Well… I’ve been to busy riding motorcycle and WATCHING MY 80” TV to post for a while. That’s right I got my 400w MH bulb and ballast and it’s working very well.
I spent two days trying to come up with some kind of reflector. The bulb is so huge nothing worked so I gave up. I said, “I’m going to watch TV even if it is dim and crappy looking.” I mounted the bulb sideways put a large lens directly in front of it and then the fresnel and LCD. I’m using a fresnel in front to focus the image.
I enclosed it all with a custom built box and WOW it’s great! O sure I’d like a little more light but it is better than usable.
I’ll try to take some pictures but I don’t have a digital camera so development takes money and time.
Of course with no reflector I don’t have a cardboard burning beam but the lens I ripped from a photo enlarger gets a good beam 5 inches wide. Perfect for hitting the 8.5” LCD. Throw in a good reflector and it’ll be more light than I could want.
This 400 watter is big and hot but not to hot. My LCD is enclosed in a box about 12 inches from the light and it remains cool. Before I completely seal the box I will install a fan. Not to keep the LCD cool but to take the heat away from the bulb area where the wood gets very warm.
A 400w MH bulb is a more than adequate light source. 1000s watts guys? Are you in insane? My theater room has a lot of ambient light but the image is clear and bright. I’m in Big Screen Heaven.
Paul
I spent two days trying to come up with some kind of reflector. The bulb is so huge nothing worked so I gave up. I said, “I’m going to watch TV even if it is dim and crappy looking.” I mounted the bulb sideways put a large lens directly in front of it and then the fresnel and LCD. I’m using a fresnel in front to focus the image.
I enclosed it all with a custom built box and WOW it’s great! O sure I’d like a little more light but it is better than usable.
I’ll try to take some pictures but I don’t have a digital camera so development takes money and time.
Of course with no reflector I don’t have a cardboard burning beam but the lens I ripped from a photo enlarger gets a good beam 5 inches wide. Perfect for hitting the 8.5” LCD. Throw in a good reflector and it’ll be more light than I could want.
This 400 watter is big and hot but not to hot. My LCD is enclosed in a box about 12 inches from the light and it remains cool. Before I completely seal the box I will install a fan. Not to keep the LCD cool but to take the heat away from the bulb area where the wood gets very warm.
A 400w MH bulb is a more than adequate light source. 1000s watts guys? Are you in insane? My theater room has a lot of ambient light but the image is clear and bright. I’m in Big Screen Heaven.
Paul
Possible reflector solutions
Hello to all from the middle of Missouri, USA. I'm new to the forum and want to thank all those who make this possible. I'm of limited electrical/video/projector knowledge or experience, but I've been reading all the previous posts and keep running into the problem of the reflectors. From what I understand, Marklar's reflector is something that would work well in most cases? I have two possible suggestions that I'd like to submit for consideration: 1) Lamps made for keeping chicks warm have strong, heat resistant reflectors (and they also have heavy ceramic bulb sockets, however they are for "standard" base heatlamp bulbs and not "mogul"). I can pick these up here for less than $10. They are more "half-spherical (spelling?)" than what I think of as parabolic, and are approximately 10-12 inches wide and 6 inches deep. 2) There is a process called "metal spinning" which is how all these parabolic shapes used to be made in metal (vs. the stamping process used now). There are some shops out there that will still do this for limited numbers. But what I would suggest is if the members of the forum could come up with an "ideal" shape and size of reflector that would work best, I believe a metal hobbyist could be found to turn a few reflectors at a reasonable cost. (I'm looking into a lathe myself and if I can find one to buy or borrow, I'm going to try this technique myself). Again, thanks to all those who are sharing their ideas on this forum. 🙂
Hello to all from the middle of Missouri, USA. I'm new to the forum and want to thank all those who make this possible. I'm of limited electrical/video/projector knowledge or experience, but I've been reading all the previous posts and keep running into the problem of the reflectors. From what I understand, Marklar's reflector is something that would work well in most cases? I have two possible suggestions that I'd like to submit for consideration: 1) Lamps made for keeping chicks warm have strong, heat resistant reflectors (and they also have heavy ceramic bulb sockets, however they are for "standard" base heatlamp bulbs and not "mogul"). I can pick these up here for less than $10. They are more "half-spherical (spelling?)" than what I think of as parabolic, and are approximately 10-12 inches wide and 6 inches deep. 2) There is a process called "metal spinning" which is how all these parabolic shapes used to be made in metal (vs. the stamping process used now). There are some shops out there that will still do this for limited numbers. But what I would suggest is if the members of the forum could come up with an "ideal" shape and size of reflector that would work best, I believe a metal hobbyist could be found to turn a few reflectors at a reasonable cost. (I'm looking into a lathe myself and if I can find one to buy or borrow, I'm going to try this technique myself). Again, thanks to all those who are sharing their ideas on this forum. 🙂
Re: Possible reflector solutions
I tried one of the chick warmers. Purchased it at the local hardware store and took my dremel rotary tool to it. It work well as a heat shield but did not reflect the light into any sort of recognizable beam. That's why we need parabolic.
I believe that if you were using a small bulb it may work but i had problems getting the light source deep enough into the reflector. I'm using one of the gigantic 400w MH's and would have had to cut away half of the reflector to place the bulbs light source in its center.
So if you've got a small bulb go for it... if not wait for the real thing...
Paul - The Nephilum
Smoke Eater said:
I tried one of the chick warmers. Purchased it at the local hardware store and took my dremel rotary tool to it. It work well as a heat shield but did not reflect the light into any sort of recognizable beam. That's why we need parabolic.
I believe that if you were using a small bulb it may work but i had problems getting the light source deep enough into the reflector. I'm using one of the gigantic 400w MH's and would have had to cut away half of the reflector to place the bulbs light source in its center.
So if you've got a small bulb go for it... if not wait for the real thing...
Paul - The Nephilum
parabolic
Yes, this is what we need as many have said here. You know everyone keeps saying that the lcd panel needs parallel rays and that makes sense as when using a really diverged light source with light going eveywhere you can see light actually refecting off the panel. So its lost-too harsh of a angle to go through and what does pass through causes blur when focusing the final image. Now I've been researching this too, I found similar to this is a aquarium tank. The light will also be reflected due to similar reasons if it hits the surface on too harsh of a angle. So it also needs parallel light. They use parabolic reflectors for this. So its a similar need and solution.
Now light loss over distance is also a prob. Well not really from what I have found. Least not in our short distances. Its more loss due to other factors. The only reason I see why it gets brighter closer to the screen is cause it also shrinks the image down as its a projector. Closer='s smaller-so therefore BRIGHTER. Now the reflector makes or breaks this theory. Several sites I have read from claim that with a parabolic reflector that the light loss after 1' in a shorter distance like this is all the same. So at 10' 12' or 8' you should still be having the same lumens output BUT the ansi lumens will drop due to the enlarged image making the light spread over a larger area. Thus less lumens per foot efecting ansi lumens -blah blah. But the point is with parabolic type reflector you can maintain the nearly same lumens output over any of our needed distances. So lcd at 1' or 2' will be hardly dif. other than lower temp. Thats part of the battle there, getting the most to the lcd....
"Myth: The inverse square law applies to aquarium lights.
Fact: Only the light from a compact bulb with no reflector drops off as per the inverse square law. The illuminance of a single (or dual) fluorescent fixture drops of approximately linearly with distance. And the illuminance of a multi-tube fluorescent fixture is almost independent of distance. Furthermore, the light from a compact bulb in a parabolic reflector is nearly independent of distance as well. "
So should be the same with MH right?
"The parabolic reflector creates parallel light rays, just like the Sun’s rays."
from:http://www.calgaryaquariumsociety.com/Articles/Light_Part_2.html
And that is what we need to get max light through panel and a clear focusable image. Hmmm wonder if you could make a parabolic reflector for a fluorex bulb? I tired that bulb, bright but light was totally uncontrolable-orderd a MH today....
😀
Yes, this is what we need as many have said here. You know everyone keeps saying that the lcd panel needs parallel rays and that makes sense as when using a really diverged light source with light going eveywhere you can see light actually refecting off the panel. So its lost-too harsh of a angle to go through and what does pass through causes blur when focusing the final image. Now I've been researching this too, I found similar to this is a aquarium tank. The light will also be reflected due to similar reasons if it hits the surface on too harsh of a angle. So it also needs parallel light. They use parabolic reflectors for this. So its a similar need and solution.
Now light loss over distance is also a prob. Well not really from what I have found. Least not in our short distances. Its more loss due to other factors. The only reason I see why it gets brighter closer to the screen is cause it also shrinks the image down as its a projector. Closer='s smaller-so therefore BRIGHTER. Now the reflector makes or breaks this theory. Several sites I have read from claim that with a parabolic reflector that the light loss after 1' in a shorter distance like this is all the same. So at 10' 12' or 8' you should still be having the same lumens output BUT the ansi lumens will drop due to the enlarged image making the light spread over a larger area. Thus less lumens per foot efecting ansi lumens -blah blah. But the point is with parabolic type reflector you can maintain the nearly same lumens output over any of our needed distances. So lcd at 1' or 2' will be hardly dif. other than lower temp. Thats part of the battle there, getting the most to the lcd....
"Myth: The inverse square law applies to aquarium lights.
Fact: Only the light from a compact bulb with no reflector drops off as per the inverse square law. The illuminance of a single (or dual) fluorescent fixture drops of approximately linearly with distance. And the illuminance of a multi-tube fluorescent fixture is almost independent of distance. Furthermore, the light from a compact bulb in a parabolic reflector is nearly independent of distance as well. "
So should be the same with MH right?
"The parabolic reflector creates parallel light rays, just like the Sun’s rays."
from:http://www.calgaryaquariumsociety.com/Articles/Light_Part_2.html
And that is what we need to get max light through panel and a clear focusable image. Hmmm wonder if you could make a parabolic reflector for a fluorex bulb? I tired that bulb, bright but light was totally uncontrolable-orderd a MH today....
😀
Tinker,
People have been trying to get the best out of lighting for years. Imagine a factory. The local bylaws say there should be X amount of lighting per square foot to make comfortable working environment. If the factory or office is large there are great savings in electricity cost to be made if maximum utilisation of lamp output can be used. Same with street lighting, search and rescue lighting, airport landing lights etc etc.
You say for best results light beams should go through the LCD parallel. But how do you get parallel beams. By using point source light and reflector. Problem is point source lights are very expensive so we dont use them. That means straight away we give up option for the parallel beams and instead have to use approximate parallel beams. Approximate is not very good because only at focal point are some beams parallel. At all other light radiator area outside of focus point we have non parallel beams mixing up with parallel beams
We can look at manufactured items using 100-250 watt short arc bulbs putting very large lumens on screen but we have to use 450 watt MH bulbs to get the same thing. Sometimes takes a big struggle to even get acceptable results meantime commercial units can operate in high ambient to give a good picture.
Whats the difference. Commercial units use short arc lamps. We do not. So we have to put up with inferior reflector results.
Also there is another reason commercial units are light efficient.
Has been touched on before but no one discusses the problem.
LCD panel only works with polarised light. Half the light we give to an LCD is wasted .
Comercial projectors recycle the unused light. Change its polarisation and then use it so they are getting much better light efficiency. Recycling polarised light is not easy and not cheap, you need to intercept beam, allow correct polarisation to pass through, take incorrect polarised light pass it through a wave retarder change polarisation to correct type then pass on to LCD, so for DIY it may be impractical. But it is still a big light loss.
But even so we do pretty good.
With 400 - 450 metal halide you can be almost 100 percent sure of getting enough light even with imperfect reflector system, or even no reflector. See post by Billett.
To go to smaller wattage bulb we need to be clever. Learn more about how to use light from bulb more efficiently and give LCD good light. To do this good idea is to get raytracing software. I have downloaded reflectorcad demo version. Just starting to see how to use it. So far it seems very complicated.
People have been trying to get the best out of lighting for years. Imagine a factory. The local bylaws say there should be X amount of lighting per square foot to make comfortable working environment. If the factory or office is large there are great savings in electricity cost to be made if maximum utilisation of lamp output can be used. Same with street lighting, search and rescue lighting, airport landing lights etc etc.
You say for best results light beams should go through the LCD parallel. But how do you get parallel beams. By using point source light and reflector. Problem is point source lights are very expensive so we dont use them. That means straight away we give up option for the parallel beams and instead have to use approximate parallel beams. Approximate is not very good because only at focal point are some beams parallel. At all other light radiator area outside of focus point we have non parallel beams mixing up with parallel beams
We can look at manufactured items using 100-250 watt short arc bulbs putting very large lumens on screen but we have to use 450 watt MH bulbs to get the same thing. Sometimes takes a big struggle to even get acceptable results meantime commercial units can operate in high ambient to give a good picture.
Whats the difference. Commercial units use short arc lamps. We do not. So we have to put up with inferior reflector results.
Also there is another reason commercial units are light efficient.
Has been touched on before but no one discusses the problem.
LCD panel only works with polarised light. Half the light we give to an LCD is wasted .
Comercial projectors recycle the unused light. Change its polarisation and then use it so they are getting much better light efficiency. Recycling polarised light is not easy and not cheap, you need to intercept beam, allow correct polarisation to pass through, take incorrect polarised light pass it through a wave retarder change polarisation to correct type then pass on to LCD, so for DIY it may be impractical. But it is still a big light loss.
But even so we do pretty good.
With 400 - 450 metal halide you can be almost 100 percent sure of getting enough light even with imperfect reflector system, or even no reflector. See post by Billett.
To go to smaller wattage bulb we need to be clever. Learn more about how to use light from bulb more efficiently and give LCD good light. To do this good idea is to get raytracing software. I have downloaded reflectorcad demo version. Just starting to see how to use it. So far it seems very complicated.
Alright, I see. So am I nuts thinking that I can get a good pic from a 5" panel using a 150watt MH (5mm arc) projecting a 4' screen? My thought was you guys are going for like 100" so less light dispersed over area = greater brightness so my 4' screen should be useable at your half lumens light source....am I way wrong or right. Please let me know. I'm in the process of getting a 150watt bulb but will change the order if it will be totally not bright enuff. Thanks, you ahve been a big help.
I went to dauphin electric contractor supplys and orderd one. I requested a 5mm arc gap, we'll see what I get. He said he found the bulb but had to order it as they arent a commen bulb (must be the short arc gap) I told him it was for projection so he was just going by specs I gave. Hopefully he didnt screw it up! Heres the one I was looking at:
http://www.elights.com/ven150watmet.html
See how big the center (dont know name) is where the light comes from! The bulb he showed me is similar to what I'm getting and the inner tube is like half that size. Keeping fingers crossed!
http://www.elights.com/ven150watmet.html
See how big the center (dont know name) is where the light comes from! The bulb he showed me is similar to what I'm getting and the inner tube is like half that size. Keeping fingers crossed!
je pense donc je suis.
I truly am sorry that others don't seem to be getting their fluorex to work properly....
i can only repeat that my very very simple set up does bring the light mass together after the first fresnel, i knew that already after the first try. Therefor i am surprised that noone else seems to be able to facus that light in a sort of rectangular beam. when it enters the delta IV it is already controlled so to speak and the lens does not alter any of it's beams ....
As told before, my LOA's ( i wonder if this stands for lineair optical amplifier) are joint together pretty closely (in an angle and the front panel is actually the front panel of one (1) loa that now covers 2 loa's Indeed there is still ight going around in side the casing but less, much less than i expected. I am going to post some pics later today to show you how close the loa's are really brought together!
Jean-Pierre
I truly am sorry that others don't seem to be getting their fluorex to work properly....
i can only repeat that my very very simple set up does bring the light mass together after the first fresnel, i knew that already after the first try. Therefor i am surprised that noone else seems to be able to facus that light in a sort of rectangular beam. when it enters the delta IV it is already controlled so to speak and the lens does not alter any of it's beams ....
As told before, my LOA's ( i wonder if this stands for lineair optical amplifier) are joint together pretty closely (in an angle and the front panel is actually the front panel of one (1) loa that now covers 2 loa's Indeed there is still ight going around in side the casing but less, much less than i expected. I am going to post some pics later today to show you how close the loa's are really brought together!
Jean-Pierre
the original backlite
it is maybe strange to the rest of the forum but when i dismantled my lcd monitor i did not find leds of any kind of shape or form but a sort of dubble S shaped very small neon tube.
I think there lays some support of my setup. To me it is not important as to what sortof light is brought into the lcd as to how much light is brough in there and at what distance, as the original backlight fits exactly the screensize, i just focused with a fresnel the "untameable" fluorex light slightly into a rectangular and to everybody else's amazement, it turned out just fine, just as it did with Zark's (second) set up/project.
Jean-Pierre
ps i used fresnels from Office Max but i really would like to buy glass one's. A friend of mine in Belgium has tried both and says that the glass ones are an improvement
it is maybe strange to the rest of the forum but when i dismantled my lcd monitor i did not find leds of any kind of shape or form but a sort of dubble S shaped very small neon tube.
I think there lays some support of my setup. To me it is not important as to what sortof light is brought into the lcd as to how much light is brough in there and at what distance, as the original backlight fits exactly the screensize, i just focused with a fresnel the "untameable" fluorex light slightly into a rectangular and to everybody else's amazement, it turned out just fine, just as it did with Zark's (second) set up/project.
Jean-Pierre
ps i used fresnels from Office Max but i really would like to buy glass one's. A friend of mine in Belgium has tried both and says that the glass ones are an improvement
"it is maybe strange to the rest of the forum but when i dismantled my lcd monitor i did not find leds of any kind of shape or form but a sort of dubble S shaped very small neon tube. "
Not strange at all really. Mine had the same but it was along 1/2 the rectangular frame and used a light difuser and polarising layers to disperse the light evenly. Its not a neon tube if its like mine and I think it is by your description, its a CFL. Compact flourecent light. Low heat /high lumens and low power consumption vs. output so perfect for small lcd tvs and such. Mine is a PSone mobil one interact active matrix TFT lcd panel. I removed all the polarizing sheilds and everything right down to the bare lcd itself.
Not strange at all really. Mine had the same but it was along 1/2 the rectangular frame and used a light difuser and polarising layers to disperse the light evenly. Its not a neon tube if its like mine and I think it is by your description, its a CFL. Compact flourecent light. Low heat /high lumens and low power consumption vs. output so perfect for small lcd tvs and such. Mine is a PSone mobil one interact active matrix TFT lcd panel. I removed all the polarizing sheilds and everything right down to the bare lcd itself.
Tinker said:
i did this to a cheap laptop about a year ago...
the flourecent bulb was very small but long. I only took one polarizer off yesterday and have been walking around looking at different objects through my one polarized broken lcd screen. Makes everything look pretty wicked i must add. 🙂
woneil, I have a question. I have been searching and read that you once found a 575W MH bulb for a dukane 680 OHP.
where did you find this exactly? I have a friend looking for this bulb and i'm giving him a hand.
thanks 🙂
If anyone else knows places to purchase 575W MH bulbs, do share 🙂 hehe
Hi Multiplexor,
The cheapest source of HMI 575W Double-ended bulbs I found was:
http://www.eurotekmarketing.com/index.html
They also sell them on ebay - just do a search on HMI.
Bill.
The cheapest source of HMI 575W Double-ended bulbs I found was:
http://www.eurotekmarketing.com/index.html
They also sell them on ebay - just do a search on HMI.
Bill.
Man, you guys have made some nice progress since I last checked the board. I especially liked the pics by DeadEye!
I feel like such a slacker. All I do is my real job (boring) and I haven't touched the projector in weeks. Of course I watch TV/Movies on the thing all the time, but as far as modifications go, none really. Problem is, I spent $180 and I love it the way it is.
When I have time I'd like to explore the custom built method, for brighter images. I'm curious how Marklar and Undream have improved their designs. I'll visit their sites' in a bit.
For those with new improvements or new designs, I'd be thrilled if you stopped by my site and submitted your specs and a link. I'd be happy to add you to my links page.
Keep up the awesome work...
I feel like such a slacker. All I do is my real job (boring) and I haven't touched the projector in weeks. Of course I watch TV/Movies on the thing all the time, but as far as modifications go, none really. Problem is, I spent $180 and I love it the way it is.
When I have time I'd like to explore the custom built method, for brighter images. I'm curious how Marklar and Undream have improved their designs. I'll visit their sites' in a bit.
For those with new improvements or new designs, I'd be thrilled if you stopped by my site and submitted your specs and a link. I'd be happy to add you to my links page.
Keep up the awesome work...
2nd projector
I am starting to assemble my 3rd projector.
you guys know what the elements are that i am using. This time it's for the manaager of the appartment complex, he wanted to know what all those little ups and fedex packages are that constantly are being rerouted to the office when we're not home, i showed it, he fainted and afterwards put 225 krispy klean dollar bills on the table .
I LOVE AMERICA AND IT'S PEOPLE!!!
11$ casing, 22$ lens, 9$ fresnel, 79$ lcd monitor(Legacy L56M) and $25 junk to make it look professional.
Jean-Pierre
I am starting to assemble my 3rd projector.
you guys know what the elements are that i am using. This time it's for the manaager of the appartment complex, he wanted to know what all those little ups and fedex packages are that constantly are being rerouted to the office when we're not home, i showed it, he fainted and afterwards put 225 krispy klean dollar bills on the table .
I LOVE AMERICA AND IT'S PEOPLE!!!
11$ casing, 22$ lens, 9$ fresnel, 79$ lcd monitor(Legacy L56M) and $25 junk to make it look professional.
Jean-Pierre
400 Watt MH
OK here's how it goes. My birthday was 9/12 and I had received my 400 watt MH from the inlaws!!! I immediately wired and fired it up trying to get any results. Not great. So I figured to leave it alone and spend time with them. Then I started back on the project and put aluminum foil in my light box as my "Super Parabolic Reflector" and bamm beautiful picture at 6 feet wide. But OK I had good pics with the Fluorex at 1am what about with light in the room? I turned on my two 60 watt Fluorescent lamps in the living room and 300 watts of recessed incandescent in the kitchen and a very watchable picture is there with no fine tuning of the setup yet! Then this morning at 10am during daylight and NO window covers or blinds I actually can get an image that can be seen (somewhat washed though). This is truly amazing because I just remodeled my house and my entire first floor is basically windows and with the fluorex during the day I got no usable image at all. So basically when this project is done, anytime after 5pm I should get an excellent image without shutting myself off from the rest of the world! Hopefully tonight I can take pics and post. My setup is very similar to RedDevil's but no magnifying lens after the MH yet. I still would like to get a complete glass optic condensor setup after the bulb for efficiency. More to come and Thank you all for your help it looks like this will actually work out better than I had ever imagined!
OK here's how it goes. My birthday was 9/12 and I had received my 400 watt MH from the inlaws!!! I immediately wired and fired it up trying to get any results. Not great. So I figured to leave it alone and spend time with them. Then I started back on the project and put aluminum foil in my light box as my "Super Parabolic Reflector" and bamm beautiful picture at 6 feet wide. But OK I had good pics with the Fluorex at 1am what about with light in the room? I turned on my two 60 watt Fluorescent lamps in the living room and 300 watts of recessed incandescent in the kitchen and a very watchable picture is there with no fine tuning of the setup yet! Then this morning at 10am during daylight and NO window covers or blinds I actually can get an image that can be seen (somewhat washed though). This is truly amazing because I just remodeled my house and my entire first floor is basically windows and with the fluorex during the day I got no usable image at all. So basically when this project is done, anytime after 5pm I should get an excellent image without shutting myself off from the rest of the world! Hopefully tonight I can take pics and post. My setup is very similar to RedDevil's but no magnifying lens after the MH yet. I still would like to get a complete glass optic condensor setup after the bulb for efficiency. More to come and Thank you all for your help it looks like this will actually work out better than I had ever imagined!
and now for something likewise
Can anyone tell me what we need in order to get a video signal (coming out of the Motorola cable box from AT&T through the female rca plug) to become a rgb signal? you know with those connectors you push and twist 90*....
(((sighhhhhhh....)
Can anyone tell me what we need in order to get a video signal (coming out of the Motorola cable box from AT&T through the female rca plug) to become a rgb signal? you know with those connectors you push and twist 90*....
(((sighhhhhhh....)
crt projectors
I just came back home from a friend of mine wanting to show of his 3- crt projector. Nice 3 lenses, 2 remotes-a wireless and a wired-one. No reference of a name, i think it says Aquastar, we deducted that because some letters of a metal sticker that were left on the outer casing....
He had asked me to help him with the mounting of it...
the darn thing weighed more than a 100lbs????
What is in it??? some lead???
anyway. I left after watching about 20 minutes, i had gotten a headache, there seems to be more going on than just focussing... By the Holy Cow of Vishna.... (he's Indian)
each color needs to be somewhat angled, scanned??? and focussed and then the whole set of 3 needs to be reangled, rescanned and refocussed ... took forever AND while we were watching Black Safari(his niece plays in the movie and he is sooo proud of that!!!) , the thing went out of focus again. He claims it will be another 3 to 4 days before the machine is stabilised enough (after transportation???)
then the measurement it's about 32" by 16 by 25"
Volume wise that is bigger than the projectors i make, i know mine are lcd but still ..... one luckyy thing though, he got the darn thing for free when emptying a Seattle warehouse.
I realized that Keep It Simple may have been my luck making my own projector!
I just came back home from a friend of mine wanting to show of his 3- crt projector. Nice 3 lenses, 2 remotes-a wireless and a wired-one. No reference of a name, i think it says Aquastar, we deducted that because some letters of a metal sticker that were left on the outer casing....
He had asked me to help him with the mounting of it...
the darn thing weighed more than a 100lbs????
What is in it??? some lead???
anyway. I left after watching about 20 minutes, i had gotten a headache, there seems to be more going on than just focussing... By the Holy Cow of Vishna.... (he's Indian)
each color needs to be somewhat angled, scanned??? and focussed and then the whole set of 3 needs to be reangled, rescanned and refocussed ... took forever AND while we were watching Black Safari(his niece plays in the movie and he is sooo proud of that!!!) , the thing went out of focus again. He claims it will be another 3 to 4 days before the machine is stabilised enough (after transportation???)
then the measurement it's about 32" by 16 by 25"
Volume wise that is bigger than the projectors i make, i know mine are lcd but still ..... one luckyy thing though, he got the darn thing for free when emptying a Seattle warehouse.
I realized that Keep It Simple may have been my luck making my own projector!