OK, so I've got a W5000 hanging from my ceiling and by and large I'd been quite happy with it, until about Nov of last year. Let's get some background out first, I've got a CIH setup, 110" 2.39:1 screen SMX AT screen, Panamorph VC lens, and ~7.5' ceilings. So, I've got slightly unusual requirements, but nothing drastic. I just need V stretch and H squeeze for all inputs (including HD) and a somewhat reasonable offset.

So anyway, in Nov the manual iris died on my W5000 and it's been in and out of the shop attempting to get it fixed. This is actually my second BenQ OEM machine, the first was the now infamous Toshiba MT700 (BenQ 7700) which had the lamp eating issue (<200Hrs/lamp). In fairness, I do believe my W5000 to be relatively isolated issue, but suffice to say after going 0/2 personally with BenQ OEM projectors and the "fun" of trying to get my W5000 fixed, I'm not keen on giving them another shot. Which is a shame because my W5000 throws a fine picture and has all the features I would ever want. So for the last couple months I've been reading/researching/shopping with more purpose than just my usual browsing.

In between my two BenQs I had an Infocus IN76. Now that was a great machine. It worked, it did what I needed, it looked good, what more can you ask really. Yes it had a 15% offset, but I made that work quite well. I'd buy another InFocus in a heartbeat, I'd love to have an IN83 hanging from my ceiling but I just don't see how I can make it work with it's 36% offset without having to tilt the screen so much as to make it distracting.

I then started hearing about the Optoma HD8200, which sounded like the answer to my needs. Had all the features I needed, AR controls, placement, to top it off with reportedly stellar qualty image. There there were the intial posts with questions of QC, and now word that AVS has had every 8200 returned. So that's out.

That pretty much runs me out of DLP territory. Luckily Pioneer is closing out the FPJ1 RS2 clone. I figure sweet, I can get the legendary RS2 now. It's got the placement flexibility, will smoke my previous projectors in CR/black level. And best of all the local shop carries them, so I can buy local (which I like to do when it's a good shop). So I check it out, only to discover that it's AR controls are disabled for HD inputs (other than an "afterthought" vstretch mode). It's not entirely out but the requirement to get a VP rather kills the economics of that machine.

So I thought, maybe the RS10 is in range, or heck, maybe I could stretch for the RS20, but no, they both have the same AR problems of the RS2. I suppose the FPJ1 + something like an Edge is a possibility, but definitely more than I wasn't trying to spend right now.

And call me elitist, call me a snob, but after having nothing but DLPs I just can't see myself "stepping down" to an LCD. I think DiLA could be a tough pill to swallow (being "used" to DLP's look) let alone SXRD or especially LCD. At least a JVC would get me much better native CR in exchange for convergence, uniformity issues and lower ANSI-type CR.....

Is there just no PJ for me?
Could I make a 36% offset InFocus work with only a couple inch drop lens->screen top?
Am I suck with choosing between something of questionable reliability and something missing features I need (or buying a VP to get them back)?

Sorry for the rant-ish post, but it's been brewing for a while. I almost posted this in one of the 8200/W5000 threads but didn't feel like crashing them was the best idea. Normally I greatly enjoy reading about all the options, but of late it's become increasing frustrating as every time I find what appears to be a good option/solution some deal killer pops up, missing needed feature, poor quality/reliability, something.....

What about this one???


http://img124.imageshack.us/img124/3427/1projectorhc6.png

Well, if you like the W5000 except for the repair issue, really you need to figure out if you happen to have had bad luck with BenQ PJs, or if BenQ PJs really are flakier than the average make/model. If the former (and it has to happen to somebody, just based on pure statistical distributions), then the next BenQ may help to even out the average. If the latter, maybe just wait to find out if any of the next round of BenQ PJs have addressed any reliability issues.

From what I have read on this forum, the BenQs do not appear to be any more prone to failure than other PJs, maybe even less prone than the Optomas, but that might not be an accurate assessment: only people with problems complain, and I have no idea how many people are out there quite happy and have never even heard of AVS. If sales figures were available some kind of (probably easily spun) statistical analysis could be done, but I doubt anything useful is available.

It's like buying a car: reliability issues are usually rare enough that comparing the rates of failure experienced by your friends and family cannot give an accurate picture. It's only after thousands or millions of cars are built and sold and driven for tens of thousands of miles can solid statistics be generated.

And slight variances in "quality" can drop a car maker from #1 to #5 in just a year or two, when really their cars are far more reliable today even at #5 than #1 was 4 years ago.

Occasionally a new maker comes along with really lousy build quality (like the first few years of Hyundai) just to show you how bad things can be. Then they get their act together, and start to perform at the same level as everyone else.

So, you have to balance what you know with what you hope. And hope you haven't bought a 1985 Hyundai Pony.

IMHO, AFAIK, yadda yadda yadda,

shinksma

What's AR control?

What's AR control?

Aspect Ratio control, for his CIH set-up, I would assume.

shinksma

Stranger.........

I feel your pain!

I have been lucky enough to have an InFocus 7210 for the last 3 or 4 years... I love the image it throws, but obviously spend too much time around AVS as I have been looking for an upgrade.

InFocus "would" have been at or at least toward the top of my list....., but man did they jump off the deep end with their offset (36%) and throw ratio (way too long for my room).

I cannot imagine what drove that offset... unless the light engine was originally designed to be mounted on a desktop shinning business projections up onto the wall/screen.... it certainly makes little sense for the average HT.

Even if I could figure a way to make the offset work, as I mentioned the throw won't work. (for some reason Planar, InFocus, and BenQ all decided to jump on the long throw band-wagon... 1.85-2.40, 1.85-2.22, and 1.84-2.21) almost close enough to think they were all using the same lens :-)

So like you I have been skulking around AVS waiting for the "next big thing!" Eager anticipation with each new projectors release just to have reality poke a hole in my balloon of hope!

"Could I make a 36% offset InFocus work with only a couple inch drop lens->screen top? "

Sure.

You'll get spme keystone but it won't noticeably affect the image and it can be absorbed in your screen borders.

Have you seen the other technologies? You might be surprised how awesome they look.

I think you have a false sense of "how much better DLP looks". In fact many will disagree with this assessment totally.

Well, if you like the W5000 except for the repair issue, really you need to figure out if you happen to have had bad luck with BenQ PJs, or if BenQ PJs really are flakier than the average make/model. If the former (and it has to happen to somebody, just based on pure statistical distributions), then the next BenQ may help to even out the average. If the latter, maybe just wait to find out if any of the next round of BenQ PJs have addressed any reliability issues.

I'll put it this way, from reading the forum (which can give some indications) I chock the old MT700 up to a bad design/design flaw. The W5000, as I said, I seem to be about the only one, so it seems to be relatively isolated. I'm 100% willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that the W5000 is not problematic, and that I just got a lemon. That said, the issues I've had getting it fixed (it's been in 3 times already, accounting for about 9 weeks out of my theater) and the issue has not been resolved.

It's really the support issue that's giving me heartburn at the moment. Since November BenQ's had it darn near as much as I have.

From what I have read on this forum, the BenQs do not appear to be any more prone to failure than other PJs,

Agreed, with one notable exception, they seem to be very well liked and without any sort of disproportionate failure rate. That's one reason why I've been trying not to make much noise. BenQ has been working with me, I haven't had to fight them or anything so they get marks for that. I guess we'll see if they finally replace my unit or not this time....

I have been lucky enough to have an InFocus 7210 for the last 3 or 4 years... I love the image it throws, but obviously spend too much time around AVS as I have been looking for an upgrade.

Not that it will help you, but that's what I thought til I got my BenQ, which was noticably, and IMO significantly better.

I cannot imagine what drove that offset... unless the light engine was originally designed to be mounted on a desktop shinning business projections up onto the wall/screen.... it certainly makes little sense for the average HT.

Last I heard their installers asked for it. Apparently they get installed in 9' ceiling installations a lot.

Even if I could figure a way to make the offset work, as I mentioned the throw won't work. (for some reason Planar, InFocus, and BenQ all decided to jump on the long throw band-wagon... 1.85-2.40, 1.85-2.22, and 1.84-2.21) almost close enough to think they were all using the same lens :-)

Seems to be due to the 0.95" DMD.

So like you I have been skulking around AVS waiting for the "next big thing!" Eager anticipation with each new projectors release just to have reality poke a hole in my balloon of hope!

Yeah, I was really kind of hoping to hang out til LED hit to see what that would be.

"Could I make a 36% offset InFocus work with only a couple inch drop lens->screen top? "

Sure.

You'll get spme keystone but it won't noticeably affect the image and it can be absorbed in your screen borders.

Yeah, I go back and forth on that. I must put in different numbers (shooting from the hip on some of my measurements), but running the numbers with fresh measurements:
http://www.stephenmason.com/misc/projectorkeystone.html
Ceiling to Lens: 7"
Ceiling to Screen top: 12"
Screen: 110"x46"
Throw: 216"
Needed Rise (36% offset - 5"): 17.25

I get:
Width top: 112.4
Width bot: 110.6
Tilt needed: 4.56 degrees (3.75")

My BenQ can go to about 120% offset, maybe I should experiment a bit....

Have you seen the other technologies? You might be surprised how awesome they look.

Honestly, no I have not had the opportunity to view the latest crop of projectors in person. I got "tied up" with Colon Surgery and missed out on CES this year... wah!

I realize you have an "issue" with DLP Tyrg, but for those of us who do not see rainbows it has been an amazing technology. (although I am convinced the engineer that invented it was on a "bender" the entire weekend before doing his presentation) The sharpness and clarity of the projected image are very immersive at least IMHO.

A contributor here at AVS who also had the 7210 has switched to the new Epson and claims it throws an even better image than the InFocus did. In years past I could spot the difference between LCD and DLP from the length of the South Hall at CES. LCD's image seemed to me to have a "haze" over the top.

I know you are an Lcos person yourself and while I enjoyed the images on past Sony's and they did look very "film-like"... to me they did not have the pop that made me say "wow." I watch more HDTV than I do movies and that may influence my choice... and as I earlier admitted I have not had the opportunity to see this years crop in action... but I keep reading ! :D

Have you seen the other technologies? You might be surprised how awesome they look.

I've seen an FPJ1, and honestly wasn't blown away. Of course I chalk that up to the setup mostly

I think you have a false sense of "how much better DLP looks". In fact many will disagree with this assessment totally.

I know you love your LCoS, but you'll notice I never once said DLP looks "better", just that SXRD and LCD have some issues like uniformity and convergence and lower ANSI CR, without offering any big benefit in return (native CR). A JVC would get me much better Native CR, but at the cost of lost features I use (h squish), maybe new issues (convergence) and potentially much greater cost (monetary).

The RS20 does squeeze HD content via the "aspect" button if you want to leave the anamorphic lens in place at all times. I have verified this on my own unit. I would bet the RS10 does as well so this issue should not kick these projectors out of the running.

To confirm. When watching HD content with the anamorphic lens in place, you can hit the "aspect" button on the remote and your image gets squeezed back to 16:9.

stanger[/left]89;15960717]



Last I heard their installers asked for it. Apparently they get installed in 9' ceiling installations a lot.



Seems to be due to the 0.95" DMD.



Cannot image why..... I have 9' & 10' ceiling, but for a 155" 2.35 image you wind up with a 39.4" offset..... that is just nuts!! With a 5' high screen, a 3.3' offset your projector screen (assuming 4" borders) and the projector lens up tight to the ceiling say 4"-6" ...winds up basically on the floor! (from the 9' ceiling)

On the throw ratio.... I had not thought about that but I guess these all use that size DMD... not sure why that would dictate the longer throw... but I am sure Darin or someone else here could explain it to us..... :-)

The RS20 does squeeze HD content via the "aspect" button if you want to leave the anamorphic lens in place at all times. I have verified this on my own unit. I would bet the RS10 does as well so this issue should not kick these projectors out of the running.

Really, because as near as I could tell from the manual (and my searches here) they're the same as the RS2/FPJ1 which completely disables the AR control for HD inputs, and had a special Vertical Stretch mode for HD sources.

To confirm. When watching HD content with the anamorphic lens in place, you can hit the "aspect" button on the remote and your image gets squeezed back to 16:9.

So it can go to "4:3" mode, and does "Letterbox" do v-stretch with the Aspect button as well? Interesting....

All I can find is a comment by tstites that none of the JVCs do that:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=15051793&highlight=squeeze#post15051793
But he doesn't sound 100% confident about the 10/20.... There's also a few other comments floating around about needing a scaler for that functionality....

Cannot image why..... I have 9' & 10' ceiling, but for a 155" 2.35 image you wind up with a 39.4" offset..... that is just nuts!! With a 5' high screen, a 3.3' offset your projector screen (assuming 4" borders) and the projector lens up tight to the ceiling say 4"-6" ...winds up basically on the floor! (from the 9' ceiling)

It would only be ~24" with the more common HE lens (155/1.33 = 116/1.78*0.36 = 23.6"), which would put the top at about 7' off the floor, the bottom around 2', and your eyes about 4', so about 40% of the way up or just over the 1/3 recommended. But yeah, I agree it seems excessive.

On the throw ratio.... I had not thought about that but I guess these all use that size DMD... not sure why that would dictate the longer throw... but I am sure Darin or someone else here could explain it to us..... :-)

All I know is with the Optoma 8200, it's been mentioned that the smaller 0.65" DMD is what allows it to go down to under 1.5x throw.

You should consider a planar pd8150..according to Khris Deering, blacks almost as good as rs2, while the ansi is higher than benq, +overall picture is very sharp and clear, and it comes calibrated to almost perfect settings OOTB.

Really, because as near as I could tell from the manual (and my searches here) they're the same as the RS2/FPJ1 which completely disables the AR control for HD inputs, and had a special Vertical Stretch mode for HD sources.



So it can go to "4:3" mode, and does "Letterbox" do v-stretch with the Aspect button as well? Interesting....

All I can find is a comment by tstites that none of the JVCs do that:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=15051793&highlight=squeeze#post15051793
But he doesn't sound 100% confident about the 10/20.... There's also a few other comments floating around about needing a scaler for that functionality....

I don't know what the manual says but I know from experience that the Aspect button will squeeze 16:9 content to 4:3 at 1080p60 and 1080p24. I have not tried with any other resolutions. It will do this with or without vertical stretch engaged. Vertical stretch can only be engaged via the menu and not the aspect button. You can use the discrete code for v-stretch on/off from the RS2 if you have a universal remote. This has also been discussed in the RS20 thread.


To repeat: The RS20 will squeeze HD content from 16:9 to 4:3. Thus if you have an anamorphic lens that stretched 16:9 to 2.37:1, pushing the "aspect" button will squeeze it back to 16:9. I have a Panamorph 480 and I built a slide for it as I don't like the pincushion on 16:9 images using this functionality.

I know you are an Lcos person yourself and while I enjoyed the images on past Sony's and they did look very "film-like"... to me they did not have the pop that made me say "wow."

Well, the difference in pop on bright scenes in favor of DLP is subtle...but there. On the other hand the difference in pop in dark scenes in favour of JVC LCOS is dramatic. It sure made me say 'wow' coming from the DLP world.

I watch more HDTV than I do movies and that may influence my choice... and as I earlier admitted I have not had the opportunity to see this years crop in action... but I keep reading ! :D

The RS1 looks great for HDTV...generally much better than my old W5000 in the 'wow' category.

Well, if you like the W5000 except for the repair issue, really you need to figure out if you happen to have had bad luck with BenQ PJs, or if BenQ PJs really are flakier than the average make/model. If the former (and it has to happen to somebody, just based on pure statistical distributions), then the next BenQ may help to even out the average. If the latter, maybe just wait to find out if any of the next round of BenQ PJs have addressed any reliability issues.

From what I have read on this forum, the BenQs do not appear to be any more prone to failure than other PJs, maybe even less prone than the Optomas, but that might not be an accurate assessment: only people with problems complain, and I have no idea how many people are out there quite happy and have never even heard of AVS. If sales figures were available some kind of (probably easily spun) statistical analysis could be done, but I doubt anything useful is available.

It's like buying a car: reliability issues are usually rare enough that comparing the rates of failure experienced by your friends and family cannot give an accurate picture. It's only after thousands or millions of cars are built and sold and driven for tens of thousands of miles can solid statistics be generated.

And slight variances in "quality" can drop a car maker from #1 to #5 in just a year or two, when really their cars are far more reliable today even at #5 than #1 was 4 years ago.

Occasionally a new maker comes along with really lousy build quality (like the first few years of Hyundai) just to show you how bad things can be. Then they get their act together, and start to perform at the same level as everyone else.

So, you have to balance what you know with what you hope. And hope you haven't bought a 1985 Hyundai Pony.

IMHO, AFAIK, yadda yadda yadda,

shinksma

I am in the same boat with BenQ. I can live with the fact that they fail. I can live with the fact that the failure rate is normal and I am just unlucky. I could even live with the fact that the failure rate is abnormal and frequent.

However, I cannot live with the fact that when the projector fails under warranty, it takes a full month for me to see my projector again (with only 2 days each way spent in delivery). That's ridiculous, and causes me to be without a display for 8% of the year each time it fails. (Never mind the fact that I asked them to update the firmware while they had it, called many times and was assured they would indeed update it, and when I finally received the W5K a month later, it had the same firmware- causing me to send it back to them again for who knows how long.)

The sad thing is that they make such a stellar product when it's working. You'd think they would make an effort to support their product better.

I'm half tempted to keep my W20K, and also keep my W5K as a backup unit for when I have to send the W20K in for repair (for a month). :p Considering what I have invested in the two, it's not a terribly expensive option- though I don't have as many restrictions as you stranger (regarding CIH).

Because of that, I'm far more tempted to dump BenQ and give LCoS it's shot.

In between my two BenQs I had an Infocus IN76. Now that was a great machine. It worked, it did what I needed, it looked good, what more can you ask really. Yes it had a 15% offset, but I made that work quite well. I'd buy another InFocus in a heartbeat, I'd love to have an IN83 hanging from my ceiling but I just don't see how I can make it work with it's 36% offset without having to tilt the screen so much as to make it distracting.

Hi Stanger89,

How about this to make the IN83 work for you:

Lower your screen so that it's centered on your wall, i.e. 22" above and below it to the ceiling/floor. With the 36% offset of the IN83, and the Panamorph inverted so that it places the compressed image at the top rather than the bottom, that means you only need to tilt the PJ enough to raise the image 7". With a long throw projector like the IN83, the amount of keystone distortion is going to be pretty small with that degree of tilt (certainly less than a short throw PJ), and you may not even notice it. Worst case you may need to tilt your screen a little. I bet you could make it work. :)

The screen may be a little lower than you're used to, but should still make for comfortable viewing. I guess the biggest potential issue would be if you have a 2nd row of seating. You may get some obstructed views.

If it makes you feel any better, your IN76 probably would have made a trip to the repair shop eventually too. Power supply/fuse problems seem to be quite common unfortunately. Just got mine back from the repair shop a few weeks ago (3 weeks without, ~$300 w/shipping, out of warranty).

I feel your frustration though. There's not many choices out there for us DLP fans.

Hi Stanger89,

How about this to make the IN83 work for you:

Lower your screen so that it's centered on your wall, i.e. 22" above and below it to the ceiling/floor. With the 36% offset of the IN83, and the Panamorph inverted so that it places the compressed image at the top rather than the bottom, that means you only need to tilt the PJ enough to raise the image 7". With a long throw projector like the IN83, the amount of keystone distortion is going to be pretty small with that degree of tilt (certainly less than a short throw PJ), and you may not even notice it. Worst case you may need to tilt your screen a little. I bet you could make it work. :)

The screen may be a little lower than you're used to, but should still make for comfortable viewing. I guess the biggest potential issue would be if you have a 2nd row of seating. You may get some obstructed views.

If it makes you feel any better, your IN76 probably would have made a trip to the repair shop eventually too.

Maybe, but not 4 times in 4 months after owning it for less than a year.

I feel your frustration though. There's not many choices out there for us DLP fans.

For me it's been more the feeling of running into a roadblock at ever turn....

It would only be ~24" with the more common HE lens (155/1.33 = 116/1.78*0.36 = 23.6"), which would put the top at about 7' off the floor, the bottom around 2', and your eyes about 4', so about 40% of the way up or just over the 1/3 recommended. But yeah, I agree it seems excessive.



All I know is with the Optoma 8200, it's been mentioned that the smaller 0.65" DMD is what allows it to go down to under 1.5x throw.

Not familiar with the HE lens... or any other for that matter. Just was using the calculator on PJC and it was giving me a 39.4" offset for that size screen.

This would be when I can get the funds to build out a Theater in the room under the garage (23' x 20' x 8.8'). My current theater is in a 16.5' x 13.5' x 10' room with a 135" 16x9 screen. The only way to get the 7210 to work was that I hid it in the crawl-space between floors and outside the theater... looks pretty cool just having a small rectangular opening at the top of the wall where the light comes out... very "theater like!"

But there is no way to get the IN83 to function unfortunately... I would have to be able to move the projector back probably at least another 2' and by which time the light beam is going to be quite a bit wider, so now we are talking about cutting large holes through structural timbers... and so on... and so on.

Not familiar with the HE lens... or any other for that matter. Just was using the calculator on PJC and it was giving me a 39.4" offset for that size screen.

Unfortunately I think that calc is likely to cause more confusion than is solves. HE is Horizontal Expansion meaning the lens changes the width, not the eight, so a 155" scope screen with an HE lens need only be 65" high (which since the height doesn't change is what you use in the offset calculation). With a VC lens the height changes so for the same width screen you'd use 155/1.78=87" in the calculation yielding a 31" offset, I don't know where they get 39" from, probably 31" plus the extra "offset" from the black bars (since the calc just gives you the "zoom method" size/throw/location.

Well, for what it's worth, they're sending me a replacement W5000, so I'm hoping to stick with that til there's a more compelling upgrade, like I was originally planning.

Since the RS10/20 do provide the AR functionality you need, is there any other reason they don't satisfy your requirements?

Since the RS10/20 do provide the AR functionality you need, is there any other reason they don't satisfy your requirements?

Well primarilly at this point, I'll have a fully functional projector in a week or so (in theory) without spending any money. Makes justifying an upgrade quite hard, especially when overall I like my W5000.

Now if I'm cursed with two lemons in a row, maybe I'll be back. :)

The other issue is were I to decide to upgrade, I really don't want the RS10 in leu of the RS20, and while I could probably afford an RS20, I'd rather not buy one right now. Like I said before, other than the repair issues, I had not planned on buying a projector now.