CurtPalme.com Home Theater Forum

[Phoenixed]

Stones and fathoms ?

[nettwerkjohn]

nash -

you seem to be missing a projector...

[AnalogRocks]

[AnalogRocks]

[ElTopo]

Entry Level Blend Setup

[mc86]

Wow AR, sitting 1X back and playing video games 4:3 must strain your neck! I setup my original NES just to play Ice Hockey (fatty, slims, and regular players -- yea baby!) a while back -- sitting on the floor at maybe 6ft back from the 80" screen and, within a minute, I hadta' move back to about 10ft!

I could never understand you first-rowers at the theater...I had to sit so far down in the seat to see up enough (and had no seats in front to prop my feet on) that it was just uncomfortable. I always liked to be about 7 or 8 rows back. I guess all of us are a bit differently strange in our own ways...

Cheers,
Matt

[Tim in Phoenix]

Guys

A few more pictures showing that two 4:3 images can be faded into each other and enable maximum phosphor use.














.

[the big E]

[Spanky Ham]

Tim,
I don't see how your math works for 16x9 with a blend for maximum phosphor use. Your blend zone would be really large.


Incova,
Honestly unless you watch almost exclusively scope, I wouldn't blend. After listening to Craig tell me how much of a pain in the rear it is, any small desire I had left for blending was evaporated.

One thing that no one ever mentions about blending is you are going to need good calibration equipment along with the desire to learn how to do it. With a single pj, you can get by without calibrating or being close. With a blend, it needs to be spot on or you will see the blend zone.

[the big E]

[Tim in Phoenix]

Guys

The processor can be set from 0 (tiled) to 25& overlap, I am using 20% overlap and full phosphor height and maybe 85% width each tube, the most phosphor use possible for displaying 16:9.


.

[mc86]

Tim -

Was the decision to support 16:9 at full tube face height and thereby letterboxing 2.4 made b/c you wanted the widest screen you could have for the most content AR you watch? If so, I can totally understand that.

Also Tim, I presume the phosphor area that is in the blend area wears more slowly than the other areas? Does this mean the color calibration will change differently over time for the blend zone compared to the other tube areas? I recall Nashou wished for color-calibration of the blend zone differently from the rest of the tube face and am thnking this was why...

For others, the math that Spanky was doing was to say the blend makes more sense for a 2.4:1 AR, with all phosphor use and not 85% as in Tim's case.
(4:3 native) 1.33 x 2 = 2.66.
2.6 - 2.4 = 0.26.
0.26/2.4 = ~10% blend.
1.78 (16:9) would use constant image height (CIH)/phosphor height and just pillarbox 16:9 (1.78) content.

Big E: For a 7"ES machine owner, who watches mostly film (scope stuff) mixed with 4:3 from crappy HTPC (bewitched is fine in 4:3), there is another - and unique - reason I'm considering a blend. In addition to the increased brightness that enables larger screens, two 7" machines in a blend would also extend my resolution capabilities. 8" and 9" machine owners don't care about this as 1080p is no sweat. However, a 7"ES machine is only OK 1080i or awfully soft 720p. It can't handle 1080p at all. By blending, I'd be able to support (and resolve) a sharp 1920x800p (via "active area scanning") image. This is because I'd be using a ton more phosphor (tube face in height) than the soft 720p does without a blend OR about same as 540 lines scanned into a small part of the tube face under 1080i.

Matt

[Tim in Phoenix]

Yes

I watch 75% HDTV satellite, so mostly 16:9 stuff and I wanted constant width for everything. I do not see phosphor wear as a big concern with Contrast in the 40's and the blend overlap would tend to hide uneven wear anyway.

Going from one nine inch projector to two nine inch projectors blended is like going from a VW to a Porsche; a big $hit-eating grin results : - )


.

[Tim in Phoenix]

Guys

Here are two tube face shots with white field, the phosphor usage with one projector on 16:9, and with two blended and 16:9. Since phosphor usage is everything you can see blending is quite advantageous if a large bright display is the goal.








.

[Nashou66]

Once i get my New Marquee tubes in and take down and re mount the new 9 inch set up I'll try the larger blend area. Looks liek that helps with a more uniform gamma as its not close to the edge where light output naturally rolls off. Less need for Zone contrast then.

Thanks for the pic Tim.

Nashou

[Spanky Ham]

[ElTopo]

Obsession = buying a new digital every year

[stridsvognen]

[mc86]

Hi hear you spanky - I'm still debating doing a stack of ECPs to get me to a bright ~100" screen at 1080i (still sitting ~14ft back). I've been watching the convergence stability of my machine the last month or so to see how stable it is and adjustable at the edges. I won't have much patience for the hassle of blending, but am willing to play with it -- the act itself will be educational and fun. And to properly color calibrate won't hurt.

At the end of the day, my being pretty happy with a single ECP is all the proof you need that I don't have anywhere near the exacting standards of others on here. While others might say some have a mania, obsession, sickness, etc., I say to each his own.

cheers,
Matt

[416ray4538]

How does the increase in brightness from a blend compare to the increase using a stack using the same models?

[Nashou66]