Well, this is going to be the big showdown this year it seems!

Epson was following the rules and introduced their new projectors at Cedia and the 8500 was logically positioined to be similar in price to the outgoing 6500 and all was right with the world....

but where was Panasonic at Cedia with projectors?....

They waited to pounce on the market with an announcement of the $1999 priced AE4000 followed by a quick appearance of product to the market by the end of October?

Why did they do this?
To get attention, hype and preorders? That seems to have worked..
To beat Epson to the market? That seems to have worked as well.

So now how will Epson react? Lower the price on the 8500? Give us another mail in rebate and free bulb and keep the price higher?

The bigger question is which is the better projector?

Panasonic have the red-rich bulb but only a slight contrast improvement? (60,000 - 100,000 from the AE3000 (or is it only 80,000 as in the European specs for the ae4000?)

Now Epson was better for blacks last year (6500 vs ae3000) but how about this year....the jump appears to be high, boasting 200,000 CR.

So as a potential buyer of one of these projectors I found myself leaning toward the AE4000 due to price and perhaps hype....but now I'm starting to wonder...

Could the 8500 have some black punch along with a rebate and free bulb that will sway me..

I'm resisting the ae4000 preorder for now but Epson better get some concrete pricing out there along with some test units to generate their own hype and take up the gauntlet that Panasonic has thrown down.

Personally I don't see Epson caving to the Panasonic pricing too much and I suspect they will have the advantage in the best black level performance again...but that pricing by Panasonic!!!

This will be quite a matchup!!

Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think the Epson has lens shift capabilities. That is a deal breaker for me with any projector. I have a 2.35:1 screen and am planning to do the zoom and shift operation to change aspect ratios. If I choose the Panny, it will be mostly because of the automatic zoom and shift. That is just way too cool to overlook. I am also considering the JVC RS15, RS25, RS35, and Sony VW-85.

EDIT: Nevermind, it has lens shift, lol. Projectorcentral needs to update their webpage.

How about noise in various forms (fan, iris, etc.)? That is another factor.
Screen Door Effect is another factor for me. Panny wins that one most likely, although I haven't seen either projector in person. I may not like the look of smooth screen technology.

Does anyone know who had the ANSI contrast advantage between last year's models?

Well, this is going to be the big showdown this year it seems!

Epson was following the rules and introduced their new projectors at Cedia and the 8500 was logically positioined to be similar in price to the outgoing 6500 and all was right with the world....

but where was Panasonic at Cedia with projectors?....

They waited to pounce on the market with an announcement of the $1999 priced AE4000 followed by a quick appearance of product to the market by the end of October?

Why did they do this?
To get attention, hype and preorders? That seems to have worked..
To beat Epson to the market? That seems to have worked as well.

So now how will Epson react? Lower the price on the 8500? Give us another mail in rebate and free bulb and keep the price higher?

The bigger question is which is the better projector?

Panasonic have the red-rich bulb but only a slight contrast improvement? (60,000 - 100,000 from the AE3000 (or is it only 80,000 as in the European specs for the ae4000?)

Now Epson was better for blacks last year (6500 vs ae3000) but how about this year....the jump appears to be high, boasting 200,000 CR.

So as a potential buyer of one of these projectors I found myself leaning toward the AE4000 due to price and perhaps hype....but now I'm starting to wonder...

Could the 8500 have some black punch along with a rebate and free bulb that will sway me..

I'm resisting the ae4000 preorder for now but Epson better get some concrete pricing out there along with some test units to generate their own hype and take up the gauntlet that Panasonic has thrown down.

Personally I don't see Epson caving to the Panasonic pricing too much and I suspect they will have the advantage in the best black level performance again...but that pricing by Panasonic!!!

This will be quite a matchup!!

Didn't Panasonic announce the 3000 last year @ CEDIA and still beat Epson to the market by 2 months. Also shipping in October same as the 4000 will.

Yep.. I got my AE3000 on Oct. 31 of last year (I was in the first pre-order shipment from PP).

Time flies when you are having fun. :)

Time flies when you are having fun. :)


That's what the frog said "Times fun when you're having flies".

When the objective reviews for both are up I think you're going to see that Epson has the better unit, but and it is a big but, Panasonic will probably have the best price and maybe the best performance to price ratio. According to Cine4home both these units have the best FI - comparable to each other and better than what JVC offers in this area. Projectorcentral has a great subjective review of the AE4000 and Trustedreviews has a great subjective review of the 8500. One thing for sure is that the big winner here will be the consumer.

Something to watch for is the Detail Clarity Processor in the AE4000 vs the "Super Resolution" in the Epson 8500. I am curious which looks better and "more natural" and how each technology is implemented. Hopefully Art will address this in his reviews for both PJs.

Something to watch for is the Detail Clarity Processor in the AE4000 vs the "Super Resolution" in the Epson 8500. I am curious which looks better and "more natural" and how each technology is implemented. Hopefully Art will address this in his reviews for both PJs.

I'd be curious to see this implemented on a test pattern, or simply text and see the effect it provides.

these are the two projectors on top of my list right now based on the older models performance. I waiting on the reviews to start from users. I got to say that I was leaning heavily toward the 8500 until I saw the 4000's street price. hopefully the 8500 will be at least close in street price because it seems to have an edge for me at least in performance.

these are the two projectors on top of my list right now based on the older models performance. I waiting on the reviews to start from users. I got to say that I was leaning heavily toward the 8500 until I saw the 4000's street price. hopefully the 8500 will be at least close in street price because it seems to have an edge for me at least in performance.

My guess is that Jason will have a power buy that together with Epson's rebate (they always have one) will bring the 8500ub price to virtually the same as the Panny to make it a no brainer (except for the 2.35 zoom feature (which is a big "except" to many))

Does 8500 have powered zoom/lens shift or is it manual? I was planning on doing 2.35 so I favor the Panny, but if the 8500 has a much better image, I don't mind sacrificing the lens memory feature as long as 8500 at least has powered zoom/shift and you don't have to get up and manually do it.

I believe it's manual (same as the 6500UB)

Yup..... Manual zoom and focus on the Epson products.

Another thing that will be interesting to see, is how much difference the "red rich" bulb makes.... Last year the Panny set up for the best cinema picture was fairly low in lumen output... but with more red in the lamp this year's numbers could be (hopefully) different.

Thanks for clearing that about the manual zoon/shift on Epson. I guess that rules out the Epson for me. Now it is between the Panny or forking twice as much for RS 15 worth it.

Thanks for clearing that about the manual zoon/shift on Epson. I guess that rules out the Epson for me. Now it is between the Panny or forking twice as much for RS 15 worth it.

If you are asking if the JVC is worth twice as much as the AE4000.... well that depends on you... your level of disposable income, your quest for perfection, etc.

Does the RS15 throw twice as good of an image... absolutely not!

These days all of these HT projectors do a pretty darn good job. So when you start trying to compare price performance you are really in an area of diminishing returns so the question becomes much more esoteric. What do you actually "need" for your environment (wall & ceiling color, ambient light, screen size, etc) and what is most important to your enjoyment... ultimate black level, color fidelity, dynamic pop of the image... each of these is weighted differently by different individuals so the question of whether a particular projector is "worth" the cost can only be answered by you. ;)

As is with the quest for excellent Audio reproduction, so goes the FP quest for the best picture.

It seems like "X" amount of dollars gets you about 90 % of the way there. The last ten percent costs in cubic dollars and is on a non-linear scale. Every percent over 90 costs significantly more than the percent before it and so it goes.

My guess is that Jason will have a power buy that together with Epson's rebate (they always have one) will bring the 8500ub price to virtually the same as the Panny to make it a no brainer (except for the 2.35 zoom feature (which is a big "except" to many))

You aren't kidding. I currently have an older 720p Epson (TW700) that I zoom for 2.35 content. I didn't think that manually doing this every time would be that much of a pain, but it is. My g/f especially hates it when I have to pause the movie at the beginning and fiddle with it for a few minutes. It does sort of interrupt the anticipation for a movie.

I'm very surprised that other manufacturers haven't jumped onboard with the auto-zoom that Panasonic introduced last year. I was hoping for Epson contrast + Panasonic auto-zoom. Is that really too much to ask for?

I'm very tempted by the AE-4000, but I'm working hard to hold off until either my current bulb dies (or is too dim) and LED is the standard.

-- jaydillyo

As is with the quest for excellent Audio reproduction, so goes the FP quest for the best picture.

It seems like "X" amount of dollars gets you about 90 % of the way there. The last ten percent costs in cubic dollars and is on a non-linear scale. Every percent over 90 costs significantly more than the percent before it and so it goes.


Bingo! If you have any sort of realistic budget it quickly becomes apparent that the sub $3K pjs throw a better image than many $10K+ units from only a few years past. Not saying its stupid to go better if you've got the cash and don't want to donate the difference to starving orphan children who have never even SEEN a TV (j/k)...but, you'll be upgrading to a product that most of your friends will not be able to tell a difference in. I'm going w/ a less expensive pj and using some of the money I saved in an automated drop down mount...THAT'S what your friends will notice!

It's all hard to say. No one has been able to really put either through the test, and we simply don't know where the Epson will fall price wise. Last year with the rebates it was often slightly less than the Panny, but Panny was very aggressive this year. Plus we do preorder specials on the Epson once we get the information, so that often can narrow the gap.

Anyways, only time will tell.

As is with the quest for excellent Audio reproduction, so goes the FP quest for the best picture.

It seems like "X" amount of dollars gets you about 90 % of the way there. The last ten percent costs in cubic dollars and is on a non-linear scale. Every percent over 90 costs significantly more than the percent before it and so it goes.

I think you're right, but I would change that 90% to 95%. Every per cent over 95% costs about $2,000 to $4,000! The Sony Ruby was a a break through at $10,000! How do you sell one now used with the $2,000 Panny to compete with? :D

I think you're right, but I would change that 90% to 95%. Every per cent over 95% costs about $2,000 to $4,000! The Sony Ruby was a a break through at $10,000! How do you sell one now used with the $2,000 Panny to compete with? :D

You don't. :) Seriously, we had a Ruby that we dumped 6 months ago for $1000...and I don't think now it would even fetch that.

Jason,

Don't you have other things to do right now cough35cough......................

You don't. :) Seriously, we had a Ruby that we dumped 6 months ago for $1000...and I don't think now it would even fetch that.

That's about the price of the bulb isn't it.........

hard to believe we have reached the age of disposable PJ's but I think we might be here.

One thing's for sure, you're not going to get much for last year's AE3000 when this year's improved AE4000 sells for 4/5 the price! So, if you want to upgrade you're going to take a beating or better yet, keep it and put it in the bedroom - maybe you can figure out a way to turn it on. :D

You don't. :) Seriously, we had a Ruby that we dumped 6 months ago for $1000...and I don't think now it would even fetch that.

Seriously? The Panny will be better than the Ruby? I think my decision has been nearly made then. Now I just have to see one in person and pull the plug!

One thing's for sure, you're not going to get much for last year's AE3000 when this year's improved AE4000 sells for 4/5 the price! So, if you want to upgrade you're going to take a beating or better yet, keep it and put it in the bedroom - maybe you can figure out a way to turn it on. :D

One forum member was able to sell his AE3000 fro $1500 a few days ago. He got lucky, I guess.

I paid a "G" for my Ruby an could not be more happy from that price point. However, I think PQ is all related to what you're use to. I went from a sanyo z5 to a ruby, so when I want to see if anything out there wow me more it will be when the panny 4000 drops to a "G" due to them coming out with a panny 6000. ;) It also comes down to the media you have and how the projector is calibrated. I saw a 3 chip runco dlp that ran for about 25k look like you know what until ISP calibration, and I saw a well setup sony vw100 that blew the runco away in the same store.

these are the two projectors on top of my list right now based on the older models performance. I waiting on the reviews to start from users. I got to say that I was leaning heavily toward the 8500 until I saw the 4000's street price. hopefully the 8500 will be at least close in street price because it seems to have an edge for me at least in performance.

I heard the 8500 will be priced (in Canada) similar to the 6500

help! I sold my 6100 and waiting for a winner to emerge.... I dont think I can make it to December without a pj, watching a punny 5o" plasma suck....hehe

I am in the same dilema. I got rid of my Panny PT-AE900U to get a new 1080 model. What has me concerned is the SDE. My room is small at only 11ft wide by 13ft deep, and I will be mounting the projector at the very back on the ceiling. It looks like I can get about a 120" diagonal picture in 16:9. What has me on the Panny is the smooth screen feature. The zoom feature for CIH is also cool, but the bars on the top and bottom really won't bother me. I will only be sitting about 10ft away from the screen, and SDE will be what bothers me. Correct me if I am wrong, but going with the Epson will NOT give you the CIH. So if I have a 16:9 screen, and put on a 2.35:1 movie, there will be bars on the top and bottom correct? I just want to make sure I am not missing anything. I remember watching a a 16:9 movie on a standard 4:3 SDTV and a little bit of the picture on each side was cut off (since the TV was only 4:3). I want to make sure switching from 16:9 to 2.35:1 on the Epson will not cut any of the picture off. If it is just the bars on the top and bottom, I will be ok. The Epson has a longer warranty, longer bulb life, THX certified, and I believe better specs/black levels. I know it has manual zoom, but I never messed with the zoom on the Panny 900U for the almost 4 yrs I had it since the black bars didn't bother me. So I know not having a powered zoom on the Epson won't bother me. Plus the Epson also has the great HQV video processor. I am just not sure about the SDE. Any thoughts?

Now that we know how low the MAP is on the AE4000, the question is not so much what will Epson launch at (because it's almost a given that they will launch higher than the Panny, and there is going to be some pent-up demand and must-buy-on-day-1 purchasers), but more how long will they keep their effective price (MAP price-rebate) significantly above the Pannys?

As the contrast on the Pannys keeps going up year after year, it's going to get harder and harder for Epson to justify a significant price gap based solely on slightly superior contrast. There are other factors such as the powered zoom and anamorphic support, which will equalize or tip the favor in many buyers eyes, so I'm hoping Epson will get price competitive this generation.

I am in the same dilema. I got rid of my Panny PT-AE900U to get a new 1080 model. What has me concerned is the SDE. My room is small at only 11ft wide by 13ft deep, and I will be mounting the projector at the very back on the ceiling. It looks like I can get about a 120" diagonal picture in 16:9. What has me on the Panny is the smooth screen feature. The zoom feature for CIH is also cool, but the bars on the top and bottom really won't bother me. I will only be sitting about 10ft away from the screen, and SDE will be what bothers me. Correct me if I am wrong, but going with the Epson will NOT give you the CIH. So if I have a 16:9 screen, and put on a 2.35:1 movie, there will be bars on the top and bottom correct? I just want to make sure I am not missing anything. I remember watching a a 16:9 movie on a standard 4:3 SDTV and a little bit of the picture on each side was cut off (since the TV was only 4:3). I want to make sure switching from 16:9 to 2.35:1 on the Epson will not cut any of the picture off. If it is just the bars on the top and bottom, I will be ok. The Epson has a longer warranty, longer bulb life, THX certified, and I believe better specs/black levels. I know it has manual zoom, but I never messed with the zoom on the Panny 900U for the almost 4 yrs I had it since the black bars didn't bother me. So I know not having a powered zoom on the Epson won't bother me. Plus the Epson also has the great HQV video processor. I am just not sure about the SDE. Any thoughts?

I have a 6500 and in order to see the pixel structure you need to be viewing from about 5 feet or less and to be looking for it. From this distance (I have a 118" diagonal screen), I can't watch anything for very long.

You are correct on 2.35 movies on a 16:9 screen, black bars on the top and bottom. They are very dark and don't bother me at all.

I have a 6500 and in order to see the pixel structure you need to be viewing from about 5 feet or less and to be looking for it. From this distance (I have a 118" diagonal screen), I can't watch anything for very long.

You are correct on 2.35 movies on a 16:9 screen, black bars on the top and bottom. They are very dark and don't bother me at all.

Same thing for me, before my JVC RS2, I have own a Epson 6500. The pixel structure from a 10 feet distance was not visible at all...

Eric

Well reviews are starting to come in for both projectors:

http://www.avforums.com/reviews/Panasonic-PT-AE4000-LCD-Projector-Review.html

http://www.projectorcentral.com/panasonic_ae4000_projector_review.htm

And for the Epson:

http://www.projectorreviews.com/epson/home-cinema-8500ub/index.php

Projector central should have their 8500 review as well as their comparison up today hopefully.

Despite the numbers...200,000:1 contrast...it looks like the 8500 hasn't improved a heck of a whole lot over the 6500.

The AE4000 seems to have improved their blacks somewhat.

So it looks like these projectors will be fairly evenly matched for picture quality.

Panasonic has the zoom memory for those who use that feature.
Panasonic has better pricing if the epson streets at $2499 which seems likely.

Epson has better warranty
Epson has better lamp life.

Tough decisions!!!

Panasonic has better pricing if the epson streets at $2499 which seems likely.


Yeah, Art said that the Epson guys on a conference call said $2499 or under was the likely street price. Considering that they said "under $3000" at CEDIA, I have to think that Panasonic's AE4000 pricing affected their strategy.

Another option for people is getting a refurbished 6500UB direct from Epson. They're under $2000 today (10% off sale on Clearance items.)

The AE4000 seems to have improved their blacks somewhat.

So it looks like these projectors will be fairly evenly matched for picture quality.


The 6500UB was considered to have better blacks and contrast than the AE3000. I believe the 8500UB will hold this advantage over the AE4000. (BTW, this is coming from an AE2000 owner, so I'm not an Epson fanboy. :) )

Both should be great projectors.
Art

Tup,

That review for the panny you linked to is one of the best reviews I've ever read; I'm going to have to finish up my degree in physics before I understand the middle section.

In all seriousness, they compare to a 'reference projector,' the JVC HD950, which I can't even find for sale on projectorpeople.

Also, I'm a bit confused on this statement: "Image brightness is one of this projectors strong points with its new bulb technology, so it will perform quite well in rooms that cannot be fully light controlled." This seems to fly in the face of EVERY other review I've ever seen on the projector, which says it is very dim relative to most other projectors in its price range, and in fact should be only used in light controlled rooms with little ambient light, little reflection. Unless they are talking about a subjective 'better' image quality due to the increased reds.

Well reviews are starting to come in for both projectors:

http://www.avforums.com/reviews/Panasonic-PT-AE4000-LCD-Projector-Review.html

http://www.projectorcentral.com/panasonic_ae4000_projector_review.htm

And for the Epson:

http://www.projectorreviews.com/epson/home-cinema-8500ub/index.php

Projector central should have their 8500 review as well as their comparison up today hopefully.

Despite the numbers...200,000:1 contrast...it looks like the 8500 hasn't improved a heck of a whole lot over the 6500.

The AE4000 seems to have improved their blacks somewhat.

So it looks like these projectors will be fairly evenly matched for picture quality.

Panasonic has the zoom memory for those who use that feature.
Panasonic has better pricing if the epson streets at $2499 which seems likely.

Epson has better warranty
Epson has better lamp life.

Tough decisions!!!

Buy both! One can never have too many projectors. :D

Buy both! One can never have too many projectors. :D

Unfortunately, my budget and my wife would disagree with that! :rolleyes:

The other big question from epson will be if they have any rebates out of the gate.

I notice the 8100 has a $100 rebate.

$2499 with a $400 rebate would be great!

I can pretty much guarantee that there will be a rebate...

I think that if Epson were giving out free lunches to the homeless in a soup kitchen - it'd be via mail in rebate
;-)

I can pretty much guarantee that there will be a rebate...

Jason....you are a tease!!! You better be prepared to put out when the time comes.....whoa...that sounds gay! But be prepared to give us a great pre-order price to go along with a sweet rebate!

Maybe we'll get another $400 rebate and free bulb! How cool would that be?!?!

Seriously, mail in rebates are actually pretty smart.....probably only 80% of people mail them in and of those only 80% cash the cheques...if even that!

Jason....you are a tease!!! You better be prepared to put out when the time comes.....whoa...that sounds gay! But be prepared to give us a great pre-order price to go along with a sweet rebate!

Maybe we'll get another $400 rebate and free bulb! How cool would that be?!?!

Seriously, mail in rebates are actually pretty smart.....probably only 80% of people mail them in and of those only 80% cash the cheques...if even that!

You're bad Tup. :D

I doubt 80% of people mail rebate forms. 80%, maybe if you consider only forum members.

First direct comparison:

http://www.projectorcentral.com/epson_8500_panasonic_ae4000.htm

Seems like a slight advantage to the ae4000 but not significant.

Jason....you are a tease!!! You better be prepared to put out when the time comes.....whoa...that sounds gay! But be prepared to give us a great pre-order price to go along with a sweet rebate!

Maybe we'll get another $400 rebate and free bulb! How cool would that be?!?!

Seriously, mail in rebates are actually pretty smart.....probably only 80% of people mail them in and of those only 80% cash the cheques...if even that!

All I can say is that last year when we did the HC6500...we were less than any of our competitors. I don't plan for anything to be different this year. :)

You're bad Tup. :D

I doubt 80% of people mail rebate forms. 80%, maybe if you consider only forum members.

Which I have never understood myself. I have had people contact me 3-4 months after the expiration of a rebate deadline asking if we could pull some strings. Now where I have tried best I can, it boggles my mind how someone could ignore sometimes as much as $400-$500 rebate. I know I have forgotten on small things ($5 on a video card or some crap), but $500?? Heck if you don't plan to send it in, mail me your UPC and I will submit them. :D

Epson: "Who is this Jason Turk character? He bought 16 HC8500's!". :D

my opinion advantage Epson, blacker AND brighter, the Panny maybe for a dedicated HT, but then blacks come even more in to play....and I hate watching sports in the dark, give me my umens

First direct comparison:

http://www.projectorcentral.com/epson_8500_panasonic_ae4000.htm

Seems like a slight advantage to the ae4000 but not significant.

It seems like the deciding factor with these 2 projectors is whether you're going to do CIH or not.

2.40 Format Widescreen Use. The differences here are substantial. The AE4000 can accommodate an external anamorphic lens with its onboard anamorphic stretch. This does not exist on the 8500UB.

On the 8500, there is plenty of zoom range in its 2.1 zoom to adjust for 2.40 and 16:9 material on a 2.40 screen, but every move back and forth must be made manually.

I would agree with a previous poster that SDE is probably not going to a factor unless you are sitting less than 10 feet from the screen. I am very sensitive to SDE and I cannot discern this effect beyond 8-10 feet (if that).

I would make my decision on factors other than that. I will say that I chose to buy a Mitsubishi 6800 over the AE4000 solely for two reasons: sharper and brighter.

I had the AE2000 for two years and was never 100% happy due to a lack of brightness in the "best" mode. After 4 months I had to switch to the "Normal" mode, which although very good, was not what my preference was.

One other thing I'll mention; when all things are relatively equal, go for the better warranty!:)

Planning to make the jump to 1080p next year and Epson would be my choice if it had CIH support. I know they offer it in the Pro Cinema (9500?). I don't think I can justify spending twice as much for the Epson Pro vs the Panasonic. If I were to consider that I'd probably start looking seriously at JVC as well. Where do you get good prices on Epson Pro series? ;)

Planning to make the jump to 1080p next year and Epson would be my choice if it had CIH support. I know they offer it in the Pro Cinema (9500?).

I am not sure that CIH support is offered in the 9500. The 9500 has a "stretch" mode that works with an anamorphic lens, but I don't believe it works as a CIH mode without also purchasing an anamorphic lens.

I am not sure that CIH support is offered in the 9500. The 9500 has a "stretch" mode that works with an anamorphic lens, but I don't believe it works as a CIH mode without also purchasing an anamorphic lens.

I think that is what he means. Though in actuality about all projectors can do 2.35:1 mode via zoom (if they have the range). Panasonic is only special in that it has lens memory so you don't have to adjust it manually.

OK, I was too nervous to import a unit from the US...given the exchange and potential duties etc. So I put in my preorder in Canada for a Ae4000 for $2599 which includes a spare bulb. Now the same vender has the Epson 8500 8500 for $2799 with a $200 rebate...which means they end up being the same price.

He said I can switch to the Epson if I want. So

AE4000 with spare bulb $2599 vs 8500UB for $2599 after rebate.

I'm paying with a credit card that adds another year to the warranty.

I will be using eco mode mostly so with the spare bulb, the Panny could reach 6000 hours....I imagine I will be upgrading prior to that...so hours should not be a factor.

Any thoughts?

OK, I was too nervous to import a unit from the US...given the exchange and potential duties etc. So I put in my preorder in Canada for a Ae4000 for $2599 which includes a spare bulb. Now the same vender has the Epson 8500 8500 for $2799 with a $200 rebate...which means they end up being the same price.

He said I can switch to the Epson if I want. So

AE4000 with spare bulb $2599 vs 8500UB for $2599 after rebate.

I'm paying with a credit card that adds another year to the warranty.

I will be using eco mode mostly so with the spare bulb, the Panny could reach 6000 hours....I imagine I will be upgrading prior to that...so hours should not be a factor.

Any thoughts?

I went with the Epson based on these factors, not necessarily in this order. Also seeing that there's very few reviews on the 8500 as of yet some of the below criteria are based on comparing last year's 6500 to the 3000. According to the fact that the reviews I've seen state there's been very little change to either unit from last year to this but that both have improved I figure it is fair to base the same comparisons to this year. I have no need for CIH so that did not matter to me at all. Overall I am much more an image quality guy that feature guy. Everything I've read has given the edge in image quality to the Epson. So in the end that was the most important factor for me.

1) The Epson has better blacks.
2) The Epson is brighter.
3) The Epson has a longer bulb life.
4) The Epson supposedly is sharper.
5) The Epson supposedly has more pop.
6) The Epson according to my ISF guy has better color uniformity (based on the 3000's he's seen not the 4000 so might not apply).
7) The Epson handles standard material better.
8) The Epson has a better standard warranty and better reputation for customer service including overnight replacement should one need it.
9) The Epson has slightly longer zoom capabilities.
10) One big reason I went with the 8500 is the fact that I had the ability to and took advantage of the QC screeing and pre-calibration that Jason offers. I know I will not have any stuck pixels or severe convergence issues when I fire it up the first time. I may have to do some basic tweaking once I get it but the GS and CD should be really close already.

I went with the Epson based on these factors, not necessarily in this order. Also seeing that there's very few reviews on the 8500 as of yet some of the below criteria are based on comparing last year's 6500 to the 3000. According to the fact that the reviews I've seen state there's been very little change to either unit from last year to this but that both have improved I figure it is fair to base the same comparisons to this year. I have no need for CIH so that did not matter to me at all. Overall I am much more an image quality guy that feature guy. Everything I've read has given the edge in image quality to the Epson. So in the end that was the most important factor for me.

1) The Epson has better blacks.
2) The Epson is brighter.
3) The Epson has a longer bulb life.
4) The Epson supposedly is sharper.
5) The Epson supposedly has more pop.
6) The Epson according to my ISF guy has better color uniformity (based on the 3000's he's seen not the 4000 so might not apply).
7) The Epson handles standard material better.
8) The Epson has a better standard warranty and better reputation for customer service including overnight replacement should one need it.
9) The Epson has slightly longer zoom capabilities.
10) One big reason I went with the 8500 is the fact that I had the ability to and took advantage of the QC screeing and pre-calibration that Jason offers. I know I will not have any stuck pixels or severe convergence issues when I fire it up the first time. I may have to do some basic tweaking once I get it but the GS and CD should be really close already.


Actually, I don't know if Epson has the advantages that you claim. Sure they have better blacks when the screen is mostly black, but the ANSI contrast advantage supposedly goes to the Panasonic...which is why Projector central claimed the image looked better on the panny when not predominantly black.

I don't think Epson can claim the POP and sharpness advantage either.

Art at projector reviews should have his ae4000 review up today or tomorrow. In his blog he said that Panasonic has closed the gap in many areas this year.

Also, the Frame Interpolation may look better on the PAnny.

Epson has slightly more zoom but Panny has slightly more lens shift.
All in all they are very close!

Actually, I don't know if Epson has the advantages that you claim. Sure they have better blacks when the screen is mostly black, but the ANSI contrast advantage supposedly goes to the Panasonic...which is why Projector central claimed the image looked better on the panny when not predominantly black.

I don't think Epson can claim the POP and sharpness advantage either.

Art at projector reviews should have his ae4000 review up today or tomorrow. In his blog he said that Panasonic has closed the gap in many areas this year.

Also, the Frame Interpolation may look better on the PAnny.

Epson has slightly more zoom but Panny has slightly more lens shift.
All in all they are very close!

Yes, it was a very tough decision but again this is why I made the decision I did. I posted my thoughts based on my research. In the end I'm sure I would have been happy with either PJ it's just that the edge for me went to the Epson for the reasons listed above. If all things were equal pic quality wise then I still would go for the Epson based on customer service experiences and the overnight exchange policy. Also the case on the Epson being white suits my living room better. The black case on the Panny would be a very tough sell to the SO. Especially if I ever want a chance of mounting it to the ceiling! Oh and the "pop" comment was based on Art's review from the 6500 vs. 3000.

Bottom line is both are great pj's at great prices. You can't go wrong either way. :)

I'm really torn between these two projectors. The 4000 is very tempting right now given the price. The 8500 sounds like a great projector but the extra $500 (calibration, QC, price difference) has me not quite sure which way to go. Is the 8500 worth the extra$$?

Having played with and watched my 4000 now, I have a hard time believing that the 8500 can be any better! I am very very very happy with my new toy! Especially the Frame insertion set to "1". It is fabulous!
I was SHOCKED at how good a shrunken DVD rip of True Blood looked on it last night, and was totally blown away by UP on blu-ray!
once again.your opinion may vary...
Chris

I'm really torn between these two projectors. The 4000 is very tempting right now given the price. The 8500 sounds like a great projector but the extra $500 (calibration, QC, price difference) has me not quite sure which way to go. Is the 8500 worth the extra$$?

Well don't forget the $200 MIR that comes with the epson bringing it down to $2299. With it you only have to make up a $300 difference. Then if you consider that epson lamps are not only $100 cheaper than panasonic's but also last twice as long, you make up the difference over the life of the projector under fairly normal use.

Looking at it that way the cost is roughly equivalent and from what I've read, the epson is still a better projector, maybe not by much, and not by the margin of last year, but better. I'm going to be picking up the 8500 myself, but I don't think you're going to be disappointed with either.

currently the question seems to be: "Is it worth spending another $x for the Epson?"
Another way to look at it:
Which would you prefer a professionally calibrated 4000 or an out of the box 8500UB (both being the same price). Without having seen either (going purely on reviews here). I'd say the Panny would win. The only advantages the Epson would have in that case are (a) better warranty (b) better bulb life - so that decision could rightfully weigh some (depends how much you use it)

Or likewise you can rephrase the question as Panny + another bulb vs Epson - both for about the same price.

just saying if you're going to spend the extra $$$ for the Epson, first think if you put that much into another bulb, or an extended warranty , or calibration - would the Epson still rank 1st? (for many the answer would be yes, but the point is instead of saying is it worth the extra money - just put the extra money into the Panny - putting both on a level playing field and then decide.

Just a thought..

I'm about to purchase a (roughly) 2k projector and I'm leaning towards the Panasonic PT-AE4000U for the following reasons.


A little quieter.
Lower initial cost.
Frame insertion is a little better.
Dynamic Detail (or whatever they call it) is a little better.
Power focus (much easier to tweak).
Lack of screen door when viewing at roughly one times screen width.
Prefer its lower black level on mixed scenes versus dark scenes.
Prefer its design.


If I preferred a brighter image, absolute black level or the perceived sharpness of the pixel outline I would go with the Epson. Now a good portion of the above is my interpretation based on two professional reviews and might be completely off base. :)

Well don't forget the $200 MIR that comes with the epson bringing it down to $2299. With it you only have to make up a $300 difference. Then if you consider that epson lamps are not only $100 cheaper than panasonic's but also last twice as long, you make up the difference over the life of the projector under fairly normal use.

Looking at it that way the cost is roughly equivalent and from what I've read, the epson is still a better projector, maybe not by much, and not by the margin of last year, but better. I'm going to be picking up the 8500 myself, but I don't think you're going to be disappointed with either.

Initially it's going to be $500 more($700 with calibration). Once you receive the rebate it is then $300 & $500 difference. I have $1700 saved hoping the Epson would be the same as the 4000. I guess I'll have to keep saving.(either $300 or $800 more)

I'm about to purchase a (roughly) 2k projector and I'm leaning towards the Panasonic PT-AE4000U for the following reasons.


A little quieter.
Lower initial cost.
Frame insertion is a little better.
Dynamic Detail (or whatever they call it) is a little better.
Power focus (much easier to tweak).
Lack of screen door when viewing at roughly one times screen width.
Prefer its lower black level on mixed scenes versus dark scenes.
Prefer its design.


If I preferred a brighter image, absolute black level or the perceived sharpness of the pixel outline I would go with the Epson. Now a good portion of the above is my interpretation based on two professional reviews and might be completely off base. :)

From from what I've read the frame interpolation on the Epson is smoother than the Panny but also a little more aggressive (video like). Personally I use Frame Interpolation for animated movies and live music concerts and I want FI as aggressive as possible without noticeable artifacts. Also the ultimate black level is another selling point for me with the Epson. What about warranty and over night replacement - I think the Epson has the advantage here and this could be a huge consideration. How do you know you prefer its black level on mixed scenes? The difference here is probably minimal from what I've read. Better blacks in dark scenes though has an enormous effect on those scenes - making them watchable as opposed to thinking, "ugh, oh no another fade into grey!". Different strokes for different folks. I'm presently using an Epson 7500 in Vivid mode with two external filters and I wouldn't run either the Epson or Panny any other way!

What I'd like to see manufacturers of BD players do (and this goes for BD software players for HTPCs) is to allow users to add a totally bright white line along the bottom or top of the image. This has a huge apparent effect on black levels for digital projectors and can make a dark grey look black! To some extent Total Media Player can do this (but its too intrusive) and the effect on the black level is dramatic.

"I'm presently using an Epson 7500 in Vivid mode with two external filters and I wouldn't run either the Epson or Panny any other way!"

What filters are you using/recommend and how best to go about getting them?

Yes what filters are you using

From from what I've read the frame interpolation on the Epson is smoother than the Panny but also a little more aggressive (video like). Personally I use Frame Interpolation for animated movies and live music concerts and I want FI as aggressive as possible without noticeable artifacts.Again my info is gathered via a coupe of reviews and could be off the wall. I have read that Panasonic's FI was better in last year's model and both are improved so I'm guessing it maintains some what of a lead.What about warranty and over night replacement - I think the Epson has the advantage here and this could be a huge consideration.Both are two years and I can live without a projector for a week or two.How do you know you prefer its black level on mixed scenes? The difference here is probably minimal from what I've read. Better blacks in dark scenes though has an enormous effect on those scenes - making them watchable as opposed to thinking, "ugh, oh no another fade into grey!".
From reviews... It would seem, that when viewing normal bright and average scenes, that the Panasonic actually matches, and in a number of cases, ends up with a blacker black than the Epson. The Epson, on the other hand, still will produce the blacker blacks on those really dark scenes, where they are most appreciated.

While Panasonic has made more gains in black levels this year, than Epson, Epson still wins the war when looking at dark scenes. Turns out though, that the Panasonic can do blacks at least as black as the Epson, on bright scenes, it’s just that it isn’t that important in such circumstances.

I think this gives the Panasonic a little more pop with most material which is what I have read. However I think most of these differences are small enough that they only matter if one wants them to. :)

According to the Cine4Home review of the Epson the Epson's FI is at least on par with the AE4000 - I haven't seen either only the 7500's (2008) and "normal" and "high" have some problems although "low" looks really good. I'm using a B+W filter threaded to a Hoya 81B filter and fitted into the lens cap (which is painted black). These are non-reflective (but not 100%). You can purchase them in any good camera shop. These filters take the green push out - you can then do your own calibration. You should end up with a very bright image with relatively accurate colour and good black levels.

Thank you Deja Vu!

Art's review is up on Projector review site:

http://www.projectorreviews.com/panasonic/pt-ae4000/index.php

The comparison section is missing.

Looks like the ae4000 is not as bright as the 8500 and isn't quite as good on total black scenes. However, it has better shadow detail and is more "natural" looking.

Again, pretty close overall.

Art's review is up on Projector review site:

http://www.projectorreviews.com/panasonic/pt-ae4000/index.php

The comparison section is missing.

.

Yes, and screen shot comparisons don't have the 4000 in them:confused:. Either the JPG's are mislabeled or the actual 4000 shots were left out.

Art at the end (comparisons) compares the RS25 to a number of projectors, but they all seem to be last year's models (Epson 6500, Panny AE3000) which seems a little unfair since both the Epson and Panny have made improvements including improvements in black levels.

Looks like Panasonic and Epson have made some nice improvements at a lower entry point.

Art at the end (comparisons) compares the RS25 to a number of projectors, but they all seem to be last year's models (Epson 6500, Panny AE3000) which seems a little unfair since both the Epson and Panny have made improvements including improvements in black levels.I think he used the JVC review as a template and hasn't updated certain sections yet... there are portions of the JVC review thru out. :)

I think he used the JVC review as a template and hasn't updated certain sections yet... there are portions of the JVC review thru out. :)

Yes, I was aware of that, but I still think it is a bit unfair to compare the 2009 JVC with 2008 models.

Yes, I was aware of that, but I still think it is a bit unfair to compare the 2009 JVC with 2008 models.Well when he posted the page they were the current models. :)

Well Art at projector reviews has weighed in on this subject:
http://www.projectorreviews.com/projectors/PT-AE4000_vs_Epson_HC8500UB/8500UB_vs_PT-AE4000.php

He prefers the 8500 due to better absolute blacks and brighter picture. He does note that differences are very minor and if he was considering a CIH screen then the Panny would be the winner. The Panny has better shadow detail and a more natural look.

Projector Central also has some thoughts and prefers the AE4000.

http://www.projectorcentral.com/editors_choice_awards_2009.htm

So as Art says, make your choice and enjoy!

Well Art at projector reviews has weighed in on this subject:
http://www.projectorreviews.com/projectors/PT-AE4000_vs_Epson_HC8500UB/8500UB_vs_PT-AE4000.php

He prefers the 8500 due to better absolute blacks and brighter picture. He does note that differences are very minor and if he was considering a CIH screen then the Panny would be the winner. The Panny has better shadow detail and a more natural look.


That should not come as a surprise to anyone; given Art's background.

Personally I would love to get a look at the new Epson and Panny for myself. I have not seen any of the "new" and improved deep black LCD machines in person.... like many here just reading comments from others.

Last time I saw LCD technology was a couple of years back (prior to the 1080UB) and I always felt the LCD's I viewed looked pretty flat and did not have the "pop" of the DLP technology (not trying to pick a fight :D, just my perspective), Lcos images were very "smooth" and "film like" but I personally prefer the HD-TV look... of just feeling like you could reach out and touch the water (Planet Earth style). However, I am told that has changed and the newer units look markedly different from those of a few years back... which is why I would like to see them myself. Just have not had an opportunity

Well Art at projector reviews has weighed in on this subject:
http://www.projectorreviews.com/projectors/PT-AE4000_vs_Epson_HC8500UB/8500UB_vs_PT-AE4000.php

He prefers the 8500 due to better absolute blacks and brighter picture. He does note that differences are very minor and if he was considering a CIH screen then the Panny would be the winner. The Panny has better shadow detail and a more natural look.

Projector Central also has some thoughts and prefers the AE4000.

http://www.projectorcentral.com/editors_choice_awards_2009.htm

So as Art says, make your choice and enjoy!

Gamma has a lot to do with shadow detail - just tweak the gamma curve (customize it) and I'll bet both projectors have similar shadow detail.

In Canada it was a no brainer for me. I just bought the Epson 9500UB for $30 (includes $200 rebate) more than the best price I could buy the Panasonic for. I get an extra bulb (4000 hours in high lamp mode rather than 2000 hours), a ceiling mount, anamorphic stretch and a 3 year comprehensive overnight replacement warranty. Sorry Panasonic, your product is way too expensive in Canada. I'm looking for a projector that has a very good FI system. Projectorcentral says this about the FI in the 8500 in its Editor's Choice Awards - "Frame Interpolation is vastly improved over last year's models to the point where it actually edges the performance of the AE4000"! Enough said!

Remember some things, it doesn't matter what they "Say" the bulb life is/should be, what determines the life is......
Good/steady circuitry/Ballast design(the older BenQ folks can speak of this importance).
Usage (off/on constantly or steady-Long hours)
Luck.

The 2 bulbs I had in my AX100 each lasted >5000 hrs, 1 finally burnt, and the other was still running when I took it out of service.
I now have a Viewsonic Pro8100, and I have 1500 hrs on it, so we'll see what happens.....most of those hours are long-term usage, so I'm betting on 4-6K before burnout.......
we'll see.

I just don't think this extra 1K hour "PREDICTION" should be folks decision maker, because NONE of them are guaranteed....
Wonder why..... :D

It seems strange that there is no bulb life advantage on the 8500 for running in low lamp mode. One would think that there would be...but then you would think Epson would brag and say 6000 hours in eco mode or something.

It seems strange that there is no bulb life advantage on the 8500 for running in low lamp mode. One would think that there would be...but then you would think Epson would brag and say 6000 hours in eco mode or something.

Exactly.

This is why I'm (naively - I know!) hoping that there is truth to the rumor that Epson has built in some sort of mechanism to boost power to the lamp as hours accumulate.

Wishful thinking, probably ...

Note that while Art posted in his 8500 vs 4000 comparison that the 8500 and the 4000 use the same LCD panels, the Epson ad for the 8500's Super-Resolution technology at Projector Central, lists the 8500 as using D7 C2Fine TFT panels and the 4000 using "just" D7 3LCD panels.

So, the D7's in the 8500 are inorganic (C2Fine), while the D7's in the 4000 are organic (normal/traditional).....right ???

Epson directly comparing the 8500 to the 4000 in an ad (when Panny buys their LCD panels) is a big surprise to me.

www.projectorreviews.com/projectors/PT-AE4000_vs_Epson_HC8500UB/8500UB_vs_PT-AE4000.php

www.epson.webengager.com/HC8500UB/review/

Just sold my 1080ub and got P 4000., I do have 2:35:1 screen and can't wait for automatic zoom and some other features.
Epson is 500 more, as thats what you have to put up front and then worry if you get the rebate back. If they were both same price, maybe for better blacks I would go for Epson, but automatic zoom for 2:35:1 is huge.

Note that while Art posted in his 8500 vs 4000 comparison that the 8500 and the 4000 use the same LCD panels, the Epson ad for the 8500's Super-Resolution technology at Projector Central, lists the 8500 as using D7 C2Fine TFT panels and the 4000 using "just" D7 3LCD panels.

So, the D7's in the 8500 are inorganic (C2Fine), while the D7's in the 4000 are organic (normal/traditional).....right ???

www.epson.webengager.com/HC8500UB/review/

Anyone else with thoughts on this ad? I know it's a bit silly to read too much into specs, but the 6000:1 vs 3000:1 thing seems objective, and the technology/panel comparison is a bit mystifying: what does "D7 3LCD" mean, given that the Epson's touted "D7 C2Fine TFT" is also 3LCD?

Obviously, I wouldn't bother with all this if I could just see the darn things side by side, it's really frustrating to be so dependent on two reviewers and a bunch of numbers for such a big purchase. Yes, I'm sure I'll be fine with either, but I always have definite preferences, even for things that don't require I fork over 2 grand sight unseen.

Note that while Art posted in his 8500 vs 4000 comparison that the 8500 and the 4000 use the same LCD panels, the Epson ad for the 8500's Super-Resolution technology at Projector Central, lists the 8500 as using D7 C2Fine TFT panels and the 4000 using "just" D7 3LCD panels.

So, the D7's in the 8500 are inorganic (C2Fine), while the D7's in the 4000 are organic (normal/traditional).....right ???

Epson directly comparing the 8500 to the 4000 in an ad (when Panny buys their LCD panels) is a big surprise to me.

www.projectorreviews.com/projectors/PT-AE4000_vs_Epson_HC8500UB/8500UB_vs_PT-AE4000.php

www.epson.webengager.com/HC8500UB/review/

The Panny also uses inorganic panels... this is from Projector Central-

"As with the AE3000, the AE4000 uses inorganic LCD panels which also contribute to the higher contrast in these models. In inorganic panels, the liquid crystals are vertically aligned, making it easier for polarizers to filter out almost all light for deeper blacks. "

http://www.projectorcentral.com/panasonic_ae4000_projector_review.htm

The Panny also uses inorganic panels... this is from Projector Central-


That's what I figured. So given that it isn't an organic/inorganic thing, what does Epson mean when, in that ad of theirs, they contrast their "D7 C2Fine TFT" panel with Panasonic's "D7 3LCD"?

Which I have never understood myself. I have had people contact me 3-4 months after the expiration of a rebate deadline asking if we could pull some strings. Now where I have tried best I can, it boggles my mind how someone could ignore sometimes as much as $400-$500 rebate. I know I have forgotten on small things ($5 on a video card or some crap), but $500?? Heck if you don't plan to send it in, mail me your UPC and I will submit them. :D

Epson: "Who is this Jason Turk character? He bought 16 HC8500's!". :D

I know this is an old post, but I agree. Problem is, Epson is playing games with these rebates. I just had mine denied for no good reason and have to re-submit with a letter to a supervisor... Beyond lame from what I hear is a company with good customer service. $400 + bulb is not chump change and a large part of the reason I bought the thing in the first place.

Also, I have another question.

When using a CIW setup, why would anyone WANT to zoom 2.35:1 movies? You'd cut off the edges.. No thanks. Am I missing something?

Comparing these two and removing the $$ difference I have a question. Which one will be the best for me at 16' throw to a 133" screen. The bottom of the screen will be 42" above the floor. The projector will be about 70" above the floor. Our seating will put our eyes about 37' above the floor. I am right now looking at the Da Lite High Power screens.

It seems strange that there is no bulb life advantage on the 8500 for running in low lamp mode. One would think that there would be...but then you would think Epson would brag and say 6000 hours in eco mode or something.

If I am not mistaken, the 6500UB is the same way ( I am pretty sure I read 4000 hours in high or low mode in the manual) and I was curious about this as well.

Comparing these two and removing the $$ difference I have a question. Which one will be the best for me at 16' throw to a 133" screen. The bottom of the screen will be 42" above the floor. The projector will be about 70" above the floor. Our seating will put our eyes about 37' above the floor. I am right now looking at the Da Lite High Power screens.

Am I reading right that your eyes will be lower than the bottom of the screen? If so, the High Power screen's effectiveness will be quite a bit reduced. The biggest gain from the High Power screen is achieved when your projector is as close as possible to eye level. This is why people often position their projector just above the seating area, on a back shelf, when using this screen material.

Also ... wouldn't looking up all the time be uncomfortable? :) I believe the ideal height of a screen is the point where you have two thirds of the screen above eye level and one third below.

Am I reading right that your eyes will be lower than the bottom of the screen? If so, the High Power screen's effectiveness will be quite a bit reduced. The biggest gain from the High Power screen is achieved when your projector is as close as possible to eye level. This is why people often position their projector just above the seating area, on a back shelf, when using this screen material.

Also ... wouldn't looking up all the time be uncomfortable? :) I believe the ideal height of a screen is the point where you have two thirds of the screen above eye level and one third below.

Yea I hear you. I have the option of getting a smaller screen and have it lower or a bigger screen and have it higher. Right now my current setup (2 years) has the bottom of the screen even with our eyes. The issue is my floor speakers. I either go between then or above them. The only difference is 6". If it makes any difference the seating is about 17' 6" from the screen.

Using all of this info and the calculator still has the High Power screen having a 2.0 gain.

Damn those logistics!!! :)

That's what I figured. So given that it isn't an organic/inorganic thing, what does Epson mean when, in that ad of theirs, they contrast their "D7 C2Fine TFT" panel with Panasonic's "D7 3LCD"?

I'm not sure what the differences are if any. They both utilize D7 panels which are inorganic. Whether the TFT is a proprietary application unique to Epson panels, I am not sure.

Another thing that seems strange is that Epson sells the D7 panels to Panasonic. Panasonic then puts them in projectors, producing them in Japan with a power zoom and sells them in competition with epson for less than the Epson projector which is made in China and has these same D7 panels snd no power zoom.

Random questions:
How is Panasonic able to udercut Epson in price? Why doesn't Epson jack up the price on the panels? Why does the Epson weigh so much more?

So I'm left wondering if Panasonic cheaps out on some of the other components? Who makes their processors? Their optics?

Are Epson's internals higher end? Is that the reason for the extra weight?

...
Are Epson's internals higher end? Is that the reason for the extra weight?

Epson: 16.5 lbs (7,5 kg)
Panny: 16.1 lbs (7,3 kg)
extra weight?

Another thing that seems strange is that Epson sells the D7 panels to Panasonic. Panasonic then puts them in projectors, producing them in Japan with a power zoom and sells them in competition with epson for less than the Epson projector which is made in China and has these same D7 panels snd no power zoom.

Random questions:
How is Panasonic able to udercut Epson in price? Why doesn't Epson jack up the price on the panels? Why does the Epson weigh so much more?

So I'm left wondering if Panasonic cheaps out on some of the other components? Who makes their processors? Their optics?

Are Epson's internals higher end? Is that the reason for the extra weight?


Selling to your competition is done every day in every industry. Epson feels they can make more money selling the D7 panels to Panasonic (and whoever else) rather than hoarding them and trying to sell them all themselves. Even if they sell 50% more projectors because of it they probably wouldn't make as much money. I'm sure they've done the research on it.

In terms of pricing, that is just up to what they want to sell them for. Again, research is done to determine what price point will yield the best results, more units at less profit, or less at more. Rarely will a company set pricing at a certain profit level they want to make, if they know they can make more. If Panasonic can MSRP the AE4000 for $1500 and still make the profit they want, they'd be stupid to unless they can sell A LOT of them. If I remember correctly from some old marketing classes, if you cut pricing by 20%, you have to sell about 75% more units to make up for it, assuming the same costs.

Epson: 16.5 lbs (7,5 kg)
Panny: 16.1 lbs (7,3 kg)
extra weight?

Whoops...my bad...looked at shipping weight on a site.

Also, I have another question.

When using a CIW setup, why would anyone WANT to zoom 2.35:1 movies? You'd cut off the edges.. No thanks. Am I missing something?

You may not want to Zoom 2.35:1 movies but you can move the image to the top or bottom of the screen. Then you only have to mask one side. I move mine to the top and put a velvet curtain along the bottom to mask the screen to 2.35:1. The AE4000 allows me to do so in a couple clicks from my remote. Now if I could just motorize the curtain.....

Well, fate made my decision for me. I had an AE4000 on order via the infamous QA preorder in Canada for $2599 with spare bulb. Then I found out I could get the Epson 8500UB for $2490 minus the $200 rebate so $2290 Canadian.

It shows how much I obsess about this stuff...when I thought I was getting the AE4000 I found myself wondering if I would miss the extra lumens, the extra black level, extra bulb life and the better warranty of the Epson.

Then the order was cancelled so I switched to the Epson order.

Now I find myself wondering if I will miss the lens memory and extra shadow detail of the Panasonic. I may eventually switch to a 2.35:1 screen but I can easily reach the controls of the projector, so I can manually shift for the occasional 2.35:1 movie.

The projector should arrive today so hopefully I will be so happy I won't give it any more thought.

It shows how much I obsess about this stuff...

The projector should arrive today so hopefully I will be so happy I won't give it any more thought.


You are NOT Paranoid... if they "really" are out-to-get-you!!

Well, fate made my decision for me. I had an AE4000 on order via the infamous QA preorder in Canada for $2599 with spare bulb. Then I found out I could get the Epson 8500UB for $2490 minus the $200 rebate so $2290 Canadian.

It shows how much I obsess about this stuff...when I thought I was getting the AE4000 I found myself wondering if I would miss the extra lumens, the extra black level, extra bulb life and the better warranty of the Epson.

Then the order was cancelled so I switched to the Epson order.

Now I find myself wondering if I will miss the lens memory and extra shadow detail of the Panasonic. I may eventually switch to a 2.35:1 screen but I can easily reach the controls of the projector, so I can manually shift for the occasional 2.35:1 movie.

The projector should arrive today so hopefully I will be so happy I won't give it any more thought.

I was in the same situation as you. That is a great price on the 8500. I decided to go with the Panny 4000 as I was still set on getting one even after several deals fell through from companies shipping to Canada and the QA deal. My 4000 arrived yesterday but I probably won't be setting up until after the weekend.
I am sure there will be minimal difference between the two projectors according to the reviews I have read. I am just happy to finally receive my new 1080p. I see you that you are a Maritimer! Enjoy the 8500 when it arrives.

Audiguy...I'm enjoying the Epson...where did you end up getting the 4000? I know a local dealer in Halifax had them in stock...wanted $2999 though.

"Originally Posted by Jason Turk
Which I have never understood myself. I have had people contact me 3-4 months after the expiration of a rebate deadline asking if we could pull some strings. Now where I have tried best I can, it boggles my mind how someone could ignore sometimes as much as $400-$500 rebate. I know I have forgotten on small things ($5 on a video card or some crap), but $500?? Heck if you don't plan to send it in, mail me your UPC and I will submit them. "

Jason tell me about it. Me and my nephews are each receiving a $45,000 inheritance. Should have come last week but one of the 27 a nephew didn't send in his assent approval form yet. Holding up the other 26 from getting $45,000 or holding up well over a million dollars. It boggles the mind.

Wow, Tom...I see many upgrades in your future!

Yeah I could buy any projector now.

My uncle passed at 90yrs old in Boston, he was a professor at MIT. RIP

You guys knew I was Irish right? Tom Sullivan :)

Boston's favorite, Black Bread, Baked Beans and Horse Shoe throwing.

Wait you think that was a good one, my wife inherited over $300,000 in cash a couple of months ago. I guess that means I got over three hundred K in cash also. Community property. :)

Audiguy...I'm enjoying the Epson...where did you end up getting the 4000? I know a local dealer in Halifax had them in stock...wanted $2999 though.

Was that Glubes in Dartmouth? Bought mine from CameraKings.

Yeah I could buy any projector now.

My uncle passed at 90yrs old in Boston, he was a professor at MIT. RIP

You guys knew I was Irish right? Tom Sullivan :)

Boston's favorite, Black Bread, Baked Beans and Horse Shoe throwing.

Wait you think that was a good one, my wife inherited over $300,000 in cash a couple of months ago. I guess that means I got over three hundred K in cash also. Community property. :)

It sound like your uncle lived a good life. I hope your wife is as excited about a new theater as you probably are. I can see it now. New plush D Box chairs.

How long does one have to wait to get the $200 back and why can't it be a automatic refund.

why can't it be a automatic refund.

Because the manufacturer is depending on the fact that the majority of people will not send in for the refund, will send it in late, or will screw something up in the application process.

I work in the airline industry and I questioned them as to why they kept giving out vouchers for hundreds of dollars ... they told me only ~7% are used.

Strange I know....

Because the manufacturer is depending on the fact that the majority of people will not send in for the refund, will send it in late, or will screw something up in the application process.

I work in the airline industry and I questioned them as to why they kept giving out vouchers for hundreds of dollars ... they told me only ~7% are used.

Strange I know....

Wow, interesting, thanks. Everyone has their scams.

Any one have any idea what types of sales they will have after xmas?

If I am not mistaken, the 6500UB is the same way ( I am pretty sure I read 4000 hours in high or low mode in the manual) and I was curious about this as well.

It makes sense if the bulb is being driven below it's maximum rating even in 'high' mode. By leaving that headroom, it allows the bulb to keep it's rated life (statistically speaking, at least) even in high mode.

They both utilize D7 panels which are inorganic

Are you sure about that? The Epson HC8100 uses D7 panels, and I thought it was confirmed that the 8100 had organic panels.

Are you sure about that? The Epson HC8100 uses D7 panels, and I thought it was confirmed that the 8100 had inorganic panels.

See this:
http://www.projectorreviews.com/epson/home-cinema-8100/index.php
"Epson continues to use organic panels in the 8100 and 9100"

See this:
http://www.projectorreviews.com/epso...8100/index.php
"Epson continues to use organic panels in the 8100 and 9100"

That was a typo on my part. Corrected it.

Is Epsom still allowing the $200 rebate ?

Is Epsom still allowing the $200 rebate ?

Jason told me a couple of days ago when I placed my order that Epson had extended the rebate offer.

Did Epson really extend the dead line ? I don't see any evidence of that on Epson web site ?

surprising....No responses for a simple question...

AVS, projector People, Visual apex, ......None of you can contribute to this question ?

The rebate has been extended to January 31.

AVS, projector People, Visual apex, ......None of you can contribute to this question ?

Click here for rebate (http://www.projectorpeople.com/SLIS/downloads/rebates/Epson/Epson_HC8500_200_013110.pdf) claim form. Offer good 1/1/2010 through 1/31/2010.