...And like business math handicapped Darin, you keep giving me the numbers to prove my point. (No - not the fact that Rubys are going for about 50% of their new value on e-Bay at eight months. We need to wait a bit more for when the "cheap" 1080p DLPs ship. Then my numbers will start validating themselves regardless of Darins attempts to discredit them and his fast falling Ruby).
Icon,

I actually do think you have something of value to contribute, but when you clearly manipulate facts, your credibility goes straight down the toilet, and then it is hard for you to get any valuable point across. The ebay prices for Rubies are at +75% ($6K or more) of their original street prices from your discussion 5 months ago, a far cry from the 50% you just tried to slip in. Conversely the Canon is at less than 50% ($2K)of its street value from 5 months ago, yet you totally ignored it. Your business math has been continuously found severely wanting on many occasions, and sadly your constant slights make the mistakes seem to be manipulative in nature.

The Canon is an excellent product for what it is, hype it on its own merits. To attempt to hype out of its context and by obviously misrepresenting other products that serve a different market just devalues any discussion pertaining to the canon units.

PS You keep on mentioning your Mitsu unit, but that is a business projector. Why don't you get your hands on the new Mitsu (WD 2000). It is extremely bright, it has many pluses and some minuses (it is not a replacement for a canon, they both serve different needs), and you may find it of interest (it is far superior to a Mitsu business FP).

Ciao

I'm not biased, you are: you are stating that DLPs screendoor gives them an inferior image, and I just stated the fact that I sit approx 1.5 x screen width away (as do many others) and see no screen door.

Nice analogy but utterly wrong. The gaps are not mixed into the pixels like paint so don't have the effect you are saying. Mixing light and mixing paint work in totaly different ways too (we did that at school). If anything, only less light will be reflected due to a smaller reflecting surface area (provided both technologies have the same reflectance). With DLP being mirrors I would think they would have more reflectance than LCoS, but of course the DLP colour wheel will reduce the light output, so assuming the same lamp and lumen output it would be interesting to see what the differences really were.

Wow - you're now suggesting that better black level is associated with the larger screen door, yets LCDs have approx 60% fill factor and also have inferior blacks to DLP, so how does that work then?

If you want a totaly screendoor free technology, why don't you have a CRT?
Gary.

Gary - some of the comments in my last post were responses to several messages other than yours. Sorry if you thought they were aimed at you.

I was kidding in my comment about the blacker blacks of DLP being that way due to their larger than LCOS screen door but obviously that went by some folks. But I see that you and many are totally off the mark on understanding the effect of SD on the ENTIRE image - the forrest as it were.

Lets take this to an extreme to make the point. Lets say in one case we have a perfect picture projected with no pixels being shown. Then lets take a hypothetical case like the original Sharp unit showing the same image and the pixel lines take up 50% of the image. We are talking really thick pixel lines. We have these two images projected on the wall next to each other. Now we keep moving back away from the wall till we can no longer see the pixel lines in the pixeiated image.
(Diarmuid - Yes this is boring but some folks aren't genus's like you so we have to be a bit more deliberate in helping them understand this issue.)
Now here we are looking at these two "like" images from afar. Assuming we are not so far away that we see nothing then -
1) Do the two images look the same?
2) Will one look darker than the other?
3) Will one look duller than the other?
4) Will one have less resolution than the other and be less film-like?
5) If you answered yes to (2) thru (4), is the pixelated image the degraded looking one between the two?

If you answered No, yes, yes, yes and you guessed that the pixelated iimage is the degraded image then you passed the test.

Now let us do the same test but with a 60% transmissive scheme. You won't have to move as far back till the pixel lines "dissappear" but will the results change? If you guessed that the pixielated image will still be less good looking than the "analog" image, you are again right!

By now our bored genius has figured this out but if we keep repeatinthisis test with a projection scheme with more transmissive panels each time the results will be the same although we will be sitting closer and closer each time.

In other words anadmittedlyly redundantly, whether it is 50% constant black, 12% or even a 7% constant black "grid" those annoying screen door lines are going to have an affect on the appearance of the entire forest, err, image. Thus the page I posted from the Canon brochure remains representative of the effect the SDE of DLP and LCD units (more than LCOS) have on the appearance of the projected image. This for whatever reason seems to be something that most folks here, including the genius, simply cannot digest.

Too many here remain lost in the forrest however and this is OK too. If debating pixels and schnixels and blacker blacks or greyer greys is your thaaang - have at it. If what I say goes by you because it didn't come from the mouth of Darin, then that is also OK too. We all know folks who are perfectly correct always and have no sense of humor or fun.

Now back to your pitch black bat caves DLP and Ruby folks...

Icon Master

We all know folks who are perfectly correct always and have no sense of humor or fun.And we all know folks who won't take responsibility for their own words, try to blame others, and just generally try to use deception when they think it will work. And folks who do add to the humor, fun, and laughter because they are such ridiculous clowns that people can't help but laugh at them (which they sometimes confuse with laughing with them).

:)

BTW: For those who don't know, I do find it somewhat humorous when an adult who tries to deceive and has it pointed out uses a tactic like claiming, "For an alleged techie type, I find your understanding of the fifth grade math I used disappointing" and then has to change their math because that person was right. But humorous in kind of a sad way.

And Icon Master, we can stop anytime you want. People can see from what is in the posts that I was right and you tried to deceive them about what happened. Keep bringing it up and/or trying deceptive tactics and I will keep commenting on it.

--Darin

Icon,
I actually do think you have something of value to contribute, but when you clearly manipulate facts, ... Conversely the Canon is at less than 50% ($2K)of its street value from 5 months ago, yet you totally ignored it. Your business math has been continuously found severely wanting on many occasions, and sadly your constant slights make the mistakes seem to be manipulative in nature.

PS You keep on mentioning your Mitsu unit, but that is a business projector. Why don't you get your hands on the new Mitsu (WD 2000). It is extremely bright, it has many pluses and some minuses (it is not a replacement for a canon, they both serve different needs), and you may find it of interest (it is far superior to a Mitsu business FP).
Ciao

Thanks for the kinda compliment and yes I do seem to have to manipulate facts like I did in the last post. While there is no current 50% transmissive projector I needed to go there to try to make the technical point about SD. The sad truth is that this Web site is filled with folks who like to stay in a small familiar comfort zone. They get scarred when someone rattles their cage with a different way of doing and looking at things. Exaggeration is a method sometimes used to make a point but I have to admit it has been also used against me. But again that is ok too because I think it is funny to watch folks when they have to attack me when I make a point that rattles their comfort zone.

Figuring depreciation on technology products is an ART and not an exact science. That is why it is somewhat like fuzzy math. It is not precise. It is based on prior events and speculation on how future new products will impact current products values in the future. That is where our scientific minded "friend" Darin looses it. He cannot deal with uncertainties and speculation and he very sensitive to issues that involve products HE has invested in himself. I used 50% in my prior post based upon list price which again is what we are supposed to use here to avoid the wrath of the web gods who graciously run this site. Darin forced me to use street values but I won't go there again and risk my privilege to use this web site. I was stupid to even let Darin bait me into his silly little argument which should be entirely based on manufacturers list prices by rules of this web site which I respect.

I have been following the new Mitsu unit posts with interest. However it is a big 18 pounder much like my old Proxima/Sanyo unit. From what I have read so far it is not dramatically better than my year old Mitsu. I am looking to upgrade my second tier projector but I have yet to see one that is bright enough, compact enough, etc to be a worthy companion to my Canon. Contrary to posts here I am not down on the SX50 either. I have even considered using one as a second unit but I do like the sealed aspect and 4000 hour bulb life of my Mitsu for everyday use. My large screen Studiotek 130 setup demands nominally 2000 lumens so I don 't think a cheap 1080p with 1300 lumens (panny?) will do it for me but I will keep an open mind. It really is cool to have a dual projector system so I don't have to run upstairs as some here say they do when they watch regular TV shows. I just switch over to my Mitsu and keep the same spot on my coach potato nurturing sofa worn and warm.

Icon Master

Figuring depreciation on technology products is an ART and not an exact science. That is why it is somewhat like fuzzy math. It is not precise. It is based on prior events and speculation on how future new products will impact current products values in the future. That is where our scientific minded "friend" Darin looses it. He cannot deal with uncertainties and speculation and he very sensitive to issues that involve products HE has invested in himself. I used 50% in my prior post based upon list price which again is what we are supposed to use here to avoid the wrath of the web gods who graciously run this site. Darin forced me to use street values but I won't go there again and risk my privilege to use this web site. I was stupid to even let Darin bait me into his silly little argument which should be entirely based on manufacturers list prices by rules of this web site which I respect.You aren't fooling anybody. Be a man and take responsibility for your own words. I never forced you to use street prices. I pointed out that you used list for the projector you wanted to make look bad and street for the projector you wanted to make look good. Obviously, you had the option to even the playing field by using list for both and chose not to.

Not even counting that as a dealer for the SX50 you knew you weren't using list for it and now your latest excuse is, "Darin forced me to use street values". Makes me wonder when the last time was you ever took responsibility for your own actions, given that everybody can see that you used street before I ever got involved and you are coming up with more deceptive stuff to blame me.

And I'm not sure where your ,"I used 50% in my prior post based upon list price" claim is coming from as for the Ruby you used 20% of the list price as the resale value and for the SX50 you used 50% of approximately the street price. Neither one was 50% of the list price.

As I predicted above:The main thing I think people should keep in mind is that it is very unlikely that this is the last time that Icon Master will try to deceive people about what happened or what his claims were. He probably figures that eventually he'll get away with it.
BTW: How did you decide that the right answer to "2) Will one look darker than the other?" was "Yes"? Have you tried it, or did you assume lower lumens or ft-lamberts from the projector with lower fill ratio? The lumens and ft-lamberts already take the fill ratio into account and it looks like you are double counting them. I'm not saying one won't look darker, but just that based on the amount of understanding you've showed of some subjects here in the past, it wouldn't surprise me if you assumed the lower fill ratio one would look darker either from doing a test with 2 projectors with different lumens or while not considering that the fill ratios affect the lumens and ft-lamberts.

--Darin

Icon,
I find it humorous that you think you are pushing some including me out of our comfort zone. What comfort zone? I own a CRT and I have been to a CRT manufacturer. I went to Infocomm and observed all of the different digital technologies. Darin and I went to the Canon booth first and spent quite a bit of time there probably second only to the Joe Kane demo for amount of time. We even spoke to the people that are in the pj division at Canon. I don't see how that is a comfort zone. I have said all along that if you like the bright 4:3 image of the Canon then go to the SX6 for an extra 1000 lumens. It just gets tiresome listening to your blanket statements about how much superior the Canon is to everything else when even the Canon folks wouldn't believe that.

Lets say for the sake of argument that you have actually spoken with the head of Canon and can give him some input on improving their products. Here are some ideas that would make this a world beater.
1) Use a better LCOS chip like the ELCOS. I think they have a 1920x1440 with 2k to 1 cr. They may have a deal with JVC that precludes this, but if not then this would be a good start.
2) Implement a dynamic iris. This could give them an even better contrast ratio and with their knowledge of cameras may be one of the best engineered solutions.
3) Buy a better scaler. The new DVDO or Gennum solutions would help out tremendously in this regard. The native res images at Infocomm looked real nice. I think the scaler is a weak link.

Ericglo

You know, after this pissing contest is over, the bottom line is that these Canons offer very good value for those of us who (1); still watch a lot of 4:3; and (2), value brightness, high fill factor, image smoothness and bright, accurate color. Those of you who value 16:9 and high contrast should stay away. It's just that basic.

Icon, your observations are appreciated. But when it comes to the science, Darin holds sway. So stop the pissing contest, please. Both of you provide a different but valuable perspective.

Dan

Icon merely has to learn to make his points in a few sentences, not a few pages. He uses so much wind to move a feather, it blows everywhere except its destination. Example......


Just look through your literal screen door. The image you see (your back yard?) is not as bright or sharp as it would be looking out through finer gauge screening (and that's at any distance from the screen).
The SX50 (or 60) is as close as you can get to that 'fine gauge' screen for the price!



Now if any one chooses to disagree or argue with the above truth there is little there to stir the 'feathers' of other readers, yet the point is still made.

Short and Sweet, Icon

"Icon merely has to learn to make his points in a few sentences, not a few pages. "

That doesn't help when his point is how mistaken everyone is who likes a different type of pj.

"Icon merely has to learn to make his points in a few sentences, not a few pages. "

That doesn't help when his point is how mistaken everyone is who likes a different type of pj.

Morritec -

Who said I don't like other types of projectors? I flat out said repeatedly that I have a DLP and an LCD unit too in addition to my Canon LCOS. Each unit design serves their purpose and I have said repeatedly none is perfect. DLP's in general w/o manipulation have the hughest CR. LCD's have been higher in lumens and had better color saturation. Both of these have significant SDE and LCD units tend to self destruct (organic panels and polarizers). LCOS has saturation and almost no SD but its CR is a work in progress. What I don't know yet is whether LCOS panels are organic and will they degrade with use. Canon did get LCOS's price point, size and noise level down and the lumens way up. One rep said since LCOS are fused to mirrors they cool better and don't degrade. Someone here said that JVC panels are inorganic and they have not seen one degrade. I have yet to hear anyone talk about whether the color filters in the rotating color wheels of single DLP's fade/degrade over time? I do recall reading something about how watching letter box images on 4:3 DLP units led to a border effect which implies that DLP color wheels do in fact degrade. So which of these image projection schemes is more perfect for you and your budget is the issue here. Gentlemen choose your compromises.

Moritec - I might make you my editor. Thanks for the concise analogous description of how different thicknesses of SD can effect the look of the entire image.

Darin - The two projectors I have are nominally rated as 2500 lumen units. We all know the manufacturers usually inflate these numbers. Also the bulb in the SX60 is newer than in my Mitsu. So some of the apparent brightness difference could be from lumen differences. But as Morritec wisely pointed out and as the sample page of the Canon brochure shows, looking though a thicker screen door will have a more dimming, dulling on what you see than looking through a finer mesh screen door and the image in the "back yard" is, when viewed at the same time, equally bright.

I just got a box that splits my component output - regardless of source. I tried a while back to do a split screen experiment and could try to do this again. I blocked off half the lens on each unit but I got a fuzzy border due to diffraction effects. Anyone know how I can (cheaply) do a clean side by side split screen deal with two projectors showing the same signal on the same screen at the same time?

Icon Master

Just look through your literal screen door. The image you see (your back yard?) is not as bright or sharp as it would be looking out through finer gauge screening (and that's at any distance from the screen).If you are talking about coarser mesh blocking more light then I think one weakness of this analogy is that things would also measure lower with the coarser mesh. So, in order to be the same as having the same lumens or ft-lamberts with 2 projectors you would have do one while things outside are enough brighter to equalize the amount of light going through both screens. Even at the same lumens, if you can see the mesh then I agree that it is likely to change the perception of the images quite a bit. But even with the 2 screendoors if you move back until you cannot perceive the mesh and the amount of light coming through them was the same (to match equivalent ft-lamberts) then I don't think we can assume that the finer mesh would be brighter or sharper. As I've discussed in the past, there is a distance where SDE can be picked out itself, then another range where I think it can still be perceived even if individual lines can't be focused on, and then a distance where it can't be perceived.

Basically, in a case like this it is a mistake to double count things like light loss from low fill ratio and it is already included in the lumens measurements.

Have you ever tried comparing images from a CRT to images from a digital with SDE to see which one is gives more perception of sharpness (even if fake sharpness)? While the SX60 looks like a nice projector and the images would be preferred by a lot of people to those from a 1400x1050 single chip DLP, I would be shocked if half or more of a group looking at both would perceive the SX60 images as sharper or as sharp from normal viewing distances.

--Darin

I own a CRT and I have been to a CRT manufacturer. I went to Infocomm and observed all of the different digital technologies...

I have said all along that if you like the bright 4:3 image of the Canon then go to the SX6 for an extra 1000 lumens. It just gets tiresome listening to your blanket statements about how much superior the Canon is to everything else when even the Canon folks wouldn't believe that.

Here are some ideas that would make this a world beater.
1, 2, 3...
Enricglo

Ericglo -

I had a Sony three gun projection unit with six foot screen (pre-HiDef of course) from the mid seventies till the late nineties so you are not talking to someone without analog projector experience. I had to dismantle that sucker once a year to clean the dust off the tubes and backs of the lenses. I also noticed the quite observable picture tube burn. THERE IS NO PERFECT PROJECTION TECHNOLOGY and unless you have a super Barco commercial three gun unit how many lumens is your three gun - 300? How big or little of an image are you projecting? I no longer see analog as the holy grail of this hobby as many here still do. I got over analog when I decided for bigger, brighter and lower maintenance.

I have not seen the SX6 yet. But I will go back to a test I ran when I was looking to purchase either a 2500 lumen or 3000 lumen Proxima/Sanyo. After nearly a week of comparing the two units I found that the higher lumen unit tended to wash out the detail in the light areas of images on my eleven foot screen. I opted for the 2500 lumen model. Maybe that would not be the case for the SX6 but I am running my SX60 in econo mode on the very same screen and the image is plenty bright. I don't think it is good advice to simply say buy the brightest projector (did I just say that?) just as it is not good advice to promote these low lumen units here either unless you are content with small screens and then why bother with a forward projector? Get a big LCD panel instead.

Your suggestions do seem like good ones for Canon and I will pass them along to my tech contact but I don't know if the word will get to the engineers in Japan.

Icon Master

Have you ever tried comparing images from a CRT to images from a digital with SDE to see which one is gives more perception of sharpness (even if fake sharpness)?
--Darin

What CRT projector(?) is capable of matching the lumens of an SX60? Without comparable lumens as you pointed out in your SD discussion, it would be a tough comparison to make.


Darin - Is there a (cheap) way for me to do this split screen test with two projectors?

Icon Master

DARINP2
"But even with the 2 screendoors if you MOVE BACK until you cannot perceive the mesh and the amount of light coming through them was the same (to match equivalent ft-lamberts) then I don't think we can assume that the finer mesh would be brighter or sharper. As I've discussed in the past, there is A DISTANCE where SDE can be picked out itself, then another range where I think it can still be perceived even if individual lines can't be focused on, and then a distance where it can't be perceived."


I'm not one for the "move back" or "a distance" concepts. Even Standard TV will look good if you stand back far enough! Some of us like our 11 or 12 foot screens for the 'Immersion Factor', sitting one screen distance or so, from the image. My approach - if it looks good when your right one top of the screen it will look even better at your 'comfort zone'. A Sony SXRD, for example, looks great when your even a few inches from the screen and therefore better from the couch, as opposed to the other RPTVS, LCDs and Plasmas I see in TV stores. Most of them look horrible from a few inches, so therefore they couldn't be as good 'from the couch'. I'd never have an SXRD though, I'd have to reinforce the floor joists in my house for those monsters. The SX50/60s are much smaller and lighter, and I can roll up the movie screen when not in use. Of all of the projectors I have seen so far, the SX50/60 makes the best 'in-your-face' picture and 'long distance' picture, especially for the price.

What CRT projector(?) is capable of matching the lumens of an SX60? Without comparable lumens as you pointed out in your SD discussion, it would be a tough comparison to make.As we've discussed, the SX60 is low on SDE, so a projector with higher SDE (like many LCDs) would be a better candidate for a test like this. And neutral density filtering along with changes to the Contrast setting should make it fairly easy to get a CRT and many of these digitals in the same ballpark for ft-lamberts for white, if they aren't already.
Darin - Is there a (cheap) way for me to do this split screen test with two projectors?I don't know of anything for the same images running on both screens other than something like a $300 Geffen HDMI distribution amp, a PC with 2 outputs, or things like using 2 DVD players playing the same DVD (by renting one for a movie somebody already has) synced up.
Some of us like our 11 or 12 foot screens for the 'Immersion Factor', sitting one screen distance or so, from the image. My approach - if it looks good when your right one top of the screen it will look even better at your 'comfort zone'.
...
Most of them look horrible from a few inches, so therefore they couldn't be as good 'from the couch.While true that if it looks good from .1x it should look good from 1.0x or 1.2x, it doesn't follow that between 2 projectors the one that looks better from .1x will also be the one that looks better from 1.0x or 1.2x to a person. I believe the SDE discussion started about 1080p single chip DLPs and I would expect SDE to be pretty much a non-issue from 1.2x the screen width for the vast majority of people and from closer for most.
I'd never have an SXRD though, I'd have to reinforce the floor joists in my house for those monsters.I haven't checked out the RPTVs much, but I think you would have to have pretty bad floor joists in your house to have problems with the ~42lb Sony Ruby.

--Darin

I don't know of anything for the same images running on both screens other than something like a $300 Geffen HDMI distribution amp, a PC with 2 outputs, or things like using 2 DVD players playing the same DVD (by renting one for a movie somebody already has) synced up.
--Darin


Darin -

I've got the signal part licked. I have a box that feeds dual component outputs of the same signal. My issue is OPTICS!!! I want to put one-half the projected image, say the left side, from one projector and the right side from the other. That way I can get a decent side-by-side comparison of different units.

The issue I have had doing this by covering half the lens is the edge effect causing a diffraction pattern that bleeds onto the other half of the picture. I tried putting an "L" shape to the blocking device and that helped cut the diffraction issue but I am wondering if you or anyone has seen this done at a trade show? And if so, how can I do it and get a clean "separation" between the two images from the two projectors?

Icon Master

The issue I have had doing this by covering half the lens is the edge effect causing a diffraction pattern that bleeds onto the other half of the picture.Have you tried putting the stuff blocking the lenses a little distance from the projectors (at least 6")? If you can get the overlap area that is messed up to be narrow enough then you could put a piece of black velvet or something down the middle of the screen and say a few inches wide that would give a strong separation to the images. That might be better than trying to get individual pixels from 2 different projectors to go right up against each other without problems. There are things to be careful of, like washing each sides images out or having one be much brighter than the other, but there are things you could learn or show by doing this.

--Darin

I am still using my projector, but every time I turn it on is says to "Replace with the new bulb"

It used to ask me if I wanted this message displayed, but now it does so automatically. The picture is a bit dimmer than when it was new, but am I risking damaging something by not replacing the bulb? Will it just burn out, or will it EXPLODE?!?

If the bulb does explode would I still be covered under warranty? I've only been using it for 8 months.

I use it in normal mode because I have a 15 foot painted screen and need the extra brightness.

If I had to guess, I would say that I have lost about 20 percent of the brightness. The image is still fantastic, but I'm sure it will seem like getting a new projector when I do change the bulb.

Thanks!

Bill.

I am still using my projector, but every time I turn it on is says to "Replace with the new bulb"

It used to ask me if I wanted this message displayed, but now it does so automatically. The picture is a bit dimmer than when it was new, but am I risking damaging something by not replacing the bulb? Will it just burn out, or will it EXPLODE?!?

If the bulb does explode would I still be covered under warranty? I've only been using it for 8 months.


Bill -

I have heard of bulbs exploding with other projectors but no one so far has owned up to having it happen in an SX50. I don't know if Canon will honor the warranty if that occurs either. I can say that with my Proxima/Sanyo LCD projector I had some bulbs go very dim well before their stated 2000 hour life and a few went longer than 2000 hours. No bulb ever exploded but they did all eventually get so dim that the unit was not viewable. I'd estimate that the lumens had fallen to half of a new one's output and I seem to recall reading (but could well be wrong) that a bulbs life rating is based on the time it takes to reach 50% of new intensity.

Bill - would you estimate that you got the estimated 2000 hours of life from your SX50's bulb?

Icon Master

P.S. If it was me (unofficially) I'd take the risk (like I did with my Proxima) and run the bulb till it is too dim to tolerate. I'd hit the bulb reset counter now if it let me and just pretend that I had a new bulb but I would watch it real close till the bulb just became too dim to use. A bulb could explode in theory even before its rated life and how would Canon or any manufacturer know that you had not actually changed the bulb if you hit the reset counter? Perhaps they could tell by looking into the unit's memory but that is the gamble you are taking if you don't actually change it on time.

I checked the lamp counter and it is full which means (from the manual) that I have used over 1400 hours. That seems like a lot for less than 8 months use, but I do use it as my main video device.

I think I'm going to keep it going and see if it gets dimmer. I was hoping to get at least a year out of each bulb so we'll see how much longer I can keep this one going.

I'm actually pretty lucky. I hadn't cleaned my filter until about a month ago and the thing ran without problems. I live in a studio space with lots of dust around so I guess my projector isn't prone to the dust problems others have been having.

What is the longest anyone here has run their SX50 bulb for?

Bill.

What is the longest anyone here has run their SX50 bulb for?



Bill -

I have asked that queston and no one has answered. I have even asked if anyone who owns either the X50 has ever had to change the bulb and have not gotten a response.

Icon Master

I've had the SX50 for about a year now. I got the replace lamp message first seven months ago and I'm still going strong with the original lamp. The dimming I'm sure is there but it's difficult to tell since it's been so gradual. The latest is that the image flickers a bit when the projector is started cold. The flicker (very slight) goes away in a few minutes.

So, I'm facing a lamp change in the immeadiate future. I've run the projector in low lamp mode for its whole life. That might put me somewhere between 2500-3000 hours of usage.

I've had the SX50 for about a year now. I got the replace lamp message first seven months ago and I'm still going strong with the original lamp. The dimming I'm sure is there but it's difficult to tell since it's been so gradual. The latest is that the image flickers a bit when the projector is started cold. The flicker (very slight) goes away in a few minutes.

So, I'm facing a lamp change in the immeadiate future. I've run the projector in low lamp mode for its whole life. That might put me somewhere between 2500-3000 hours of usage.


By comparison this finding sure makes us Canon fans feel sad for the numerous Ruby owners here whose $1000 bulbs are tailing off in output signficantly at 300 hours. When the newer, cheaper Sony SXRD projection unit ships and the used Ruby's fall to 50% as I predicted then we'll have to get Darin to factor in the $1000 lamp cost too. If the Ruby's lamps are not cutting it at 300 hours then under even moderate usage if seems like Rubys' will need to replace their lamp twice or more often in a year.

I may have been too conservative in my 50% depreciation and cost of Ruby ownership estimate. Sorry about that Darin... :)

Icon Master

By comparison this finding sure makes us Canon fans feel sad for the numerous Ruby owners here whose $1000 bulbs are tailing off in output signficantly at 300 hours. When the newer, cheaper Sony SXRD projection unit ships and the used Ruby's fall to 50% as I predicted then we'll have to get Darin to factor in the $1000 lamp cost too. If the Ruby's lamps are not cutting it at 300 hours then under even moderate usage if seems like Rubys' will need to replace their lamp twice or more often in a year.

I may have been too conservative in my 50% depreciation and cost of Ruby ownership estimate. Sorry about that Darin... :) Do I need to post links again to keep you honest? You predicted 80% depreciation. $10k in and $2k out after a year. Please quit trying to mislead people about what your prediction was so you can look like you were right. Nobody argued against 50%. It was the 80% that people argued against and that you are unlikely to come close on. And using your modified $8k in, your prediction was 75%. That is what would have to happen for you to be right. If it is 50% or even 60%, then some of the rest of us who pointed out the problem with your 80% would actually be shown to be right, while you would be shown to be wrong.

--Darin

Icon, I think many people here have had enough of your deceitful and provocative behaviour. I'm very surprised it's been allowed to continue.

If it is 50% or even 60%, then some of the rest of us who pointed out the problem with your 80% would actually be shown to be right, while you would be shown to be wrong.
--Darin

OOps - You got me - almost. In that original discussion I was talking about cost of ownership of the Ruby and the "Q" (note how no one talks about those Q's any longer) and my final value number did include a guesstimate of the cost of the lamp usage and labor to replace them.

However if the new Sony does come in at about $5k street with longer lasting bulbs and perhaps more lumens - i.e. a better unit than the Ruby - just as the SX60 improved on the SX50 - then that year old $10K Ruby may get $3K on e-bay post new Sony announcement and then you have the cost of the one to two bulbs you should have purchased for it if you used it like we Canon folks do our units - i.e. early and often.

So lets do some of this complex high school fuzzy math again (of course this is all speculative based on the cost and features of the new Sony). You paid say $2K less than the $10K list for a Ruby and you sell it for $3K a year or so later. You put in one bulb (or the next purchaser will have to do it near immediately so that has to be deducted from its worth when you sell it unless you find someone who is clueless). So $8K-$3K+$1K=$6K will be the guesstimated cost of using a Ruby for a year if only one bulb was replaced. Add on to that the cost of any special ceiling mounting its 40 pounds required. Add on to that the labor cost of having to replace the bulb if you are not a technician capable of doing that. Add on to that all the wasted time you didn't use the unit because you saw how dim it was becoming and how expensive the bulb is to replace and add on to that the extra electricity it took to power its massive 400 watt lamp and the cost of A/C cooling it took to offset the heat it generates.

So if you paid $8K for your Ruby and it cost $6K, plus all of the other costs I mentioned but didn't bother putting a value to them and adding them to the equation, then are we talking about the final worth of the Ruby after one year being -

Hmmm - $2K "worth" or less!!

Ouch!!! That is gonna' hurt. You could have almost bought two SX50's with that $6K drop off. (After all this is the Canon thread).

Gentlemen - this suggests I was not wrong or very far off and if Sony does indeed have a new projector coming out real soon. You Ruby guys better start dumping them now before the bottom falls out on the worth of your soon to be obsoleted behemoth. Now I am sure some of you will find some unsuspecting buddies to dump them old used Rubys' on so I know the retort will be that we didn't have to change our lamps because we didn't run them that long (and that is a laugher in its own right) and we are going to get $4K to $5K when you sell them to dear "friends" of yours. Well I don't doubt that there are folks out there that can be taken advantage of too. Regardless, the facts remains as I have stated a number of times here - that the bigger (and more expensive) the technology is (as in computers and in projectors) the harder and further and faster they will fall in value.

So Darin, go back and nit-pick at my wording as you like to do. It won't change anything. This is all guesstimated estimates as I said way back at the beginning but it looks like I may not have been too far off at all and depending on the new Sony and its features I may have even been too conservative on the cost of ownership estimates. Can you imagine too what a below $5K 1080p DLP unit will do to these Ruby value estimates... more salt in the open wound.

Icon Master

P.S. Yes I know this is a huge bitter pill and I expect a lot of flack from the thin skinned Ruby gallery here but crying and insulting me won't change the reality. Sell them Ruby's NOW!!!

Icon, I think many people here have had enough of your deceitful and provocative behaviour. I'm very surprised it's been allowed to continue.

Provocative - Absolutley!!

Deceitful - Only to those who have trouble with simple "fuzzy" depreciation math and to folks like Darin who are great if not extraordinary technicians but who have their own agenda and positions to defend - as in the "worth" of his own fast falling in value Ruby. Perhaps you own one too?

Let the insults fly!!!

Icon Master

Provocative - Absolutley!!

I'm more inclined to use the word "trollish".


Deceitful - Only to those who have trouble with simple "fuzzy" depreciation math and to folks like Darin who are great if not extraordinary technicians but who have their own agenda and positions to defend - as in the "worth" of his own fast falling in value Ruby. Perhaps you own one too?

Given the rate at which Darin buys and sells projectors, I doubt he's in a situation where projector depreciation would provide enough motive for him to skew his numbers.

A Canon dealer, on the other hand, would have far more incentive to skew his numbers.

However if the new Sony does come in at about $5k street with longer lasting bulbs and perhaps more lumens - i.e. a better unit than the Ruby - just as the SX60 improved on the SX50 - then that year old $10K Ruby may get $3K on e-bay post new Sony announcement and then you have the cost of the one to two bulbs you should have purchased for it if you used it like we Canon folks do our units - i.e. early and often.

The new Sony 'Pearl' is a cut down version of the Ruby which is why it is cheaper (UHP lamp and no auto iris are just two possible changes I'm aware of so far), so it's not better like you are saying (unless you only count lumens as a means of performance and ignore all the others).

That would again call into question your numbers and selling strategy for the Canon range.

Gary

Provocative - Absolutley!!

Deceitful - Only to those who have trouble with simple "fuzzy" depreciation math and to folks like Darin who are great if not extraordinary technicians but who have their own agenda and positions to defend - as in the "worth" of his own fast falling in value Ruby. Perhaps you own one too?

Let the insults fly!!!

Icon Master

No, I don't own a Ruby.

The new Sony 'Pearl' is a cut down version of the Ruby which is why it is cheaper (UHP lamp and no auto iris are just two possible changes I'm aware of so far), so it's not better like you are saying (unless you only count lumens as a means of performance and ignore all the others).

That would again call into question your numbers and selling strategy for the Canon range.


Yes it would. The features or lack thereof in the new Sony will indeed directly impact the value of one year old Rubys. As I stated, this is conjecture and speculation today. Tomorrow may be a different story. However, based on the fast lumen falloff slope of the Ruby's lamp, I don't think you can call the new units change to a UHP lamp a "downgrade." If the new UHP lamp lasts 2K to 3K hours then it will be a plus for the new Sony and a real hit on the Ruby.

I was kind enough to Ruby folks not to put numbers to the other costs of ownership. I doubt if anyone in the Ruby "camp" will step up and pencil in some figures to validate my speculation further. (Well maybe Darin will since he is beyond reproach to many here and I am dealer scum.) Also again, the 1080p DLP's if some are $5K "cheap" will also knock the Ruby down so to speak.

Since this is the Canon thread and I am a bad old biased Canon dealer (and a Sony dealer too and yes I can even sell Ruby's, XBR1's, XBR2's and XBR3's), I am biased for Sony too. I like a lot of what they make. I just feel in general JVC and Sony have been out-engineered by Canon in the LCOS department even though Canon is likley using JVC's chips and panels. It is the Canon's superior optical scheme that is the breakthrough and why Canon is giving so much projector in such a small package at competitive price.

Icon Master

No, I don't own a Ruby.

Then you just saved yourself a lot of money!

Icon Master

Yes it would. The features or lack thereof in the new Sony will indeed directly impact the value of one year old Rubys. As I stated, this is conjecture and speculation today. Tomorrow may be a different story.

Icon Master


Wow, you are now spinning speculation. Nobody knows what the Pearl will actually be. When it gets here it may very well be a better option than the Ruby and impact its price, but what does that matter. If you own a Ruby, then why do you need to upgrade. Your the one who is on the upgrade path every year. Someone who bought a 1080p Ruby can be content with their purchase for another year or three. What will a Ruby owner get by upgrading? At this point, any new pj will not be enough of a siginificant leap forward to dump a Ruby. Unless of course it is a CRT like the Marquee 9500.:)

Ericglo

Icon,

It doesn't necessarily follow that a cut down version of a particular model will drive down the price of the existing one. As Eric says, those with a Ruby don't need to upgrade, and those who can't afford the Ruby will buy something cheaper, and perhaps upgrade to a Ruby or other 1080 pj later (or buy second hand).

Porsche sell different versions of their 911, and they all sell very well. The cheaper versions just mean that their products are open to a larger market. With the Sony Pearl, it makes sense to offer a cheaper version with less performance so that those who would like a Ruby can get something very similar but at a more affordable price.

If the Canons' were so much better than the Ruby, why are people still buying the Ruby which is more expensive? I would think the Pearl would be very popular and it would be interesting to see how that compares to the Canons too. Currently the Ruby is a clear winner in most respects other than lumens.

Knowing Sony and how much you have to buy single items in for, the markup on the Canons is much higher, so you will get a better return selling those than selling a Ruby. I can see why they would be promoted over the Sony if profit is the main driver as you're more likely to sell the cheaper item over the more expensive one, and get more profit in doing so.

Gary

don't know if these were answered yet 1st has any one tried 1080p. 2nd does it color shift like lcd from 1 side to the other. 3rd does it blur with fast pans (hope to use it for gaming).does it tear at it's native rate at 60hz. 4th has anyone tried any other scan rates like 72 hz 85 hz 100 hz . I'm coming from a crt projector and of corse it can do multiple scan rates and resolutions ,and i use them all for pc gaming 1027 768 800 600 and on and on. If someone can check any or all of these questions thanks

Sunstone,
I am not sure what type of games you play, but something like Doom wouldn't look all that great with this pj as compared to a CRT. I know when I played Doom that I had to turn all of the lights off in my room and play at night so I could get the best contrast ratio possible.

Ericglo

i'm sure the contrast won't match ,but single chip dlp hurts my eyes .just want to know the other questions i asked,and i have a (cave ) .it's this projector or i have to buy another 200 pound crt used of corse

how bad was doom with no other lights on? and i play all pc and console games ,it's the main reason i use projectors and those that say picture quality doesn't matter on games like doom, far cry is like saying it does not matter for movies.

I should clarify that I was using my CRT monitor not my CRT projector when I played Doom. Thief is another game that I have played that needs this high contrast ratio. I don't play a lot of games, so I can only go on my experience with these two. If you were playing games that don't need a lot of contrast, then this pj might be worthwhile. I don't know your CRT situation, so I can't say whether another CRT would be better than a digital.

Ericglo

i'm using a barco graphics 808s it's an 8 inch crt projector

Sunstone,
I am not sure what type of games you play, but something like Doom wouldn't look all that great with this pj as compared to a CRT. I know when I played Doom that I had to turn all of the lights off in my room and play at night so I could get the best contrast ratio possible.

Ericglo

Ericglo,
I didn't know you had an sx60!? I'm very interested in hearing of your experiences with this projector for gaming. More info from people that actually have this projector will be a welcome change from the usual "carrying on" that goes on in this thread.

Icon,

1) It doesn't necessarily follow that a cut down version of a particular model will drive down the price of the existing one. As Eric says, those with a Ruby don't need to upgrade, and those who can't afford the Ruby will buy something cheaper, and perhaps upgrade to a Ruby or other 1080 pj later (or buy second hand).

2) If the Canons' were so much better than the Ruby, why are people still buying the Ruby which is more expensive?... Currently the Ruby is a clear winner in most respects other than lumens.

3) Knowing Sony and how much you have to buy single items in for, the markup on the Canons is much higher, so you will get a better return selling those than selling a Ruby. I can see why they would be promoted over the Sony if profit is the main driver as you're more likely to sell the cheaper item over the more expensive one, and get more profit in doing so.

Gary


Very good questions.

1) If the new Sony is lower in cost and close to the Ruby in features plus has a greater bulb life - would you keep the Ruby if you could get something for it and would you do it sooner or later full well knowing that the longer you held the Ruby the less you will get for it plus its depreciation rate will be accelerating with the new 1080p DLP introductions along with the new Sony?

2) The Ruby is a niche product. Canon SX60's are likely far outselling Ruby's since they address the business and HT market with the business market being far larger that the current forward projector HT market. As to the clear winner, the Ruby had a bit more resolution and more CR but most of that is based on it auto iris making it even dimmer. I still bet in a side by side shootout the average prospect will choose the Canon. I can even prove this with the SX60. I put it in CInema mode which is close in lumens and CR to the Ruby. Then I zoom the (dimmer) picture down to seven feet. Then I show the ten for sRGB version on the SX60 in its full lumen (econo mode) glory. Not a single I have done this with has chosen the smaller cinema (RUBY) mode over the larger brighter (lower CR) image. Why are the HT folks so Ruby driven. Well all good computer consultants know the Mac is the superior computer yet 95% of the folks in the world buy PC's anyway. There is a lot of ignorance and conformity in the world - isn't there?

3) I make cost plus 10% typically on most items I sell. If I make $700 selling a Rubu and $400 selling and an SX60 i would make more money selling the RUby but the difference to me is insignificant. I always sell what is best for my clients without any profit considerations. Unfortunately there are more dealers who do the profit motive bit than not.

Icon Master

Ericglo,
I didn't know you had an sx60!? I'm very interested in hearing of your experiences with this projector for gaming. More info from people that actually have this projector will be a welcome change from the usual "carrying on" that goes on in this thread.

I don't and I can see how my post might have implied that. I (and Darin) did spend quite some time with all of the Canon pjs at Infocomm. They may actually work well for gaming, since you would be sending them a native res signal. I just think the low on/off contrast ratio would not look that good for games that are dark in nature like Doom. This might be a big issue for someone coming from a CRT.

Icon,
1) How many people are making pj purchases as business decisions? As I said, Ruby owners are probably content for the next two to three years. I think most people buy a pj and keep it for two to five years.

2)The Ruby has a lot more resolution and can do all of the resolutions out there unlike the Canon. The Canon isn't even close to the Ruby in contrast. The cinema mode on the Canon is just a filter and probably doesn't contribute anything to contrast.


Ericglo

Canon SX60's are likely far outselling Ruby's since they address the business and HT market with the business market being far larger that the current forward projector HT market.Most businesses have very little reason to buy the SX60 over the SX6.
I can even prove this with the SX60. I put it in CInema mode which is close in lumens and CR to the Ruby.I hope people here are catching on and aren't still mislead by your stuff. It isn't even close. Were you using 4:3 material for this "test"?

--Darin

Most businesses have very little reason to buy the SX60 over the SX6.

I hope people here are catching on and aren't still mislead by your stuff. It isn't even close. Were you using 4:3 material for this "test"?


Until you or some other Ruby owner has the moxsy to bring a Ruby here for a side by side then your "fool" comment is mere conjecture on your very biased part Darin.

While we are talking about misleading Mister "honorable," beyond reproach Darin - now after a bit of time the Ruby is starting to show its flaws as you are only too unwilling to reveal here in the Canon thread but you yourself have admitted to them elsewhere (here). The first is the Rubys' lamp fast output fall-off at 300 hours or so. You just read here that there is one person with well over 2000 hours on his first SX50's lamp and he is noticing little if any lumen loss. How do you deal with that Darin on your Ruby - play more with the auto iris settings or shrink the screen down to a smaller size? At a scant 5 hours of viewing a day you are talking about a mere sixty days with noticeable lumen loss on a $10K unit with a $1K lamp that already is not very good in the lumen department. You sure have sweep that one under the carpet in this message thread "your honor."

Then there is the auto-iris itself and its side effects. Darin your own personal outright bias is toward high CR and you are willing to give up larger screen size (or using hot screens with their issues), you look the other way in regards to auto-iris side-effects (and/or spend untold hours tweaking those settings) and last but not least live with cave type viewing. So Mister "honorable" Darin, why don't you come out and admit that you are the one "fooling" folks in your own right?

Not all of us see things your way Darin and you just don't get that. I am tired of you attacking my integrity. Just like your bias is toward higher CR mine is toward more lumens, larger screen sizes on not special screens. At this point we have to agree to disagree since we are obviously on different "pages." There is no fooling here on my part but differences of opinion.

On the cinema/srgb demo I do - I use HiDef stored programming from Direct TV so I can replay the same scenes both ways one right after the other. Both are letterboxed on my 4:3 screen and frankly both look fabulous. The SX60's Cinema mode shrunk down to a seven foot image is a hot looking signal with better blacks than in sRGB mode. How much more so I don't know and franlky I don't care. I leave the choice up to the viewier. In this near side by side test so far Darin not a single person has choosen the seven foot blacker black Cinema mode higher CR image over the ten foot sRGB mode with its "grayer" blacks. Bigger, brighter is better but you don't have the lumens to even go there Mister Darin.

Darin what would be the point of even doing a demo with 4:3 SD material? Of course that too will look better on an SX50/SX60 that on a Ruby since it will not be in a tiny little letter box or distorted in some fashion. Do you show off your Ruby to your buddies with SD signals? What a silly comment on your part "your honor."

On the SX6 for business use... It is rated at 3500 lumens. While I love higher lumens for purposes of larger displays 3500 lumens would be a bit much for most business folks unless they have one huge wall/room/auditorium that requires that much output. The ole SX50 should be just fine for many commercial installations unless its fan noise is an issue. Plus its slightly smaller form factor makes it ideal for taking it off site to clients as one of my PR clients does to great advantage. That will be one more nail in the looming Ruby coffin. There will be no selling those to folks who plan to tote them about unless they have a fork lift to bring with them. Be sure to add the fork-lift (rental?) to the cost of Ruby ownership calculation. :)

Icon Master

__________________
This is the AV Science Forum and we all know that but some folks need to tell us that. Keep an open mind. Even though we are "special" :) we have choices. We can agree to not agree and we don't have to be like the PC buying masses. We can each think for ourselves and don't have to follow the "masses" - even those here! There is no perfect 1080p projector yet so make your OWN choices. Don't get caught in the high CR, low lumen, dark cave, expensive projector, expensive short-lived bulb "trap" many here would have you believe as the only way to go. Pied Piper comes to mind...

Very good questions.

1) If the new Sony is lower in cost and close to the Ruby in features plus has a greater bulb life - would you keep the Ruby if you could get something for it and would you do it sooner or later full well knowing that the longer you held the Ruby the less you will get for it plus its depreciation rate will be accelerating with the new 1080p DLP introductions along with the new Sony?

I would keep the Ruby (we don't yet know if the bulb life or lumens will be greater in the cheaper model). It has more performance than the cheaper model, so why would I downgrade? The only benefit would be a few more dollars in my pocket but that's not why I would have bought a Ruby in the 1st place.

Buying a Ruby when it first came out also means I would have what is considered one of the best projectors on the market from day one (and is still the best at that price point), and of course better machines would be developed in the future as has been the case since digital projectors were first introduced. Nothing new there. The other point is you would never buy anything if you were waiting for the final best product to emerge since you would be waiting for ever as developments never stand still. The SX60 is more expensive than the 50, and it has moved towards Ruby performance (though still has a long way to go). How much more will it cost to attain Ruby performance do you think?

All second hand machines depreciate with time. Currently the Ruby is the cheapest 1080 product on the market so will hold it's value better. As for upgrading, you were extoling the SX50s superiority to the Ruby and other projectors, yet sold it on it as soon as the SX60 was announced. If the 50 was so good, why don't you still have one? I would also think the 50 would be worth much less now that the 60 is here, both new and second hand. Unfortunatley that's the market. It happens with all machines - a new model comes out and the older one is sold off cheaper to clear old stocks. You just have to look on this forum to see that (the Optoma H78/79 is a good example).



2) The Ruby is a niche product. Canon SX60's are likely far outselling Ruby's since they address the business and HT market with the business market being far larger that the current forward projector HT market. As to the clear winner, the Ruby had a bit more resolution and more CR but most of that is based on it auto iris making it even dimmer. I still bet in a side by side shootout the average prospect will choose the Canon. I can even prove this with the SX60. I put it in CInema mode which is close in lumens and CR to the Ruby. Then I zoom the (dimmer) picture down to seven feet. Then I show the ten for sRGB version on the SX60 in its full lumen (econo mode) glory. Not a single I have done this with has chosen the smaller cinema (RUBY) mode over the larger brighter (lower CR) image. Why are the HT folks so Ruby driven. Well all good computer consultants know the Mac is the superior computer yet 95% of the folks in the world buy PC's anyway. There is a lot of ignorance and conformity in the world - isn't there?

I wouldn't say it was a niche product - the Qualia may have been though. The SX60 may be outselling with respect to the business market, but for home theater use, those that are educated in what makes a good HT projector and can afford the Ruby will choose that, and many others will choose another 16:9 machine. The Ruby is HT oriented in every respect whereas the SX60 is still a business machine with a HT mode (if they masked it to 16:9 it would do a lot better for HT sales IMHO).

You would lose your bet - the SX60 would never match the Ruby for CR unless you equalised the white level and put them both in a bright room where the black level would then be the same, so you're unable to prove what you say since we know that factually it isn't even close on attaining the CR of the Ruby (as Darin pointed out, it's misleading for you to say otherwise). Most newbies would also fall into the trap of favouring a brighter projector to a dimmer one (or a bigger image to a smaller one) since the eye initially favours a brighter image (and a bigger image has more 'wow' factor), but for movies brightness isn't necessarily a good thing for all the reasons that have been stated in the past (That's not to say that we all like cinema levels of brightness of course).



3) I make cost plus 10% typically on most items I sell. If I make $700 selling a Rubu and $400 selling and an SX60 i would make more money selling the RUby but the difference to me is insignificant. I always sell what is best for my clients without any profit considerations. Unfortunately there are more dealers who do the profit motive bit than not.

Icon Master

I would think that the cheaper Canon would be easier to sell than the Ruby to the newbie or those on a budget if you promote it to them in the same way you promote it here, but those who wanted a high performance home theater projector and could afford the Ruby, would buy it, and not a cheaper 4:3 machine with less HT peformance. It sounds like you haven't sold a Ruby, but a good friend of mine who is a dealer has, and he knows that there is little profit in selling single Sony products over buying them in bulk (especially if you want to compete with the internet sellers or those who can afford to buy in bulk). Profit margins vary from manufacturer to manufacturer, as do buying requirements (at one time you had to buy two identical Pioneer products, one for demo, and one for stock, otherwise they would supply you).

Lumen loss - it takes an 82% drop in lumens for the human eye to think it has seen a 50% drop. I can guarentee that every lamp in every projector sold will lose lumens as it ages. Unless you measure it you will not notice it, and as the loss is gradual, it will be some considerable time before you will percieve it. If you were to measure the Canon lamp when new, then again at 2000 hours, you will be very suprised at how much it has dropped.

If you have a pj that starts at (lets say) a genuine 2000 lumens and is giving 100 ft lamberts, if the room is light controlled you could end up with just 10ft lamberts after 2000 hours and still find the image more than watchable (4FL is quite watchable with some pj's in a light controlled room).

As for ignorance and conformity, there is an awful lot of innacurate spin on your part which tends to place you in that category.

Gary

i guess no one knows the answers or doesn't want to do the ten minute test to find out ,well thanks anyway.now you can get back to the bickering

i guess no one knows the answers or doesn't want to do the ten minute test to find out ,well thanks anyway.now you can get back to the bickering

I am guessing not that many people here are playing Doom on their pj. Using 1080p will be downscaled, so I am not sure what you want to know. It should look pretty good using its native res and refresh, but without the contrast. LCD doesn't color shift. I don't know why you would want to feed it anything other than its native rate for your fourth question. The third question I cannot answer. For Doom, turn the brightness up on your CRT and see if it is acceptable. If not, then you probably won't be happy with this pj.

Ericglo

when you run the latest games the computer can't run them at 1400 1050 takes to much power ,thank for the answers thow .i also run tv computer on my pj to .just wondering if the shadow detail on the canon is good ?

i mainly run pc games at 1027 768 ,xbox 360 at 1080i ,and tv through my dvdo hd

LCD doesn't color shift.

Ericglo

Hi Eric,

I assumed he was referring to colour uniformity, in which case both LCD and LCoS can have varying colour tints to them to some degree or another (i.e pink on the left side, green on the right). I did see a Sony HS60 with a very minor CU which was visible on a full white field, but was not really visible when watching video content, so it does vary from pj to pj and isn't necessarily an issue (though I've seen them so bad the pj is almost unwatchable, and that was a Sony too).

Gary

will an SX60 with hdcp properly accept an HDMI switched/upconverted signal from something like this

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=582122&highlight=D402


??

a 50 sure as heck wouldn't :( Has anybody tried it ?

Until you or some other Ruby owner has the moxsy to bring a Ruby here for a side by side then your "fool" comment is mere conjecture on your very biased part Darin.Haven't I told you before that if you want a comparison to be done by people who know what they are doing, you could loan one to Tryg (he loves bright projectors and many people love his screen comparisons) and we would compare? But you can keep telling people how the Ruby side is afraid. Being a dealer, if you really wanted people who know what they are doing to compare these, why not just loan one to him for a little while?
While we are talking about misleading Mister "honorable," beyond reproach Darin - now after a bit of time the Ruby is starting to show its flaws as you are only too unwilling to reveal here in the Canon thread but you yourself have admitted to them elsewhere (here). The first is the Rubys' lamp fast output fall-off at 300 hours or so. You just read here that there is one person with well over 2000 hours on his first SX50's lamp and he is noticing little if any lumen loss. How do you deal with that Darin on your Ruby - play more with the auto iris settings or shrink the screen down to a smaller size? At a scant 5 hours of viewing a day you are talking about a mere sixty days with noticeable lumen loss on a $10K unit with a $1K lamp that already is not very good in the lumen department. You sure have sweep that one under the carpet in this message thread "your honor."

Then there is the auto-iris itself and its side effects. Darin your own personal outright bias is toward high CR and you are willing to give up larger screen size (or using hot screens with their issues), you look the other way in regards to auto-iris side-effects (and/or spend untold hours tweaking those settings) and last but not least live with cave type viewing. So Mister "honorable" Darin, why don't you come out and admit that you are the one "fooling" folks in your own right?

Not all of us see things your way Darin and you just don't get that. I am tired of you attacking my integrity. Just like your bias is toward higher CR mine is toward more lumens, larger screen sizes on not special screens. At this point we have to agree to disagree since we are obviously on different "pages." There is no fooling here on my part but differences of opinion.
This is just all too amusing. People may notice that you didn't even try to answer the question about your, "I put it in CInema mode which is close in lumens and CR to the Ruby." You seem to want to change the subject from that. According to projectorcentral's review, the 16:9 portion of the SX60's image in Cinema mode is about 330 lumens. The Ruby doesn't need to be in auto iris mode to be much brighter and much higher CR. It depends on how fast each projector dims and anecdotal evidence about somebody not noticing dimming means very little about how much the projector has actually dimmed (a person who understood this stuff would know that). But with a new bulb and at the shorter end of the throw, even without the dynamic iris the Ruby can be both brighter and with quite a bit more CR than the SX60 in the Cinema mode you said you used, if the SX60 lumens numbers from projectorcentral are true. With a new bulb I wasn't far from 600 lumens with the Ruby with the iris open or on auto and that is with around 3000:1 on/off CR in iris open, or much more than I believe people will find with the SX60 in Cinema mode once somebody who knows what they are doing measures one. Off my 10' wide screen I was getting over 30 ft-lamberts from the Ruby from my viewing position with a new bulb.

I was going to respond to all your other points, but honestly, I think they are there mostly to avoid the issue about your test and your claims being flawed.

I will just say that I talk about the issues with each projector as none of them is perfect, but that sure doesn't mean that I am going to believe messed up claims.

--Darin

Ouch! :D

I've spent the last few days calibrating my projector
with a Spyder and Calman. My results are preliminary
but promising. The current image looks a lot better.

Hi Guys,
From what I can see - the SX60 has one DVI input port...
How do you handle multiple DVI and/or HDMI inputs?
I have Momitsu 880 and like it's DVI output to my Hitachi SX5600 but I have to settle for VGA input from my Dish 6000 - no dual DVI input on SX5600.
Any comments would be apretiated.
Thanks,
Jacek

I would keep the Ruby (we don't yet know if the bulb life or lumens will be greater in the cheaper model). It has more performance than the cheaper model, so why would I downgrade? The only benefit would be a few more dollars in my pocket but that's not why I would have bought a Ruby in the 1st place.
Gary

Was the $10K Ruby a downgrade to the $30K Qualia? It was supposed to be a "downgrade" but for the most part killed the "Q". The same may happen with the new, cheaper(?) Sony.


Buying a Ruby when it first came out also means I would have what is considered one of the best projectors on the market from day one... The SX60 is more expensive than the 50, and it has moved towards Ruby performance (though still has a long way to go). How much more will it cost to attain Ruby performance do you think?
Gary

The Ruby is best for those willing to accept it compromises like you and Darin have done. The biggest is lumen output. The next is its fast diminishing output lamp. The third is it huge size and weight. Then there is its maintenance cost which is high since the lamp has a short life and is not user replaceable.


All second hand machines depreciate with time. Currently the Ruby is the cheapest 1080 product on the market so will hold it's value better. As for upgrading, you were extolling the SX50s superiority to the Ruby and other projectors, yet sold it on it as soon as the SX60 was announced. If the 50 was so good, why don't you still have one? I would also think the 50 would be worth much less now that the 60 is here, both new and second hand. Unfortunately that's the market. It happens with all machines - a new model comes out and the older one is sold off cheaper to clear old stocks. You just have to look on this forum to see that (the Optoma H78/79 is a good example).
Gary

Yes they all depreciate in time but the more expensive units fall further faster. That is the point of the "math" that you and Darin cannot accept. I bought the SX60 because as a demo’ing dealer they encourage us to sell older demo units every six months or year and trade to either the same or newer models. This is true not just for projector manufacturers. I have demo deals wiht Xerox printers, Sony monitors, Samsung monitors, etc. After whatever time frame set by them they encourage cross or upgrading. We usually break even on Demos since we typically get a price-break on them up front but by the time we sell them if they are discontinued or the price has dropped to allow for the addition of new products, dealers end up selling them at or below the discounted original price but at least we get the use of the product over that time frame.


You would lose your bet - the SX60 would never match the Ruby for CR unless you equalized the white level and put them both in a bright room where the black level would then be the same, so you're unable to prove what you say since we know that factually it isn't even close on attaining the CR of the Ruby (as Darin pointed out, it's misleading for you to say otherwise). Most newbies would also fall into the trap of favouring a brighter projector to a dimmer one (or a bigger image to a smaller one) since the eye initially favours a brighter image (and a bigger image has more 'wow' factor), but for movies brightness isn't necessarily a good thing for all the reasons that have been stated in the past (That's not to say that we all like cinema levels of brightness of course).
Gary

I know would not loose that bet. Most folks don't live in dark caves or want their HT's to be that way. They are forced to go that way because the industry so far has insisted that HT projectors put out 1000 lumens or less (with few acceptations). You and Darin cannot accept this but even the Direct TV satellite installer who did most of the major installs here in New Orleans said to me, "I have never seen a picture that great looking." He went on to talk about the $100K to $500K HT instillations he had worked wiht in the elite New Orleans neighborhoods but he left my house blown away. You, Darin and the rest of your CR overly focused group don’t get it and you likely never will till Sony or Canon come up with both a high lumen, high CR LCOS unit. And sure I’d like to see that too but for now the vast majority of folks without the hyper CR critical eye would choose the SX60/50 over the Ruby in a side by side shoot out as borne out by my Cinema mode comparison.


It sounds like you haven't sold a Ruby, but a good friend of mine who is a dealer has, and he knows that there is little profit in selling single Sony products over buying them in bulk (especially if you want to compete with the internet sellers or those who can afford to buy in bulk). Profit margins vary from manufacturer to manufacturer, as do buying requirements (at one time you had to buy two identical Pioneer products, one for demo, and one for stock, otherwise they would supply you).
Gary

Based on the street prices I have heard I'd make more money selling Ruby's per unit than SX60/50's even buying them one at a time. My clients are not the HT crowd thank goodness! :) But they do have critical eyes for color and want to impress their clients. The Canon product are certianly more ideal for that than the low lumen Sony product. I have a high lume SOny LCD and the unit is nice but the screen door kills it if yo are trying to impress.


Lumen loss - it takes an 82% drop in lumens for the human eye to think it has seen a 50% drop. I can guarentee that every lamp in every projector sold will lose lumens as it ages. Unless you measure it you will not notice it, and as the loss is gradual, it will be some considerable time before you will perceive it. If you were to measure the Canon lamp when new, then again at 2000 hours, you will be very surprised at how much it has dropped.
Gary

I don’t know where you got that number from but if you correct do you realize what you have just said? Since all of the Ruby threads are crying over the quite observable lumen loss at 300 or so hours then your finding is snag that the lamp is tailing off as much as 82% in a couple of months. How can you and Darin be touting Ruby's with a design flaw like that? To heck with 1080p and 3000:1 CR. That is absolutely ridiculous - to have a lamp fall off that fast and a $1000 bulb at that. Then you read here that there are Canon owners with 2000 plus hours on their units with the original bulb Then you have the audacity to say that the Ruby is a superior unit even though it is twice the price and cost twice as much more to operate and that you have to nurse your house of usage since it has such a major lamp issue?

Who is pulling the wool over folks eyes here? You and Darin have some nerve telling folks that I am fooling folks. You two remind me or religious zealots who have little faith but are only secure when you convince folks that your "religion" is right. Sure you have a huge following but like religion there is no one right religion or projector but like those rlgios types you have to put down foks with different points of view. THis game just shows how insecure yo are wiht your own points of view.


If you have a pj that starts at (lets say) a genuine 2000 lumens and is giving 100 ft lamberts, if the room is light controlled you could end up with just 10ft lamberts after 2000 hours and still find the image more than watch able (4FL is quite watchable with some pj's in a light controlled room). As for ignorance and conformity, there is an awful lot of inaccurate spin on your part which tends to place you in that category.
Gary

That just further proves my point above. 4FL is a joke and most folks with laugh at someone telling them to spend $10K to get an image that dim on a small screen at that. You and Darin are in your own high CR, dark cave spaces. If you are happy there great but don’t tell us that it is THE way to go. My Cinema mode demo is emphatic proof that folks don’t want bat caves and they don’t want small and dim when they can have big and bright at the expense of some CR. You guys just cannot accept this but look at the posts from folks who have SX50's and SX60's. They love them as they are. In case you guys haven’t noticed the better monitors which many of you are using to read this have CR's of 500:1 to 1000:1. Eever have a buddy or clinet tell you how great their DVD’s look on their monitors?

I have one last question regarding CR. If film is indeed 2000:1 CR capable at best, unless some fudging is done in the transfer process, is there need for higher than 2000:1 CR? Then add in a candle in the room and what is that 3000:1 CR after that?

Icon Master

Hi Guys,

How do you handle multiple DVI and/or HDMI inputs?

VGA input from my Dish 6000 - no dual DVI input on SX5600.

Jacek

You are going to need a switcher.
I too feed my SX60 with a 6000. Nice picture.

I'll speculate that the best solution would probably be
a scaler that you feed all your inputs and it spits out
a native signal for the SX60 DVI port.

You two remind me or religious zealots who have little faith but are only secure when you convince folks that your "religion" is right. Sure you have a huge following but like religion there is no one right religion or projector but like those rlgios types you have to put down foks with different points of view. THis game just shows how insecure yo are wiht your own points of view.

Icon Master

Wow, talk about projection :D :rolleyes:

Then there is its maintenance cost which is high since the lamp has a short life and is not user replaceable.What makes you think the lamp isn't user replaceable?
My Cinema mode demo is emphatic proof that folks don’t want bat caves and they don’t want small and dim when they can have big and bright at the expense of some CR.Are you claiming that you proved that the Cinema mode in the SX60 is pretty worthless? Sounds like it. If not, what is it you think you proved? We already told you that the Ruby is both brighter and higher CR for 1.78:1 to 2.35:1 material with the iris open, at least at the short throw and with a new bulb (I haven't seen any measurements of light dropoff with the SX60).

And why not answer the question about whether you were using 4:3 material for this "test"?

--Darin

And why not answer the question about whether you were using 4:3 material for this "test"?

--Darin

And what the material is (was)? The images at Infocomm looked pretty nice like the plane in the sky photo, but they were not high contrast.

Ericglo

Was the $10K Ruby a downgrade to the $30K Qualia? It was supposed to be a "downgrade" but for the most part killed the "Q". The same may happen with the new, cheaper(?) Sony.

It may happen and if it is a Ruby killer then great. I am sure that most here hope it is, but I doubt it as the Ruby has only been out for less than a year.





I know would not loose that bet. Most folks don't live in dark caves or want their HT's to be that way. They are forced to go that way because the industry so far has insisted that HT projectors put out 1000 lumens or less (with few acceptations). You and Darin cannot accept this but even the Direct TV satellite installer who did most of the major installs here in New Orleans said to me, "I have never seen a picture that great looking." He went on to talk about the $100K to $500K HT instillations he had worked wiht in the elite New Orleans neighborhoods but he left my house blown away. You, Darin and the rest of your CR overly focused group don’t get it and you likely never will till Sony or Canon come up with both a high lumen, high CR LCOS unit. And sure I’d like to see that too but for now the vast majority of folks without the hyper CR critical eye would choose the SX60/50 over the Ruby in a side by side shoot out as borne out by my Cinema mode comparison.
A lot of folks on this forum do have dark caves and a lot of other people don't. What does that have to do with anything? Oh yeah, the choice that you make in pj. In a dark cave or home theater, CR matters. It may matter more to some than others, but it does have an impact. My best friend has a Sanyo PLV70 in his living room and the CR is horrible. It puts out a nice picture, but it isn't a great picture.
Just because some satellite installer said your pj looked great doesn't make him a reliable source. It makes him a testimonial that is unsubstantiated.



Based on the street prices I have heard I'd make more money selling Ruby's per unit than SX60/50's even buying them one at a time. My clients are not the HT crowd thank goodness! :) But they do have critical eyes for color and want to impress their clients. The Canon product are certianly more ideal for that than the low lumen Sony product. I have a high lume SOny LCD and the unit is nice but the screen door kills it if yo are trying to impress.

You have already admitted to not calibrateing your unit or any pj for that matter. So, how do you know what proper color is? Just by looking at it. That is BS. A calibrated pj that hits the correct color standards will reproduce the correct color. That goes for any pj.


I don’t know where you got that number from but if you correct do you realize what you have just said? Since all of the Ruby threads are crying over the quite observable lumen loss at 300 or so hours then your finding is snag that the lamp is tailing off as much as 82% in a couple of months. How can you and Darin be touting Ruby's with a design flaw like that? To heck with 1080p and 3000:1 CR. That is absolutely ridiculous - to have a lamp fall off that fast and a $1000 bulb at that. Then you read here that there are Canon owners with 2000 plus hours on their units with the original bulb Then you have the audacity to say that the Ruby is a superior unit even though it is twice the price and cost twice as much more to operate and that you have to nurse your house of usage since it has such a major lamp issue?
That is funny, as the light loss has been measured on the Ruby. The Canon owners have not measured their light loss. Without measuring than you don't know the actual loss.


Who is pulling the wool over folks eyes here? You and Darin have some nerve telling folks that I am fooling folks. You two remind me or religious zealots who have little faith but are only secure when you convince folks that your "religion" is right. Sure you have a huge following but like religion there is no one right religion or projector but like those rlgios types you have to put down foks with different points of view. THis game just shows how insecure yo are wiht your own points of view.

That just further proves my point above. 4FL is a joke and most folks with laugh at someone telling them to spend $10K to get an image that dim on a small screen at that. You and Darin are in your own high CR, dark cave spaces. If you are happy there great but don’t tell us that it is THE way to go. My Cinema mode demo is emphatic proof that folks don’t want bat caves and they don’t want small and dim when they can have big and bright at the expense of some CR. You guys just cannot accept this but look at the posts from folks who have SX50's and SX60's. They love them as they are. In case you guys haven’t noticed the better monitors which many of you are using to read this have CR's of 500:1 to 1000:1. Eever have a buddy or clinet tell you how great their DVD’s look on their monitors?

This is funny. Darin, others and myself have repeatedly said there is not one perfect pj. You on the other hand have professed that there is and it is the Canon. You have ridiculed those that have "Dark Caves" and swear by high CR.

Please explain the Cinema mode test. You have said this before, but was it a true experiment or something else? Did you say "Theses guys on the forum prefer this Cinema mode to regular mode. What do you think?" or was it an actual blind experiment with a variety of material to sample?


I have one last question regarding CR. If film is indeed 2000:1 CR capable at best, unless some fudging is done in the transfer process, is there need for higher than 2000:1 CR? Then add in a candle in the room and what is that 3000:1 CR after that?

Icon Master
I think you need to read the link in my signature.


Ericglo

Was the $10K Ruby a downgrade to the $30K Qualia? It was supposed to be a "downgrade" but for the most part killed the "Q". The same may happen with the new, cheaper(?) Sony.

Ins some respects it's better, but in others it isn't (Qualia is sharper, has higher ANSI CR and is brighter for those who need it are just 3 that immediatley come to mind).



The Ruby is best for those willing to accept it compromises like you and Darin have done. The biggest is lumen output. The next is its fast diminishing output lamp. The third is it huge size and weight. Then there is its maintenance cost which is high since the lamp has a short life and is not user replaceable.

Actually, for those wanting a high CR 1080 pj with good image capabilities, I don't see many compromises with the Ruby (maybe some BC). I think most people will make the Ruby fit just to get the image it can give into their theaters. I don't own a Ruby by the way, just in case you had assumed I did. The lamp is user replaceable.



I know would not loose that bet. Most folks don't live in dark caves or want their HT's to be that way. They are forced to go that way because the industry so far has insisted that HT projectors put out 1000 lumens or less (with few acceptations). You and Darin cannot accept this but even the Direct TV satellite installer who did most of the major installs here in New Orleans said to me, "I have never seen a picture that great looking." He went on to talk about the $100K to $500K HT instillations he had worked wiht in the elite New Orleans neighborhoods but he left my house blown away. You, Darin and the rest of your CR overly focused group don’t get it and you likely never will till Sony or Canon come up with both a high lumen, high CR LCOS unit. And sure I’d like to see that too but for now the vast majority of folks without the hyper CR critical eye would choose the SX60/50 over the Ruby in a side by side shoot out as borne out by my Cinema mode comparison.

So are you saying the SX60 has more contrast than the Ruby? If you want to compromise the image by having some lights on, then obviously a higher lumen pj will have a higher CR, but at the cost of black level, shadow detail and color accuracy. So are you saying that the Canon is for those who want to compromise image quality?



Based on the street prices I have heard I'd make more money selling Ruby's per unit than SX60/50's even buying them one at a time. My clients are not the HT crowd thank goodness! :) But they do have critical eyes for color and want to impress their clients. The Canon product are certianly more ideal for that than the low lumen Sony product. I have a high lume SOny LCD and the unit is nice but the screen door kills it if yo are trying to impress.

Well I know a dealer who would disagree you, so I don't know who you 'heard' your info from. As for critical eye for colour, I doubt the Canons are anywhere near D65 and if you have some lights on, your colours will be desaturated anyway.



I don’t know where you got that number from but if you correct do you realize what you have just said? Since all of the Ruby threads are crying over the quite observable lumen loss at 300 or so hours then your finding is snag that the lamp is tailing off as much as 82% in a couple of months. How can you and Darin be touting Ruby's with a design flaw like that? To heck with 1080p and 3000:1 CR. That is absolutely ridiculous - to have a lamp fall off that fast and a $1000 bulb at that. Then you read here that there are Canon owners with 2000 plus hours on their units with the original bulb Then you have the audacity to say that the Ruby is a superior unit even though it is twice the price and cost twice as much more to operate and that you have to nurse your house of usage since it has such a major lamp issue?

Do some research and you can learn quite a lot. As for touting the Ruby, I'm not. I'm just trying to correct the misinformation you're spinning to tout the Canon.


Who is pulling the wool over folks eyes here? You and Darin have some nerve telling folks that I am fooling folks. You two remind me or religious zealots who have little faith but are only secure when you convince folks that your "religion" is right. Sure you have a huge following but like religion there is no one right religion or projector but like those rlgios types you have to put down foks with different points of view. THis game just shows how insecure yo are wiht your own points of view.

You're the one putting spin on your products, and I'm trying to be as accurate as I can. You're also the only one putting people down, especially Ruby owners - I think anyone reading this thread can see that (and over on the SX50 thread too).


That just further proves my point above. 4FL is a joke and most folks with laugh at someone telling them to spend $10K to get an image that dim on a small screen at that. You and Darin are in your own high CR, dark cave spaces. If you are happy there great but don’t tell us that it is THE way to go. My Cinema mode demo is emphatic proof that folks don’t want bat caves and they don’t want small and dim when they can have big and bright at the expense of some CR. You guys just cannot accept this but look at the posts from folks who have SX50's and SX60's. They love them as they are. In case you guys haven’t noticed the better monitors which many of you are using to read this have CR's of 500:1 to 1000:1. Eever have a buddy or clinet tell you how great their DVD’s look on their monitors?

Actually you're the one telling us how stupid we are for having dark rooms and caring about image quality, and that brighter is so much better. Why is 4ft lamberts laughable? It doesn't mean a small image - with the right size screen you can have 4FL from your SX60 even in high lamp mode but the lower CR will mean it is less watchable than an identicaly bright pj with more. My monitor has much more than 1000:1 because it can go very black, but I tend to use it with the lights on while surfing the net as it's easier on the eyes and I don't watch DVDs on it. I've no problem with people wanting brighter projectors and watching with lights on, but you're the one telling us how stupid we are because we don't and then deriding products like the Ruby and DLP any way you can.


I have one last question regarding CR. If film is indeed 2000:1 CR capable at best, unless some fudging is done in the transfer process, is there need for higher than 2000:1 CR? Then add in a candle in the room and what is that 3000:1 CR after that?

Icon Master

Higher CR will give you better black levels for the same white level. Some people (especially ex CRT owners) who like deep blacks want more CR than most fixed pixel displays can offer, which is why the Ruby is quite popular with them., and why they have dark rooms.

Gary

Here is a pic of a DNP rear pro screen. (http://img124.imageshack.us/img124/7632/noblackgt4.jpg) The pj was a DP dlp pj with around 2k to 1 contrast ratio. You tell me if you can see the outline of the image. That will be highlighted even more on the Canon. Turn off the lights and that difference will be even more extreme. Icon, just because someone doesn't have a theater doesn't mean they can't turn all of the lights off at night. I do this all of the time with my CRT and can easily see the difference.

Ericglo

2nd day with my sx60 contrast is fine ,i use a cave ,the pj is great but don't like the smearing with fast spaning . like when you play first person shooters or fast movement on tv

Sunstone,
So, you went ahead and bought it? How do you like the black level in dark games like Doom? What res are you using?

Ericglo

have not played doom yet but in home cinema mode blacks are fine in my cave .only tried oblivion so far and don't like the smearing .sucks to ,all else seems great .can't use single chip dlp now this, i'm close to sending it back and getting a used crt againnnnn

just installed doom to answer you question and it looked fine ,good shadows ,i'm not a videophile so i'm not sure how picky people can be on black ,its black to me .i was worried that a dark game would loose depted but the canon does more than fine ,until you move it blurrs just a little .my eyes don't like it

Sun,
That is interesting and good to know. For me, I don't like the contrast of a movie theater and this is below that. For games, maybe this is more than adequate. So, this blurring wasn't on your CRT, but it is on the Canon. If you go back to CRT, then you should know that you are in 9" price range with the Canon price. You can get 8" CRTs for under $3k all day. I have a 135LC that according to Scott(tse) I should be able to do 1600x1200. I know Scott would say that a VDC 8500 could do it easily.

Ericglo

i just put in starwars ep3 and in movie cinema mode, i turn the brighness down and man there is no problem with black or any other color .looks the best i ever have seen it ,i found an ajustment that says(digital video) with 2 settings f or L and if helps the blurring a little when set to L. i hope that i can live with it

So is the smearing less obvious when watching video than when playing games? What about when you use it for watching sports?

Anyone know what the ms response time of the panel is? I wonder how it compares to other LCoS/SXRD machines.

Gary.

Anyone know what the ms response time of the panel is? I wonder how it compares to other LCoS/SXRD machines.I don't know the timing, but in my experience JVC's version of LCoS (DILA) has a dampening effect on higher speed noise which gives it a look that many people like for video. The HD2K has less visible detail than the Qualia (which meant less noise in bad material) and my guess has been that it had to do with slower response times. I would put the Ruby partway between those as far as detail and dampening of noise, but that is probably due to a less sharp lens than the Qualia. Given that Canon reportedly uses JVC panels, this could be smearing could be related to what I saw (although I never had much of a problem with smearing).

--Darin

it's just a little blur in movement ,when it stops it stops fast(the blurring)but in games like racing things are always moving fast. in first person games i can't focus when i look around with my mouse ,stays a slight blur until i stop the mouse . or if you grab the slide bar on web pages and move it up or down slowly or fast it blurs then to..not as noticeable with movies but it's there

Ins some respects it's better, but in others it isn't (Qualia is sharper, has higher ANSI CR and is brighter for those who need it are just 3 that immediatley come to mind)
Gary.

But in some way the one-third the cost Ruby was "better" and that did it. The "Q" became a footnote in the quest for the perfect HT projector. The new Sony may do the same to the Ruby and maybe even push Canon to do better. That is the great thing about competition and being open minded. I'd like to replace my DLP unit but it will have to be with something of moderate cost and still have decent lumen output. I'd love to see Sony rock the whole industry as it once did. I still cannot get over the ridiculous $20K price of the new 1080p DLP units coming out. Talk about having your head in the sand. That is what the Ruby did do. It set a new lower 1080p price point that is being ignored by certain 1080p DLP manufacturers thinking they can sucker DLP fans into paying that price because their 1080p blacks are blacker than the Ruby's. No way will anyone here fall for that ploy - right???? Right????? Hmm, it suddenly got very quiet here. Are there fools among us that will pay any price to get a higher CR ratio projector - even a dim, low lumen one with an ugly screen door showing???? The Ruby doesn't, like the LCOS Canons, have image dulling screen door "baggage."


Actually, for those wanting a high CR 1080 pj with good image capabilities, I don't see many compromises with the Ruby (maybe some BC).
Gary

Still too low on the lumens for many of us big and bright HT enthusiasts. It has a short lamp life that is very expensive, weighs 40 plus pounds, huge in size compared to the current trend in HT projectors making it a design task for many to hang from low ceilings and issues with the Auto Iris. Other than those few issues it is near puur-fect.


So are you saying the SX60 has more contrast than the Ruby? If you want to compromise the image by having some lights on, then obviously a higher lumen pj will have a higher CR, but at the cost of black level, shadow detail and color accuracy. So are you saying that the Canon is for those who want to compromise image quality?
Gary

Haven't you read the reviews on the SX50 and SX60? All said these Canon units have a great looking images. The folks here who own them say the same. Neither unit - Canon or Ruby - is puur-fect but one is half or less the cost of the Ruby and the higher lumens and versatility make the SX60 a formidable competitor at its lower price with its design differences noted here by me and others.


Well I know a dealer who would disagree you, so I don't know who you 'heard' your info from. As for critical eye for colour, I doubt the Canons are anywhere near D65 and if you have some lights on, your colours will be desaturated anyway.
Gary

Those here who have tested and calibrated their SX50's have found it to be very close to D65 in sRGB mode. I don't know if anyone here has done a calibration test of the SX60 but it is likely to have the same result. Darin or others have a open invite to come to New Orleans and do all the testing and calibration they want on my SX60. What more can I offer? I'll even treat them to some gumbo and a sofa if they want to spend some nights here.

Typically dealers make cost plus 10%. If Rubys sell for more than the Canon then their cost is more and as such the dealer makes more on the sale. An estimate of profit on these is between $500 to $1000. With a bit of advanced fuzzy math you can figure out who makes what on what.


Do some research and you can learn quite a lot. As for touting the Ruby, I'm not. I'm just trying to correct the misinformation you're spinning to tout the Canon.... You're the one putting spin on your products, and I'm trying to be as accurate as I can. You're also the only one putting people down, especially Ruby owners - I think anyone reading this thread can see that (and over on the SX50 thread too).
Gary

Misinformation and spinning on my part? Have Darin comes "clean" on the issues of his Ruby and stop making silly comments like do I do demos with SD material when he won't acknowledge doing the same with his Ruby.... He is THE trolling misinformation minister-comedian and withholder of information. I am but a student by comparison.


Actually you're the one telling us how stupid we are for having dark rooms and caring about image quality, and that brighter is so much better. Why is 4ft lamberts laughable? It doesn't mean a small image - with the right size screen you can have 4FL from your SX60 even in high lamp mode but the lower CR will mean it is less watchable than an identicaly bright pj with more. My monitor has much more than 1000:1 because it can go very black, but I tend to use it with the lights on while surfing the net as it's easier on the eyes and I don't watch DVDs on it. I've no problem with people wanting brighter projectors and watching with lights on, but you're the one telling us how stupid we are because we don't and then deriding products like the Ruby and DLP any way you can.
Gary

Never said stupid - you did. I said that DLP has a constant and noticeable screen door effect that dulls the image as was clearly shown in the allegedly touched up Canon brochure. I can prove it on my screen. Got hammered on that one but I stand by that finding. Darin's silly (and funny) answer to sit further back doesn't change the effect that 13% of current DLP's projected image (no small amount) stay black all the time and has its effect on the look of DLP regardless of how far back you sit (well maybe not at infiniti) and I know since I have a DLP too.

I agree with you in that having a tad bit of controlled background light is easier on my eyes too. I have focused, narrow beam recessed MR16 based downlighting that puts minimal light on the screen but not all or many of the "experts" here will accept this way of viewing - nor can they - especially those with the low lumen units like the Ruby, Q, and most of the single DLP designed for HT projectors. The extra lumens of the Canons has been proven in other threads by other folks to provide a cushion to more stray background light in the viewing area. It was also "proven" that the huge CR ratios go out the window with a mere candle or two equivalent of light leaking into the HT. Even the darkest of caves here may not be fit for 10000:1 CR so why are many here pursuing at all costs something that cannot be achieved in the real world or even from within the source materials itself is beyond all reason. Seems like common sense goes out the window here for many in this quest.


Higher CR will give you better black levels for the same white level. Some people (especially ex CRT owners) who like deep blacks want more CR than most fixed pixel displays can offer, which is why the Ruby is quite popular with them., and why they have dark rooms.
Gary

And I am sure they do a lot more tripping over objects and spilling of drink and food than us Canon projector owners. They probably are viewing a smaller image and have more eyestrain too.

Icon Master

.

But in some way the one-third the cost Ruby was "better" and that did it. The "Q" became a footnote in the quest for the perfect HT projector. The new Sony may do the same to the Ruby and maybe even push Canon to do better. That is the great thing about competition and being open minded. I'd like to replace my DLP unit but it will have to be with something of moderate cost and still have decent lumen output. I'd love to see Sony rock the whole industry as it once did. I still cannot get over the ridiculous $20K price of the new 1080p DLP units coming out. Talk about having your head in the sand. That is what the Ruby did do. It set a new lower 1080p price point that is being ignored by certain 1080p DLP manufacturers thinking they can sucker DLP fans into paying that price because their 1080p blacks are blacker than the Ruby's. No way will anyone here fall for that ploy - right???? Right????? Hmm, it suddenly got very quiet here. Are there fools among us that will pay any price to get a higher CR ratio projector - even a dim, low lumen one with an ugly screen door showing???? The Ruby doesn't, like the LCOS Canons, have image dulling screen door "baggage."

How much is he new Optoma 1080 DLP going to retail and street for?

Darin has already explained that two projectors with the same (measured) lumen output will have the same brightness regardless of screendoor, and we've already been over you're screendoor spin in previous posts. It's pretty much spin.

And don't forget that DLP gives a sharper more detailed image with no smearing (the mirrors are infinitely faster than the rise/fall time of LCoS). It has it's own issues of course but no projector is perfect.



Still too low on the lumens for many of us big and bright HT enthusiasts.


Or too bright for some home theater enthusiasts who don't like seeing image noise.


It has a short lamp life that is very expensive, weighs 40 plus pounds, huge in size compared to the current trend in HT projectors making it a design task for many to hang from low ceilings and issues with the Auto Iris. Other than those few issues it is near puur-fect.

I don't know about the short lamp life - has anyone had to replace Ruby a lamp yet? I would think the lamp life is around the same as the Canon - 2000 or more. It does dim more initially, but don't forget Darin is running a 10ft wide screen so it can be made to work with larger screens if you know what you're doing. As for size and weight, it's not an issue for most people especially if they want one of the best images available and don't want to settle for less.



Haven't you read the reviews on the SX50 and SX60? All said these Canon units have a great looking images. The folks here who own them say the same. Neither unit - Canon or Ruby - is puur-fect but one is half or less the cost of the Ruby and the higher lumens and versatility make the SX60 a formidable competitor at its lower price with its design differences noted here by me and others.

Haven't you read the Ruby reviews? I don't think the Canons have made it to Widescreen Review yet, and if you look at this forum, I think you'll see more Ruby posts than any other, and there's a good reason for that. I have read some Canon reviews, and the issues with the 50 put me of buying one, despite the spin you gave it. Then the 60 came out and and you sold your 50 and then said the 60 was their best pj ever (I keep asking - if the 50 was so good, why did you sell it?), I can see a pettern here....



Those here who have tested and calibrated their SX50's have found it to be very close to D65 in sRGB mode. I don't know if anyone here has done a calibration test of the SX60 but it is likely to have the same result. Darin or others have a open invite to come to New Orleans and do all the testing and calibration they want on my SX60. What more can I offer? I'll even treat them to some gumbo and a sofa if they want to spend some nights here.

Knowing UHP lamps and how most pjs tend to look out of the box I doubt that being close to D65 is the rule, more the exception. I would also think that it would need calibrating in much the same way as most other projectors do, so it's unlikely to be closer to D65 than any other as you would like people to believe (more spin).


Typically dealers make cost plus 10%. If Rubys sell for more than the Canon then their cost is more and as such the dealer makes more on the sale. An estimate of profit on these is between $500 to $1000. With a bit of advanced fuzzy math you can figure out who makes what on what.

I know some brands that can allow as much as 45% profit per unit sold, so a dealer who wanted to push that model would make more money by spinning that model over another with just 10% margin.



Misinformation and spinning on my part? Have Darin comes "clean" on the issues of his Ruby and stop making silly comments like do I do demos with SD material when he won't acknowledge doing the same with his Ruby.... He is THE trolling misinformation minister-comedian and withholder of information. I am but a student by comparison.

Yup, you do seem to spin the Canon over any other pj (screendoor dimming for example), and it seems it's because you are a dealer. Darin is just an enthusiast like most of us here and he certainly knows the subject, so he doesn't need to lie or spin about anything.


Never said stupid - you did.


Just look at your posts and see who is the one deriding other pj owners here.


I said that DLP has a constant and noticeable screen door effect that dulls the image as was clearly shown in the allegedly touched up Canon brochure. I can prove it on my screen. Got hammered on that one but I stand by that finding.


Even though what you say isn't true. If you look close at any digital you can see screendoor, but why sit that close? Is it just to promote the pj you are a dealer for? Isn't it also true that you have an XGA DLP that you are comparing to the 1400 x 1050 Canon? Of course there will be comparatively more screendoor. Try comparing it to a 1400 x 1050 DLP and then see how it looks.


Darin's silly (and funny) answer to sit further back doesn't change the effect that 13% of current DLP's projected image (no small amount) stay black all the time and has its effect on the look of DLP regardless of how far back you sit (well maybe not at infiniti) and I know since I have a DLP too.

I sit 1.5 screenwidths away and screendoor isn't an issue. If LCoS and DLP had the same pixel spacing I'm sure you'd invent some other reason why DLP (or LCD) is bad compared to LCoS.


I agree with you in that having a tad bit of controlled background light is easier on my eyes too.

You'd be wrong to agree because I was talking about direct view sets (my pc monitor), not front projection. Using bias lighting with FP can cause all sorts of image problems due to the effects of the light on the screen and how it can bias the eye (the iris will adapt and you will not see shadopw detail). Unless you know what level to have the light at you can seriously reduce shadow detail visibility.


I have focused, narrow beam recessed MR16 based downlighting that puts minimal light on the screen but not all or many of the "experts" here will accept this way of viewing - nor can they - especially those with the low lumen units like the Ruby, Q, and most of the single DLP designed for HT projectors. The extra lumens of the Canons has been proven in other threads by other folks to provide a cushion to more stray background light in the viewing area. It was also "proven" that the huge CR ratios go out the window with a mere candle or two equivalent of light leaking into the HT. Even the darkest of caves here may not be fit for 10000:1 CR so why are many here pursuing at all costs something that cannot be achieved in the real world or even from within the source materials itself is beyond all reason. Seems like common sense goes out the window here for many in this quest.

It's also proven that having any ambient light on with front projection can compromise the image, and that's why those of us that want the best image detail and quality don't have any ambient lights on when viewing a movie.



And I am sure they do a lot more tripping over objects and spilling of drink and food than us Canon projector owners. They probably are viewing a smaller image and have more eyestrain too.

I tend to watch a film and not walk around while it's on (what's the point?), but even so, there's still plenty of light around when there is a bright scene so I can see well enough if I need to. As for squinting, someone with no ambient light on will be able to see all the shadow detail whereas someone with lights on probably can't. Not being able to see the shadow detail (that is obviously there) does make me squint and can give me a headache. I hope you use a test disk when setting your black level (with the lights on).

Gary.

Have Darin comes "clean" on the issues of his Ruby and stop making silly comments like do I do demos with SD material when he won't acknowledge doing the same with his Ruby....Some of this is pretty funny, but I wanted to comment on this part. I didn't ask you if you used SD material, I asked you if you used 4:3 material because it affects the lumens between a 4:3 projector and a 16:9 projector and because it also affects the width of the real images between two projectors like that.

--Darin

Final update ,had to take it down my eyes could not take the blur ,smear ,on movement in games . i hooked up my pc back to my trinitron monitor and man the blacks and it's alot sharper to. Now i have to buy another use crt projector or find a 3 chip dlp .but the cheapest one i know of is sold here the 333, and i don't have 7500.00 to spend on one, and the bulbs last only 1500hr?

I can only speak for the SX50 but I don't see any blurring or smearing in games and I have used it a lot for gaming. And I mean a lot. My other computer which I use for gaming has a normal high quality CRT monitor. When comparing blurring between them they both have some and neither is clearly worse or better. This is with a DVI connection to the SX50 going at 60Hz and 1:1 pixel mapping.

The gaming experience has been absolutely great. Half Life 2 at 1400 x 1050 on the big screen is really something. I play First Person Shooters almost exclusively so any smearing or blurring would have popped up at some point.

it looks like your eye's are not as sensitive as mine .some can use dlp i can't,i like running my fps at 75 to 100 fps or a silky smooth 60 which most console don't do.but it does blur at medium and fast pans

Which input do you see the smearing on?

I'd really like folks to spout facts instead of opinions
on this thread. The noise is getting tedious.

Let me throw out some PRELIMINARY numbers
from my recent Calman calibration run for discussion.
Take the following with a grain of salt :-)

My current throw is 19 feet.
With the sensor 18" away and FACING the screen I read almost 20 ft Lamberts.
Plenty bright.

Above 20IRE the projector reads about 6300K and is relatively flat.
Gamma is about 2.33
For selective HiDef sources, the picture is very very nice.

I won't report contrast at this time, but, it could be better in my opinion.
More work is required.

How far from D65 was it on your first run? Do you have any graphs of before and after calibration?

Gary

i used a high grade vga and a high grade dvi ,my eye's are just faster than the pixel response time ,it's no big deal i just can't use it most won't have a problem.At least i found a projector finaly (g70) another 200 pound beast .

How far from D65 was it on your first run? Do you have any graphs of before and after calibration?
Gary

I don't have any before graphs but how about the following...

The two main advantages the SX60 has over the SX50 is HDMI/HDCP and lower fan noise. Assuming you got a current fixed SX50 w/o the dust blob issue the image is identical in quality although there may be some processing or scaling issues using the SX50 with PC's. I don't process images through a PC so I cannot comment on those issues. I go direct from satellite receiver or DVD player to projector. Don't play games either so cannot comment on smearing except to say that all materials including those in picture tubes have a measurable luminescent decay half life so there is smearing on all displays. How much it bothers you is a personal issue and a function of what you are watching.

Plain and simple you guys don't get it and apparently never will when it comes to the SDE of DLP. While in theory you could have two projectors throwing nearly identical lumens (as I do) on the same size screen there are (using DLP's 87% transmissive number posted elsewhere here) fixed black lines taking up 13% of the image in the form of "screen door" that stay there and these lines are black all the time. I did not say that the lines take away from the lumen output. That was another of Darin's attempts at diversion from the real issue. Sure you can sit back far enough so you do not see the lines as I do too but regardless they are there and they dull the overall look of the image compared to viewing the same one on the same screen with the same amount of lumens with an LCOS projection unit. Darin can laugh all he wants but it is you that are fooling yourselves - not I. And this ******** about me being brand biased is just that. If Sony comes out with a better LCOS untill that has sufficient lumens and is cost competitive then I will give it a serious evaluation and perhaps buy it. I have said that as a computer dealer I have wholesale access to most brands of projectors and have sold several different brands to clients depending on their needs and budget.

Neither Canon or Sony have a lock on my business although those two brands are typically my favorites. I have a 46" Sony 1080p LCD XBR3 on order for a client's media room which has too much uncontrollable stray light for forward projection use. So like allegedly unbiased Darin I keep an open mind to all that is happening in the industry. Where we vastly differ is that I am not a sucker for 1080p and super high contrast at the expense of lumens and way higher prices as is the trend among the again alleged HT purists here. That is why I keep getting hammered here because it is this unyielding, inflexible attitude toward those two criteria that has me at odds with the the PC like-thinking, unthinking masses here. Well I am a Mac guy and I know I don't need to be in the majority to have a product that outperforms one chosen by the masses. I have faced a lot of snickering fools in my Mac using lifetime.

I agree that 1080p will be better than 720p and 5000:1 CR is better than 1000:1 but is paying twice to ten times the price to get those "features" worth it when on the screen the difference is negligible - especially when the current HT units that do this or so darn low in lumens. Well you know my choice and it is just that - a choice. I will continue to challenge the conventional "wisdom" here until Sony or Canon or someone else does indeed provide that "perfect" 1080p, high CR, High lumen, low noise level, moderate cost unit with bulbs that are reasonable in cost and that don't fall off it output after a few weeks of use. Is that funny too Darin? :)

If people want to spend $10K to $50K to get a six/seven foot image that is 500 lumens but has 10000:1 CR great. I am still willing to bet and take the money from any Ruby or single DLP using folks here if there was a way of setting up a side my side challenge of these same, dim image with high CR projectors versus the ten footer of my Canon SX50/SX60. The Canons blow folks away - i.e. folks who are looking at the whole picture and not looking at how black the blacks are or if the edge on a test pattern is shaper than the one next to it. In real world viewing the $5K or less Canon SX50 and Canon SX60 are the best bargains around in 720p forward projection HT today and most folks aren't going to see the difference between them and a 1080p Ruby except to wonder why is that big old projector so darn dim.

Icon Master

Just read the Sony "Pearl" thread. If it does come in at 1050 lumens, brighter than the Ruby's 600 to 800 rating/specs and has a longer life - not tailing off lamp, the Ruby is in deep trouble and again we will need to drag out those confusing to some fuzzy math calculations post Cedia to see who will pay what for a Ruby then. Start sell them Ruby's on e-Bay now!

Darin I look forward to your Pearl report! :) I'd love to ditch my screen door laden Mitsu DLP unit and the Pearl might be the one to do it - if it does do a solid 1000 lumens. Then I will have one unit for game day lights on to some lights on viewing and then another when I am in the mood for a movie in a cave - and neither will have screen door! If the Pearl comes in at $5K to $6K then Canon gets pushed to do a real 16:9 HT unit and then the fun will really begin. Who will be foolish enough to buy a $15K to $20K 1080p DLP based unit then? The Pearl should knock the snot off those high 1080p DLP prices too.

Icon Master


P.S. Some folks actually can sit dead still for two hours in a dark cave and don't get up to go to the bathroom or pop some popcorn? They actually keep the lights totally off and never, ever get up and if they do (get up) in their cave darkness they never trip over someones feet or slippers? Wow!! What discipline and dark walking skill. I thought the point of having a home theater is to be able to pause it whenever, get up and stretch, do whatever then sit back down and watch whatever, whenever without having to miss a single scene in the flick. (or game if you have tivo). Guess my whole philosophy of HT viewing is way off - NOT!!!

You are getting tedious with the spin etc now, but...


Plain and simple you guys don't get it and apparently never will when it comes to the SDE of DLP. While in theory you could have two projectors throwing nearly identical lumens (as I do) on the same size screen there are (using DLP's 87% transmissive number posted elsewhere here) fixed black lines taking up 13% of the image in the form of "screen door" that stay there and these lines are black all the time.

You seem to be the only person with this theory/problem, plus you still haven't compared like for like with a 1400 x 1050 DLP which is a fairer test than the you one you keep trying to pass off as proof of your theory (your DLP is only XGA). You are simply misleading people. The difference in fill factor between LCoS and DLP is about 5% (88% vs 93% fill factor). So like for like (both pjs the same resolution) the difference will be hardly perceptible.

[snip]



If people want to spend $10K to $50K to get a six/seven foot image that is 500 lumens but has 10000:1 CR great.

You should be able to work out that you can get a considerably larger image than 6 or 7ft wide 16:9 if you have 500 lumens, especially if you use a higher gain screen. As you have already been told, Darin has a 10ft wide image with his Ruby.

Not everbody wants to watch movies with the lights on (which compromises image quality), and that seems to be something you don't understand, probably since it doesn't help you sell the Canons with the spin you use.


I am still willing to bet and take the money from any Ruby or single DLP using folks here if there was a way of setting up a side my side challenge of these same, dim image with high CR projectors versus the ten footer of my Canon SX50/SX60. The Canons blow folks away - i.e. folks who are looking at the whole picture and not looking at how black the blacks are or if the edge on a test pattern is shaper than the one next to it. In real world viewing the $5K or less Canon SX50 and Canon SX60 are the best bargains around in 720p forward projection HT today and most folks aren't going to see the difference between them and a 1080p Ruby except to wonder why is that big old projector so darn dim.

There is more to an image than the features you mention (if brightness is the only one, go for it), which is why those that can afford it are buying the Ruby.

I do agree the SX60 is good value, but so is the Ruby - in fact it's better value than the Canons when you consider what other 1080 products are selling for.

Gary

Hey Icon, one of the big bennies of a HT is that you hit the "pause" button, head for the John, pick up another brewskie or whatever.

As for the popcorn, we fix that first! :D

I think Icon is a sucker for paying more than twice what I did for my Panasonic 900, beautiful bright smooth image an 11' Hipower.

You seem to be the only person with this theory/problem, plus you still haven't compared like for like with a 1400 x 1050 DLP which is a fairer test than the you one you keep trying to pass off as proof of your theory (your DLP is only XGA). You are simply misleading people. The difference in fill factor between LCoS and DLP is about 5% (88% vs 93% fill factor). So like for like (both pjs the same resolution) the difference will be hardly perceptible.

[snip]
I do agree the SX60 is good value, but so is the Ruby - in fact it's better value than the Canons when you consider what other 1080 products are selling for.
Gary

Regardless of whether I am the first to make note of it or not (besides the Canon brochure) the effect exists and resolution has nothing to do with it. It is all about the fill factor. How much of the image remains "black" lines all of the time. I have seen the rated 93% fill factor of LCOS posted here and I will accept that (since I have no way to measure it) however the LCOS screen door lines are a faint, faint gray and are not dark black like in DLP or LCD. Thus with a 7% gray SDE it has less impact than a constant 13% black screen has superimposed on the image. By comparison this black SD has a dulling effect on the appearance of the image.

Gary you and Darin can try to downgrade what I am saying about this dulling DLP's SDE has on an image b y calling it "spin" all you want but i am telling the folks here what I have observed with my dual projector system and there is no spin involved. Frankly since Darin is this alleged techno genius I am disappointed that he has not tried to do a DLP versus Ruby side by side tests on his own. He should be able to observe the same thing I have with his Ruby versus a DLP since the Ruby too has minimal SDE.

The fact that alleged venerable Darin has not done this and instead smoked folks by suggesting they sit further back just shows Darin has his own agenda with his narrow focus on his own particular aspects of interest like CR and auto iris effects. He appears to be as stuck in those ruts of HT as I am in big and bright.

To each their own.

I agree that the price of the Ruby has set a new lower level for 1080p and I hope the next unit from Sony drops the 1080p price "bar" even further. From what I am reading about the new 1080p DLP units, they are going to rape any suckers who are foolish enough to pay way more for a bit higher CR (low lumes too) and little else more than what the Ruby has to offer at nearly half the price. The DLP manufacturers will take what the market will bare and it looks like due to the arguments of folks like Darin who overly tout the benefits of high CR, many people here are hyped up to pay nearly any ridiculous price for the initial offerings of 1080p DLP projectors. The Ruby however is not (based upon list price) twice as good as the Canon's. Again your brainwashed here bias for 1080p and high CR are showing.

Icon Master

I think Icon is a sucker for paying more than twice what I did for my Panasonic 900, beautiful bright smooth image an 11' Hipower.

The Panny 900 is a bit low on the lumens but I am down on LCD after having to replace the complete PolySi LCD panel assembly and polarizers three times in 2 years in a Proxima/Sanyo commerical "heavy duty" projector. Be watching for blue edges and a dark gray cloud descending over the middle very gradually. If it has filters clean them often to keep the ar flowing over the heat sensitive organic LCD panels and polarizers.

That is why I am willing to paymore for a LCOS unit over LCD. I do have an LCD Sony unit but I use it once a month for a couple of hours at Mac user group meetings. In that kind of use the panels will not degrade for years.

Icon Master

Hey Icon, one of the big bennies of a HT is that you hit the "pause" button, head for the John, pick up another brewskie or whatever.

As for the popcorn, we fix that first! :D

But what about the free mid-movie popcorn refills too?

We need to sell some of those inferred sensor lights-on switches to our fellow but low lumen cave dwelling buddies who won't admit too bad bladders, hunger pangs and tripping over feet in the dark. :)

Icon Master

Regardless of whether I am the first to make note of it or not (besides the Canon brochure) the effect exists and resolution has nothing to do with it. It is all about the fill factor.

Resolution has a great deal to do with it - I can just about see SDE 12ft away from a 7ft 16:9 image with an 800 x 600 DLP (I have to look for it in certain scenes such as credits), but I can't from the same distance with an XGA, or the same distance from a 720 DLP on an 8ft wide screen (in fact there should be more lines with higher res since there are more pixels, but the SDE becomes less visible, so that disproves your theory too). When viewing the 4 x 1400 x 1050 DLPs all blended to make one long continuous image at the Disney Pixar exhibition here in London a couple of months ago, the seating was approx 4ft away from the wall it was projected on (in a dark room where no-one fell over), and no screendoor was visible. According to your theory, with that amount of pixels we shouldn't have been able to see the image at all, only dark lines.


How much of the image remains "black" lines all of the time. I have seen the rated 93% fill factor of LCOS posted here and I will accept that (since I have no way to measure it) however the LCOS screen door lines are a faint, faint gray and are not dark black like in DLP or LCD. Thus with a 7% gray SDE it has less impact than a constant 13% black screen has superimposed on the image. By comparison this black SD has a dulling effect on the appearance of the image.

The fact you are the only one seeing this gives us all a clue to it's validity. Some DLPs can have as much as 90% fill factor, so then it would be only 3% difference).


Gary you and Darin can try to downgrade what I am saying about this dulling DLP's SDE has on an image b y calling it "spin" all you want but i am telling the folks here what I have observed with my dual projector system and there is no spin involved. Frankly since Darin is this alleged techno genius I am disappointed that he has not tried to do a DLP versus Ruby side by side tests on his own. He should be able to observe the same thing I have with his Ruby versus a DLP since the Ruby too has minimal SDE.

If Darin bothered to do this it all, I would think it would be with a Ruby and an Optoma HD81 since they are the same resolution and similar lumens, so a more like for like comparison. I would also think that he will also measure the lumens to make sure they were the same and try to equalise them in some way.

Your 'controlled' methods are hardly that since they are not like for like in either resolution or light output.


The fact that alleged venerable Darin has not done this and instead smoked folks by suggesting they sit further back just shows Darin has his own agenda with his narrow focus on his own particular aspects of interest like CR and auto iris effects. He appears to be as stuck in those ruts of HT as I am in big and bright.

To each their own.

Indeed. Home theater for many is about trying to get the best image quality and that will mean a dark room with dark surfaces. Not all of us like super bright images and/or ambient light and the downsides it can have for image quality.

[snip]



The Ruby however is not (based upon list price) twice as good as the Canon's. Again your brainwashed here bias for 1080p and high CR are showing.

IYHO of course, but many vote with their wallet and the amount of Ruby threads here in this Home Theater forum seem to favour the Ruby.


Gary

Gary you and Darin can try to downgrade what I am saying about this dulling DLP's SDE has on an image b y calling it "spin" all you want but i am telling the folks here what I have observed with my dual projector system and there is no spin involved. Frankly since Darin is this alleged techno genius I am disappointed that he has not tried to do a DLP versus Ruby side by side tests on his own. He should be able to observe the same thing I have with his Ruby versus a DLP since the Ruby too has minimal SDE.I have compared a 1080p DLP to a Ruby (just last weekend). It was the Marantz 11S1. And for most things the DLP was not the duller one from 1.2x the screen width or so. It had more clarity and depth to most images with HD, which is what we watched. The Ruby had the on/off CR advantage, but that applied mostly to the darkest scenes and the DLP had more ANSI CR. We didn't spend that much time doing comparing because people mostly preferred the 11S1 for the material we were looking at and so we mostly stuck with that.

I'm guessing you now want to say that these people preferring the 1080p DLP to the Ruby proves that the Ruby isn't good and the Canon's are, but I have little doubt these people would have preferred the 11S1 to either Canon there also.

How far back (viewing ratio) are you suggesting people have to sit with a 1080p DLP to not have this problem you keep talking about with SDE?

And what is this whole thing about people tripping over each other if there aren't lights on while the movie is playing? Humans invented lights that could be turned on and off a long time ago.

--Darin

...

How far back (viewing ratio) are you suggesting people have to sit with a 1080p DLP to not have this problem you keep talking about with SDE? ...



Darin,

In Physics 103, I remember the prof giving us a problem to solve. This problem was how far away could the human eye resolve a pair of headlights as 2 distinct objects. I think we applied something called Rayleigh's Criterion. Could this be used here to show that this SDE effect is/is not there once and for all?

Just a thought...

toon

I have compared a 1080p DLP to a Ruby (just last weekend). It was the Marantz 11S1. And for most things the DLP was not the duller one from 1.2x the screen width or so. It had more clarity and depth to most images with HD, which is what we watched. The Ruby had the on/off CR advantage, but that applied mostly to the darkest scenes and the DLP had more ANSI CR. We didn't spend that much time doing comparing because people mostly preferred the 11S1 for the material we were looking at and so we mostly stuck with that.

--Darin


That is hardly a surprise, even the Marantz S4 is better than the Ruby. We put the Ruby to the test against the S4 and 34 out of the 40 people in the room chose the S4. Both projectors were covered btw, so nobody knew what was what.

Read it here (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=7934620#post7934620)

That is hardly a surprise, even the Marantz S4 is better than the Ruby. We put the Ruby to the test against the S4 and 34 out of the 40 people in the room chose the S4. Both projectors were covered btw, so nobody knew what was what.

Read it here (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=7934620#post7934620)


Chris, you used a DVD for the test! What would this test prove?
A good HD source, 1,3x viewing distance and see what people would say. :rolleyes:

How far back (viewing ratio) are you suggesting people have to sit with a 1080p DLP to not have this problem you keep talking about with SDE?

And what is this whole thing about people tripping over each other if there aren't lights on while the movie is playing? Humans invented lights that could be turned on and off a long time ago.
--Darin

I just read in another thread that the fill factor of the 1080p units are 87% also. Thus regardless of how far back you sit there is 13% of the image on DLP units staying black in the form of a black grid or what is called screen door here. I sit far enough back with my unit to not see these grid lines and that is where you guys are still not getting it. I am saying that the image with a higher percentage (thicker) screen door is duller than the one with a higher fill rate and thinner SD all other things being equal. My lower than Canon res DLP unit looks very good and likely compares with its bigger 16:9 Mitsu cousin being touted here but the SD does dull the image. Now I can see where folks who like blacker blacks actually favoring a DLP with its dulling SD over the SXRD Ruby because DLP's thicker SD lines are non-transmissive and as such will darken the blacks further and in that way gives it a sense of more depth.

But look at shiny objects like silver and gold sequin gowns. On my Canon they are super sparkly. :) The DLP unit doesn't quite cut it. And once you see that then you notice that it is not just sparkly objects that are dulled by the screen door. But again if you are into those dark blacks then your attention is shifted to depth and contrast and you likely totally miss the dulling effect that I have been attempting to bring to the fore here.

Unless the low lumen projector folks have a fancy remote control light switch in their "caves" then they will be tripping over shoes and feet on the way to the switch and then on to the pit stop, kitchen or popcorn popper. Not so with us Canon folks whose rooms are so bright even when the lights are off due to the reflected image light coming off the screen back at us. Thus we rarely trip and we save on not needing remote lamp dimmers.

Icon Master

You haven't got a brother called Thomas have you?

Gary

That is hardly a surprise, even the Marantz S4 is better than the Ruby.That is your opinion based on a setup you used to compare them. I've read about it before and I definitely would not take an S4 over a Ruby for my theater room and I doubt the majority would choose the S4 over the Ruby for my 10' wide screen with the good material (HD). The 11S1 is a different beast. I don't tend to watch many DVDs though. Those who care very highly about image quality and can afford it would pretty much be using HD when they can.
I just read in another thread that the fill factor of the 1080p units are 87% also. ...You didn't answer the question. Do you have a range for the viewing ratio where you claim the SDE would mean the 1080p DLP was duller than the Cannon SX60, or don't you?

--Darin

Judging by Chris's homepage, I am curious how many people cared which pj was projecting on the screen.Warning Chris's homepage may not be suitable for those under 18:)



You didn't answer the question. Do you have a range for the viewing ratio where you claim the SDE would mean the 1080p DLP was duller than the Cannon SX60, or don't you?

--Darin

I am guessing he still doesn't get the concept of ANSI contrast and MTF.

Ericglo

You haven't got a brother called Thomas have you?

Gary

Don't know if this is expression is used in England but based on your nearly automatic opposition to any of my posts (as I expect from the mindless PC like-thinking masses) I'd have to call you a "doubting Thomas."

From the other threads there appear to be a bunch of folks ready to throw $20K at the 1080p DLP's all because folks narrow view folks like Darin have them brainwashed into the need for infinite CR ratios and dark caves. To heck with the UGLY, dulling screen door of DLP or the low lumens of Ruby. After all these things make for blacker blacks and blacker is better. It is so sad it is funny.

Gary, you have a DLP unit yourself - correct?

Icon Master

When presented with an irrational argument and a lack of evidence I think most people will have doubts.

Like for like, a pj with 5% less reflective surface than another identical pj will reflect less light (like an Optoma H77 vs an H79 which has an improved DMD). You are unlikely to be able to notice that small a difference, but you could measure it with a light meter. I've seen this comparison yet the less bright H77 didn't look dull or dim. If you let your eyes adapt to each one individually they will look much the same anyway.

The problem is you are comparing an XGA DLP to a 1400 x 1050 LCoS pj and yet you have no idea what the lumens are coming out of either, except that the Canon looks brighter. So according to you, the SDE and SDE alone is the cause of the DLP being dimmer (nothing to do with the lamp possibly being dimmer, or the colour wheel reducing the lumens, or the fact you sell the Canons). You don't even know if both machines are set to produce the same colour gamut or the same colour temp, and those can effect how you percieve an image.

Maybe if you tried some physical proof like using a light meter to compare the lumens or use a 1400 x 1050 DLP as a comparison you might have something in the way of evidence (and both having identical gamuts and calibration), but until then your reasoning by itslelf is flawed. It would be quite hard to do anyway, as you'd have to have the same lumens coming directly from the lamp, and given the 5% fill factor difference (asuming the same reflectivity of the DMD and LCoS surface), the lamps would have to be less than 5% different in lumen output for the difference to be measurable - you couldn't physically tell the difference by eye anyway. You'd also have to discount the other optical elements such as the DLP colour wheel and remove it from the pj to get closer to a like for like comparison (equally transmissive optics too?). Even if you did measure the lumens, how do you know the lamp being dimmer is not the cause rather than the SDE? The answer is that you don't.

It seems the two selling points of the Canons are brightness and reduced screendoor, so in order to promote them you say that less bright projectors are dim (the Ruby), and those with less screendoor are dull due to black lines (DLP). All other image qualities are ignored.

What is more reflective, a DMD mirror or the surface of LCoS? That would be interesting to know.

Yes I own a DLP - it's no secret as I've mentioned it enough times here and elsewhere (I already told you it's my 3rd a few posts back), and even after seeing all the other projection technologies available (sans Rubys implementation) I still chose and bought DLP, though if not for 2.35:1 I would possibly have a Sony G90 if I could physically get it into my room, which I can't, so DLP is my preferred technology.

I don't sell projectors either so I've no reason to promote DLP, other than I just like the image qualities they have, and black level is just one of them though it's not high on my list of priorities. Pros and cons considered, DLP is currently my preference. Low contrast means less image detail until you get to a point where the contrast exceeds that available in the source, so I think that to have that amount of contrast is important. Good ANSI contrast is also important for a better depth of field in an image and DLP is very capable in that respect, though I can understand you wanting to dismiss those elements.

Gary

yet you have no idea what the lumens are coming out of either, except that the Canon looks brighter. So according to you, the SDE and SDE alone is the cause of the DLP being dimmer (nothing to do with the lamp possibly being dimmer, or the colour wheel reducing the lumens, or the fact you sell the Canons). You don't even know if both machines are set to produce the same colour gamut or the same colour temp, and those can effect how you percieve an image.
...
Good ANSI contrast is also important for a better depth of field in an image and DLP is very capable in that respect, though I can understand you wanting to dismiss those elements.


Gary you must have missed one of my posts. The two units I have are nominally 2500 lumens as per the factory ratings. They both tested in trade journals to be around 1900 lumens thus they are nominally equally "bright" in the lumen category. Now if I did say the DLP was dimmer somewhere then I missused the word. I think I always said duller but I may have slipped and said dimmer at times since the duller appearance of the DLP caused by the SD's black grid lines does indeed make the image look dimmer. I have no tools to measure lumens but I trust that the tests done in the trade journals are in the ballpark on the lumen ratings so I have no reason to believe that my DLP unit is throwing less lumens to the screen than the Canon. In fact the Mitsu too has a 4000 hour bulb life rating in econo mode which is where I run both units.

The lack of the screen door does indeed make the Canon LCOS unit appear brighter than the DLP. As far as CR is concerned the Canon SX50 was rated in a mag at around 1000:1 and that was in a business projector test. They probably did not turn the brightness down the required four or five notches to get the blacks set properly. The blacks are plenty black and the image quality is nothing short of breath-taking. Good ole Cox cable had our New Orleans Saints pre-season football game on in HiDef last night and the gang I had over who had not seen the SX60 previously were blown away. And yes I did have the MR-16 down lights on a tweak so we wouldn't trip over each others stretched out feet. :)

Darin, you are still not getting it and it looks like you really are lost when it comes to the DLP's image dulling black line lattice known as screen door. It doesn't make any difference how far back you sit!!!!! It is not an issue of actually seeing the lines or cells as Gary keeps trying to insist because of the different resolution of my two units. I do not see the cells of my DLP unit or the screen door where I sit which is typically at 1.5 screen widths back. I am saying, just like the page in the Canon brochure, that the lines even sitting far enough back that they are "unobservable" are still there and that 13% of that DLP's image stays black all the time and as such it makes the image DULLER (not dimmer) than a LCOS image from a like lumen LCOS projector. I suggest you go back to the drawing boards and run some comparative tests forgetting about CR and look at the image without a darn light meter in your hands. LOOSE THE LIGHT METER FOR A CHANGE!!!! Maybe then you will see what you have been missing all along. - i.e. the overall picture quality. I am fairly certain the Ruby will also do a better looking picture than any like lumen DLP unit (regardless of the DLP's superior CR/blacks) since the Ruby too lacks the DETRACTING, IMAGE DULLING SCREEN DOOR OF DLP!!!

I will attach the "lattice" example from the Canon brochure. (Canon calls "screen door" a "lattice" which is indeed a very accurate term.) Whether it is a PhotoShop touch up or not is irrelevant. It shows precisely the observable difference in appearance between a like image projected on my screen from a LCOS and DLP projector.

Icon Master

Gary you must have missed one of my posts.

I think you've missed all of mine. :rolleyes:

Gary

Darin, you are still not getting it and it looks like you really are lost when it comes to the DLP's image dulling black line lattice known as screen door. It doesn't make any difference how far back you sit!!!!! It is not an issue of actually seeing the lines or cells as Gary keeps trying to insist because of the different resolution of my two units. I do not see the cells of my DLP unit or the screen door where I sit which is typically at 1.5 screen widths back. I am saying, just like the page in the Canon brochure, that the lines even sitting far enough back that they are "unobservable" are still there and that 13% of that DLP's image stays black all the time and as such it makes the image DULLER (not dimmer) than a LCOS image from a like lumen LCOS projector. I suggest you go back to the drawing boards and run some comparative tests forgetting about CR and look at the image without a darn light meter in your hands. LOOSE THE LIGHT METER FOR A CHANGE!!!! Maybe then you will see what you have been missing all along. - i.e. the overall picture quality. I am fairly certain the Ruby will also do a better looking picture than any like lumen DLP unit (regardless of the DLP's superior CR/blacks) since the Ruby too lacks the DETRACTING, IMAGE DULLING SCREEN DOOR OF DLP!!!You seem to have very little actual knowledge in this area and quite a lack of comprehension. I've already done the test (last weekend as I said) without a lightmeter and everybody in the room would disagree with your assertions. The Marantz 11S1 did not look duller than the Ruby overall. In fact, I would say it was the other way around.

When somebody uses football as an example to support the blacks looking good, I know they either don't comprehend this stuff very well or know they are being misleading.

As far as your lumens with the SX60, it sounds like you are still using it in a mode where the color balance would be wrong compared to D65 so that you can have more light coming off the screen. Is that right or not? I believe that projectorcentral.com measured under 500 lumens in Cinema mode and under 800 lumens with proper color balance in another mode.

You can get a CA813 lightmeter for under $170 so you don't have to guess at which projector is putting out more lumens.

--Darin

The Marantz 11S1 did not look duller than the Ruby overall. In fact, I would say it was the other way around.

When somebody uses football as an example to support the blacks looking good, I know they either don't comprehend this stuff very well or know they are being misleading.

As far as your lumens with the SX60, it sounds like you are still using it in a mode where the color balance would be wrong compared to D65 so that you can have more light coming off the screen. Is that right or not? I believe that projectorcentral.com measured under 500 lumens in Cinema mode and under 800 lumens with proper color balance in another mode.


Sorry "kids" but while I lack the light meter I don't lack common sense which is very much missing around here at times.

Gary, I have read your posts but they almost always take a counter view to mine even though they are baseless posts since you have not even seen the Canon units in action. Darin has seen them once at a trade show under less than ideal circumstances and in fact has softened his criticism of them a bit since I think he does see the potential Canon could bring to the LCOS table if they figure out what the HT crowd needs and then solves the LCOS issues in creative ways as they did with their light path scheme which gave us lower cost, brighter and smaller LCOS units then was thought possible a year or so ago. Sony may even come through with the Pearl and really spice things up. JVC seems lost unless they have something top secret hiding in the "wings." If they don't do something soon in LCOS foward projecton JVC is "toast."

Again I point out to the foks here that the three of the four major video industry manufacturers all use the LCOS scheme on their high end projectors - not DLP and not LCD. What does that tell you lost in the measurement folks? These firms surely are about profit but they also have their reputations as top notch professional video providers to consider and each wants to be known as the one to bring a near perfect projector to the market. In the long run I even think Sony may win this battle since JVC is not aggressive and Canon is new to HT so its focus still is on business first. Sony already has these incredble SXRD 2K and 4K cinema units although they cost a small fortune. Now if Sony and Canon could only share some engineering ideas we can all be very happy and have lumens and CR to spare in our LCOS based film-like home theaters.

As to my not having a meter and getting from meter dependent Darin the too many lumen put down because I watch football as well as movies and even SD movies and programing from satellite feeds... Well Darin you forgot that I did do the Video Essentials bit a while back and did step the brightness down quite a bit. The blacks in the New Orleans Saints Black and Gold uniforms looked darn good, err, dark too! On top of that I also contacted old what's his name at Projector Central and got his Canon test settings and I also got the D65 tweak settings for sRGB from Canon. While I might not be dead on D65 I think I am close and the Canons have proven to be darn close out of the box anyway.

Darin I still am offering you an open invitation to come on down to test and calibrate the heck out of my SX60. You too Gary if you want to fly over from England but don't carry any lens cooling liquids onto your flight. :)

I will be watching the Pearl and if it does seem like a contender as an upgrade replacement for my Mitsu it could end up next to my SX60. It needs to have more lumens than the SX60 in Cinema mode to get consideration. I am counting on you Darin or others here to give us the light meter Pearl readings and/or a Cedia report on same. Can you sneak a miniature light meter into Cedia? Be sure to deduct the stray/scattered light lumens from your off the screen readings and by all means wear dark clothing so reflections off of you are minimal. (Remember Heisenberg!). Darin - you do wear black clothing, shoes, socks and a black scarf and mask, etc when you are doing your lumen/CR measurments/testing - don't you? Or do you consider the light/lumens reflections off of you merely "perturbations" in your measurements that you compensate for in your final calculations? Surely you understand the Physics and advanced math behind all of this being the "expert" that you are? :)

Icon Master

Jezus guys,
Are you still at it? You all started this bickering in the SX50 thread, which quickly became uninteresting, and now you're doing the same with the SX60 thread. None of you seem to have the common sense to agree to disagree, leave it at that and let this thread be what it was once supposed to be: info on SX60!

This argueing has nothing to do with the thread purpose anymore.
And if you must continue this, please take it to another thread, or PM's or whatever...

Jezus guys,
Are you still at it? You all started this bickering in the SX50 thread, which quickly became uninteresting, and now you're doing the same with the SX60 thread. None of you seem to have the common sense to agree to disagree, leave it at that and let this thread be what it was once supposed to be: info on SX60!

This argueing has nothing to do with the thread purpose anymore.
And if you must continue this, please take it to another thread, or PM's or whatever...


What's that I hear?...
Another voice of reason echoing in the canyons of pride and obstinance.

The really sorry thing is, when they are not bickering with each other there really isn't much going on in this thread. Why is that? Cause or effect?

I think that the people with meaningful interactions just moved on since there doesn't appear to be room for any of that here. But maybe the converse is true... no meaningful interactions taking place so they fill it up with backbiting and "tit for tat".

Anyone else want to analyze why things just keep going... or better yet... anyone with experience with the sx60 that could get things back on track?

I think the only reason this entire thread keeps re-appearing is down to one very enthusiastic SX60 proponent. Do you think he has anything to gain? :rolleyes:

Now you DLP folks go back to your dark caves and be sure to sit far enough back so you don't "see" the digital looking screen door. Never fear though since it is still there and it is still affecting the image even when you sit far enough back to not "see" it - it's still there and it is darkening and dulling the whole image all the time just like that screen door on your house does even when you look through it from across the room and cannot see the mesh.

OK, I know I'm like the 5th person to try to explain this to you, and your failure to get it is more a function of you not _wanting_ to get it, but here goes anyway. If you turn the focus on your DLP projector so the whole image becomes one big blur, you will have totally eliminated all screen door, since all the pixels have been blurred into each other. THIS DOES NOT MAKE YOUR IMAGE BRIGHTER, even though the screen door has disappeared. So, your claim that the screen door is somehow magically darkening and dulling the whole picture is unmitigated ********. All it does is cause the _same amount_ of light to be concentrated into finer points (the pixels). Sitting far enough back that you no longer see the individual pixels causes your perception of this light to be evenly distributed across the screen WITHOUT AFFECTING THE TOTAL NUMBER OF LUMENS.

Congratulations IconMaster,

With your repeated posts you have done nothing but scare away people who are genuinely interested in the SX60 and are trying to get and\or share information on the thing. Thanks to your behaviour it's no longer on my list.
Hell of a salesman you must be...

This is why I have tried to keep from posting on this thread. I believe I have already said what I have wanted to say about this pj and everything else is just a neverending rebuttal to Icon. So this will be my last post to this thread, unless I can add something beyond an Icon argument.

I have already stated my opinion of this pj, but I will summarize again. It is a nice pj, especially for the money. It lacks a good on/off cr and 1080p resolution. It does have a lot of lumens. If you buy one, then you may need a scaler. If you are in the market for a new pj and can wait, then see what Cedia brings in Sep. If you love a bright pj with lots of lumens like a Sanyo PLV-70, then this may be a good pj although I would recommend the SX6. For the future, I would hope that Canon could up the resolution to say 1080p and the cr (maybe do what SEOS is doing with their pj). If they could do this (especially with that SEOS cr) at a sub $6k price with 2k lumens, then they would have a great pj.

Ericglo

I would hope that Canon could up the resolution to say 1080p and the cr (maybe do what SEOS is doing with their pj). If they could do this (especially with that SEOS cr) at a sub $6k price with 2k lumens, then they would have a great pj.
Ericglo

The SX50 and SX60 are darn good projectors now - especially for the cost, lumens and picture quality. Will Canon do 1080p soon if at all? Well they showed a proto type demo of a dual LCOS element projection unit last year that had resolution beyond 1080p. One of the marketing folks hinted that 1080p was being worked on but I would be surprised if it shows up at Cedia. With Sony's Pearl getting down to Canon's price (but not lumen) range and it being 1080p - it may provide the incentive needed to push Canon to move to 1080p.

Finally now we have some real development activity in LCOS at the near every man's price range. JVC had their chance and even Intel tried but it looks like it will be up to Sony and Canon to take LCOS to "the house."

Icon Master

Is Canon going to be at Cedia? I can't find any mention of them on the Cedia EXPO site. I'd love to stop by and see them!

Ken

I hope they also include a range of lens options, for different throw distances, in their future 1080p product. Otherwise it will be a no-go for me.

JayP

Is Canon going to be at Cedia? I can't find any mention of them on the Cedia EXPO site. I'd love to stop by and see them!

Ken


Ken -

If you go be sure to check out the Sony Pearl to see how it stacks up to your Canon unit. While you are in the Sony booth, check out the hand held HiDef camcorder that is going to selll for around $1400. Don't have the model info handy but ir supposedly writes to HiDef DVD's. Also plays them too? BlueRay of course?

Icon Master

Would anyone like to explain how lower lumens within the projector renders a higher contrast?. What specifically occurs within the projector to cause this?. Obviously black levels are improved with lower lumens but what about contrast?. Thanks.

Would anyone like to explain how lower lumens within the projector renders a higher contrast?. What specifically occurs within the projector to cause this?. Obviously black levels are improved with lower lumens but what about contrast?. Thanks.

I'll give it a shot. Light leaves the bulb in all directions, but only some light is actually allowed to hit the imaging device. The wider the aperture, the wider the range of angles of light hitting the device. The difference in angle causes some of the light to scatter which reduces the overall contrast. By reducing the aperture, you also reduce the angles of the light, making it more nearly parallel, so you get less scatter and higher contrast. But, you're also reducing the total amount of light hitting the device, so you get less lumens as well as more contrast.

O.K, makes sense. That said, could you not have a brighter light source(higher wattage bulb) while keeping the aperture narrow?. Would this not increase brightness while keeping scattered light to a minimum and therefore maintain contrast?.

The UHP lamp is red deficient, so to get colours that are acceptable for video, they drop the blue and green gains (or contrasts) to match which reduces lumen output. This pj uses a filter in 'theater' mode I believe (possibly a yellow filter which cuts blue - the info is in the brochure but I forget the details), so that would allow the red to be boosted or the green and/or blue to be cut (depending on the colour of the filter), and that would allow you to boost the green and blue gains again and get more output. The filter will dim the image overall, but the black level remains the same so the contrast is increased because the white level is increased relative to the black level (the filter will dim the black and white levels equally).

Having done this myself on various DLPs, the gains can be quite high (900:1 on an NEC HT1000 for instance), but it does depend on the lamp and the make-up of any colour altering components in the light path. Having larger red segments in a DLP colour wheel helsp boost the red for instance.

It will be interesting to see what the colour balance is like in normal and theater mode, and if the contrast gains are as high as advertised.

Gary

O.K, makes sense. That said, could you not have a brighter light source(higher wattage bulb) while keeping the aperture narrow?. Would this not increase brightness while keeping scattered light to a minimum and therefore maintain contrast?.

You can always increase the brightness of the bulb while keeping the aperture the same to increase the lumen output of the projector while maintaining contrast. However, the trade-offs here are that brighter bulbs put out more heat, which has to be dissipated, meaning bigger box, and larger and/or louder fan. A brighter bulb also draws more power, meaning larger more robust power supply and more amps coming in on the circuit. This all equals a higher pricepoint. Eventually, you hit the limits of what most people have available at their wall socket, and you have to have a new higher-amp circuit put in your house just for the projector. So, it's a game you can play, but eventually you end up with a projector that isn't going to make many sales.

I'll be checking out the Pearl for sure. So far for my priorities its the Pearl and HD81 to see.

I demo'd a Ruby last weekend and an upcoming high end JVC last night and I wouldn't take the softness or dimness of the Ruby over the Canon. The JVC was priced in between the Ruby and the Qualia, but its picture was much better than the Canon, but I wouldn't pay the price. They are both so huge too.

After getting what I get out of such a small package (with the SX50) it's hard to accept a monster.

So far, my favorite image has been the HD81.

The Canon really excels at everthing except fade to black. I do wish this was much better, but even space movies like Star Wars don't spend much time on full black screens. As soon as there is anything to see at all this becomes a non-issue.

The JVC didn't do to hot on fade to black either. Ruby excels big time on this.

I'm looking for 1080P in a small bright package with no SDE at $6k or less.

But, it has to be better overall value than my <$4k 1400x1050 Canon.

Ken

Are their any professional SX60 reviews?

Thanks,
Ken

Are their any professional SX60 reviews?

Thanks,
Ken

Canon was supposed to send a pj to Darin, but I guess they forgot. That may have been the best bet for a thorough review. The Projector Central review is crap. The other review out there isn't to bad, but it doesn't include any calibrated numbers.

Ericglo

The Projector Reviews review is just what I was looking for.

Those screenshots are small, but I think they show what I wanted to see.

The SX60 remains near the top of my list due to great everything including price and with better blacks than my SX50.

When it comes down to crunch time I'm not sure I can give up the lumens.

Ken

Gents,
Would you consider small keystone correction on sx60? In order to have 0 correction I would have to mount the unit almost 12" below the ceiling...it is too much for me.
I have two options 1. accept the keystone distortion or 2. use keystone correction and accept some picture distortion.
What would you recomend?
Thanks,
Jacek

Take the distortion. It will be much preferable to the digital keystone correction distortion. If you have a little black border to hide the edge then it shouldn't be distracting.

If its a big deal to you then figure out how to tilt the screen slightly to compensate.

Ken

Thanks Ken...
I do have masking and live with slight keystone distortion. I will leave it the way it is...
Jacek

Anyone have any thoughts on a scaler that would take in SD and possibly HD
and spit out DVI at 1400x1050?

Just check the output rez list for any scaler you're interested in. I would bet most or all will do 1400x1050.

Anything from DVDO or Lumagen or based on HQV or Gennum chips is likely to be a great scaler.

You'll get more detailed answers over in the Video Processor Forum.

Ken

Anyone have any thoughts on a scaler that would take in SD and possibly HD
and spit out DVI at 1400x1050?
You should try the Vantage H.D. it works wonderfully with this projector it and, gives uber resolution for any other projector you may purchase in the future . I find that it is quite inexpensive and is capable of software and hardware upgradeability. It has the realta chip inside.

Hello Icon,

I'm seriously looking at the Canon for my first theater project. I'm interested in using a 155 inch screen and I was wondering if you think that would be too large for the Cinema Mode's reduced lumens or would I need to view movies in one of the full brightness modes at that size. Any other recommendations or insight would be helpful at this point.

Could you also recommend a screen. I'm looking for a fixed screen but I have no clue what brand or type of material.

--Thanks
Cracmonkey

cracmonkey,

I'm not Icon, but I have a 144' screen and a very comparable Canon SX-50.
Cinema mode still does fine on my screen, although I still use the full brightness mode. I've been using it a nearly a year, the lamp-life is just over half, (we do use the projector a lot). No noticable dimming yet. Light is dispersed over quite a large area, so your 155 inches would be stretching it, but it would still be plenty bright.
I guess my ultimate thought, if you feel you must, don't be afraid to use the projector in high mode!

Cracmonkey!

I have the sx60 and I disagree with Morritec. SX60 is very low in actal lumens in low lamp mode. Even in a cave I would never use low lamp mode.

It is fun, I would almost think that your question directed to Icon is a setup :D

But maybe not ;)

However, back to subject, in normal lamp mode the projector is quite quiet and the frequency of the noice is not disturbing.

Best

Yossy

I own an sx60 and personally I am using it in theater mode at the regular mode. This is, in my opinion, the best option for adequate lighting and contrast. I'm using a Carada grey screen of 16:9 configuration it is approximately 72w and 54h. I wish it was larger but no room. The projector should work with any size screen you use it with. I am using the adjustments that were mentioned in Projector reviews.com for theater mode in their review. I am also using an anamorphic lens. This is a good projector and it can look pretty amazing. If I however, knew that JVC was coming out with their new projector this past May, I would have waited. This is going to be the new "it" projector until at least 1.3 HDMI models are released at this time next year. The JVC is again, my opinion, the hotest value bang for buck projector you will be able to get. Sorry Cannon.

I think that using an anamorphic lens for a 16:9 image increases brightness with around 30% or more. Someone good at math can calculate it.

I think most people buying an sx 60 has preference for a brighter image than other people buying dlp etc. If you don't care that much about bright then low lumen mode can work and if not you can use it with a high gain screen like the vutec silverstar. I wouldn't mind that combination myself and the main reason would be to get the higher 2000:1 contrast that comes in cinema mode with an image with punch and when there is ambient light you go to high lamp mode.

Maybe buying both Silverstar and anamorphic lens is a little expensive though :)

"I have the sx60 and I disagree with Morritec."

Curious with the 'disagree'.... I could be wrong in saying the SX-60 is comparable
with the SX-50. I believe the lumens are listed as the same (although that may not really be the case). And I hear from other's comments that they are comparable. The low lamp mode was great when I had a 7 foot screen, and is still fine even with an 11' screen, but it is nicer in normal lamp mode. And as Yossy says..the projector is quite quiet and the frequency of the noise is not disturbing.

I don't have any instruments, but "I think that using an anamorphic lens for a 16:9 image increases brightness with around 30% or more" is quite true. It is noticably brighter and also helps block unwanted light overflow. I use mine on occassion, and not as much as I really should. I'm just too lazy to pull it out and put it back when I'm done (my projector is in a cabinet with doors that close up when not in use. My anamorphic lens mounts to the cabinet and the doors must be open).

"The projector should work with any size screen you use it with." And it does!
But the larger the image, the light is dispersed more, thus dimmer as the image increases.

Thanks to all for the help. :)

I know this is the canon thread but any thoughts on that new JVC Raneil mentioned? The info I scrounged up said it is 1080p but only 800 lumens. Has anyone seen it yet or heard more?

I have the SX50 and we use it all the time. I saw the new JVC in two locations at Cedia.

I've never actually seen an SX60, but I imagine its equal or better than my SX50.

The JVC is the better projector, but the Canons put out a fantastic bright detailed image, and it they do it in a relatively tiny package.

If you're building a dedicated light controlled theater then definitely go for the JVC. If you're going to be using your projector in your living room watching a mix of sports, movies, and video games, then the Canon will probably be the better fit.

My SX50 does it all. It's so much fun at parties playing video games and its perfect for Super Bowl or World Series parties where people prefer the lights on.

"Normal" people never notice that full black screens are gray but quickly notice the big bright detailed image. It's pretty versatile.

But a dedicated, light controlled theater favors the JVC or Pearl.

My family isn't the type to go into a dedicated movie room. We prefer to bring the movie to us whether its in the living room or out at the pool. The SX50 is a lot of fun.

Ken

The JVC is the better projector, but the Canons put out a fantastic bright detailed image, and it they do it in a relatively tiny package.

If you're building a dedicated light controlled theater then definitely go for the JVC. If you're going to be using your projector in your living room watching a mix of sports, movies, and video games, then the Canon will probably be the better fit.

My SX50 does it all. It's so much fun at parties playing video games and its perfect for Super Bowl or World Series parties where people prefer the lights on.

"Normal" people never notice that full black screens are gray but quickly notice the big bright detailed image. It's pretty versatile.

But a dedicated, light controlled theater favors the JVC or Pearl.

My family isn't the type to go into a dedicated movie room. We prefer to bring the movie to us whether its in the living room or out at the pool. The SX50 is a lot of fun.


Ken -

Thanks for the Cedia wrap-up and comparison of the new 1080p units to the SX50/SX60. As most of you very know I too am in the big and bright fan club at the expense of not perfect blacks and/or off the chart CR ratios.

Been down here in New Orleans enjoying the return of the Saints and watching LSU and the Saints football games in HiDef with friends and usually with some lights on too. Because of this we haven't kicked over or spilled a beer yet. Have to admit that being at the SuperDome last Monday night was better than being at home watching the return of the Saints on TV. It was as you may have seen an incredible evening.

Looks like a buddy of mine will be buying my Mitsu DLP unit soon. I have been studying the new alternatives for a second projector. I was hoping to see a 1080p and/or 16:9 unit that had the lumens (and low price) at least close to the SX60's but the Pearl, which was my pre-Cedia favorite, appears to not be in the running any longer. it way too dim.

Since I am talking about a second short term near throw-a-way projector good for a year or so till the prices of 1080p units drop further and the lumens come up (hopefully) then I may go in a different direction. The new surprise 16:9 projector coming out of Cedia according to two early test reviews that may be worthy of our big, bright and "cheap" consideration is the new Panasonic PT-AX100U that streets at around $2K and puts out about 2000 lumens. It also has a scheme that kills screen door practically to nill. The downside is that it is LCD and Panny only has a one year warranty which shows that they expect the LCD panels and polarizers to fail fast. I checked and they have not switched to the inorganic LCD crystal designs yet. You can read more about this unit in message threads in the below $3500 area.

Ken - Did you happen to see the AX100u unit at Cedia and if so how does it stack up to our Canon units in terms of brightness/lumens, color saturation, screen door etc?

Icon Master

Hello Icon,

I'm seriously looking at the Canon for my first theater project. I'm interested in using a 155 inch screen and I was wondering if you think that would be too large for the Cinema Mode's reduced lumens or would I need to view movies in one of the full brightness modes at that size. Any other recommendations or insight would be helpful at this point.

Could you also recommend a screen. I'm looking for a fixed screen but I have no clue what brand or type of material.

--Thanks
Cracmonkey

Cracmonkey -

I have a plain old "white" Stewart StudioTek 130. It is roughly 9'x7'. When showing a HiDef image the diagonal size is 10 feet. I keep my unit in the sRGB (not Cinema) setting and run the lamp in low lumen mode. It is plenty bright and the image could be considerably larger if run in standard mode. It would definitely not work on a 150" screen in Cinema mode unless you have very sensitive eyes - at least to my personal tastes. In fact I cannot watch it in Cinema mode on my screen even when the room is totally dark. From exchanges with Darin estimates place the SX60's lumens in Cinema mode at around 550 which is where the Ruby resides. You decide if that works for you. It doesn't for me!

Icon Master

Congratulations IconMaster,

With your repeated posts you have done nothing but scare away people who are genuinely interested in the SX60 and are trying to get and\or share information on the thing. Thanks to your behaviour it's no longer on my list.
Hell of a salesman you must be...


Uh Huh!! Thanks!!

Even with the alleged "damage" done by my "scarry" posts it looks like the SX60 has survived Cedia and the 1080p onslaught. Canon's work on LCOS with its high lumens, small size and low cost units put their LCOS based products in a class by themselves.

I do love the SX60's Cinema mode. When I do demos it enables me to instantly show projector prospects how dim the typical and expensive HT class single DLP and SXRD based units will be and how you have to compensate for their lower lumens by shrinking the screen size down and making the room utterly dark. I do the zoom down and then give prospects the choice. Do they want a six/seven foot image with better CR or a ten to eleven foot image with imperfect blacks and a lower 1000:1 CR? Not a prospect yet has chosen the smaller screen, lower lumen route. (Darin and his fanatical about CR pals simply cannot deal with this and this is why I get flak like the above.)

Icon Master

I do love the SX60's Cinema mode. When I do demos it enables me to instantly show projector prospects how dim the typical and expensive HT class single DLP and SXRD based units will be and how you have to compensate for their lower lumens by shrinking the screen size down and making the room utterly dark. I do the zoom down and then give prospects the choice. Do they want a six/seven foot image with better CR or a ten to eleven foot image with imperfect blacks and a lower 1000:1 CR? Not a prospect yet has chosen the smaller screen, lower lumen route. (Darin and his fanatical about CR pals simply cannot deal with this and this is why I get flak like the above.)It doesn't surprise me at all that you would do a demo which would mislead those prospects. It also wouldn't surprise me if you have lights on or light coming in when you do this, although that wouldn't be necessary for that to be misleading. If those people see a properly setup Pearl or Ruby then they are likely to realize how much they were misled. For one thing, many of us use wider screens than you. There is no rule that people have to stick with a screen as low gain as your's and there are many setups where a higher gain screen works very well (and the High Power can save money over that screen you bought). Also, you have no way to show those people the CR of the Pearl or Ruby. That Cinema mode in the SX60 is unlikely to raise the CR with the way you have described how you setup your projector, and even if it does, it probably isn't much at all. Doing what you did is a little bit like taking plugs off a 6 cylinder Hyundai and telling people that this shows them how a 4 cylinder Porsche would perform.

And in 16:9 mode (very few people here who really care about image quality want 4:3 screens) that SX60 in Cinema mode ends up with 25% less lumens in the 16:9 area than it had in the 4:3 area. Using projectorcentral.com's numbers for cinema mode of 443 in high lamp and 383 in low lamp, those become 332 and 287 lumens for the 16:9 area. People can see how misleading it is to just say that the lumens in Cinema mode are close the Ruby or Pearl's lumens, when the number for the 16:9 or 2.35:1 portion is close to half with the SX60 in Cinema mode. Of course, for 4:3 material the Canon has an advantage, but few people who really care about image quality are optimising for 4:3 over 16:9 and 2.35:1.

The above doesn't take into account using an anamorphic lens to get more of those lumens into the 16:9 area, but by the time you add the cost of that and processing to stretch the image correctly, the price of the package has gone up a fair amount.

--Darin

It doesn't surprise me at all that you would do a demo which would mislead those prospects. It also wouldn't surprise me if you have lights on or light coming in when you do this, although that wouldn't be necessary for that to be misleading. If those people see a properly setup Pearl or Ruby then they are likely to realize how much they were misled.
-Darin

Darin -

I don't think there is a one of our Canon gang who will deny that there are projectors with higher CR ratios than our units - but Darin - WE DON'T CARE!! We are not sitting there measuring the CR ratios and wondering if our blacks are absolute like you do. You have had to rig and tweak and customize your admittedly low lumen Ruby to give you a picture that still would not hold up to a side by side comparison in everyday practical use to our Canon systems. We SX50/60 folks don't just watch 16:9 material and at times we do like to have some ambient lighting on when watching sports. Nor do we want to have to use outdoor carpeting in our HT to deal with all the spilt beers you have to in your low lumen doctored up cave.

Now as too fooling folks - it is you who has a rigged up system - not I. I have a standard screen - not a high power one. You have a hermetically seale=ed home theater. I have a converted living room as my viewing area. Not many folks are willing to doctor up their homes (or have the wives that will let them) to the degree you have to get every once of low lumen focused into the viewing area. Not many are will to live in total darkness either otherwise we would all be building homes without windows or living in caves. Last time I checked it seems the human race has left the caves.

I have kept the offer on the table to have you come on down with your Ruby and do a side by side comparison. You have totally ignored this offer being the CR fanatic that you are. After all at 1000:1 and being half the price and not 1280p how can an SX60 compare with your sacred cow Ruby?

Well if Mohammed won't come to the mountain... Here is a user review from PC that was done by someone who actually took his Canon SX60 to a custom video store selling Rubys;

> Personal Experience
> It projects onto a custom screen of Roscoe Ultra-Matte White on a wall, and
> is 16 ft diagonal. HD and upconverted material is simply stunning and no
> screendoor at all. I have digital cable and this pj is so good I had to
> rewire the entire house.
> It showed just how bad the signal really was. Now it's precision perfect.
> The very first thing I watched was Episode III upconverted to 1080I and
> I must say I saw details that I didn't even see in the theatrical premiere
> and that was projected on a 3 chip dlp christie. In short this pj is nothing
> short of phenomenal. One aside though I know there are people who spend
> 5 times or more than I did on a projector...(PRICING INFO REMOVED)...
> and now I firmly believe it was well worth the price. It is just as good as
> the $10,000 sony (RUBY). I took it to my local mom and pop home theater
> dive and compared it side by side and there was very little difference other
> than about 6000 grand. Do yourself a favor go see this one in action. If you
> do you will want to go home with it!
> Problems
> none

Darin you are so stuck in your CR measuring - it is you who is still not seeing the big picture. You steadfastly refuse to come clean ad acknowledge in the real world more lumens is better than less and that CR can be less and adequate it the lumens are there due to the way the human eye functions (rods, cones, and all that stuff we have covered before.). You are CR one dimensional and you are not likely ever going to change but in the real world, as the anonymous reviewer said, there is little visible difference on the screen between the Canon SX60 and your sacred cow Ruby except for yours costing nearly twice the price.

Oh yes - I cannot let you get your 4:3 comment by either. How much current programming on TV/Cable is still 4:3 and not 16:9? About 95% is still 4:3. Also it wasn't till the 50s when wide screen movies came out so there are thousands of classic and wonderful movies in 4:3 format. If you on your 16:9 format screen are to watch a 4:3 movie without distorting it you have to suspend it in a center screen letter box with black bars on each side. The reduced size undistorted image dangles up there in a useful lumen restricted area. We Canon folks can watch 4:3 programming and movies undistorted full screen in 1700 lumen splendor.

Darrin - wake up and smell the coffee. Turn around and look at that cave you obviously spend too much time in. Spending that much time in the dark is affecting your view of the real world where there is light, windows and even an orb called the Sun. Go out and get some fresh air and sunlight. Give your eyes a chance to adjust to the bright light emanating from that huge orb. You may find your cave a who lot less appealing after that and findng yourself trying to dump your dim and now nealry obsolete Ruby for a Canon SX60 instead of moving on to another dim Sony - i.e. Pearl.

Icon Master


P.S. - Did you notice the 16' screen size the "reviewer" is using? I plan to do nearly the same after a bit of remodling. Will an 3x "highpower" screen let you do 16' with a Ruby? And with its narrower viewing angle only two people can view it!

'Black' is always relative anyway. We had a "Charcoal Gray" Plymouth Horizon, but after a heavy snow storm the car looked black as can be, against the sunny snow! Ink-jet ink is actually dark green (get some on your hands while changing a cartridge, you see what I mean). Even a CRT and other displays,(LCD ect..) are also dark green, but the blacks still look black! The brighter SX50/60 whites help the contrasting blacks look somewhat darker to the eye. The "cinema" mode on the SX50/60 or the lower lumen Rubies and Pearls go to the other extreme; anything looks blacker in a dark room.
Meters 'see' things more acurately, but so does an eagle's eye. It's best to use the human eye for what looks best to the human eye (quite redundant really when you think about it)! We've had easily 100+ people watching movies off of our SX50 and NO ONE commented about the blacks not being black enough. They were still very impressed of the image though.

I know I said I would stay away, but a couple of comments.:)

Icon,
You keep asking Darin to keep coming to New Orleans to disprove your claims. It should be the other way around. You should go to Darin's place to prove your claims on the superiority of the Canon. Also, last time I checked he is interested in 1080p DLP. One last thing, instead of going to Seattle you could have Canon (since you have inside contacts) send Darin the SX60 for review they promised him back in June.

On 4x3, I would have agreed with you six months ago. Now, I see that most of my viewing is 16x9. Most good sports programming is in HD. Most of the network primetime is in HD and I watch a lot of Directv's HD package. All of this is 16x9. I am even thinking of changing my layout to put in a 16x9 screen. I would bet that a lot of the people on this forums viewing habits are similar to mine.

As for Darin's room, he has a black cave as well as a living room. He uses his projectors in both settings.



We've had easily 100+ people watching movies off of our SX50 and NO ONE commented about the blacks not being black enough. They were still very impressed of the image though.

You and Icon have mentioned this now. Most people seeing a large screen pj will be more than satisfied. If that is the criteria, then why waste your money on the Canon when you can get the Sanyo PLV-70. I doubt most people would complain about the Sanyo and probably most of the general public would have a difficult time choosing between the two.


Ericglo

You keep asking Darin to keep coming to New Orleans to disprove your claims.I brought up that he could send an SX60 to Tryg (who is about 90 miles from me) and we could compare things. Tryg loves bright projectors and is known for his screen reviews. Instead IM keeps wanting me to fly someplace with my projector.
You and Icon have mentioned this now. Most people seeing a large screen pj will be more than satisfied. If that is the criteria, then why waste your money on the Canon when you can get the Sanyo PLV-70.Or now the Panasonic AX100U. Under $2000 and would probably blow most people away. The average person here doesn't qualify as "most people" though. Especially those who have seen some of the better out there.

--Darin

You and Icon have mentioned this now. Most people seeing a large screen pj will be more than satisfied. If that is the criteria, then why waste your money on the Canon when you can get the Sanyo PLV-70. I doubt most people would complain about the Sanyo and probably most of the general public would have a difficult time choosing between the two.
Ericglo

Ericglo -

I owned Sanyo's XP40 projector. That is the unit that I was discussing in my prior posts. I bought it as a rebadged Proxima and thank goodness I was advised by a Proxima tech to purchase the extended service contract. The complete LCD panel assembly and polarizers had to be replaced three times. It would have cost me a fortune to keep it running if I had not purchased the extended service deal since the assembles alone w/o labor run about $1000. Why do I mention the XP40? Because it was essentially the 4:3 version of the PLV70. In posts here I have seen several discuss the same problems with the '70 that I had with the '40. That design is prone to overheating the panels leading to fast self destruction.

Based on my experience with Sanyo projectors of that general vintage and design that use the short lived when overheated organic LCD panels - you could not give me one of those units.

So far I have seen none of the panel/polarizer decay on the Canon LCOS units and I have driven them pretty hard. Unlike the highly heralded Ruby with $1000 bulbs that fall off in output in no time (as has been well documented here) I probably have averaged ten hours a day with both the SX50 and SX60. I see no bulb decay or crystal issues. (NO dust blobs either). Under the same conditions in the same room and usage the Sanyo essentially melted down. Perhaps the Panny AX100 will do the same but it is only a $2K unit. If I get one I will use the heck out of it and if it does show crystal decline I will send it back every time and for sure one last time before the warranty expires. Perhaps next year Panasonic will switch to inorganic LCD crystals and this point will become moot but for now if you purchase an LCD based projector be aware of the potential crystal decline issues they have especially under moderate to heavy use.

The image quality of the Canon LCOS units blows away the Sanyo LCD units. The colors on the LCOS Canon's are far more saturated and the CR is better. Also the Sanyo LCD panels cast an incredibly noticeable screen door even a 2x back and even after doing the necessary soft focus trick.

On the other point - there is no need for me to go to Darin or vice versa. I think the other quoted reviewer who bright his SX60 to the local Sony dealer said it all quite well. The image on the wall with the SX60 to most folks would be equal to if not superior to the Sony Ruby and Pearl. Yes - I know - the blacks won't be as absolute and the Sony's have 1080p versus Canon's 720p but most folks without the super critical eyes of the experts here will choose the bigger, brighter image produced by the Canon LCOS units over the dimmer ones of the two Sony's. Nor do Canon owners need to be timid about using the heck out of their units for many hours on end because their bulbs hold up and they cost half as much as those in the Ruby. On top of that the warranty on the Canon Realis projectors is for three years with a loaner being provided while it is being repaired during the first year. See if Sony or Sanyo match that warranty.

These are some of the reasons why you should be willing pay more for a Canon projector that one from Sanyo and Panny and pay even less or the same than the two SXRD units from Sony.

Icon Master

Instead IM keeps wanting me to fly someplace with my projector.

Or now the Panasonic AX100U. Under $2000 and would probably blow most people away. The average person here doesn't qualify as "most people" though. Especially those who have seen some of the better out there.
--Darin

Hey Darin - I am giving you a chance to see history in the making. New Orleans is a devastated but rebuilding city. I don't extend my invitations lightly. I am sure I can learn a lot from you and no doubt if I can pry you out of your cave, you will find the trip to New Orleans one that you will remember the rest of your life. You cannot get a feel of what happened to New Orleans by watching it even in HiDef on a TV set. You have to drive around and through it to get an inkling of what happened to this fine old city.

On seeing the "better out there"... Do you really, really believe that those alleged better units with 10000:1 CR at 1000 lumens put out an image that is two to ten times better at a price that many times more than the price of an SX60? Will you enjoy watching the movie two to ten times more as well? When watching a movie you should be watching the movie and not constantly starring at the blacks to see if they are dark enough. I'll bet sports on the Canon units blows away those on the dim Sony's and single DLPs out there unless you are viewing on small screens or narrow field high power screens.

Folks come in and their jaws drop open when they see my setup. They all say they have never seen anything as incredible looking as the image my Canon is throwing on the screen. This includes, as I said previously, several satellite installers who have setup units in the finest Home Theaters in this area. These folks have seen Roncos, Sony's, InFocus, etc.

The Canon LCOS projectors still have more bang and versatility for the buck than anything yet to come out even today in this post 1080p Cedia era.

Icon Master

"... why waste your money on the Canon when you can get the Sanyo PLV-70"?

I wouldn't say it is a 'waste of money'. At this time, I am more than 100% satisfied with the Canon SX50. My living room has 5 huge windows 42" wide and, yes, 5' tall! We pull the window shades down, they block most of the light. What light still comes in is nothing for the Canon to out-shine. I got a free 3 year guarantee with up to 3 free light-bulb replacements that I most likely will use. By the end of the 3 years Canon should, or might I say "will" have a 1080p HD LCOS projector at a competitive price. The SX50 is also small enough to fit in my bookshelf/cabinet. I open the doors to watch a movie and then close it up in the hide-away-cabinet when I'm done, and it is totaly out of view! No bulky box hanging upside-down from the ceiling. Will the Canon 1080p HD LCOS projector be as small, probably not but I hope so. Works great for us!

Thanks again to all those who have posted to help me pick a projector. All the screen info and projector comparisons are really saving me since I cannot find these things anywhere to look at (although I did see the sx60 on a small screen at a brightly lit trade show).

Because of my screen size I think I've narrowed it down to the two canons but since I've ruled out the Cinema mode due to the low light output. Is the SX60 a waste? Or is it worth extra cash over the SX50? I'm going for a 155 inch diagonal screen in a dark room with no windows.

Also does anyone know of any good deals on either projector?

No HDCP on the SX50 varies from a nuisance to a show stopper.

I do like the even smaller size of the SX50, but if I didn't already own one I'd go for the 60.

Whichever, you'll need a Toshiba HD-A1 to go with it. (requires hdcp solution on SX50)

Match made in Heaven.

Ken

Morritec,

Was your 3 year deal a promotion or something special you negotiated with Canon?

The SX50 is louder than the 60, but that is relative to me. I have a NEC that sounds like a jet.:)

Icon,
Since you have contacts at Canon, you should strongly recommend they take a look at this Brightside technology. Ohlson started a thread about it. A Canon SX70 with Brightside technology would be a category buster.

Ericglo

"Morritec,

Was your 3 year deal a promotion or something special you negotiated with Canon?"

It seem it was/is a promotion from the company I bought the Canon from.
The guarantee papers and card are from 'Repair Tech Inc.' as opposed to Canon directly. It came as part of the deal as I bought the SX50.

No HDCP on the SX50 varies from a nuisance to a show stopper.
I do like the even smaller size of the SX50, but if I didn't already own one I'd go for the 60.
Whichever, you'll need a Toshiba HD-A1 to go with it. (requires hdcp solution on SX50)
Match made in Heaven.
Ken

Ken - All good advice. The SX60 is quiet. I simply don't hear it at all in econo lamp mode and it sits directly over my sofa/head. Nor have I seen a single dust blob. Having the built-in HDCP is an obvious big plus since all of the new DVD players (excluding OPPO) require it. If you can afford the upgrade to an SX60 then by all means do it.

Don't you Canon guys almost feel "sad" for our low lumen Sony SXRD and single DLP using buddies? Can't you see them sittng there in total darkness, admiring their blacks but having to monitor and curtail their lamp usage at every sitting due to the high cost of their bulbs. I've probably been out of the room more lamp runing hours on my SX60 than Darin has on his most recent Sony bulb.

And poor Darin and friends has to have a narrow view High Power screen and tweak the heck out of their Ruby's to get probably less lumen output back to the viewer than we'll have after a year on perhaps still our first bulb. But man do those guys defend their CR ratios! Seems to me though that when their "cheat" - the auto Iris - stops down to get those much darker blacks isn't the whole image throttled down in brightness too? Doesn't stopping down the lens cut the total lumens allowed through? Won't "they" be squinting even more on those darker iris clamped down scenes? Sure the blacks will be "blacker" along with the entire image. You simply don't get something for nothng.

No such issues for us Canon users. We are a big, bright and brash lot and our low lumen friends hate us for it - especially me since I keep reminding them how misguided they are spening all those bucks on lamps and maintaining hermatically sealed dark caves. I'm sure they pay more per year to clean their carpets from spilt drinks than we do in bulb replacements since they need to watch sports in utter darkness too! They dare not have a light on for fear of CR and lumen loss and intolerable grey blacks. The High Powers do have their pluses - it makes for cozy viewing - nothng like having three to four (drunk?) guys squinched together to be in the optimum (narrow) field of view of the HT screen. :)

Icon Master

P.S. Best Buy just setup a shelf section here - two whole vertical bins each for BR and HDDVD. Number of titles appeared to be equal.

How much to the lamps cost to replace for the SX60?
Anyone have a favourite source fo them?

tom

For those considering a larger screen, an interesting effect I have found with a bright projector that does not have great contrast (like the Canons) when projecting on a large screen is that the elevated black levels caused by the lower contrast becomes less of a problem with a large screen. This is because the light has to be spread across a wider area, and is similar to the effect of using a ND fliter to improve the black levels. I have also found that with a brighter projector, the eye seems more tolerant of a lower contrast ratio compared to a lower lumen projector of similar contrast ratio.

A combination of these effects makes the Canon lower contrast less of an issue, although I would prefer it to have even better contrast, the SX50 resolution, color, lack of screen door, brightness combined with the better "apparent" contrast when using a bigger screen is a good compromise for me.

I have had my SX50 for 18 months now and it is doing just fine. Had friends over last weekend to watch a movie and then the football, and the projector worked really well for both activities as I had lots of comments about how amazing the large screen was.

I'm waiting for a projector to be released with 2000 lumens, 16:9, >10,000 contrast, HDCP and 1080 resolution before I'll consider trading up. I dont understand the logic that all the new reasonably priced hi-res projectors have so low lumens, because you gain the resolution benefit with a larger screen which needs a brighter projector for most situations. Maybe now that contrast and resolution battles have been fought, the manufacturers need the next wave of projector releases to be compelling v.s. old models, so they will up the lumens.

Regards,
Dean

How much to the lamps cost to replace for the SX60?
Anyone have a favorite source for them?
tom


Tom -

I believe the bulbs list for around $500 in Canon's price sheet. I don't know if there are any third party bulbs out there or if the originals are being discounted. A few months back I asked if anyone had changed their original bulb in the SX50 or SX60 model and I don't think anyone ever owned up to having to do that. Perhaps by now someone will have changed their lamp and can tell us if they found a source that is "cheaper" than Canon? The Canons' lamps are nominally half the cost of the vaunted Ruby's and they apparently last a whole lot longer. Nor are the Canon LCOS projectors plagued with the fast ouput roll-off of the "Q" and the Ruby as has been widely reported in numerous message threads here.

Darin, Mister CR champion, tried to say that I misrepresented the Canon and how it would hold up over time but it is he who never came clean about all the issues of his hither-to-fore "perfect" Ruby. He still won't admit it but it has cost him a bundle in maintenance/tweaking time and probably buying lamps too to keep his Ruby running while all we Canon fans have to do it set 'em and forget 'em.

Hey Darin - Have you checked e-bay to see what that beloved Ruby of yours is worth now that the Pearl is shipping? Darin attacked me - even personally - when I forecasted that Ruby's would be worth less than half of their original cost in about a year. Well I may have been a bit too optimistic. (Sorry about that Darin since I know you demand perfection). There is a used Ruby on e-Bay right now that has several days to go but the bids are running around $800 (and there are several others with no bids). I think I had forecasted about $3000 or somewhere around there. The new Ruby's are bidding at about $5K to suckers who must not know about the Pearl. So Canon guys maybe you can pickup a huge, dim, heavy old Ruby for maybe $2K. Don't forget that it will likely need to be serviced and need a $1000 new bulb. Any takers just head on over to e-bay and search for Sony projectors. Don't forget the other hidden costs like needing to incorporate steel I-beams into your ceiling joists to support that huge “mother.”

Icon Master

P.S. There were no used SX50 or SX60 Canon's on e-Bay when I checked. We set 'em up and watch 'em. :)

Icon,
Let it go. I offered you a chance to give Canon some info on a way to create a category buster with Brightside tech. Take it and run with it.

Ericglo
P.S. - I checked ebay and there are a couple of SXs on the bay.

Icon,
Let it go. I offered you a chance to give Canon some info on a way to create a category buster with Brightside tech. Take it and run with it.
P.S. - I checked ebay and there are a couple of SXs on the bay.


Ericglo -

You didn't read the fine print on eBay. There were no USED Canon SX projectors on eBay. You saw two listings by eBay dealer stores selling NEW Canon SX units.

As to letting it go. I am not sure what you mean. There are plenty of folks misspending big bucks on low lumen projectors just to get a bit more CR. Now look back through all the posts here from Canon LCOS owners and besides the initial resolved dust blob issue there was only one game player who had issues with refresh rate. Besides that every owner of SX's are happy and knowledge of the Canon alternative needs to get out. Conversely look at the posts about the Sony SXRD units and you see a bunch of well meaning guys working their tails off trying to squeeze blood out of those turnips. They simply don't have the lumens to suit the needs of many HT users and future HT prospects and that is the word that has to continue to be gotten out - even more so to the projector manufacturers. But as long as suckers keep paying big bucks to buy low lumen units the projector manufacturers will continue to take advantage of "us."

We do want 1080p and higher CR but we also want more lumens. Two out of three is not good enough. The SX's and perhaps now the Panny AX100 are the only 720p units giving the lumen range most folks need and it is sheer folly to watch folks like Darin constantly tweaking his Ruby and lying to himself that it is going to hold its value at a rate contrary to what all high tech items do in todays market. And then on top of that he barrages me with insults when I pointed out to him that he is being unrealistic. Now the truth is being told as it is plays out on eBAY and Mister expert Darin owes me big time. I won't forget the insults and abuse he heaped on me and how others here backed him up because they are enamoured with Darin's technical skills. That still doesn't make him all knowing and he is now being proven flat out wrong - not that he would ever admit to that. Perfect people like Darin never own up to their mistakes nor do they apologize.

On the post about that special CR enhancing scheme - you way overestimate my connection and influence with Canon. On top of that I would have to assume their engineers know a lot more than you and I about LCOS. The big question is whether Canon intends to apply their considerable resources to bring forth a full 16:9 unit that will have all the features we are looking for like high lumens, CR and high bit rate processing, etc. Time will tell whether they decide to take the next step in that direction. What gives me hope is the great HiDef camcorders they just recently announced. I hope they will provide the market with widescreen projectors to match their great camcorders.

Meanwhile the current Canon SX projectors are still quietly cranking out great looking 720p HiDef video at fair prices and high lumens and they run and run and run. Canon units seem to be holding their value better than the downward spiraling Ruby. I warned you Ruby guys to bail out months ago but Darin said no way and now you are paying a heavy wallet hitting price by listening to the gospel of your "CR" know-it-all technical (but obviously not marketing) master. Pied Piper again comes to mind...

Icon Master

The Canons are probably holding value because they are also business projectors. The rapid improvement and introduction of HT projectors is definitely obsoleting existing units a lot faster. That's all there is to that. A lot of folks prefer the higher black/CR performance of dedicated HT projectors. That doesn't make them stupid and I think by now most people understand that rapid depreciation goes with the territory.

Lighten up, Icon.

Icon,
On ebay, look in the completed listings. You will find used SXs.

On Darin and the Ruby, even he could have not seen the Pearl coming. The Pearl comes out at half the Ruby retail 10 months after the Ruby came out. Even though it sounds like the Pearl isn't as good as the Ruby, it is still unprecendented to do that in the pj world. I didn't see Canon pricing the SX60 at half the price of the 50.

On the Brightside tech, you can at least send them the info. You said you knew someone at Canon. That will be better than me sending them the info. I guess I should have made more of an effort to get their business cards and carry on a running dialog. Also, they may know more than LCOS than me, but by their own admission they admit they still have a lot to learn. Of course, extreme knowledge has nothing to do with this. Brightside has a specialized implementation that could help them.

The rest of your reply is the same old drivel of everyone is wanting 100k lumens.

Ericglo

I didn't see Canon pricing the SX60 at half the price of the 50.

I'ld like some insight as to Canon's thinking on the SX60 pricing ...

I'ld like some insight as to Canon's thinking on the SX60 pricing ...

Could you elaborate?

I just meant IconMaster is so quick to attack ANY criticism of the Canon that he might be privy to why the SX60 costs more to consumers than the Pearl, etc.

Sure brightness is worth something, so is resolution ...

Hey Darin - Have you checked e-bay to see what that beloved Ruby of yours is worth now that the Pearl is shipping? Darin attacked me - even personally - when I forecasted that Ruby's would be worth less than half of their original cost in about a year. Well I may have been a bit too optimistic. (Sorry about that Darin since I know you demand perfection). There is a used Ruby on e-Bay right now that has several days to go but the bids are running around $800 (and there are several others with no bids). I think I had forecasted about $3000 or somewhere around there.I told people that you would try to misrepresent what happened (again) and you continue to do that. Your number was $2k resale for both the Ruby and the SX50 and you continue to ignore that you used MSRP for the Ruby vs street for the SX50. Low bids with days to go on ebay mean almost nothing. You are still wrong now just like you were wrong then, but I expect you to try to continue spinning it, hoping that at some point people will forget the truth.
P.S. There were no used SX50 or SX60 Canon's on e-Bay when I checked. We set 'em up and watch 'em. :)Three or four months ago I believe an SX50 sold for $1700 on there. The SX60 hasn't been out long enough to be a likely candidate for many resales and at least to the crowd around here, I didn't get the impression that a lot of SX50s got sold. For the business crowd I would think the SX50 would have been pretty popular.

--Darin

You guys have issues, and I don't mean with each other :mad:

Changing subjects back to the SX60: :)
I recently received my SX60. I have a DVDO VP50 on order to feed it native. My room isn't finished yet so I have been "suffering" with projecting on my living room wall. I haven't calibrated other than Canon's built in self focus and wall color calibrations. I will wait for the VP50 and setting it all up in the new room before doing any of that. I am just a guy trying to get the best picture for my room setup and do not have any professional A/V experience.

As has been said before by some on this thread, us new guys tend to be overly impressed with the "big" picture and do not have the discerning eye for other more important things like contrast and higher res like 1080p... having said that, I have never been one to worry much about preconceived notions others may have about me.

I really am totally impressed with this things output. Big windows and direct sunlight in the living room wash out the pic during the day to the point it is better to just watch the TV, but at night it rocks! College football looks awesome blown up to about 120" wide and still looks great with a reasonable amount of lights on. With the lights off it has enough lumens to go bigger (if I currently had space to move my projector back I would). I have been sending it native from my LG DVD/OTA receiver via DVI and let it sync to the signal. 720p seems to be sharper to me than 1080i source. I am sure it is the internal scaler's fault (hurry up VP50!). OTA HiDef broadcasts are nice and sharp, to the point that you can count pores on noses :D The new room will have better light control (no direct sunlight like the current situation). but I am so happy to have been able to see the projector working with some ambient light to know that it will still look great for times I don't want to have the lights off. I have looked at the "theater" mode and for my current situation, I don't think it looks very good (too dim and dingy looking) . I will try it again when things are setup in the room the way they are supposed to be and with complete light control.


FWIW,
Scott

I just meant Icon Master is so quick to attack ANY criticism of the Canon that he might be privy to why the SX60 costs more to consumers than the Pearl, etc.

Sure brightness is worth something, so is resolution ...

Actually I don't recall anyone except the game player actually criticize or "attack" the Canon units. Everyone here save one who has owned a Canon has loved them. The attacks have been aimed at me for supporting a product that goes counter to the flow of many of the techno supposed geniuses here and they cannot take it. They would rather work their tails off to squeeze out a few extra lumens and pay way more for units with a tad better resolution and maybe a tad more real CR. Thus the debate is one of "philosophy." I have said quite clearly that I want these areas to improve on the Canon but not at the expense of lumens. The other "philosophy" here is to let the manufacturers give us infinite CR and higher resolution and let the lumens fall as low as they may because we are willing to live in bat caves and use special narrow field of view screens to "jack-up" the output.

Well I had that for twenty something years in my original Sony projector. It had a special contoured screen that focused its too few lumens into a narrow field that a few folks could enjoy. Move off axis a bit and the lumens and picture quality fell off. (Why doesn't "Honest Abe" Darin ever talk about this?). Those here wiliing to tolerate that philosophy are very quick to defend themselves and their position - much like religious zealots who don't really believe in anything but still inflict their point of view on others as a means to convince themselves they are right (and of course no one really knows what is right in that category either).

Zealots are insecure people. They cannot take different points of view and that is what you are seeing here. There are a lot of very happy Canon "campers" here and the fact that we are so happy with our mere 1000:1 CR ratios and 150" screens it is rattling the cages of the infinite CR at all costs crowd here and especially its major proponent.

As to Darin's not predicting the Pearl and its affect on the Ruby's price... That is a total dodge of the issue. My bigger point all along about equipment value depreciation, which Darin refused to understand, really had nothing specific to do with the Ruby. I merely used the Ruby and the Qualia as examples. (That is when Darin went ballistic!). The bigger point is that the more costly a high tech product is, the more it will depreciate over time than a like but lower cost product. The high end product always take bigger hits because they have further headroom to fall and the folks that buy them want to move on so they ditch their old high end product and get the latest. The newer models of "whatever" come out and they are usually better, faster, cheaper, etc making last year's model worth less - way, way less. That is the point I tried to hammer into Darin's brain but he couldn't (and still cannot) take it even though I was not very tactfully using two by fours trying to make the point. :) What is simple common sense to most folks seems to send Darin into the outer limits - hence his continued on going attacks on me. Add to that the zealot component and we are having a now dull family feud.

Unlike unbending, single minded Darin, I have said on many occasions that neither point of view is correct or perfect. Both have compromises until that perfect laser(?) or led(?) based projector that fill our entire walls with perfect video comes out.

Now as to why does the Canon units cost so much compared to the others question raised here - well it doesn't although the Pearl has closed the gap considerably but not in the lumen department. LCOS units possibly due to patents by JVC do seem to cost more than similar LCD based units and the optics are more complex. Single DLP is what it is with a simpler single unit color source whereas LCD and LCOS have three color sources to deal with - i.e. alignment, optics, cooling, etc. If you look at the price of three DLP units which are units that put out the lumens in the ballpark of our beloved Canon projectors, last ime I checked, they were running in the $15K to $20K and even higher price range. So when it comes down to it perhaps with the 2000 to 3500 lumens that the Canons put out and the fact that they cost $3K to $6K - these are perhaps the real super bargains of the projector world!!!

As to 720p versus 1080p and what you see on the screen - At 120" or 150" screens with LCOS hiding the pixel screen door effect debatedly you are not going to see much of a difference - all other things being equal but don't take my word for it. Read back through the posts of owners of the SX50 and SX60. They tell the tale better than somone with a light meter measuring shadow detail readings all night long.

The question to ask is why cannot Sony or JVC come up with a compact LCOS based projector with 2000 lumens in Canon's price range? The 'Q" has a 500 watt (?) lamp and it had 800 lumens at best. Where the heck does all that energy go? It certainly isn't in the form of light energy out of the lens! Sony's and JVC's units are very inefficient on their way to higher CR aren't they and they really aren't "cheap" either. Yep - the Canons with their luscious, rich, high quality LCOS output are the bargains still and some folks, err, CR zealots simply cannot take that!

Icon Master

P.S. Ran my SX60 continually from 11 AM on Sunday till 5 AM Monday morning watching football, movies, football and TIVO'ed shows and the lumens didn't fall off! Try that with a Ruby! (Actually been doing that on Saturday and Sunday since the pro football season began and still no spilt beers either.)

My bigger point all along about equipment value depreciation, which Darin refused to understand, really had nothing specific to do with the Ruby. I merely used the Ruby and the Qualia as examples. (That is when Darin went ballistic!). The bigger point is that the more costly a high tech product is, the more it will depreciate over time than a like but lower cost product.
...
That is the point I tried to hammer into Darin's brain but he couldn't (and still cannot) take it even though I was not very tactfully using two by fours trying to make the point. :)The issue here is that nobody has disagreed with that, but you have tried to deflect what you did by claiming that it was a point that others didn't agree with. The facts are that you refuse to be a man and own up to the fact that you used MSRP for the product you wanted to put down while using street for the product you wanted to prop up and didn't have an excuse for that, along with using the same resale value ($2k) for both. The more expensive product dropping a higher percentage doesn't support your claims there, nobody disputed that as far as I know, and you and I both know that. I also know that you will continue trying to misrepresent what happened.

If I wanted to play your game I could start telling everybody that water is wet and you can't get that through your head.

Instead of misrepresenting things, why don't you back up what you actually said:

$10k cost and $2k resale for the Ruby

and

$4k cost and $2k resale for the SX50
As to Darin's not predicting the Pearl and its affect on the Ruby's price... That is a total dodge of the issue.I didn't say I didn't predict the Pearl. I thought something like the Pearl was coming and that doesn't change that you misrepresented things and continue to misrepresent things.

--Darin

I think I understand what you meant Icon ... we all want Canon type lumens out of true HD resolution and thats something that just isn't available today (que Tryg).

along with using the same resale value ($2k) for both. The more expensive product dropping a higher percentage doesn't support your claims there, nobody disputed that as far as I know, and you and I both know that. I also know that you will continue trying to misrepresent what happened.

Instead of misrepresenting things, why don't you back up what you actually said:

$10k cost and $2k resale for the Ruby
$4k cost and $2k resale for the SX50
I didn't say I didn't predict the Pearl. I thought something like the Pearl was coming and that doesn't change that you misrepresented things and continue to misrepresent things.
--Darin


Darin -

Are you really that dense? Go back and look at those posts one more time (although you appear to have them memorized). The point of those original messages was to show the cost of ownership per day on high end electronic gear. I choose the Ruby and the "Q" and compared it to the current values of the SX50. The initial costs I choose for the Ruby and Q were list prices because that is what we are supposed to use here plus at the beginning of their life these units were not being discounted. They were selling for list. On the other hand the SX50 was already being shown at it MAP price (Minimum advertised price) which was below its list price. You are the one that deliberately with malice tried to discredit my speculative discussion over what it costs per day to own and run those two Sony units versus the Canon or like costing units.

From the prices on e-Bay that are falling fast for used Ruby's and the one $1.7K price you mentioned for the SX50 (which was sold by a wealthy friend who bought a SX60 and was anxious to unload the SX50) it appears that my speculative estimates were not that far off and it is you mister Darin who are taking the big hit in the wallet - not I as a Canon owner. So why don't you just eat the humble pie (along with some crow) and admit you loose. Instead you want to continue to quibble about the admittedly speculative numbers I used or whether I used street versus MSRP price but I see through you kiddo. You are merely trying to keep from facing the truth. YOu sure do have a hard time facing market value reality.

Grow up and take your lumps and move on Darin. Put your super tweaked Ruby up on e-bay and buy a Pearl or maybe even a Panny AX100 or a Canon so you won't need to be spending endless days and nights in utter darkness trying to squeeze more lumens out in a losing proposition. Stop playing this silly little game of yours quibbling about trivia. The rough numbers are in and it has not been even a year. My lowest numbers for the Ruby may in fact hold true but regardless - the cost per day numbers I guesstimated were definitely in the ballpark. Running that Ruby cost you a bunch more than it did us Canon owners in the same time period. When you do sell it and take your $4K to $6K loss (est) realize that your loss would have covered the full price of an SX50. So after a year whatever value you would have gotten for an SX50 would be more money in your pocket than you will have post Ruby plus you would also have the other $5K (plus interest) that you didn't need to spend buying a $10K Ruby. Admit you don't understand all this complex marketing math and move on. Stick to your osciliscopes and light meters.

Icon Master

I've read a lot of posts about the great lumens output but has anyone wanted more? Especially those with extra large screens? In other words why is no one mentioning the SX6? Is this overkill? As it seems most people don't use the Cinema mode and like the high lumens so why not the SX6? In a fairly brightly lit tradeshow it seemed to look better than the SX60 but I realize it is more expensive. I don't know about bulbs.

I've read a lot of posts about the great lumens output but has anyone wanted more? Especially those with extra large screens? In other words why is no one mentioning the SX6? Is this overkill? As it seems most people don't use the Cinema mode and like the high lumens so why not the SX6? In a fairly brightly lit tradeshow it seemed to look better than the SX60 but I realize it is more expensive. I don't know about bulbs.


I guess you didn't read any of my posts.:) This is basically what I have said. If you bow to the altar of lumens, then go with the SX6. The 60 has a filter, which there is doubt to whether it can increase cr. From what I saw, there really is little difference between the 6 and the 60 besides the lumens and the filter.

Just noticed that Canon says the SX6 bulb will burn out faster than the SX60 (2000 compared to 4000 hours) and is noisier 35dbs to 30dbs. Can anyone confirm this stuff? Or does anyone have an SX6?

It doesn't seem so but has anyone burned out an SX60 bulb yet?

Thanks in advance for any and all info...

To me noise level is critical.

I never bought the sanyo plv-70 because of the noise level.

I didn't buy the sx50 because of the noise level and the lack of hdcp.

To me noise level is critical.

I never bought the sanyo plv-70 because of the noise level.

I didn't buy the sx50 because of the noise level and the lack of hdcp.


The SX60 hangs right over my head and I cannot hear it. It has HDMI/HDCP. It is a workhorse of a projector and its lamp or crystals show no evidence of decay.

I don't agree that you should get an SX6 just because you think you need more lumens unless you will be using a way bigger screen that will handle those 1000 more lumens. When I was choosing my Sanyo/Proxima unit I did a side-by-side comparison of their 2500 and 3500 lumen models on my eleven foot screen. The 3500 lumen model was too bright for my setup. I wanted the 3500 lumen model and worked my tail off trying to get it to look good in my setup. I figured by getting the higher lumen model and running it with the lamp and brightness turned down I would get longer life from the bulb and hence it would be cheaper to operate, etc. However turning down the brightness and lamp mode still did not give it the output I wanted for my setup. Without going into all the details the 2500 lumen model looked better and that is the one I bought.

I have not seen the SX6 in action. I am sure it will handle a larger screen and/or more background lights on in the viewing area. Those should be the reasons why you spend the extra $1000 but not simply because it has the extra lumen umph!

Icon Master

The SX60 hangs right over my head and I cannot hear it. It has HDMI/HDCP. It is a workhorse of a projector and its lamp or crystals show no evidence of decay.

I don't agree that you should get an SX6 just because you think you need more lumens unless you will be using a way bigger screen that will handle those 1000 more lumens. When I was choosing my Sanyo/Proxima unit I did a side-by-side comparison of their 2500 and 3500 lumen models on my eleven foot screen. The 3500 lumen model was too bright for my setup. I wanted the 3500 lumen model and worked my tail off trying to get it to look good in my setup. I figured by getting the higher lumen model and running it with the lamp and brightness turned down I would get longer life from the bulb and hence it would be cheaper to operate, etc. However turning down the brightness and lamp mode still did not give it the output I wanted for my setup. Without going into all the details the 2500 lumen model looked better and that is the one I bought.

I have not seen the SX6 in action. I am sure it will handle a larger screen and/or more background lights on in the viewing area. Those should be the reasons why you spend the extra $1000 but not simply because it has the extra lumen umph!

Icon Master

Thanks for the info Icon, I'm guessing you would advise against the higher lumens for a 13 and a half foot screen also? Did the extra brightness destroy the image detail when you used the 3500 lumen projector? I'm wondering if the sx6 has a lamp mode low enough to get it right.

Hi All,
Does anyone know what is the Canon's policy in reference to a single dead pixel in the middle of the viewing area?
Thanks,
Jacek

Looks like this thread may be dying but I got a lot of useful info out of it.

I finally bought the Sx60 and I won't bore you with another "I'm so happy with it!" post but for abnormally large screens, it's a great solution and I can confirm most of the things written here. If anybody is looking to buy I can recommend Protech.com. They treated me well.

;)

cracmonkey
Are you using the 13.5 foot screen? Could you display photos of your set-up?

Looks like this thread may be dying but I got a lot of useful info out of it.

I finally bought the Sx60 and I won't bore you with another "I'm so happy with it!" post but for abnormally large screens, it's a great solution and I can confirm most of the things written here. If anybody is looking to buy I can recommend Protech.com. They treated me well.



Glad to hear you are happy with your SX60. It is still a great unit even in this age of dim, low lumen 1080p projectors that are all the rage. I hear that Canon may be working on a 16:9 unit or units but it is pure rumor. I did point out to my Canon factory sales rep that we Mac and even PC computer dealers need to have the projector manufacturers come out with bright 16:9 wide screen projectors not just for the HT market since almost all new Macs and many PC's have wide screen displays. What is the point of 4:3 business class projectors when all the rage in the computer world is wide screen displays.


In other words gang we need to prod these manufacturers like Canon into realizing that 16:9 units should not be confined to the dim, low lumen home theater market so we can get then to produce higher lumen business lumen level wide screen models that suit the home and business market just like the SX50 and SX60 do with 4:3.

BTW - Original lamp is still going strong with the SX60.

Wonder if Darin is still tweaking his near worthless, obsolete Sony Ruby. :)

I did see where Darin wrote a report on the Panasonic AX100 which is now my second unit. It is a rather bright (2000 lumen), low cost ($2K), 720p LCD based unit. It has a scheme that hides the pixel lines and has a LCOS look to it.

Icon Master

SX60 Bulb change!

Well finally after nearly eleven months I found the SX60 was loosing its lumen zip and I changed the lamp. I abused the heck out of this unit and left it on for days and nights for most weekends during the football season and it kept on running and running and running like the Energizer Bunny.

I asked the factory rep what are the SX60's runtime limitations and he said they prefer to see if shut off at least one hour in every 24 hours of run time. I think that is pretty good for a relatively low cost projector.

I believe I did find one issue with the unit's firmware. The lamp life indicator on my early version SX60 shows up in the form of a progress bar. Mine has been stuck at one-third usage for six months now. The inside tech tells me that there is new firware that shows the lamp usage in hours now. They did away with the progress bar. I may send mine in for the update so I can track lamp usage better.

How are the lamps are holding up on the new Sony SXRD based $5K projectors and the new JVC RS-1 and what do their lamps cost?

Icon Master

WB Icon Master!

I think that is pretty good for a relatively low cost projector.


That would be relative to what you use it for. If you used it for presentations it might actually be useful, but if I was using it for my home theater it seems like a it would be a very expensive doorstop, considering the so many other great options out there.

I am sure it puts out a decent image. What doesnt? If I was setting my screen up in my 2 story, well lit, family room it might be useful to my wife for daytime soap watching. In the home theater though?

You would actually have to set it up anamorphically, lens and mount, to have a remotely decent 2.35 image. Of course you could just have a 4:3 screen and look at half the screen being filled while watching a large portion of the available HD-DVDs, blu-rays, and 2.35-2.40 aspect movies.

I guess, with this PJ at least you would be able to do that with lights on and blinds/curtains open. Who likes to watch movies in a dark room anyways? Always got to look for the silver linings.

...the so many other great options out there.
Who likes to watch movies in a dark room anyways? Always got to look for the silver linings.

I do not see so many great options out there since the projectors with the alleged best images are all 1000 lumens or less with a new bulb. They go down from there fast and I wonder how many of those will get the 4000 hours or so I got from my SX60's lamp before having to change it. The three DLP's have the higher lumens but from what I read here they have issues including screen door. I am an LCOS fan but the Sony's and the JVC's, other than their theater class units, are low in lumens. To get a big image then you need to do a high power screen and that gives you other issues.

The Canon is in need of updating in terms of its CR. It has fallen behind in that area but the 4:3 is not the issue since it still is putting out about 1500 lumens in the 720p portion of its image. And yes my controlled recessed downlights do stay on a bit but I cannot watch it with the blinds open midday. We need a few more lumens for that. :)

For the dark high CR demanding movies I now also have a Panasonic PT-AX100u. It is even brighter in the 16:9 area than my Canon with a new lamp and it has decent CR and near invisible screen door. It appears to be the best projector out there today for its $2K cost although beware - Panasonic has had some quality control issues - especially with the early released models. Still for the money it is a great unit and will fill the gap for me till Canon does a better CR unit or someone comes out with an LCOS based 2000 lumen 1080p model that is $5K or below.

Caddy - who made those shelves for your DVD's?

Icon Master

Guys, any of you - owners of the sx60, noticed increased blue push in the picture? I think I see it after, maybe 1000 hrs of viewing!!!
Thanks,
Jacek

Im on my second lamp. Haven't noticed anything like that. Really happy with the machine. Wouldn't mind more lumens though. maybe should havce tried the sx6 instead...

Any SX60 owners want to share their picture settings for optimal video?

I have SX50, a similar projector, and find that the most accurate setting when using with a HTPC (computer) is sRGB. Colors are very accurate from what I can work out using the HD DVD Digital Video Essentials.

Are you tweaking any settings or using just the factory presets for sRGB?

I do adjust the red color settings but that is because the HD software I use (Power DVD) has a red push, but from other software like Media Center the color is pretty accurate, at least from the tests on Digital Video Essentials.

Any thoughts on the new SX80? This one has Canon (not JVC) LCOS panels, 3,000 lumens, and HDMI 1.3 input. Does an HDMI input really matter for this projector?

Hi All,
I just got a Canon SX60 projector. I want to mount it to my ceiling, but don't know what kind of mount to use. Canon sells one but it's really expensive at over $500. Does anyone have advice as to a good solid mount I could get for a reasonable price, no more than, say, $200?
I use a Draper Elite 100" 4X3 electric screen if that matters.
thanks,
Michael

search for 'canon sx60 mount' on ebay to find various options, starting at $40 or so + shipping...
eg:
http://stores.shop.ebay.com/Projector-Gear__W0QQ_sidZ23035995?_nkw=sx60+mount&submit=Search

I'm considering replacing my ancient Plus UP1100 (1100 lumen xga dlp) with a used Canon SX60, to be displayed on a 100" 16:9 Stewart Greyhawk from about 17ft with a Panamorph lens. Seems like this would provide a brighter, more color-correct, more film-like image than what i have now at a fraction of the cost of the latest 1080p 3-lcd units. I'd appreciate any comments... thanx.

You'd be be better off buying a used JVC HD1 wouldn't you? Would save you buying the A lens.

Gary

My SX60 is getting a little dim. Excellent unit.
Where can I pick up a cheap bulb for this unit?

tom

gary, already have the original panamorph used with my old plusUP-1100. point is well taken, tho. perhaps i should just sell that and get a more modern projector...

tom, you might check out http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=18032246277

My SX60 is on a shelf that is probably too narrow for it. Consequently, it overheats. The only way to avoid it is to have my air-conditioning on at all times. Since it only needs the airflow, the temperature is irrelevant - when the room is 22 degrees, and the a/c is set to 22 degrees, everything's fine.
I'd like to put a small fan next to the projector to facilitate airflow but I want to power it from the same connector that the projector uses. Anyone have any tips on how I'd go about doing so?