Poll: What Did You Think of ‘Pacific Rim’?

Although Guillermo del Toro’s robots-vs.-monsters slugfest ‘Pacific Rim’ may not have been able to win the box office battle this weekend, something tells me that the demographics of our site’s readership probably had a lot more interest in seeing it than in Adam Sandler’s latest lazy comedy. Did you trek out to theaters to support the movie? Did you like it?

As is so often the case these days, I just didn’t have time to get out to the theater this weekend. I have too much else going on, and frankly I’m tired of spending upwards of $20 a ticket (seriously!) to watch a movie presentation that’s more often than not inferior to my own home theater anyway. I think I’ll just wait for Blu-ray.

While I like most of Guillermo del Toro’s movies, I tend to prefer his smaller, foreign productions like ‘The Devil’s Backbone’ and ‘Pan’s Labyrinth’ over his big-budget Hollywood fare. True, the first ‘Hellboy’ is pretty great, but ‘Hellboy II’ really wasn’t. Frankly, the trailers for ‘Pacific Rim’ make it look like a Comic-Con attendee’s wet dream, which doesn’t do much for me. On the other hand, early reviews and word-of-mouth have been surprisingly much stronger than expected. Any movie insane enough to cast Charlie Day as a scientist deserves my attention. I may need to make time for this after all.

What Did You Think of 'Pacific Rim'?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Also, tell us if you saw the movie in 2D or 3D. Is the 3D conversion worthwhile on this one?


  1. Mr Apollo

    I already gave my thoughts on Pacific Rim in the “now playing” posting on Friday. Having said that, people need to get out and watch it. This movie was awesome and a lot of fun! I have a home theater setup with a Mit hc4000, klipsch reference series speakers (2 rf82’s, 1 rc62), 2 Martin logan 500 subs, 2 surprisingly great performing acoustech PL-66 surrounds, rx-v2065 Yamaha receiver, and a DIY 104inch screen I made. I sit roughly 8 feet away from my screen. I prefer to watch movies at home rather than at the theater because like Josh said earlier my home theater setup is better than what’s available at the movies and, I dont have to worry about other factors. I go to the movies on a normal basis so I can see the latest and greatest. The movie going experience isn’t what it once was. I have a huge collection of DVDs and blu-rays so you can understand why I like staying at home.

    I can’t stand 3d at all. I have never gone to see a movie willingly wanting to see it in 3d. When I saw the trailer last December for Pacific Rim I knew immediately that this and the new Godzilla movie would be one of the few times in my life I’d actually like to see a movie in 3d. I new the scope of it would be worth it and I was right for Pacific Rim. Seeing this movie at the theater, in a Cinemark XD theater, is something that I won’t be able to mimic at home, even having a screen that is nearly 9 feet diagonally. The screen wasn’t as big as am IMAX screen but it’s definitely better than going into a normal size theater. I literally would have to move my head up sometimes just to see things on the screen that was out of my sight. I LOVED that! I can’t get that same experience at home. The 3d was top notch and didn’t bother me at all. The lamp was very bright and I didn’t have a dim problem like some people have. The only other 3d movie that didn’t bother me that I’ve seen is The Hobbit at 48fps.

    Go and do yourself a favor and the rest of the film industry if you haven’t already seen this movie and do so. I’m going again and I’ve already convinced other people to also. I told them that if anything, even if you end up not liking the movie, just go for the experience. It’s worth that alone. It’s a disservice not to watch it. And… like I said before, this will be the last time something this creative with a mega budget will be made if we don’t support it!

  2. Drew


    Nope, I’m not using a $20,000 – $40,000 projector. I wish! The one I really wish I was using right now is the $25,000 Sony 4K projector. However, I did find a local dealer that has a fantastic Sony trade-up program, which is why I switched to a Sony,this year. I’m currently using a Sony VPL-VW95ES. It’s awe-inspiring. I am still incredulous as to how it is able to project such a gorgeous and BRIGHT image, on such a large screen. And I am NOT using a high gain screen. (My screen gain is 1.3). It’s adaptive contrast implementation is terrific. It’s practically unnoticeable. Most viewers would never notice it.

    Anyway, the dealer has a loyalty program, and has promised that I will be able to trade this in towards a Sony 4K model, once I decide that prices have lowered enough, and I’m ready to take the plunge.

    I’m also using an Optoma HD25, solely for 3D. I’m in love with the 3D exhibition I experience with it, as it is literally 100% crosstalk free. However, I could never use it as a reference projector.

    For audio, I’ve finally switched over to all Bowers and Wilkins, with the exception of my subs. I’m using a CM Centre 2 center channel, CM10’s for my fronts, CM8’s for width, CM5’s for front height, and 4 DS3’s for rear and rear surround. My subs are both HSU Research VTF-15H.

  3. Freakyguy666

    DREW, JOSH, et al…

    Theaters near me and many other acquaintances around the country have upgraded their systems to compete with the premium theaters and although not optimal, they have fairly high lumen output as well as relatively good audio systems–keep in mind that my original comment was directed at Josh and specifically was comparing his setup to what me and others around the country are seeing occur at these “upgraded” budget theaters. And if you dont currently have one nearby, chances are you will–soon.

    Also, keep in mind that when talking “presentation” we don’t look at just a single number like lumens–it is the overall experience which also takes into account the sound environment (a dedicated commercial theater with proper height/width/length vs Josh’s basement with insufficient headroom for proper acoustics), screen size (a 50 foot screen vs an 8′ screen), number/quality/position of speakers, the power and quality of subs, etc….Even if the lumen output may be a point or two lower, that does not automatically equate to a better “presentation”.

    Finally, I didn’t make my initial post to get personal. I was just posting my perspective based on facts provided by Josh and my not-so-limited first-hand experience. Since Drew asked the question, I’m happy to oblige that my theater has no shortcoming in lumen output as I currently use a Sim2 3D-Solo on a 14′ 16×9 screen achieving about 18 lumen fully calibrated. The construction and all of the acoustics of the dedicated theater were engineered by Keith Yates (look him up).


    • Freakyguy666

      NOTE: The 2nd-to-last sentence in the previous post should be revised to read, “…18 foot-lamberts and 1800 lumens fully calibrated…”

  4. Abram Harper

    The 3D in Pacific Rim is so good that I forgot that I was watching a post-conversion 3D film. It definitely ranks up there as one of the best 3D films I’ve ever seen. I would put it on the same level as Dredd and Prometheus in terms of it’s use of 3D.The only difference being that this movie has lots of “pop-out-of-the-screen” effects but in a way that really fits with the action. They don’t call attention to themselves in the traditional “Hey audience! Yeah you… We’re gonna have stuff pop out of the screen now. Wasn’t that cool?” kinda way.

  5. Drew


    Lumen and fL at $4 theaters I’ve seen — hell, even a lot of $6 theaters — are not “a point or two lower.” It’s more like you’re watching the film projected at 2 fL, tops. Not to mention, blurry/out of focus projection, non-working speakers, no subwoofers in use, and even films being projected far off the actual screen.

    I require a minimum of 16 fL. My new Sony projector has been professionally calibrated to deliver a firm 20 fL evenly across my screen. I actually only project the Optoma DLP at 9′ wide, and use curtains, so that I can get a solid 18 fL for 3D viewing.

    I’m sorry, but no $4 theater is going to project at more than 5 fL. As a matter of fact, some full-price theaters are projecting at 5 fL, or less. Again, this is not “a point or two off.” It’s a substantial difference! It’s a major lack of brightness! And let’s not forget, sometimes a dim presentation is the least of the problems you will encounter at a budget theater.

    Are you really saying that the much larger screen, offered by the theater, makes up for so many other areas in which it is lacking? I would rather watch a brilliantly bright image, with perfectly calibrated audio and video, on a 65″ plasma, than go to a budget theater and witness a miserably dim image, projected off the screen and not entirely in focus, with a few speakers not working, and absolutely no LFE, regardless of how large the screen is.

    • Josh Zyber

      FYI, theatrical movies are timed for a target projected brightness between 14-16 fL. Projecting much brighter than that can actually be almost as harmful as projecting dimmer, because you tend to expose or exaggerate artifacts that you weren’t meant to see.

      That said, I understand the appeal of having a luminously bright image when watching the best-looking material.

      I assume that your 18 fL for 3D was not measured through the glasses? I’ve actually given up attempting to calibrate for 3D. The picture is so damn dim through the glasses that I can’t get a reliable reading on my light meter on the darker test patterns.

    • Freakyguy666

      Again, the $4 theaters I refer to typically have pictures at 10-14fL–if not higher–and the sound systems are full 5.1 utilizing powerful subs–relative to the size of the auditorium. Perhaps you are confusing these theaters with the lowest-end theater, but to be clear, these are mid-level theaters just below those with ATMOS or digital Imax auditoriums. These upgrade are occurring around the country as investors are buying the cinemas for pennies on the dollar and upgrading them, and if you do your research you will realize it is true.

      With regard to your theater, I would venture to guess that your picture is suffering from poor contrast given the projector you are using is not capable of a high enough CR while maintaining sufficient lumen output to display 20fL on a 10′ screen without some amount of gain on the screen. You really need to see how much better a bright picture with 65000:1 CR looks to appreciate what you’re missing–then imagine putting it all on a screen much larger than yours and you may have an idea of the difference between our two HT set-ups.


      • Josh Zyber

        Freaky, that may be how the cheap theaters are wherever you live, and if so that’s ever so terrific for you. But that simply isn’t the case in other parts of the country. There are ZERO $4 theaters near me. Matinee prices are at least twice that around here. At anything other than the most expensive premium theaters, the quality of the presentation just plain outright, indisputably sucks. Crappy picture, crappy sound, uncomfortable seats, rude audiences. Going to the theater is more a chore than a treat. You have to pay through the teeth for a minimum standard of comfort and quality, and even then will be annoyed by something (like booming bass from the next auditorium drowning out the dialogue in whatever you’re watching) more often than not.

          • Josh Zyber

            Metro Boston. Here’s the theater closest to my house:


            $9.50 for a matinee. $12.00 for an evening show. This is the theater with no bass in any auditorium. Most screenings I’ve been to have been too dim.

            Here’s the theater closest to my office:


            $10.75 for a 2PM matinee (which I wouldn’t go to, because I have to work during the week). $12.50 for evenings (non-IMAX). This theater is outright terrible. Aside from the IMAX screen (which is fine by LieMAX standards, though even more expensive), I don’t think I’ve ever seen anything projected in proper focus there, or been to a movie without teenagers talking through the whole thing. The seats in most auditoriums are also too close to the screen, so you can see visible pixel structure.

            Here’s the best theater halfway in between:


            $9.50 for a noon matinee (non-RPX). $12.50 evenings. RPX prices are $11.00/matinee or $16.50/evenings. This theater is located next to Fenway Park and several major universities. Parking on a good day is terrible and expensive. If the Red Sox are in town, forget about it; parking is impossible then. This is a typical inner-city multiplex that values the quantity of screens over quality. It has one decent screen – the RPX, which was recently upgraded to Atmos. Most of the other auditoriums are small with thin walls. You can hear every line of dialogue from the next screen over. Chattering college students no matter what time of day you go. Unpleasant experience.

            This is the reality of seeing movies where I live. I’d rather stay home, thank you.

  6. Drew


    One more thing … I don’t know what your audio setup is like, but if you really are using Sim2 3D-Solo, and your statements about the construction and acoustics are true, unless your screen is an extremely high gain screen, riddled with hot-spots, and other artifacts, (and your audio equipment is below par — which I highly doubt) there’s no possible way any budget theater is offering a better presentation than yours! As a matter of fact, even if your screen is way too high gain, and you’ve got hot-spots, your presentation is still better than any budget theater I’ve come across! You’re legitimately insane for not believing so!

    • Freakyguy666


      Please show me where I posted anything indicating that I believed the $4 theaters that I referenced were offering a better presentation than my HT. As already stated a number of times on this board (but somehow still overlooked by you) I was specifically comparing them to Josh’s setup, taking into account the actual dimensions/configuration of the space he is utilizing and his equipment vs those of the $4 theaters I and other acquaintances around the country have personally experienced.

      I would venture to say that the presentation at my own HT is superior to most theaters including ATMOS and even most digital IMax theaters.


      • Josh Zyber

        Can we please stop this pissing match over who has the best home theater?

        Your Sim2 3D Solo is a very nice projector indeed, but it does not have 65,000:1 contast. It’s rated for 30,000:1 full on/off – in 2D only – with dynamic iris engaged. Calibrated numbers after break-in will be much lower. That’s still quite good, of course… for DLP.

  7. Drew


    I’m well aware of that. Well, actually, many recent blockbusters have been timed for a target projected brightness between 18-20 fL. A few have even been timed for a target projected brightness as high as 24 fL. Regardless, trust me, there’s nothing harmful about my current calibration for 20 fL. If there was, I never would have allowed my projector/screen to be calibrated this way. I’m not exposing or exaggerating anything that I wasn’t meant to see. I guarantee it. Besides, I’m currently calibrated that way, as somewhat of a test/experiment for my dealer. He told me that if I would initially calibrate for, and project at 20 fL, he would buy me a new lamp, and pay for a new calibration, no questions asked. He’s having me report back on a variety of different aspects of performance, projecting this way. When I install a new lamp, I’m going to recalibrate for 16-18 fL, on his dime. It’s a complete win … a total no-brainer.

    As far as your inquiry about 3D brightness goes, let me just say that 18 fL is our best “guesstimate”, and we ran into many of the same issues you describe. I’ll say this, I strongly believe I’m getting at least 15-16 fL, through the glasses, and great care went into calibrating for 3D. (That’s putting it lightly). I’m projecting at 22 fL for 3D, without the glasses — Hence, going to a much smaller screen, for 3D — and my technician believes that I’m getting about 18 fL, through the glasses. (It feels like closer to 16 fL, to me). I can’t believe the work and man hours that went into calibrating the color-timing/balance, gamma, and chroma processing, for 3D! With that said, I’m extremely pleased with the end-result! My 3D presentation is picture perfect!

    Did you go single-chip DLP, for 3D? Which projector did you go with?

  8. Drew


    Wow, more condescension! Unbelievable!

    My theater isn’t suffering from poor contrast. Quite the contrary. The contrast is stunning. If you understood anything about my setup, you would know this.

    Comparing your home theater to Atmos and IMAX, and saying that it’s superior. Hmm, well, does anything really need to be said? You’re clearly delusional.

    No need to respond. I’m done addressing you. You’re nothing more than a troll.

  9. Drew

    Thank you, Josh. I was actually going to post the same information, and try to educate him about final contrast numbers after calibration and break-in, but then I realized that he is just trolling, and not paying attention to anything we say. We’re just wasting our time.

    The contrast ratio numbers for my projector are actually rated quite a bit higher than the Sim2 3D Solo, but I would never venture to actually stake claim to achieving anything remotely resembling the specs sheet, on any projector. It’s completely pointless. Contrast ratio numbers are inflated and borderline irrelevant. Most of them would never apply in real world applications, and typically they reflect what the projector may be capable of, with certain settings engaged, that no discerning HT viewer with half a brain would ever use. Contrast numbers merely give us a vague idea of what a good starting point might be, if we require a projector capable of a high contrast ratio.

  10. Drew


    Are you pleased with the 3D performance? You must be in love with the total, utter lack of crosstalk, right?

    I don’t think I could ever use anything other than a single-chip DLP, for 3D projection, now that I’ve experienced it. I used to use a 3-chip DLP for 3D. I thought it was great, at the time, but I’ve been shocked by just how superior the single-chip is.

    • Josh Zyber

      I love the lack of crosstalk. Am less pleased with the brightness (it’s not very), but for a budget unit, I got what I expected out of it.

  11. Drew

    Yes, brightness is an ongoing battle, with the single-chip DLPs, I’m afraid.

    Oh well, that’s why they are only used for 3D, right? 🙂

    • Barsoom Bob

      Josh and Drew, can you write a few lines on how much the single chip DLP projectors, for 3D, are better than say the three LCD models like the AE8000 or Epson5020 ? I realize that three panels have to converge to form a sharp pixel but is it over exagerated in 3D mode ? I currently use a Panasonic VT50 for my 3D, are the projectors much worse in delivering the 3D image ?
      I’m retiring and moving in September to a home that has a windowless room ideal for a HT. I can’t afford the best of the best, but I was going to equip it with one of those two projectors mentioned above and a Stewart StudioTek 130 9 footer. Now you have me worried.
      I do have a lot of 3D content and I was going to go big to boost the impact of the 3D, what do you think ?

      • Josh Zyber

        Single-chip DLP is the only display technology that is totally free of 3D crosstalk. That’s when images intended for one eye intrude into the other, and you can see ghost-like double images. Here’s an old post where we discussed this:


        My JVC D-ILA projector is very bad about crosstalk, to the point that I consider it unwatchable for 3D.

        How much this is an issue will depend on the specific projector, as well as the content being viewed. (Very contrasty images or those with wide parallax offset are more likely to trigger crosstalk if the display is prone to it.) Also, at least on JVC projectors, crosstalk gets worse as the lamp ages and dims.

        Whether this should affect your purchasing decision depends on how important 3D is to you. If you don’t expect to watch a lot of 3D, you may be able to put up with a little crosstalk if the projector is otherwise nice in 2D. If 3D is a big part of your viewing, a DLP projector is probably your best option.

        I recently test-drove an Epson LCD projector. I forget the model #, something in the 6xxx range. I can look it up when I get home. [Update: It was the Epson 6020UB.] I found it unimpressive in a number of respects that had nothing to do with 3D. Contrast was garbage and it was loud as a Hoover.

  12. Drew

    True. I’ll gladly fight the brightness battle, in order to enjoy a crosstalk-free image that you can’t even get at any theater, however.

  13. Drew


    My television in my secondary HT is a ZT60. Before that, I used a VT50. I can tell you, without a shadow of a doubt, that 3D viewing on a single-chip DLP projector, is vastly superior to anything you’ve witnessed on your VT50, or even the ZT60.

    The LCD model projectors you mention would be fine as all around 2D/3D projectors, but you will definitely experience more crosstalk on both of them, than you already currently do, using your VT50. If crosstalk is not a big deal to you, and 3D only accounts for a small percentage of your viewing, I can’t really argue against those models. However, if you’re a big 3D fan, and 3D accounts for a significant percentage of your viewing, I would argue hard against getting anything other than a single-chip DLP. The Optoma HD25, and the BenQ W1070 are both excellent affordable options. Both would be able to handle the 9′ wide screen, without too much difficulty.

    The bottom line is that single-chip DLP gives you the best 3D imaginable. In addition to being crosstalk-free, a lot of people believe that they deliver added depth.

    • Freakyguy666

      It’s pretty clear that you haven’t witnessed the 3d solo in action. No crosstalk kiddies! Plus the brightest 3D picture you’ve ever seen pretty much anywhere outside of the highest-end commercial theaters.

      With respect to your theater set-up, I don’t doubt that it is better than a $4 theater, but keep in mind that when comparing your theater to mine, you neglect to address the fact that my screen is 260% larger than yours at 16×9 with a superior picture. Nuff said.


  14. Drew

    I have seen it in action. Crosstalk is minimal, but it’s still there, and in certain scenes, it can be prevalent. My Sony outshines it in brightness and contrast, in 2D, and 2D makes up the high majority of my viewing. And my Sony was $34,000 less! The 3D Solo is superb, but it’s a waste of money. The Sony 4K projector is superior, in every regard, and it’s still $15,000 less. And again, my single-chip DLP is legitimately crosstalk free, which the 3D Solo IS NOT.

    Since when is a 16×9 14′ screen 260% bigger than a 2.40:1 12′ wide screen? Did you actually learn basic arithmetic? I don’t doubt that your HT is superior to mine, but c’mon, think you might to go back to elementary and get your figures right?

    By the way, out of curiosity, what speakers and subs are you using?

    • Josh Zyber

      That’s a stumper all right. As I calculate it, freaky’s screen would have to be 168″ wide by 94.5″ high, for a 16:9 diagonal of 192.75″ (rounded).

      Drew’s screen is 144″ wide by 61.28″ high, for a 2.35:1 diagonal of 156.5″ (again, slightly rounded). 192.75 is 23% larger than 156.5.

      To be fair to freaky, he was specifically comparing the screens at 16:9. Content of that ratio on Drew’s screen would be 109″ wide by 61.28″ high, for a diagonal of 125″. 192.75 is 54% larger than 125. That’s still a far cry from 260%.

      So, what do we learn from this? In the dick-waving contest that’s been going on here today, freaky indeed has a larger dick than Drew, but it doesn’t come anywhere near dragging across the floor like he’s been boasting. And, sadly, it would appear that in order to support that length, his body has directed all the blood flow to that dick and away from the centers of the brain that have the ability to do math or learn social graces (such as that it’s not polite to whip your dick out in front of people in public).

      But gee, wow, what a swell dick. Do you think you could put it away now? You’re scaring the children, and some of the parents have called the cops. Thanks.

      • Freakyguy666

        Josh & Drew,

        I was referring to 3D. As you may have noted, Drew is forced to reduce the size of his screen to 9′ wide to achieve sufficient ftL’s. If so, my statement, “my screen is 260% larger” is actually an understatement. Do the arithmetic. In 3D Drew is looking at a max screen size (2.35:1) covering 34.875sf of area, whereas, my max screen (16×9) covers 110.25sf of area. Simple arithmetic results in my screen size being over 300% the size of Drew’s screen….and if–God forbid–he were to watch a movie in 16×9, the difference would be even higher! So…as it turns out mister Josh & Drew, freakyguy’s member is indeed “freaky”!


        • Josh Zyber

          Uh, no. If he reduces his width to 9′ wide, he winds up with a diagonal of 117.37″ at 2.35:1. The 2.35:1 portion of your screen would have a diagonal of 182.5″. That makes your screen about 55.5% larger than his at that aspect ratio.

          At 16:9 (assuming that Drew reduces his size further to maintain a Constant Image Height with the 2.35:1 image, which he is not required to do given that his screen has extra height available), he’d have a diagonal of 93.75″ while you’d have a diagonal of 192.75″. That makes your screen 105.6% larger at 16:9 in that configuration.

          If Drew doesn’t reduce the size for CIH, his 16:9 image is 124″, and yours would be back to 55.5% larger.

          Comparing the square area of the two screens is incredibly misleading and inaccurate. Diagonal distance is the more valid comparison.

    • Freakyguy666

      Sorry to have to correct you again, Drew, but the Sony 4k is NOT “superior in every regard”. You may want to check the lumen output and get back to us.


  15. Drew

    Nice bullshit story, Freaky. You never once referred to “3D Screen Size” when you said that your screen is 260% larger. The only thing you said about 3D, in that particular comment, was that the 3D Solo had a great 3D image. Oh well, you did what all tactless liars do, when they get called out. I’m not surprised. Go troll a different blog!

  16. Freakyguy666

    Josh & Drew,


    Drew, this is the second time that you have been proven wrong and have decided to resort to name-calling rather than dealing with the facts. There’s no need to be a hater…just because your screen size is one third the size of mine! FACT.


    I’m truly shocked. I always respected you because you are a fellow GI Joe fan, but more importantly, you normally are pretty neutral and logical. And people learn something everyday…there’s no shame in that. I can understand Drew getting his panties in a bunch for getting mathematically proven wrong, because he has a dog in this fight. But you are going out on a very narrow limb by making the essertion that “the size of a SCREEN” (not the size of a DIAGONAL–note the distinction) is determined by essentially measuring the hypotenuse of the rectangle. A screen is basically a rectangle; You certainly would not compare the size of two rectangles by simply measuring their diagonal…c’mon Josh! You are smarter than that…and I believe that from my limited knowledge of your personality, you are humble enough to admit when you are wrong. Heres a link to a visual representation of such comparisons although I’m not certain you need it: http://www.displaywars.com/

    Getting back to Drew’s feelings of inadequacy, and thus his implication that I should not compare his relatively small 3D screen size, and should instead have focused on his 2D screen size, I will kindly oblige! The area of his 2D 16×9 screen measures approximately 46sf. The area of mine is ~110sf. That equates to a SCREEN SIZE (not hypotenuse!) that is 240% the size of Drew’s. Plain old geometry!

    And now you know the truth….and knowing his half the battle, right Josh?


    • Freakyguy666

      Josh…one more thought. If you continue to disagree I invite you to ask some of your well-respected acquaintances on the avs boards and/or set-up a Poll asking what is the more accurate measure of screen size. Just a thought!


      PS The last sentence of the post above should be corrected to read:

      And now you know the truth….and knowing is half the battle, right Josh?

    • Josh Zyber

      Freaky, even if you use square footage, 110 is not 240% larger than 46. It’s 139% larger. That’s a considerable margin of error.

      For more accurate numbers, go to that Display Wars page you linked and plug in your actual dimensions: 192.75″ diagonal for you and 125″ diagonal for Drew at 16:9.

      54.20% larger diagonal
      137.78% larger area

      With 2.35:1 content, you’re down to only 16.66% larger diagonal and 36.10% larger area.

      • Freakyguy666


        I did not say 240% larger. It is 240% the size of Drew’s screen.

        Perception is not always objective as you well know that is why man invented mathematics and units of measurement. The area of a rectangle is not opinion, it is fact. I still sit here astounded that you-a person that I respect-continue to insist otherwise. I hope that you will take me up on the idea of the Poll or at least consider that simply using a diagonal dimension is misleading. To wit, a 4:3 screen with a 50″ diagonal is not the same size as a 2.35:1 screen with a 50″ diagonal measurement. The only way to OBJECTIVELY measure the size of these two “rectangles” is length x width.

        • Josh Zyber

          “I did not say 240% larger. It is 240% the size of Drew’s screen.”

          Oh, come on now. That’s not how you compare the sizes of two things and you know it. You’re just spinning the numbers to make the percentage sound more impressive. With 16:9 content, your screen is 138% larger than his. With 2.35:1 content, it is 36% larger. These are the actual numbers, and they should be enough for bragging rights.

          Of course, this is all purely a matter of size, and says nothing at all about other, typically more important aspects of picture quality.

          • Freakyguy666

            Well, if you care to ask some of the most well-respected posters on AVS forums Ultra-High End boards, who have owned both Drew’s pj as well as the Lumis, you would find that the quality of picture is many times better with the Lumis due to not only the higher lumens but more importantly the black levels.

            But I digress…saying something is 240% the size of another is no different than saying it is 140% larger. I posted facts that you have now apparently determined are within a couple of percentage points of your own calculations. I don’t know why you can’t just admit I was right.

          • Josh Zyber

            You compromise any advantage in contrast when you disperse the light over a larger screen area. And the both of you only get decent black levels through dynamic contrast manipulation. The Lumis may well be one of the best home theater projectors ever made, but in terms of contrast it still suffers the inherent and unavoidable limitations of DLP and DarkChip 4.

            In my experience, people who purchase ultra-high-end equipment will bend over backwards to justify the money they spent.

            Zip your pants back up, please.

        • Josh Zyber

          And Freaky, lest you think that I’m just ganging up on you to protect my buddy Drew, you should see some of the past skirmishes that he and I have gotten into in blog threads like these. 🙂

          • Freakyguy666

            In my experience, when someone completely dodges the question, it means they are cornered and not willing to admit the other person is right.

            Not sure why making the statement about the basics of how light works is relevant to this thread. Obviously when you spread the same light output over a larger area the less intense the light will be. But we are talking about achieving nearly 20fL in 2D on my screen and STILL maintaining black levels that are superior to anything from Sony. Have you ever sat in a room with two or more professionally calibrated pj’s setup for a comparison? I have. And several members of the ultra-highend boards are frequently invited by installers/suppliers/manufacturers to do so. Some even buy the units themselves to test them out as they have the resources to do so. You will find that when these “shootouts” were performed with Drew’s pj the black levels were weaker than even the R20. And when compared to the picture quality of the Lumis, it wasn’t even a contest. Do your DD. It will open your eyes.

          • Josh Zyber

            Any comparison between two projectors should be done on the same size screen. What you’re talking about is comparing your larger screen to Drew’s smaller screen. He will have better contrast on his smaller screen with his LCoS projector than you will on your larger screen with your DLP projector. That’s just physics. If he blew his picture up to the same size as you, that would be a fairer comparison.

            The Lumis may have the best contrast of any DLP projector ever made, but it’s still DLP, and there’s only so much that DarkChip 4 can do. DarkChip 4 was introduced almost six years ago, and Texas Instruments gave up trying to make improvements to DLP contrast since then. That’s an eternity in consumer electronics.

            Lumis can try to compensate for that by cranking up the dynamic iris. If that doesn’t bother you, by all means enjoy. Personally, even the slightest amount of brightness pumping drives me batty. Good black levels in dark scenes don’t matter much if you have to sacrifice all the highlights to get them. In my opinion, there is absolutely no comparison between any implementation of dynamic iris to a projector with genuinely high native contrast. There’s a night-and-day difference in the richness, depth and vibrancy of the image that can’t be matched by any form of adaptive contrast. I am willing to compromise on screen size to reap that benefit. Your mileage may vary.

  17. Drew


    I have not yet been proven wrong, about anything. You may disagree, but that doesn’t make it wrong. You, on the other hand, have been mathematically proven wrong, how many times? And have also been caught red handed, throwing out bullshit, to cover your lack of basic arithmetic comprehension, as well as lies about the contrast ratio specs on your projector.

    And yet, you continue to troll this blog.

    Go troll a different blog. Get your kicks elsewhere.

    • Freakyguy666

      The relative size of a rectangle is not a matter of opinion…it is simple geometry.

      Fact: in 3D my screen is 300% the size of yours;

      Fact: in 16×9 my screen is 240% the size of yours.

      If you disagree, then you are in denial and I truly feel sorry for you as you have some serious issues of inadequacy. It is becoming clearer with every post and I suggest you quit before you lose whatever credibility you have remaining…which isn’t much!


  18. Freakyguy666


    I appreciate the physics aspect, but in practice the dynamic iris is virtually unnoticeable and the overall quality of the picture is immensely superior. It is as if someone lifted a haze that was preventing the picture from fully popping from the screen. Ideally you would have to see the two projectors performance yourself to appreciate the improvement. But you don’t have to take my word for it. Do your dd and speak to anyone who has experience with both the Sony and the Lumis. As I said, the Sony fails to even match the black levels of the R20! Watching the Imax scenes in Dark Knight Rises on the two projectors really crystallized this for me and many others.