Seen on areadvd.de:

BenQ will present at the CeBIT fair its new flagship, the W10000.

Contrast: 15,000:1
Brightness: 1,200 lumens
Availability: fourth quarter '06
Price: €10,000

Specs are looking good on these. If someone were to add an aggressive dynamic iris to DLP we would have a new level of performance.

Alan, I agree. I would much rather see a dynamic iris than an adjustable iris which sacrifices brightness for contrast. If the BenQ does not have a DI, then the 15,000:1 contrast spec is probably with an iris setting that provides little output.

Seen on areadvd.de:

BenQ will present at the CeBIT fair its new flagship, the W10000.

Contrast: 15,000:1
Brightness: 1,200 lumens
Availability: fourth quarter '06
Price: €10,000


Just hope it's not going to turn into another fiasco like 8710 or 8720. BenQ's record of non-delivering has done some massive damage to its credibility. This will be a really good opportunity to put things to right.

Sigh.

Price: €10,000

= $12,000 US for a BenQ.

Ruby still looking the better value option.

I am waiting to see what price Marantz will price their 1080P at as a current S3 owner to see what I should do.

My dream 3 Chip 1080P DLP is looking like it will be quite expensive come end of 2006.

IF (and that's a BIG if) the lumens are anywhere near close to 1,200 (I'll settle with 800) and the true panel CR is close to 10k:1, then we have a winner.
If not, I'll wait for the magic 1,000 lumen - 10k:1 REAL panel CR for $5k or less...
It should be here by 2008...

Better Value, maybe, keep in mind that the Ruby's MSRP is $10,000.

I would love to see one of these one chip DLPs. Im hoping for a dynamic iris as well, and also a HQV processor like the Yamaha 1300 would be nice.

That would tie it all up nicely. :)

= $12,000 US for a BenQ.

Ruby still looking the better value option.
Stuff is usually a bit more expensive in Europe thanks to VAT and so forth, so it's still quite reasonable to expect an MSRP of US$10000.

And I don't agree
IMO the price for it is more than that really costs

Stuff is usually a bit more expensive in Europe thanks to VAT and so forth, so it's still quite reasonable to expect an MSRP of US$10000.

That's right.

To hit those specs I'd think it would have to use some sort of dynamic iris. With a lamp that can put out 1200 lumens I don't see how it could get a 15000:1 CR otherwise. Unless its 15000:1 _OR_ 1200 lumens - I have a feeling that's more likely the case. Also we do not know what the real lumen post D65 calibration. Ruby still looks like it is far ahead in terms of price/performance, plus it is here now.

Hey Guys

Just come back home from holidays. Interesting to see this from Benq.

Any Aussies know any info on price/availability here in OZ??

Ben

I think this 15000:1 is a numbers game and something from the marketing department. None of the other 1080p 1DLP are specified above 10000:1 and some much less.
I think Benq has
1 few lumen with that number
2 uses an auto iris or lamp modulation

I am not saying any of those two things are a bad thing. I am just saying that I do not believe Benq has a native contrast of 15000:1.

To hit those specs I'd think it would have to use some sort of dynamic iris. With a lamp that can put out 1200 lumens I don't see how it could get a 15000:1 CR otherwise. Unless its 15000:1 _OR_ 1200 lumens - I have a feeling that's more likely the case. Also we do not know what the real lumen post D65 calibration. Ruby still looks like it is far ahead in terms of price/performance, plus it is here now.

1080 DLP will do very well. Once these things start shipping a new all time hi level of 1080 excittment will hit:)

So, Christmas.....................? :(

Art

So, Christmas.....................? :(

Sony caught TI completely by surprise with the Ruby, and this is the fallout. Most manufacturers aren't ready to ship 1080p products, and those that are had to cobble together something less than optimal (Optoma's H81) just to get to market quickly. Sim2 may release something nice, but I'm not a fan of their 720p DLPs so I'm not getting my hopes up.

LCD manufacturers missed the boat also. This was the perfect opportunity for them to introduce high contrast 1080p LCDs without any competition from DLP.

This is all good news TI must get off its fat butttt :D :D

This is all good news TI must got off its fat butttt :D :D

Agreed. This is the best thing to happen. After things do start shipping and kick into gear things will be at a all new level of excittment from all sides. We know whats coming from TI but I wonder what is next from LCD. Its been quiet.

Any news about infocus releasing a projector with the 1080p dlp chip?

Alan, I agree. I would much rather see a dynamic iris than an adjustable iris which sacrifices brightness for contrast. If the BenQ does not have a DI, then the 15,000:1 contrast spec is probably with an iris setting that provides little output.

I'd rather see a projector that starts out with enough light that an adjustable iris will give great native CR and then DI as icing. From all of this it is obvious that the DI does some great things but given a choice most would choose great native on off.

Art

Hi Art

I agree. Thats whats wrong with the Ruby. Its just not bright enough when using the iris auto mode. The upper end suffers but then again if it had more brightness I wounder of the brightness compression would be worse.
The dynamic iris is like a band aid. It indeed helps the low end at the price of damage to the upper end. I wonder with more engineering coupled with further gamma tweaking if its something that can be approved upon or maybe the iris will be dropped over time and fade away in projection history.
I remember the trying the dynamic iris and dynamic gamma on the Panasonic 3 chip. It did not have the crushed white issue the Ruby has but its possible the iris was not being used as aggressive as it is in the Ruby. Man that Panny is one bright machine. Plenty of light to spare :)

I'd rather see a projector that starts out with enough light that an adjustable iris will give great native CR and then DI as icing. From all of this it is obvious that the DI does some great things but given a choice most would choose great native on off.

I agree, but one of the problems is that we are limited by the chip/panel CRs quite a bit right now. For DLPs I think an auto iris would be a logical next step as improving the chip CRs to give native (or static) on/off CR above 10k:1 is probably pretty difficult even at lower light outputs.

From a poll here it looks like most people leave the Ruby in auto iris mode. I have my contrast at 70, #43 in the service menu at 140 and I prefer the auto iris for most things. Most of the time if I see white crushing and check I find that it is in the source, although there are cases where it isn't all in the source and the auto iris takes away some bright detail.

--Darin

Alan,

"It did not have the crushed white issue the Ruby has but its possible the iris was not being used as aggressive as it is in the Ruby"

Was that at the expense of it not giving a subjective improvement in contrast?

Thanks

...From a poll here it looks like most people leave the Ruby in auto iris mode. I have my contrast at 70, #43 in the service menu at 140 and I prefer the auto iris for most things. Most of the time if I see white crushing and check I find that it is in the source, although there are cases where it isn't all in the source and the auto iris takes away some bright detail.

--Darin

Darin are you still using 700 for #44?

Also have you tried running at Contrast of 80 but backed down to 70 due to BC? According to Greg lowering from 80 to 70 can reduce the CR quite significantly. I run at 80 and still hardly notice BC. It may certainly be there at times, but if so its not objectionable and I'll trade it for the extra CR and punch any day.

Just hope it's not going to turn into another fiasco like 8710 or 8720. BenQ's record of non-delivering has done some massive damage to its credibility. This will be a really good opportunity to put things to right.


What exactly do you mean, a fiasco like the 8720? I read from the people who have one on this forum that it's a great projector? I'm I missing something?

A year probably.

There was a huge amount of time between announcing the product and delivering to market, which frustrated quite a lot of people who wanted one (and in most cases bought elsewhere when they got fed up waiting).

Gary.

A year probably.

There was a huge amount of time between announcing the product and delivering to market, which frustrated quite a lot of people who wanted one (and in most cases bought elsewhere when they got fed up waiting).

Gary.


Ok, it's true I havn't been folowing this forum for a year :-) I'm pretty new here... However the 8720 looks pretty good to me, especially after reading all the possitive feedback on this forum.

I am in on the Powerbuy if it comes around. I have actually already PM'd Neil at TVA inquiring about this PJ. Maybe Neil can work with Alan and get a Powerbuy rolling.

Wishful thinking:)

J-dubb

Here's a picture:

http://www.areadvd.de/lm/AV_Hardware/Images/cbbenqW10000.JPG

Looks familiar...

No mentioning of HQV though..
Looks like a 8720 casing/lens + the new 1080 chip. Nice.
Any one wants to guess the throw ? hope not too long...

Here's a picture:

http://www.areadvd.de/lm/AV_Hardware/Images/cbbenqW10000.JPG

Looks familiar...

Checkout the CEBIT BenQ page:

http://www.benq.com/cebit2006/products/products.html

Those who wanted a 1080p DLP with horizontal and vertical lens shift will be happy.

If they do not have any bulb issues they may have a winner. Well, that is if they get it below the 9,999 mark. I hope Optoma takes notes on the features it has. A 1080p DLP PJ that is installer friendly and under 9,999 would do quite well.

Those who wanted a 1080p DLP with horizontal and vertical lens shift will be happy.

Is there anymore info about it? Technical specs as throw ratio or lens shift...

cheers

juan

Benq told me at Cebit that the "roll out" for the PJ is mid to late 2007.

Best Regards
Michael

2007?????

Wow...

Yes 2007. That´s what they told me. Also they have no 1080P at Cebit. So they start a discussion about " why do we need 1080P? We have with the 8720 a really good PJ" and so on. I think you know this marketing blablabla at fairs.

Best Regards
Michael

Why do they need 1080p? And sometime late 2007? It's statements like that, that make me glad I am taking the Ruby route...

Just read that a guy from Belgium was told by a dealer that the PE8720 is being discontinued because BenQ is allegedly preparing a 1080p projector for late 2006. Price would be €5,000 - 6,000.

Is it possible to not see rainbows on a higher-end 1080p single chip DLP like this new BenQ, dVision 1080p, Action! Model III, HT3000 etc?

Just read that a guy from Belgium was told by a dealer that the PE8720 is being discontinued because BenQ is allegedly preparing a 1080p projector for late 2006. Price would be €5,000 - 6,000.


the Benq site says Q4 2006 release for the W10000

that's odd, as I just talkied to Stephanie- a Benq dealer/sales rep who posts here(just a few minutes ago as a matter of fact) and i've asked her within the last week what were the chances that the 8720 would be discontinued going into the fall, and she said she doubted it.
They just got another shipment of them in and also said that Benq always tries to make sure they (TVA) have stock always on hand. I'm surpirsed no one has told her yet, if this really is the case.

I'm a bit concerned as I was hoping to upgrade to the 8720 soon, and I'm just trying to juggle an order between working on the road over the next month or so.
I'm going to be seriously bummed if when I finally pull the trigger, the target isn't there.

Is it possible to not see rainbows on a higher-end 1080p single chip DLP like this new BenQ, dVision 1080p, Action! Model III, HT3000 etc?


The new Marantz VP11s1 has a 6x color wheel. Everyone that has seen it has reported no rainbows.

The last generation of DLP pjs was also reported to have no rainbows... Seeing is believing... ;)

Well, I can confirm that the 1080p is most likely in production due to the latest price drop on the 8720. I have not been informed that the 8720 is disco'd either. I was actually told that the 8720 would be a current model moving forward after the 1080p came along to offer a lower price point 720p option. Now that may be true, or BenQ may redesign the 8720 to a different model number, who knows. I could see it either way. I do know that 720p PJ from Benq or any other manufacturer aren't just going away.

At what viewing distance--e.g., 1.5 x screen width, 1.3 x SW, etc.--does the benefit of 1080p over 720p become apparant (for a dlp pj)? (for normal 20x20 vision)

At what viewing distance--e.g., 1.5 x screen width, 1.3 x SW, etc.--does the benefit of 1080p over 720p become apparant (for a dlp pj)? (for normal 20x20 vision)

Well, I just took my Ruby down and put my 8720 back up. I was amazed at how easily I could see the pixelization from my 1.5x seating distance. It had never been a distraction at all and still really isn't but you can certainly see the difference in the image. I would not call it SDE but more like courseness. That being said, I still think the single chip DLP has a good bit more of a 3D image from its higher ANSI contrast. This is why I think the new 1080p DLPs will be the best of both world's, no pixelization and higher detail with that razor sharp 3D image. This providing the RBE is improved or doesn't already bother you.

Wow, so it makes a diff even at 1.5 x SW! Very interesting.

The bottom line is that everyone's vision is not the same. That's a major reason why YMMV. Hence, it behooves any prospective buyer to see it first and "kick the tires". If you can't find a dealer and you're not the first in your neighborhood, find an AVS member close by with one, send them a PM, and see it for yourself. Only you can determine if the PJ has rainbows, is too dim, etc. Or that it looks like the best think since sliced bread at a price you're willing to spend.

As for your eyesight, YMMV on any give night too. Hence the term, beer goggles. ;)

Well, I just took my Ruby down and put my 8720 back up. I was amazed at how easily I could see the pixelization from my 1.5x seating distance. It had never been a distraction at all and still really isn't but you can certainly see the difference in the image. I would not call it SDE but more like courseness. That being said, I still think the single chip DLP has a good bit more of a 3D image from its higher ANSI contrast. This is why I think the new 1080p DLPs will be the best of both world's, no pixelization and higher detail with that razor sharp 3D image. This providing the RBE is improved or doesn't already bother you.A nice summary for me, at least, of my reasons for waiting for a 1080p DLP. By September we'll presumably know more about BenQ's plans in this arena.

Dan

Maybe the Ruby looks less course because it's Lcos and not some much that its 1080p.

I'd rather see a projector that starts out with enough light that an adjustable iris will give great native CR and then DI as icing. From all of this it is obvious that the DI does some great things but given a choice most would choose great native on off.

Art
I could not agree with you more. Personally I would never purchase a high-end projector with a dynamic iris--that is charming enough on a sub 2K LCD projector but I would think purchasers of more expensive projectors would demand better native contrast with excellent dynamics rather then settle for a broad brush like a dynamic iris or a grey screen. There are plenty of low cost disposable projectors that produce a very enjoyable picture to throw money at a high-end product that uses a flawed, bandaid to produce darks.

Here's a quote from Mr. Wigggles on 1080 vs 720:

"Yes, with average vision, you will start to see noticeable differences between 720p and 1080p starting at 2 screen widths back. At 1.5 screen widths the difference should be very obvious - the 1080p image WILL BE SMOOTHER than 720p.

Now, the 1080p will also LIKELY be more DETAILED but that will depend on content. A lot of HD content has over 720p detail but very little HD content available today has full 1920 X 1080 detail (in terms of MTF).

In other words, a 1080p projector with good scaling should be less digital looking than a 720p competitor. However, the final image is only as good as the content.

This lack of detail issue in the content is the main reason I'm not transitioning to a 1080p projector until high definition DVD is available. That's a different discussion...

-Mr. Wigggles"

Here's a quote from Mr. Wigggles on 1080 vs 720:

"Yes, with average vision, you will start to see noticeable differences between 720p and 1080p starting at 2 screen widths back. At 1.5 screen widths the difference should be very obvious - the 1080p image WILL BE SMOOTHER than 720p.

Now, the 1080p will also LIKELY be more DETAILED but that will depend on content. A lot of HD content has over 720p detail but very little HD content available today has full 1920 X 1080 detail (in terms of MTF).

In other words, a 1080p projector with good scaling should be less digital looking than a 720p competitor. However, the final image is only as good as the content.

This lack of detail issue in the content is the main reason I'm not transitioning to a 1080p projector until high definition DVD is available. That's a different discussion...

-Mr. Wigggles"

But does all that apply if we are comparing a 3 chip 720p DLP to a single chip 1080p DLP with a video processor like CII?

I could not agree with you more. Personally I would never purchase a high-end projector with a dynamic iris--that is charming enough on a sub 2K LCD projector but I would think purchasers of more expensive projectors would demand better native contrast with excellent dynamics rather then settle for a broad brush like a dynamic iris or a grey screen. There are plenty of low cost disposable projectors that produce a very enjoyable picture to throw money at a high-end product that uses a flawed, bandaid to produce darks.

Rubbish.

How many shipping pjs have a native cr higher than the Ruby? As has been stated many times, high native cr and dynamic iris are not mutally exclusive. Also, I believe the vast majority of people that have pjs with a dynamic iris leave the iris in auto mode.

There is always the option of turning it off...

"There are plenty of low cost disposable projectors that produce a very enjoyable picture to throw money at a high-end product that uses a flawed, bandaid to produce darks."

Those low cost pj's are enjoyable because they have DI.

I could not agree with you more. Personally I would never purchase a high-end projector with a dynamic iris--that is charming enough on a sub 2K LCD projector but I would think purchasers of more expensive projectors would demand better native contrast with excellent dynamics rather then settle for a broad brush like a dynamic iris or a grey screen. There are plenty of low cost disposable projectors that produce a very enjoyable picture to throw money at a high-end product that uses a flawed, bandaid to produce darks.Just so I get this straight, if 2 high end projectors have the same CR without a DI, but one of them includes it, then you would pick the one that doesn't? Or how about that that if one high end projector gets say 10% more on/off CR without a DI as the 2nd projector gets with the DI disabled, but the 2nd one gets 3x the on/off CR with the DI, then you would take the first one? It isn't like Sony would have been getting more than 3k:1 or 5k:1 (numbers you can get choosing a fixed iris position in the menu) if they had removed the DI feature.

And do you mean your "bandaid" comment to apply to grey screens? If so, on what basis? Please don't say that it is because they mess up the colors as that contradicts the reality. As I believe I explained in my article about CR, grey screens are really for the rooms. If the projector is bright enough then a grey screen will give you higher simultaneous CRs in real rooms, all else being equal (and with the improvement to simultaneous CRs being highest with the lightest colored rooms).

--Darin

Just so I get this straight, if 2 high end projectors have the same CR without a DI, but one of them includes it, then you would pick the one that doesn't? Or how about that that if one high end projector gets say 10% more on/off CR without a DI as the 2nd projector gets with the DI disabled, but the 2nd one gets 3x the on/off CR with the DI, then you would take the first one? It isn't like Sony would have been getting more than 3k:1 or 5k:1 (numbers you can get choosing a fixed iris position in the menu) if they had removed the DI feature.

And do you mean your "bandaid" comment to apply to grey screens? If so, on what basis? Please don't say that it is because they mess up the colors as that contradicts the reality. As I believe I explained in my article about CR, grey screens are really for the rooms. If the projector is bright enough then a grey screen will give you higher simultaneous CRs in real rooms, all else being equal (and with the improvement to simultaneous CRs being highest with the lightest colored rooms).

--Darin
A grey screen like a DI is an all or nothing approach. Both methods affect every aspect of the image without respect to dynamically different aspects of the image. This is a very flawed approach to rendering an image that can include very contrasting elements. The strength or advantage of DLP projectors is that they don’t have a DI and the contrast and black level do not sacrifice or impinge upon image dynamics. Why give the DLP projector manufacturers permission to take the easy solution of a DI, which was created to improve contrast-challenged LCD projectors. I would rather see the basic strength and advantage of DLP technology further advanced so what is superior about it is enhanced. Without regard to room lighting conditions or wall color a grey in my opinion ruins a good image. Sure if you plan to watch your projector only in the daytime in a room with lights on then the firehawk is ok but if your critical viewing is in the evening with the lights off then you will see a very noticeably superior image with the studiotek fabric.

I would rather see the basic strength and advantage of DLP technology further advanced so what is superior about it is enhanced.A DI doesn't preclude those other improvements. If you want on/off CR like the monitors used for mastering the material it is going to be quite a while before the DLPs match that without a DI.
Without regard to room lighting conditions or wall color a grey in my opinion ruins a good image. Sure if you plan to watch your projector only in the daytime in a room with lights on then the firehawk is ok but if your critical viewing is in the evening with the lights off then you will see a very noticeably superior image with the studiotek fabric.I didn't say the Firehawk and neither did you. You said "grey". The Firehawk has some properties that aren't the same as all grey screens and applying any weaknesses of it to all gray screens would be a mistake. With a projector putting out 1000 lumens on a Grayhawk RS and a projector putting out 730 lumens on a StudioTek 130 in a room with no lights on, how would the images differ? Or pick a StudioTek 150 vs a Grayhawk RS with the same ft-lamberts. Do you think the StudioTek 150 ruins the images? Are you in the camp that higher ft-lamberts are always better? Would you say that 22 ft-lamberts is always better than 16 when the lights are off (all else being equal)? If not, then what is it you think is better about the StudioTek 130 than the Grayhawk RS?

What is it you think all gray screens do to images that are bad? Do you consider reducing the effect of reflections off the walls in a room and maintaining more of the simultaneous CR that the projector is doing to be a bad thing? Is it just the making images dimmer? Do you believe that putting bulbs on low vs high makes the images look inferior?

If I showed you a combination that was doing 12 ft-lamberts in a black velvet room could you tell me whether the screen was a white one or a gray one just by looking at the images? If so, how?

--Darin

leckian, I agree with you :) , especially this :

Why give the DLP projector manufacturers permission to take the easy solution of a DI

this is exactly the reason why we should NOT encourage the following to happen :

if 2 high end projectors have the same CR without a DI, but one of them includes it

This is, IMHO, encouraging bad practice.

A DI doesn't preclude those other improvements

well on the surface it looks so, but I believe in reality it does. Whenever manufacturers have an easy way out, it will not spend efforts trying the harder (albeit more "correct") way.

For example, I always believe DLP was invented with 3chips in mind. I always feel if at day one a single chip DLP was completely rejected, and we blew up the RBE issue out of proportion (like saying "it will cause mental problems, long term health issues"), we will be seeing 3chips becoming norm today. Instead we accepted the easy way out of a faster color wheel, and today, we are embracing a "high-end" 1080p single chip DLP! Take the same analogy to DI, if we embrace it now as a "good" alternative to improve contrast, instead of better optics, better mirrors, faster chips, better timing controls, etc, 2 yrs later we will be seeing more intelligent DIs, instead of better chips and better optics. Is this the outcome we would like to see ? To me it looks like a short term gain and long term loss. How I wish 3chip DLP could be the norm...

c722,
There are several fallacies in your argument. Others, like Darin, will surely jump in, but I have to say at least regarding the 3 chip theory, that it isn't necessarily superior in every way. Sequential color with a spinning wheel may not be the ultimate solution, but what about the upcoming LED based designs, and laser based designs? They will be sequential, yes, but with a "refresh" speed so high as to be imperceptible by nearly everyone. As far as convergence is concerned, there are NO issues with 1 chip, and I for one have never seen a perfectly aligned 3-chip of any technology, DLP or otherwise, so in this case, 1 chip is actually better than 3 chips. The LED and laser designs will also vastly improve the black level and contrast performance of the 1 chip DLP, to the point that a DI will not be necessary to achieve truly exceptional performance in that category. As a side, available color gamut should be improved as well, if I am not mistaken.


I always feel if at day one a single chip DLP was completely rejected, and we blew up the RBE issue out of proportion (like saying "it will cause mental problems, long term health issues"), we will be seeing 3chips becoming norm today.

Why interject fear and loathing into a rational technical discussion? It is entirely unnecessary. :)

I would take a 3 chip over a single chip any day. 6,220,800 pixels versus 2,073,600... :)

Why interject fear and loathing into a rational technical discussion? It is entirely unnecessary. :)

point taken. thanks! :)
u know initially I just wanted to say "leckian I agreed with you" only. but then I got a bit carried away, and started to remember some time ago there was a discussion on why single chip is "immoral". :)

Loathing aside, I'm probably in the minority that do not like DI in general. I believe Darin already responded to me directly more than once that, DI, if done properly, does give sufficiently gd results. Well let's just settle to agree to disagree. :)

leckian, I agree with you :) , especially this :



this is exactly the reason why we should NOT encourage the following to happen :



This is, IMHO, encouraging bad practice.



well on the surface it looks so, but I believe in reality it does. Whenever manufacturers have an easy way out, it will not spend efforts trying the harder (albeit more "correct") way.

For example, I always believe DLP was invented with 3chips in mind. I always feel if at day one a single chip DLP was completely rejected, and we blew up the RBE issue out of proportion (like saying "it will cause mental problems, long term health issues"), we will be seeing 3chips becoming norm today. Instead we accepted the easy way out of a faster color wheel, and today, we are embracing a "high-end" 1080p single chip DLP! Take the same analogy to DI, if we embrace it now as a "good" alternative to improve contrast, instead of better optics, better mirrors, faster chips, better timing controls, etc, 2 yrs later we will be seeing more intelligent DIs, instead of better chips and better optics. Is this the outcome we would like to see ? To me it looks like a short term gain and long term loss. How I wish 3chip DLP could be the norm...


Again I ask, how many pjs are getting higher cr with out a DI than the ruby does with its DI turned off?

What is the evidence from those who think that a DI stifles increases in native cr?

High cr numbers from pjs without a DI only come from a very closed iris and hence very dim pjs. At present the only chance we have of having decent light output and high cr is using a DI.

It reads as if some of the upcoming 1080p dlps will have a DI and I bet they will look outstanding.

Loathing aside, I'm probably in the minority that do not like DI in general. I believe Darin already responded to me directly more than once that, DI, if done properly, does give sufficiently gd results. Well let's just settle to agree to disagree. :)

I am not sure you are in the majority as I have heard a number of people indicating that they want natively high CR no DI. THat would be an interesting pole. I personally agree with you that I don't like DI, or at least I don't like the implementations of DI that I have seen. Mainly Sony HS51 and Ruby. I feel as though it artificially dims/darkens the darker scenes to the point were shadow detail is destroyed. Disable IRIS and half the scene is revealed.....I think I might be favorable to a more conservative DI to improve an already high native CR.

I am not sure you are in the majority as I have heard a number of people indicating that they want natively high CR no DI. THat would be an interesting pole.Might be an interesting poll, but how about the following:

Which would you rather have:

1. Your salary without having to go to work.
2. Your salary while having to go to work.

My point being, that of course people want super high CR without a DI and if you ask people if they would rather have the same CR with a DI or without you should know what the response would be. It doesn't mean that they are both options right now and it doesn't mean that they shouldn't do DI's any more than option #1 above means people don't choose to take option #2 because the first one isn't available.

--Darin

That post made perfect sense. Well put! ;)

Might be an interesting poll, but how about the following:

Which would you rather have:

1. Your salary without having to go to work.
2. Your salary while having to go to work.
--Darin

3. Your salary while Darin works for it by improving CR for projector makers.

I would go for 3 myself its a win-win.

Daniel.

"I am not sure you are in the majority as I have heard a number of people indicating that they want natively high CR no DI. "

From what I've read the majority of Ruby owners leave the autoiris on.

I would take a 3 chip over a single chip any day. 6,220,800 pixels versus 2,073,600...

I've never really thought about it this way, but don't 3 chips have the possibility of 3 times as many bad pixels? Oh, the anxiety.......


I sure was impressed with the inter field and overall contrast on te Sim C3X, much more so than the Ruby I saw for some reason.

The Sim C3X does look great but a Ruby properly calibrated should have the same if not better looking effect. I still can't SEE anything wrong with my Ruby. And now I am over 150 hours! :)

I would take a 3 chip over a single chip any day. 6,220,800 pixels versus 2,073,600... :)

Yes, but those additional pixels are overlaid on top of each other to become one color. A single chip projector uses one pixel (mirror) for one color. Panel misalignment will cause that 3 chipper's pixel to be less defined than the single chipper.

This comes from a LCD projector owner. My next projector will be 1080 DLP.

I would still take more than less... :D

Posted by stephanie@tva:

10,000:1 amazing contrast ratio
Advanced Electronic Iris
Whisper Noise level: 23 db
Motorized Lens Shift

More later..

Posted by stephanie@tva:

10,000:1 amazing contrast ratio
Advanced Electronic Iris
Whisper Noise level: 23 db
Motorized Lens Shift

More later..
Good get Grubert.

Posted by stephanie@tva:

10,000:1 amazing contrast ratio
Advanced Electronic Iris
Whisper Noise level: 23 db
Motorized Lens Shift

More later..

It's "later". ;)

Any more info?

It's "later". ;)

Any more info?

http://blog.ultimateavmag.com/cedia2006/BenQ.jpg

MSRP $6,999

Finally, another DLP 1080p pj (to go along with Optoma's HD-81) under $10K, to compete with all the new LCD and LCOS ones coming out. Sounds like the latter have improved considerably, but I still like DLP's very sharp look.

$6999 ?? wow !
could be EUR 5999 in EUrope maybe ???

Wow, I'm really excited with what I've been hearing about the W10000: 1100 to 1200 lumens (what should one expect after calibration to 6500K?), great CR, an iris that can be set manually (and also has DI capabilities if you want it), short enough throw to mount the pj right behind your head for best results with a HighPower screen, vertical lens shift, etc., and a $6K MSRP! I was getting a bit depressed (since I can't fit the Optoma HD-81 in my configuration) that I might have to go with a LCOS or LCD 1080p pj--but I really like DLP!! So the BenQ seems like a great prospect. It seems that the W10000 will be in the same frame as the 8720, with the 1080p chip, and other modest up-grades. I haven't followed the 8720 threads in detail; is it judged to be a very successful product? Any crucial problems?

I'm hoping that Infocus and Samsung will also produce competitive 1080p dlp's in this price range (Sharp, Sim2, Marantz are really more than I want to throw at this). But the BenQ W10000 looks like a potentially great product. Really looking forward to hearing more about it, and especially reports and reviews when it comes out (I'm not buying until next spring at the earliest).

...and also has DI capabilities if you want it...Have we gotten any confirmation of that?

--Darin

Have we gotten any confirmation of that?--Darin

Not at all. (I don't know anything, only what I read here in the Forum!) But one of Grubert's posts said 'Advanced Electronic Iris', which I took to mean a DI. Know nothing more than this.

the 8720 is supposed to be an excellant 720p. The only problems that people have been reporting are some bulb flicker that seems to go away with changes in high/low lamp mode. There have also been issues of solarization that seem tied to color wheel speed and once an adjustment is made in the service menu, it goes away. I was going to order one in July and Aug, but as time passed I'd figured I might as well wait for CEDIA- which I'm glad I did. I might have been inclined to still go with the 8720, but not at $4K.
The optics are supposed to be stellar with it- very quiet- and excellant black levels and shadow detail.
I get a much better vibe about this one, and the JVC LCOS, then I do about the Pearl- but doggone it the Pearl just fits into the budget better.
I wish I had the luxury of waiting 6 months, but with my work schedule, my down time ifalls right in the middle of this period and after a pretty stressful year, I've been looking forward to sititng dwon and relaxing with a new pj since July.
Hopefully the depreciation on the Pearl woun't be so outrageous that it will get me by for a year or so and then I can upgrade to the JVC or go back to a DLP and by that time the Benq should be well under $5.

the 8720 is supposed to be an excellant 720p. The only problems that people have been reporting are some bulb flicker that seems to go away with changes in high/low lamp mode. There have also been issues of solarization that seem tied to color wheel speed and once an adjustment is made in the service menu, it goes away. I was going to order one in July and Aug, but as time passed I'd figured I might as well wait for CEDIA- which I'm glad I did. I might have been inclined to still go with the 8720, but not at $4K.
The optics are supposed to be stellar with it- very quiet- and excellant black levels and shadow detail.
I get a much better vibe about this one, and the JVC LCOS, then I do about the Pearl- but doggone it the Pearl just fits into the budget better.
I wish I had the luxury of waiting 6 months, but with my work schedule, my down time ifalls right in the middle of this period and after a pretty stressful year, I've been looking forward to sititng dwon and relaxing with a new pj since July.
Hopefully the depreciation on the Pearl woun't be so outrageous that it will get me by for a year or so and then I can upgrade to the JVC or go back to a DLP and by that time the Benq should be well under $5.

Thanks much for the up-date on BenQ! Sounds like the W10000 will be simply an up-dated and enhanced 8720, which seems not bad. Any guess about calibrated lumens? I.e., does BenQ's quote of lumens tend to be close to the 6500K calibrated value, or is it off by the typical factor of 2? So what would you expect for the calibrated lumens of the W10000, with its quoted spec being 1100 to 1200?

Hopefully the depreciation on the Pearl woun't be so outrageous that it will get me by for a year or so and then I can upgrade to the JVC or go back to a DLP and by that time the Benq should be well under $5.

Dude, I doubt the BenQ will ever be under 5 bucks!


;)

Not at all. Forum!) But one of Grubert's posts said 'Advanced Electronic Iris', which I took to mean a DI. Know nothing more than this.

Just like the 8720, the iris is a "manually" controlled electronic iris. DI would be a dynamic Iris which is controlled by the software in the projector such as what's in the Ruby and Pearl. Not the same thing.

Rick

Just like the 8720, the iris is a "manually" controlled electronic iris. DI would be a dynamic Iris which is controlled by the software in the projector such as what's in the Ruby and Pearl. Not the same thing.

Rick

Thanks for clarifying this; and I apologize if my above remarks about 'DI' misled anybody (probably on those as naive as I!).

A manual iris is fine with me; just would like to be able to open it up for high brightness during with daytime (which is not so often), when a little light is in the room and super CR not necessary, and then close it down at night. Seems like the best of the two situations.

dynamic modulation will only work for DLP's ..potentially..only on 3 chip units, or potentially with LED light sources. The only way I am aware of -in that a DLP unit, be it 3 chip or single chip, can have it's output 'modulated' - is at the iris, not before the point where light is introduced to the panel.

On a LCD, SXRD, or DILA, the light source is like a blunderbuss, when it comes to control of that light. Introducing a modulation of that lightpath is no biggie. However, the modulated light source only does something for ON/OFF spec, and does nearly nothing for the CR in a given 'scene'.

On a DLP, the light source MUST be tightly collimnated, and precisely controlled. A 'clamping jaw' as like that in the PTAE-900U Panasonic LCD unit -and in similar SXRD and other LCD units- simply won't work for DLP.

The secondary mirror for the wobulation, is what allows the HALF CHIP solution to work with DLP, ie, the faux 1080P of the HP engine design, with the wobulating chip. This is the 10k:1 CR thing we see these days. I have yet to take one of thes wobulated units apart, but I fully expect that they can be dramatically improved, in terms of 'realized' CR, not 'measureable' CR. Personally, I don't like the look of the wobulated chips at all. I want a true 1080P chip. The BenQ specs say 10K:1 CR, which makes me leery of it being a wobulation design. The wobulated designs have issues with CR in motional video. Obvious blurring and shortening of CR when things are moving about.

I've no looked at DLP's for quite some time, waiting for true 1080P single chip units. Are they finally appearing, and is this BenQ one of them?? Or is it a yucky Wobulator unit?

PS, with LED light soruce, I fully expect single chip DLP CR to be +20k:1, (infinity if you want it, just like CRT- a perfect black, but meaningless in the real world) and +1k-2k:1 or more in dark scenes. That should be enough for even the biggest CRT whiners. Art. :p BTW I'm still using modded CRT's between the modded DLP and LCD, and SXRD units.

I sell screens, not projector opinions. It's all good!!! :) :p :)

However, the modulated light source only does something for ON/OFF spec, and does nearly nothing for the CR in a given 'scene'.We've been over this before, but increasing the on/off CR does increase the CR in many, many scenes with dual modulation. The math is pretty simple. Just pick a scene where the brightest thing is 50 IRE and it should be easy to see that a dual modulation system will give higher simultaneous CR. Same with some stuff with a little 100 IRE if they do it with compression of the whites.
The BenQ specs say 10K:1 CR, which makes me leery of it being a wobulation design.It should be a full 1080p chip, just like the Sharp 20k that claims 12k:1 on/off CR. I assume that is just with both irises closed down.

--Darin

I think ALL the 1080p dlp PROJECTORS use the full 0.95", non-wobulated TI chip. Not so?

I think ALL the 1080p dlp PROJECTORS use the full 0.95", non-wobulated TI chip. Not so?

I'm pretty sure this is correct too.

I think ALL the 1080p dlp PROJECTORS use the full 0.95", non-wobulated TI chip. Not so?

Yes indeed. Wobulation was just used on some RPTV units.

Yes indeed. Wobulation was just used on some RPTV units.

I don't think any RPTV's yet have the 'full', 0.95" non-wobulated 1080p chip.

D*mn my BenQ 8720 only has about 300 hrs on it and is ISF cailibrated but I already have the itch to upgrade... Any chance that since this is the same housing that it is upgradeable to the 1080p?

I did a search and see that tvauthority previously had a trade in for the BenQ 7700 and gave 2k credit plus another $500 off the sales price towards the 8720. They dont have anything like this offered currently though...

Does anyone know of any other place that made to trade-ins like this?