I know you are out there. My 004 will be 3 years old in June, and I'm still on the first bulb! Sony shipped me the replacement a few months ago (free of course). The 004 is the finest piece of A/V equipment I've ever owned, and although it's absolute black level and marginal ANSI contrast would turn the stomach of the black level fascists that lurk here, I'm still amazed at the picture it can throw. With excellent source material, like Heroes, it's stunning.

At one point last fall, I had a tad of upgrade fever, what with Art finally ditching his Sony 90 stack for digital (pigs flew that day!). But I've come to the conclusion that it no longer makes sense to shell out another $30000 for a FP - it's not a cost issue, but a value issue for me. When Sony/JVC/SIM produces a FP with the lumen HP of my 004, state of the art black/contrast, comparable lens for under $5000, then I will bite.

I know a few owners have upgraded (?) their 004s. What are the rest of you doing?

I am going to hang on until there a more significant break through in design. I had my calibrator over last night and we estimated 16 ft lambers on a 14' wide microperf scope screen (w/ISCO III lens) with lamp on Normal (high) and Iris 1. We didn't get to the calibration so there may be a little more there... I am satisfied with the brightness overall. Mind you this is on a bulb with just over 700 hours on it. The optics are first class as well..

I am going to hang on until there a more significant break through in design.

What you said :D
BTW, did you get the Lumagen?

J.Mike
I am not a Qualia member but perhaps you should deem yourself worthy of putting in that second fresh bulb.
What is your deaier saying as far as the future of Sony and sxrd? Noone gave a clear answer at the Sony line show, any indications of a Sony laser something coming to the market?

No. No indication. Sorry.

if you were Sony and have exited the RP TV market, would you be investing significant sums in SXRD chip design?

But you could change a lot of parts and keeping improving things in your SXRD FP keeping the base SXRD chip more or less the same. Hell. You could buy SXRD type chips from someone else who chose to invest in further SXRD type chip advancement.

In many many many ways the VPL-vw200 is a better machine than the 004. However it is no where as bright and it has somewhat better optics because its zooms are of much shorter range. Splitting one lens zoom range into three different lens, all else being equal will result in a better lens and a wider effective aperture for the same money and a flatterlens surface sweet spot.


but unless you have a really wide screen like the Blands, one can get overall picture quality as good as the 004 for about $10K.

Sony can get its dealers to bite on the few remaining 004s it has. it keeps lowering the price. Hell of a deal for anybody really needing high lumens like the Bland.


but absent such an application there are now better ways to go for street less than than even the low new dealer cost for an 004. Can't talk prices here. But considering a new 004 comes with a spare $3000 bulb 9when you need it), a projector ceiling mount, and the $3K upgrade not on the original, a hell of a deal but nobody wants it.

on the other hand, 200s are selling OK.


To justify a $30K price point for a new Qualia top of the line type model, Sony would have to substantially beat the performance level of the 200. It can't at this point, that's why there is no 004 replacement. The 200 is already better except for as mentioned above.

i am really trying to be objective here. That's the way I see it.

Sony wants to win a big percentage of the digital theater market, so I wouldn't count them out on big time development of LCoS, especially in the 4K and/or 1080x2560 arenas. Unless guys like JVC and DLP backers just pound them into submissions with ongoing $$$ losses.

mark haflich
vw200 only needed more brightness to be a true successor, right?
If Sony makes a full stop on sxrd the movie industry will never ever trust Sony when trying to sell them a hot new technology. Laser illumination hopefully could solve the brightness issue for Sony in digital cinema. Laser illumination for digital cinema a go or no go is a topic at the Projector summit.

J.Mike
I am not a Qualia member but perhaps you should deem yourself worthy of putting in that second fresh bulb.
What is your deaier saying as far as the future of Sony and sxrd? Noone gave a clear answer at the Sony line show, any indications of a Sony laser something coming to the market?I have a gray 100" screen. Right now, I've re-calibrated the 004 - low bulb setting, but full iris (over the 3 years, I've changed the iris setting from 2 to 0 as the bulb has aged, and still get a bright colorful picture with plenty of punch). Since I don't have a cave, and host many football parties during the season, the 004 handles ambient light whereas the cheaper Sonys would wash out.

I agree with Mark that Sony does not seem to have an 004 replacement. It could be that they are waiting for laser technology to become marketable.

Im considering a qty deal on 004s but I do not think the market supports it right now. Its a tough call.
Im a fan of the 200 but the 004 people are use to that extra brightness and thats where the 200 is not in the same league.
There is something in the works from Sony but it is now delayed. We may get lucky with an introduction Cedia 08, maybe not. Its not laser.

1080x2560 ultra widescreen? :)

Alan,
Make sure the 004s that you are looking at have the 1080p input mod. Here's the catch: the 1080p input mod is only for DVI - the HDMI will only accept 1080i. Also, I recommend that the 004 desperately needs a video processor like the Lumagen HDPro with its DVI output and ability to output a 1080p signal as well as a 1080p24f/s signal. The 1080p24f/s is equivilant to the 1080p24 that the Blu-ray outputs. What i do is have the Blu-ray output 1080i to the Lumagen and have the Lumagen process the signal for the 004.

For those clients that want a very big screen, a 004/Lumagen HDPro combo would be a stellar setup. Since the HD Pro is out of production, call Jim and see if he can give you a deal.

My Q004 is 3+ years old. I'm keeping it for now. It has an amazing film like image that is not present in the DLPs. The optics are superb. When the source it top notch, the picture is gorgeous. I'm willing to wait a year or more for the next major advancement.

I replaced my q004 1 year ago with the jvc rs1. The rs1 is better in every way except color balance. I am extremely happy with my decision. I also have the radiance for color correction. Better black level was expected but I also found the rs1 to be sharper and brighter. Granted, my q004 had 1800 hours when I switched. The rs1 is truly an amazing ground breaking pj.

I replaced my q004 1 year ago with the jvc rs1. The rs1 is better in every way except color balance. I am extremely happy with my decision. I also have the radiance for color correction. Better black level was expected but I also found the rs1 to be sharper and brighter. Granted, my q004 had 1800 hours when I switched. The rs1 is truly an amazing ground breaking pj.

Some of us would argue that lumens, or lack thereof, is an even bigger issue. but I'm glad you love your JVC.

Some of us would argue that lumens, or lack thereof, is an even bigger issue. but I'm glad you love your JVC.

Not sure what you mean. I just found the jvc to be brighter. What was interesting was that the jvc showed of sparklies of my firehawk for the first time. It was annoying to see this.

With 1800 hours your bulb was nearly end of life. I wonder what the JVC will look like at 1800 hours.

Im considering a qty deal on 004s but I do not think the market supports it right now. Its a tough call.
Im a fan of the 200 but the 004 people are use to that extra brightness and thats where the 200 is not in the same league.
There is something in the works from Sony but it is now delayed. We may get lucky with an introduction Cedia 08, maybe not. Its not laser.

i had a qualia stack long time ago but when i read about how bright
the qualia is that not true at least in some ways.

i drive it max. light out with no iris at all and full power
lamp.
that give you in the first hours about 1500 lumen at 1200:1 cr.
if i remember right.
that cr. can increase in iris 2 to good 2000:1 but than the unit have max.
600 lumen light out.

as far as i read here most people drive it in high cr. mode so the
light out was not more then 600 lumen at d 65!

the huge light drop the qualia have(50% in the first 500 houres) are
some other thing.

so todays 600-700 lumen pr. like the rs2 or the sony vw 60 or vw 200
are at least as bright as the most qualia owners use the pr.
and have a far better cr.

some months ago a guy with a qualia visit me and we compare it with a
new 3chip full hd pr. and i tell you beside cr. the qualia not look bad!
even with the only 150 ansi cr. and 1000:1 on off at
high light out and no iris i measured it looks very nice but i am sure the
qualia will lose if you compare it with the new rs2 the vw 200 or the new maranz single chip dlp.

What you said :D
BTW, did you get the Lumagen?

Yes...and I am feeding 1080P24 from my H DVD and BD machines to the Radiance and sending out 1080P24sf to my Qualia. With the CIH set up, I am in nirvana.

I have been told by reliable sony sources the Qualia replacement will not be at Cedia 08. A potential one reportedly exists in lab form but the design is still evolving.

Sony dealers who sell reasonable quanties of Sony projectors such as AVS and others have been target by Sony sales for liquidation of the few sony qualias remaining in Sony inventory. Tthose few are not moving and no dealer has deemed buying them a prudent investment. The low CR and high bulb replacement costs I think in dealers' minds would scare potential consumer purchasers off. I suspect that Sony wil lowerthe price of these even more. My guess is that some dealer could over Sony several thousand less than the present sony asking and I'd bet Sony would make the deal if the dealer took the lot. the lot is only a few units anyway.

Jeff. Alan or some other Sony dealer could get you one cheap and you could do a stack. I've seen a triple stack of these myself. the screen was slightly bigger than yours. would it be cool. 2 qualias and 2 isco. I've never seen that.

There is no MSRP on the blow outs. They are the upgraded units doing 1080p 60 as well as 1080p My guess is that street would be under $15K (even less if the dealer buys the lot) and with that you get two bulbs.Hell 2 bulbs would cost one $6000 and lor under $9k more or less I guess, I dunnno, you'd get an 004 thrown in. And that includes a $3K nid zoom range lans, so you'd get the projector for what $5 or 6K. Hell I think some dealer could invest and part them out later at a high yield in another 5 years or so when Sony has no more repair parts for them.

Sony can sell those things for 10K and they'll have a hard time selling one to an informed consumer when a person can purchase a JVC RS2 for $7500. I can hear some Qualia owners howling about how there is more to the Qualia than just contrast specs and so on, and that's undoubtedly true, but my *opinion* still stands. Personally, I'd pay 3K for one just because it looks cool but no more due to the cost of the bulb. If it was still state-of-the-art the bulb cost would be less important, but who wants to spend 3K on a bulb for an old projector?

The issue which made me switch away from the Q004 was the black level and contrast ratio. The Q004 performed very poorly in dark scenes. Parts of "Batman Begins" and almost the entire "The Descent" is very dark. Under these conditions, the elevated black level of the Q004 were painfully obvious with a very washed out look. These scenes can really remind the viewer that he is merely watching a movie. The RS1 is significantly better and I am sure the RS2 is even better.

I do not think stacking helps contrast ratio. Both the brightness and the dark level gets proportionally elevated when stacked. As such there is no net gain in video quality.

When I got the RS1, I was expecting significant improvement in CR which I did get. What surprised me was that the RS1 was also brighter and sharper. Sure the Q004 may have a better lens but if the end result is that the RS1 is sharper, this just means that the RS1 design was better optimized. The high quality lens on the Q004 may be unnecessary. The Q004 lens may also have smaller amount of edge light drop-off. However, during normal viewing, such an effect is rarely noticeable.

The more I use the RS1 the the more impressed I am with it. In my opinion, JVC designed this PJ and invested their money in the most important parameters of the design. They got the important things right. If the price of an RS1 and a Q004 (with 1080P upgrade) were identical (i.e. both were $3k), I would still choose the RS1.

If unused bulbs age well Sony can just sell Q004s with a lifetime supply of bulbs. Lets say that is 2 extra bulbs. That is alot of movie watching time.

I'm sure my gray screen helps with the black level. But the 004 is 4 year old technology, and the manufacturers now embrace contrast and black levels - look at Pioneer's Kuro. There are scenes that make me painfully aware of the 004s limitations in this regard - but this regard only. The mothership still proudly hangs and still elicits oohs and aahs.

The Qualia is a great projector, that in my situation, is providing an extended life for me until the next great thingarrives. The JVC projectors are nice but they simply cannot light up an extremely large screen. Moreover, most projectors use UHP bulbs, and for me Xenon provides the best light. Moreover, I haven't seen a PJ yet as quiet as the Qualia.

I know there is better now, but I am waiting for a shift in technology to provide a significant upgrade in performance. Until then, the 004 provides a pleasing picture.

The Qualia is a great projector, that in my situation, is providing an extended life for me until the next great thingarrives. The JVC projectors are nice but they simply cannot light up an extremely large screen. Moreover, most projectors use UHP bulbs, and for me Xenon provides the best light. Moreover, I haven't seen a PJ yet as quiet as the Qualia.

I know there is better now, but I am waiting for a shift in technology to provide a significant upgrade in performance. Until then, the 004 provides a pleasing picture.

Jeff,

My RS1 with a new bulb is brighter than my Q004 with an older bulb. So I think their brightness is similar. Are you running your Q004 in high lamp mode? I think this is the only mode the Q004 can be much brighter but you pay for it with lower CR.

At the moment I would like to see an RS2-like projector from JVC with 120Hz interpolated refresh. This would really improve panning scenes.

I'm sure my gray screen helps with the black level. But the 004 is 4 year old technology, and the manufacturers now embrace contrast and black levels - look at Pioneer's Kuro. There are scenes that make me painfully aware of the 004s limitations in this regard - but this regard only. The mothership still proudly hangs and still elicits oohs and aahs.

Mike,

You mentioned the issue of value in your original post. I am with you on this. I think one no longer needs to spend $30k on a PJ. The technology will continue to improve and a $30k PJ today will be worth a fraction of this price in 2 years.

I think the only time one needs to spend a lot on a PJ is if one wanted a very bright one to light up a very large screen. I think these PJs will continue to be expensive since they do not belong in the sweet spot of home theater applications. These PJs are semi-professional or professional, i.e. for commercial theaters.

Jeff,

My RS1 with a new bulb is brighter than my Q004 with an older bulb. So I think their brightness is similar. Are you running your Q004 in high lamp mode? I think this is the only mode the Q004 can be much brighter but you pay for it with lower CR.

At the moment I would like to see an RS2-like projector from JVC with 120Hz interpolated refresh. This would really improve panning scenes.

The RS2 is out of the question for my application. Too dim.

My ISF calibrator conducted a PJ shoot out recently with 4 low priced PJs, and found that on a 10' screen after calibration the RS2 only mustered 19 ft lamberts.. That is little more than i am getting now on my 14' wide screen with my Qualia. Moreover, it is with a UHP bulb which is inferior to a true Xenon. The difference in screen square footage going from a 10' wide scope to a 14' wide is 2X. So, I'd expect that piece to get closer to 10 ft lamberts with that PJ on my screen. Better contrast or not, it's be too dim...

See here: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=994668

Jeff,

I think in your case it is not a matter of Q004 versus RS1 or RS2. Your screen is just too large for these PJs. I am referring to using the Q004 in high CR mode or equivalently low lamp mode.

Unfortunately the larger screens fall out of the sweet spot which many of the commercial manufacturers such as Sony or JVC are designing for. Hence you pay much more for equivalent performance to get the brighter PJs.

There will be a new flagship. Period. That's what I am waiting for personally as I've had mine since the first week they were in the US as everyone knows, and I have tested and calibrated several "alternatives" recently, and still nothing compares. With a Radiance in tow with 1080P/24 to SF conversion, the only thing I am missing is 36bit color, and I personally don't care about that right now. I will wait till we see something at CEDIA or CES, and it will be a Sony. No, I'm not interested in debating with Mark or anyone else on how I know this, but I do, and most people on here know I do work with Sony outside of selling Sony because of my work with their Concierge program and as the Sony ASC for Qualia.

There will be a new flagship. Period. That's what I am waiting for personally as I've had mine since the first week they were in the US as everyone knows, and I have tested and calibrated several "alternatives" recently, and still nothing compares. With a Radiance in tow with 1080P/24 to SF conversion, the only thing I am missing is 36bit color, and I personally don't care about that right now. I will wait till we see something at CEDIA or CES, and it will be a Sony. No, I'm not interested in debating with Mark or anyone else on how I know this, but I do, and most people on here know I do work with Sony outside of selling Sony because of my work with their Concierge program and as the Sony ASC for Qualia.

I would ask, however, how you know it will be Sony rather than say PD,Christie,Barco just as examples ?

Art

I would ask, however, how you know it will be Sony rather than say PD,Christie,Barco just as examples ?

Because Sony has already shown it off to people by invite. I'd be really surprised if PD, Christie or Barco could show something anywhere near what Sony has in the pipeline. The Sony won't be perfect, so 3-chip DLP will still be the best choice for everyone with really big screens.

Don't get me wrong, the Qualia is a fine projector and the first digital I could live with. However, I disagree with Josh that there's nothing better. The VW100 is a much better pj, except for brightness, so is the VW200.

And then of course you have to choose what you want, brightness and higher ANSI CR or better on/off CR and a look that is closer to 35mm film.

That's entirely your choice. I personally prefer the look of a VW100/VW200 over a HT5k on smaller screens, but obviously like the HT5k better on bigger screens. None of these are perfect. Unfortunatelly I don't have access to a Qualia 004 anymore to put it side by side with a VW100, VW200 and HT5k, but since the VW100 is already better than the 004 in my opinion, there's not much point in doing this.

Sony usually follows the policy of showing new flagships at CEDIA with introduction at CES and shipping in the spring. That's what happened with the 004. I guess we will have to wait and see.

I'm betting it'll be worth the wait.

Art:

I'm sure those companies might have new world-beater projectors too, but I don't have a relationship with those companies so I can't really speak to their plans! I'm with Alan though, bring it on!

There is indeed a new Sony coming but WHENNNNN??? Bring it on already:)

There is indeed a new Sony coming but WHENNNNN??? Bring it on already:)

If there are no further delays in engineering, it should be at Cedia with a release date late this year. If they run into trouble or make further improvements, it will get delayed of course. But I assume even with delays, it should be at CES early next year.

Sony usually follows the policy of showing new flagships at CEDIA with introduction at CES and shipping in the spring. That's what happened with the 004. I guess we will have to wait and see.

I'm betting it'll be worth the wait.

What other flagships in the last three or four years have they had ?

Art

Jeff,
At the moment I would like to see an RS2-like projector from JVC with 120Hz interpolated refresh. This would really improve panning scenes.

+1.

The RS series are fantastic projectors despite their relatively long list of negatives. On top of that list, for me, is the way it performs during panning scenes.

I, too, think the Qualia has been an excellent piece. It has done 1080P24sf before 1080P24 was even available. At 4 years, it has been in my equipment rack longer than most any equipment in the last 20 years. It looks like it will make to 5 years before it is replaced.

Incredibly innovative, 1080P24 before it was available, the first PJ with HDMI HDCP, and you have to spend upwards of $50K to completely beat its light output. For my 14' wide screen, I'll do fine 'til I find a worthy replacement. This baby does it all and has been a good investment for me.

Looking for the new flagship from Sony.

+1.

The RS series are fantastic projectors despite their relatively long list of negatives. On top of that list, for me, is the way it performs during panning scenes.

I found the list of negatives to be short. Essentially it was color balance which can be fixed with a Radiance and panning. But panning is both a panel issue as well as a processing issue. Have you noticed if the Q004 looked better during pans? I almost think you will have to go with a DLP PJ with proper interpolated frame insertion to alleviate the panning problems.

I, too, think the Qualia has been an excellent piece. It has done 1080P24sf before 1080P24 was even available. At 4 years, it has been in my equipment rack longer than most any equipment in the last 20 years. It looks like it will make to 5 years before it is replaced.

Incredibly innovative, 1080P24 before it was available, the first PJ with HDMI HDCP, and you have to spend upwards of $50K to completely beat its light output. For my 14' wide screen, I'll do fine 'til I find a worthy replacement. This baby does it all and has been a good investment for me.

Looking for the new flagship from Sony.

I don't think the 1080P24 is that big a deal nowadays. The RS1 accepts this as well. Regarding input modes, the non-upgraded Q004 did not accept 1080P60 which really limited resolution for games. I recall "Half Life" running at ~720P and you can see all the jaggies during game play.

To upgrade the Q004 to accept 60Hz costs $3k which is approximately the price of an RS1 today.

I'm over 40...I'm not a gamer....but I do have an XBoX and Wii for my kids.

That said, I am sure the JVC is a nice projector....but it could never light up a 14' wide screen, so I just lump it in with the other 95% of projectors that have anemic light output. No matter how many other things the RS1 does well, it is not for an application like mine and many others after a big picture.

Moreover, as I hang out here in the $20K form, I couldn't allow any projector under $20K to even be considered for video duties in my theater.;)

Jeff,

I am sure you made the right choice considering the size of your screen. With a 14' wide screen, your choices are limited.

I may be wrong but I think most people do not have such large screens, even in this forum. I was merely pointing out that if one's screen size were smaller, maybe in the 10' wide range, the RS1 is a compelling upgrade to the Q004. Here is a comparison of which PJ wins for different specs:

On/Off CR: RS1
Ansi CR: RS1
Brightness: Qualia (high lamp mode, low CR)
Brightness: RS1 approx equals Qualia (low lamp mode, high CR)
Sharpness: RS1 (my opinion)
Input Modes: RS1 equal to Qualia with 1080P60 upgrade
Color balance: Qualia (RS1 equally good with Lumagen Radiance; my opinion)
Weight: RS1 is lighter
Fan Loudness: Qualia is quieter
Price: RS1 costs less
Quality Control: Qualia has more consistent quality, the RS1 quality seems to vary more.


I tend to discount the brightness advantage of the Qualia in high lamp mode because I already find the CR to be objectionable in low lamp mode. High lamp mode (low CR) would be too poor for movies. This is my opinion of course.

Agreed. Depending on the screen size, one piece accels versus the other..

DocDVD:
What possibly could the new flagship have that would convince me to drop another$30,000?

What possibly could the new flagship have that would convince me to drop another$30,000?

Better black level, brighter, better on/off CR, better ANSI CR, better video processing, faster panels, better panel control and higher resolution to name a few things. ;)

And then of course you have to choose what you want, brightness and higher ANSI CR or better on/off CR and a look that is closer to 35mm film.
Actually, I don't have to choose :). Because the statement that LCOS looks closer to film is not only ambiguous, it's also in the eye of the beholder. Film has much lower contrast than both DLP and LCOS, so having a higher contrast ratio does not make LCOS look more like film. I *personally* find the detail of 3-chip DLP superior to LCOS and *closer* to the the detail I see in film. Regardless, since film and digital projection are profoundly different, it seems to me that neither is "like film" and I'm really only interested in the best possible image. So I'll take the ANSI of DLP and the on/off of LCOS, but for now since I have to choose I'll personally take 3-chip DLP. That may change next week if something new comes out as in the past my choice was LCOS...I am technology agnostic.

BTW, in the past when DLP 1280 x 720 and LCOS had higher resolution and superior fill factor, I think the argument that is was more "film like" probably had more merit. With DLP now at 1920 x 1080, and fill factor higher (though maybe not as high as SXRD) I don't think that argument holds water, but I expect people will still keep making it for years to come, as old habits die hard :).

Better black level, brighter, better on/off CR, better ANSI CR, better video processing, faster panels, better panel control and higher resolution to name a few things. ;)
Ummmm, can't I get that with the VPL-VW200? As for higher resolution - sure, if there is source material . . .
Again, I ask what will the new flagship have that is worth the flagship price?

Mike,

If your screen is on the order of 10' wide or smaller, you have a lot of lower cost choices that will give a great picture relative to the Qualia 004.. But if you move up to a large screen, the pickings are slim (and expensive).

Mike,
If your screen is on the order of 10' wide or smaller, you have a lot of lower cost choices that will give a great picture relative to the Qualia 004.. But if you move up to a large screen, the pickings are slim (and expensive).

Right, but I don't have a cave, and "events" viewings (sports/awards/concerts) with other folks present usually have low level ambient light. So the extra lumens is a requirement for me, and this has been the consistant attribute that all other lower cost options cannot provide - as you have discovered for yourself.

The last thing i want in a projector is a 'film-like' image. i want a 'life-like' image. i can't wait for film to die so i don't have to see reproductions of it.

Film has much lower contrast than both DLP and LCOS, so having a higher contrast ratio does not make LCOS look more like film.

To make this short, that's wrong. It might be true for the average theater, which probably has a CR somewhere in the 2k:1 to 3k:1 range, but it's wrong for a theater that knows how to handle film and gets highest quality prints (premiere prints). I really don't want to go through this again, but all technologies have pros and cons, but that fact that DLP is a modulated technology (on/off similar to PWM) makes it suffer in comparison to film.

If you don't have a 35mm projector and access to premiere prints, the next one to look out for will be Indy 4. Do yourself a favour and see this in an excellent theater, then compare it to the average theater and report back. Difference will be night and day. I'm planning to see it at the Empire on Leicester Square myself, excellent theater. Another one I can recommend is the Odeon in Greenwich, quality varies a little and a gallery ticket sets you back over $40 per ticket, but it's well worth it.

Ummmm, can't I get that with the VPL-VW200? As for higher resolution - sure, if there is source material . . .
Again, I ask what will the new flagship have that is worth the flagship price?

No, you can't get that with a VW200. I've yet to see a VW200 that can light up a 15' to 20' wide screen. I'm not counting any mods here, sure you can use the components of a VW200, design a new case, modify it with a brighter bulb and light up a 20' screen. Warranty lost, so if there's a problem later on, good luck. Not for everyone.

The last thing i want in a projector is a 'film-like' image. i want a 'life-like' image. i can't wait for film to die so i don't have to see reproductions of it.

Too bad that film is actually shot on... film. :rolleyes:
If you want "life-like" there are plenty of threads in the BD software forum with fanboys bitching about grain, who will be happy to agree with you.

Cool, where is this grain bitching thread?

As i said in Peter's thread, film grain uses a *lot* of processing power and space to capture, tying up processing to reproduce distortion rather than using that power and space to eliminate motion artifacts, both in the player and the projector.

I'd much rather see movies shot with HD cameras and stored and played back digitally.

To make this short, that's wrong. It might be true for the average theater, which probably has a CR somewhere in the 2k:1 to 3k:1 range, but it's wrong for a theater that knows how to handle film and gets highest quality prints (premiere prints). I really don't want to go through this again, but all technologies have pros and cons, but that fact that DLP is a modulated technology (on/off similar to PWM) makes it suffer in comparison to film.

True, in that transferring a film to digital is a higher fidelity operation than displaying it for the 100th time in a low grade movie house. Movie houses just blow the black levels all to hell with the high intensity bulbs.

Film has much lower contrast than both DLP and LCOS,

What? Not a chance. I see a lot of digital projection in a butterfly split with virgin prints laser recorded from the digital data set. There is no contest, film wins hands down in CR.

the only thing I am missing is 36bit color, and I personally don't care about that right now.

That's good because the entire broadcast and mastering chain is 10bit based, equilivant to 30 bit YpBpR. So you aren't going to see any 12 bit on the consumer side for quite sometime. The first step wouyld be to support 4:4:4 sampling but no consumer format can even do that.

36bit deep color is just marketing hype. Yes the consumer products may support it but the broadcast and mastering infrastructure does not.

What? Not a chance. I see a lot of digital projection in a butterfly split with virgin prints laser recorded from the digital data set. There is no contest, film wins hands down in CR.
Since film projected in a theater is less than 1000:1 contrast ratio, I'm not sure I understand that statement. I've never seen anything in a theater even approaching a real fade to black.

Since film projected in a theater is less than 1000:1 contrast ratio, I'm not sure I understand that statement. I've never seen anything in a theater even approaching a real fade to black.


I'm not talking about a beat up print at a local multiplex. I am refering to film as a medium. It has superior contrast to any digital imager. Now it is true that due to the printing losses a public digital presentation will potentially have better contrast.

But for production, film is still the perferred media. There have been many trails in film making over the past years with digital imagers and the results are always sub par to film. Now digital cameras do perform much better in extreme low light and are often cut in with film. But then we have a grain management issue!

That's why film as a capture medium won't go away soon and that hold true for episodic TV as well. Digital Cinema refers to distribution and presentatioin which is catching on fast. Also most timing today is done in the data domain from scanned negative, then from there it's an all digital path to both the DVD and digital cinema.

I think there is an argument going on that really doesn't have to happen here. I'm convinced that what we see on the vast majority of commecial theaters is only about 1500:1 on /off. When we talk about our projectors at home all we can do is compare to what we get to see not what those in the industry get to work with.

Film like ,to us, is what we get to see. I personally prefer to see grain if there is no practically applied way top remove it that doesn't polish off detail at the same time.

Having seen the best LCoS out there right now ,I prefer the ANSI pop of DLP but just my opinion. The sharpness is indeed very very seductive as are the very very realistic looking daylight scenes etc.

Art

When we talk about our projectors at home all we can do is compare to what we get to see not what those in the industry get to work with.

This is not about what is used during production in the industry, this is about what you get when you go to a good theater with good film stock and where the projectionists know how to handle film. I agree that most theaters are after making money, it doesn't matter how it sounds or looks as long as people pay for it. But that doesn't mean there's nothing better out there. Just because some here (myself included) don't have good theaters in their neighbourhood, doesn't make film bad in general. Hop on a plane, fly to London, NYC, or any other city that has great theaters with much better quality and on/off CR than 1500:1. I do it, so can you.

What would you say if someone comes in here and tells you HT is not worth it? Of course that person has only seen HTs in 10'x10' rooms... but that's what most people have. They don't have dedicated rooms, they don't have full light control, they watch movies in their living rooms, probably under the worst conditions and they will tell you HT is a waste of money. Of course that's not true, but it's the same like saying film in theater is not as good as a digital projection in home.

What would you say if someone comes in and tells you digital projectors suck and they're not worth the money? That person has only seen projectors older than 10 years... same again, you'd tell him to go and see a current generation projector to change his mind. I could go on and on with this.

Point is, if you've never seen a pristine print in a good theater or if you refuse to go to good theaters, then your points are valid for you only.
But the general assumption that film in theaters has less CR than LCoS or DLP is wrong.

I think there is an argument going on that really doesn't have to happen here. I'm convinced that what we see on the vast majority of commecial theaters is only about 1500:1 on /off. When we talk about our projectors at home all we can do is compare to what we get to see not what those in the industry get to work with.

Film like ,to us, is what we get to see. I personally prefer to see grain if there is no practically applied way top remove it that doesn't polish off detail at the same time.

Having seen the best LCoS out there right now ,I prefer the ANSI pop of DLP but just my opinion. The sharpness is indeed very very seductive as are the very very realistic looking daylight scenes etc.

Art

about good 10 years ago i measured in 4 35mm cinemas 3 in munich one at
home town the cr.
best i found was arround 750:1 worst i found was 200:1.

this is also depening where you measured.
far from the exit light or near by:)

i hear long time ago that ti make such measurments in
us 35mm cinemas and found in average less than 1000:1

Right, but I don't have a cave, and "events" viewings (sports/awards/concerts) with other folks present usually have low level ambient light. So the extra lumens is a requirement for me, and this has been the consistant attribute that all other lower cost options cannot provide - as you have discovered for yourself.

Get two RS/HD1's instead;-). Saw such a stack being advocated and demoed by JVC last year, the rearpro screen used was small (2.5 meters wide 178:1 ?), but brightness was more than adequate in the brightly lit exhibithall.

I'm happy to wait. There simply aren't enough choices...... Just like BD players... There is no great player yet that had it all... not even the $2K Denon.

Because Sony has already shown it off to people by invite. I'd be really surprised if PD, Christie or Barco could show something anywhere near what Sony has in the pipeline. The Sony won't be perfect, so 3-chip DLP will still be the best choice for everyone with really big screens.


Indeed Christie is showing off its revamped line of 3-chippers this week, including two versions aimed at 30 meter wide screens.

You said REALLY BIG, didn't you:D, not the mere 7 meter screens like Wolfgang's, that's even too small for the lightest edition that's geared towards 10 meter screens:cool:.

From one of its multiple overlapping Showest releases:
"The acclaimed Christie CP2000 series now includes the Christie CP2000-SB and Christie CP2000-XB with enhanced brightness for screens up to 100’ (30m); the Christie CP2000-ZX for medium sized screens up to 50’ (15m); and the new Christie CP2000-M for smaller screen sizes around 35’ (10m). The projectors can also present today’s most advanced 3D digital movies with the new Christie 3D2P dual projector system. Exhibitors and post production houses seeking the widest choices and best values in DLP Cinema® solutions now have their needs covered, no matter what solution required".

This is not about what is used during production in the industry, this is about what you get when you go to a good theater with good film stock and where the projectionists know how to handle film. I agree that most theaters are after making money, it doesn't matter how it sounds or looks as long as people pay for it. But that doesn't mean there's nothing better out there. Just because some here (myself included) don't have good theaters in their neighbourhood, doesn't make film bad in general. Hop on a plane, fly to London, NYC, or any other city that has great theaters with much better quality and on/off CR than 1500:1. I do it, so can you.

What would you say if someone comes in here and tells you HT is not worth it? Of course that person has only seen HTs in 10'x10' rooms... but that's what most people have. They don't have dedicated rooms, they don't have full light control, they watch movies in their living rooms, probably under the worst conditions and they will tell you HT is a waste of money. Of course that's not true, but it's the same like saying film in theater is not as good as a digital projection in home.

What would you say if someone comes in and tells you digital projectors suck and they're not worth the money? That person has only seen projectors older than 10 years... same again, you'd tell him to go and see a current generation projector to change his mind. I could go on and on with this.

Point is, if you've never seen a pristine print in a good theater or if you refuse to go to good theaters, then your points are valid for you only.
But the general assumption that film in theaters has less CR than LCoS or DLP is wrong.

I'm convinced that there aren't any theaters within hundreds of miles of my home which meet the standards you discuss, as if it is a failing of mine.

Pristine prints,trained professional projectionists, under conditions at that theater which will not degrade the quality of the presentation to something that is just under the theoretical limits of the technology, is not what we get to see.

My point isn't that film can't look great, it's just that it almost never does.

Art

Get two RS/HD1's instead;-). Saw such a stack being advocated and demoed by JVC last year, the rearpro screen used was small (2.5 meters wide 178:1 ?), but brightness was more than adequate in the brightly lit exhibithall.

I'm sorry but the panel errors on the RS1s are variable and generally not close to as good as it gets with three panel devices,stacking and just multiplying that is not going to give a predictably high quality result.

Art

The screen was just too far away/high-up to be able to judge, but I trust you on this, they didn't introduce pixelshifting on the HD100 without reason.

about good 10 years ago i measured in 4 35mm cinemas 3 in munich one at
home town the cr.
best i found was arround 750:1 worst i found was 200:1.

this is also depening where you measured.
far from the exit light or near by:)

i hear long time ago that ti make such measurments in
us 35mm cinemas and found in average less than 1000:1


Yes Wolfgang, this is more in line with what I see in theaters.

Art

I'm convinced that there aren't any theaters within hundreds of miles of my home which meet the standards you discuss as if it is a failing of mine.

Pristine prints,trained professional projectionists under conditions at that theater which will not degrade the qualityof the presentation to something that is just under the theoretical limits of the technology is not what we get to see.

My point isn't that film can't look great it's just that it almost never does.

Art

That's quite fair.

I think there is an argument going on that really doesn't have to happen here. I'm convinced that what we see on the vast majority of commercial theaters is only about 1500:1 on /off. When we talk about our projectors at home all we can do is compare to what we get to see not what those in the industry get to work with.
That is of course what I was saying. The film Glimmie gets to see also probably has an effective resolution of 4K. Which doesn't amount to a hill of beans for you and I since you rarely get to see that in a movie theater. It seems silly to compare digital to some theoretical film reference that a few people who work in screening rooms get to see. If we are going to do that, then why not make our reference for "digital" some 8K resolution lab setup somewhere to prove our point. No one gets to see it, but it's better than film :D.

...but all technologies have pros and cons, but that fact that DLP is a modulated technology (on/off similar to PWM) makes it suffer in comparison to film.
LCOS also uses modulated technology so I am not sure your point. The statement I disagreed with was that DLP = "bright with ANSi" while LCOS looks closer to film. I am not saying you are wrong, merely that IMO that both look different than film, and that LCOS adherents tend to promote the idea that LCOS is "more film like", a statement that as I pointed out, I think may have been more accurate in the past. If by film like we mean the positive qualities of film (i.e. detail), I think Art (he can correct me if I am wrong) and I and many others feel 3-chip DLP is closest at this point in time. Other may legitimately feel different.

By filmlike, i generally mean a slightly softer, perhaps less revealing picture, vs DLP which has more 'pop' and vibrancy to it, maybe even a slightly over sharp picture. Many people think DLP is 'too much'. So, i often use the term 'film-like' as something of a simplistic description of the LCoS image vs DLP. For those that like film, with its grain and somewhat 'portrait' look, people like the JVC. For people who can't get enough resolution and pop, they tend to gravitate towards DLP. I don't think DLP looks film like at all except when it's reproducing a film. JVCs always seem to look a bit like film, even with true HD sources. At least, that's how it looks to me.

LCOS also uses modulated technology so I am not sure your point. The statement I disagreed with was that DLP = "bright with ANSi" while LCOS looks closer to film. I am not saying you are wrong, merely that IMO that both look different than film, and that LCOS adherents tend to promote the idea that LCOS is "more film like", a statement that as I pointed out, I think may have been more accurate in the past. If by film like we mean the positive qualities of film (i.e. detail), I think Art (he can correct me if I am wrong) and I and many others feel 3-chip DLP is closest at this point in time. Other may legitimately feel different.


At what stage do you think the light hitting the screen from a LCoS machine is modulated? The panels of LCoS are not just doing on and off, there's a smooth transition between the states, which also allows to pass light through at a certain intensity. DLP can either display full light intensity or no light at all, light levels in between are generated using modulation. That introduces other problems as well, some of which have been discussed in length on this board. It wasn't too long ago when someone posted pictures of color seperation artifacts on 3-chip DLPs using a pen infront of the screen. But this is really another discussion.

Also, there is no difference in detail between DLP and LCoS. When I look at the Sim2 HT5k side by side with a VW200, there is absolutely no difference in detail. There is however a difference in sharpness, the HT5k is sharper, any DLP is sharper for that matter. Alot of people are still confusing sharpness and detail. Those are not the same.

That is of course what I was saying. The film Glimmie gets to see also probably has an effective resolution of 4K. Which doesn't amount to a hill of beans for you and I since you rarely get to see that in a movie theater. It seems silly to compare digital to some theoretical film reference that a few people who work in screening rooms get to see. If we are going to do that, then why not make our reference for "digital" some 8K resolution lab setup somewhere to prove our point. No one gets to see it, but it's better than film :D.


My point is the problem is not film as a media. Just wait, you will soon have crappy digital cinema as well. Once it gets more widespread, the close supervision of the digital cinema contractors such as Kodak and Technicolor will be spread too thin. Then the popcorn machine fillers will take over just as they did with the film projectors. Yeah, a technician from Christie may stop by once a month to check on the fan filters but that's about it.

You speak of execllent contrast on you HT projectors. Well keep in mind that is comming film! If a new feature, the only film in the path was the camera negative and from there on it's digital precess. Or with older titles, it's a telecine transfer from an IP or on some cases even a print.

BTW, 8K HDTV is still not as good as film in the CR department.

Glimmie, what do you think about the PBS engineer's comment that film grain eats up a huge amount of processing overhead due to the fact that it can't distinguish film grain from motion? Is there any group of people in the industry that think that film grain is an actual distortion?

Well, they already are using e-cinema, or even worse projectors at some US theaters, just read some of Jeremy's experiences with that Christie/Sanyo LCD in one of the other threads here. As an old acquaintance of mine wrote on his blog (mydigitalcinema.blogspot.com) awhile ago, while consulting on Digital Cinema deployment in India, they are using Panasonic single chip DLP's on large screens, so yes picture quality is indeed down on film, there as well.

The NHK 8 demo was indeed somewhat lacking in contrast when using the experimental 4 channel JVC D-ILA projector.

Just wait, you will soon have crappy digital cinema as well.

Soon? A local theater about 10 miles away is using digital projection. You can see the pixel structure from miles away, colors are washed out. Terrible quality. I guess that must mean that all digital theaters are crap. :p

Glimmie, what do you think about the PBS engineer's comment that film grain eats up a huge amount of processing overhead due to the fact that it can't distinguish film grain from motion? Is there any group of people in the industry that think that film grain is an actual distortion?

Yes, film grain and noise do waste compression bandwidth. Most pro MPEG encoders have selectable filtering to reduce this prior to encoding.

Film grain is sacred in many circles. While a byproduct of film, it's use is highly subjective. Grain can be controlled by proper lighting and likewise it can be accentuated by lighting as well. Many directors and DPs delibertly shoot in low ligh to get a grain effect. Again this is an artistic call, not a technical issue at all.

The industry problem is grain MANAGEMENT. You can't have a scene with normal film grain and cut to a CGI processed scene without grain management. The differences or lack of grain is very apparent. So great pains are gone through to keep the grian consistant across the scene if not the entire movie.

Grain REDUCTION to the point of practical invisibilty is quite possible. But then it starts to look like "video" which is a dirty word with most ASC members.

And there are tools to introduce 'Film' grain into digital video as well, quelle horreur.

Personally, I can understand film grain as a technique in some scenes or some movies, but by and large, I would love to see it just gone in anything and everything possible. I'm watching Planet Earth right now and wishing movies looked so good.

Personally, I can understand film grain as a technique in some scenes or some movies, but by and large, I would love to see it just gone in anything and everything possible. I'm watching Planet Earth right now and wishing movies looked so good.

It's a subjective call. The latest film stocks can be almost free of visible grain. Vote at the box office.

Well, certainly if I had the choice between grainy and cleaned up discs, i know what i'd take. I hardly support movies in theaters at all any more.

What's the name of the company that does really advanced film processing and archiving with grain removal, dirt/burn removal etc? I keep thinking Lightwave or something like that, but I'm probably not even close.

Well, certainly if I had the choice between grainy and cleaned up discs, i know what i'd take. I hardly support movies in theaters at all any more.

What's the name of the company that does really advanced film processing and archiving with grain removal, dirt/burn removal etc? I keep thinking Lightwave or something like that, but I'm probably not even close.

Lowry Digital now owned by DTS
http://www.dtsonline.com/digitalcinema/contentservices/digitalimages.php

Well, certainly if I had the choice between grainy and cleaned up discs, i know what i'd take.


Me too but I can't agree with grain removal that reduces high frequency information in the process.

Art

Well, if you remove the grain, you can get a better, more densely packed signal on the disc, so I doubt it would reduce resolution, if that's what you mean. It should improve it.

At what stage do you think the light hitting the screen from a LCoS machine is modulated?
With LCOS light is reflected from the mirror or not. It is most definitely a form of modulating the light.

Well, if you remove the grain, you can get a better, more densely packed signal on the disc, so I doubt it would reduce resolution, if that's what you mean. It should improve it.

There are plenty of examples of how grain removal techniques trashed a presentation. I'm all for it if it results in an image that has equal detail to the pre degrained version otherwise no. The bit rate required is really another ,although related, subject.

Art

Seems that directors today want to shoot in natural light, outdoors, with hand-held cameras - Cloverfield being the latest example. Whether film or digital, I think the noise adds to the experience.

OTOH, a movie like 2001, shot entirely on sound stages with controled lighting, and using 70mm film, has little if any grain at all. I love the look of the HDV release, and frankly, prefer it to 1080i video.

There are plenty of examples of how grain removal techniques trashed a presentation.

Could be, though I wonder if taking out the grain just takes out the faked detail created by image noise.

Could be, though I wonder if taking out the grain just takes out the faked detail created by image noise.

Sorry,just like millions of tiny scratches that comprise a finely polished surface under magnification, grain comprises the film image. It's visibilty can be minimized if the correct film,exposure and development are selected but technically it is still there.

The overzealous use of grain reduction is something that should be steared away from. My understanding is that there are techniques available that can reduce grain and maintain high frequency information but they aren't in wide use.

Thus we are generally fed one of two things: grain and detail or grain reduction with concommitant reduction in detail, With that choice ,keeping the grain is a no brainer.

Art

Sorry,just like millions of tiny scratches that comprise a finely polished surface under magnification, grain comprises the film image. It's visibilty can be minimized if the correct film,exposure and development are selected but technically it is still there.

The overzealous use of grain reduction is something that should be steared away from. My understanding is that there are techniques available that can reduce grain and maintain high frequency information but they aren't in wide use.

Thus we are generally fed one of two things: grain and detail or grain reduction with concommitant reduction in detail, With that choice ,keeping the grain is a no brainer.

Art

+1 :)

Sorry,just like millions of tiny scratches that comprise a finely polished surface under magnification, grain comprises the film image. It's visibilty can be minimized if the correct film,exposure and development are selected but technically it is still there.

The overzealous use of grain reduction is something that should be steared away from. My understanding is that there are techniques available that can reduce grain and maintain high frequency information but they aren't in wide use.

Thus we are generally fed one of two things: grain and detail or grain reduction with concommitant reduction in detail, With that choice ,keeping the grain is a no brainer.

Well, i'm not talking amateur night. i read an article on Lowery and they did some incredibly sophisticated processing to determine what was image and what was noise by comparing dozens of frames ahead and behind each image. No talking grain elimination here, just reduction and intelligent reduction at that. When that stuff hits the MPEG encoder, it's causes problems for the encoder and then seems to be magnified at the expense of other aspects and it chews up processing, it seems, in the display too. I know my LCD TV looks utterly fantastic on Planet Earth and 'okay' on a movie.

iow, i understand what you mean, but i'm not talking about killing the film, just cleaning it up. I kind of doubt the grain removal techniques in an mpeg encoder is anything like what lowery is doing, unfortunately.

No talking grain elimination here, just reduction and intelligent reduction at that.

Lowry isn't reducing any grain. What they do is clean the image from dirt and defects, which is something that shows up with old and damaged film prints. The process they use fully retains the grain structure of film.

Well, i could be thinking of someone else, but i don't think so. They claimed that they could reduce visible grain to essentially zero, but that it was completely up to the film maker/owner. They also said that many didn't want much or any grain reduction. I think it was lowry because they had hundreds of MacIntoshes set up analyzing images, finding flaws and fixing them with increasingly automated capabilities.

i suspect you're referring to the fact that grain reduction is an optional effect, not that they can't do it.

Well, i could be thinking of someone else, but i don't think so. They claimed that they could reduce visible grain to essentially zero, but that it was completely up to the film maker/owner. They also said that many didn't want much or any grain reduction. I think it was lowry because they had hundreds of MacIntoshes set up analyzing images, finding flaws and fixing them with increasingly automated capabilities.

i suspect you're referring to the fact that grain reduction is an optional effect, not that they can't do it.

Just keep in mind that Lowry was responsible for the infamous tragic result with Citizen Kane.

Art

What infamous tragic result? i thought everything went fine with that

BTW, here's an interview with the founder - http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/article.asp?section_id=82&article_id=701&page_number=1&print_page=y

Besides, as i understand it, it was just a low rez DVD transfer, not a true HD, let alone 4K archival as they normally do.

I happily owned the Qualia 004 (upgraded to 1080p input and all) for a little over two years. As I began to sense the sea change in projectors, I bailed and sold it (cheaply, I'd add, at $12,500).

I'm now very content with the projector that gets little fanfare, but is comparatively a well-kept secret, the Sharp XV-Z20000. Having said that, one of the attractions to this fetish is the love for the well-made machine, the piece of art, the Ferrari . . .

That is and was the Qualia 004. While the Sharp rivals it, and in most cases at least equals it, it does not better it. And, amid my "kit" (as some Brits refer to it), the Qualia seemed more at home with my system . . . Revel Ultima speakers, Halcro Amps, Lexicon MC-12 HD EQ . . .

The Qualia, however, belongs to the past. All of what it offered from a performance standpoint can be had for a fraction of the price. While I actually did run mine to the end with the first bulb (I got just over 1600 hours, but I used high brightness mode), the cost of ultimate replacement bulbs is far too high, as the bulb alone would qualify in the "high end projector forum" . . . it was a beautiful piece of machinery. It was a work of art. There was a passion and a stretch for excellence in the Qualia that, sadly, I think we will never see from Sony again.

While I might have buried my Qualia prematurely, it remains the most elegant resident that my system ever harbored. And, while I doubt that anyone yet has seriously bettered its performance, it has been at least equaled, and for a fraction of the price. But its presence is missed, not necessarily for what it did, but for what it was.

Nick :cool:

Agreed, the Qualia was without a doubt the sexiest projector I have ever seen and I am not expecting it to be duplicated any time soon.

What infamous tragic result? i thought everything went fine with that

BTW, here's an interview with the founder - http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/article.asp?section_id=82&article_id=701&page_number=1&print_page=y

Besides, as i understand it, it was just a low rez DVD transfer, not a true HD, let alone 4K archival as they normally do.


I own hundreds of films of the same or older vintage that hammer Citizen Kane. The problem with CK was the polished look to it. It was devoid of fine detail. No it isn't just that it is SD it was the digital ringer it was run through.

This was all over for years after it was done.

Art