This is a request to the AVS Moderators to re-organize the Projector forums to more closely align with today's projector performance/pricing curve. This would also prevent duplicate discussions which are beginning to crop up as a result of recent price/performance improvements becoming out of sync with the current forum structure.

Considering the pricing of the new Panasonic ($1,999) and where other pricing is likely to go, I would suggest:

1) Less than $1,500 (Budget)
2) $1,500 to less than $5,000 (Mainstream)
3) $6,500 and up (High-end)

Even with this solution, it will be tough to prevent all overlap, but it is clear that we now have $2,000 to $2,500 projectors that compete very well and may even surpass $5,000 projectors. I also think category 2 is the critical category.

Thank you for your consideration.

Where does a $5,995 projector go?

Dick Fogg

I've wondered something similar lately, though I agree, I don't think the proposed division would solve the issu. Of late it seems the intended separation between "low" and "high" hasn't been working. It seems to me the goal is to separate the more entry level more price-oriented discussion from the "mid to high" end more performance oriented discussion.

It seems to me the break there would be in the $2000-3000 street price. I think the problem is there's been a trend lately for machines to have MSRPs that put them in the high end forum, but street prices that put them in the target of the entry level forum. This seems to contribute to some of the increased tensity around here with some being thrilled with the incredible value they found in an entry level priced projector, and then perhaps being a bit frustrated by the cold reception by those unimpressed by the performance regardless of price.

But what do you do about that? Would boosting the line to $4000 help? Or would it just result in the same problem at a different price point. I'm inclined to think it might help since that sort of seems like potentially a bit better line. But unfortunately I think the real problem is that the line really needs to based on street price to be successful, but of course we can't draw the line there for obvious reasons.

Oh, and FWIW, if the AE4000 is $1999 MSRP, why are there several threads in the >$3k forum? ;)

I think the cheaper projectors are catching up to the more expensive projectors to the point that people who used to buy the more expensive projectors are considering them due to their tremendous bang for the buck.

I would propose if any changes are made at all that we have two categories:
Below $10000
$10000 or more

I agree that something needs to be done, but not sure what exactly :D

The point is that a lot of talk is around the $2000 to $5000 price range and the current split breaks up the discussions into two different forums.

I say two sections... $5,000 and above (or something in the ball park) and $4995 and below (or something in the ball park)... Or maybe just go 0 to 10K (ball park suggestion) one section then Ultra the other...?

I think the cheaper projectors are catching up to the more expensive projectors to the point that people who used to buy the more expensive projectors are considering them due to their tremendous bang for the buck.

Well that's a given. Perfection is a fixed point IMO, so each generation the gap closes, some generations more than others, but given that the progress is roughly asymptotic to perfection, yeah, the gap closes.

I agree that something needs to be done, but not sure what exactly :D

The point is that a lot of talk is around the $2000 to $5000 price range and the current split breaks up the discussions into two different forums.

I don't know, the way I look at it is, you could basically group forum members into three catagories:
Those of us for which price is the primary concern, and by that I mean lower price factors heavily into the value equation.
Those of us for which performance is the primary concern, but within financial restrictions, and by that I mean we've got a budget but within that budget relative price is almost a non-issue.
Those of us for which performance is the primary concern, and there's really no budget

I think the three forums seek to focus discussion in that light. We've got the "Ultra high end, 20k+" forum for the last group, the "High end" forum for the second, and the entry level forum for the first.

That's one thing I've really always liked about how the forum is broken up. It seemed like we always had the bargain hunters in the <$3k forum, those looking for the best deal, that price was the driving concern.

And then this forum, I liked in particular because the discussion was always focused mostly around performance. Give that we've probably got a budget here, we would inevitably end up comparing projectors of similar prices, but the discussion always focused on actual performance, and actual price was not touched much because that part was an individual thing.

I think this is also the impetus for the OP, that "price agnostic" discussion has been getting lost. Instead we're starting to see people trying to "promote" based on price, not performance.

I say two sections... $5,000 and above (or something in the ball park) and $4995 and below (or something in the ball park)... Or maybe just go 0 to 10K (ball park suggestion) one section then Ultra the other...?

You know, if we really get down to look at the discussion I think $5k MSRP is a good breaking point. I mean if you look at group 2 above, you find the discussion is usually revolving around the JVC, Planar, Sony VW*, Infocus SP/IN8*, Marantz, Samsung, etc, pretty much the stuff in the $5k-$15k MSRP area, where as the group one tends to be more the Panasonic, Sanyo, Sony HW*, etc.

Maybe $4500 would be a good line, since it would catch those "essentially" 5K machines that are $499x MSRP, but miss the stuff that's lower. Though there will always be those troublesome ones who sell for half MSRP and throw a wrench into things :eek:

I think reform would end up cheating many unless there is some public option.

This is too much drama over something that doesn't slow the rotation of the earth one tiny bit.

If people do not want threads in both places they will refuse to post in one. The thread will die a natural death. (As will this one I imagine very soon.)

Relax. It's only a click to go from one forum to another.

I'm not sure why they even changed it from $3,500 to $3,000. If they just went back to that, I think we would get good separation.

I think the division is fine where it is. I have interest in reading about projectors anywhere from $3k to $10k, which is what I would consider "mid-level" pricing. I do not wish to have to scan through posts in two separate forums for that

Anything below $3k is "budget." $1.5k might be ultra low budget (for projectors), but I don't think you need a separate forum for that.

The proposed divisions don't make any sense to me. I would definitely consider ~$8k projectors such as the JVC LCoS models to be "mainstream" rather than "high-end," which I associate with ultra-pricey boutique gear.

I say leave it where it is now. It ain't broke.

I think the division is fine where it is. I have interest in reading about projectors anywhere from $3k to $10k, which is what I would consider "mid-level" pricing. I do not wish to have to scan through posts in two separate forums for that

Anything below $3k is "budget." $1.5k might be ultra low budget (for projectors), but I don't think you need a separate forum for that.

The problem IMO is I agree with that for street price, but not for MSRP. Though I think that's the real problem, MSRP vs reality. Right now we've got $1500 projectors in the same forum with $15,000 projectors....

Oh, and FWIW, if the AE4000 is $1999 MSRP, why are there several threads in the >$3k forum? ;)

I've asked the mods several times to merge the AE4000 thread in the $3K+ forum with the one in the under $3K forum and never heard anything back.

Hey guys keep the ideas coming. Each year the price drops and we have to make adjustments. This is fast becoming an annual topic.

while the panny 4000 thread should be moved to "the other side" it really isnt that big of a deal to start a thread about imo. i think the forum is fine the way it is setup now and wouldn't like the proposed change to be honest. only the panny thread is whats stirring up the juices, so if its moved i think it would be appropriate.

The major problem seems to be related to the Panasonic AE4000 and the initial posts for the AE4000 being placed in this forum, since this is where the AE3000 was. The division line, for the 2 main PJ forums is $3K MSRP. The AE4000 MSRP is, clearly, "Under $3K".

Therefore, the AE4000 thread should be moved to the lower category. Unfortunately, the AE4000's major competition has MSRPs over $3K, which does represent a conundrum for a lot of AVS members.

The last time this argument surfaced, it was determined that a triple price division would not work. It was also determined that the dividing line had to be based on MSRP, since street prices, and/or, MAP tended to vary during the course of a PJs marketing life, whereas MSRP did not.

Right now, the only confusion is due to the aggressive pricing that Panasonic has chosen. Unless there are other major pricing changes, there is no reason to change the AVS Forum PJ pricing levels at this time, IMHO. Changing the PJ price division point represents a major headache for the AVS moderators, so this is not a simple task to be taken lightly. The only sensible decision would be to wait until we see what the actual logical pricing points will wind up being in the coming months (and in the current market conditions).

I think the division is fine where it is. I have interest in reading about projectors anywhere from $3k to $10k, which is what I would consider "mid-level" pricing. I do not wish to have to scan through posts in two separate forums for that

Anything below $3k is "budget." $1.5k might be ultra low budget (for projectors), but I don't think you need a separate forum for that.

The proposed divisions don't make any sense to me. I would definitely consider ~$8k projectors such as the JVC LCoS models to be "mainstream" rather than "high-end," which I associate with ultra-pricey boutique gear.

I say leave it where it is now. It ain't broke.

But it is broke. All the new LCDs will MSRP, and street, under 3K. Pricing has changed while the quality has improved. If you force all the LCD PJs into the lower forum, many of us who have come to this forum will be forced into a forum where people still discuss 720p PJs.

I bet if JVC had lowered their prices, there would be little opposition to revamping these forums. ;)

Art

It's getting to the point where lower cost PJs are so good the performance gains of the high priced models are not worthwhile to most people. Maybe the dividing line should be called "PJs with great features and performance for a reasonable price" versus "PJs for people with more money than they know what to do with"..... ;-)

Well that's a given. Perfection is a fixed point IMO, so each generation the gap closes, some generations more than others, but given that the progress is roughly asymptotic to perfection, yeah, the gap closes.



I don't know, the way I look at it is, you could basically group forum members into three catagories:
Those of us for which price is the primary concern, and by that I mean lower price factors heavily into the value equation.
Those of us for which performance is the primary concern, but within financial restrictions, and by that I mean we've got a budget but within that budget relative price is almost a non-issue.
Those of us for which performance is the primary concern, and there's really no budget

I think the three forums seek to focus discussion in that light. We've got the "Ultra high end, 20k+" forum for the last group, the "High end" forum for the second, and the entry level forum for the first.

That's one thing I've really always liked about how the forum is broken up. It seemed like we always had the bargain hunters in the <$3k forum, those looking for the best deal, that price was the driving concern.

And then this forum, I liked in particular because the discussion was always focused mostly around performance. Give that we've probably got a budget here, we would inevitably end up comparing projectors of similar prices, but the discussion always focused on actual performance, and actual price was not touched much because that part was an individual thing.

I think this is also the impetus for the OP, that "price agnostic" discussion has been getting lost. Instead we're starting to see people trying to "promote" based on price, not performance.



You know, if we really get down to look at the discussion I think $5k MSRP is a good breaking point. I mean if you look at group 2 above, you find the discussion is usually revolving around the JVC, Planar, Sony VW*, Infocus SP/IN8*, Marantz, Samsung, etc, pretty much the stuff in the $5k-$15k MSRP area, where as the group one tends to be more the Panasonic, Sanyo, Sony HW*, etc.

Maybe $4500 would be a good line, since it would catch those "essentially" 5K machines that are $499x MSRP, but miss the stuff that's lower. Though there will always be those troublesome ones who sell for half MSRP and throw a wrench into things :eek:

I like the 4500 mark... :)

The major problem seems to be related to the Panasonic AE4000 and the initial posts for the AE4000 being placed in this forum, since this is where the AE3000 was. The division line, for the 2 main PJ forums is $3K MSRP. The AE4000 MSRP is, clearly, "Under $3K".

Therefore, the AE4000 thread should be moved to the lower category. Unfortunately, the AE4000's major competition has MSRPs over $3K, which does represent a conundrum for a lot of AVS members.

The last time this argument surfaced, it was determined that a triple price division would not work. It was also determined that the dividing line had to be based on MSRP, since street prices, and/or, MAP tended to vary during the course of a PJs marketing life, whereas MSRP did not.

Right now, the only confusion is due to the aggressive pricing that Panasonic has chosen. Unless there are other major pricing changes, there is no reason to change the AVS Forum PJ pricing levels at this time, IMHO. Changing the PJ price division point represents a major headache for the AVS moderators, so this is not a simple task to be taken lightly. The only sensible decision would be to wait until we see what the actual logical pricing points will wind up being in the coming months (and in the current market conditions).

Well stated. Concur.

Let's say we keep the three forum format. Call them low/mid/high or whatever.

Forgetting MSRP or street price, how would you classify the following projectors? Maybe if there was a general concensus, then it would be easier to define forum criteria.

(note: this list consists of only 1080p machine with "lots" of forum activity; tried to keep the list to current models)

JVC RS15/HD550
JVC RS25/HD950
JVC RS35/HD990

Sony HW15
Sony VW85
Sony VW200

Panasonic AE4000

Epson 8100
Epson 8500UB

Planar 8130
Planar 8150

Samsung A900
Samsung A600

Mitsubishi HC3800
Mitsubishi HC6800

BenQ W6000

Optoma 8200
Optoma HD20

Vivetek H9080FD

Sim2 HT380
Sim2 HT3000E
Sim2 Lumis

It seems to me that the dividing line was meant to be between "budget" projectors and "performance" projectors.

The problem (for the forum) is that you can now get "performance" projectors for what used to be "budget" prices. Lumping the AE4000 in with "budget" projectors today seems odd, given that its feature set is far more on the "performance" side; hell, this projector would have been considered a high-end performance projector - with probably a 5 figure price - only a couple of years ago.

One appropriate way of addressing this would be to lower the $ divider from its current $3000 level; ~$1500 would be a more accurate line between "budget" and "performance" these days.

It seems to me that the dividing line was meant to be between "budget" projectors and "performance" projectors.

The problem (for the forum) is that you can now get "performance" projectors for what used to be "budget" prices. Lumping the AE4000 in with "budget" projectors today seems odd, given that its feature set is far more on the "performance" side; hell, this projector would have been considered a high-end performance projector - with probably a 5 figure price - only a couple of years ago.

It seems to me that one appropriate way of addressing this would be to lower the $ divider from its current $3000 level; ~$1500 would be a more accurate line between "budget" and "performance" these days.

The thing is that many of the people on this forum don't think the Panny does have that great performance. I'm also not sure when the Panny achieved this "performance" level or what makes its PQ better than a Mitsubishi 3800 or any of the other budget projectors. The 3000 had a pretty bad CR helped a bit by a dynamic iris. It uses technology to actually defocus the image so its SDE isn't as obnoxious. Any projector that has to soften its image to obscure a panel limitation does not belong in the performance class.

The Panny 4000 has been given a great review by Projectorcentral. Most enthusiasts would be thrilled by the performance, I'm sure. The feature set is better than most PJs at any price. The "Uber" priced PJs may have some advantage in black levels, but I don't think most consumers would be willing to pay 2 or 3 times more for the slight increase . What we are witnessing is the maturing of a product line that was once out of reach for most consumers. The elite projectors of a few years ago wouldn't fetch 1/10 of their price today. We live in great times, quality affordable PJs are now available at rock bottom prices. While there will always be a limited market for "high end" PJs, people who don't want to spend 10K won't have to give up much picture quality. $2000. is the new benchmark, build a quality PJ at that pricepoint and sales will go through the roof!

The Panny 4000 has been given a great review by Projectorcentral. Most enthusiasts would be thrilled by the performance, I'm sure. The feature set is better than most PJs at any price. The "Uber" priced PJs may have some advantage in black levels, but I don't think most consumers would be willing to pay 2 or 3 times more for the slight increase . What we are witnessing is the maturing of a product line that was once out of reach for most consumers. The elite projectors of a few years ago wouldn't fetch 1/10 of their price today. We live in great times, quality affordable PJs are now available at rock bottom prices. While there will always be a limited market for "high end" PJs, people who don't want to spend 10K won't have to give up much picture quality. $2000. is the new benchmark, build a quality PJ at that pricepoint and sales will go through the roof!

Firstly, PJC has a very well-known bias towards LCD projectors, especially the Panasonic line. I'm not saying that the AE4000 isn't a great value, but it's hardly the JVC or Samsung competitor that PJC makes it out to be.

Secondly, the difference in performance between an AE4000 and say an RS35 is hardly as subtle as some here make it out to be. The AE4000 only measures 3000:1 native CR vs the RS35's 70,000:1 - there's no way a DI can make up for that kind of native CR gap. Also, as has been pointed out, the Panny's smoothscreen technology purposely defocuses the pixel edges on the LCD panels to eliminate the gaps between the pixels. I haven't seen the AE4000 in person yet, however I have yet to be impressed with what I've seen in any of Panny's models to date when it comes to sharpness. Not to mention the calibrated light output of the RS35 is significantly higher than that of the Panny.

As Jason stated in the RS35 thread, JVC has a huge backlog of orders right now so it seems that plenty of people are still willing to pay more for a significantly better picture. Many will buy the AE4000 and be happy with it - and that's awesome. However, I would wager that a lot of the noise about this projector performing like much higher priced competitors is from those who haven't seen said competitors in a properly set-up environment, if at all.

I think the divisions between projector forums are just fine the way they are right now.

HogPilot -- I don't think anyone is confusing the JVC RS series, and it's ilk, with the bottom end of the "Over $3K" class of PJs. That performance distinction has always existed.

The problem that we're (the AVS community) facing is the distinction between the "under $3K" to "under ~$4K" class of PJs, which are all competitive (Panasonic AE4000, Mitsubishi HC6800, Epson 8500UB, BenQ W6000, etc.), but now are situated across the $3K, MSRP, boundary.

Actually stanger89 put the description of the distinctions quite clearly: * Those of us for which price is the primary concern, and by that I mean lower price factors heavily into the value equation.
* Those of us for which performance is the primary concern, but within financial restrictions, and by that I mean we've got a budget but within that budget relative price is almost a non-issue.
* Those of us for which performance is the primary concern, and there's really no budget.

The bottom line is that those of us that are interested in specific PJs (for whatever our reasons are) will go to those forums that have the PJ threads of interest, regardless of where they are.

The only confusion seems to be associated with the Panasonic AE4000, which has a thread in both forums. There is no reason to scrap the current system for one PJ model. At least until we see how the market is trending. That doesn't mean that the moderators shouldn't be looking at another revision of the dividing lines between the major classes of PJs. However, that is a decision that cannot be taken lightly (as I said earlier).

How about just get rid of the pricing idea.Just have one thread for DLP and one for LCD and Lcos.

It seems to me that the dividing line was meant to be between "budget" projectors and "performance" projectors.

The problem (for the forum) is that you can now get "performance" projectors for what used to be "budget" prices. Lumping the AE4000 in with "budget" projectors today seems odd, given that its feature set is far more on the "performance" side; hell, this projector would have been considered a high-end performance projector - with probably a 5 figure price - only a couple of years ago.

Why is it odd? This is the same as everything, performance always improves, and you can always get more for less at a later date. The whole point is these forums are (IMO) intended not to create a dividing line on absolute performance, but on relative performance at the current time.

If not, there'd only be one forum today because a $1000 projector today will probably best a $20k+ machine from 5-10 years ago.

One appropriate way of addressing this would be to lower the $ divider from its current $3000 level; ~$1500 would be a more accurate line between "budget" and "performance" these days.

IMO that would make things worse.

Let's say we keep the three forum format. Call them low/mid/high or whatever.

Forgetting MSRP or street price, how would you classify the following projectors? Maybe if there was a general concensus, then it would be easier to define forum criteria.

(note: this list consists of only 1080p machine with "lots" of forum activity; tried to keep the list to current models)

JVC RS15/HD550
JVC RS25/HD950
JVC RS35/HD990

Mid

Sony HW15
Sony VW85
Sony VW200

Low
Mid
Mid (maybe high)

Panasonic AE4000

Low

Epson 8100
Epson 8500UB

Low

Planar 8130
Planar 8150

Mid

Samsung A900
Samsung A600

Mid
Low

Mitsubishi HC3800
Mitsubishi HC6800

Low

BenQ W6000

Low

Optoma 8200
Optoma HD20

Mid
Low

Vivetek H9080FD

Mid

Sim2 HT380
Sim2 HT3000E
Sim2 Lumis

Mid
High
High

The Panny 4000 has been given a great review by Projectorcentral. Most enthusiasts would be thrilled by the performance, I'm sure. The feature set is better than most PJs at any price. The "Uber" priced PJs may have some advantage in black levels, but I don't think most consumers would be willing to pay 2 or 3 times more for the slight increase .

That's just the thing, IMO this forum is not about "most consumers", and I disagree with your "most enthusiasts would be thrilled statement. And I think that's the crux of the issue. IMO the "High end, >$3k" forum isn't about what's "good enough" for "most people", it's about what's the absolute best out there short of the ultra high end.

What we are witnessing is the maturing of a product line that was once out of reach for most consumers. The elite projectors of a few years ago wouldn't fetch 1/10 of their price today. We live in great times, quality affordable PJs are now available at rock bottom prices.

No disagreement there.

While there will always be a limited market for "high end" PJs, people who don't want to spend 10K won't have to give up much picture quality. $2000. is the new benchmark, build a quality PJ at that pricepoint and sales will go through the roof!

Maybe so, but IMO that's not what this subforum is about, that's what the <$3k forum is for. This forum is for those in the "limited market for 'high end' PJs". And it seems $3000 MSRP isn't that dividing line anymore.

HogPilot -- I don't think anyone is confusing the JVC RS series, and it's ilk, with the bottom end of the "Over $3K" class of PJs. That performance distinction has always existed.

The problem that we're (the AVS community) facing is the distinction between the "under $3K" to "under ~$4K" class of PJs, which are all competitive (Panasonic AE4000, Mitsubishi HC6800, Epson 8500UB, BenQ W6000, etc.), but now are situated across the $3K, MSRP, boundary.

Exactly, I really think the real boundary is actuall around the $2000-$3000 street price. If you're willing to go over that you're getting into a better class of machine and you end up with evaluating based on things like lens quality, static/native CR, colorimetry, MTF. IMO all the really interesting discussion that makes the "high end" forum great.

If you're not willing to go over that line, well then IMO it seems like you're trying to find the machine with the least faults. Which ones have usable DI, which ones are decent once calibrated, etc...

The problem is that (let's simplify it) "under $3k" street group covers an MSRP range up to about $5k. The AE4000 is $2k MSRP, the W6000 is $3500, the W5000 is $4995, the 8500UB $2999.

I keep thinking this all sounds elitist, but you know what, I think it is, and it's OK. I think that's the point of this forum, we don't care if we can get 95% of the performance for 1/3 the cost, we want that extra 5% because we are willing to pay the extra, and we'd rather not be bogged down having to explain that. I mean in the end that's what it comes down to, if we're looking at an RS20, RS25, RS35, 8150, etc, etc, we probably don't care if an AE3000/AE4000 is "close enough for most people", because if it were for us, we'd probably not be looking at the more expensive machines.

The only confusion seems to be associated with the Panasonic AE4000, which has a thread in both forums. There is no reason to scrap the current system for one PJ model. At least until we see how the market is trending. That doesn't mean that the moderators shouldn't be looking at another revision of the dividing lines between the major classes of PJs. However, that is a decision that cannot be taken lightly (as I said earlier).

I don't think anybody is suggesting scrap the system, on the whole I think it works well. But as you note above, the $3k MSRP line seems to be right smack in the middle of a compettive group of projectors. I think that's why the AE4000 threads cropped up here many of it's natural competitors have much higher MSRPs (W6000, W5000, etc are natural competitors).

So that IMO is the real question, would returning the line to $3500 or maybe raising it to $4000 be better in not bisecting one of the most popular areas of discussion?

How about just get rid of the pricing idea.Just have one thread for DLP and one for LCD and Lcos.

Bingo! We have a winner. :)

We should have a separate CIH forum, too.
:-P

I could see raising the price break to $5K, but that won't solve the problem next year when that generation has a price/performance change. I say leave it alone.

I think the simple thing is to just "enforce" the threshold we have today... or not. It's a PIA to read both forums for the same PJ. The simple fact is the AE4000 has crossed over. Comparisons across forums will happen. Every so often we've recreated threads when a nice clearance on an old PJ brings it into the mix (i.e. the IF7205).

Right now, the only confusion is due to the aggressive pricing that Panasonic has chosen. Unless there are other major pricing changes, there is no reason to change the AVS Forum PJ pricing levels at this time, IMHO. Changing the PJ price division point represents a major headache for the AVS moderators, so this is not a simple task to be taken lightly. The only sensible decision would be to wait until we see what the actual logical pricing points will wind up being in the coming months (and in the current market conditions).

Allow me to respectfully disagree with you here Claus. $3k is no longer the proper division line, perhaps initiated by Panasonic. The problem existed even before that. Many of the 'mid' level projectors (I realize this catagory is subjective) were selling for just over $2k last year. Their MSRP was over $3k. Now, Panasonic has decided that it's silly to have a $3500 MSRP is your going to sell it for close to $2k, so why even list that $3500 MSRP if it means nothing? More manufacturers will follow. It's 'broke' because we are dividing the pipe dream MSRP price and the realistic price. IMO, MSRP is what we have to use, but when two projectors have nearly the same street price, and are obviously competition to one another, they need to be in the same subforum, and that subforum's price range needs to be what the projectors sell for, at least in as many cases as possible.

Right now is actually the perfect time to do the split, because as I mention other manufacturer's are going to follow and start dropping MSRP. If we continue to wait, the mess is only going to get more complicated and we'll have numerous threads in both subforums instead of just the AE4000.

We have already begun a list of competative PJ's. Add to that list the MSRP AND street price. Group them together as to which closely compete with one another, and the necessary price division should become clear. If someone can take the time to do that, we will save a lot of babble about where the price lines should be.

My personal opinion is that currently under $1500 is budget, under $5k is mid level, and over $5k is high end. However, that varies from person to person, and what their budget and goals are, so perhaps that's the real issue here. That makes the idea of LCD/LCOS/DLP a lot more appealing. IMO, we should strongly consider these three sub forums (already done with flat panel, LCD vs plasma), and preserve the ultra high end (over $20k) for those folks.

If the percieved problem is that competing projectors aren't being grouped because of MSRP pricing, how will splitting the forums based on display technology fix that? You'll end up having the Optoma HD20 in the same forum as the Marantz VP11S2 and Sim2 HT3000E. LCoS wouldn't be as bad, but having the HW15 compared to the RS35 doesn't make much sense either. The only display technology that this would work for is LCD, since there really aren't any mid-or high-end LCD models.

IMHO it seems that this discussion is mostly being driven by the pricing on the AE4000, whose performance seems to be getting overhyped due to the low price. In that case the AE4000 is an outlier and shouldn't justify a complete re-organization of the projector forum structure.

How about just get rid of the pricing idea.Just have one thread for DLP and one for LCD and Lcos.

That would only work if LCD projectors only competed against other LCD projectors, DLP against DLP, and LCoS against LCoS. Further, you'd have to assume that someone looking to spend $10k on a 1080p projector of one type also wants to read threads about $1k 720p projectors of the same type simply because they're the same technology.

In the real world, projectors of each of these technologies are in direct competition with one another, vying for the same consumers. They have similar pricing, features, and performance.

It's very rare these days to find consumers only interested in LCD, or only interested in DLP, or only interested in LCoS. Consumers have a budget they can afford to spend, and want to know what is the best projector (of whatever technology) in their price range.

For example, I'm currently running a JVC HD100. I've been following with interest the newer JVC LCoS models, but I've also been following discussion about the Planar/Runco PD8150 and the talk about upcoming LED DLP models. I am not a format zealot for just one type of projector. I'm looking at anything in the same price/features/performance range.

A "separate but equal" segregation would only make these forums much more confusing and less useful overall.

Again, I disagree that this problem is solely due to Panasonic. Take a look at last year. We had projectors selling for $2200 being discussed in this forum (and not just Panasonic's), along with projectors selling for over $10k. Can anyone seriously say that both of those two projectors (whichever you care to choose) would be seriously considered by any one given individual? I doubt it.

Perhaps that's ok, and if so, then we don't need subforums at all. Just lump them all together. Your concerns seem to be that you don't want to read about a $2k projector if your in the market for something better, like say a $10k projector. However, that's exactly what's happening now, so yes it is 'broke', and it isn't just because of Panasonic.

Take my personal experience as an example. I just purchased my first PJ for $2k (AE4000). However, I did most of my research in the over $3k forum, and my price range was up to about $3k. First off, that doesn't really make any sense. I was willing to spend up to $3k, and all the projectors in my price range were listed in the over $3k forum. While there were a few options in the under $3k forum for me, most of what was discussed there didn't appeal to me (mostly stuff that sold for $1500 or less). I realize the reason for using MSRP, and it's a valid reason, but the division line just seems to be in the wrong place. Bump it up to $4k or even $5k, and now all the competing projectors are together.

Will that create a problem at $4k or $5k? Sure, the same problem applies (with MSRP vs street), however I would argue that there are a lot less people, and competing projectors, in that price range.

It's very rare these days to find consumers only interested in LCD, or only interested in DLP, or only interested in LCoS. Consumers have a budget they can afford to spend, and want to know what is the best projector (of whatever technology) in their price range.

I don't know that I'd say 'vary rare'. I was more or less only interested in LCD. DLP is typically too noisy for my tastes and LCOS was typically too expensive in regards to price/performance (for me). So that led me to value LCD's as a good choice. Don't get me wrong, I did research other projectors that I could get for what I was willing to spend, they just didn't quite fit what I wanted. Just because I would have had to click on a different subforum to find out about another tech doesn't mean I wouldn't have done it.

I think it worked fairly well for flat panels with plasma and LCD. If you wanted the plasma 'best picture' fanboy point of view, you went to the plasma section. If you wanted the LCD fanboy point of view, you went to the LCD section. The same could, and probably would, happen for PJ's. Those who own and/or like one tech better will spend most of their time in that subforum. There will be plenty of LCD vs LCOS vs DLP threads, in each subforum. It will be easy to get the pro's and con's of each tech depending what thread you visit, and what subforum it's located in. In regards to having to read about a $1k projector when you want a $10k one, well just don't click on that thread? Perhaps we could make an unofficial rule of including MSRP right in the title for any PJ's 'official' thread? That would help steer people into the right threads quickly based on their price point.

There really aren't LCOS or DLP fanboys though. In addition, most people here will buy a projector based on performance rather than technology so having three different forums for different technologies makes little sense. The situation is not the same as with the flat panels.

My two cents is that the manufacturers have caused an issue due to the bogus MSRP's out there. The Mitsubishi I have has an MSRP of $3495 but every single vendor is selling it out of the gate for $2000-2500. The Viewsonic pro8100 had some kind of ridiculous MSRP and didn't sell, so now at street prices of $1200-1300 it is getting a bunch of action.

I also think a better divider is budget ($1499 or less), mid tier ($1500-$4999), high end ($5K+). It may have to be adjusted every couple of years, but that would really nail it from where we are today.

What I wouldn't support is separate forums for different technologies. Most of us are trying to get the best we can for our money. To most, the technology that gets us there is unimportant. If you have ever spent time in the plasma/LCD areas, you can see many cross posts, because the users are trying to determine which set is best for them, not what is the best plasma set, etc.
FWIW, IMHO those flat panel forums should be divided by screen size, not technology.

The Plasma and LCD flat panel forums have no separate sub forums based on price. Would those forums benefit from separate sub-forums based on price like the front projector structure? Or would the front projector forums (which have much less traffic than the flat panel forums), benefit from removing price division?

The Plasma and LCD flat panel forums have no separate sub forums based on price. Would those forums benefit from separate sub-forums based on price like the front projector structure? Or would the front projector forums (which have much less traffic than the flat panel forums), benefit from removing price division?

Although it is anecdotal, I think there are many, many duplicate posts over there that have to do with "Would you buy the 50" Panny plasma or the 50" Sony LCD" which are posted in both forums.

There as here, I think there is less fanboyism as there is "just get me the best picture at $XXX price". But don't get me wrong, there is some of that in both places.

They need some division over there as well (I suggested sub forums based on screen size).

I think reform would end up cheating many unless there is some public option

Classic!

Keep the forums the way they are now!

The amount of productive discussion these days is rare enough as it is. Anecdotes get passed around as fact and people draw conclusions based solely on whims. Few people seem to care or think that it is a problem.

Move the $3k line further south and that forum will be deluged with "Is DLP better than LCD" threads.

Again, I disagree that this problem is solely due to Panasonic. Take a look at last year. We had projectors selling for $2200 being discussed in this forum (and not just Panasonic's), along with projectors selling for over $10k. Can anyone seriously say that both of those two projectors (whichever you care to choose) would be seriously considered by any one given individual? I doubt it.

Again, this isn't the fault of the forums, but the fault of manufacturers who have different policies on MSRP vs MAP or street pricing. This is not a new phenomenon, and it seems the AE4000 gets used as an example of why the current forum pricing divisions "don't work" more than most other PJs.

Perhaps that's ok, and if so, then we don't need subforums at all. Just lump them all together. Your concerns seem to be that you don't want to read about a $2k projector if your in the market for something better, like say a $10k projector. However, that's exactly what's happening now, so yes it is 'broke', and it isn't just because of Panasonic.

I never said anything of the sort, I'm not sure why you'd assume that. This sub-forum specifically supports projectors with a price between $3000 and $19,999 - and I've never seen anyone complain that projectors above or below their desired price range have threads in the same sub-forum.

Every person here has his or her own budgetary and room constraints that we could use as a guideline for setting up new price divisions in the forums. Because of the irregular relationship between street price and MSRP from manufacturer to manufacturer, it is virtually impossible to come up with a low-to-mid level cutoff that will take every variable into account and make every person happy.

Ultimately, I don't understand why people people suddenly have angst over having to look in two different forums for information on multiple PJs? The information is all there, and a basic understanding of the search function will take any person to what they need. It may be a couple more clicks of the mouse, but this seems like a lot of consternation over nothing.

This thread is becoming addicting with all of the intelligent discussion -- keep up the good work.

I agree with (what seems to be the general consensus) the statements that there should be some kind of division based on some kind of general price/performance classification. I also agree that a division by technology is not the way to go, for projectors. When I look for a PJ upgrade, I look for PJs that will meet my set of requirements and LCD, DLP, and LCoS all can apply. If that means that I have to research in two different sub-forums, so be it. My basic set of minimum requirements have always been technology agnostic.

To my way of thinking, the PJ sub-forum division makes more sense than the Plasma/LCD division in the flat panel forums, IMHO. The fact that the "Under $3K" sub-forum includes budget (and both 720p and 1080p units) causes no problems for me (it's called choice, as HogPilot said). Since my projector requirements fall on both sides of the MSRP division (past and present), I've always looked at both.

I tend to agree with the division suggested by stanger89 (although I was hesitant to put a specific number on it). A break point closer to $5K, MSRP, would tend to make more sense, for me at least. This is because those PJs tend to have street prices, and performance, closer to what my personal requirements are. That level of division would be easier for me, but that doesn't mean that I wouldn't research in any sub-forums of interest (regardless of what they may be). That was the case when I first became an AVS member, and that fact hasn't changed.

The MSRP pricing issue existed when they set up the original price division. I say leave it as it is, but enforce it, or change the forums' price division to be street price. Technology will always trickle down in price. If not that, then combine the forums and put the MSRP in all of the "owners" threads so people know that up front.

I've create a similar topic in the <$3K to see what that group thinks.

It really is about "budget" versus "performance".

You could set up these two forum categories, then have a third forum for a poll when a new projector is released (or intially for current projectors). The poll would be for members to decide which category the new projector falls in (no discussion in the poll), and a time limit placed to participate in the poll (say 2 weeks after start), after which the results would be tabulated and the projector given a classification.

Prior to completion of the poll, postings could be made in both areas but, once the poll is closed, all topics on the particular projector would be moved to the appropriate forum.

The exception would be a comparison of a budget category projector with a performance category projector, which could be in either forum.

Also, topics would have to be classified based on the first post, not what they typically devolve (as opposed to evolve) into.

Today's performance is tomorrow's budget, just look at the Panny line... that is the issue we're really dealing with here. No matter where you draw the line, at some point, many projectors will cross over. It's going to be painful no matter where you draw the line unless you are willing to restructure every time your favorite projector switches categories. That's why I say leave it and enforce it, or combine it and be done.

I think combining it would be the easiest thing to do, because it would support those people buying used projectors whose street value has crossed over.

PS I was being sarcastic in my other post when I said I started a similar topic in the other forum. ;)

Today's performance is tomorrow's budget, just look at the Panny line... that is the issue we're really dealing with here.

I don't know I disagree with that. Going back, I thought the Panasonic machines had always lived in the "under" forum. IIRC wasnt' the line previously $3500? Doesn't seem like it was until the AE3000 that it started appearing in the "high end" forum.

And nothing has really changed in the market placement of the Panasonic AE line IMO, I think street price has been relatively constant, market placement, only thing that's changed is it's MSRP and/or the line drawn with the forum.

The AE4000 seems to be bringing the MSRP back to reality, which is a good thing IMO.

No matter where you draw the line, at some point, many projectors will cross over.

I don't really agree with that. And I know mainly because of my recent search for projectors. There's really a natural gap in prices it seems, between stuff like the AE3000/AE4000/HW15/W5000/etc and the 8150/RS20/etc, basically between projectors with less than $3k street price and those with over $4k.

Actually just playing with Projector Central's database feature search, I think maybe a return to the $3500, or maybe 4000 line would work well. FWIW, give it a shot, go over to PJC and do a feature search and put in different prices and see how different prices work out.

I think combining it would be the easiest thing to do, because it would support those people buying used projectors whose street value has crossed over.

I disagree, I know it's selfish, but I don't want to wade through a sea of threads looking for <$1k budget machines to find good info on the RS65 :D

I never said anything of the sort

Appologies for making my post sound like I was specifically referring to you. I meant a more generalized response.

I'm not sure why you'd assume that. This sub-forum specifically supports projectors with a price between $3000 and $19,999 - and I've never seen anyone complain that projectors above or below their desired price range have threads in the same sub-forum

Well, this quote sounds a lot like someone who has a problem with it:

If you force all the LCD PJs into the lower forum, many of us who have come to this forum will be forced into a forum where people still discuss 720p PJs

I suppose I should be careful generalizing and assuming that everyone feels the same way, I just got the 'feel' from reading the thread that this was the case for most responding. Perhaps it isn't as big of an issue as I thought.

I still stick by my suggestion. List out all of the projectors that street up to about $5k, perhaps even higher. List MSRP, street price, and perhaps even group them by ones that compete directly with one another (although this can be opinion). It will lead us to the answer, but I don't have the time to do it.

How about just get rid of the pricing idea.Just have one thread for DLP and one for LCD and Lcos.

Although I don't think this is a bad idea, if it were to go this direction you would need a "comparison" thread too. Most comparison threads have projectors from at least two of these categories. Plus, it might be too hard for the DLP, LCD and LCOS fanboys to fight with each other on a regular basis. :D

To those who are suggesting that the forums use street pricing, I think we need to keep in mind that AVS is primarily a business. They are gracious enough to run the forum for us and allow us to exchange information here, but they're still our hosts and they're still here to (partly) make money. They've set the rule of not allowing street pricing discussions here for that reason. Unless they change their stance on that, street pricing (as much as people try to discuss it) will never be the basis for which the projector forums are divided.

Classic!

Somebody post a poll!

Although price was a good way to separate the projector so we could talk about like minded performance, it now seems that price may no longer be an issue. When you can compare a under 2K projector like a Panasonic with a 8000 Lcos or DLP, it would seem that we should be using another criteria when determining which forum a projector should be discussed. Although the Epson 8100 and the Panny AE-4000 are in the same price range, they dont have the same peformance so there is no reason why they should be in the same forum.

What amazes me is how every year we have to "find" a topic for discussion while we wait for the new projectors to actually hit the street, so the "real" passion can commence!!

:-)

Low End - Under $1000

Mid Level - $1001 - $3999

High End - $4000 - $19999

Ultra High End - $20K and up

How about just get rid of the pricing idea.Just have one thread for DLP and one for LCD and Lcos.

I think the criteria should be the resolution of the projectors, one for 720P projectors and one for 1080P projectors. And another thread for the projectors with the price of 20K or more.

Federico

We should have one forum for projectors with white or lightly-colored cases, one for projectors with black or darkly-colored cases, and one more for projectors offered in multiple finishes. Plus a specialty forum for that sweet wood-grain finish InFocus offers on their SP8602.

Low End - Under $1000

Mid Level - $1001 - $3999

High End - $4000 - $19999

Ultra High End - $20K and up

I would support this with some tweaking. Make Low End "Entry Level" and put it at up to $1499.

Having used these forums for all of my PJ purchase at least to some degree, I think this would keep the right kind of posts in the right forums. For example, newbies, like me a few years ago, tend to ask more about how to setup a PJ, what screen size can I get at XXX feet, how does this comapre to my 47" LCD, etc.
Mid level is usually "the new Panny versus the Epson, versus the Mitsubishi, versus the Sanyo...and spills a bit more into getting the best out of them.
High end seems to concentrate more on getting the best out of these and which kind of screen is used, etc, but less on which to buy.
Ultra high end is for those who wish to discuss which $140 wine goes best with an action film on their Sim7 ultraview... (j/k)

Since I have been around the forumthe price line has gone from $5K to $3.5K to $3K. IMO the line works well to seperate entry level pjs from mainstream. If a change is required I would suggest the cutoff be moved to $1.5K. Such a move would keep the current entry level pjs in there own forum and have the mainstream pj all participate in the same forum. The over $20K forum would continue to attract the high end crowd.

I don't think we would need a seperate segment between $1.5K and $20K. There won't be enough pj product or participants to support it.

I would support this with some tweaking. Make Low End "Entry Level" and put it at up to $1499.

That works for me.

Entry Level - Under $1500 DLP, LCD

Mid Level - $1501 - $3999 DLP, LCoS, LCD

High End - $4000 - $19999 DLP, LCoS, LED

Ultra High End - $20K and up

Although price was a good way to separate the projector so we could talk about like minded performance, it now seems that price may no longer be an issue. When you can compare a under 2K projector like a Panasonic with a 8000 Lcos or DLP, it would seem that we should be using another criteria when determining which forum a projector should be discussed. Although the Epson 8100 and the Panny AE-4000 are in the same price range, they dont have the same peformance so there is no reason why they should be in the same forum.

This kind of forum split would require waiting on a released PJ before making comments about how great it is. That would be a huge problem here....

For those of you that have an issue with the AE4000 not being compared properly go to the dealer and offer $3,000+ and that should solve the problem.

The two threads are next to eachother. I really don't see an issue.

How about forgetting about the price points and just going with categories, specifically LCD, DLP (single chip and 3 chip), LCOS, etc.?

yes, drop the price points.

Base it on whether the PJ is generally available via online, big box retailers, etc. and then the higher-end available only via boutique, HT installer, AVS, and other higher margin retailers.

So:
Front Projection
--High End Front Projection

Seems that's really the point between the two forums.

That works for me.

Entry Level - Under $1500 DLP, LCD

Mid Level - $1501 - $3999 DLP, LCoS, LCD

High End - $4000 - $19999 DLP, LCoS, LED

Ultra High End - $20K and up

While I don't mind the "ultra" section, if you draw a line at entry you are going to have many of the same problems we're talking about in this thread duplicated. There are a lot of projectors right around that $1500 price-point.

I still think we should draw the line at "those who open their eggs with the little side up" and "those who should be put in jail". :p

For those of you that have an issue with the AE4000 not being compared properly go to the dealer and offer $3,000+ and that should solve the problem.



LOL! It is always funny when value invades performance.

Thinking about this some more, I don't think we need 4 subsections. Under $1500 (or thereabouts) is value. That's a valid catagory for those in that price range. $1500 to about $5000 (maybe $4000?) is mainstream. I would guess that a large percentage of projectors sold/bought are in this catagory. Those spending more than $5k on a projector are obviously looking for something more than just a mainstream projector, and are willing to pay for it. Is there a reason why someone who spends $5k on a projector doesn't qualify to discuss performance with someone who is spending $20k? I'm not saying they do or don't, I'm just posing a question. So we would have this (focusing more on the purpose than the price, and price is set by the competition):

Budget - below $1500
Mainstream (competative) - $1500 to $5000
High End - over $5000

Perhaps the high end should be adjusted to over $7500. Perhaps the budget section is below $1k or $2k, but I think the idea of the sections is valid. I just don't see a reason to have an over $20k section, really it's the same purpose as over $5k or $10k or whatever the number is.

I don't think we need more categories than we currently have or that we need to change the levels. While I am unsure what prompted the change to $3k from$3.5k, if the rules are enforced, we should not have problems. I like the character of this forum with its focus on picture quality and would not like to see it diluted.

I don't think we need more categories than we currently have or that we need to change the levels. While I am unsure what prompted the change to $3k from$3.5k, if the rules are enforced, we should not have problems. I like the character of this forum with its focus on picture quality and would not like to see it diluted.

So this forum would be diluted by having higher performing PJ's than the ones they replaced *not* moved down into the lower forum?

It seems that most of the LCoS and DLP owners posting here prefer the LCDs be moved out, and that's fine with me. I've owned all 3 technologies, but currently have an LCD. If I'm not wanted in here because I'm apparently not "focused on picture quality", so be it. I ran into the same attitude with Viper owners when I used to drive Corvettes. ;)

Art

As an owner of two Vipers I say exclude all LCD projectors from this forum and let them have their own "sub performing projector" forum. Kinda like pulling weeds :)

AVS is also a store, I doubt they will take "street" price into account - MSRP is correct for them.

I do have to say there are many high quality projectors available below 3K now though...

As an owner of two Vipers I say exclude all LCD projectors from this forum and let them have their own "sub performing projector" forum. Kinda like pulling weeds :)

BMW owner and DLP owner here. LCD may leave (even though I'm considering getting one for more lumens!).

BMW owner and DLP owner here. LCD may leave (even though I'm considering getting one for more lumens!).
More lumens with an LCD ? OK I believe you, I will be trading both Vipers for one LCD and a Corvette. :)

I can't believe this thread is still going!
Projector performance is so similar that there is nothing else to talk about I guess.:rolleyes:

While I am unsure what prompted the change to $3k from$3.5k, if the rules are enforced, we should not have problems.

At $3k there's a number of machines that sell for much less than $3k (some under $2k) that it can be argued don't belong here, even if the rules are followed. At $3500, or $4000 I think that number is greatly diminished.

The Pansonic AE line is the best example. Every PT-AE* (with the lone exception of the AE1000) has had an MSRP under $3500, and while the overall performance gap has narrowed, I don't think the situation, or discussion has fundamentally changed. It seems the PT-AE* still appeals most to those looking for the best bang for the buck (the first group I mentioned earlier), and not so much for those looking more at performance.

Further, every PT-AE* I believe (maybe even the AE1000) was primarily discussed in the "Under XXXX MSRP" forum. Maybe my history is off here, but the AE2000 was $3495 MSRP, as is the AE3000, but it seems somewhere between those two models the line got moved which meant the AE3000 technically belongs in this forum, even though most of it's followers/fans were historically in the other forum.

That's not the only example but it's the best one IMO. The BenQ W6000 is another example of something that probably fits better in the other forum, is MSRP under $3500, but over $3000.

To me it looks like the real question is why was the line moved form $3000 to $3500 and is that reason still valid, or was it ever?

It seems that most of the LCoS and DLP owners posting here prefer the LCDs be moved out, and that's fine with me.

Well I've only owned DLP, don't see that changing in the future, but I don't like the idea of prejudicially moving LCDs out just because they're LCDs. I don't have a high opinion of LCDs in general, but I base that on the individual projectors not just the fact they're LCDs. What I mean is the DLP and LCoS machines I've considered still outperform LCD machines I've considered in the areas important to me and I don't mind the cost differential.

I've owned all 3 technologies, but currently have an LCD. If I'm not wanted in here because I'm apparently not "focused on picture quality", so be it.

Let me ask you a question that will hopefully illustrate the concept I was trying to get across (since I acknowledge it's a rather subtle difference as price and performance are both important to most everyone). Why did you choose your current LCD over an LCoS or DLP alternative?

Let me ask you a question that will hopefully illustrate the concept I was trying to get across (since I acknowledge it's a rather subtle difference as price and performance are both important to most everyone). Why did you choose your current LCD over an LCoS or DLP alternative?

Fair enough.

My current room is a 13'x12'6", batcave, with a 9' wide screen. (I used to use my 13'x23' livingroom as a theater, but switched to my daughters old bedroom when she moved out.) The projector is on a shelf in the back of the room. This gives me 11' 6" from the lens to the screen. DLP will not work in this environment due to either lack of lens shift or throw/zoom ratio. I never saw rainbows, with my entry level DLP from 6 years ago, but did get eye strain and headaches if I viewed it too long.

I spent 4K on my Canon LCoS PJ 4 years ago, but it was soft to the point of being blurry, and lacked decent blacks/contrast. (I realize this was not designed for home theater use, but heard good things about it. I also used an anamorphic lens to utilize the full panel.)

When I upgraded to 1080p last year, I was limited to LCD or LCoS, due to the room constraints detailed above. I was still leary of LCoS due to my previous experience, so went with the AE2000. I am very happy with it, but would like deeper blacks than it can provide. It is *much* sharper than the Canon, and the 'smoothscreen' stuff gets blown way out of proportion, in my view.

I have read enough about the JVC's to believe they are much sharper than my Canon was, and did consider an RS15 as an upgrade this November-December. However FI is something I'm interested in (for sports and video based content), so the Epson 8500UB is probably what I'll end up with, as it seems to offer better implementation of that technology.

I didn't mean to ruffle the feathers of any Viper owners, as that was mostly tongue-in-cheek. A few thumbed their noses at us at the race track, but most were very cool. :)

I guess if I complain about having to look in the lower forum, I would be just as guilty of "elitism" as I have accused others in this forum. :o

Art

Fair enough.

My current room is a 13'x12'6", batcave, with a 9' wide screen. (I used to use my 13'x23' livingroom as a theater, but switched to my daughters old bedroom when she moved out.) The projector is on a shelf in the back of the room. This gives me 11' 6" from the lens to the screen. DLP will not work in this environment due to either lack of lens shift or throw/zoom ratio. I never saw rainbows, with my entry level DLP from 6 years ago, but did get eye strain and headaches if I viewed it too long.

I spent 4K on my Canon LCoS PJ 4 years ago, but it was soft to the point of being blurry, and lacked decent blacks/contrast. (I realize this was not designed for home theater use, but heard good things about it. I also used an anamorphic lens to utilize the full panel.)

When I upgraded to 1080p last year, I was limited to LCD or LCoS, due to the room constraints detailed above. I was still leary of LCoS due to my previous experience, so went with the AE2000. I am very happy with it, but would like deeper blacks than it can provide. It is *much* sharper than the Canon, and the 'smoothscreen' stuff gets blown way out of proportion, in my view.

I have read enough about the JVC's to believe they are much sharper than my Canon was, and did consider an RS15 as an upgrade this November-December. However FI is something I'm interested in (for sports and video based content), so the Epson 8500UB is probably what I'll end up with, as it seems to offer better implementation of that technology.

And here, a great example of why I don't think LCD should just prejudicially be thrown out of this forum, and what I was getting at about "performance focus", vs "price focus". You ended up with an LCD, not because you were looking for "bang for the buck" or to spend the least possible. You ended up there because of placement restrictions and performance concerns.

How about just get rid of the pricing idea.Just have one thread for DLP and one for LCD and Lcos.

Bingo! We have a winner. :)

Ahhh, now we're getting closer to a solution. It is clearly evident that the current taxonomy has outlived it's usefulness. The problem with today's online forums are you only get one taxonomy and you can't change it. I may like to see projectors by chip type (LcOS, DLP, LCD), you may like to see it by resolution (720p, 1080p) or even generically by price like we do today. Price is one of the worst taxonomies unless you subscribe to more expensive is equivalent to better quality. After all who wants to spend more hard earned money on an overpriced projector when a less expensive projector clearly outperforms the higher priced model. If I think my $2500 projector outperforms another $4000 projector where exactly do I post that topic? I propose a simpler taxonomy, just Digital Projectors. This solves all of the issues related to price, display technology, or any other attribute of digital display technology that will never meet everyone's needs for classification.

While we're at it, why not change the name of the forum to AVZ?

(Audio Video Zealot):D:D:D

Price is one of the worst taxonomies unless you subscribe to more expensive is equivalent to better quality. After all who wants to spend more hard earned money on an overpriced projector when a less expensive projector clearly outperforms the higher priced model.

Do you have specific examples in mind or are you just speaking in generalities to support your position?

I've had the chance to play with 5 year old 720 LCDs, new $20K single chip DLP, and a lot in between (from all 3 display technologies). I know people shy away from speaking from actual experience around here these days, but I am when I say that you often get what you pay for with front projectors. Performance per dollar spent is different now compared to what it was 5 years - or even 2 years - ago. As the low end increases in performance, so does the high end. Some people are willing to pay for those real increases in performance, while others are not, because they don't perceive a difference or the difference isn't worth it to them. But just because one's personal tastes and PQ thresholds are sated by a particular projector doesn't mean that everyone else's are or should be. Frankly I find it odd that there's a vocal group of people here who are bent on minimalizing the differences between various projectors which are significant in reality.

I own a 2002 C5 Corvette, which I love and can be had used for a very reasonable price. I don't feel the need to bash on guys who are buying new 2009 ZR1s because they're paying 6x the price of my now-used car when the performance bump isn't anywhere close to 6x. What ever happened to "to each his own"?

Do you have specific examples in mind or are you just speaking in generalities to support your position?

I've had the chance to play with 5 year old 720 LCDs, new $20K single chip DLP, and a lot in between (from all 3 display technologies). I know people shy away from speaking from actual experience around here these days, but I am when I say that you often get what you pay for with front projectors. ...

I was speaking in generalities. I've never believed in the price/performance axiom however. I'm not sure you do either based on your statement,
I know people shy away from speaking from actual experience around here these days, but I am when I say that you often get what you pay for with front projectors.
So do you often get what you pay for or do you always get what you pay for?

With front projectors, more often that not, you will get what you pay for.

With front projectors, more often that not, you will get what you pay for.

I wholeheartedly agree! But back on topic, is price the best taxonomy? I say no.

I think the forum should be split like this:
1. Panasonic's Latest Projector and all overpriced projectors with astonishingly small diminishing returns
2 All cheapo projectors which couldn't possibly compete with the new Panasonic Projector

I'd prefer ...

1. The projector I currently own ... only nice comments allowed.
2. Nasty comments about the shortcomings of all the projectors I don't own.

I was speaking in generalities. I've never believed in the price/performance axiom however. I'm not sure you do either based on your statement,

So do you often get what you pay for or do you always get what you pay for?

It would be foolish to make any absolute statement of the sort. HT, as with anything else, has many shades of grey. Over a large price spectrum, one can easily make the argument that performance and PQ increase with price, although not linearly. Once you start narrowing that spectrum down to a realistic budget range and add in a set of room constraints and user preferences, the price/performance line can get blurred. No one will rationally try to argue that an AE4000 will outperform and RS35. Whether a person can appreciate the performance increase from one to the other and is willing to pay for it is another subject entirely.

I think the forum should be split like this:
1. Panasonic's Latest Projector and all overpriced projectors with astonishingly small diminishing returns
2 All cheapo projectors which couldn't possibly compete with the new Panasonic Projector

I'd prefer ...

1. The projector I currently own ... only nice comments allowed.
2. Nasty comments about the shortcomings of all the projectors I don't own.

Not too far off the mark...:D

After reading this thread and knocking back a couple cocktails, I believe I’ve hit on the winning formula:
Projector forums by brand name!
1. "I can afford 100k for a projector but I bought a Panasonic and Lasik instead" forum.
2. "Accurate color gamut and sharp focus don’t matter” JVC forum.
3. “I don’t believe in measurements, SXRD is not LCOS and global price control is good” Sony forum.
4. “Living with dust blobs and I like white metal-flake cases” Epson forum.
5. “WTF happened?” Sharp\Marantz combined forum.
6. “We’ve cornered the Hello Kitty market” BENQ forum
7. “I really can afford 100k for a projector and I buy a new SIM every year to prove it” SIM forum.
8. “Holy crap, we bought the Runco company” Planar\Runco forum
9. “Leper colony” Optoma forum.

If I haven’t offended damn near everyone with this post I apologize.
Plus I’m late for a Halloween party.

Milt, that was great.

By the way, can we save the sports car metaphors for the subwoofer forum?

I left one out:
10. The "please tell me how 3 unreleased projectors that no one has seen compare to each other" forum.

I left one out:
10. The "please tell me how 3 unreleased projectors that no one has seen compare to each other" forum.

11. The projector must be expensive, reguardless of value, so I can brag about it. I can see the difference with my myopic glasses.

It's great to have a familiar benchmark (forum) to gauge trends and progress!JB;)

I like the idea of getting rid of the MSRPs but of otherwise keeping the forums the same. How about calling one "entry-level projectors" and the other "high-end projectors". That way this question will never surface again, regardless of changes in the marketplace.

For years, even as prices have fluctuated, as technology has changed and improved, each of these two forums has maintained its own separate "character" -and that won't change due to some almost arbitrary cutoff in MSRP chosen to separate one forum from the other.

The difference in the two forums has more to do with the outlook of the forum members that frequent each respective forum than it does a price cutoff. The users know where the threads for each projector belong, and it all just sort of falls into place on its own.

I like the idea of getting rid of the MSRPs but of otherwise keeping the forums the same. How about calling one "entry-level projectors" and the other "high-end projectors". That way this question will never surface again, regardless of changes in the marketplace.

For years, even as prices have fluctuated, as technology has changed and improved, each of these two forums has maintained its own separate "character" -and that won't change due to some almost arbitrary cutoff in MSRP chosen to separate one forum from the other.

The difference in the two forums has more to do with the outlook of the forum members that frequent each respective forum than it does a price cutoff. The users know where the threads for each projector belong, and it all just sort of falls into place on its own.

who decides which are Entry Level and which are High-End? sounds like the same arguing will enuse :eek:

I'm guessing it will usually work itself out (folks seem pretty civilized around here) and to keep them that way there wouldn't be the temptation to bash someone over the head with an MSRP if they happen to post in the "wrong" forum.

I'm guessing it will usually work itself out (folks seem pretty civilized around here) and to keep them that way there wouldn't be the temptation to bash someone over the head with an MSRP if they happen to post in the "wrong" forum.

I don't have quite as much faith as you do that people will be able to be reasonable about which projector belongs in which forum. We have already seen dischord about price point cutoffs and how projectors perform relative to one another. Your opinion of what is entry vs. mid can be different compared to mine or coldmachine's. Adding one more opinion for people - especially the fanboys and ones with little experience - to argue about probably wouldn't be in the best interest of everyone here.