Other than oversaturation, this seems to be the no. 1 complaint about this projector- its lens producing an image that is slightly softer than others in its price range.

I find the RS1 to have similar sharpness to the VW60, which is sharper than the VW50. Apparently the RS2 is even sharper.
Skip to Comparisons with Another Newcomer: JVC's DLA-HD100
(http://www.guidetohometheater.com/videoprojectors/1207mar15s1/index2.html)

Most single chip DLPs do. Particularly those of SiM2 or Marantz.

Richard

I second that.:)

Some are saying the RS2 is sharper. The RS1 looked pretty sharp to me. My RS2 looks sharp too. I don't have the opportunity to A/B them in the same place so I can't say that one is sharper than the other.

If you don't want to spend the $$$, Mits HC6000 is supposed to be sharper (and cheaper and quieter and have more accurate colors). No knock intended on the RS1 - that is what I have, but was considering the Mits. Went with the RS1 for other reasons like brightness, contrast and overall image.

Is this post for real?

I'm sitting here laughing at the thought of a bunch of nerds sitting around in a circle pontificating which projector is the sharpest.

I have no damn clue what: airiness, image depth and dipole bass definition means as it pertains to sound! I'm not saying he's screwing with me and those terms aren't real, but if he was, I'd have no way of knowing!

[ AUDIOPHILE ALERT !]

1. "Airiness" - Audiophiles refer to "air" to mean the sense that the speakers project a sense of open acoustic space and a sense of realistic high frequency extension. Think of a speaker with a thin blanket over it - closed in and muffled sounding with the high-frequencies dampened. Take the blanket off and the sound "opens up" into the room with greater clarity and realism.

Between the speaker with more "air" and the one with significantly less, the one with more "air" will sound more like taking a blanket off the sound, letting it into your room.

"Air" is also a term audiophiles use to describe the sense of acoustic space "between" instruments. Some speakers make an ensemble of acoustic instruments sound congested, canned and boxed in. Others give a sense that
each instrument is more separated into it's own acoustic space.

2. Image Depth: Surely you are aware that stereo speakers properly set up produce a stereo image? That is, instruments seem to come not merely from the speakers but also from the space between the speakers. Audiophiles use the term "Imaging" because stereo speakers conjure up a sonic "image" of the musicians playing in front of you, arrayed in space between the speakers.

The "imaging" of a pair of speakers (or recording) is evaluated on the specificity of the apparent placement of the individual musical elements within the soundfield. With a properly set up pair of speakers that image well, you get the sense you can point to exactly the place between the speakers the saxophone, or trumpet, or drums seem to be situated. And many of these stereo "images" also have a great sense of depth, in that they can recreate the sense of some instruments being farther away and others closer, including a sense of realistic you-are-there layering of orchestral sounds.

3. Dipole Bass Bass Definition: Well, that one's a little less clear. Dipole speakers are discussed here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dipole_speaker

Typically dipolar speakers are said to have some advantages in the way they interact with a room, for a spacious sound. For the bass response dipole configurations are often supposed to interact with your room in a way that does not excite room nodes as much. The result being "cleaner" less bloated bass. I had a big pair of dipole subwoofers mated to dipolar Quad electrostatics and it was indeed probably the cleanest, least bloated bass I'd had in my room, making it easy to hear bass notes instead of just "boom, boom, boom."

[/ AUDIOPHILE ALERT ]

Dus zat help?

:)

WOW... :)

Thats all I can say.

Other than oversaturation, this seems to be the no. 1 complaint about this projector- its lens producing an image that is slightly softer than others in its price range.

BenQ W5000
Epson 1080UB

This all goes back to the old "chicken or the egg" debate about what constitutes a "better" picture......a sharp picture which produces a more "digitized" look which some people prefer......or a slightly soft picture which produces a more "film-like" image which others prefer........so if the RS1 has a slightly softer picture than some pj's out there, does that necessarily imply that it's inferior?

Is this post for real?

I'm sitting here laughing at the thought of a bunch of nerds sitting around in a circle pontificating which projector is the sharpest.

I'm seeing Tryg pontificating that he is above such activity.:rolleyes:


Single chip DLP is sharper than anything else available.

Art

Is this post for real?

I'm sitting here laughing at the thought of a bunch of nerds sitting around in a circle pontificating which projector is the sharpest.

And it doesn't stop there! Some take their AV nerdism beyond their projector even farther, to obsessing about the structure of their screens - sitting in the dark, looking at little swatches of material and all that.

Really, you should see it.

:D

A good single chip dlp will be sharper because there will be no panel misconvergence. However, if the lens is not great, you can have CA, which is just as bad as misconvergence.

That said, the RS1 is sharp, not soft. The professional reviews are pretty much unaminous on this point, although the edge is still given to single chip dlp.

Small text on my RS1 through my HTPC is plenty sharp and readable. I don't know what else anyone could want in terms of sharpness?

Is this post for real?

I'm sitting here laughing at the thought of a bunch of nerds sitting around in a circle pontificating which projector is the sharpest.

Very similar to pontificating screen gain differences ;)

Embrace the inner NERD!...My wife does ;)

I'm just saying I think we have come to a point in this forum where we talk about things ad nauseum that really don't mean much. We've become what videophiles are.

Does anyone really sit there while watching a movie worrying about the sharpness of the projector? If so does this cross the threshold of needing to get a life?

Chances are if you are doing this you are seeing the softness of the source material and attributing it to the projector.:(

I'm just saying I think we have come to a point in this forum where we talk about things ad nauseum that really don't mean much. We've become what videophiles are.

Does anyone really sit there while watching a movie worrying about the sharpness of the projector? If so does this cross the threshold of needing to get a life?

Chances are if you are doing this you are seeing the softness of the source material and attributing it to the projector.:(

I'm surprised that you feel that you should be judging what is important in PQ for others and then saying sharpness isn't an important parameter while (as other have said here) things like screen uniformity or texture are important since these are things you see as important.

I'm also surprised that you are the one saying we should get a life as if you are the judge of what that should be.:rolleyes:

Art

I'm saying that "sharpness" comes in a variety of forms. Sitting around and speculating about it in subjective commentary likely doesn't have alot of truth to facts.

"Sharpness" has a number of factors and from the projector side cant be limited by resolution or technology alone. In fact some 720 projectors look sharper. The bottom line is the SOURCE material is the biggest variable and this varies widely so thinking you will solve it with your projector is wishful thinking. Also nobody mentioned viewing distance. Who the hell cares about a sharp image if you're outside 2 screen widths.

Some of the "sharpest" images come from 720 LCD projectors. There goes all your theories....:rolleyes:

I need to get out of this thread. It's like sitting around speculating about whether one car can do 189 MPH vs 192 MPH when the max speed limit is 70.

Some of the "sharpest" images come from 720 LCD projectors. There goes all your theories....:rolleyes:

Exactly. Why is there so much emphasis on color "accuracy" (even though it is impossible to achieve) yet people have no interest in the "accuracy" of other picture parameters, including sharpness (when those things are often possible to achieve)?

People think nothing of processing or overprocessing their image, just don't mess with what the telecine colorist did when transferring a film to DVD.

There is a lot of hypocricy here.

I'm also surprised that you are the one saying we should get a life as if you are the judge of what that should be.:rolleyes:

Art


Oh get a life Art...

I find a nice gin and tonic initially sharpens things up but if you apply too much you start to see all sorts of aberrations especially if the wife is sat next to the mother in law.

I'm also surprised that you are the one saying we should get a life as if you are the judge of what that should be.:rolleyes:

Art

You're right...for some it's not possible.

I'm saying that "sharpness" comes in a variety of forms. Sitting around and speculating about it in subjective commentary likely doesn't have alot of truth to facts.

"Sharpness" has a number of factors and from the projector side cant be limited by resolution or technology alone. In fact some 720 projectors look sharper. The bottom line is the SOURCE material is the biggest variable and this varies widely so thinking you will solve it with your projector is wishful thinking. Also nobody mentioned viewing distance. Who the hell cares about a sharp image if you're outside 2 screen widths.

Some of the "sharpest" images come from 720 LCD projectors. There goes all your theories....:rolleyes:




I'm pretty sure we are referring to 1080 projectors and MTF is a nice term which we might be able to use instead of sharpness here and is not subjective. Likely without knowing it the OP is referring to this parameter.The highest MTF is single chip DLP followed by three chip DLP then SXRD/LCoS then CRT.

I think your outside two screen widths is valid for sure but in my room that is outside (28' back) and also I doubt this has any validity since most don't sit that far back.

Art

I find a nice gin and tonic initially sharpens things up but if you apply too much you start to see all sorts of aberrations especially if the wife is sat next to the mother in law.

Scary even when chemically altered.:D

Art

Exactly. Why is there so much emphasis on color "accuracy" (even though it is impossible to achieve) yet people have no interest in the "accuracy" of other picture parameters, including sharpness (when those things are often possible to achieve)?

People think nothing of processing or overprocessing their image, just don't mess with what the telecine colorist did when transferring a film to DVD.

There is a lot of hypocricy here.

What does this have to do with the OP,just asking ?

Art

Some even don't know what MTF is. Have you seen any of these guys report on MTF when they test the new pj?
Mostly like crisp looking PQ. I think apparent sharpness is over rated. I personally like highly detailed picture but smooth and rich regardless of MTF. That is why I haven't bought a 1080p unit yet.
Having said that I think Tryg made a good point thou. Out of ten titles how many are reference quality is resolution whether it comes from original source or subpar mastering!? Not too many. It seems that is more inconsistent and has a more relevent role than the difference in 1080 units in sharpness. But I agree we always like to seek the best equipment that fits our taste regardless of other factors that affects the whole chain.

The OP wants to know if King Kong will look good on these projectors. The answer is Yes. Now I'm going back to my trekie forum where I'm bidding on some original mint condition Klingon ears...

The OP wants to know if King Kong will look good on these projectors. The answer is Yes. Now I'm going back to my trekie forum where I'm bidding on some original mint condition Klingon ears...

Good, I have a bid in as well but I have shot my wad on those Mr Spock eye brows so I may be out of the running.

Art

I'm just saying I think we have come to a point in this forum where we talk about things ad nauseum that really don't mean much. We've become what videophiles are.

Does anyone really sit there while watching a movie worrying about the sharpness of the projector? If so does this cross the threshold of needing to get a life?

Chances are if you are doing this you are seeing the softness of the source material and attributing it to the projector.:(

i agree with you when it comes down to watching movies, but if you like myself, hook it up to a PC/Mac and use it to surf the web etc occationally, its something to worry about.

i agree with you when it comes down to watching movies, but if you like myself, hook it up to a PC/Mac and use it to surf the web etc occationally, its something to worry about.


I don't think it's anything to worry about with the RS1. I've been using my RS1 with a PC for about a year now and the text is fine, although I'm sure it could be better. Before I got the projector sharpness was one of my concerns.

Obviously there has not been much new news in the projector arena this week>....... :-)

in 11 years of dig. projectors, I think that they are ALL sharper than the average cineplex....let's remember what we are trying to compare to;)

Tomm99,

The RS2 fits this bill. It is clearly sharper than the RS1 (I upgraded from the rs1 to an rs2) to the point I can't imagine anyone viewing both and not seeing the difference and it provides better everything to the RS1 aside from brightness.

Contrary to what some may imply, IMO the RS2 is more than just a minor upgrade from the RS1. I'm actually surprised by how big a difference it is since I was expecting less.

The OP wants to know if King Kong will look good on these projectors. The answer is Yes. Now I'm going back to my trekie forum where I'm bidding on some original mint condition Klingon ears...

That way you'll be able to detect the "airiness" of high end speakers...

:D

Some even don't know what MTF is. Have you seen any of these guys report on MTF when they test the new pj?
Mostly like crisp looking PQ. I think apparent sharpness is over rated. I personally like highly detailed picture but smooth and rich regardless of MTF. That is why I haven't bought a 1080p unit yet.
Having said that I think Tryg made a good point thou. Out of ten titles how many are reference quality is resolution whether it comes from original source or subpar mastering!? Not too many. It seems that is more inconsistent and has a more relevent role than the difference in 1080 units in sharpness. But I agree we always like to seek the best equipment that fits our taste regardless of other factors that affects the whole chain.

For me so far with my three chip DLP I've enjoyed the much sharper look. As long as pixel structure isn't distracting it has been a significantly more satisfying experience than was my CRT stack. Of course ,this is subjective but so many times the look of actually discernable edges adds to the apparent detail visible (along with the added light output).

After having seen an RS1 at a very similar footlamberts I'm comfortable in saying that the added sharpness is an important picture parameter and one I'd hate to give up.

Sure there is a lot of variabilty in the transfers but it's like roads and sports cars, all aren't optimal but when you get on one and can open it up you are grateful you have the horsepower and handling.

Art

I am not against sharpness as long as we have a system that can deliever the detail and clearity in richness rather than stick figure.
I did say that I prefer a highly detailed but smooth look. Sharpness can be decieving like Tryg said a 720p can deliever that better than 1080 units. In fact more pixel density less sharp the image might look in certain situations.
Having said that edge sharpness if it is an added effect to the original I am totally against it. Fixed panels do that to some extent. It only cheapens the look of a display system in my mind. Same thing.. when APL goes down and gray haze saturate the image with low CR devices.
I like your anology of road and SP cars, always looking for right time and place. It is nice to have the option of being able to.:)

What does this have to do with the OP,just asking ?

Art

You're right. I am the first guy in the history of AVS to have gone off topic. The shame I feel is indescribable.:D

I'm just saying I think we have come to a point in this forum where we talk about things ad nauseum that really don't mean much. We've become what videophiles are.


This is very true. The front projection industry has come along way and the image from various projector technologies all seem to be converging to the same place. The net result is that everything has become plug and play and there is very little that a person can do that differentiates their setup from someone else's.

This forum used to be a great place for people to hang out and gain valuable information on how to make significant and very noticeable improvements to their setups. Long time members might remember the old threads about applying CCF's to improve contrast, other threads on how to recalibrate projectors like the JVC G series to improve contrast by large amounts. There were also discussions about tracking and phase for analog video, pixel perfect timings, etc. etc. People still hang out on the forum but most of the discussions anymore are based on speculations of upcoming product announcements, reviews, etc. So in that sense there isn't much in the way of technical information being discussed anymore and it's more a case of everyone being armchair quarterbacks.


I'm pretty sure we are referring to 1080 projectors and MTF is a nice term which we might be able to use instead of sharpness here and is not subjective. Likely without knowing it the OP is referring to this parameter.The highest MTF is single chip DLP followed by three chip DLP then SXRD/LCoS then CRT.


Art, sorry to quote you in the same post as Tryg :D

Getting back on topic though, I agree that a single chip projector with a good lens yields the sharpest image mainly because slight misconvergence in 3-chippers can make a significant difference in MTF. People often think that the sharpness/MTF differences is mainly due to differences in the device technology (LCOS vs DLP). My take on it though is that the difference in device sharpness is minor compared to the large degree of optical differences in both designs. Both DLP and LCOS have complicated optical systems with many elements and I think that this is where the main differences in MTF stem from. The fact that some 3-chip projectors may be sharper than a RS-1 or VW60 may just be a case where they are much more expensive and use better optical components.

It would be an interesting experiment to take a projector like an RS-1 or RS-2 and then do an MTF test on it using only one color and then repeat for all 3. The difference in measurements would show how misconvergence itself plays a role. As far as MTF differences stemming from the device technology itself goes, I don't know how someone could measure this independently of the effects from the optical system.