re drivers
hmm i see i am working with a sharp qa 1000 640x480 vga but it looks like crap i am using my ati allinwonder tv card but my desktop looks all distorted like it is using the wrong video driver , i wonder why . i am at 640x480 have tried all difrent kings of color settings no luck.
hmm i see i am working with a sharp qa 1000 640x480 vga but it looks like crap i am using my ati allinwonder tv card but my desktop looks all distorted like it is using the wrong video driver , i wonder why . i am at 640x480 have tried all difrent kings of color settings no luck.
Chukie try powerstrip. It's a really cool program for adjusting your monitor and a bunch of different settings. That might help you. Also try changing your sync in the panel menus the sharps have an option for it and it can make a big difference. Try a different video card that can make a difference too.
Re: re drivers
is it the whole display or just the tuner part? i had one of those that the rf tuner looked like that from day one but the video input was fine. when i got this projector thing going both inputs did it so i gave up and got a cheap tv wonder card. sometimes it does it to with dscaler. i found if you switch to pal and back to ntsc it fixes it. if its the whole display i don't have a clue 'cept maybe refresh rate my nview panel says it can only handle 60 hz.
Good luck
chukie1 said:
is it the whole display or just the tuner part? i had one of those that the rf tuner looked like that from day one but the video input was fine. when i got this projector thing going both inputs did it so i gave up and got a cheap tv wonder card. sometimes it does it to with dscaler. i found if you switch to pal and back to ntsc it fixes it. if its the whole display i don't have a clue 'cept maybe refresh rate my nview panel says it can only handle 60 hz.
Good luck
screen size
my LCD is like 6x8 in. at about 11ft away my OHP projects about 6.5 or 7 ft wide. which is about all i want as my couch is presenly only 8ft from the wall. big is cool but you don't want to have to move your head to see from one side of the screen to the other 🙂
my LCD is like 6x8 in. at about 11ft away my OHP projects about 6.5 or 7 ft wide. which is about all i want as my couch is presenly only 8ft from the wall. big is cool but you don't want to have to move your head to see from one side of the screen to the other 🙂
Re: 65 Watt Fluorex...
was the light really that cool! I mean could you keep it that close without it ruining the lcd? Interesting! Have you tried useing a fresnel between the panel and light source to catch the light before it spreads out too much as it is a flood light not a spot light? That should help stop it from continuing its outward pattern and focus it back down into a more concentrated beam. These bulbs (fluorex) are very ify. Some say it works well others say not. Personally I'm having best luck so far with spot lights (halogen🙁 ) for track lighting. But heat is a issue there. At 90 watts I'm getting a good picture at 150watts it would be great! I measured the image and its 62" diagnal. Big enuff for me, especially compared to my 29" CRT tv.
P.S. Does anyone know if these fluorex lights come in spot light bulbs aswell, that would really be ideal.😀
access256 said:
was the light really that cool! I mean could you keep it that close without it ruining the lcd? Interesting! Have you tried useing a fresnel between the panel and light source to catch the light before it spreads out too much as it is a flood light not a spot light? That should help stop it from continuing its outward pattern and focus it back down into a more concentrated beam. These bulbs (fluorex) are very ify. Some say it works well others say not. Personally I'm having best luck so far with spot lights (halogen🙁 ) for track lighting. But heat is a issue there. At 90 watts I'm getting a good picture at 150watts it would be great! I measured the image and its 62" diagnal. Big enuff for me, especially compared to my 29" CRT tv.
P.S. Does anyone know if these fluorex lights come in spot light bulbs aswell, that would really be ideal.😀
Tinker
i put the thermometer inside the box (with only the psu fan on and it is a cozy 90* or so inside
my 2 fluorex lamps are literally inches away from the lcd screen seperated by a plastic hood, a glass hood and a plastic fresnel and let me tell you there is NO heat getting that lcd..
i wish they would make stronger fluorex than the 65 watt, if so, i think my box could me much smaller..... but i sent lights of america a n email asking this and they have not replied so far.
beware that the bulbbase of the fluorex is mogulsize (i think that is what they call this here, and these bulbs need a pretty serious kind of ballast or how do you call that side pcb...
i have noticed that without metal cover these ballasts interfer with the quality of the picture, they distort it somehow...
i put the thermometer inside the box (with only the psu fan on and it is a cozy 90* or so inside
my 2 fluorex lamps are literally inches away from the lcd screen seperated by a plastic hood, a glass hood and a plastic fresnel and let me tell you there is NO heat getting that lcd..
i wish they would make stronger fluorex than the 65 watt, if so, i think my box could me much smaller..... but i sent lights of america a n email asking this and they have not replied so far.
beware that the bulbbase of the fluorex is mogulsize (i think that is what they call this here, and these bulbs need a pretty serious kind of ballast or how do you call that side pcb...
i have noticed that without metal cover these ballasts interfer with the quality of the picture, they distort it somehow...
day or night
Maybe this sounds a bit harsh for some of you, but i find it utterly amazing that there is some argument or complaint that it has to be dark before you can see a nice bright picture on a 6ft (or bigger) screen??????
I have never been in a movie theatre where the movie was presented in a) broad dayllight, b) with the full lighting on.
as a matter of fact, in Belgium all the modern theatres have no lighting fixtures, only build in floorleds , including emergency leds.
If you agree with the fact that movie theatres don't play movies when daylight enters or the spots are on, then you should (i think so) accept the fact that your humble project should get the same treatment, it is to say dark, pitch black room , just like the AMC theatres in Federal WAy (oops, AMC closed all 6 down permanently on Labor Day ) or at the 24 Metropolis theatres in Antwerp, Belgium.
Maybe this sounds a bit harsh for some of you, but i find it utterly amazing that there is some argument or complaint that it has to be dark before you can see a nice bright picture on a 6ft (or bigger) screen??????
I have never been in a movie theatre where the movie was presented in a) broad dayllight, b) with the full lighting on.
as a matter of fact, in Belgium all the modern theatres have no lighting fixtures, only build in floorleds , including emergency leds.
If you agree with the fact that movie theatres don't play movies when daylight enters or the spots are on, then you should (i think so) accept the fact that your humble project should get the same treatment, it is to say dark, pitch black room , just like the AMC theatres in Federal WAy (oops, AMC closed all 6 down permanently on Labor Day ) or at the 24 Metropolis theatres in Antwerp, Belgium.
Yes the LCD is right against the lens of the light and it does stay remarkably cool. I have tried frensels. 1 right behind the LCD and then 2 frensels to condense the light right to the back of the LCD and no luck. My frensels are simply page magnifiers and they appear to loose too much light going through them to be effective. It would probably better to build a condensing system out of glass optics (WAY MORE EFFICIENT) then the frensels. I couldn't believe the difference in the light my glass optic let through compared to the frensel on the projector side. But I have had the best results by simply putting the LCD right against the lens of the fluorex.
As for the darkness of the room. I think it would be nice to have the movie on and still have a little light in the room so that my guest can get the the bathroom without breaking their neck! And my wife says no way to installing floor lights!
As for the darkness of the room. I think it would be nice to have the movie on and still have a little light in the room so that my guest can get the the bathroom without breaking their neck! And my wife says no way to installing floor lights!
Darkness & Lighting
I never thought of that! That's the perfect finishing touch on my theater/entertainment room!
Thanks access256!
Now lets come up with a way to dupe the wife!
I agree with unvodee about the darkness thing. The less light there is in a room the less you are bothered by miscellaneous distractions and the more attention you can focus on the movie. That's why movie theaters don't have to sweep their floors. No one ever sees the mess.
Get this... Remote operated dimming floor lights...
...so when someone complains they have to pee rather than interrupting the show for everyone you just bring them up slowly to show the way to the bathroom. Then shut them off so the person with Tiny Bladder Syndrome can't find their way back in.
To find out more on what is available in the FloureX bulbs go to www.lightsofamerica.com and click on "products."
BTW everyone these lights are going for $45 to $65 plus shipping on eBay. Wal-Mart has them for 25 although I had to go to three stores to find one that had them in stock. (Although Zark and Unvodee disagree, I don't recommend using them in a projector. The best image I got was less than 1/2 the quality I want and about 3/4 of the brightness I need. Still I'm keeping them for a new hobby... hydroponics.)
Paul - The Nephilum
FLOOR LIGHTS!access256 said:
I never thought of that! That's the perfect finishing touch on my theater/entertainment room!
Thanks access256!
Now lets come up with a way to dupe the wife!
I agree with unvodee about the darkness thing. The less light there is in a room the less you are bothered by miscellaneous distractions and the more attention you can focus on the movie. That's why movie theaters don't have to sweep their floors. No one ever sees the mess.
Get this... Remote operated dimming floor lights...
...so when someone complains they have to pee rather than interrupting the show for everyone you just bring them up slowly to show the way to the bathroom. Then shut them off so the person with Tiny Bladder Syndrome can't find their way back in.
To find out more on what is available in the FloureX bulbs go to www.lightsofamerica.com and click on "products."
BTW everyone these lights are going for $45 to $65 plus shipping on eBay. Wal-Mart has them for 25 although I had to go to three stores to find one that had them in stock. (Although Zark and Unvodee disagree, I don't recommend using them in a projector. The best image I got was less than 1/2 the quality I want and about 3/4 of the brightness I need. Still I'm keeping them for a new hobby... hydroponics.)
Paul - The Nephilum
"The best image I got was less than 1/2 the quality I want and about 3/4 of the brightness I need. Still I'm keeping them for a new hobby... hydroponics.)"
1/2 the quality? You mean the temp of the light or was it hard to focus cause the light reays are too scatterd? 3/4 the brightness you need? What size are you projecting too? To give me a ruff idea if it'll be enuff for me. I'm not going as big as some of you on this, dont have the room. So it may be enuff for me. Heck I'm getting a very watchable pic out of a 90watt 1100 lumen halogen Plus 10o beam SPOT light from GE. hydroponics, I'm sure it is good for that as some are using these for reef lights I saw. Suposedly there a huge hit in the aquarium hobby. I'm building my own 500gal. tank soon , salt water, corel reefs etc. Done it before with a 100gal, its easy once you balance it all out like ph and density etc. If it doesnt work for projector I can always put it back for in the future.
Went to lowes today looking for those lights but none found. Have one more local wall-mart to check though. Its bigger so hopfully they will have one. But on a positive note the lowes lighting guy is calling Ge tomorow and phillips for me. Hes giving them the specs to that light and hoping to find somthing similar for me. He was very interested in these projectors. I told him the nec. info. so he knew what was good or not. Like LOW heat, close to a point light source as possible. Not way expensive and lots of bulb life hours. Bright white color temp. like 6000k. And 6-8000 lumens o rhigher if possible with the least amount of watts. He's calling me tomorow, I'll see what he finds out from them and how much!
🙂
1/2 the quality? You mean the temp of the light or was it hard to focus cause the light reays are too scatterd? 3/4 the brightness you need? What size are you projecting too? To give me a ruff idea if it'll be enuff for me. I'm not going as big as some of you on this, dont have the room. So it may be enuff for me. Heck I'm getting a very watchable pic out of a 90watt 1100 lumen halogen Plus 10o beam SPOT light from GE. hydroponics, I'm sure it is good for that as some are using these for reef lights I saw. Suposedly there a huge hit in the aquarium hobby. I'm building my own 500gal. tank soon , salt water, corel reefs etc. Done it before with a 100gal, its easy once you balance it all out like ph and density etc. If it doesnt work for projector I can always put it back for in the future.
Went to lowes today looking for those lights but none found. Have one more local wall-mart to check though. Its bigger so hopfully they will have one. But on a positive note the lowes lighting guy is calling Ge tomorow and phillips for me. Hes giving them the specs to that light and hoping to find somthing similar for me. He was very interested in these projectors. I told him the nec. info. so he knew what was good or not. Like LOW heat, close to a point light source as possible. Not way expensive and lots of bulb life hours. Bright white color temp. like 6000k. And 6-8000 lumens o rhigher if possible with the least amount of watts. He's calling me tomorow, I'll see what he finds out from them and how much!
🙂
Re: Darkness & Lighting
Are they the correct spectrum for hydroponics? Because I would like to grow a crop of cherry tomatoes at work throughout the winter and have a good source of snack material throughout the winter! But I have to agree on the quality it's not where I had expected. I was all for it when I saw fluorescent and cool temps but when I got the MH available at $0.00 I was instantly hooked. I could possibly have an eight foot screen with excellent brightness with ambient room light! Damn thats like having your cake and eating it too!! But I think a glass optic condensor setup as opposed to the frensel way to go. More efficifent and accurate. I will definitely post my results and pics when they are worth while.....
Billett said:
Are they the correct spectrum for hydroponics? Because I would like to grow a crop of cherry tomatoes at work throughout the winter and have a good source of snack material throughout the winter! But I have to agree on the quality it's not where I had expected. I was all for it when I saw fluorescent and cool temps but when I got the MH available at $0.00 I was instantly hooked. I could possibly have an eight foot screen with excellent brightness with ambient room light! Damn thats like having your cake and eating it too!! But I think a glass optic condensor setup as opposed to the frensel way to go. More efficifent and accurate. I will definitely post my results and pics when they are worth while.....
Re: HuH?
Sorry, I got trigger happy with the mouse.....Tinker said:Why the qoute and no responce????
Using fluorex diffuse light sources...
Hi Guys,
The fluorex lights are very bright, but suffer from a major problem when being used for projection: They output a pure diffuse light!
This calls for different optics than would be needed for a point source/parallel beam arrangement, and imposes some potentially serious limitations. That said, they SHOULD still be very usable if done properly...
First, the limitations: LCDS are quite directional. They will favour the transmission of light at a fairly narrow angle. The optics in the OHP projectors, and the variants with a parallel beam going through the LCD are inherently more efficient than a fluorex setup because most of the light hitting the back of the LCD is at an angle that the LCD can transmit. (Even then, the maximum efficiency of an RGB panel is about 15%.)
With a diffuse light from a fluorex lamp (or multiple lamps), only a portion of the light hitting the LCD will be within the transmission angle that the LCD supports.
A fresnel will not help unless the lamp assembly is significantly far away from the LCD. Otherwise, it will be simply altering the path of randomly diffuse light - producing more randomly diffuse light...
The best bet would be to encase the fluorescent bulb(s) within a front-surface mirrored box, so that as much light from the bulb(s) hits the LCD as possible. White surfaces (instead of mirrors) will reduce hotspots, but will also reduce intensity.
Ok, if the maximum amount of light is hitting the back of the LCD, then the next step is to make use of it. The light coming from the front of the LCD will be partially directional, and partially diffuse.
The LCD will have filtered out most of the really diffuse components, leaving an output with roughly the same profile as a normal LCD monitor - very bright when viewed head on, but losing much brightness off-axis.
What is needed here is to direct the maximum amount of light from the LCD through the objective lens so that it can be focussed into an image. If done properly, the fact that the light is partially diffuse will not be too much of a problem. It will, however, stress the objective lenses much more than a clean collimated beam would. (In a clean collimated beam, only a small part of a lens surface is used to contribute to each part of the image - the lens is being used more to magnify and direct the beam than to focus it - think in terms of lasers... In a very diffuse beam, every part of the lens surface contributes to every part of the image - any surface irregularities and non-uniformities will degrade the entire image. This is why fresnels are limited in quality as the primary objective, but great at beam shaping for a roughly collimated beam.)
So, with a partially diffuse, but partially directional beam, what is needed is either an objective lens that is as large as the LCD screen, or a fresnel or field lens which can be used to direct the output beam into a cone such that the majority of the light passes through a smaller objective. Otherwise, much light will not go through the objective and will be wasted - reducing the overall brightness and contrast of the final image.
If the LCD is smaller than the main objective, the answer is simple: the beam profile will allow most of the light from the panel to pass through the objective, and the result should be a sharp clean image.
If the lens is achromatic, then the results will be better than if using a singlet, and the larger the lens area with respect to the LCD, the less spherical aberation will be achieved for a given light level: reducing the aperture of the lens will reduce spherical aberation, but will also reduce the amount of light that is used to form the image...
If large enough, Projection TV lenses designed for flat CRTS will work well. Those designed for curved CRTs will not - unless you reduce the aperture - reducing image brightness.
If the objective is not big enough to naturally capture all the light from the LCD, the answer is still fairly simple - put a large (larger than the LCD) PCX lens (or fresnel) as close to the panel as possible and concentrate the output beam into a roughly diffuse cone shape. (Back to the OHP concept...)
If a fresnel is used, it can not be placed flush with the LCD because you will get Moire effects. It must be moved about an inch away. The fresnels are also VERY limited in their viewing angle and directionality. Most (but not all) need their rough sides facing the LCD. They also need the first lens of an objective set to be placed at roughly one focal length's distance from the fresnel.
Thus, if you use a fresnel, you must also match the overall focal length of the objective with the fresnel itself. OHP objectives are already matched to the fresnel lenses they use. A setup using discrete components will need precise calculations to determine a viable combination of the magnification needed and the focal lengths of the fresnel and objectives. If a suitable single objective cannot be matched with the fresnel, a lower power lens could be placed at the sharpest point of the cone, and a secondary lens be used to produce a compound objective with an overall focal length that is based on the focal lengths of the lenses used, and the distance between them - the distance between them could be used as a focussing apparatus that would always ensure that the light is always gathered from the apex of the light cone.
With this combination you should be able to get the best from the diffuse light sources and the LCD. If there is enough light getting through the LCD, there is no reason why a REALLY sharp, crisp image cannot be produced.
Bill.
P.S. Formulae describing the lens combinations can be found scattered through the Part 1 & 2 threads...
Hi Guys,
The fluorex lights are very bright, but suffer from a major problem when being used for projection: They output a pure diffuse light!
This calls for different optics than would be needed for a point source/parallel beam arrangement, and imposes some potentially serious limitations. That said, they SHOULD still be very usable if done properly...
First, the limitations: LCDS are quite directional. They will favour the transmission of light at a fairly narrow angle. The optics in the OHP projectors, and the variants with a parallel beam going through the LCD are inherently more efficient than a fluorex setup because most of the light hitting the back of the LCD is at an angle that the LCD can transmit. (Even then, the maximum efficiency of an RGB panel is about 15%.)
With a diffuse light from a fluorex lamp (or multiple lamps), only a portion of the light hitting the LCD will be within the transmission angle that the LCD supports.
A fresnel will not help unless the lamp assembly is significantly far away from the LCD. Otherwise, it will be simply altering the path of randomly diffuse light - producing more randomly diffuse light...
The best bet would be to encase the fluorescent bulb(s) within a front-surface mirrored box, so that as much light from the bulb(s) hits the LCD as possible. White surfaces (instead of mirrors) will reduce hotspots, but will also reduce intensity.
Ok, if the maximum amount of light is hitting the back of the LCD, then the next step is to make use of it. The light coming from the front of the LCD will be partially directional, and partially diffuse.
The LCD will have filtered out most of the really diffuse components, leaving an output with roughly the same profile as a normal LCD monitor - very bright when viewed head on, but losing much brightness off-axis.
What is needed here is to direct the maximum amount of light from the LCD through the objective lens so that it can be focussed into an image. If done properly, the fact that the light is partially diffuse will not be too much of a problem. It will, however, stress the objective lenses much more than a clean collimated beam would. (In a clean collimated beam, only a small part of a lens surface is used to contribute to each part of the image - the lens is being used more to magnify and direct the beam than to focus it - think in terms of lasers... In a very diffuse beam, every part of the lens surface contributes to every part of the image - any surface irregularities and non-uniformities will degrade the entire image. This is why fresnels are limited in quality as the primary objective, but great at beam shaping for a roughly collimated beam.)
So, with a partially diffuse, but partially directional beam, what is needed is either an objective lens that is as large as the LCD screen, or a fresnel or field lens which can be used to direct the output beam into a cone such that the majority of the light passes through a smaller objective. Otherwise, much light will not go through the objective and will be wasted - reducing the overall brightness and contrast of the final image.
If the LCD is smaller than the main objective, the answer is simple: the beam profile will allow most of the light from the panel to pass through the objective, and the result should be a sharp clean image.
If the lens is achromatic, then the results will be better than if using a singlet, and the larger the lens area with respect to the LCD, the less spherical aberation will be achieved for a given light level: reducing the aperture of the lens will reduce spherical aberation, but will also reduce the amount of light that is used to form the image...
If large enough, Projection TV lenses designed for flat CRTS will work well. Those designed for curved CRTs will not - unless you reduce the aperture - reducing image brightness.
If the objective is not big enough to naturally capture all the light from the LCD, the answer is still fairly simple - put a large (larger than the LCD) PCX lens (or fresnel) as close to the panel as possible and concentrate the output beam into a roughly diffuse cone shape. (Back to the OHP concept...)
If a fresnel is used, it can not be placed flush with the LCD because you will get Moire effects. It must be moved about an inch away. The fresnels are also VERY limited in their viewing angle and directionality. Most (but not all) need their rough sides facing the LCD. They also need the first lens of an objective set to be placed at roughly one focal length's distance from the fresnel.
Thus, if you use a fresnel, you must also match the overall focal length of the objective with the fresnel itself. OHP objectives are already matched to the fresnel lenses they use. A setup using discrete components will need precise calculations to determine a viable combination of the magnification needed and the focal lengths of the fresnel and objectives. If a suitable single objective cannot be matched with the fresnel, a lower power lens could be placed at the sharpest point of the cone, and a secondary lens be used to produce a compound objective with an overall focal length that is based on the focal lengths of the lenses used, and the distance between them - the distance between them could be used as a focussing apparatus that would always ensure that the light is always gathered from the apex of the light cone.
With this combination you should be able to get the best from the diffuse light sources and the LCD. If there is enough light getting through the LCD, there is no reason why a REALLY sharp, crisp image cannot be produced.
Bill.
P.S. Formulae describing the lens combinations can be found scattered through the Part 1 & 2 threads...
wonderfull
i think i understand somewhat the above showed article means.
An i certainly think that results with fluorex are harder than with more 'conventional" lighting methods ... however
one thing i want to make clear: the light output in my case was and still is so strong that i think this compensates a lot of loss due to diffusion .........
for example it was not possible to look through the hole before the lcd was placed. i did indeed sin and have covered a few spots with alu foil, and marked that the output was higher.
I have not yet foudn a way to put a black lite bulb in the box, but i have now noticed after a friend of mine had given me this inof, that colors are even clearer than before, not brighter just more clear.
And today i changed my plas tex waterproof panel into blackout cloth that i bought at Michael's craftstore. The difference ( i am truly sorry to write this here) , is astonishing! i supose the setup with fluorex required something different than plas tex.
I am not aware of the gain win, but this cloth sure does a good job!
the cloth costed me $18.00 and hangs nicely over the frame.
i may end up making a run down screen so that the storage space in the den is easier to reach.
i think i understand somewhat the above showed article means.
An i certainly think that results with fluorex are harder than with more 'conventional" lighting methods ... however
one thing i want to make clear: the light output in my case was and still is so strong that i think this compensates a lot of loss due to diffusion .........
for example it was not possible to look through the hole before the lcd was placed. i did indeed sin and have covered a few spots with alu foil, and marked that the output was higher.
I have not yet foudn a way to put a black lite bulb in the box, but i have now noticed after a friend of mine had given me this inof, that colors are even clearer than before, not brighter just more clear.
And today i changed my plas tex waterproof panel into blackout cloth that i bought at Michael's craftstore. The difference ( i am truly sorry to write this here) , is astonishing! i supose the setup with fluorex required something different than plas tex.
I am not aware of the gain win, but this cloth sure does a good job!
the cloth costed me $18.00 and hangs nicely over the frame.
i may end up making a run down screen so that the storage space in the den is easier to reach.
I'm using particle board painted white. Is the black out clothe higher brightness and contrast then that? Let me know, interesting. I've found this stuff called screen goo. Its a paint you use to make your own screen with a gain up to 2.0 or as low as 1.0. Even at gain level 2 it will not cause hot spots suposedly. They have digital grey which is for lcd projectors with lower ANSI lumens and lower contrast and also crt white. Its a blend of primer and paint to get desired gain. Have you guys heard of this stuff? I wrote the co. and the guy was real nice, anyone heard of it? Thinking of trying it myslf.
Check comments here:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?threadid=107418&perpage=20&pagenumber=3
Product here:
http://www.goosystems.com/
Let me know if you guys think its worht it.🙂
Check comments here:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?threadid=107418&perpage=20&pagenumber=3
Product here:
http://www.goosystems.com/
Let me know if you guys think its worht it.🙂
fluorex
Tied it and failed! Got one tonight and spent hours trying to get it to focus the light down, nodda.🙁 My 1200 lumen spot light is atleast 4x better at 1/6th the power! Well, I'll have to post a pic later today of my results with the spot light halogen bulb I have. I would of the fluorex but couldnt get ANYTHING even worth the while to take pic with it. Well back to square one. I'm just going MH and being done with it! Oh well I got a good work light anyhow.🙂
So, after seeing the pics let me know if you all think that a smaller MH will do for me. I'm getting really good results from a small bulb now. 90watt 1200 lumen high presure Halogen 10o spot light. So am I nuts thinking that a 100watt or 150watt would be enuff for my 62" diagnal screen I made. I want twice as bright as I have now in ANSI lumens on the screen. The 100watt is 4000 mean lumens I think and the 150 is 6200 lumens... I dont have ballast or bulb but am ready to get one at this point. Can get setup for about $100 or a little less. Even if I do get a OHP the bulb life is too short so I'm gonna need this ballast and bulb anyhow.
My biggest thing is that it will be a smaller screen 5" diag. It will be a smaller bulb- so closer to a point light source and easier to cool. The reflector will have to be alot smaller aswell due to my 5" screen, in part the reason for my choice in the smaller bulbs. Less heat means closer bulb placement to the lcd resulting in less loss light. BUT you guys are using larger bulbs then me. Like 400 and 600 watters for 6-7' projections and more! The problem, will I have to make a entirly dif. type of reflector than the big ones use? ANy sugestions due to the small scale of my projector relating to my lighting needs/ reflector? Thanks for listening to my "I give up on all other lights" rant and frustration...
Peace.😀
Tied it and failed! Got one tonight and spent hours trying to get it to focus the light down, nodda.🙁 My 1200 lumen spot light is atleast 4x better at 1/6th the power! Well, I'll have to post a pic later today of my results with the spot light halogen bulb I have. I would of the fluorex but couldnt get ANYTHING even worth the while to take pic with it. Well back to square one. I'm just going MH and being done with it! Oh well I got a good work light anyhow.🙂
So, after seeing the pics let me know if you all think that a smaller MH will do for me. I'm getting really good results from a small bulb now. 90watt 1200 lumen high presure Halogen 10o spot light. So am I nuts thinking that a 100watt or 150watt would be enuff for my 62" diagnal screen I made. I want twice as bright as I have now in ANSI lumens on the screen. The 100watt is 4000 mean lumens I think and the 150 is 6200 lumens... I dont have ballast or bulb but am ready to get one at this point. Can get setup for about $100 or a little less. Even if I do get a OHP the bulb life is too short so I'm gonna need this ballast and bulb anyhow.
My biggest thing is that it will be a smaller screen 5" diag. It will be a smaller bulb- so closer to a point light source and easier to cool. The reflector will have to be alot smaller aswell due to my 5" screen, in part the reason for my choice in the smaller bulbs. Less heat means closer bulb placement to the lcd resulting in less loss light. BUT you guys are using larger bulbs then me. Like 400 and 600 watters for 6-7' projections and more! The problem, will I have to make a entirly dif. type of reflector than the big ones use? ANy sugestions due to the small scale of my projector relating to my lighting needs/ reflector? Thanks for listening to my "I give up on all other lights" rant and frustration...
Peace.😀