Been reading a lot and have narrowed my choice to these 3. With the 6500 rebate the recent price drop of the Pioneer, all are about the same price now.

My room has ambient light issues although I'll be watching movies at night so that's not a big concern for movies. I will, however, be watching a lot of football during the day and would rather not have to close off all windows.

Screen will be approximately 108" with about a 14' throw distance and projector will be ceiling mounted. I have not selected a screen although I know it'll be motorized and most likely AT due to my speaker set up.

I am leaning toward the Pioneer. However, I want to be sure it's bright enough. I also like the Panny's auto zoom feature for 2.35 movies and I know the Epson is very bright.

Any advice or thoughts? Also - if anyone has any recs for a screen give my parameters, I'd appreciate it.


Thanks!

I went through the same selection you're going through for the past few weeks. No projector is perfect, so you have a lot of weighing pros / cons in front of you.

I originally really wanted to get the AE3000, due to the feature set, bells and whistles, etc. then I read about the Epson, then the crazy deals going on with the Pioneer.

If ambient light for football is a big factor, the Epson would win on brightness which is the #1 thing you would need, and the picture consensus is pretty darn good. Downside would be QA issues, however Epson's warranty replacement could be considered the leader in the projection space (new unit next day? remarkable!)

If it's all dark, then the consensus seems to be the fpj1 with great PQ at an unbelievable deal, however the more I read the more people who bite on this deal are buying special lenses, video processors, etc. after the fact. Just something to research more on the whys of that before pulling the trigger.

The AE3000 has a good picture as well, more brightness than the fpj in certain modes, less brightness than the Epson. Frame Interpolation seems to work the best vs. the Epson (Pio does not have it on board), and some neat calibration features (split screen, etc). Issues seem to be less than the Epson as well. The PQ would probably be ranked in 3rd place depending on preference due to the smoothscreen (removes "screen door" effect of LCD) appearing to soften the image some.


I tried summarizing days of reading (there is a LOT of info and comparisons between each of these, the 3000U vs 6500UB thread, there's a fpj1 vs. AE3000U thread that got pretty heated, and I think a 6500UB vs. fpj1 thread as well, not to mention the owners threads on each) as I do not have any of these in my possession yet, so take my opinions as they are, just a summarization of what I've read and read and read.

Good luck, and regardless, enjoy! :)

My room has ambient light issues although I'll be watching movies at night so that's not a big concern for movies. I will, however, be watching a lot of football during the day and would rather not have to close off all windows.

Speednut did a good job already of summarizing the pro's and con's. There is a recent thread which he participated in of the fpj1 vs the ae3000, and much of this is dicussed there, including at times the 6500.

If the above quote is indeed a concern for you, I would opt for the brightest projector. You may also consider a high contrast screen for daytime viewing, check out the screens section for more info on that.

Keep in mind, a front projector is not going to look like a plasma or LCD during the day. The contrast just won't be there. Depending on your tolerance, it may still be a 'good enough' picture for you though. I'd suggest visiting a local store with a pj setup and turning on some lights to see if the picture is acceptable to you under various lighting conditions. If not, then you'll need to rethink your strategy, because getting the best out of a pj means a dark room.

I struggled with the same question. In the end it came down to two factors:

1. Price: my projector budget has a hard cap at $2500 period. That eliminated the Pioneer. It hurts to think that I may be throwing away a much better picture over a few hundred bucks, but I need to stick to my budget. But I know that any of the three will look much better than what I currently have, and since I've also never seen any of the three, ignorance is bliss :) Now it's down to the Panny and Epson.

2. CIH: This was the biggest factor for me. My number one priority was a low cost, convenient implementation of CIH. The Panny offers the lens memory for the zoom method; no additional expense needed. The Epson has manual zoom/focus/shift, so I'd have to buy at the very least a scaler to achieve the same level of convenience - that's another $1000. That puts the Epson waaaay over my budget.

My decision: I ordered an open box Panny for $2300.

I struggled with the same question. In the end it came down to two factors:

1. Price: my projector budget has a hard cap at $2500 period. That eliminated the Pioneer. It hurts to think that I may be throwing away a much better picture over a few hundred bucks, but I need to stick to my budget. But I know that any of the three will look much better than what I currently have, and since I've also never seen any of the three, ignorance is bliss :) Now it's down to the Panny and Epson.

2. CIH: This was the biggest factor for me. My number one priority was a low cost, convenient implementation of CIH. The Panny offers the lens memory for the zoom method; no additional expense needed. The Epson has manual zoom/focus/shift, so I'd have to buy at the very least a scaler to achieve the same level of convenience - that's another $1000. That puts the Epson waaaay over my budget.

My decision: I ordered an open box Panny for $2300.

That's pretty much the exact same reasoning that has led me to the panny as my choice. They say great minds think alike.. perhaps if we can average out our IQ's then we'll be all set! (you'll be the one bringing up the average, of course).

...Price: my projector budget has a hard cap at $2500 period. That eliminated the Pioneer...

It may be too late but man it's very close to your budget. Just barely breaking the 2 digit mark. ;)

With the price of the Pioneer the same as the Panny, it would be a no-brainer if you were just using it for watching movies in a light controlled room. However, the strikes against the Pio in your case are:

1. You don't have a light-controlled room during the day
2. You have a 108" (I'm assuming 16:9) AT screen, which at best will have a unity gain
3. You'll be watching a lot of sports in these conditions, which don't require greyscale accuracy (the FPJ1 puts out more lumens at D65 than does the Panny, but at higher color temps the Panny far outstrips the FPJ1's light output)

All this makes the Panny a far better choice IMO. The FPJ1 would be a better fit for watching movies in a light controlled room, but it's just not appropriate for your needs. Plus the Panny will still throw a great image when watching movies, so I think you'll really be happy with it.

Just curious - you said you were interested in the auto zoom/lens shift memories for CIH - are you planning on putting in a scope (2.35:1) screen at some point in the future? That's really the only case in which those particular features on the Panny would be of use to you.

It may be too late but man it's very close to your budget. Just barely breaking the 2 digit mark. ;)

Argh - remorse is starting to creep in :)

BUT, I'd still need to invest in extra equipment for a convenient CIH setup, so the Pioneer is still a budget buster.

Been reading a lot and have narrowed my choice to these 3. With the 6500 rebate the recent price drop of the Pioneer, all are about the same price now.

My room has ambient light issues although I'll be watching movies at night so that's not a big concern for movies. I will, however, be watching a lot of football during the day and would rather not have to close off all windows.

Screen will be approximately 108" with about a 14' throw distance and projector will be ceiling mounted. I have not selected a screen although I know it'll be motorized and most likely AT due to my speaker set up.

I am leaning toward the Pioneer. However, I want to be sure it's bright enough. I also like the Panny's auto zoom feature for 2.35 movies and I know the Epson is very bright.

Any advice or thoughts? Also - if anyone has any recs for a screen give my parameters, I'd appreciate it.


Thanks!

Most have answered...but are you doing 16:9 or 2.35:1? If the later, then the Pioneer and Epson require additional items which may change things (at least to do it the simplest way). If 16:9, I would concur the Pioneer may be out as it is the dimmest of the bunch (by a ways).

Quality on the Panny and Epson are similar (each with their own little potential issues).

All in all I don't think any would disappoint you though...all are top grade.

I plan on 16:9. However, I'm seeing more 2.35:1 films. Do you think that this will continue and people with 16:9 screens will eventually be forced to adapt? In other words, would it be prudent to get the Panny just in case 2.35:1 continues to proliferate?

As for the brightness factor - between the Epson and Panny - I was leaning toward the Epson assuming their FI issue is fixed via upgrade. I'm wary of dustblobs for the Panny although like you said - I think i'd be happy with any of them as it's my first pj.

I'm looking for my 1st pj. I've been reading for the past 4 months. Still confused about the CHI or CWI since I have a small room and the widest is going to be about 105". I'm more confuse since a 16:9 will put a larger area with same width and if go CHI then 2.40 will be less area if I use the same screen. So why should I go with the 2.4 screen or the Pan3000, does it make more sense to go with a non auto memory. Can't I use the 16:9 screen and zoom to 2.4 since I'm limited to width. Dark room, 16' throw, 120-diag 16:9, 114 diag 2.4. seating 14'/sreen 1.1 thx .

I plan on 16:9. However, I'm seeing more 2.35:1 films. Do you think that this will continue and people with 16:9 screens will eventually be forced to adapt? In other words, would it be prudent to get the Panny just in case 2.35:1 continues to proliferate?


Movies have been being made with aspects ratios of 2.35:1 (or so) for decades and that's not going to change.

I'm looking for my 1st pj. I've been reading for the past 4 months. Still confused about the CHI or CWI since I have a small room and the widest is going to be about 105". I'm more confuse since a 16:9 will put a larger area with same width and if go CHI then 2.40 will be less area if I use the same screen. So why should I go with the 2.4 screen or the Pan3000, does it make more sense to go with a non auto memory. Can't I use the 16:9 screen and zoom to 2.4 since I'm limited to width. Dark room, 16' throw, 120-diag 16:9, 114 diag 2.4. seating 14'/sreen 1.1 thx .

Think of CIH this way - when you watch a mix of 4:3 and 16:9 material, would you rather watch it on a 4:3 or 16:9 screen? Would your answer change if your room is width constrained, and you can't make the 16:9 screen bigger than the 4:3 screen?

The same reasoning should be applied to 16:9 vs 2.4:1.

Most have answered...but are you doing 16:9 or 2.35:1? If the later, then the Pioneer and Epson require additional items which may change things (at least to do it the simplest way). If 16:9, I would concur the Pioneer may be out as it is the dimmest of the bunch (by a ways).

Quality on the Panny and Epson are similar (each with their own little potential issues).

All in all I don't think any would disappoint you though...all are top grade.


What additional items are you refering to when the Pioneer or Epson are used with a 2.35 screen. Are these additional items also necessary when a 2.35 screen is paired with The JVC RS 10?

Movies have been being made with aspects ratios of 2.35:1 (or so) for decades and that's not going to change.

I know that. I meant that there are more releases in 2.35:1 for the home market - BRs, DVDs, and Downloads. As long as they always release them in 16:9 too, I won't worry. But much like TV is going all digital, will home releases eventually all go 2.35:1 or is that so far off, it's not even worth worth thinking about?

I plan on 16:9. However, I'm seeing more 2.35:1 films. Do you think that this will continue and people with 16:9 screens will eventually be forced to adapt? In other words, would it be prudent to get the Panny just in case 2.35:1 continues to proliferate?

As for the brightness factor - between the Epson and Panny - I was leaning toward the Epson assuming their FI issue is fixed via upgrade. I'm wary of dustblobs for the Panny although like you said - I think i'd be happy with any of them as it's my first pj.

Don't assume that Epson is going to update their unit via Firmware, regardless of the stories that you hear, people get burned all the time buying stuff that "Supposedly" is to be fixed via FW upgrade that never happens.

I don't see 16:9 going anywhere anytime soon, although movies are in 2.35 quite a bit, 1.78 is the norm for WS, and TV will be in that format AFAIK....
I don't foresee EVERYTHING being in 2.35 anytime soon, although a large % of films probably will be.

JMO

What additional items are you refering to when the Pioneer or Epson are used with a 2.35 screen. Are these additional items also necessary when a 2.35 screen is paired with The JVC RS 10?

Well, it all depends on how you want to accomplish CIH (constant image height). There is plenty of discussion on this topic in the dedicated forum for it.

In short, to accomplish CIH, you can either use a zoom method, or an anamorphic lens. There are benefits and drawbacks to both methods, but if money is no object it is typically assumed that the anamorphic lens is a better solution (the pro's and con's get quite in depth and are discussed in the CIH forum).

The zoom method is often referred to as 'a poor man's CIH', because no additional equipment is needed, if the projector has the proper zoom ratio capability. This is how the panny accomplishes it, and it memorizes the zoom and lens shift settings for 2.35 and 16:9 settings so that you don't have to "fiddle" with zooming and such to switch aspect ratios. The epson and pio do not have these memories, although both (as far as I know) are capable of a zoom CIH, it would just require a bit of work each time you switched aspect ratios. To eliminate that 'work', you put in place an anamorphic lens and possibly a scaler. This additional setup typically costs a thousand or more, although some have done it cheaper.

To also clear up why people choose to do CIH, it is to completely fill a 2.35 screen when watching 2.35 material. This is how a movie theater typically functions, and those who choose it feel it is the optimum way for their home theater to function. It is a personal preference to have a 2.35 movie be the largest image your projector throws, but one that most feel provides a nice 'wow' factor.

And yes, an anamorphic setup would be required with the RS10 also, unless you chose to manually zoom each time aspect ratio changes. However, if you choose a 16:9 screen size instead, then you don't have to worry about any of this. Your 2.35 movies will just be smaller (black bars at top and bottom) than 16:9 tv/movies.

I know that. I meant that there are more releases in 2.35:1 for the home market - BRs, DVDs, and Downloads. As long as they always release them in 16:9 too, I won't worry. But much like TV is going all digital, will home releases eventually all go 2.35:1 or is that so far off, it's not even worth worth thinking about?

Well, I don't think there's anymore releases in 2.35:1 than there was 5 or 10 years ago. Most of the SD DVD's I own are in 2.35:1 (or whatever the aspect ratio of the film is). They're not going to release movies in 2.35:1 AND 16:9, if that's your question, especially on BD (your use of the word continue confuses me a bit, because I don't believe they do that now). TV shows (in HD) will continue to be in 16:9, but not movies.

All three are excellent projectors, as Jason pointed out. If you watch a lot of movies, then the Panny might be the way to go, as it will save you from adjusting the projector each time. I only watch about 2-3 movies per week at most, so to me it is no big deal to adjust the projector. So I got the Epson because it is a bit brighter-- I went with a 118" screen in a moderately light controlled room. I love the projector, and I am not worried about the FI issue in the least. Epson has the best warranty service in the business.

I love the idea of having a 2:35 projector and screen however realistically, I would use my projector for all of my videogames which are 16:9, and all of the dozens of channels I get in Hi Def are 16:9 and many of the movies out on DVD and Blu Ray are still 16:9, so more than 2/3rd's of my sources are 16:9 output. Doesn't make sense for me to set up pure 2:35 configuration. I see the appeal of blu ray, 2:35 movies and screen and have seen pictures of the images of those setups and they're awesome.

I am looking to purchase my first PJ for our theatre room and I have been following this thread. Simply for the fact that I am in information overload after reading many other threads, I have narrowed my choices to either the Panny AE3000 or the Epson 6500UB.

The room is roughly 27’x15’, 106” 16:9 Elite white screen, and the PJ ceiling mount is about 13'4" from the screen. There are windows behind the PJ, but the black blinds can be pulled down if need be to control lighting during the day. We will be using this room for movies, TV viewing, and a Wii console.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=134958&d=1235746757
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=134961&d=1235748685
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=134959&d=1235746757

I suspect both are good machines, but quotes like these have me reading some more and getting even more confused.

It's possible the AE3000 is more prone to dust blobs than the 6500UB is. But I don't know. What I do know is the AE3000 doesn't appear to have issues with locked focus rings, focus drift, frame interpolation hiccups, painfully slow HDMI handshake, weird pulsing fan drone, or other various issues reported by 6500UB owners. I own both, and the AE3000 inspires much more confidence in terms of QA/QC, refinement, and ease of use. But once again, it's outgunned by the Epson as far as brightness, contrast, and sharpness go.

Are there major issues with either to be of concern, or is it simply a fact that folks have vastly different tolerance levels? Lastly, any other PJ I should consider?

Any advice is appreciated.

Are there major issues with either to be of concern, or is it simply a fact that folks have vastly different tolerance levels? Lastly, any other PJ I should consider?

Any advice is appreciated.

Keep in mind, for every person that comes here to complain about an issue, 100 more (just a wild guess, could be more or less) are using the equipment and completely satisfied. Also, many of the issues that get reported here are somewhat nitpicky, most people probably live with them and don't realize it or don't care. It all depends on your tolerance I suppose. So to answer your question, yes there are some folks here with VERY low tolerance for anything wrong with their projector.

I would pick the one that best suits your needs, as I suspect all of them are quality projectors, and the odds of getting a bad one are about the same regardless of which you choose.

I would pick the one that best suits your needs, as I suspect all of them are quality projectors, and the odds of getting a bad one are about the same regardless of which you choose.

That's my problem, I have never had a PJ and I haven't found a local store that has both to see the difference for myself. I have no idea what features to look for in one vs. the other, or if they are even critical.

The only thing I get is the 2:35 capability of the Panny, however I have a 16:9 screen for now.

I suspect both are good machines, but quotes like these have me reading some more and getting even more confused.

I wrote that quote, so if there's anything I said there that contributes to your confusion, I would be happy to explain or elaborate. They are both good machines, they just have very different (almost complimentary) strengths and weaknesses. I've gone into great detail comparing/contrasting the two projectors on the 'Epson 6500 vs Panny 3000U' thread (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=15780606#post15780606).

I wrote that quote, so if there's anything I said there that contributes to your confusion, I would be happy to explain or elaborate. They are both good machines, they just have very different (almost complimentary) strengths and weaknesses. I've gone into great detail comparing/contrasting the two projectors on the 'Epson 6500 vs Panny 3000U' thread (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=15780606#post15780606).

I know you did and I left your name out because I didn't want people to think this was a single opinion. To me, your post was a great summary of various posts I have read regarding these 2 machines. I also read the thread you linked and I'd like to have my "Big Block V8 along with the heated seats and power windows". ;) Of course, at that price point, it won't happen, at least not with the current models.

I also liked one rwestley's reference to a Toyota vs. a more spirit vehicle in your thread. Against my better judgment, a few years back I went for that more spirited vehicle in the form of a Sharp LCD which developed a mind of its own. People talked about firmware upgrade, but had I not returned the unit, I would probably still be waiting for that elusive firmware upgrade.

My confusion merely stems from never having owned a PJ and not having seen either one. The only TV I have so far is a 40" Sony XBR1, which I really like, but not much of a reference. I like a sharp clear image, but I do not want the soap opera look. I also want the unit to work without headaches, basically turn it on, enjoy the show, and be wow'd.

Regardless of which projector you choose, you're in for a real treat. :) The only real disadvantage in my opinion is the need to control ambient light to get the best picture. That said, I could never go back to a "regular" TV! In my opinion, the Panasonic wins for being the most headache/fuss free and easy to live with. The only caveat might be the history of dust blobs on the AE1000 and AE2000, but so far it's hard to say that's even a significant issue with the AE3000.

I would also consider the FPJ1/RS2 also at the right price depending on which features are important to you. The native contrast of the JVC D-ILA projectors is awesome. If they add a well-done frame interpolation feature in next year's models, I'll be all over it. That's one of the things that keeps me from buying an RS10 or RS20 right now. I want to see what's in the box next year before I plunk down that kind of cash.

In my opinion, the Panasonic wins for being the most headache/fuss free and easy to live with. The only caveat might be the history of dust blobs on the AE1000 and AE2000, but so far it's hard to say that's even a significant issue with the AE3000.

I see that since you decided to sell the Epson. Please excuse my ignorance, but what's with the dust blobs? Can't you simply clean them out or is it internal and you have to send the PJ out?

I would also consider the FPJ1/RS2 also at the right price depending on which features are important to you. The native contrast of the JVC D-ILA projectors is awesome.

At more than $5K, the JVC RS2 is unfortunately out of my price range.

I read part of the thread and about the Pioneer FPJ1 and people seem to be very happy. If it is anything like (or better) than their Elite Plasmas, I would be really impressed. I have always loved their PQ, and it seems to be a steal of a deal right now. However, I am afraid I am too late to the party on the deals to be had. One member reported that Crown Audio is out of them, and I am not sure where else people shop.

How is the Panny PQ compared to their plasma, or is it not even a realistic comparison?

EDIT: I reread my posts from last night and I feel like I put the carriage before the horse. I should have been more specific to how I will use the PJ. I will use it for movies (but no BD), TV viewing, and perhaps for the Wii as well. All of these won’t be in 1080p obviously, but I was told to go 1080p anyways since the picture will be much better, and it will be more “future proof” as in less of an urge to upgrade sooner. Is this true or would a 720p PJ be better suited in my case?

How is the Panny PQ compared to their plasma, or is it not even a realistic comparison?

It's tough enough to compare PJ PQ against each other, much less to a plasma. Theoretically speaking, in a batcave, you'll probably get close to the PQ of a plasma, but I don't think it's quite there (hopefully I'll be corrected if I'm wrong about that). I believe the big difference is brightness. LCD and plasma typically are run at 40 fl and a PJ is about 16 or so. Of course, the 'wow' factor from a PJ comes from how good it looks at the size that it is.