What Projector for 16ft wide screen?

13 Nov 2007 8:14 AM

cinemad

Can anybody suggest a Digital projector for showing on a 16ft wide
screen in a school hall?
Showed EXODUS there on the weekend and a friend lent me a Toshiba
Projector which supposedly
delivered 2000 ANSI lumens but the picture looked dim particularly the
night scenes.
The Dvd was letterboxed but not anamorphic. Would an anamorphic DvD
have delivered a brighter picture?

Would a Panasonic PtAx 200 give a brighter picture?

Regards,
Peter Mason

13 Nov 2007 2:33 PM

Scott Dorsey

<cine***@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Can anybody suggest a Digital projector for showing on a 16ft wide
>screen in a school hall?
>Showed EXODUS there on the weekend and a friend lent me a Toshiba
>Projector which supposedly
>delivered 2000 ANSI lumens but the picture looked dim particularly the
>night scenes.
>The Dvd was letterboxed but not anamorphic. Would an anamorphic DvD
>have delivered a brighter picture?

Get a sensitive camera light meter, a Luna Pro will do. Measure the ambient
lighting with the light turned off. Tell me what numbers you get. The
brighter the room is, the more light you need to pour onto the screen to get
acceptable shadows. The 16 fl. rule does not apply if the room is not dark
enough.

>Would a Panasonic PtAx 200 give a brighter picture?

Probably not. You're at the point where you probably want to avoid the
cheap consumer projectors.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

15 Nov 2007 8:21 AM

cinemad

On Nov 14, 1:33 am, klu***@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Show quote

> <cine***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Can anybody suggest a Digital projector for showing on a 16ft wide
> >screen in a school hall?
> >Showed EXODUS there on the weekend and a friend lent me a Toshiba
> >Projector which supposedly
> >delivered 2000 ANSI lumens but the picture looked dim particularly the
> >night scenes.
> >The Dvd was letterboxed but not anamorphic. Would an anamorphic DvD
> >have delivered a brighter picture?
>
> Get a sensitive camera light meter, a Luna Pro will do. Measure the ambient
> lighting with the light turned off. Tell me what numbers you get. The
> brighter the room is, the more light you need to pour onto the screen to get
> acceptable shadows. The 16 fl. rule does not apply if the room is not dark
> enough.

The hall was dark and there was no ambient light to speak of.

Regards,
Peter Mason

Show quote

>
> >Would a Panasonic PtAx 200 give a brighter picture?
>
> Probably not. You're at the point where you probably want to avoid the
> cheap consumer projectors.
> --scott
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

15 Nov 2007 3:02 AM

Martin Hart

In article <1194941677.148396.233***@k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
cine***@hotmail.com says...

> The Dvd was letterboxed but not anamorphic. Would an anamorphic DvD
> have delivered a brighter picture?

"Exodus" was beautifully photographed in Super Panavision 70 and MGM/UA
continues to sell a sh*tty letterboxed transfer rather than an
anamorphic transfer. But to discuss screen brightness, NO, an
anamorphic would not deliver more brightness. Approximately the same
element area will be used because the letterboxed image is zoomed to
fill the same area as an anamorphic DVD. The big difference is the
sh*tty image quality you get when you zoom the picture. I've run
"Exodus" on my ten foot screen and after a while you get accustomed to
image quality, but a good anamorphic transfer would yield a much better
picture.

> Would a Panasonic PtAx 200 give a brighter picture?

Brighter than what? As I said, zooming a letterbox image gives you the
same projection area as anamorphic. (Same number of pixels with light
passing through them or bouncing off those itty-bitty mirrors.)

Marty

--
The American WideScreen Museum
http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/

15 Nov 2007 8:25 AM

cinemad

On Nov 15, 2:02 pm, Martin Hart <oldtornp...@nospam.net> wrote:

Show quote

> In article <1194941677.148396.233***@k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
> cine***@hotmail.com says...
>
> > The Dvd was letterboxed but not anamorphic. Would an anamorphic DvD
> > have delivered a brighter picture?
>
> "Exodus" was beautifully photographed in Super Panavision 70 and MGM/UA
> continues to sell a sh*tty letterboxed transfer rather than an
> anamorphic transfer. But to discuss screen brightness, NO, an
> anamorphic would not deliver more brightness. Approximately the same
> element area will be used because the letterboxed image is zoomed to
> fill the same area as an anamorphic DVD. The big difference is the
> sh*tty image quality you get when you zoom the picture. I've run
> "Exodus" on my ten foot screen and after a while you get accustomed to
> image quality, but a good anamorphic transfer would yield a much better
> picture.
>
> > Would a Panasonic PtAx 200 give a brighter picture?
>
> Brighter than what?

A TOSHIBA TDP S8.
Supposedly giving 2000 ANSI Lumens.

Regards,
Peter Mason

As I said, zooming a letterbox image gives you the

Show quote

> same projection area as anamorphic. (Same number of pixels with light
> passing through them or bouncing off those itty-bitty mirrors.)
>
> Marty
> --
> The American WideScreen Museumhttp://www.widescreenmuseum.com/

17 Nov 2007 10:56 PM

Petekoz26

On Nov 13, 3:14 am, cine***@hotmail.com wrote:

> Can anybody suggest a Digital projector for showing on a 16ft wide
> screen in a school hall?
> Showed EXODUS there on the weekend and a friend lent me a Toshiba
> Projector which supposedly
> delivered 2000 ANSI lumens but the picture looked dim particularly the
> night scenes.
> The Dvd was letterboxed but not anamorphic. Would an anamorphic DvD
> have delivered a brighter picture?
>
> Would a Panasonic PtAx 200 give a brighter picture?
>
> Regards,
> Peter Mason

Maybe the lamp is starting wear out? We have some run of the mill
Epson projectors at work that are used a lot & they fade out with
time.