase in brightness, but you'll never notice it. THe longer tube life and increased resolution is why you get a 9" set.
As someone posted a long time ago on avs:
'If an 800 lumen CRT isn't bright enough for you, then a 1200 one won't cure your issues. Your screen is too big, or the room is too bright'.
That's a very true statement, something that I've said to many customers when qualifying them for a CRT projector.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mc86
Joined: 20 Sep 2008
Posts: 767
Location: pittsburgh, pa
TV/Projector: ECP 4500 (Vidikron box), ECP4500+, wanting 07MS/07MTS, evaluating pc soft-blend
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2011 8:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
'If an 800 lumen CRT isn't bright enough for you, then a 1200 one won't cure your issues. Your screen is too big, or the room is too bright'.
Fantastic! Yet another way for me to rationalize why my 7"ES set at 1080i is so fabulous...so long as I don't get a Blu-Ray, I'm set!  
Seriously, is this only true because of human perceptual sensitivities? I did a bit of searching, but couldn't weed this down to a few topics/threads that dealt with this head-on...any pointers would be welcome.
Matt, foreseeing the part of the curve where more learning only increases my ignorance.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fastscot
Joined: 08 Sep 2006
Posts: 12
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2011 10:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Thanks for all your posts. It pretty much confirms what I expected. I'm running my 8501LC Ultra at 1080i with the latest Moome HDMI card from an HDMI switcher with inputs from Blu-ray, a Sony 400 DVD carousel (upconverting/HDMI output) and an Argosy media player. I found 1080i gives the optimum picture with 1080p being a little softer (9" crt's would undoubtedly be better at 1080p) but I am entirely happy with the display as it is. The blu-ray player has 7.1 analog audio outputs (my custom home theater has full 7.1 speakers with a 15" Sony sub) so the overall home theater experience is pretty good. Also, thanks to Draganm for selling me a nice low hours, upgraded projector many years ago - still running strong with no wear on the CRTs!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Curt Palme
CRT Tech
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 24396
Location: Langley, BC
TV/Projector: All of them!
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2011 11:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mc86 wrote: | 'If an 800 lumen CRT isn't bright enough for you, then a 1200 one won't cure your issues. Your screen is too big, or the room is too bright'.
Seriously, is this only true because of human perceptual sensitivities? I did a bit of searching, but couldn't weed this down to a few topics/threads that dealt with this head-on...any pointers would be welcome.
M. |
Try it one day. The part about human perception may indeed be true, but I've installed literally 100s of 600 lumen Zenith CRTs back in the day, and the 1200 8" sets really are only a bit brighter. Ditto for a 50 watt vs a 100 watt amplifier. The 'double' power only gives a 3dB increase in volume before clipping, hardly noticeable in a system. You're better off keeping the same 50 watt amp, but getting 6dB more efficient speakers.
So the statement holds true, if 600 lumens isn't enough, 1200 isn't going to solve your brightness issue.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
draganm
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 8990
Location: Colorado
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2011 11:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| fastscot wrote: | | Also, thanks to Draganm for selling me a nice low hours, upgraded projector many years ago - still running strong with no wear on the CRTs! |
that's always good to hear, I still have my 8500AC up as well.
I found the scan lines at 1080i a little too big on mine, but on a stock chassis I think it's a good choice. After upgrading the electronics 720P seems to be a little more appropriate.
My biggest gripe with 1080P on an 8 inch tube is the ANSI contrast suffers, Not so much from AC vs. LC but the beam just doesn't have time to settle down and go completely on/off. TSE posted a graph of this once over at AVS
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kabuby77
Joined: 28 Mar 2011
Posts: 147
Location: Italy
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
In these discussions is always forgotten the screen gain. A fabric with high gain, can double the perceived brightness, of course there are drawbacks to be considered.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
km987654
Joined: 25 Jul 2007
Posts: 2874
Location: Australia
TV/Projector: Barco BG809s
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2011 4:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Curt Palme wrote: | | mc86 wrote: | 'If an 800 lumen CRT isn't bright enough for you, then a 1200 one won't cure your issues. Your screen is too big, or the room is too bright'.
Seriously, is this only true because of human perceptual sensitivities? I did a bit of searching, but couldn't weed this down to a few topics/threads that dealt with this head-on...any pointers would be welcome.
M. |
Try it one day. The part about human perception may indeed be true, but I've installed literally 100s of 600 lumen Zenith CRTs back in the day, and the 1200 8" sets really are only a bit brighter. Ditto for a 50 watt vs a 100 watt amplifier. The 'double' power only gives a 3dB increase in volume before clipping, hardly noticeable in a system. You're better off keeping the same 50 watt amp, but getting 6dB more efficient speakers.
So the statement holds true, if 600 lumens isn't enough, 1200 isn't going to solve your brightness issue. |
So would it be fair to say that for 1080i that an EM 8" LC projector is as good as a 9" since according to this they both would appear as bright as each other and the 8" is capable of producing a good image at that resolution.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Curt Palme
CRT Tech
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 24396
Location: Langley, BC
TV/Projector: All of them!
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2011 2:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think that properly set up you'll have a hard time seeing the difference, yes.
I think of it as using a 6 cylinder engine vs an 8 cylinder engine to run at 40MPH/60KmPH. You're not stressing either engine out, and both can easily run at that speed. Once you start climbing hills/increasing resolution, that's where the larger engine/tube will shine.
THe slight difference is that the starting image on the 9" tube is larger than on the 8" set, so less magnification is needed for the same size image on the screen, and that does make a difference, but IMHO, not a whole pile at 1080i.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fastscot
Joined: 08 Sep 2006
Posts: 12
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2011 3:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| draganm wrote: |
I found the scan lines at 1080i a little too big on mine, but on a stock chassis I think it's a good choice. After upgrading the electronics 720P seems to be a little more appropriate.
|
I played with my projector last night to compare 1080i with 720p using the Digital Video Essentials setup disc (blu-ray version) and there is absolutely no doubt that the frequency bars on the test pattern were resolved better at 1080i than 720p which I would expect. Despite being properly set up with a nice sharp focus, I cannot see the scan lines at 4' from the screen at either resolution. I also could not perceive any difference in overall brightness so I'm staying with 1080i. I did notice a slight shimmering on the highest frequency square at 1080i most likely due to interlacing artifacts. I don't watch sport on my system so smearing on fast action shots aren't so much of a problem which I read can be a significant issue on interlaced scans when watching some sports.
Last edited by fastscot on Thu Apr 28, 2011 3:23 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fastscot
Joined: 08 Sep 2006
Posts: 12
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2011 3:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Curt Palme wrote: |
Try it one day. The part about human perception may indeed be true, but I've installed literally 100s of 600 lumen Zenith CRTs back in the day, and the 1200 8" sets really are only a bit brighter. Ditto for a 50 watt vs a 100 watt amplifier. The 'double' power only gives a 3dB increase in volume before clipping, hardly noticeable in a system. You're better off keeping the same 50 watt amp, but getting 6dB more efficient speakers.
So the statement holds true, if 600 lumens isn't enough, 1200 isn't going to solve your brightness issue. |
I started my home theater life many, many years ago with a brand new Zenith PV890X (7", ES focused, standard resolution 480i) projector and in a darkened room the brightness was still adequate! It was used for regular TV viewing and I ran it into the ground until the phosphor was almost stripped from the tube faces!!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Curt Palme
CRT Tech
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 24396
Location: Langley, BC
TV/Projector: All of them!
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2011 3:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Hey, we used one of those on a 10' X 14' screen for Wrestlemania 1 in 1986. 2200 people paid $25 each to see that in a theater. Pretty damn dim, but it worked, and short of the $140K GE Talaria projector, that's about all that was available at the time.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
