1. Join Now

    AVForums.com uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

New £1800 Panasonic LCD - Good Specs...

Discussion in 'Projectors, Screens & Video Processors' started by The Boogerman, Jan 6, 2002.

  1. The Boogerman

    The Boogerman
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2001
    Messages:
    39
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Location:
    Bavaria
    Ratings:
    +1
    This could set the cat amongst the pidgeons for those looking for a sub £2000 LCD projector, and hopefully is a sign that manufacturers are supporting this growing market.

    Summarising Febs What Video & TV has the following details;

    .[​IMG]

    Panasonic TH-AE100 16:9 LCD Projector. 2.7kg. Short throw lens - 80" image from 2.5m. Component video (progressive and interlaced), S-Video, composite video, VGA input. Contrast of 500:1. 700 Lumens. Lamp life is 5000 hours, and replacements will cost £140.

    What Video & TV say they were "extremely impressed with the image quality. Colours are natural, picture details clear and contrast levels high."

    Release is imminent..........
     
  2. Roland @ B4

    Roland @ B4
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2001
    Messages:
    2,238
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    51
    Location:
    Reading.
    Ratings:
    +32
    Sorry but contrast ratio of 500:1 is not high.

    My RGB cable weighs more at 4kg yoiu would have to strap it to the table.
     
  3. Nic Rhodes

    Nic Rhodes
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2001
    Messages:
    17,133
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Location:
    Cumbria
    Ratings:
    +1,277
    848 X 480, like a DM DLP resolution. Great for NTSC DVDs where it should look great (minimise processing artifacts) but this is a PAL country. We need a 1024 x 768 panel.:(
     
  4. ROne

    ROne
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2000
    Messages:
    778
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings:
    +7
    I'm quite excited by this projector, seems too good to be true at the moment, makes by MT-7 and the sony et al seem expensive.

    I wouldn't be to worried at reducing PAL to a lower resolution. Picture scales better downwards then upwards!

    And not to pick bones but I think 500:1 is very high for an LCD and I doubt the measured reading would actually be that. (Roland you have to forgive us LCD users we started with about 10:1 )
     
  5. Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Specs look ok, but this has got to be the ugliest bucket of bolts I have seen in a long while!

    The Panny LC50 looks cool! But this looks like one of Krytons gonads!

    That's not to say I wouldn't get one as I could always surround it in MDF to make it look pretty!!
     
  6. Grubert

    Grubert
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2001
    Messages:
    601
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +72
    That's right, Nic. Well, actually we really need 1024 x 576.

    Also, with that kind of panels, 4:3 material would be shown only in a resolution of 640x480.

    Apparently, in Japan you can get it for about £900. :eek:
     
  7. General Skanky

    General Skanky
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2000
    Messages:
    4,206
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Ratings:
    +44
    Another projector to get excited about.:D

    Looks promising. So who's first to buy one and tell us all about it?
     
  8. Nic Rhodes

    Nic Rhodes
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2001
    Messages:
    17,133
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Location:
    Cumbria
    Ratings:
    +1,277
    Grubert

    smack on, I like 1024 x 768 as it does 4:3 and XGA as well with 1024 x 576 as a subset giving the best potential picture with out scaling (just not using parts of the chip). I don't want to have to scale up or down. I think it makes panel projectors look rubbish.

    What is the point of buying an expensive projector, feeding it a top DVD signal, only for it to be downsized. That's NUTS.:confused:

    They have realised this for NTSC (always comes first), hence these DM DLP/LCD chips but now they need to do it for the LARGE PAL market. Then we will have a great chip and no need for these expensive scalers. You know it makes sense.;)
     
  9. Timh

    Timh
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2000
    Messages:
    4,817
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Location:
    Altair-4
    Ratings:
    +140
    Sounds like another one for my short list. Toshiba mt5 would be nice but is a little expensive at £3200.
    Is the Panasonic going to be sub £2000? sounds cheap if its going to have a 16:9 panel. I wonder if it is ceiling mountable.
     
  10. The Boogerman

    The Boogerman
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2001
    Messages:
    39
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Location:
    Bavaria
    Ratings:
    +1
    It might look like a 70's VCR, but there's alot that appeals to me about this projector (will reserve judgement on projection quality at this stage). The £1800 price is good, especially if you consider that Sony's recently released HS1 can be bought for anything from £1680 to £2200+, if the same is true for the Panasonic then its very possible that this will soon go sub £1500. Running costs are very good, 5000 hrs per £140 bulbs means you could watch 2500 2 hr DVD's for 5½p each, or not worry if the kids/wife etc spent ages playing games/watching BIG soap stars.

    My Japanese isn't that good, and babelfish's Japanese translations are a bit dotty, but what I've also found out is that its 235x280mm, 30dB, can be ceiling mounted, and either has a function where you can take a still of the current moving image and present it side by side with the moving picture (or something like that! Does When looking at image, you saw thoroughly to be, the scene still picture and be able to indicate in the one picture with remote control operation, the convenient 2 picture functions where already image of the continuation can view on the picture of one side are loaded. make anymore sense?)
     
  11. Hoglet

    Hoglet
    Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2001
    Messages:
    118
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    21
    Location:
    Bristol, UK
    Ratings:
    +11
  12. nickane

    nickane
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2001
    Messages:
    124
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings:
    +0
    Can somebody tell me why Pal images are always quoted as being 625-line and NTSC 525-line, when 848x480 res is NTSC widescreen and 1024x576 is PAL widescreen?
     
  13. ROne

    ROne
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2000
    Messages:
    778
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings:
    +7
    625 for PAL and 525 NTSC refer to the total amount of lines in the signal, however some of these lines are reserved for signal information.

    The visible part is 575 for PAL and 480 for NTSC, these are actually the lines that you can see, depending on the amount of overscan, usually around 5% off these figures.

    Interestingly, its amazing how much your DVD player crops the signal and when you think you are getting a nice 16:9 picture on your TV, if you then run a HCPC you can get the picture to the proper aspect say 1:85 and you see more of the picture yet again, however TV and DVD manufacturers have to crop this picture to a usable 16:9 so we don't get little black borders on our TVs.

    The actuall visible resolution for NTSC is 640x480 and 720x575 for PAL, its actually a clever trick for 16:9, you don't get anymore pixels or resolution like everybody thinks, all that happens is the pxiels are rectangular in anamorphic state and when you press 16:9 on TV the pixel aspect alters giving you a wider picture. No more resolution at all. The difference being in Non-anamorphic you are not using the whole vertical plane of the screen for pixel information so when you stretch the picture you don't have a full screens worh of information and you picture is poorer.
     
  14. Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Ok, so it may look like a fan heater, but if the specifications stated here are correct and that 80” at 2.5 throw is for a 16:9 image then I await its arrival with anticipation. Due to its short throw, low noise, low price (hopefully), long bulb like, low bulb costs and component video inputs I can not ignore it!

    But there is one thing I can not understand. What is the advantage of a 16:9 848x480 panel over a 4:3 800x600 panel. Surely the vertical resolution is the same when using a 16:9/anamorphic mode on the 4:3 panel, but when viewing 4:3 images on this 16/9 848x480 panel you loose resolution and size. This would only be a problem if you watched more 4:3 material than 16:9 material.

    The only advantages I can see are that you shouldn’t get bright spots above and below a 16:9 screen and you have 15% less chance of getting a bad pixel.

    I guess people once said “What’s the point of a wide screen TV?”, so I will only pass judgement though when I see it in action! Maybe my local Panasonic & Technics Centre will give a demo when it arrives? I may even buy one from them!
     
  15. ROne

    ROne
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2000
    Messages:
    778
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings:
    +7
    In principle the advatage of 848 x 480 of 800 x 600 is that the 480 panel matches exactly the 480p signal of progressive NTSC, and therefore (again in principle), you are bypassing the scaler. You have a clean signal path, and scalers in projectors are poor.

    However in reality there may not be a massive difference either way.
     
  16. Nic Rhodes

    Nic Rhodes
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2001
    Messages:
    17,133
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Location:
    Cumbria
    Ratings:
    +1,277
    With TOP scalers chips (Sage) there isn't a huge difference but with most scaler chips used internally on these projectors there is a huge difference IMHO. Sage chips are currently rare in projectors. It is my bug bear on these panel projectors. It has stopped me buying one to date. If we have a basic scaling chip (necessary in these projectors) I also want to see access to 480p and 576p modes so this can be upgraded / bypassed at a later stage either by something like an IScan Pro or one of the PS players. It allows a system to develop and improve without ditching something, this was one of the reasons the PLV30 has been so popular, it can be linked upto a PS DVD player for much better performance.

    Basically about 50 less lines are shown in the actual visible picture so 625 goes to 576 in PAL and 525 goes to 480. If you then don't scale the 576 or 480 figures at all (to get the best quality) you can work out the other resolution needed. In 16:9 mode that work out to be 1024 in PAL and 848 in NTSC. Hence 1024x576 is PAL widescreen and 848x480 in NTSC widescreen. If the chip can be addressed directly in RGB you can do it now (see Jeffs posts). Many can't and this led e development of what appears to be an odd resolution but is actually quite smart. It is not about getting more resolution, it is about the showing of the resolution you have already with the minimum number of artificial additives (from scaling / de-interlacing). It makes the scaling / de-interlacing chips job easier and therefore better.

    The additional lines don't carry picture information. They carry ‘other info’ for controlling the monitor and things like teletext where appliicable.
     
  17. Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    O.k. then Rone,
    What is the optimum resolution at pal via p.c. for a 1368 x 768 lcd projector when only viewing pal widescreen-surely 1368 x 768 is too much?
    Doug
     
  18. Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Does anybody know when this unit will be available in the UK? I expect that we will have to wait until the rest of the world has had a play with it first before we can get our hands on it!

    Also, the only info I can manage to get is either in Japenese, or Chinese. Now although my oriental languages are a little rusty I can't find any mention of keystone correction in any of the specs! This is something I would need!
     
  19. Jase

    Jase
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2001
    Messages:
    9,413
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    South Coast
    Ratings:
    +859
    Meat

    Follow this link and click on the images at the top of the page for the specs etc

    http://www.musicalimage.com.my/General.asp?whichfile=Projectors&Layout=2&ProductID=68&CatID=

    It doesnt mention anything about Keystone correction though.

    It does have throw distances, Input signals supported, if someone could tell me if this projector will work with an Iscan Pro or Quadscan Elite or Elite HD i´d be appreciated!!

    This projector will accept/display 525i (480i), 625i, 525p(480p), 750p(720p), 1125i(1080i) according to the spec sheets.

    Here are links to the Iscan & Quadscan , if someone technically minded could have a look!!

    www.focusinfo.com/products/quadscan_elite/quadscan_elite.htm

    www.videoprojectors.com.au/page8.html

    http://www.focusinfo.com/products/quadscan_eliteHD/quadscan_elite.htm

    cheers guys!!
     
  20. Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Wow! RM9500 is only about £1625. Thats cheaper than the HS1 and I guess you don't have to buy a special component lead like you do with the SONY.

    Some confusion over name though. Is it PT-AE100 or TH-AE100?
     
  21. ROne

    ROne
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2000
    Messages:
    778
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings:
    +7
    quaid,

    the optimum for your projector is whatever bypassess the internal scaler, so seeing as that's a 16:9 resolution, if your projector accepts that then fine.

    However what you've got to remember is scaling (generally works better in multiples of itself)

    I.e 480 to 720 to 960 can are all multiples, 720 being 1.5 times 480 and 960 being 2 times 480. Scalers or HTPC will perform best when scaled to a multiple of itself.

    So 1368 x 768 is not a PAL multiple of 576, 768 is actually 1.3 times 576.

    On my projector the sweet spot is 1280x720, and as a consequence NTSC disc look better than PAL discs given an equally good transfer.

    If you double pixel structure or add 50% of the information to the pixel structure I find you get a cleaner upconversion, if you upscale the pixel structure by 22% or 37% etc then you may introduce interpolation errors.

    In reality though you may find the HTPC is that good at scaling that it may not matter that the resolution is an exact multiple.

    If you're talking about the SONY 11 though, you may have to look into driving it with HTPC in a lot more detail as there was issues with regard to the computer side of things and specifically resolution and refresh rates.
     
  22. Mr.D

    Mr.D
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2000
    Messages:
    11,053
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Ratings:
    +1,130
    Couple of points to make:

    PAL video resolution is 720x576 the actual size of the image is 768x576 owing to non-square video pixels. ( NTSC is similar but I don't have the figures to hand)

    1024x576 is the actual image size of a 16x9 pal video image ( ie the unsquish correctly makes it square pixel) (its physical size is 720x576 and its resolution could be anyone's guess)

    If you playback 720x576 images through a video chain there will be a correct mechanical unsquish to 768x576 at the display ( if its a CRT and its correctly set-up)

    However if you put a PC into the loop it will more than likely display the images at their dimensional resolution rather than image size. ie 720x576 rather than 768x576 .Just wondering how people are dealing with this on HTPC sytems ( I assume standalone scalers take this into account). You could scale with reference to the 720 rather than 768 ( we are talking y here not x) and have the display set-up to perform an unsquish to take care of the non-square pixels but I wonder how many people are setting up for 16x9 with correct reference to 1024 but then doing all their 4x3 mappings with reference to 720 especially if they are using digital panel displays and effectively inserting a 4x3 frame into a 16x9 panel ( or the 16x9 strip they are utilising in some instances).

    Could of course be mistaken and software dvd players somehow take this into account. ( or do they actually encode dvd for square pixel for 4x3) , don't think they do)

    The other thing is that the 625 scanlines of PAL are a function of the display not the material . The 576 of 720x576 is not derived from 625 scanlines minus the unused lines. Bear in mind resolution, image size and display size are not the same things.

    Resolution is too often incorrectly used to refer to all the above issues.

    The issue with scaling being superior/easier in multiples of the original material is hazy at best ( pardon the pun). Also the supposed benefit of scaling in multiples applies to whole number ( integer) values rather than fractional ( float) numbers. To apply this supposed beneficial criteria to a scaling factor of 1.5 is contradictory to the very theory itself.
     
  23. ian_guinan

    ian_guinan
    Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2001
    Messages:
    1,163
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Australia
    Ratings:
    +18
    If you're feeling brave enough this company ships japanese consumer goods worldwide and is selling this projector for $1,389!!!
    (£964 plus then whatever customs sting you for)


    http://www.pricejapan.com/


    Anyone fancy giving it a go?

    Regards,

    Ian Guinan

    p.s. check out the price for the Z9000 too..
     
  24. robocook

    robocook
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2001
    Messages:
    121
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    19
    Location:
    Sevenoaks, Kent
    Ratings:
    +0
    14% Duty then 17.5% on the goods plus the duty.
     
  25. JDC

    JDC
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    All,

    reading this thread with much interest, have contacted the Japanese exporters, and got this reply:


    "Thank you for your enquiry.

    Yes, this projector has Keystone correction. Progressive scan compatible.
    This projector is selling very well in Malaysia but I can supply to you
    sometime end of this month. We are having alot of back orders.

    Can you tell me which part of UK are you in and roughly how many units do
    you think you need to purchase?

    The price for export is about 1520 Pound FOB"
    Thank you for your enquiry.



    Price notwithstanding, it is -apparently - due into the UK mid Feb. No firm news about retail price but less than £2,000 is unlikely for the initial months.

    If anyone is up for importing them let me know & we can see if a multiple order reduces the cost.

    P.S. If prog scan is that much of an improvement with LCD PJs, can someone advise if & how I can 'convert' a non-ProgScan DVD into one with P.S.??

    Cheers.
     
  26. ROne

    ROne
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2000
    Messages:
    778
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings:
    +7
    With regard to 1.5 I was referring to the figure 720 / 480, wich has got to be a cleaner up conversion than 1.6 or 1.9 etc. Our image compositing software works this way.

    1.5 multiplication of 480 pixels will produce several upcoversions before producing a FP unlike other percentages surely resulting in less extrenous sub pixel information.

    Okay I know we are talking small amounts of error but its there.

    Maybe I'm wrong, but halfs/and doubles definatley produce the cleanest image transformation in our software.
     
  27. Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Rone/Mr d,
    Many thanks for the info,Im certainly interested in the multiple of pal to achieve the best picture whilst assuring synchronicity with the 1368 x 768 panel of the sony.
    I have read on AVS that many are actually feeding higher resolutions than the panel max into projectors(specifically the nec lt150)-letting it be scaled down to the projectors optimum.
    so as an experiment,what would be the most compatible resolution just above 1368 x 768(56hz) that I could try?

    Failing this,powerdvd always suggests that the dvd be watched in 1024 x 768-so presumably this is considered the best resolution for dvd?
    If I used this res.would the Sony use the internal scaler to scale down-hence defeating the object of trying to bypass the internal scaling in the sony?
    Also this is at 75hz.
    YET..on my desktop the smoothest picture seems to be 800 x 600 at 85hz..
    The higher scanning rate definately makes a difference-would 1024 x 768 be the ideal compromise?
    Doug
     
  28. Mr.D

    Mr.D
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2000
    Messages:
    11,053
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Ratings:
    +1,130
    Er I am a film compositor and this convention of whole number scaling factors went out donkey's years ago . Sub-pixel is sub-pixel : float scaling factors will require sub-pixel interpolation period there is no degree to this a factor is either integer or float : its either sub-pixel or it isn't. If you said you used integer scaling factors in preference to float because of the aforementioned theory then I'd have seen your logic ( disagreed with it mind but accepted it as a rational) but your 1.5 factor blows a big hole in your boat.

    I mainly use cineon which ceased production about 4 years ago. I think but its still better than the newer packages in a lot of ways ( shake which I'm reasonably familiar with , Chalice/Rayz and even inferno). Curiously the filtering isn't one of them and I've never adhered to the whole number interpolation rule even in cineon which is fairly behind the times in this area.
     
  29. ROne

    ROne
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2000
    Messages:
    778
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings:
    +7
    I am not a film compositor .... I work with fairly low end (Ae 5...) intel based systems, and I can't compete with your expert knowledge, and I am not trying to.

    I think the 1.5 element is being blown out of proportion, it was only mention in context to 720p! I don't particularly prefer any method of scaling, integer or FP. .

    Maybe with your wealth of knowledge you can educate me why blowing 480 up to 720 requires sub-pixel calcualtion?

    "float scaling factors will require sub-pixel interpolation period"

    At which stage during the maths will sub-pixel calculations be made, I don't understand.?
     
  30. Chris Frost

    Chris Frost
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2000
    Messages:
    2,743
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Location:
    Cheshire
    Ratings:
    +107
    Has anybody found out what the low power mode drops the brightness to in order to acheive the quoted 5000hr lamp life?

    Regards
     

Share This Page

Loading...