I have a fantastic opportunity to buy a used C3X (720 1st gen) with only 400h by 5.000 Eur.

I know I can spend almost the same amount on the new JVC HD750 in December.

I have to decide fast, because this C3X is not waiting for me.

I have a old Sim2 HT300 and I can wait for December, but I don't know if the HD750 will be better than the C3X (DLP 3 chip!!).

Thanks for the help.

Some people far better qualified than me were at yesterday's HD750 launch and that very question was asked: The answer given was buy the HD750. Given the price you can get the SIM for though, that might slew the answer......

Edit: I think they were talking about the 1080p SIM model, so you could pass on the 720p version based on what they said....even at that low price.

Unless you really need a lot of lumens to light up a big screen, go with the HD750. There are a few things that a C3X might do a little better than a 750, but I had a lumagen corrected RS1 and a C3X1080 side-by-side in my theater and with lumens equalized, most people liked the RS1. Extrapolate from the improvements made with the HD750 and it seems like a no-brainer.

Whats that very strong burning smell? I think something is on fire.

:D:D:D

with lumens equalized

Assuming the story is true, it still has holes in it. Here's what one poster in that thread had to say....


"I believe this comparison was flawed from the start, so any conclusions drawn are useless.

The most obvious fault is putting an ND4 filter on the C3X1080. This cuts the light by 2 stops or by a factor of 4. This will turn the C3X from a 1100 lumen pj into a 275 lumen projector, and this is only if it was set at maximum output, i.e., 250 watts with its iris wide open. I highly doubt both of these conditions were met. If you wanted to equalize brightness, an ND2 filter would have been closer, but I don't think you should have equalized brightness in the first place.

An RS1 with its colors corrected with a CMS, and with a brightness much higher than 275 lumens was used in this comparison. Most likely it was twice as bright as the C3X. Greg Rogers measured his test RS1 at 575 lumens in normal mode (at D65) and 703 lumens in high lamp mode. At minimum throw he measured 791 lumens in high lamp mode. Your RS1 is probably similar. Even though you thought the C3X was still brighter, I submit it was much less bright indeed, and any conclusions from thus comparing them this way is flawed and invalid.

I have also had an RS1 and several C3X 1080's in my home theater and I come to a much different conclusion. I didn't put an ND filter on either projector, and IMO (and that of my wife, the only other one around when I had them side by side) there is no contest between these two projectors. The C3X wins easily." -- Citation4444

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=13985906#post13985906

"We tried our best to equalize brightness. My RS1 now has almost 1000 hours on it. The C3X is probably only a few months old. I have no idea how many hours are on it but based on the amount of time that my friend travels for work, my guess is not many.

We just eyeballed some test patterns. We very well could have screwed it up. I screw most things up the first time I try them, but I am a good learner.

If people are right that this screwed up my testing and biased us in favor of the RS1, to me, this reinforces my conclusion that the thing that makes the C3X special is lumens. Take the lumens away and you take the thing away that makes it special. Still, a great projector, but it is made to be a light cannon.

People may also be right that the use of ND filters screwed things up by ruining the C3X's ANSI. I still use an ND2 filter on my RS1. I prefer a darker image. I used to use the ND4 filter but the lamp aged too much. I guess that I am biased toward a darker image." -- Lawguy

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=13988866#post13988866

And....

"The real criticism in my mind of projectors like the C3X is price....I am not C3X's customer. I think it really comes down to that." -- Lawguy

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=13983636#post13983636

Remember, I have the opportunity to buy a C3X 720 and not a C3X 1080.

The C3X 1080 is to expensive to me...I only want to spend maximum 6.000 Eur.

Thanks

Assuming the story is true, it still has holes in it. Here's what one poster in that thread had to say....


"I believe this comparison was flawed from the start, so any conclusions drawn are useless.

The most obvious fault is putting an ND4 filter on the C3X1080. This cuts the light by 2 stops or by a factor of 4. This will turn the C3X from a 1100 lumen pj into a 275 lumen projector, and this is only if it was set at maximum output, i.e., 250 watts with its iris wide open. I highly doubt both of these conditions were met. If you wanted to equalize brightness, an ND2 filter would have been closer, but I don't think you should have equalized brightness in the first place.

Yes you do, you absolutely want to equalize brightness. Ideally you'd set them both up to be about 12ftL. Otherwise you're not comparing the relative quality of each, all you effectively compare is the brightness.

After all, when you get one of them home, you're not going to be viewing it in reference to the brightness of another machine.

An RS1 with its colors corrected with a CMS, and with a brightness much higher than 275 lumens was used in this comparison. Most likely it was twice as bright as the C3X. Greg Rogers measured his test RS1 at 575 lumens in normal mode (at D65) and 703 lumens in high lamp mode.

That's on a new lamp, the OP said the RS1 had 1000 hours on it, most PJs drop in output by at least half in the first few hundred hours. Most of us try to plan to have around double the output necessary when new to account for this dimming with age.

If ~600 Lumens is right for a new RS1, ~300 Lumens is not unreasonable for one with 1000 hours on the lamp.

At minimum throw he measured 791 lumens in high lamp mode. Your RS1 is probably similar.

Probably not if it's got 1000 hours on it.

I have also had an RS1 and several C3X 1080's in my home theater and I come to a much different conclusion. I didn't put an ND filter on either projector, and IMO (and that of my wife, the only other one around when I had them side by side) there is no contest between these two projectors. The C3X wins easily." -- Citation4444

Well of course it would in that situation, it's over twice as bright. It's well know that when people compare displays they almost always say the brighter one is better. That's why manufacturers always stick their TVs in "torch mode", because they know that bright displays stand out when viewed side by side and thus are always viewed more favorably in such conditions.

But when you've got your one display at home relative brightness is meaningless (within reason). You don't have a reference to compare to and your eyes adjust to the light output.

Now that's not to say the C3X 1080 isn't better, I'm sure in many ways it is. The fact of the matter is, these days, any projector over $3k probably throws a really great image, nothing it going to kill something else. Differences are getting smaller and smaller.

If people are right that this screwed up my testing and biased us in favor of the RS1, to me, this reinforces my conclusion that the thing that makes the C3X special is lumens.

That's true, one of the things that makes 3chippers special is the lumens. But it's not because "more lumens == better image", that's simply not the case (as any CRT-head will I'm sure tell you).

Primarily, the thing that makes lumens important is the ability to light larger, lower gain screens. Lumens are a means, not an end.

Take the lumens away and you take the thing away that makes it special. Still, a great projector, but it is made to be a light cannon.

Lumens are really more about application than quality. No one would complain if you equalized the size of screen with two projectors of different throw by placing them differently. Likewise, nobody should complain about equalizing the brightness when comparing projectors of different light outputs.

Guess work is fine, but call it guesswork -- it isn't right to say you've matched lumens unless you actually matched lumens. Admitting you screwed it all up in one thread and then going on to say in another thread that you matched lumens -- that's not quite factual. Also, lumens are good for more than just lighting bigger screens -- that's over-simplifying. If your problem with a projector is based on price, the rest is more than likely just rationalization.

One nice thing about the high lumens of the C3X1080 is that you can use it with a dark screen to help ANSI CR retention from reflections and the extra light from the projector helps retain both on/off CR and ANSI CR in the presence of other lighting. With a Firehawk on a white wall you could end up in a situation where the light that is lighting up the white wall more actually helps the perception of blacks in the images overall in much the same way that backlighting does. Although the Firehawk has higher than 1.0 gain at its brightest spot, overall it is a negative gain screen and if light is coming from off angles it does a good job of killing it.

There are many situations where the RS2 can't really compete with the lumens advantage of the C3X1080.

--Darin

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=14261054#post14261054

Wow.

Sorry I disagree with you rsbeck.

Take price out of the equation and I still prefer my setup. My guests didn't care about the price since they didn't know what these cost and most agreed with me.

Have your opinion. I don't care. I don't care for the "assuming its true . . ." part. Are you calling me a liar or something?

After my thread on this caused so much controversy, I offered to repeat the experiment in my NYC office and extended an open invitation to all to come and see. I got exactly one PM from someone expressing an interest in seeing it. It was from Mark Petersen, if I recall.

You can go scratch.

You never matched the lumens -- so, I don't know what you call coming in here and saying you matched lumens, but it isn't consistent with what you reported in the original thread. As for the "all my friends who aren't here agree with me" part -- that's always the weakest type of argument.

Physician, scratch thyself.

First, I wouldn't worry about jumping on any CX3. I assume there will be a bunch for sale soon:D

Purchasing a new state of the art projector from AVS will undoubtely be a better choice than a 3 year old Sim at 720p.

Seeing CM down here defending the CX3 is like the Ferrari owners entering into the new Corvette Z01 forums. When your car has been beat in the straightaway, cornering, laptime and breaking its been beat. BUT HEY YOU STILL GOT THAT SILK BAG!! :rolleyes:

Wonder it there is enough material to make it into a dress.:eek:

Story now...

My guests didn't care about the price since they didn't know what these cost and most agreed with me.

Story then.....

most of the people at my home on Memorial day who expressed a preference preferred the RS1, based on its performance in darker scenes. Most people expressed no preference.

I have a fantastic opportunity to buy a used C3X (720 1st gen) with only 400h by 5.000 Eur.I didn't see any specifics for your setup. In general that doesn't sound like a fantastic opportunity to me and for my setups there is no way I would go for that when I could wait and get a 750, but there are setups where it would make sense (like ones where you are going to have light streaming into the room).

It would be good to know things like your viewing ratio and whether you can control the lighting in your room.

--Darin

If ~600 Lumens is right for a new RS1, ~300 Lumens is not unreasonable for one with 1000 hours on the lamp.


I know my RS1 is getting down on lumens at 1255 hrs on the bulb and I've been running it in high lamp mode because of this for the past 200 or so hrs. Out of curiousity I measured the lumens a few days ago and was shocked to find that I was only getting ~110 lumens in high lamp mode. So 300 lumens @ 1000 hrs sounds very reasonable :)

If the OP needs a lot of lumens due to ambient light the C3X would be the way to go, but in a well light controlled environment the 750 seems like a no brainer...

Seeing CM down here defending the CX3 is like the Ferrari owners entering into the new Corvette Z01 forums.

Joey, I most certainly wouldn't describe posting in this forum as being "down here". I think that would be rather offensive and patronizing to the people who use this section of AVS. :rolleyes:

Im also NOT defending the PJ at all. Its merely a toy, and will be replaced instantly a better one appears that meets my criteria for a games room PJ and an apartment PJ. No different to my HT5k being dumped for a better toy. When th AV work is finished in my new house, I'd be more than happy to have you over.:)

Your car analogy, whilst amusing, is not really apt. If you think that owning a Ferrari is simply about numbers on a spec sheet, you don't know much about cars, let alone sports cars. Thats a bit like claiming a $5 digital watch is a more accurate watch than a Rolex, and thus better. Thats missing the point somewhat. PJs, on the other hand, can be judged more objectively. An analogy that would better suit, and you would relate to, would be that of the Bose Wave Radio owner who tries to claim he has the best sound on the planet. A "magic friend" appears who just happens to be unexpectedly carrying a Mark Levinson, but doesn't even know how to use it. Predictably, the Bose Wave Radio is declared a winner by all, if any, who were present:D

The people who have genuinely compared, or truthfully spent time with, the machines in question (C4444, Clehner, MarkH, rsbeck, Myself, AVS staff, previous RS1 owners in the $20k forum, etc etc) state the same thing very clearly. There is simply a class difference in the image the 2 machines produce. The RS1 is a great machine, especially for the price' but no reasonable person would claim it to be better than a C3X1080. Thats not a criticism of the RS1. It has great CR but is hammered in sharpness, ANSI, color, uniformity, VP, motion blur etc. Thats without even mentioning the biggest difference, the actual image that a 3 chip DLP machine produces. The C3X1080 is not without its limitations, and I have been amongst the first and most vocal regarding those.

Your advice regarding an older 720 machine may be good advice depending on the OP situation. I personally could never use a 720 machine again.

Regarding the bag...There may be enough to make a dress, but I don't think it would be practical for you when frying up those chicken wings.:D I think a bucket of Suicide Wings and Joey in a satin dress would be more than enough for one nights entertainment.:eek:

Getting back OT is never a bad idea.

Remember, I have the opportunity to buy a C3X 720 and not a C3X 1080.

My guess is that you'll have other opportunities to buy a C3X 720 at that price if you so choose, this not a once in a lifetime thing. Best thing to do, IMO, is wait until the JVC is available and audition it, see if you like it, then decide. At your price point, the JVC seems like it should definitely be on your short list of projectors to see. Also, if you like sitting close to the screen, less than 1.5 times screen width, you will probably find that a 720 projector will have a hard time competing with the latest generation 1080's.

My guess is that you'll have other opportunities to buy a C3X 720 at that price if you so choose, this not a once in a lifetime thing. Best thing to do, IMO, is wait until the JVC is available and audition it, see if you like it, then decide. At your price point, the JVC seems like it should definitely be on your short list of projectors to see. Also, if you like sitting close to the screen, less than 1.5 times screen width, you will probably find that a 720 projector will have a hard time competing with the latest generation 1080's.

Sage advice indeed.

My screen is a 110" matt white (1.0 no gain).

The distance for the screen is about 1.6x screen width.

I have a good light control in my room (not perfect but very good...dark back wall, partial dark ceiling).

Thanks for your advice

My screen is a 110" matt white (1.0 no gain).

The distance for the screen is about 1.6x screen width.

I have a good light control in my room (not perfect but very good...dark back wall, partial dark ceiling).

Thanks for your advice

One thing worth considering is getting a demo of the C3X-E which is a good step up from the C3X. If you like it, you could get the C3 upgraded to the E model.

At your distance it would be well worth looking at a high quality 720 machine.

rsbeck, just because you don't address the fact that you called me a liar and have not yet acknowledged or retracted it does not mean that that statement goes away. Either defend it or retract it. That is what an adult would do. But, from your behavior, it seems like you have very little interest in acting like an adult.

I have no interest in this thread other than in my brief response to the OP's question. I stand by that response. I do agree that you are correct to remind me that; yes, in fact most people expressed no preferrence. The majority of those who did express a preferrence preferred the RS1.

Opinions are like @ssholes, everyone has them. You may be an @sshole, but you are entitled to your own opinion. What I prefer or what other people prefer is really beside the point. CM is right that there are objective criteria that can be used in evaluating a projector. No one would argue this.

What is true and what all the posters tacitly admit is that the specs alone can't change someone's opinion any more than a women's basic description can tell you if she is beautiful or not. You have to see the woman to know for sure. Even then, what one man finds beautiful, another will find just average. I have never changed my opinion on whether someone was beautiful or not based on a friend's opinon. I like what I like. You like what you like. All the people that CM refers to like what they like. Wow. Is this any surprise?

Might I suggest that you folks on that other forum are too busy silencing any real debate about PQ that you are unwilling or unable to actually see with your own eyes. I have seen so many threads where it appears someone had a valid question comparing one projector to another where that question was somehow deemed inappropriate for that forum. That response always cracks me up. Where is that discussion appropriate?

You folks seem to think that CR isn't that important and black levels are "good enough" until you all collectively start salivating over the specs of some projector that, as it turns out, will never be released.

If you like CR and good blacks, how can you like the C3X? I have seen what passes for black on it and I am not impressed. Sorry. There are other things that I like about it, but TO ME, the grey-blacks would make the C3X a non-starter.

I will regret hitting "submit" because the usual suspects will no doubt emerge and attack me instead of my thesis. So be it, but I really think that your outrage would best be directed at the manufacturers of your PJs, who, for some reason, you continue to support, in spite of the fact that they are releasing products that are no longer competitive in major ways.

As previous owner of the C3X 1080 and currently in possession of an RS1X purchased as a stopgap until I could find a reasonably priced second hand 5000 (Art are you listening?), I'd like to pipe in here and state my own experience. The RS1X is a hell of a machine for the money and does have terrific blacks but CM is essentially correct: they are in a different class.

If the comparison done was with ND filters then I'd throw out the results of any comparison done as completely irrelevant. During the C3X's tenure here I did play around with ND filters and without doubt they emasculated the magical lifelike quality and strengths of the C3X. It's a lot like throwing a wet blanket over one pair of speakers and not the other during an A/B comparison. Not a valid comparison.

Is the RS an incredible machine for the money? Absolutely. It has terrific blacks. I know this is completely subjective, but at no time whatsoever does the RS cross the threshold of believability that the C3X can accomplish where you're absolutely suspending your disbelief and getting into a film with no regards to the form of technology used to produce this image. The Rs sometimes causes me to say, hey this is pretty good and I can understand why it has such a strong following.

Where I see the C3X just in another league is:

* Punch - like Porsche, there is no substitute

* Color Saturation - just rich lifelike color reproduction

* Sharpness - this is what HD is all about

* ANSI 3D depth - although the RS does surprise in coming closer to DLP now

* Lack of motion smear - a deal killer IMO and a huge distraction at times.

* High APL detail is stunning where the RS just $hits the bed. Another huge distraction that also removes the illusion. The ability to throw up bright scenes within dark is where the Sim2 just dominates and is much more lifelike without being washed out.

How the RS is competitive:

* No question high native on/off is a wonderful thing. If DLP can ever get to this level then we'd have a new era of video reproduction.

* If you prefer a softer more filmlike picture then D-ILA is for you. Lack of viewable pixel structure is nice.

* If you prefer a darker picture

Anyway that's my take. I did have my inlaws over a couple of weeks ago and they preferred the RS over the C3X saying the C3 was too "in your face" and they preferred the softer more laid back picture of the RS. They do not have HD in their own home so perhaps they were more comfortable with that type of softer easier on the eye image.


rsbeck, just because you don't address the fact that you called me a liar and have not yet acknowledged or retracted it does not mean that that statement goes away. Either defend it or retract it. That is what an adult would do. But, from your behavior, it seems like you have very little interest in acting like an adult.

I have no interest in this thread other than in my brief response to the OP's question. I stand by that response. I do agree that you are correct to remind me that; yes, in fact most people expressed no preferrence. The majority of those who did express a preferrence preferred the RS1.

Opinions are like @ssholes, everyone has them. You may be an @sshole, but you are entitled to your own opinion. What I prefer or what other people
is really beside the point. CM is right that there are objective criteria that can be used in evaluating a projector. No one would argue this.

What is true and what all the posters tacitly admit is that the specs alone can't change someone's opinion any more than a women's basic description can tell you if she is beautiful or not. You have to see the woman to know for sure. Even then, what one man finds beautiful, another will find just average. I have never changed my opinion on whether someone was beautiful or not based on a friend's opinon. I like what I like. You like what you like. All the people that CM refers to like what they like. Wow. Is this any surprise?

Might I suggest that you folks on that other forum are too busy silencing any real debate about PQ that you are unwilling or unable to actually see with your own eyes. I have seen so many threads where it appears someone had a valid question comparing one projector to another where that question was somehow deemed inappropriate for that forum. That response always cracks me up. Where is that discussion appropriate?

You folks seem to think that CR isn't that important and black levels are "good enough" until you all collectively start salivating over the specs of some projector that, as it turns out, will never be released.

If you like CR and good blacks, how can you like the C3X? I have seen what passes for black on it and I am not impressed. Sorry. There are other things that I like about it, but TO ME, the grey-blacks would make the C3X a non-starter.

I will regret hitting "submit" because the usual suspects will no doubt emerge and attack me instead of my thesis. So be it, but I really think that your outrage would best be directed at the manufacturers of your PJs, who, for some reason, you continue to support, in spite of the fact that they are releasing products that are no longer competitive in major ways.

I would imagine there is a big difference between the original C3X 720 and the 1080. Like wise thre is a big difference between the RS1 and a 750. As someone who has spent time demoing the C3X 720 and the HD750 I can say for a fact that the 750 is a vastly superior projector.

Owl1, Just a point of clarification: The RS1 that was used as a comparison was calibrated with a Lumagen.

IMO, without the Lumagen in the chain, I agree that the C3X would pull away from the RS1 in a number of areas including those you describe as punch, color saturation, 3d depth and motion smear.

I also agree that the C3X is unquestionably better in very high APL scenes, with or without the Lumagen.

I find the RS1 to be plenty sharp. The C3X is a bit sharper.

Using an ND filter simply lowers brightness. There is a slight ANSI impact, but I don't think that the use of an ND filter in and of itself has the impact you describe. I agree that brightness is what makes the C3X special. This is why my recomendation to the OP in this thread was to go with the C3X if he needs the lumens.

My point of view is clearly shaped by the kind of picture that I prefer and the kinds of material that I prefer to watch.

I agree that brightness is what makes the C3X special.

That is very clearly NOT what Owl1 said or intimated at all. Brightness isnt even remotely a factor in the qualitative class difference between the machines in question. Thats rather disingenuous and unrepresentative. The main difference is simply the 3 chip image. The C3X1080 brightness is the same as the HT300e, but the image is clearly superior. QED

Owl1 listed the factors accounting for the class difference in a clear concise manner.

The Lumagen simply does not alter the difference between the machines.The lumagen does not impact the punch, 3D immersion or inherent softness of the RS1. Nor does it correct the motion smear, that's a display issue, as are the others. The sharpness difference is readily noticeable, its not just "a bit sharper".The color issue is not simply a case of accuracy but rather the 3 chip image structure. The interaction of all the elements impact the whole image. I've used the lumagen with the RS1 over a 2 week period. It improves source delivery but not the fundamental differences between the machines.

Its also not "very high APL" scenes that are needed for the C3X to shine. Anything but low APL shows a difference. Even in low APL the presence of a single light source ruins the image. The C3X1080 displays "bright on black" perfectly. There are no halos or hazing issues either. Anyone comparing these machine would readily notice those factors mentioned.

I agree with Owl, the RS1 is a fine machine for the money. Money being the thing that you yourself said that you find the main issue with the C3X1080. I find that strange as the C3X1080 is only a budget priced 3 chipper, in fact its the cheapest 1080 machine available. Its half the price of the next step in quality.

Remember, I have the opportunity to buy a C3X 720 and not a C3X 1080.


A quick reminder for those still insistant on talking about the 1080.

A quick reminder for those still insistant on talking about the 1080.

Agree 100%.

It should never have been taken OT in the first place, by the use of grossly misleading statements. The C3X1080 and the RS1 were not the subject of the OP, and whose irrelevant introduction smacks of agenda.

I dont think there is much more to contribute, so maybe we should move on.




OP.....As rsbeck said, there will be a number of C3X720s coming onto the used market, no need to rush.

Demo the JVC and buy it if you prefer it, buy the C3X if you prefer that. Any other advice is shite.

how about peeps just answer the poor guys question instead of arguing over the small stuff, gee:rolleyes:

HD750 would be a better choice than the 720p C3x by a good margin. have seen both in controlled rooms. HD750 really is impressive with vastly improved colours.

Blacks blacks blacks, that is what makes a picture have good 3d. The 3d effect from my old 9 inch CRT on a small screen has yet to be surpassed in the digital realm. All of these newer projectors have sharp and clear images, the real difference is either black level or how big do you want your screen. This seems to be the the tradeoff. So what's better a bigger screen or better blacks? I guess that depends on who you are talking to, I spent 8 hours one day with a CX3 720 and while it was probalby one of the better 720machines I had seen, it lacked that extra resolution on BluRay. Which to me was a deal breaker. To get one thing sraight I am not a Sim hater, their first generation DLPs were on my short list, but the porjectors were to loud back then, they corrected that, but I still feel they are overpriced, and in this highly competitive market with lots of competition that is a factor.

Comparing a Sim to a Ferrari or Rolex, that is really the best example of Sim owners. Thinking that this projector is status symbol...I don't get that one and never have. Would I rather have an F1 Ferrari over a new Z01 Corvette, of course. If I was out racing on a track for that type of speed status then maybe a guy takes the Corvette.

I own an older Rolex Presidential, and I have had more problem with it than my other watches. So I only wear it on special occasions. My day to day is couple of Bulova Accutrons which I love.

I spent 5 minutes with and RS2 and I seen the potentail of this projector. If the 750 is that much better in contrast and also has a full CMS (which from what I heard was problem with the RS2 and RS1) than this on paper seems like an awesome projector, and value... well we know that it's there!!

and if CM wants to bring 20 friends down to the Metro for an appetizer buffet on me..like I stated earlier.. no problem, and a Private room to boot..while the gang is munching on apps we can listen and watch a small demo at my place...2 minutes away!

I am sure some of those guys in that Forum would think this in "down there".
BUT.... "whoever exalts himself will be humbled and whoever humbles himself shall be exalted” L 14:11

Joey

rsbeck, just because you don't address the fact that you called me a liar

You exposed yourself as a guy who can't keep his stories straight. There was no need to call you anything -- just post your variations -- you did that to yourself. So, you've been addressed. Now, take your own advice and go scratch yourself.

Blacks blacks blacks, that is what makes a picture have good 3d. The 3d effect from my old 9 inch CRT on a small screen has yet to be surpassed in the digital realm.

Joey


Hmmm...can't quite agree.

I'm a black level fiend, to the degree I caught flack for it over the years on the flat panel forums for my harping on the importance of black levels.

But to say that it's blacks, blacks, blacks that make a picture have good 3D is, in my experience, not always the case. Certainly the darker an image (and providing controlled room lighting) deeper black levels help with giving an image dimension. But there is a lot of program material in which one device being capable of deeper black levels does not equate to that device having a more 3D image.

I bought a 4th generation Panasonic plasma years ago when there were still top level CRTs around (e.g. Sony/Loewe/Toshiba etc). One reason I chose the plasma is that, even though it couldn't match the black levels of CRT, the other aspects of the image - the precision of the image and hence the sense of detail and clarity, simultaneous contrast in some types of scenes, the perfect edge to edge focus, the perfectly flat image and geometry, the brilliance, the size...all added up to producing a more 3D effect to my eyes.
More like looking right through a window, which I rarely if ever got from any CRT.

The Pioneer Kuro plasmas still aren't quite CRT black levels (well, in most program material they are practically at par due to CRT tendency to float blacks). But even before this current generation of Pioneer plasma I was finding the Pioneer images more astonishingly 3D and real than any CRT I've seen (and, again, I've tested out the best consumer CRTs).

Likewise, we recently had a street party wherein we used a fairly cheap DLP projector - very bright, very sharp for a relatively low res projector. I was amazed at the "pop" and 3 dimensionality of the image. I even took it to my place to play around with it and test it out. It certainly did not have the black levels of the Panasonic projector I'm now using, but it sure did have a more solid, 3D effect on most image material.

A lot of folks have found the same in comparing (at least up until the new JVCs showed up with 30,000:1 contrast) DLP projectors vs LCOS/LCD projectors that did better black levels than the DLP. Many have found the DLPs had a punchier, more 3D image. And that comes form many members who have had plenty of experience comparing projectors.

Looks like the new JVCs are giving DLP a run for image depth. But my point is that while black levels certainly contribute to dimensionality, it's not the only factor and some displays with higher black levels can look more dimensional over some program material than one with deeper black levels.

I would not buy a 720P machine for over 2000 euros. The difference between 720P and 1080P with a 1080 source is dramatic which is something I would not have predicted based on the resolving power of the eye.

I saw the 750 at CEDIA and I though it was the best projector at the show and vast improvement over the RS2. I thought it produced a better image than the latest C3X 1080p but the 1080P was so poorly demonstrated that decent comparison was impossible


The 720P c3x was one of the best projectors on the market in its day but that projector is over 3 years old and its day is gone.

You exposed yourself as a guy who can't keep his stories straight. There was no need to call you anything -- just post your variations -- you did that to yourself. So, you've been addressed. Now, take your own advice and go scratch yourself.

You exposed yourself as someone who posts unsubstantiated libel. Keep ducking the issue. So much for civility on AVS. :(

This is a very interesting thread.

Now I have curiosity to see others DLP projectors for about 6.000 / 7.000 Eur ($ 10.000 more or less).

Maybe the Marantz 15S2 or the Planar 8150.

For now I going pass the C3X 720, and when the HD750 arrive in December I am going see it compared against others DLP projectors.

You exposed yourself as someone who posts unsubstantiated libel.

LOL. I posted your conflicting statements. If that is all it takes to slander you, sue your writers.



.

Now I have curiosity to see others DLP projectors for about 6.000 / 7.000 Eur ($ 10.000 more or less).

Maybe the Marantz 15S2 or the Planar 8150.

Check out the Sim2 D60 and Samsung A800B as well.



.

You exposed yourself as someone who posts unsubstantiated libel. Keep ducking the issue. So much for civility on AVS. :(

It's pretty amazing how defensive the 3-chip DLP guys can get when comparisons are made to their favored projector with a less expensive LCOS machine. Apparently even when it's a 3 year old vintage 720p 3-chipper.

LG, how dare you attempt to compare such an inexpensive toy like an HD750 to a mighty 3-chip DLP. Don't you know that contrast doesn't matter unless it's ANSI contrast? (and then it's a must have). Only people who are cheap, like bad colors, like dim images and smell bad will like a 750. :D

I think most of you missed the first post. If he doesn't have a fully light controlled room why would he want a JVC? I would think he should go for a brighter PJ with higher ANSI and a grey screen. IE I think the C3x 720 might be better for him though it would not be my choice. I would make the room darker and go for the JVC.

Bill

I think most of you missed the first post. If he doesn't have a fully light controlled room why would he want a JVC? I would think he should go for a brighter PJ with higher ANSI and a grey screen. IE I think the C3x 720 might be better for him though it would not be my choice. I would make the room darker and go for the JVC.

Bill

Yes, I said much the same thing earlier in the thread. But then as the thread progressed I came to realize that only people who collect empty cans for a living would want the JVC :)

Only people who are cheap, like bad colors, like dim images and smell bad will like a 750. :D

Unless JVC has solved the problem with the 750, you left out motion blur.

It's quite a shame that the OP(new to AVS) has had to sift through all of this childish bickering for an answer to his question.

I came to realize that only people who collect empty cans for a living would want the JVC :)

To be fair, I think some of them collect empty cans as a hobby, they're not all pros.

People come for the expertise, but they stay for the childish bickering. And the veal.

Unless JVC has solved the problem with the 750, you left out motion blur.

But then again I think most 750 owners will be admiring the great blacks and contrast and won't notice any subtle motion blur (if in fact it does exist). But then again it might be that they are distracted searching for pennies and cheetos between the seat cushion to notice much of anything. :D

This is a very interesting thread.

Now I have curiosity to see others DLP projectors for about 6.000 / 7.000 Eur ($ 10.000 more or less).

Maybe the Marantz 15S2 or the Planar 8150.

For now I going pass the C3X 720, and when the HD750 arrive in December I am going see it compared against others DLP projectors.

I saw the Planar and the Marantz nad would be nuetral on both projectors ,meaning I thought they were Okay but not great. Unfortunately I did not see the new Joe kane Samsung which a lot of people have raved about and works well with the new Hi def Da-light screen.

As one of those very defensive 3 chip DLP owners (Infocus 777, not in the class of the C3X) I think that waiting and comparing is a good idea. At the same time since beauty is in the eye of the beholder you need to make the final decision based on what you see. Every technology has its own look, only you can decide what you like.

For the record, and not to start anything, I did try an ND2 filter on my PJ once, it in my opinion did harm to the image beyond just making it dimmer.



This is a very interesting thread.

Now I have curiosity to see others DLP projectors for about 6.000 / 7.000 Eur ($ 10.000 more or less).

Maybe the Marantz 15S2 or the Planar 8150.

For now I going pass the C3X 720, and when the HD750 arrive in December I am going see it compared against others DLP projectors.

But to say that it's blacks, blacks, blacks that make a picture have good 3D is, in my experience, not always the case. Certainly the darker an image (and providing controlled room lighting) deeper black levels help with giving an image dimension. But there is a lot of program material in which one device being capable of deeper black levels does not equate to that device having a more 3D image.

I bought a 4th generation Panasonic plasma years ago when there were still top level CRTs around (e.g. Sony/Loewe/Toshiba etc). One reason I chose the plasma is that, even though it couldn't match the black levels of CRT, the other aspects of the image - the precision of the image and hence the sense of detail and clarity, simultaneous contrast in some types of scenes, the perfect edge to edge focus, the perfectly flat image and geometry, the brilliance, the size...all added up to producing a more 3D effect to my eyes.
More like looking right through a window, which I rarely if ever got from any CRT.

The Pioneer Kuro plasmas still aren't quite CRT black levels (well, in most program material they are practically at par due to CRT tendency to float blacks). But even before this current generation of Pioneer plasma I was finding the Pioneer images more astonishingly 3D and real than any CRT I've seen (and, again, I've tested out the best consumer CRTs).

Likewise, we recently had a street party wherein we used a fairly cheap DLP projector - very bright, very sharp for a relatively low res projector. I was amazed at the "pop" and 3 dimensionality of the image. I even took it to my place to play around with it and test it out. It certainly did not have the black levels of the Panasonic projector I'm now using, but it sure did have a more solid, 3D effect on most image material.I mostly agree. Black level is important to image depth only as a threshold phenomenon. Once you get beyond a certain point--I'm guessing 2-3K to 1--increased on/off contrast plays very little role in image depth.

Plasmas are a great example. Until very recently, their black levels have been merely mediocre, but they have always had great image depth. Gamma plays a role, as does sharpness.

It's quite a shame that the OP(new to AVS) has had to sift through all of this childish bickering for an answer to his question.

Yes, if in case he/she is new. I often wonder when a new poster asks about highly debated subject. Never the less it's a good question. And the conculsion is that 3 chip 72o dlps are not going to compete to the new 3 chip LCOS 1080p JVC'c. It seemed obvious to me and others, but with the utmost respect for the 720 CX3.

I saw the 750 at CEDIA and I though it was the best projector at the show and vast improvement over the RS2. I thought it produced a better image than the latest C3X 1080p but the 1080P was so poorly demonstrated that decent comparison was impossible I think that says it all, and from my experience Mlang does not have any hidden agenda. He always seems very honest!! Although that comment with get you 50 lashes in the over $20k forum:rolleyes::eek:

Thanks mikeL

Joey

I mostly agree. Black level is important to image depth only as a threshold phenomenon. Once you get beyond a certain point--I'm guessing 2-3K to 1--increased on/off contrast plays very little role in image depth.


If that were true there would be no advantage to an RS-2 over an RS-1. Most people see a pronounced difference in image depth and that's going from 15k:1 to 30k:1 rather than 2-3k:1. In dark scenes even 15k:1 doesn't cut it for me anymore which is why I'm keen on getting the RS20. High native contrast is needed (or a DI) in order to both lower the black levels to more realistic levels and also to provide separation between the black level and the low IRE greys in dark scenes. My previous projector was a Phelps optimized HD2K (2k:1 on/off) with spot on shading uniformity. In going to the RS-1 I lost the uniformity and gained some additional artifacting but the contrast difference was so huge it was a no brainer decision for me to upgrade.

Unfortunately, no current projector regardless of price is perfect. Everyone has to weigh their own priorities of PQ. 3-chip DLP has great uniformity, sharpness and brightness but unfortunately it also has relatively low on/off by todays standards which is a very big weakness. Even if 3-chip DLP can eventually get to the RS-1 level of on/off, some people will still be wanting RS-20 level contrast performance. It's too bad we can't mate the best properties of 3-chip DLP and mate it with RS-20 level on/off. But it's these sorts of tradeoffs that make this an interesting hobby.

I think that says it all, and from my experience Mlang does not have any hidden agenda. He always seems very honest!!

I agree, Mlang never minces words. He's mentioned before that he prefers DLPs and IIRC he was wanting to upgrade to a 3-chip DLP but was surprised to find the RS20 to be the best machine at CEDIA (as many other respected forum members have also said).

But to say that it's blacks, blacks, blacks that make a picture have good 3D is, in my experience, not always the case.I agree. It is much more complicated than that. But we need to keep in mind that blacks across various images are also about washout (best characterized by ANSI CR) and not just the black floor (best characterized by on/off CR). As far as I've heard it seems like plasmas have had great ANSI CR for quite a while.

I think separation between objects (like a jungle scene having widely varying shades of green instead of basically all the same shade) helps create depth and this is one reason that black across various images matters. But I also think there are other things (like some have mentioned), including things that remind the brain that what they are looking at isn't real often taking away the depth effect.
I mostly agree. Black level is important to image depth only as a threshold phenomenon. Once you get beyond a certain point--I'm guessing 2-3K to 1--increased on/off contrast plays very little role in image depth.Do you have any theories as to why Greg would see more depth with the JVC RS2 than the Marantz 11S2 even with some scenes from Star Wars where there was some bright stuff along with the dark stuff in the scene? Or how about CRTs vs digitals? Do you feel that the on/off CR of CRTs plays little role to image depth compared to digitals at around 2-3k:1 on/off CR?
Plasmas are a great example. Until very recently, their black levels have been merely mediocre, but they have always had great image depth. Gamma plays a role, as does sharpness.I'm not sure how far back you are going, but at least for the last few years I think the plasmas have had great ANSI CRs. I think one of the roles gamma plays is related to the separation between objects thing and is very related to the CRs. Intra-image CR in various images is affected by on/off CR, ANSI CR, and gamma. I see gamma as mostly just how the whole range the display has from 0%stim to 100%stim is layed out and affects intra-image CRs. Including CRs like the CR between an 80%stim object and a 20%stim object in the same scene.

--Darin

I think separation between objects (like a jungle scene having widely varying shades of green instead of basically all the same shade) helps create depth and this is one reason that black across various images matters. But I also think there are other things (like some have mentioned), including things that remind the brain that what they are looking at isn't real often taking away the depth effect.

This is a really good point. To really get involved in a movie requires a certain level of suspension of disbelief. Removing visual clues to the brain that they are not watching a static screen helps. There are a lot of different factors that can go into that and contrast is only one of them. One of the things that DLP does very well in this respect is uniformity. I've seen LCOS achieve the same sort of "looking out the window" level of uniformity but unfortunately not with the stock JVC shading. In dark scenes however an elevated black level will provide a strong visual clue (that we don't want) as does merging of grey details with the black level floor.

The problem, as always, is that just because a difference can be measured does not mean that it can be perceived. We see this continually in audio. People will claim to hear differences that are beyond the range of human perception and will claim that anyone who cannot hear likewise has bad ears. The difference, as far as I can see, is that we do not have as much reference material to draw from in video.

When it comes to on/off and CR, several items come to mind. When the Planar 8150 came out, Tryg did a shoot-out between it and his RS1 and proclaimed that DLP finally had produced a projector with on/off, contrast, and black level equal to the RS1.

When the Planar was finally measured, in one review, the native on/off of the Planar turned out to be 1,700:1 and it climbed to 6,000:1 when the Dynamic Black [Iris] was engaged.

Without knowing the actual measurements, he perceived these two projectors to have the same on/off, CR, and black level -- he could not tell the difference.

The C3X1080's native on/off is 7,000:1. Roughly similar to the Planar when the Planar has Dynamic Black engaged.

Frankly, though some will undoubtedly claim otherwise, if one cannot tell the difference between the on/off, CR, and black level of the Planar 8150 and the RS1, I highly doubt anyone could tell the difference between those aspects of the RS1 and the C3X1080.

I've also read where some posters have said the difference in on/off between an RS1 and RS2 were not substantial enough for a trade up and that is with a doubling of on/off.

It seems to me, based on this, that it takes quite a bit of difference in on/off to produce a NOTICEABLE difference. I just wish we had some reference studies so we would know how much.

In audio, we know how many more decibels it takes to produce a noticeable difference, how many more sounds twice as loud, etc. But, as far as I know, we do not know these things when it comes to lumens, on/off, ANSI, etc.

Frankly, though some will undoubtedly claim otherwise, if one cannot tell the difference between the on/off, CR, and black level of the Planar 8150 and the RS1, I highly doubt anyone could tell the difference between those aspects of the RS1 and the C3X1080.


Consider the source. (sorry Tryg :) ). As with any PQ parameter, the right content is needed and also sufficient time with each projector to become familiar with its strength and weakness. I know with the right content I could pick out an RS2 from an RS1 in a double blind test 100% of the time. On/off differences are much easier to spot than say ANSI cr. I think with more time and the right material that Tryg would also be able to spot these differences.


I've also read where some posters have said the difference in on/off between an RS1 and RS2 were not substantial enough for a trade up and that is with a doubling of on/off.

It seems to me, based on this, that it takes quite a bit of difference in on/off to produce a NOTICEABLE difference. I just wish we had some reference studies so we would know how much.


I don't think that people not upgrading from an RS1 to an RS2 really proves much of anything as far as perceiving a 2x change in on/off. I for one really wanted the 2x improvement in contrast but decided to wait because most of my gripes with the RS1 hadn't been addressed.

Without knowing the actual measurements, he perceived these two projectors to have the same on/off, CR, and black level -- he could not tell the difference.

Very good point, rsbeck. I'd actually put it the other way around, i.e. projectors with very good measurements can be very disappointing in actual perception. Has been until today with LCD (and even SXRD) for me.

Measurements can only always tell you that much. Still, the HD100 was/is groundbreaking for me, but I don't think the on/off contrast really tells the full story. It's much more than that. And I would prefer a C3X 1080 over a HD100 any time for watching movies, if the thing wasn't so damn expensive. :(

It's pretty amazing how defensive the 3-chip DLP guys can get when comparisons are made to their favored projector with a less expensive LCOS machine. Apparently even when it's a 3 year old vintage 720p 3-chipper.

LG, how dare you attempt to compare such an inexpensive toy like an HD750 to a mighty 3-chip DLP. Don't you know that contrast doesn't matter unless it's ANSI contrast? (and then it's a must have). Only people who are cheap, like bad colors, like dim images and smell bad will like a 750. :D

No one was in any way defensive at all, even less so of an old machine. My advice to the OP was simply to test and buy the preferred machine. The thread was taken OT by someone stating a falsehood and some clarification was needed.

No one who was explaining the qualitative difference between the RS1 and the C3X1080 either described people as "cheap" or made the inference you attribute to them. Thats simply a gross misrepresentation. Sadly is an all too common defense........"Make it look like the rich guy is looking down on others". Thats simply a vile, insidious and dishonest thing to claim.

I know with the right content I could pick out an RS2 from an RS1 in a double blind test 100% of the time.

I don't know, I'm just guessing that JVC probably pushed for an advance in on/off that would pass the threshold of a Noticeable Difference. In this case that was going from roughly 15,000:1 to 30,000:1. So, it wouldn't surprise me if, given the right content, you could pick out an RS1 from an RS2 in a double blind test, but it also wouldn't surprise me if the average viewer, watching a theoretical RS1 and RS2, with only a respective difference in black level, without pausing the projector and doing A/B comparisons, but just watching average films, would fail to reliably pick one from the other.

The problem, IMO, is that we need objective studies from people who are equipped to do these types of experiments, etc.

Then again, we have that in audio and it still doesn't stop the claims and counter claims.

There is just no silver bullet for this vampire!

The only defense is a ring of garlic around your neck.

You exposed yourself as someone who posts unsubstantiated libel.

OMG, what a transparent attempt to assume the mantle of victimhood. It most certainly doesn't suit you, and is warranted even less. The only thing missing is your crown of thorns. I think maybe you've watched too many episodes of Law & Order. Its a rather amateur and undignified approach.

Your first post was clearly false. The test, if such a test took place, very clearly did not achieve the result you now attribute to it. You even admitted it was a total mess and very clearly stated you couldn't equalize the brightness. You also clearly don't understand the impact an NDF can have on an image.

Maybe we can all move on.

No one was in any way defensive at all, even less so of an old machine.The thread was taken OT by someone stating a falsehood.


Imho the rhetoric sounded very defensive. Here is a case in point:


Thats simply a vile, insidious and dishonest thing to claim.

If you had read the context you would realize that those comments were all tongue in cheek comments intended to poke fun at the generalizations being used in this thread. I'm sorry, but I find the rhetoric generated by these RS1/RS2 vs 3-chip DLP threads to be pretty amusing and only rivaled in entertainment value by the digital vs CRT threads from a few years ago.

At any rate, please go on and continue telling us how much ANSI contrast matters but on/off is imperceptible. :)

Do you have any theories as to why Greg would see more depth with the JVC RS2 than the Marantz 11S2 even with some scenes from Star Wars where there was some bright stuff along with the dark stuff in the scene? Or how about CRTs vs digitals? Do you feel that the on/off CR of CRTs plays little role to image depth compared to digitals at around 2-3k:1 on/off CR?No. I try to avoid offering opinions about about what someone else has observed, especially when it involves a display I have never seen (the Marantz S2). The CRT/digital comparison is precisely the point. Digitals, such as non-Kuro plasmas, with MUCH lower on/off seem to have higher perceived depth, at least to my eyes.
I'm not sure how far back you are going, but at least for the last few years I think the plasmas have had great ANSI CRs.Nah. That's only true of the Pioneers. Current Panasonic plasmas have ANSI contrast of around 750:1, which is quite good but nothing spectacular (the Marantz and Sharp DLPs are slightly better). The Samsungs are even lower. The Pioneers have spectacular ANSI, but their depth looks no better to me. I don't think ANSI has much to do with perceived depth either, except again as perhaps a threshold phenomenon. It may be that CRTs fall below that threshold, which keeps their depth from being better.

To be quite specific, my Panasonic TH-50PZ85U plasma measures the following:

On/Off: 3063:1
ANSI: 748:1
Gamma: 2.25

and it has much better perceived depth than any CRT I have ever seen. Good DLPs and the RS2 are close.

The thing is, the previous generation of Panny plasmas had about HALF the on/off of the 85U, and their depth looked great too. Sense memory tells me it was about the same.

I don't know, I'm just guessing that JVC probably pushed for an advance in on/off that would pass the threshold of a Noticeable Difference. In this case that was going from roughly 15,000:1 to 30,000:1. So, it wouldn't surprise me if, given the right content, you could pick out an RS1 from an RS2 in a double blind test, but it also wouldn't surprise me if the average viewer, watching a theoretical RS1 and RS2, with only a respective difference in black level, without pausing the projector and doing A/B comparisons, but just watching average films, would fail to reliably pick one from the other.

The problem, IMO, is that we need objective studies from people who are equipped to do these types of experiments, etc.

Then again, we have that in audio and it still doesn't stop the claims and counter claims.

There is just no silver bullet for this vampire!

The RS1 is brighter and less expensive than an RS2 so those are two reasons why people should prefer the RS1 if on/off doesn't matter. JVC has sold a lot RS2s and experienced reviewers seem to really like the projector over the RS1 despite those two negatives.

At any rate, please go on and continue telling us how much ANSI contrast matters but on/off is imperceptible. :)

How can I go on, or continue, if I never made such a claim in the first place. Yet again you you attempt to attribute a stance that was never taken and had nothing to do with the case in point. You do yourself, or your position, no credit by resorting to such puerile dishonesty.

Again, why would I be defensive? I want very new projector to be better than my current machines. If that were the case they would be instantly be replaced with the better machine regardless of any other consideration. Im pretty sure my 2 C3X1080s will be replaced fairly soon. My HT5k was discarded a while back and will be replaced with a clearly superior, non Sim2, machine when I complete my round of auditioning. I am in no way defensive of a recreational toy and have even less brand loyalty.

if on/off doesn't matter.

I didn't say on/off doesn't matter. I said that we don't have any objective studies to tell us how much it takes to produce a JND. I doubt many customers actually do double blind tests before buying a projector, I would bet most know the ID of the machine they are watching when they audition. Anyone who knows the on/off numbers in advance of offering an opinion on the relative on/off of projectors of known identity isn't doing it double blind.

Tryg's shoot-out between the RS1 and the Planar 8150 is interesting to me because it was at least single blind -- he didn't have the numbers, he was relying on his ability to perceive the difference in on/off, CR, and black levels between the two and couldn't tell any difference. When the Planar was measured later, it turned out to have far less on/off than the RS1, so in that case, it wasn't enough to produce a JND.



.

I'd actually put it the other way around, i.e. projectors with very good measurements can be very disappointing in actual perception.

Excellent point.

The distance for the screen is about 1.6x screen width.

I'm sure everyone's milage varies, but at that distance, I would bet you could still tell the difference between 720 and 1080. Plus, I don't know how it is at your house, but my kids often end up on the floor closer to the screen than the first row and at that distance, I think you'd [they'd] definitely appreciate the difference between 720 and 1080. Even if you couldn't tell the difference at 1.6 x SW, you might at least like to have the option of sitting closer and the 1080 would make it far easier. I sit 1.4 x SW in my theater. I never thought I would sit so close, but it is a different experience and I have come to really enjoy the immersion. I feel like the immersion factor helps make lots of films enjoyable that wouldn't be from farther back. Know what I mean? Try it -- it is a different experience and 1080 helps make it possible.

Thank you for your help, but I have to focus on the C3X 720, because I dont have 20k to spend on a projector like the C3X 1080.

I want to upgrade my Sim2 HT300e, but I want to spend only 5.000, maximum 7.000 Eur.

I have the chance to buy now the C3X 720 for 5.000 eur...but with this money I can take a good 1080 video projector.

The C3X 1080 is a fantastic machine (although I never seen one), but 20k is to much for me.

I have information about the C3X 720 problems with 1080p24 motion...This is true? I have intention to buy the new Denon Amp with the HQV Realta to feed all my sources...maybe this will resolve this particular problem?!

I have concerns about the famous motion blur on LCOS designs...Do you think this problem was resolved or minimised on the new HD750?

I talk to people who said me the motion blur on the HD100 is less apparent than the HD1...this is true?

Thank you for your attention,

Nuno

Your first post was clearly false. The test, if such a test took place, very clearly did not achieve the result you now attribute to it. You even admitted it was a total mess and very clearly stated you couldn't equalize the brightness. You also clearly don't understand the impact an NDF can have on an image.

Yes. I remembered wrong. I take responsibility for that. Sorry, but it doesn't change my opinion. This phony outrage is silly.

Now you're accusing Mark Petersen of "puerile dishonesty."

Yeah. We're all liars. Keep believing that. It's like one giant circle jerk with you guys. Way to go in taking the high road! Congratulations! What a bunch of class acts!

There can be no real debate about these things because the circle jerk is not interested in it. Now I can guess why Sim2 doesn't offer its projectors for review. Perhaps they are afraid that a reviewer might actually do his job and point out some flaws with one of their projectors. What would the circle jerk do then?

Yes. I remembered wrong. I take responsibility for that. Sorry, but it doesn't change my opinion. This phony outrage is silly.

Now you're accusing Mark Petersen of "puerile dishonesty."

Yeah. We're all liars.

Regarding Mark, when he made the statement.... "At any rate, please go on and continue telling us how much ANSI contrast matters but on/off is imperceptible.", the fact that I had never said any such thing IS dishonest representation. Thats a matter for Mark and I. Please don't try to cloud the issue by dragging someone else into your post.

It is very obvious to anyone with a small amount of understanding that the test never took place at all and was simply an agenda driven fabrication.

By your own words, your "magic" friend didn't even know how to operate his projector but was willing and able to dismount and remount it from its anamorphic alignment. He then appears unannounced with it at your party. Thats just simply not even remotely credible.

I am far from the only one to see the gaping holes in your, ever evolving, story.

I have no need of a review to point out the flaws with the projectors I own. With the HT5k and the C3X1080 I was not only first to post a review, but also first to post numerous limitations and flaws. I have pointed out the compromises with the C3X1080 many times and was first to report the handshake and CMS issues with the HT5k. I have utterly no brand loyalty. My next main machine will not be a Sim2 and may actually be a JVC, or possibly a JVC based machine.

I hope that clarifies the situation and we can now move on, as I have tried previously.

I have concerns about the famous motion blur on LCOS designs...Do you think this problem was resolved or minimised on the new HD750?


Try to demo to demo one of the JVC's or even an SXRD based Sony projector, I don't think you will find it a problem though. I find motion far more distracting on most single chip DLPs (dithering).

...but it also wouldn't surprise me if the average viewer, watching a theoretical RS1 and RS2, with only a respective difference in black level, without pausing the projector and doing A/B comparisons, but just watching average films, would fail to reliably pick one from the other.

The average person buys Visio LCDs from Walmart and then never even do a basic calibration. Your average persion can't tell the difference between a 128kbps MP3 and a CD. Let's agree that people buying C3X, RS*s aren't your "average viewer".


The problem, IMO, is that we need objective studies from people who are equipped to do these types of experiments, etc.

That would be nice, but we're definitely not to the point of no "noticable difference" yet, at least not with DLP for sure.

I didn't say on/off doesn't matter. I said that we don't have any objective studies to tell us how much it takes to produce a JND.

We already know the performance of the eye, that's well documented. The eye is capable of a much larger dynamic range than even the RS20, way, way over 50,000:1. Only the 1,000,000:1 of a CRT comes close to approximating the dynamic range of the eye.

I doubt many customers actually do double blind tests before buying a projector, I would bet most know the ID of the machine they are watching when they audition. Anyone who knows the on/off numbers in advance of offering an opinion on the relative on/off of projectors of known identity isn't doing it double blind.


Tryg's shoot-out between the RS1 and the Planar 8150 is interesting to me because it was at least single blind

But it wasn't, double blind means neither the testee, nor the tester know the identities of the samples, Tryg knew which machine was which, and presumably what sort of CR numbers to expect for each.

-- he didn't have the numbers, he was relying on his ability to perceive the difference in on/off, CR, and black levels between the two and couldn't tell any difference. When the Planar was measured later, it turned out to have far less on/off than the RS1, so in that case, it wasn't enough to produce a JND.

Without knowing what content was tested, we can't draw any conclusions that. As Mark P's measurements show, there are areas where a DLP's (comparatively) poor "On/Off" won't hinder it vs DiLA, and there are areas where it will.

It is very obvious to anyone with a small amount of understanding that the test never took place at all and was simply an agenda driven fabrication.


Right. That's why I offered to repeat it publically and invited everyone to come.

Maybe concocting such a thing is something you might do, and is why you are suspicous of it, but I don't play that way. You claim to have spent large amounts of time with almost every projector that has ever been released and have offered no proof for any of it. What are we to think?

You claim to have spent large amounts of time with almost every projector that has ever been released and have offered no proof for any of it. What are we to think?

The proof is simply in the accuracy of my numbers and detailed technical observations that are utterly impossible to have been obtained without direct experience. Screen shots and photos have been posted many times. There are any number of people here on AVS, including many who frequent this particular forum, that have availed themselves of that information. There are even a good number of die hard JVC fans who have taken me up on the offer. I remember being accused of lying about having an HT380 4 months before anyone on AVS had even seen one, and posted photos of an utterly superlative install with a unique custom built mount.

If you wish to PM me I can put you in contact with a number of people who will assure you of the help I have been able to offer on a number of machines from Sim, Sony, JVC, Christie, Barco, Marantz etc.

As I, and others, have said....Lets move on, nothing more to be gained here.

As I, and others, have said....Lets move on, nothing more to be gained here.

Has anything been gained at all?

The skins are too thin aroud here. Having now reread the entirety of my posts regarding the shootout, it boggles the mind that any of it could have provoked the response that it did. For those interested, here (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1033422) is that thread. If you can find evidence that my postings were, as suggested, agenda driven, please let me know. I stand by all of it. The only thing that has changed was my memory of it.

Not interested in any PMing with you.

and if CM wants to bring 20 friends down to the Metro for an appetizer buffet on me..like I stated earlier.. no problem, and a Private room to boot..while the gang is munching on apps we can listen and watch a small demo at my place...2 minutes away!

I am sure some of those guys in that Forum would think this in "down there".
BUT.... "whoever exalts himself will be humbled and whoever humbles himself shall be exalted” L 14:11

Joey

Joey, I hope to be able to take you up on that offer, on both counts....food and demo. I do have to confess that whilst I love wings, I'm a pussy when it comes to Suicide Wings,
I understand your reservations with higher priced PJs, but you certainly have no such reservations with your audio.:)

As for your quotation of Luke...As you can imagine, I have been humbled many times, and will be humbled many times yet.:)

How can I go on, or continue, if I never made such a claim in the first place. Yet again you you attempt to attribute a stance that was never taken and had nothing to do with the case in point. You do yourself, or your position, no credit by resorting to such puerile dishonesty.

Again, why would I be defensive? I want very new projector to be better than my current machines. If that were the case they would be instantly be replaced with the better machine regardless of any other consideration. Im pretty sure my 2 C3X1080s will be replaced fairly soon. My HT5k was discarded a while back and will be replaced with a clearly superior, non Sim2, machine when I complete my round of auditioning. I am in no way defensive of a recreational toy and have even less brand loyalty.

Again with the rhetoric. I never said that you were the one that made that comment although I can see how you made that assumption because I had quoted you in the paragraph above that statement. It's pretty obvious from reading this thread that some of the pro 3-chip DLP camp are questioning the importance of on/off and how perceptible it is and if anything over 3k:1 really makes that much of a difference. I don't see this as a case of "puerile dishonesty" but rather a perfect example of defensive rhetoric.

Has anything been gained at all?


I dunno, I kinda still find my generalization of RS1 users as a bunch of cheetos searching cheapskates kind of amusing :) Seriously though, I think the only thing that has been gained in this thread is to show once again that if there is a comparison of a 3-chip DLP with an LCOS machine that any attempt to discuss it intelligently will immediately result in name calling and accusations that someone is a liar if they happen to not remember the exact wording of something that they posted about a year ago. Rhetoric like this hasn't been seen since the cold war.

Again with the rhetoric. I never said that you were the one that made that comment although I can see how you made that assumption because I had quoted you in the paragraph above that statement. It's pretty obvious from reading this thread that some of the pro 3-chip DLP camp are questioning the importance of on/off and how perceptible it is and if anything over 3k:1 really makes that much of a difference. I don't see this as a case of "puerile dishonesty" but rather a perfect example of defensive rhetoric.

Mark, there is no rhetoric on my part. Nor am I "pro 3-chip DLP", i find the notion simply laughable. I do understand that some may be that way, Im not, and rsbeck's testing speaks for itself. He absolutely did not want to buy a C3X1080 in preference to an RS1 or RS2. Testing left him no choice.I am very much in the"pro image" camp. I will simply use the best possible machine for my given situation. As stated previously, I will be auditioning a small number of machines, including non DLP, for my main room. One is actually a JVC unit. The machine that produces the best image will be the one I select without other considerations, and certainly not regarding the technology involved. I am in no way defensive of my toys, I want continually newer and better ones. Who doesnt?

I dont question the imprtance of CR at all. It is a major cornerstone of an image, as is color, uniformity, sharpness, ANSI, MTF, VP, motion resolution etc. I always try to adopt a holistic approach to an image and certainly dont consider that CR above 3k of little importance. As an aside, I spent time with a machine recently that had a CR of only 3k. It had a clearly better image than ANY of the machines mentioned in this thread and made some look like mere toys. There's far more to an image that any given individual component.

I dont question the imprtance of CR at all. It is a major cornerstone of an image, as is color, uniformity, sharpness, ANSI, MTF, VP, motion resolution etc. I always try to adopt a holistic approach to an image and certainly dont consider that CR above 3k of little importance. As an aside, I spent time with a machine recently that had a CR of only 3k. It had a clearly better image than ANY of the machines mentioned in this thread and made some look like mere toys. There's far more to an image that any given individual component.

So why is it then that I never see you post favorably about something other than DLP?

there is no rhetoric on my part


Really? Case in point i find the notion simply laughable

if they happen to not remember the exact wording of something that they posted about a year ago.

It isnt, and never was, about "exact wording" at all. That is very clear.

So why is it then that I never see you post favorably about something other than DLP?

You need to look closer then. I have waxed lyrical about the VP200.I said very clearly its a machine that simply must be on everyone's shortlist as its that good. The response from the AVS owner was.......... "Wholly sh1t..its great having coldmachine drop in and give his endorsement. Thats saying a lot for this machine. Anyone following the forums knows he is an outspoken perfectionist
and tells it like it is and owns the best of the best so he knows what good looks like. Good seeing you here"

Im also very enthused by the Meridian and JVC 4k units and will be auditioning them both for my main room. If something comes along to replace my smaller systems that use the C3X1080 then theyre gone too, regardless of the technology involved.


I have recommended the RS1 to a number of people and have stated many times its a fine machine. I even said so in this thread.



Really? Case in point

Thats not rhetoric, its my genuine feeling. I made it clear why I feel that way.

I hope helps you understand where Im coming from.

You wrote to Coldmachine ---

Maybe concocting such a thing is something you might do, and is why you are suspicous of it, but I don't play that way.

You've just been caught "playing that way."

In case you forgot...

Story now....

with lumens equalized, most people liked the RS1.

Story then....

We tried our best to equalize brightness.
We just eyeballed some test patterns. We very well could have screwed it up. I screw most things up the first time I try them, but I am a good learner.... People may also be right that the use of ND filters screwed things up....Most people expressed no preference.

When I auditioned the RS2 (HD100), I couldn't get past the motion blur -- it was very annoying to me. I feel the same way about all of the LCD projectors I've ever seen, too. So I seem to be very sensitive to it.

The dithering used in DLP artificially sharpens the picture, I suspect at least some of the blurring you see is actually in the source.

You've just been caught "playing that way."

Everyone can read what I have said for themselves. I retract nothing.

You are only proving that an idiot like yourself, albeit a persistent idiot, with internet access, can get a large audience to bear witness to their idiocy.

I will keep going as long as you do: post for post.

Insteadm why don't you go back and rejoin the circle jerk, where the world is as you wish it to be and you can retell your sad story about how you were forced into buying a C3x because noting else could satisfy your discerning standards. Oh, the humanity!

Yes. I remembered wrong.

Your misremembering just happened to serve your agenda -- what a coincidence. And, instead of just admitting you changed your story and taking your lumps, you claimed victimhood and started wailing about how you were slandered, got sarcastic, tried to create a distraction -- that's pretty strange behavior for someone who just innocently "remembered wrong." Instead of wailing away about how you were slandered, where's your apology to the Original Poster for giving him advice based on your "remembering wrong"?

You are only proving that an idiot like yourself, albeit a persistent idiot, with internet access, can get a large audience to bear witness to their idiocy.

You know what really hurts? Being insulted by a guy who has recently forfeited his credibility getting caught posting fraudulent stories.

Ouch!

Then again, you won't remember this anyway, right?

<Best Bluto Blutarski> Food Fight!!!!

Thank you for your help, but I have to focus on the C3X 720

I understand. My advice would be to wait on the C3X720 until you can see the JVC 750. In the meantime, I would also try to see the single chip DLP's; Marantz 11s2, Samsung A800B, Planar PD8150, Sim2 D60. You also might want to take a look at some of the other LCD projectors like the Epson.

I want to upgrade my Sim2 HT300e, but I want to spend only 5.000, maximum 7.000 Eur.

That might cross the Marantz off your list -- check with Jason at AVS before you draw any conclusions about price -- but I believe the others I've mentioned are in your price range.

I have the chance to buy now the C3X 720 for 5.000 eur...but with this money I can take a good 1080 video projector.

I would lean very heavily towards 1080 for the reasons mentioned in my previous post -- I think you are on the right track there.

I have concerns about the famous motion blur on LCOS designs...Do you think this problem was resolved or minimised on the new HD750?

Don't know. Some people aren't bothered by the motion blur on the LCD and JVC projectors and some driven crazy by it. I don't know that anyone who is bothered by it has seen the 750 -- haven't heard.

I talk to people who said me the motion blur on the HD100 is less apparent than the HD1...this is true?

When I auditioned the RS2 (HD100), I couldn't get past the motion blur -- it was very annoying to me. I feel the same way about all of the LCD projectors I've ever seen, too. So I seem to be very sensitive to it.

Your misremembering just happened to serve your agenda -- what a coincidence. And, instead of just admitting you changed your story and taking your lumps, you claimed victimhood and started wailing about how you were slandered, got sarcastic, tried to create a distraction -- that's pretty strange behavior for someone who just innocently "remembered wrong." Instead of wailing away about how you were slandered, where's your apology to the Original Poster for giving him advice based on your "remembering wrong"?

My story never changed. I stand by it.

You sound exactly like someone's bad memory of their ex-wife.

I usually don't use the word "hysterical" when describing another man but come on already . . .

Is this the kind of anguish that you felt when you realised that you could never be happy with the RS2? Why lord? Why?

It isnt, and never was, about "exact wording" at all. That is very clear.

I disagree. In fact I think someone conducting a poll would take LG saying initially that, "most people didn't express a preference but of those who did, they preferred the RS1" and then later that "most people preferred the RS1" would view both of those as equivalent sentences because in both instances more people preferred the RS1 than the other way around. I don't think it was necessary to dial up the level of rhetoric and accusations to someone for simply changing the exact wording a year later. I understand LG's point then and now and I don't think his recent comments really changed that much. Certainly not enough to justify comments like:


It is very obvious to anyone with a small amount of understanding that the test never took place at all and was simply an agenda driven fabrication.


Now regarding:

You need to look closer then. I have waxed lyrical about the VP200.I said very clearly its a machine that simply must be on everyone's shortlist as its that good. The response from the AVS owner was.......... "Wholly sh1t..its great having coldmachine drop in and give his endorsement. Thats saying a lot for this machine. Anyone following the forums knows he is an outspoken perfectionist
and tells it like it is and owns the best of the best so he knows what good looks like. Good seeing you here"

Im also very enthused by the Meridian and JVC 4k units and will be auditioning them both for my main room. If something comes along to replace my smaller systems that use the C3X1080 then theyre gone too, regardless of the technology involved.


I have viewed a fair amount of your posts and I have posted before that there does seem to be an agenda there with a lot of anti-LCOS rhetoric. This thread being a case in point. When you audition the Meridian and JVC 4k units I'll be very interested in seeing what you post about them...

you can retell your sad story about how you were forced into buying a C3x because noting else could satisfy your discerning standards.

That isn't a sad story. That's an action/adventure with a buddy comedy angle and a soundtrack with plenty of LFE for the sub-woofer fanatics!

<Best Bluto Blutarski> Food Fight!!!!

Seriously dude, AVS should be civil. I mean that.

I would be more than happy to take this off line to find out where you are amenable to service of process, Uh, I mean to work this out amicably.

Or, we can keep going until the mods shut down this thread.

Either way . . .

My story never changed. I stand by it.

Don't stand too close unless you like that funny smell.

Is this the kind of anguish that you felt when you realised that you could never be happy with the RS2?

No, that anguish was slightly different. It had a hint of cinnamon.



.

QUOTE]Im also very enthused by the Meridian and JVC 4k units and will be auditioning them both for my main room. If something comes along to replace my smaller systems that use the C3X1080 then theyre gone too, regardless of the technology involved.[/QUOTE]

Who the heck needs two theater rooms:confused:

Joey

Uh, I mean to work this out amicably.

I feel perfectly amicable right now. If I want real anguish, I will watch CNBC and see what's happening with my stocks.

Or, we can keep going until the mods shut down this thread.

Personally, I think it would benefit you if this thread were deleted and the evidence buried, so if that happens, I will expect a thank you card, a box of candy, or something nice for my birthday.

Let's agree that people buying C3X, RS*s aren't your "average viewer".

Agree.

We already know the performance of the eye, that's well documented. The eye is capable of a much larger dynamic range than even the RS20, way, way over 50,000:1. Only the 1,000,000:1 of a CRT comes close to approximating the dynamic range of the eye.

But, this doesn't tell us how much it takes to produce a JND.

Tryg knew which machine was which

That's why I said it was only single blind, not double.

and presumably what sort of CR numbers to expect for each.

The measurements didn't come out until well after Tryg had posted his shoot-out stating that he perceived the on/off, CR, and Black Level of the Planar 8150 to be similar to the RS1.

Here is the thread documenting the shoot-out....


http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1021554&highlight=planar+rs1



.

To a question about on/off numbers, Tryg responded...

We didn't measure. There's really no point in arguing about #s at these levels. The projectors had similar CR and brightness...therefore similar black levels.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=13692599#post13692599

Personally, I think it would benefit you if this thread were deleted and the evidence buried, so if that happens, I will expect a thank you card, a box of candy, or something nice for my birthday.

No benefit to me. No such evidence, but we'll agree to disagree then.

Any packages that you might receive from me should first be checked for evidence of a biological weapon such as anthrax. If negative for that, check for explosives. Failing that, presume some kind of poison.

It's pretty obvious from reading this thread that some of the pro 3-chip DLP camp are questioning the importance of on/off and how perceptible it is and if anything over 3k:1 really makes that much of a difference.

The only issue raised is how much it takes to produce a JND.

...Or, we can keep going until the mods shut down this thread ...IMO it is likely already noted by most longtime respected members that you gave the OP your honest opinion, supported by a comparison you shared with the AVS community a year or so ago. It is also very clear that others could have given the OP a different opinion, that is what AVS is all about. However what we got was a series of personal attacks against you,:( with no real info to the OP. Unfortunatly there are a few members who provide almost no value or insight to our community, instead popping up to deliver snipes and personal attacks. If you recall the darinP, KrisDeering RS2 v Sharp 20K? comparison thread you will see the same pattern/player.

Please disengage and leave the mud dwellers in the mud.:)

Who the heck needs two theater rooms:confused

Joey, no need for confusion. I have used 3 projection systems for a while now. Having moved house, the situation is the same. I have a main theater room (18ft screen) and a smaller games/media room. The smaller room uses the C3X1080 on a 10.5ft 235 screen. This smaller system is duplicated in an apartment.

we'll agree to disagree then.

Beautiful.

Any packages that you might receive from me should first be checked for evidence of a biological weapon such as anthrax. If negative for that, check for explosives. Failing that, presume some kind of poison.


I guess a gift certificate is out of the question?

IMO it is likely already noted by most longtime respected members that you gave the OP your honest opinion, supported by a comparison you shared with the AVS community a year or so ago. It is also very clear that others could have given the OP a different opinion, that is what AVS is all about. However what we got was a series of personal attacks against you,:( with no real info to the OP. Unfortunatly there are a few members who provide almost no value or insight to our community, instead popping up to deliver snipes and personal attacks. If you recall the darinP, KrisDeering RS2 v Sharp 20K? comparison thread you will see the same pattern/player.

Please disengage and leave the mud dwellers in the mud.:)

Truer words were never said. Okay I'm going back and search for more cheetos... :)

I disagree. In fact I think someone conducting a poll would take LG saying initially that, "most people didn't express a preference but of those who did, they preferred the RS1" and then later that "most people preferred the RS1" would view both of those as equivalent sentences because in both instances more people preferred the RS1 than the other way around.

Thats not even close the issue at all. I've made that very clear a number of times.

HHF, I am a big boy. Usually I see them coming. I didn't see this coming. I must be getting old. Shame on me for not confirming my recollection about who how preferred what. Who knew?

I am all for debate. I got angry at you back in the day when you pointed out deficiencies in my old Sharp 12k, for instance. Sometimes I ultimately agreed. Sometimes I disagreed. Even though you were usually wrong (:D) it never got personal and I really believed that all the people involved in those discussions were actually interested in learing something. Many people involved in those discussions rarely post anymore. That's a shame.

What I am saying is that there are ways to disagree but to remain civil if not friendly. I won't disengage the mud dwellers just on the principle of it. I don't think that they are necessarily bad people. I just think that maybe they should learn the rules and contribute to this community. I am an idealist.

Shame on me for not confirming my recollection about who how preferred what.

I have no real issue with your change in recollection of who preferred what. Thats pretty trivial, although symptomatic of the underlying issue. I made that very clear a number of times.

I have no real issue with your change in recollection of who preferred what. Thats pretty trivial, although symptomatic of the underlying issue. I made that very clear a number of times.

You did. What is surprising to me is that you, someone who claims that he was the victim of similar kinds of slander, would himself be involved in it. Where's the love CM? I thought we had bonded.

Where's the love CM? I thought we had bonded.

With a concrete assurance of no tongues, you have a deal.

With a concrete assurance of no tongues, you have a deal.

I'm getting all misty . . .

Okay, we all better now?

I have no real issue with your change in recollection of who preferred what. Thats pretty trivial, although symptomatic of the underlying issue.

Okay, but if we don't want this marriage to break up during the honeymoon, better not bring up the real underlying issue.....

We all know.....it's the in-laws!

It's always the in-laws.

We're all better.

I'm a water under the bridge kind of guy.

Just as long as you don't try to sell the bridge.

Just..........kidding.

I don't know how to use the smileys and I am determined to keep it that way, but just so we're clear -- that was meant to be serious.

Nahhhh --- just kidding.

For the record, I also love everyone.


But, I won't participate in any group hugging.

The C3X1080's native on/off is 7,000:1.

It actually is more than that. Steve B had his C3X1080 measured by GetGray and he got over 9,000:1 on it.

It actually is more than that. Steve B had his C3X1080 measured by GetGray and he got over 9,000:1 on it.

It ranges between just over 7k to just under 10k. I have a 7.2k and an 8.4k. The new version looks to be a major step up in this area, 30k spec. Brighter too, in an attempt to get back to the old C3X lumens.

Ive heard 1400 D65 lumen at 22k are whats currently being achieved. Some other areas are also looking to be improved.


Im guessing, and assume others agree, that its probably time for this thread to fade away.

It actually is more than that. Steve B had his C3X1080 measured by GetGray and he got over 9,000:1 on it.

Interesting. I should have mine measured.

Or, I guess I can just eyeball some test patterns and guess.








I'm kidding. I'm KIDDING!!!

I'm guessing, and assume others agree, that its probably time for this thread to fade away.

Nahhhh, this thread should go into the AVS Hall of Fame and we should hold reunions every five years. I'll be in charge of the snacks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ8xM83fMhU

The dithering used in DLP artificially sharpens the picture, I suspect at least some of the blurring you see is actually in the source.


Very good point, JeffY! I have actually tried to do some testing with the same material which showed the 'blurring' effects in heavy motion. I have tried to compare it on an HD100/C3X1080/C3X720/Planar 8130/Epson TW200/Mitsu HC6000 and a few more. I'd say the following: If you see blurring, it's 90% in the source. But it looks different on all machines/technologies. I wonder where the urban legend came from that D-ILA is any worse or better than any of the other technologies.

I bought a used c3x a few months ago(5k US) and upgraded it to a c3xe(2k US). Did I overspend? Well maybe? However I sit back about 16 feet form a 108" wide 235:1 Firehawk Gen1 screen and the picture looked great and detailed enough at my 50+ with 20/40 errr.... 20/60 eyesight. I'm happy with the Samsung HD/Blueray feed(Yeah messed up on buying into HD DVD) to my projector. Using a Paramorph lense as well(Could have gotten an ISCO). I'm still happy and satisfied... could have waited for a better product... but why wait(I'm not getting any younger). I'm good to go for a few more seasons, before hopping onto the next best PJ(whatever that maybe, if I'm still around. I'm just enjoying life and what it has to offer.... Can't always get the best all the time(or price for that matter).. just have to be satisfied with what you are able to get and enjoy it.

Peace.

The Blurr with LCOS is here and its for real. Thought to lesser degree then its LCD counterpart. I also had in my theater several CRT/LCD/LCOS/DLP Projectors and I tested them all with uncompressed material/patterns fed by HTPC and I can guarantee you that LCD-LCOS both loose tonal details and becomes blurry on movements. DLPs are better but not perfect unlike CRTs. I have yet to test 3 Chip DLPs (not enought $$$s :)

Motion handling is one of those understated factors, yet some important in our perception of PQ. We tend to focus on contrast, contrast, and more contrast on this fourm. Now that we easily reach the 10000:1 mark, I hope we ll move to other aspects of projected images or at least attribute them equal importance.

The Blurr with LCOS is here and its for real. Thought to lesser degree then its LCD counterpart. I also had in my theater several CRT/LCD/LCOS/DLP Projectors and I tested them all with uncompressed material/patterns fed by HTPC and I can guarantee you that LCD-LCOS both loose tonal details and becomes blurry on movements. DLPs are better but not perfect unlike CRTs. I have yet to test 3 Chip DLPs (not enought $$$s :)

Motion handling is one of those understated factors, yet some important in our perception of PQ. We tend to focus on contrast, contrast, and more contrast on this fourm. Now that we easily reach the 10000:1 mark, I hope we ll move to other aspects of projected images or at least attribute them equal importance.


I agree totally....

I think some people are more sensitive to motion blur than others, sort of like RBE. Doesn't Sony have a recent projector with a feature called "motionflow" that tries to deal with motion blur? Why would they be working on a feature like this if there isn't a motion blur problem with LC projectors? When I auditioned Sony and JVC projectors, the motion blur was in each DVD I watched as well as when watching sports and it was enough to drive me nuts. When I auditioned DLP projectors, I didn't see any motion blur. I now have a three chip DLP and never see motion blur with any source. The type of bur that sometimes accompanies really fast action is different and does not bother me. Of course this is in the source. The motion blur I am talking about will happen when there is a slow pan and even in mild action. That's different and that's what I see with LCD and LCoS and never see with my three chip DLP.

Motionflow doesn't correct a display issue, it corrects a perceived source issue. Personally I think it looks hideous.

Motionflow doesn't correct a display issue, it corrects a perceived source issue. Personally I think it looks hideous.

Correct. 24fps (in case of film) will always have motion blur inherent in the source (as 24 states per second just isn't much, it is acutually very little in case of fast moving objects). If you introduce 'motion flow' or whatever it is called, you 're-invent' extra frames (that are not there in the source).

And I also never liked any of the so called motion algorithms, at least not for film! In sports it isn't that relevant anyways as this is normally shot in 50Hz or 60Hz.