I should also mention that the projector puts out an insane ammount of heat. It's Setpember and I have the AC on in the room to keep it cool.

first it was placement issues since the pj has no below center verticle lens shift- now I think I've just heard a possible second big 'issue' some people are going to be having with this pj.
Looking at the pics, it seems clear that the venting grills are positioned to exhaust the air away from the pj on either side- but it is still most likely going to breathing right down peole necks, if like in my set-up they want the pj just behind their seating.
In the winter this might be nice, or it might be very distracting for people sitting adjacent to the 'sweet spot'.

hmmmm. the plot thickens.
a 1080p with high contrast for under $5K...there just has to be a few catches.

You cannot feel the heat from the projector unless you literally go right up to it and place your hand in front of it. I think you are over thinking these catches...

You cannot feel the heat from the projector unless you literally go right up to it and place your hand in front of it. I think you are over thinking these catches...


Yeah, my apartment is crap, that is the only reason I mentioned the heat. Andy is right the Pearl is very flexibile and there are no catches I can think of at this point.

You cannot feel the heat from the projector unless you literally go right up to it and place your hand in front of it. I think you are over thinking these catches...

I am trying to divine all the angle in advance where I may be disappointed. I just don't want to be surprised in a negative way two months from now.

There was a post a few weeks ago where someone had upgraded, but there was one minor aspect of the pj that was different from his old one , that he hadn't taken into account, and it was obvious that it was now a source of frustration for him.

For the most part, It lools like the pj will fit into my room well, but not seamlessly.
I just want to be clear eyed about how the logistical differences will affect the ultimate experience of sitting down and relaxing with content.

Alright finally xbox 360 running through it. It brings the games to an entire new level.

Pics please. :D

I went to the local Tweeter this afternoon to see/listen to the Ruby in operation. It was extremely noisy. The fan sounded like a large air handling system. I couldn't figure out why it was so loud and the sales person said he hadn't noticed it like that before. I sure hope it was an anomally and not a condition to be concerned about with the Pearl.

I went to the local Tweeter this afternoon to see/listen to the Ruby in operation. It was extremely noisy. The fan sounded like a large air handling system. I couldn't figure out why it was so loud and the sales person said he hadn't noticed it like that before. I sure hope it was an anomally and not a condition to be concerned about with the Pearl.

If you want to hear something that sounds like a large air handling system, check out the XBOX 360. :D

Seriously, though, I've previewed the ruby on multiple occassions at a local AV store and always found it to be very quiet.

I went to the local Tweeter this afternoon to see/listen to the Ruby in operation. It was extremely noisy. The fan sounded like a large air handling system. I couldn't figure out why it was so loud and the sales person said he hadn't noticed it like that before. I sure hope it was an anomally and not a condition to be concerned about with the Pearl.
Occasionally when the room is hot, the Ruby kicks in to higher fan mode to cool itself. I notice it does that. Normally, this is the quietest projector ever.

Andy P

How does noise on the pearl compare to the Ruby that I thought was silent compared to my JVC SX 21?

Many thanks
Rob

PS You and Djzelos deserve medals and more from us all!

Andy P

How does noise on the pearl compare to the Ruby that I thought was silent compared to my JVC SX 21?

Many thanks
Rob

PS You and Djzelos deserve medals and more from us all!

I would say the same as the Ruby. Both are whisper quiet.

Andrew, djzelos-
Do you notice lighter corners w/ a black screen (as has the Ruby) ?

Andrew, djzelos-
Do you notice lighter corners w/ a black screen (as has the Ruby) ?

I did notice lighter corners, but this is very faint. Slightly less than my Ruby, but it is there. I also notice very little light spill outside the border of my screen. The Ruby had significantly more light spill.

I did notice lighter corners, but this is very faint. Slightly less than my Ruby, but it is there. I also notice very little light spill outside the border of my screen. The Ruby had significantly more light spill.


Hi Andrew

Do you know if the Pearl will support 1080/24PsF (48i) input signal? I know the Ruby will but I can't find an electronic version of the Pearl manual to check.

Also what gain is your screen ?

Sorry if you've already answered these but it's a long thread.

Thanks.

Dazzer

I did notice lighter corners, but this is very faint. Slightly less than my Ruby, but it is there. I also notice very little light spill outside the border of my screen. The Ruby had significantly more light spill.
Andrew,
Thanks for the quick answer. One more quick question re: light corners (glad they're very faint). Are the light corners noticeable only with 1:78/1:85 material? Or do you also notice them with 1:33 and 2:35 material?
Thanks!

Hi Andrew

Do you know if the Pearl will support 1080/24PsF (48i) input signal? I know the Ruby will but I can't find an electronic version of the Pearl manual to check.

Also what gain is your screen ?

Sorry if you've already answered these but it's a long thread.

Thanks.

Dazzer

I do not know the first answer and I am at the office today so I do not have access to the manual. My screen is a 96" Firehawk.

Andrew,
Thanks for the quick answer. One more quick question re: light corners (glad they're very faint). Are the light corners noticeable only with 1:78/1:85 material? Or do you also notice them with 1:33 and 2:35 material?
Thanks!

Most of my watching this weekend was 1.85:1 material via Directv HD. I did view a few parts of HD DVD's (very quickly though), but I did not notice this being an issue with 2.35:1. I need to look into this further. I will try and do this tonight.

The light corner issue has never once bothered me on the Ruby which I have used since January 2006 (I have viewed plenty of 2.35:1 material on the Ruby as well.) The bigger issue to me was the light spill that overshot my screen border. I consider myself very picky about these sorts of things.

It is right next to where i sit. If its more then 3 feet from my ear while on the couch its a lot and I cant hear it. I tried both 720p and 1080i and 1080i on the xbox 360 is the best setting. The Pearl eats it up. I have Gamefly, Its like netflix but for games. Right now I have out Hitman Bloodmoney and Prey. I have a 46" Samsung LCD TV and thought it was the best thing I have ever scene 360 played on. This destroys it. The shadow detail is so clean and clear even when moving through almost fully black scenes. Tomorow I will get some screen shots. I can not wait till November 9th. Call Of Duty 3!

Arrggghhh! I've gotta stop reading this thread! I'm currently using a Sanyo Z4 in my theater and am seriously considering a 1080p upgrade early next year. Between my 360 and my HD-DVD player I can only imagine how amazing everything could look. It already looks amazing to me now and I really can't imagine it looking any better. Are you seeing a massive improvement in your 360 games from what you saw using your previous unit? Was your previous projector 720p?

Pics please. :D

Coming very soon.

Andy P

How does noise on the pearl compare to the Ruby that I thought was silent compared to my JVC SX 21?

Many thanks
Rob

PS You and Djzelos deserve medals and more from us all!


I have yet to actually hear the fan on the Pearl and my ear is 3.5 ft from the unit.

Arrggghhh! I've gotta stop reading this thread! I'm currently using a Sanyo Z4 in my theater and am seriously considering a 1080p upgrade early next year. Between my 360 and my HD-DVD player I can only imagine how amazing everything could look. It already looks amazing to me now and I really can't imagine it looking any better. Are you seeing a massive improvement in your 360 games from what you saw using your previous unit? Was your previous projector 720p?


My last projector was the Yamaha LPX-510, yes it is a 720p projector. I noticed a HUGE difference between the Pearl and the Yamaha. The Pearl destroys every other display I have scene the 360 on. I also have a Samsung 46" LCD TV and they specifically designed their game mode to be used with the Xbox 360. Even after all that the Pearl will still be my choice for playing 360 games on.

Hello my AVS friends. The next couple of weeks are going to be very busy for me and I will also be traveling later this week and through the upcoming weekend. My responses may become a little slower but I will still try to keep the post coming.

And no you can not have my spare key to "Keep and eye on" the Pearl while I am away. ;)

Hello my AVS friends. The next couple of weeks are going to be very busy for me and I will also be traveling later this week and through the upcoming weekend. My responses may become a little slower but I will still try to keep the post coming.

And no you can not have my spare key to "Keep and eye on" the Pearl while I am away. ;)

Where's the love?


;)

My last projector was the Yamaha LPX-510, yes it is a 720p projector. I noticed a HUGE difference between the Pearl and the Yamaha. The Pearl destroys every other display I have scene the 360 on. I also have a Samsung 46" LCD TV and they specifically designed their game mode to be used with the Xbox 360. Even after all that the Pearl will still be my choice for playing 360 games on.

Thanks for the quick reply. I can already feel my checking account getting lighter...

There's insurance and then there's insurance, ya know whadda I mean.
If you want real protection, get the Pearl here. :)

Could someone tell me if this pj is suitable for a coffee table installation with 10' - 12' throw to a 92" - 100" screen? Or point me to throw/offset info.

Andy and Djzelos

Thanks for the responses on the fan noise. The JVC SX21 is noisy in comparison, but quiet versus my old Sony CRT. How things change!

I have a DaLite Hi Power 120". What do you think about that as a match for the Ruby?

I was going to go with the new JVC but just can't wait till April / June - and you guys have seriously corrupted me :-)

Thanks again
Rob

Could someone tell me if this pj is suitable for a coffee table installation with 10' - 12' throw to a 92" - 100" screen? Or point me to throw/offset info.


Thats how mine is setup.

My last projector was the Yamaha LPX-510, yes it is a 720p projector. I noticed a HUGE difference between the Pearl and the Yamaha. The Pearl destroys every other display I have scene the 360 on. I also have a Samsung 46" LCD TV and they specifically designed their game mode to be used with the Xbox 360. Even after all that the Pearl will still be my choice for playing 360 games on.

For video gaming I actually prefer my 42" Plasma. The image is so bright, sharp, and punchy. That is not to say the image doesn't look stellar on the Pearl and Ruby because it does. When I use the Pearl/Ruby with video games I use the dynamic setting and do not use auto iris to give it an extra push!

Andy and Djzelos

Thanks for the responses on the fan noise. The JVC SX21 is noisy in comparison, but quiet versus my old Sony CRT. How things change!

I have a DaLite Hi Power 120". What do you think about that as a match for the Ruby?

I was going to go with the new JVC but just can't wait till April / June - and you guys have seriously corrupted me :-)

Thanks again
Rob

I love mine with the Firehawk, but it depends if your prefer contrast to brightness. The bright image will wow people more. With a screen size of 120" I think a high power screen may be your best bet. I know Tryg has a maaive screen guide which is worth a read.

For video gaming I actually prefer my 42" Plasma. The image is so bright, sharp, and punchy. That is not to say the image doesn't look stellar on the Pearl and Ruby because it does. When I use the Pearl/Ruby with video games I use the dynamic setting and do not use auto iris to give it an extra push!

I just like the BIG factor on the 96". When you have 3 people over and do 4 way split screen everyone thinks it's really cool.

I love mine with the Firehawk, but it depends if your prefer contrast to brightness. The bright image will wow people more. With a screen size of 120" I think a high power screen may be your best bet. I know Tryg has a maaive screen guide which is worth a read.


What is the gain of you FH, 1.25?

I'm new to the forum and I don't know how to contact AVS for product inquiry on the new 1080p projector.

Can you tell me what number I need to call or the screen name of the person I need to PM (preferably the phone number).

Hello my AVS friends. The next couple of weeks are going to be very busy for me and I will also be traveling later this week and through the upcoming weekend. My responses may become a little slower but I will still try to keep the post coming.

And no you can not have my spare key to "Keep and eye on" the Pearl while I am away. ;)


Just leave the blinds open and have a loop of HD material running, I'll ask no more than that!

I'm new to the forum and I don't know how to contact AVS for product inquiry on the new 1080p projector.

Can you tell me what number I need to call or the screen name of the person I need to PM (preferably the phone number).


http://www.avscience.com/

Toll Free: 877-823-4452

To those who have this projector: How long is the power cord? I am trying to figure out mounting options and I would really appreciate this info. Thank you in advance!

If anybody near Seattle is getting one and wants to see it with 1080p24 from a good scaler with HD DVD or Blu-ray, on a 10' wide High Power screen, and/or in a mostly black velvet room, I can provide those things along with a little help setting it up in exchange for getting to see it.

--Darin

Hi Darin,
Just curious what scaler you are using?
Thanks!

To those who have this projector: How long is the power cord? I am trying to figure out mounting options and I would really appreciate this info. Thank you in advance!

I use the $2000 power cord and not the fake one found on eBay. LOL...I think its between 6 and 8ft.

Hi Darin,
Just curious what scaler you are using?
Thanks!


I'm curious too!

How much can you shift the image to the left or right? The lens does not have to be dead center does it?

Sorry if this has been covered before.

I just like the BIG factor on the 96". When you have 3 people over and do 4 way split screen everyone thinks it's really cool.

Size does matter :)

Hi Darin,
Just curious what scaler you are using?
Thanks!A new DVDO iScan VP50. And here is a cool feature (IMO). Shows like "Lost", "Desparate Housewives", and "Boston Legal" are shot with film (which is 24Hz), but shown on ABC at 720p60. The VP50 can pull the frames out at 24Hz and output 1080p24 to the Pearl, which will frame double them and refresh the panels at 96Hz (from what Sony told me).

--Darin

A DVDO VP50. And here is a cool feature (IMO). Shows like "Lost", "Desparate Housewives", and "Boston Legal" are shot with film (which is 24Hz), but shown on ABC at 720p60. The VP50 can pull the frames out at 24Hz and output 1080p24 to the Pearl, which will frame double them and refresh the panels at 96Hz (from what Sony told me).

--Darin

Not to get off topic, but where can I buy that? What is the MSRP?

I have a large client in Seattle. I wish I had a reason to fly out and visit them.

Not to get off topic, but where can I buy that? What is the MSRP?MSRP is $2999. They can be ordered, but I believe there is a wait for people ordering them right now of a month or more.

--Darin

Could somebody explain the "high altitude" thing? Is this a setting on the projector? How high is "high"?

Thanks.

Marc

I think it's having the fan on high speed regardless of lamp mode.

Gary

A new DVDO iScan VP50. And here is a cool feature (IMO). Shows like "Lost", "Desparate Housewives", and "Boston Legal" are shot with film (which is 24Hz), but shown on ABC at 720p60. The VP50 can pull the frames out at 24Hz and output 1080p24 to the Pearl, which will frame double them and refresh the panels at 96Hz (from what Sony told me).

--Darin

Darin,

is the VP50 already in yours hand or expecting it soon? I have mine in pre-order.

I think it's having the fan on high speed regardless of lamp mode.

Gary

Excuse my ignorance, but what does high altitude have to do with this? Why would one want the fan to be on constantly above a certain elevation? Again, thanks in advance.

Could somebody explain the "high altitude" thing? Is this a setting on the projector? How high is "high"?

Thanks.

Marc

I thought I would answer question although not talking about the PEARL This is from Benq PE7700. Yes it does have "high altitude" setting for fan. The manual says any altitude over 3000 ft. use "high altitude". I guess same for most projectors.

Mark

Is the manual for this available online anywhere yet?

Is the manual for this available online anywhere yet?

No, but it is not very useful anyway. Minimal useful descriptions.

No, but it is not very useful anyway. Minimal useful descriptions.


I agree, it took me about 40 seconds to read the entire thing.

I am going to mount the Pearl on the ceiling toward the back of the room. I am going to have to fish the ceiling and walls to get any needed connections. I'd like to get your thoughts on what to run. 1 HDMI?, 2? Anything else?

Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

I forgot about the high altitude setting. How loud is the fan in this setting? Is it to loud to mount above my head about 2.5 feet? I live in Denver which is 5280 ft so I assume I need to use this setting.

Andrew, what kind of throw are you using to your firehawk? Do you watch in high or low lamp?

I thought I would answer question although not talking about the PEARL This is from Benq PE7700. Yes it does have "high altitude" setting for fan. The manual says any altitude over 3000 ft. use "high altitude". I guess same for most projectors.

Mark

A high altitude setting on a projector cooling fan is there to compensate for reduced air density due to the elevated altitude. Air has a certain specific heat capacity expressed (English units, I'm old....) in BTU/lbmass/deg F.

Forced air flow convection cooling is used to keep projector operating temperatures within design specifications.
Fans are rated by output volume (cu. Ft. per minute). If the air being pushed through the projector is less dense because of the altitude of the installation, each unit volume of air weighs less than air at or near sea level and has a reduced capacity to carry heat away from the projector. Therefore to have the same net effect on system cooling , a higher volume of air must pass through the projector, hence a higher fan speed is needed.

Thermodynamics lives......

I forgot about the high altitude setting. How loud is the fan in this setting? Is it to loud to mount above my head about 2.5 feet? I live in Denver which is 5280 ft so I assume I need to use this setting.

Andrew, what kind of throw are you using to your firehawk? Do you watch in high or low lamp?

15 feet from the screen. The projector is about 3 feet from my head (currently mounted on a high shelf) and it is almost not noticable. I only use high lamp mode.

No, but it is not very useful anyway. Minimal useful descriptions.

I have read the Ruby manual, and I generally agree. The most useful section is about ceiling mounting with the two Sony mounts (810 and 610).

Looking at the cine4home review on the Pearl, a throw distance chart is shown and appears to be excerpted from a Pearl manual. Its distances are shorter than for the Ruby, but no details of the mount used or any actual details on whether the "a" distance is to the lens or the center of the mount support are shown in the cine4home review.

The actual manual will be useful to help us all with mounting details when it comes out. For me, this is one of the decision criteria in going with an 80" or 87" wide screen.

I would expect most projectors if they have this setting (high altitude) to be audible at times. I'm not even sure if I can test for it because the projector probably would never need to switch into that mode (even if I selected it.)

OK, what ceiling mount and/or where do we get a ceiling mount for this thing?

OK, what ceiling mount and/or where do we get a ceiling mount for this thing?

Could always make one, if your creative and like to DIY. Just an idea.

I made one for my Sony HS20 with minimal money and minimal effort.

http://www.30th-ta.org/hometheater/103_0390.jpg
-two heavy duty L brackets mounted up in the floor/ceiling joists

http://www.30th-ta.org/hometheater/103_0394.jpg
-view of HS20 on the mount, 10-12 ply board (VERY strong) and a sheet of polycarbonate (stronger then plexi-glass) along with four threaded rods

http://www.30th-ta.org/hometheater/103_0395.jpg
-another view of mount, white plate on bottom side of polycarbonate for extra support, three M5 30mm screws with an 80 thread pitch mount the polycarbonate plate to the projector

http://www.30th-ta.org/hometheater/103_0396.jpg
-close up of the previous

http://www.30th-ta.org/hometheater/103_0397.jpg
-close up of the polycarbonate piece and the room for air to circulate under

http://www.30th-ta.org/hometheater/103_0398.jpg
-test run of the mount, easy to adjust in all three axis
1.) slide board left right to align with screen
2.) adjust nuts on the four threaded rods for height
3.) fine adjustments using the 30mm screws going into the projector

http://www.30th-ta.org/hometheater/103_0399.jpg
-another view of the test run on the mount

http://www.30th-ta.org/hometheater/110_1043.jpg
-up and running in the completed room

Most Impressive! But think I'll just buy a Chief RPA-Universal at around $155. MSRP

Robert that was an excellant illustrated guide! I'm saving that post and those pics.

I get queasy at the thought of 4 slender bolts holding up a $5,000 hunk of delicate electronics, but I think I'm becoming more comfortable with the idea- and it does have several practical benefits beyond throw like having the pj inputs on the side where my equipment is, and the fact that mounted under a board means its covered. I didn't like the idea of having the pj exposed on the top of a rack (though in that case I would have built a hutch for it when it wasn't in use).

now I just have to radically redesign the layout of this 'rack' to accomodate a sturdy top yet open area beneath it.
I guess I'll end up going with long 2x4 posts for each corner.

those L brakets might work slick, and that would allow me to slide the pj out easier to change or clean the filters or just to pack it up when I'm going to be not using it for extended periods.

The other benefit of mounting is that I'll be able to lower my screen now. Back when all my 'ht' consisted of was a console tv on the floor of the living room, I used to think how cool it would be to have a screen that you looked up at- but after that It seemed more and more theaters were being designed for stadium seating, and I've come to find now that I love to be in the middle to close to the back and have my eyeline the middle or top of the screen. Much more relaxing to me.
So I'm looking forward to dropping the screen 5" for my next projector, and if that means it has to be mounted, then so be it.
The other big positive is slightly more clearance over my head.

I've already re-designed my side masking system and though I just made some cursory tests I think it will work superbly. Its still manual, but much slicker than what I had previously. and it was so simple I don't know why I never came up with it sooner.

Agreed, that is very impressive, but need a more simple approach.

The Chief Looks good too and you'll still need wall plate and a piece of coupling/nipple to connect.

Sony website has their own (which I would rather not pay/use), PSS-610, and it suppose to work with VPL-HS60, VPL-HS51, VPL-VW11HT, VPL-VW10HT, VPL-PX31, VPL-PX10, VPL-PS10, VPL-PX11, VPL-HS10, VPL-PX15, VPL-HS20, VPL-PX35, VPL-PX40 and VPL-VW100. Does that mean if we can find a mount that work with any of these will also work the Pearl? More suggestions?

As mentioned earlier, I am very new the the world of projectors. With that said, I am now wondering what are my options for a relatively simple ceiling mount? I do not have the luxuy of putting hardware above the sheetrock, as I live in a rented appartment.

What are my mounting options for using the existing ceiling? Can I simply use a studfinder and mount with two wood screws? (or do I need some sort of plate that will span the distance between two studs?) If so, what are the best (and cheapest) mounts for this PJ?

Thank you so much in advance! This forum is an incredible learing resource!

Did I miss the XBox360 pics? Just checking. :D

Looking at the cine4home review on the Pearl, a throw distance chart is shown and appears to be excerpted from a Pearl manual. Its distances are shorter than for the Ruby, but no details of the mount used or any actual details on whether the "a" distance is to the lens or the center of the mount support are shown in the cine4home review.


Yes, the Screen size chart is taken from the Pearl-manual. And the Ratio (and even the formula) is absolutly identical to the one of the Ruby. No difference, no shorter distances.

Here the one of the Ruby:

http://www.cine4home.de/tests/projektoren/VPL-VW100-Preview/Abstaende.gif

and here the one of the Pearl:

http://www.cine4home.de/tests/projektoren/SonyVPL-VW50/Bild18.jpg



Regards,
Ekkehart, www.Cine4Home.com

Look out! Cine4Home in the house.

Ekkehart, perhaps we shouldn't ask but you guys did an excellent review and many folks are speculating on the screen size issue. Do you have a take on that. Sounds like 106" or less may be safe.

As we don't have the DRC light cannon trick available, probably an important part of the decision.

Let us know.

For video gaming I actually prefer my 42" Plasma. The image is so bright, sharp, and punchy. That is not to say the image doesn't look stellar on the Pearl and Ruby because it does. When I use the Pearl/Ruby with video games I use the dynamic setting and do not use auto iris to give it an extra push!

I come from the last generation, PLV-Z3 here but i also noticed that for aerial combat/dogfighting in IL-2 Strumovik the latency times were unacceptable, ie had a much better depth perception on my Samsung LCD TV/Monitor.

Now, with 5 ns LCD latency that may change, you agree?

Ekkehart,

Do you have any info on arrival of the VW50 in Europe?

When do you expect to have a (near-) final Pearl unit to test?

TIA.

I put an order in for the Pearl, from reading the posts, I'm hoping my 110'' screen isn't too big. The screen is a ST130, the room has complete light control so I'm thinking I will be safe. If not, please advise. I tried the Optoma 7100 and the BenQ 8720, and was unimpressed with both machines. So I'm hoping the Pearl is what I've been waiting for, very excited!

I put an order in for the Pearl, from reading the posts, I'm hoping my 110'' screen isn't too big. The screen is a ST130, the room has complete light control so I'm thinking I will be safe. If not, please advise. I tried the Optoma 7100 and the BenQ 8720, and was unimpressed with both machines. So I'm hoping the Pearl is what I've been waiting for, very excited!

Curious about your experience with the 7100 and 8720: were they defective, i.e., didn't work right, or did you just not like the picture? E.g., are you RB sensitive to dlp's, etc., or were they not bright enough? Negative info is as useful as the positive.

I just wasn't happy with the picture quality. I was just left with the feeling there was something missing with the picture, no real punch or window effect with either projector. Not sure if it was the low resolution on a 110'' screen, but both projectors had a "grainy or distortion" look to the picture as well. This really showed when watching footballs games. With regards to DLP and rainbows, I don't recall seeing this, but not exactly sure what I would be looking for. I also had problems with both projectors. The Optoma would not fire up If a device was turned on, had to be unplugged then re-booted, real pain. The benQ after a few days had bulb flickering issues on the left side of the screen. Either way, I just wasn't happy. Very excited about this Pearl though!

I am currently using the sony HS10 with a 100" firehawk screen (1.3 gain in a light controlled theater room) and I am thinking about upgrading to the Sony Pearl. My question for those that have seen both the HS10 & Pearl is will I see a major improvement? I am looking for the wow factor with bright color pop over the HS10 not just some improvements in contast etc. To justify the $5000.00 msp upgrade price I need the wife to walk in the Room and say Wow that's amazing what did you do? So what do you guys think?
Thanks for your help - Rob:)

I am currently using the sony HS10 with a 100" firehawk screen (1.3 gain in a light controlled theater room) and I am thinking about upgrading to the Sony Pearl. My question for those that have seen both the HS10 & Pearl is will I see a major improvement? I am looking for the wow factor with bright color pop over the HS10 not just some improvements in contast etc. To justify the $5000.00 msp upgrade price I need the wife to walk in the Room and say Wow that's amazing what did you do? So what do you guys think?
Thanks for your help - Rob:)

Personally I think you will notice a huge difference. I always liked my Yamaha LPX-510 but only said wow to it on the first day and after that it was ehh not bad. After 5 days with the Pearl I still say wow at least 4 or 5 times a night. It's a really sweet unit. I think no matter what projector someone pics they are going to say WOW all of the new units LCD, DLP and LCOS (SXRD) are nice. It all comes down to what makes YOUR eyes say wow. (oh and maybe the significant other if they are involved in the buying decision)

How would you compare the Pearl to a good LCD or Plasma? Will a good projector like the Pearl give you a picture quality such as a 1080P Aquos or 42 Panny? I have both those flat panels and hoping the Pearl can come close to their picture quality? or maybe I am expecting to much in picture quality? My Sharp 45 has a picture to die for, it's so clear. Panny is right behind the Sharp in picture quality.

I forgot about the high altitude setting. How loud is the fan in this setting? Is it to loud to mount above my head about 2.5 feet? I live in Denver which is 5280 ft so I assume I need to use this setting.

Andrew, what kind of throw are you using to your firehawk? Do you watch in high or low lamp?
I haven't seen the detailed specs on the Pearl yet, but I assume they are the same as for the Ruby. For the Ruby, "High Altitude" mode is recommended when the projector is to be used at altitudes greater than 1,500m (~4,900ft).

I also sent you a PM.

Look out! Cine4Home in the house.

Ekkehart, perhaps we shouldn't ask but you guys did an excellent review and many folks are speculating on the screen size issue. Do you have a take on that. Sounds like 106" or less may be safe.

As we don't have the DRC light cannon trick available, probably an important part of the decision.

Let us know.

Are you sure the light-canon trick involved DRC? I thought it was a service menu adjustment, possibly involving gamma settings?

Also, the decision about whether or not a particular projector is suitable for a given screen size depends upon the lumens and the screen gain. A high gain screen will give you more ft-L at the viewing position, but can only be used given certain viewing angle constraints, so seating position becomes the X factor.

I've seen it said that we should try for at least 23 ft-L on day one, and try not to drop below 12 ft-L as the bulb ages. There are a wide range of preferences regarding image brightness as well.

How would you compare the Pearl to a good LCD or Plasma? Will a good projector like the Pearl give you a picture quality such as a 1080P Aquos or 42 Panny? I have both those flat panels and hoping the Pearl can come close to their picture quality? or maybe I am expecting to much in picture quality? My Sharp 45 has a picture to die for, it's so clear. Panny is right behind the Sharp in picture quality.

you could easily get a Front projector to look just as good if not better then flat panel displays, including the ones you have mentioned.

you could easily get a Front projector to look just as good if not better then flat panel displays, including the ones you have mentioned.

I'm hoping this will happen with the Pearl. Very excited to see this projector perform. I was very skeptical about buying Sony, but after these reviews, sounds like the winner.

you could easily get a Front projector to look just as good if not better then flat panel displays, including the ones you have mentioned.

I think a Plasma will always look better because it is brighter and sharper. I do not believe a Plasma is more accurate by any means and I prefer the Ruby/Pearl, but it should catch your attention before the Pearl/Ruby would.

I heard someone say there was no DRC on the Pearl but according to the Sony site it does have DRC. Does anyone know anything about this?

I heard someone say there was no DRC on the Pearl but according to the Sony site it does have DRC. Does anyone know anything about this?

My assumption is that the SonyStyle site is wrong, as it has been so many times before. SonyStyle seems to do a lot of copy and paste of features from previous units. In short, I wouldn't trust a thing on there.

Whether or not the Pearl has DRC should be fairly easy to check. The DRC should be accessible through the user menu and should allow you to select the "mode" of processing and the Reality and Clarity settings of the DRC pallette. I'm guessing you don't have these featuers, but if you do please let us know.

I received my Pearl today. :D

I plan to compare it side-by-side to the Ruby tonight. I will post my impressions later.

I plan to compare it side-by-side to the Ruby tonight. I will post my impressions later.

Curious how it stacks up to the Ruby :)

I received my Pearl today. :D

I plan to compare it side-by-side to the Ruby tonight. I will post my impressions later.

Excellent! Looking forward to it.

How many hours on your Ruby?

-tony

I received my Pearl today. :D

I plan to compare it side-by-side to the Ruby tonight. I will post my impressions later.


How did you get your Pearl already? I'm assuming this is through special contacts with he limited supply?

In my opinion it compares very favorably to the Ruby, but I do not want to take the steam out of Eric's thread so I will let him post his findings and then I will comment.

How many hours on your Ruby?
I'll find out. The Ruby belongs to a friend of mine.
I'm assuming this is through special contacts with he limited supply?
Correct.

I received my Pearl today. :D

I plan to compare it side-by-side to the Ruby tonight. I will post my impressions later.


Excellent. :p

I've not seen the Pearl mentioned with larger screens. So for you guys with these pj's in hand...in your estimation would a 133" high power(getting around 1.8 gain or so in my setup) be beyond the Pearls ability to light up properly? It will be in a dedicated light controlled theater with dark walls and ceiling.

Also, do we yet know what the bulb life is in high power mode yet? I've seen a 2000hr figure but it's not very clear which mode that figure represents.

Thanks for any info,
Ken

I've not seen the Pearl mentioned with larger screens. So for you guys with these pj's in hand...in your estimation would a 133" high power(getting around 1.8 gain or so in my setup) be beyond the Pearls ability to light up properly? It will be in a dedicated light controlled theater with dark walls and ceiling.

Also, do we yet know what the bulb life is in high power mode yet? I've seen a 2000hr figure but it's not very clear which mode that figure represents.

Thanks for any info,
Ken

If 700 lumens is the right value for the Pearl, then your set-up yields ~24 ftL, perhaps enough. Would help much if you could mount the pj to more fully optimize the HP's gain (to its max of 2.8).

I've not seen the Pearl mentioned with larger screens. So for you guys with these pj's in hand...in your estimation would a 133" high power(getting around 1.8 gain or so in my setup) be beyond the Pearls ability to light up properly? It will be in a dedicated light controlled theater with dark walls and ceiling.

Also, do we yet know what the bulb life is in high power mode yet? I've seen a 2000hr figure but it's not very clear which mode that figure represents.

Thanks for any info,
Ken

Ken we are up to three people confirmed with the projector. Of the first two both are below 100" and the third is going to post and may comment on this too shortly.

I don't believe anyone has mentioned contemplating 133" to this point.

A 133" diag HighPower should be possible, if the pj is mounted in the optimal location*, to achieve the full 2.8 (or even 3.0) gain of the HP. And if the pj is as close as possible, so as to produce the reported 700 lumens, one would have ~ 37 ftL, which should be plenty bright.

*Just above and behind the viewers heads.

I got confirmation from Jason that my PEARL will ship this week, hopefully. I am going with a 106" screen and its replacing 400hr HS20 (ofcourse I will be blown away).

A special request:

Could someone post a picture of the underside of the Pearl (or the page on the manual describing mount sockets)?

Grubert, don't do it man...

Don't try to make a mount before you have the unit.

The best thing to do is get the unit, then put a piece of paper to the underside and polk holes in were the mount sockets are.

;)


But if you insist!
http://www.cine4home.com/reviews/projectors/SonyVPLVW50/Bild11.jpg

Look out! Cine4Home in the house.

Ekkehart, perhaps we shouldn't ask but you guys did an excellent review and many folks are speculating on the screen size issue. Do you have a take on that. Sounds like 106" or less may be safe.

As we don't have the DRC light cannon trick available, probably an important part of the decision.

Let us know.




From my point of view, this screen size is totally safe, under controlled light conditions. But I dont know what brightness you personally prefer. We published the lumens so you can easily calculate the fl on the screen.

Regards,
Ekkehart, www.cine4home.com

I heard someone say there was no DRC on the Pearl but according to the Sony site it does have DRC. Does anyone know anything about this?



Our test sample had no DRC and it was neither mentioned in the manual.

Regards,
Ekkehart, www.cine4home.de

If 700 lumens is the right value for the Pearl, then your set-up yields ~24 ftL, perhaps enough. Would help much if you could mount the pj to more fully optimize the HP's gain (to its max of 2.8).



One question: Why would anyone need 25 - 40 fl on screen in a dark room with dark walls and ceiling?? Do you guys want to get blind or what? ;)


Regards,
Ekkehart

Cine4home can you please tell me you preset you used, and what Bias setting you did to get as close to d65 that you did!

I need to know please

Ekkehart,

Do you have any info on arrival of the VW50 in Europe?

When do you expect to have a (near-) final Pearl unit to test?

TIA.



Well, I heard september. So it should come any day now...
We will have test units immedeately after arrival.

Regards,
Ekekhart

Grubert, don't do it man...

Don't try to make a mount before you have the unit.

The best thing to do is get the unit, then put a piece of paper to the underside and polk holes in were the mount sockets are.



Thanks for the advice. I just wanted to have a general view in order to figure out how to tackle the problem. ;)

But if you insist!


D'oh! I didn't remember the good people at cine4home had already did that!

Thanks!

One question: Why would anyone need 25 - 40 fl on screen in a dark room with dark walls and ceiling?? Do you guys want to get blind or what? ;)


Regards,
Ekkehart

Not everyone watches in a hermatically sealed bat cave.

If I'm watching in a room with eggshell-colored walls and good light control (in the form of drapes that cut out all window light) will I be ok? I plan on using a 100inch Carada BW screen(1.2-1.4 gain) and minimum throw distance (~10 ft).

Will this setup be ok?

Not everyone watches in a hermatically sealed bat cave.

No, but they should!

;)

If I'm watching in a room with eggshell-colored walls and good light control (in the form of drapes that cut out all window light) will I be ok? I plan on using a 100inch Carada BW screen(1.2-1.4 gain) and minimum throw distance (~10 ft).

Will this setup be ok?

Paint your walls a dark color. Then you'll be fine.

No, but they should! ;)

No argument with you on this one (but this is not true with my wife!). Of course if I were a truly dedicated videophile, I would forget about the latter.

Everyone keeps saying it is 700 lumen output, but every site claims 900 lumen output and the sony sight has nothing on this. The Ruby says 800 lumen output.

I have another question. In looking at the manual, I assume the height from the ceiling ends up having nothing to do with how far back or forward the projector is, because it is the same as if you fixed the projector and moved the screen in to the projector, to get it back out to the edges you use zoom and you can still only shift the image so much down.

In other word, even though the angle between the projector and the bottom of the screen changes when you move the projector up or back, you still don't get any more room up or down to move the projector closer or further from the ceiling.

Actually I'm confused again, if you move the projector back and you want the image to stay the same height from the floor and you don't change projector height from the ceiling and you decrease zoom so it fits the same size screen, won't you have to raise the vertical adjustment or does zoom narrow the beam?

Thanks for any help. I'm trying to figure out whether to do the firehawk recommendation and mount as long a throw as possible to to get the best picture or move the projector forward to increase angle (less shadows from people moving around) and increase brightness.

Paint your walls a dark color. Then you'll be fine.

If that's not a possibility, will this projector be watchable? I'm obviously new to projectors, so I apologize if this is a stupid question.

yes.

As long as you have light control

Everyone keeps saying it is 700 lumen output, but every site claims 900 lumen output and the sony sight has nothing on this. The Ruby says 800 lumen output.

900 is the maximum according to spec. 700 lumens is after calibration according to the review at cine4home. That's actually not too bad because a lot of pjs rated at 1000+ lumens actually have much lower calibrated output (as low as under 50%).

ARGH!

Must.....resist.......urge.....to.......buy...........

I got the upgrade bug :)

Still love my Sanyo Z4 and I still have me free extra bulb unused but man 1080p at half the price of the Ruby and HD-DVD xbox 360 attachment right around the corner is soooo tempting.

700 after calibration is a ton. Usually, projectors spec'ed with 1000 get around 400 or so in HT mode after calibration.

ARGH!

Must.....resist.......urge.....to.......buy...........

I got the upgrade bug :)

Still love my Sanyo Z4 and I still have me free extra bulb unused but man 1080p at half the price of the Ruby and HD-DVD xbox 360 attachment right around the corner is soooo tempting.

Resistance is futile :D . You will be assimmulated and become part of the collective.

If that's not a possibility, will this projector be watchable? I'm obviously new to projectors, so I apologize if this is a stupid question.It's not a stupid question at all. It's a very important one for front projection setups. Yes, you'd be fine painting the walls a dark color - except maybe with your wife or S.O. ;)

Calculating 700 lumens divided by 27 square feet multiplied by 1.3, you get about 31 foot-Lamberts. That'd be your initial brightness that'd drop to 15 ftL assuming the bulb loses 50% brightness at its endpoint. If all that's true, your overall brightness would be all right. The less light leaking onto the screen especially or into the room (at all, ideally) when watching front projection, the better.

You're simultaneous contrast would suffer some, due to light reflections from the light walls back to the screen lightening dark parts of an image that has both dark and light elements.

Dan

Last night I brought my Pearl over to a friend's place. He has a Ruby, and we compared them on the same screen, a 116"-wide High Power with 2.8 gain.

The first thing we compared was the convergence. A photo comparison is attached below.

This Pearl has very good convergence. Only red is off, to the right by half a pixel, which is consistent over the entire image.

This Ruby has much worse convergence. The left side of the image has red off by 2 pixels to the right of green, and blue off by 1 pixel to the right of green and also below. The right side of the image is better than the left side, since red is off by half a pixel to the right of green, but blue is still off by 1 pixel. The convergence seems to be worse than average for a Ruby.

I will post more findings later.

If that's not a possibility, will this projector be watchable? I'm obviously new to projectors, so I apologize if this is a stupid question.

Not a stupid question at all. You will tend to have better ANSI contrast in a room with dark colored walls, so I highly suggest it.

Dark walls will also do a better job of absorbing any stray light leaking out of the projector or other light sources, like rope lighting in the walkways, which could impact on/off contrast.

In short, you're better off with dark walls. But yes, the picture will be watchable in a room with light colored walls.

Linesalomon -

It will be plenty bright. just for reference, I project an h30 on a 110 diagnal screen. The lumens are close to 400 and the gain of the screen is prolly a little under 1 (guessing because i built it myself).

I project it in my living room so as you can imagine my light controll gets as good as closing the blinds and its plenty bright. I watch Tv on it durring the day with little issue unless its a dark show.

Obvously im not a videophile =)

You could always get away with having two settings an uncalibrated setting and get 900 lumens out of the projector during the day and a calibrated one for night time viewing if you have light controll problems like myself.

Last night I brought my Pearl over to a friend's place. He has a Ruby, and we compared them on the same screen, a 116"-wide High Power with 2.8 gain.

The first thing we compared was the convergence. A photo comparison is attached below.

This Pearl has very good convergence. Only red is off, to the right by half a pixel, which is consistent over the entire image.

This Ruby has much worse convergence. The left side of the image has red off by 2 pixels to the right of green, and blue off by 1 pixel to the right of green and also below. The right side of the image is better than the left side, since red is off by half a pixel to the right of green, but blue is still off by 1 pixel. The convergence seems to be worse than average for a Ruby.

I will post more findings later.

If you've taken a bunch more pictures comparing these two machines, this is good enough to warrant its own thread. :D

gremmy, velvetpoet, drapp1952, SOWK, and others:
Thank you all for you helpful posts. I really appreciate the info you've given me...it makes spending $5K a little easier. :)

Last night I brought my Pearl over to a friend's place. He has a Ruby, and we compared them on the same screen, a 116"-wide High Power with 2.8 gain.

The first thing we compared was the convergence. A photo comparison is attached below.

This Pearl has very good convergence. Only red is off, to the right by half a pixel, which is consistent over the entire image.

This Ruby has much worse convergence. The left side of the image has red off by 2 pixels to the right of green, and blue off by 1 pixel to the right of green and also below. The right side of the image is better than the left side, since red is off by half a pixel to the right of green, but blue is still off by 1 pixel. The convergence seems to be worse than average for a Ruby.

I will post more findings later.

Wow, those pictures make me feel VERY GOOD about my Pearl order. Here's hoping my unit is at least that well converged. Thanks for posting.

Any other impressions or comparisions between the two?

http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/features/1766/cedia-expo-2006-highlights-part-1.html

For example, Sony debuted its VPL-VW50 projector, a sleek SXRD-based model with 1080p resolution. The company actually drew cheers from the audience when it announced the price: $5,000. It joins Sony's two existing 1080p SXRD front projectors, the Qualia 004R1 and the VPL-VW100. The VPL-VW50 boasts a new single-chip video processing engine, enabling the use of an all-digital chassis, which the company says eliminates signal noise caused by analog-to-digital or digital-to-analog conversion. It also sports dual HDMI inputs with 1080p support at both 60 and 24 frames per second.

Last night I brought my Pearl over to a friend's place. He has a Ruby, and we compared them on the same screen, a 116"-wide High Power with 2.8 gain.

The first thing we compared was the convergence. A photo comparison is attached below.

This Pearl has very good convergence. Only red is off, to the right by half a pixel, which is consistent over the entire image.

This Ruby has much worse convergence. The left side of the image has red off by 2 pixels to the right of green, and blue off by 1 pixel to the right of green and also below. The right side of the image is better than the left side, since red is off by half a pixel to the right of green, but blue is still off by 1 pixel. The convergence seems to be worse than average for a Ruby.

I will post more findings later.

Wow! Huge difference in convergence! Round 1 goes to the Pearl! ;)

Useless question:

What size is the box it comes in? ;)

GOD I hope my convergance is that good! if not better! :)



I HOPE I HOPE!

I'm Praying!

If you've taken a bunch more pictures comparing these two machines, this is good enough to warrant its own thread. :D
I only have one more photo. It shows a fullscreen white image on the Pearl. I went ahead and attached it below.

There is some slight color shifting. It is slightly greenish along the top of the image, and it gradually becomes pinkish towards the bottom.

Is it noticeable during a movie?

I only have one more photo. It shows a fullscreen white image on the Pearl. I went ahead and attached it below.

There is some slight color shifting. It is slightly greenish along the top of the image, and it gradually becomes pinkish towards the bottom.

Ugh. That pink at the bottom is quite noticeable. Let us know if you can see this while viewing a bright image.

Reminds me of my old Sony VPL-400Q LCD projector pink in one corner and green ish in another. I mostly noticed it in black and white sequences or movies, well, maybe a little in dark scenes as well.

Last night I brought my Pearl over to a friend's place. He has a Ruby, and we compared them on the same screen, a 116"-wide High Power with 2.8 gain.

Will be very interested to hear how the brightness of the Pearl handles this very large (133"diag) highpower. If you are indeed getting 700 lumens out of the pj, and you have it set in the optimum position, this amounts to 37 ftL--which ought to be BRIGHT!

I am not surprised if wm ports his shading tool to work on Pearl.

A single Ruby and a single Pearl is not a very big sample.

Is it noticeable during a movie?

It sure would be during a B&W film. Less so on a color film. My Panny 700 has shading issues like this.

SOWK - you must be a nervous wreck (w/ anticipation)

I only have one more photo. It shows a fullscreen white image on the Pearl. I went ahead and attached it below.

There is some slight color shifting. It is slightly greenish along the top of the image, and it gradually becomes pinkish towards the bottom.

Well, we've seen two different Pearls with white-fields posted. And both have had color uniformity problems. Of course, the picture of the unit at CEDIA was much worse than this.

I am very sensitive to this sort of color discontinuity. We need everyone who buys one of these to post a whitefield picture so we can get a bigger sample. Sony seems to have trouble getting this ironed out in their lower cost units. For me it's a big deal. For others it may not be.

The thing about these color shift issues in SXRD is that there is a history in the RPTVs of the issue getting worse over time on some sets.

I don't think Andrew P or djzelos reported any color discontinuity (shading) issues w/ their new Pearls. Unless I missed it.

Any other impressions or comparisions between the two?
The Pearl's "Low" color temperature setting is already very close to D65 out of the box. It was measured by ColorFacts at 6490K, only about 1 or 2 % too green.

To calibrate to D65, we used the "Custom3" setting (which starts out similar to "Low") and ended up with the following.
Gain: R = 1, G = -2, B = 3
Bias: R = -4, G = 8, B = 0
After calibration, it was within 50K of 6500K from 30 IRE to 100 IRE.

The calibrated brightness was measured with a light meter. "High" lamp power gives 576 lumens, and "Low" gives 382 lumens. (By the way, the fan noise changes to a lower pitch when you switch from "High" to "Low", but it did not seem to be any quieter.) By comparison, the Ruby has 283 lumens, although there are 870 hours on its Xenon lamp, and less than 5 hours on the Pearl's UHP lamp.

To test inverse telecine (IVTC) on 1080i, we used the vertrezivtc test pattern (see other thread (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=570937)) over DVI/HDMI from a HiPix HDTV card. When the Pearl's DDE setting is "Film", the top strip is fully resolved as the white bar moves across it, which suggests that inverse telecine works properly for 1080i. When DDE is "Progressive", the top strip is fully resolved except that the white bar has jagged edges and a black trail, which suggests that a motion adaptive deinterlacer is being used, but without inverse telecine. When DDE is "Off", the top strip becomes a flickering gray area, which suggests that a simple "bob" deinterlacer is being used.

We also tested 1080/48p and 1080/24p signals over DVI/HDMI from an iScan VP30. The Pearl can display both at their native frame rate (i.e, without converting them to another frame rate, such as 60p). However, 24p showed tearing along the bottom 5% of the image, although it is unclear whether the iScan or the Pearl is causing it. In any case, the tearing can be covered up by using the Pearl's Blanking feature, and it is not noticeable on letterboxed 2.35:1 images. By comparison, the Ruby can display 48p natively, but it cannot display 24p at all.

Another difference is the colors. The Ruby's colors appear to be somewhat more vibrant overall. In particular, skin tones are rosier on the Ruby, but more yellowish/greenish on the Pearl. I'm not sure which are more accurate, but I prefer them on the Ruby. It might be worthwhile to experiment with the Pearl's RCP feature to tweak the skin tones.

You answered many questions people were having in this one post, thank you!

Is it noticeable during a movie?
I did not notice the color shifting during the movies, although none of them were black & white. I only noticed it on the test patterns.

The Pearl's "Low" color temperature setting is already very close to D65 out of the box. It was measured by ColorFacts at 6490K, only about 1 or 2 % too green.

To calibrate to D65, we used the "Custom3" setting (which starts out similar to "Low") and ended up with the following.
Gain: R = 1, G = -2, B = 3
Bias: R = -4, G = 8, B = 0
After calibration, it was within 50K of 6500K from 30 IRE to 100 IRE.

The calibrated brightness was measured with a light meter. "High" lamp power gives 576 lumens, and "Low" gives 382 lumens. (By the way, the fan noise changes to a lower pitch when you switch from "High" to "Low", but it did not seem to be any quieter.) By comparison, the Ruby has 283 lumens, although there are 870 hours on its Xenon lamp, and less than 5 hours on the Pearl's UHP lamp.

To test inverse telecine (IVTC) on 1080i, we used the vertrezivtc test pattern (see other thread (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=570937)) over DVI/HDMI from a HiPix HDTV card. When the Pearl's DDE setting is "Film", the top strip is fully resolved as the white bar moves across it, which suggests that inverse telecine works properly for 1080i. When DDE is "Progressive", the top strip is fully resolved except that the white bar has jagged edges and a black trail, which suggests that a motion adaptive deinterlacer is being used, but without inverse telecine. When DDE is "Off", the top strip becomes a flickering gray area, which suggests that a simple "bob" deinterlacer is being used.

We also tested 1080/48p and 1080/24p signals over DVI/HDMI from an iScan VP30. The Pearl can display both at their native frame rate (i.e, without converting them to another frame rate, such as 60p). However, 24p showed tearing along the bottom 5% of the image, although it is unclear whether the iScan or the Pearl is causing it. In any case, the tearing can be covered up by using the Pearl's Blanking feature, and it is not noticeable on letterboxed 2.35:1 images. By comparison, the Ruby can display 48p natively, but it cannot display 24p at all.

Another difference is the colors. The Ruby's colors appear to be somewhat more vibrant overall. In particular, skin tones are rosier on the Ruby, but more yellowish/greenish on the Pearl. I'm not sure which are more accurate, but I prefer them on the Ruby. It might be worthwhile to experiment with the Pearl's RCP feature to tweak the skin tones.

Great info. I think I may have even understood some of it. :)

Any chance of taking a screen-shot of the Ruby and Pearl paused on the same scene (with the camera on a tripod and in manual mode to eliminate any differences there) so we can compare?

-tony

I don't think Andrew P or djzelos reported any color discontinuity (shading) issues w/ their new Pearls. Unless I missed it.

No, I don't believe they did.

Andrew and djzelos, if you guys plan on posting any more pictures, could you include one of a white-field? Thanks guys!

Great info Eric, thanks.

Can you take a spectral scan of both the Ruby and Pearl while they are at D65 and post the images for us to see? I was going to do something along similar lines with the pj with and without fl-day filter, but then found my colorimiter can;t do that (I need a spectroradiaometer like the GMB).

Thanks

Gary

The Pearl's "Low" color temperature setting is already very close to D65 out of the box. It was measured by ColorFacts at 6490K, only about 1 or 2 % too green.

To calibrate to D65, we used the "Custom3" setting (which starts out similar to "Low") and ended up with the following.
Gain: R = 1, G = -2, B = 3
Bias: R = -4, G = 8, B = 0
After calibration, it was within 50K of 6500K from 30 IRE to 100 IRE.

The calibrated brightness was measured with a light meter. "High" lamp power gives 576 lumens, and "Low" gives 382 lumens. (By the way, the fan noise changes to a lower pitch when you switch from "High" to "Low", but it did not seem to be any quieter.) By comparison, the Ruby has 283 lumens, although there are 870 hours on its Xenon lamp, and less than 5 hours on the Pearl's UHP lamp.

To test inverse telecine (IVTC) on 1080i, we used the vertrezivtc test pattern (see other thread (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=570937)) over DVI/HDMI from a HiPix HDTV card. When the Pearl's DDE setting is "Film", the top strip is fully resolved as the white bar moves across it, which suggests that inverse telecine works properly for 1080i. When DDE is "Progressive", the top strip is fully resolved except that the white bar has jagged edges and a black trail, which suggests that a motion adaptive deinterlacer is being used, but without inverse telecine. When DDE is "Off", the top strip becomes a flickering gray area, which suggests that a simple "bob" deinterlacer is being used.

We also tested 1080/48p and 1080/24p signals over DVI/HDMI from an iScan VP30. The Pearl can display both at their native frame rate (i.e, without converting them to another frame rate, such as 60p). However, 24p showed tearing along the bottom 5% of the image, although it is unclear whether the iScan or the Pearl is causing it. In any case, the tearing can be covered up by using the Pearl's Blanking feature, and it is not noticeable on letterboxed 2.35:1 images. By comparison, the Ruby can display 48p natively, but it cannot display 24p at all.

Another difference is the colors. The Ruby's colors appear to be somewhat more vibrant overall. In particular, skin tones are rosier on the Ruby, but more yellowish/greenish on the Pearl. I'm not sure which are more accurate, but I prefer them on the Ruby. It might be worthwhile to experiment with the Pearl's RCP feature to tweak the skin tones.

Thanks so much for this feedback. This is awesome!

So to make sure I understand this correctly:

In Film Mode, 1080i film based content shot at 24fps is properly deinterlaced using IVT, rendering true 1080p frames. This would be the correct setting for watching 1080i film content on cable, satellite, or HD-DVD/BD. Correct?

In "Progressive" Mode, some form of motion adaptive deinterlacing is taking place, for use with 1080i video based content. Do we know if this is per-pixel motion adaptive deinterlacing? I assume this is the setting you would use while watching 1080i video, like a football game on CBS.

I am not surprised if wm ports his shading tool to work on Pearl.

A single Ruby and a single Pearl is not a very big sample.

Can WM get perfect white field uniformity with his tool? If so, do you have any idea what this service costs?

So 576 lumens in 'high' lamp mode? This is quite a bit less than the 700 figure that has been fairely wided thrown around.

So 576 lumens in 'high' lamp mode? This is quite a bit less than the 700 figure that has been fairely wided thrown around.

Do we know if this was at min or max throw?

Any chance of taking a screen-shot of the Ruby and Pearl paused on the same scene (with the camera on a tripod and in manual mode to eliminate any differences there) so we can compare?
Not any time soon.

However, I own an old Xenon-based 3-chip DLP, so I could quickly take screenshots of that and the Pearl, for whatever that's worth.
Can you take a spectral scan of both the Ruby and Pearl while they are at D65 and post the images for us to see?
The spectral scan that I saw last night looked very similar to the one in Cine4home's review. I don't have a picture of it, unfortunately.

"So 576 lumens in 'high' lamp mode? This is quite a bit less than the 700 figure that has been fairely wided thrown around."

Do we know if this was at min or max throw?



580 Lumen is what our test unit gave at min zoom (compare our table).

700 was at max zoom...


Regards,
Ekkehart, Cine4Home

I can't believe it, I am so close to pulling the trigger on this..... I have never owned a current top level display in my life. Maybe it is time. :)

Maybe if I wait some I can get a refurb for 50% off MSRP. Even $4200 on the lowest of sides is still hard for me to go for it.

I even picked out a person to give my current projector and screen to for xmas. :( I think I am going crazy.

In Film Mode, 1080i film based content shot at 24fps is properly deinterlaced using IVT, rendering true 1080p frames. This would be the correct setting for watching 1080i film content on cable, satellite, or HD-DVD/BD. Correct?
Correct.
In "Progressive" Mode, some form of motion adaptive deinterlacing is taking place, for use with 1080i video based content. Do we know if this is per-pixel motion adaptive deinterlacing? I assume this is the setting you would use while watching 1080i video, like a football game on CBS.
I'm not sure, but I think you can keep it in "Film" mode, and the Pearl will automatically use motion adaptive deinterlacing if it detects that you are watching sports instead of movies.

So 576 lumens in 'high' lamp mode? This is quite a bit less than the 700 figure that has been fairely wided thrown around.
I suppose it's possible that the "Contrast" setting was not maximized. I will check it and measure again.

I'm confused now. I thought to get max zoom you would be at min Throw and visa versa?

Do we know if this was at min or max throw?
I think the throw was around 1.5 or 1.6 times screen width.

580 Lumen is what our test unit gave at min throw (compare our table).

700 was at max throw...


Regards,
Ekkehart, Cine4Home

Ekkehart,

You misquoted me. That first line was not mine. I don't mean to be a pest, but could you edit your post so those words do not appear to be mine?

Also, when I say "max throw", I mean "max throw distance", not "max zoom". So max throw should be further than min throw and therefore should be dimmer, yes?

Eric Garcia
Have you tried moving the green primary on Pearls that is off by some margin according to the Cine4home review.

sorry im getting confused about the max and min throw....so with the screen size unchanged...is the image brighter when the projector is monted closest to the screen, or is it brightest when mounted the furthest away from the screen?

thanks guys!

sorry im getting confused about the max and min throw....so with the screen size unchanged...is the image brighter when the projector is monted closest to the screen, or is it brightest when mounted the furthest away from the screen?

thanks guys!

Closest...Less distance to travel.

sorry im getting confused about the max and min throw....so with the screen size unchanged...is the image brighter when the projector is monted closest to the screen, or is it brightest when mounted the furthest away from the screen?

thanks guys!

It's brightest when it's closest to the screen, just as your intuition would lead you to expect.

yes, this makes no sense. Min throw means it is closest to the screen. Max throw means it is furthest from the screen.

Max zoom and min zoom refer to size of image at any given throw. So if you are at min zoom at max throw you will have to increase zoom to keep same size image at a more minimum throw.

Am I not right about this.

So Cine4 home stated

580 Lumen is what our test unit gave at min throw (compare our table).

700 was at max throw...

but the table at www.cine4home.com actuall says those numbers happen at MAX ZOOM.

So Cine4home, which is it. Zoom or throw. Your article says zoom which means if you move the projector closer to the screen and increase zoom, you will get a brighter image.

Closest...Less distance to travel.

"Less distance to travel" has nothing to do with the amount of brightness off the screen.

It has to do with the zoom setting of the lens, and its corresponding aperature.

yes, this makes no sense. Min throw means it is closest to the screen. Max throw means it is furthest from the screen.

Max zoom and min zoom refer to size of image at any given throw. So if you are at min zoom at max throw you will have to increase zoom to keep same size image at a more minimum throw.

Am I not right about this.

So Cine4 home stated

580 Lumen is what our test unit gave at min throw (compare our table).

700 was at max throw...

but the table at www.cine4home.com actuall says those numbers happen at MAX ZOOM.

So Cine4home, which is it. Zoom or throw. Your article says zoom which means if you move the projector closer to the screen and increase zoom, you will get a brighter image.


Ok, Max zoom = biggest picture = pearl as close as possible with same screen size (700Lumen)

Min zoom = smallest picture = pearl as far as possible with same screen size. (580Lumen)


;)

Regards,
Ekkehart, Cine4Home

Can WM get perfect white field uniformity with his tool? If so, do you have any idea what this service costs?Do I smell a powerbuy for Phelps optimization of the Pearl?

Dan

Do I smell a powerbuy for Phelps optimization of the Pearl?

Dan

If color uniformity turns out to be the main complaint of Pearl owners, and if WM can truly correct it, I would probably order one from AVS and have it mailed directly to WM for correction. Depending on cost, of course.

"Less distance to travel" has nothing to do with the amount of brightness off the screen.

It has to do with the zoom setting of the lens, and its corresponding aperature.Yep. Just to add to that. Lumens refer to that amount of light coming out of the projector. Unless you have a smokey room or something, those lumens should get to the screen, but the lens zoom position can have an effect on how much light gets out. People often confuse that with what they learned in school about unfocused light (like a candle).

--Darin

So based on this max zoom / max brightness how would one set up the projector for a firehawk screen when they recommend a max throw configuration. I think it is to minimize angle.

So based on this max zoom / max brightness how would one set up the projector for a firehawk screen when they recommend a max throw configuration. I think it is to minimize angle.

For best results with a FH, the pj needs to be ceiling mounted and as far from the screen as possible; therefore you will not get the highest brightness possible from the Pearl; therefore don't go for too large a screen. Do the ftL calculation with the lower lumen value, and make sure that the screen size is such that you achieve at least ~25 ftL. (At least that's what I glean from reading all these posts!)

Quick question for those of you who have reported white-field uniformity problems.

Had your projector warmed up for at least 30 minutes prior to checking for uniformity? If not, try that and report back. :)

The reason I bring this up is because Dr. Raymond Soneira of Displaymate Technolgies has mentioned that the proper way for a manufacturer to adjust the shading tables is once the projector has fully warmed up, which he said takes a minimum of a half hour. All the parts in the optical path have to reach their full operating temperatures. Some manufacturers calibrate for a temperature that is inbetween the cold-state and the full-temp state in order to minimize shading at all times, but that is not recommended because the only way to achieve optimum uniformity on a projector that has fully warmed up is to calibrate it in such a state.

If we've got severe color uniformity in this first batch, it could be because the techs are not waiting until the pjs are warmed up before calibrating.

Or it could be some sort of defect, ala the RPTVs. But I think it's worth checking to see if a warmed up pj solves the problem.

Stupid Question, but I am new to projectors....I use antenna to get my HD right now, does this projector have a ATSC Tuner built in? Or do I have to buy an external one?

You would need an external ATSC tuner.
-- jaydillyo

Eric Garcia
Have you tried moving the green primary on Pearls that is off by some margin according to the Cine4home review.
No, but I tried moving the red primary for a few minutes to try to improve the skin tones.

Erik Garcia
Isn´t green more off than red?
Someone needs to learn how much that can be accompished with the RCP controls.

Just trying to get caught up on the "green" issue. Is someone saying that there is a problem geting proper white balance due to the green? Is the projector not capable of being calabrated to D65?

Erik Garcia
Isn´t green more off than red?
On Cine4home's chromaticity diagram, green is indeed more off than red from the standard.

With my own eyes, I am not able to judge which is off more, since I don't have a standard reference.
Someone needs to learn how much that can be accompished with the RCP controls.
I was not necessarily trying to make them more accurate (i.e., closer to the standard), but mainly trying to make the skin tones on the Pearl look more like the ones on the Ruby. I tried using RCP for just a few minutes, and the skin tones became more closely matched, but at the expense of very saturated reds becoming over-saturated by clipping. I will try another approach later.

Ok, just checking in. Erik, congrats on your Pearl ariving.

I should be home from my business trip on Sunday then I can see my Pearl again...oh how I miss thee.


Keep the info coming it's great to read in meetings.

Just trying to get caught up on the "green" issue. Is someone saying that there is a problem geting proper white balance due to the green? Is the projector not capable of being calabrated to D65?
Shades of gray can be calibrated to D65, or at least extremely close to it. No problem there.

The issue is that colors other than gray differ from the standards, and also differ from those on the Ruby. The Pearl has different chromaticities for the primaries/secondaries, which are affected by the lamp type and light filters. There is a feature on the Pearl called RCP which allows the user to adjust the colors to some extent.

There is a feature on the Pearl called RCP which allows the user to adjust the colors to some extent.

I don't know about the Pearl, but with the Ruby, it's really easy to put the primaries and secondaires where they should exactly be using the RCP controls.

I don't see why we couldn't do the same with the Pearl... You can probably easily solve this green "issue" with RCP.

Ken we are up to three people confirmed with the projector. Of the first two both are below 100" and the third is going to post and may comment on this too shortly.

I don't believe anyone has mentioned contemplating 133" to this point.

My Pearl and 133 Hi Power are in transit.

Screen Question

Did anyone read that Stewart will be releasing two new Firehawks’. One will be called the SST and they specifically designed it with Sony for use with the Pearl. The other will be the G3 and update of the very popular G2.


Tryg seems to be a screen expert so I asked his opinion on what to get. I will be moving soon and will be moving from a retractable screen to a wall mount. I am considering the Silver Star or Firehawk. Does anyone else have any suggestions?


Chris

Did anyone read that Stewart will be releasing two new Firehawks’. One will be called the SST and they specifically designed it with Sony for use with the Pearl. The other will be the G3 and update of the very popular G2.
According to a CNET article (http://reviews.cnet.com/4531-10921_7-6637686.html), the Stewart Firehawk SST (Sony/Stewart Theater) is designed for the Pearl and will be available this month in various sizes, such as a 100-inch wide version for $2000.

By the way, it also mentions that the Pearl's lamp should last 2000 hours in "High" mode, or 3000 hours in "Low" mode.

I don't know about the Pearl, but with the Ruby, it's really easy to put the primaries and secondaires where they should exactly be using the RCP controls.




I love the RCP control. I actually push blue and yellow a little outside the NTSC triangle. This is based on taste not specs.



By the way, it also mentions that the Pearl's lamp should last 2000 hours in "High" mode, or 3000 hours in "Low" mode.

A nice little bonus.

My Pearl and 133 Hi Power are in transit.

Please come back here and post impressions on the combo as I currently have a 133" HP(great screen btw) and I'm trying to decide which 1080 pj to go with.

How are you planning to mount the pj(ceiling, shelf,etc) and what kind of throw distances are you looking at?

Thanks,
Ken

God, i wish I didn't have to work this week!

I want to go home and setup my Pearl Properly!

Does your specimen have brighter corners like the Ruby when you project a black picture?

it was so visible on the Ruby ? you mean bad brightness uniformity ?

Erik brought his Pearl over to my place Tuesday night and we compared it to my Ruby, so I thought I'd add my comments to his.

I was very impressed by the Pearl. I like the new auto-iris modes. The Ruby's auto-iris mode is a bit too slow for my tastes and I can tell when a scene goes from bright to dark or vice versa. The Pearl has recommended, fast and slow auto-iris modes, and they work very well. On the test material we watched, I could only detect the slow mode in action. It would take more detailed viewings to see if I could detect the recommended or fast modes; however, the fast mode was quite fast and I doubt that I would be able do so.

The menus on the Pearl are very similar to the Ruby, but I like the menu layout on the Pearl better. Erik already noted the DDE modes are slightly different, and I think they are an improvement over the Ruby's deinterlacing, which I've found can lose tracking and slip into "weave" mode to easily on video source material.

Regarding convergence on my Ruby, it has never been great. It's at least 2 pixels out and most noticeable on text from my HTPC, which I find it very difficult to read from normal viewing distances. However, Erik's Pearl was no more than 0.5 pixels out and was very readable. I would really really like to get this fixed on my Ruby.

Regarding brighter corners, they are about equally noticeable on both the Ruby and the Pearl, but they have never bothered me since I only notice them on a completely black screen and even then you have to look hard to see them. Others have said that they are more apparent on their Rubys so maybe this is something that varies from pj to pj (just like convergence does).

The simple calibration we did with ColorFacts was very easy, and as Erik mentioned, the low/custom3 mode was very close to D65 out of the box. If the Pearl is like other UHP bulb projectors that I've owned, then I expect the red to burn off a bit and recalibration will be needed. Erik and I can do that after he has 100 or so hours on his bulb.

The calibrated brightness was measured with a light meter. "High" lamp power gives 576 lumens, and "Low" gives 382 lumens. (By the way, the fan noise changes to a lower pitch when you switch from "High" to "Low", but it did not seem to be any quieter.) By comparison, the Ruby has 283 lumens, although there are 870 hours on its Xenon lamp, and less than 5 hours on the Pearl's UHP lamp.
For reference, the Ruby had 615 lumens at 6 hours. This was after I did an initial calibration on my Ruby very similar to what we did for Erik's Pearl.

Another difference is the colors. The Ruby's colors appear to be somewhat more vibrant overall. In particular, skin tones are rosier on the Ruby, but more yellowish/greenish on the Pearl. I'm not sure which are more accurate, but I prefer them on the Ruby. It might be worthwhile to experiment with the Pearl's RCP feature to tweak the skin tones.
This was the most interesting and striking part. I've owned several UHP bulb based projectors, and the skin tones on the Pearl are extremely similar to them. The Ruby's colors are indeed more vibrant. I wonder why the differences were so great here... is it simply due to the more saturated primaries, or is it due to the spectral differences in the bulb, or some combination of the two? RCP should be able to help here, and I look forward to seeing how Erik's tweaking goes.

Anyway, overall, I believe the Pearl is a big winner for Sony, and I suspect that people will be very happy with it. I certainly would be (if I didn't already own a Ruby ;)).

kem:
Did you notice any white-field uniformity problems on the Pearl? There have been several people who have noticed this and several people who haven't. I think many of us are eagerly awaiting more reviews to see if this is a wide-spread problem with this new projector. Thanks in advance!

Kem, excellent review. I also am curious about your thoughts on color uniformity. It seems so far that it is a unit by unit issue and not all are effected by it.

Regarding uniformity, both the Pearl and Ruby have the same issue: slight color variations across the static full-field gray test patterns (see the image Erik posted earlier). However, during normal viewing, it's not noticeable to me on either pj.

BTW, wm has a shading tool that can greatly improve the uniformity on the Ruby, and I expect that if enough Pearl owners need their projectors calibrated and wm has the time (he seems to stay very busy), then he might offer a similar service for the Pearl.

Projector Central comments on the 1080p v. 720p viewing. Would like to hear the comments of the new Pearl owners who have seen/owned both.

http://www.projectorcentral.com/cedia_2006.htm

Projector Central comments on the 1080p v. 720p viewing. Would like to hear the comments of the new Pearl owners who have seen/owned both.

http://www.projectorcentral.com/cedia_2006.htm

Although I agree with much of what they have to say, I believe they are minimizing the benefit of 1080p. Their statements related to 720p video (like ESPN football) are correct. Their statements regarding the benefit of watching 1080i film-based content on a 1080p display that can do IVT, in my opinion, are minimizing. They use the term "incrementally better." Depending on the quality of the source, it can be quite a bit better than "incrementally better."

I agree with them that 720p projectors are a great bang for the buck right now. I also agree that for sports, they are all you really need. This is because even the higher resolution of a sports broadcast filmed in 1080i video will be lost on a 1080p display due to the resolution loss inherent in all forms of motion adaptive deinterlacing currently available to consumers. Honestly, for sports, I'm partial to 1080i displays (read: CRT), especially on smaller screens.

1080p projectors really shine with 1080i and 1080p film based content. And I believe the benefit is more than just "incremental," in many cases, when compared to the same content viewed on a 720p display.

BTW, wm has a shading tool that can greatly improve the uniformity on the Ruby, and I expect that if enough Pearl owners need their projectors calibrated and wm has the time (he seems to stay very busy), then he might offer a similar service for the Pearl.
Note that there are service menu shading options for people to manually adjust shading themselves. IIRC WM's tool uses a sophisticated camera and software to automatically perform the shading in a more effective and accurate manner.

It all depends, quite obviously, on how close one wants to sit. At a viewing distance of 1.5 screen widths, I see screen door/pixel structure very clearly on a good 720p dlp; I'm sure I won't on a good 1080p dlp pj. So for me, the move to 1080p is very signficant. If one sits at ~ 2.0 screen widths, then I would agree that there is no advantage to 1080p over 720p, at least resolution-wise; but the new 1080p pj's often have other advances, eg., in CR, in addition to the enhanced resolution.

Well said, Bill, my thoughts exactly. I just wish I didn't buy the 720p projector I did last year. The misses won't let me upgrade for at least a year. Oh well, I'll survive. :)

Having 1080p native projector is also about Avoiding any type of digital scaling for 1080 sources and you avoid an uncessarly processing. The less you process the pixel, the better the outcome is.

Although I agree with much of what they have to say, I believe they are minimizing the benefit of 1080p. Their statements related to 720p video (like ESPN football) are correct. Their statements regarding the benefit of watching 1080i film-based content on a 1080p display that can do IVT, in my opinion, are minimizing. They use the term "incrementally better." Depending on the quality of the source, it can be quite a bit better than "incrementally better."

I agree with them that 720p projectors are a great bang for the buck right now. I also agree that for sports, they are all you really need. This is because even the higher resolution of a sports broadcast filmed in 1080i video will be lost on a 1080p display due to the resolution loss inherent in all forms of motion adaptive deinterlacing currently available to consumers. Honestly, for sports, I'm partial to 1080i displays (read: CRT), especially on smaller screens.

1080p projectors really shine with 1080i and 1080p film based content. And I believe the benefit is more than just "incremental," in many cases, when compared to the same content viewed on a 720p display.

I agree they are mimimizing the benefit of 1080p display resolution in the context of projectors.

You will still benefit from 1080p display resolution regardless of source if you are within the screen size/viewing distance consideration. Most of us using pj's are well within that.

Approximate "watershed" screen size/ viewing distances for 720p/768p vs. 1080p screen resolution:

32 inches 6 feet
37 inches 7 feet
42 inches 8 feet
50 inches 9 feet
55 inches 10 feet
60 inches 11 feet
65 inches 12 feet
103 inches 18 feet :)

These are conservative estimates which are probably somewhat biased towards getting a 1080p display. As long as you will sit further away or have a smaller screen at the size/distance specified, you are fine with 720p/768p. If you are on the watershed, consider a 1080p display. If you are significantly larger/closer, you ideally need a 1080p display.

I disagree with you on the benefits with 1080i video. Good motion adaptive DI is relatively commonly available. It does help with moving areas of the image, but maybe more importantly provides full resolution in the parts of the image which are not moving. Even simpler bob and bob/weave algorithims would also see added benefit with a 1080p display. Remember, there are two measurements to resolution with a digital display, vertical and horizontal. ;)

It all comes down to screen size/viewing distance and if you are within the range, you'll benefit for several reasons and with all sources.

If you aren't within the range, you'll still have it but you won't be able to see it. :)

I disagree with you on the benefits with 1080i video. Good motion adaptive DI is relatively commonly available. It does help with moving areas of the image, but maybe more importantly provides full resolution in the parts of the image which are not moving. Even simpler bob and bob/weave algorithims would also see added benefit with a 1080p display. Remember, there are two measurements to resolution with a digital display, vertical and horizontal. ;)


Your point about the horizontal resolution is an excellent one. I totally agree, and I wasn't thinking about that. And I'm glad you mentioned it, because it is often overlooked in these sorts of conversations.

Also, I should have been more clear. I was speaking of the limitations of 1080i per-pixel motion adaptive deintleracing on content where many shots contain all or most of the screen in motion. Football games (think kick-offs) are a good example. Of course, a football game will also contain many shots where much of the screen appears to be static (like the seconds before the ball is hiked, or the overhead stadium shots), but even many of these shots are not quite as still as they appear to be, if scrutinized at the pixel level.

I do concede that there can be a benefit with this sort of content. Now that you mention it, there will always be a horizontal resolution advantage, but there will often be a vertical resolution disadvantage, so I think I'd have to do some more critical viewing with this in mind before I could draw any conclusions. You know, now that I think about it, I think much depends upon how the 1080i signal is being processed in the 720p display that we're using for comparison. The 720p display could be bobbing the signal, which would give the advantage to the 1080p display in just about all scenarios. Does anyone know the state-of-the art method for converting 1080i "video" to 720p? If it is as I suspect, there would be virtually no area in which a 720p projector would excel.


1080i video where most of the screen is static provide an additional arguement in favor of 1080p displays. Examples include the Jay Leno show, David Letterman, etc. Of course, when the camera zooms in on Leno's head, all bets are off. :D

Having 1080p native projector is also about Avoiding any type of digital scaling for 1080 sources and you avoid an uncessarly processing. The less you process the pixel, the better the outcome is.But... isn't this one of those "theories" that doesn't hold up in "practice"? Doesn't every projector incl. Ruby & Pearl digitally-process a source before presenting it to the display panels?

I wouldn't argue that a 1080p projector gives one the POTENTIAL for optimal display of a 1080 source, but in the end doesn't every mfr have to process the signal somehow back-to-front incl. some measure of "scaling"?

Quote:

Approximate "watershed" screen size/ viewing distances for 720p/768p vs. 1080p screen resolution:

32 inches 6 feet
37 inches 7 feet
42 inches 8 feet
50 inches 9 feet
55 inches 10 feet
60 inches 11 feet
65 inches 12 feet
103 inches 18 feet


Interesting stuff. Do you have a reference for this?

Please come back here and post impressions on the combo as I currently have a 133" HP(great screen btw) and I'm trying to decide which 1080 pj to go with.

How are you planning to mount the pj(ceiling, shelf,etc) and what kind of throw distances are you looking at?

Thanks,
Ken

Will do....

Ceiling mount PJ (~6'8" from floor) at minumum throw (~14')

Staring at the PJ just sitting there is hard. :-(

Quote:

Approximate "watershed" screen size/ viewing distances for 720p/768p vs. 1080p screen resolution:

32 inches 6 feet
37 inches 7 feet
42 inches 8 feet
50 inches 9 feet
55 inches 10 feet
60 inches 11 feet
65 inches 12 feet
103 inches 18 feet


Interesting stuff. Do you have a reference for this?


He might have taken it from the information at this link, although I haven't reviewed it to see if it matches.

http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/tips/1137/maxing-out-resolution.html

Quote:

Approximate "watershed" screen size/ viewing distances for 720p/768p vs. 1080p screen resolution:

32 inches 6 feet
37 inches 7 feet
42 inches 8 feet
50 inches 9 feet
55 inches 10 feet
60 inches 11 feet
65 inches 12 feet
103 inches 18 feet


Interesting stuff. Do you have a reference for this?

This came from a screen size/viewing distance/display resolution graph from Digital TV & Sound Vol. 2 No. 4.
http://www.dtvmag.com

The distances/sizes are biased somewhat towards getting a 1080p display compared to some others I have seen. In other words, if from this calculation you won't benefit from 1080p, it's a pretty safe assumption.

I do concede that there can be a benefit with this sort of content. Now that you mention it, there will always be a horizontal resolution advantage, but there will often be a vertical resolution disadvantage, so I think I'd have to do some more critical viewing with this in mind before I could draw any conclusions. You know, now that I think about it, I think much depends upon how the 1080i signal is being processed in the 720p display that we're using for comparison. The 720p display could be bobbing the signal, which would give the advantage to the 1080p display in just about all scenarios. Does anyone know the state-of-the art method for converting 1080i "video" to 720p? If it is as I suspect, there would be virtually no area in which a 720p projector would excel.




Ideally, the first step is deinterlacing to 1080p for both a 1080p and 720p display.
The 1080p display requires no further scaling. The 720p display scales the 1080p to 720p.

Even with a simple bob, you get 1920 x 540p max for a 1080p display while a 720p display can only max out at 1280 x 540p.

Even with a simple bob, you get 1920 x 540p max for a 1080p display while a 720p display can only max out at 1280 x 540p.

Yep, this is exactly the conclusion that I was coming to.

Well with 720p video you get 1280x720 not 1270x540 (which is what you'd get from a bobed + scaled 1080i picture).

Although it is looking like HD-DVD and BR will be be largely 1080i flagged 1080p content, so the scales are starting to tip further in the direction of 1920x1080 content over 1280x720.

Well with 720p video you get 1280x720 not 1270x540 (which is what you'd get from a bobed + scaled 1080i picture).

Although it is looking like HD-DVD and BR will be be largely 1080i flagged 1080p content, so the scales are starting to tip further in the direction of 1920x1080 content over 1280x720.

In case it wasn't clear, we were indeed talking about how each type of display would handle 1080i video based content.

I got my Pearl today and plan on setting it up in the next few hours. But before I do I wanted to take a few screen shots of my current Sony VPL-HS10 for those thinking of upgrading before setting up the Pearl. Then take shots of the same frame on the Pearl. So what DVDs would you like to see? I have a few superbit (Fifth Element, Gattaca, Resident Evil) along with other geek standards like Matrix, LOTR, etc. Let me know what movies/scenes would be a good reference.

JAM

I got my Pearl today and plan on setting it up in the next few hours. But before I do I wanted to take a few screen shots of my current Sony VPL-HS10 for those thinking of upgrading before setting up the Pearl. Then take shots of the same frame on the Pearl. So what DVDs would you like to see? I have a few superbit (Fifth Element, Gattaca, Resident Evil) along with other geek standards like Matrix, LOTR, etc. Let me know what movies/scenes would be a good reference.

JAM

Awesome! Thanks for taking some pics for us all to enjoy. Here are my suggestions:

1) A 100% white screen, to check for color uniformity
2) A screen shot of the cross hatch test pattern so we can judge convergence

As far as movies go:
1) I'd love to see a particular shot from Return of the King because it's a good shadow detail and ANSI CR shot. See the image 4 up from the bottom on this page: http://www.widescreen.org/examples/lord_rings_rotk/index.shtml

2) In fellow ship of the ring, a shot where they are crossing the snow covered mountain.

JAMMAN

How about some shots of Gladiator just before the first battle. I would like to see the shadow detail difference. Also I would like to see how the sharpness level stacks up. I presently have my trusty HS-10 and would love to upgrade in the future !

Glad to see you waited for such a big leap in quality ! They Ruby was always out of the $$ Question for me but the Pearl is more in line with my budget. Thanks I can't imagine the excitement your must be feeling. Johnathan

P.S. I am also a former Sony 400Q owner I got about 3 1/2 years millage out of that also.

Hi Johanthan, I don't have Gladiator (sorry) and I'm searching for the shot that gremmy pointed me to but I can't find it on ROTK?

Eagerly waiting....

I got my Pearl today and plan on setting it up in the next few hours. But before I do I wanted to take a few screen shots of my current Sony VPL-HS10 for those thinking of upgrading before setting up the Pearl. Then take shots of the same frame on the Pearl. So what DVDs would you like to see? I have a few superbit (Fifth Element, Gattaca, Resident Evil) along with other geek standards like Matrix, LOTR, etc. Let me know what movies/scenes would be a good reference.

JAM

JAMMAN
Hell
You pick the scenes. You have been around. Start with the usual shot when Leelou dives off the edge of the building in 5th element. Then one of the ship passing over before they shoot at the death star.Or when the ship lands in the desert and the aliens come for the fith element .

Cant wait to see the comparison. But really any screen shots will do. Johnathan.

Ok, the shots of the pearl are out of the box with no calibration. The lamp is in high mode. It is less bright than the HS10 with 800 hours on the lamp (or at least it seemed) but the large contrast makes it almost not noticeable.

A few notes, from the picture it looks like my HS10 was out of calibration. Most likely from trying to make it brighter as the lamp was getting dim. Also, Duh, I recorded the hours:minutes instead of the actual frame numbers, so there's a strong possibility that the fames are not identical. BTW, the fan is *much* softer than the HS10.

Now I'm going to actually watch something on it!


Fifth Element
HS10: http://img167.imageshack.us/img167/8743/5th2hs10bt0.jpg
Pearl: http://img68.imageshack.us/img68/8729/5th2pearlfv7.jpg

HS10: http://img61.imageshack.us/img61/1961/5thhs10hr6.jpg
Pearl: http://img61.imageshack.us/img61/650/5thpearlkp1.jpg

LOTR
HS10: http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/817/lotrhs10qp6.jpg
Pearl: http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/4623/lotrpealwd9.jpg

HS10: http://img71.imageshack.us/img71/5029/lotr2hs10ge0.jpg
Pearl: http://img182.imageshack.us/img182/6919/lotr2pearlce0.jpg

100% White: http://img78.imageshack.us/img78/7043/whiteap6.jpg

Couldn't find the cross hatch in the menus????

Ok, the shots of the pearl are out of the box with no calibration. The lamp is in high mode. It is less bright than the HS10 with 800 hours on the lamp (or at least it seemed) but the large contrast makes it almost not noticeable.

A few notes, from the picture it looks like my HS10 was out of calibration. Most likely from trying to make it brighter as the lamp was getting dim. Also, Duh, I recorded the hours:minutes instead of the actual frame numbers, so there's a strong possibility that the fames are not identical. BTW, the fan is *much* softer than the HS10.

Now I'm going to actually watch something on it!



I know they are just screen shots, and the Pearl is right out of the box, but is it me or does the HS10 look a lot better?

Jamman, could you tell us your impressions after watching an entire film which you prefer? I'm trying to decide if I should jump into 1080 now with the Pearl, or get the VPL-HS60 and let the 1080 battle have a year to weed out the bad seeds. With the huge success of the Ruby and the Pearl being pretty much a cost effective version of the Ruby, it seems like it may be a pretty safe bet to jump in with the Pearl.

Thanks! I love this forum!
Daniel

To me, the Pearl screen shots look 'soft' (aka 'film-like'); I guess I'm just a dlp junkie; sorry to be an uninvited guest.

The pearl shots look much better to me. They look way more natural.

I got my Pearl today. Compared to my H79, the Pearl does indeed look "softer" and not as bright....(both are projecting onto a 110" Silverstar).....the H79 has that "punchy" plasma-like DLP image that I've got accustomed to over the years with my previous DLP's.......contrast seems about equal (in both light and dark scenes).......so far I've ran both pj's through sat HD programming, regular DVD's and also through some HD-DVD movies..........conclusion: surprising that my ('ol 720p) H79 can still hold it's own against a 1080p pj like the Pearl......can't wait to test it out though on true 1080p output on the Blu-Ray.

PSB does that mean you are unhappy with your purchase of the Pearl?

JAMMAN
Thanks for taking the time to post those. I know that my HS-10 looks better than it ever has . But it has been 3 years of tweaking and getting used to the picture. It is very sharp with TheaterTek and a HTPC .

I imagine that the Pearl will benefit much from an adjustment or tweaking. Like you have your HS-10 . The pearl looks very bright almost overly so and just a little on the washed out side. But I know the colors are not accurate on my HS-10 I have just grow used to them. Thanks again Johnathan

Screen shots may not be helpful for providing a detailed analysis on final PQ, but they are good for comparing things in a relative way. And these screen shots make it pretty clear that the HS10 is *not* in the same league with the Pearl at all. Some of this may be due to poor calibration on the HS10 (it looks like it may be in Vivid Mode), but a lot of it undoubtedly has to do with the limitations of the HS10's technology, particularly the crushing of blacks and loss of shadow detail.

Just compare the flesh tones in the first 5th Element shot -- the poor guy's face is purplish on the HS10, but very natural looking on the Pearl.

In the next shot, with Leelu, the HS10 makes her hair look like Ronald McDonald's. If you've seen that movie on film, or on a properly calibrated CRT, you know that is *not* the color of her hair. Although a bit undersaturated, probably due to an elevated BL, the Pearl gets it right.

In the shot of Gandalf on the HS10, the colors are so overblown, and the picture so harsh, that the old boy has an artificial neon-like appearance.

The more accurate colors and smoother ramp of the Pearl is obvious in every single shot. Seriously, I know these are only screen shots, but this isn't even a contest.

Those Pearl shots look truly excellent to me. And the uniformity is almost perfect -- I don't notice any problems.

What kind of screen are you using?

To me, the Pearl screen shots look 'soft' (aka 'film-like'); I guess I'm just a dlp junkie; sorry to be an uninvited guest.

Keep in mind, we're looking at standard definition content here. It looks damned near CRT like to me. I love the picture I'm seeing up there. If I could be certain I could get a unit with color uniformity like this unit, I'd order one today.

look at the difference in detail on the seatbelts.

look at the difference in detail on the seatbelts.

Good call. Looks like the HS10 is crushing blacks unmercifully.

The Pearl shows a similar increase in detail on the wall to the left of Leelu's head.

And for a more dramatic example, check out the background to the left of Gandalf. Despite the significantly brighter, day-glo image on the HS10, the background contains much more detail on the Pearl.

And the final shot of our friendly hobbits looks darned near unwatchable on the HS10. Someone back the white level off, please. It's pushing blue too.

I'm not trying to rag on our friend's HS10, but holy crap, the Pearl looks truly Awesome to me. I do think it might need a bit of calibration. I'd like to lower the black level of couple of clicks and see what that buys us.

gremmy,

I'm projecting on a Da-Lite Video Spectra 1.5 screen.

I hope to calibrate it tomorrow morning. Going out tomorrow night so won't get much view time until Sunday. BTW, I now know what screen spill is. I now remember it from my 400q, not very distracting but it makes you wonder why Sony hasn't perfected it. The HS10 didn't have it.

Jim

I love the RCP control. I actually push blue and yellow a little outside the NTSC triangle. This is based on taste not specs.

Good for you for enjoying your gear for what you like instead of living your life to some spec!!! :) :) :) More people should do the same and they will find more enjoyment from their gear instead of wasting hours upon hours searching for the perfect tweak. No gear is perfect unless it is perfect for the owner. Enjoy. ;) ;) ;)

JAMMAN,
Thanks for the screen shots. It is a big improvement in pq even though the PEARL is straight out of the box. I cannot wait to swap out my HS20, hopefully early next week if Jason can come through for me.

Mike

The Pearl shots look much better than the HS10 shots. The HS10 shots are artificial looking and very harsh. Just compare the flesh tones in the first 5th Element shot -- the poor guy's face is purplish on the HS10, but very natural looking on the Pearl.

In the next shot, with Leelu, the HS10 makes her hair look like Ronald McDonald's. If you've seen that movie on film, or on a properly calibrated CRT, you know that is *not* the color of her hair. Again, the pearl gets it right.



I have to disagree a bit here. The Pearl may be showing more detail, and may appear more "natural" compared to the HS10 (whose colors appear to be cranked too high), but it seems pretty clear to me that the colors on the Pearl are not what they should be either.

Leelu's hair and lips should both have more color to them than they do in that screen capture. The projectors seem to be calibrated to the extremes- the HS10 has the colors a bit oversatured, the Pearl's colors are undersaturated.

And you can't make too much from screen caps anyway because of all the variables.

I got my Pearl today. Compared to my H79, the Pearl does indeed look "softer" and not as bright....(both are projecting onto a 110" Silverstar).....the H79 has that "punchy" plasma-like DLP image that I've got accustomed to over the years with my previous DLP's.......contrast seems about equal (in both light and dark scenes).......so far I've ran both pj's through sat HD programming, regular DVD's and also through some HD-DVD movies..........conclusion: surprising that my ('ol 720p) H79 can still hold it's own against a 1080p pj like the Pearl......can't wait to test it out though on true 1080p output on the Blu-Ray.

Hmm, i have the H78 and was thinking about the pearl. Now I'm not too sure... I wish there was a good DLP 1080p solution in this price range without having to wait a year.

I got my Pearl today. Compared to my H79, the Pearl does indeed look "softer" and not as bright....(both are projecting onto a 110" Silverstar).....the H79 has that "punchy" plasma-like DLP image that I've got accustomed to over the years with my previous DLP's.......contrast seems about equal (in both light and dark scenes).......so far I've ran both pj's through sat HD programming, regular DVD's and also through some HD-DVD movies..........conclusion: surprising that my ('ol 720p) H79 can still hold it's own against a 1080p pj like the Pearl......can't wait to test it out though on true 1080p output on the Blu-Ray.

Give your eyes a few days to adjust to LCOS. Think of it as similar to when you were running sharpness at 50 versus sharpness at 0. The picture seemed soft at first, but over time I think you will find that the picture is more pleasing and you are seeing significantly more detail.

DLP definitely has an edge (harsh/digital look as I like to call it, but if you are used to a sharper picture then it will provide that)

When I purchased the Ruby (the Pearl is very close) I demoed the H78DC3 and to my eyes their was no comparison between the two as the Ruby was clearly superior in just about every way with the exception of sharpness. The Ruby was sharp, but it didnt have the DLP look.

Andrew if I am happy with the picture on my Panasonic ae900, I should love the picture on the Pearl?

The pearl shots look much better to me. They look way more natural.

They both have their merits.In the second shot of lulu head.The pearl shows way more detail to the left of her head.Thanks for posting,BUDDA

I have to disagree a bit here. The Pearl may be showing more detail, and may appear more "natural" compared to the HS10 (whose colors appear to be cranked too high), but it seems pretty clear to me that the colors on the Pearl are not what they should be either.


True. That's why I mentioned in one of my posts that I'd like to see the black level dropped a few clicks on the Pearl. I'll bet we're not yet at the point where Pearl will start crushing shadow details, and we're certainly not at her floor yet. While it is unfair to compare projectors, even in person, when they haven't been calibrated properly, and even more unfair to do so via screen shots, to me the only glaring problem with the Pearl shots is the black level and the resulting washed out image and color desaturation. To my eye, it looks very much like my CRT when I jack the brightness up, which is very exciting to me.

Either way, I can tell you which projector I'd rather own, even if those pictures represented the best they were capable of (which of course, they probably don't).

Andrew if I am happy with the picture on my Panasonic ae900, I should love the picture on the Pearl?

I think you would notice the difference as it is very clear to me. I havent seen the ae900, but from prior LCD projectors they are not close to the Ruby/Pearl. The contrast alone will astound you and if you have HD DVD I expect that you would see a major difference.

gremmy,

I'm projecting on a Da-Lite Video Spectra 1.5 screen.

I hope to calibrate it tomorrow morning. Going out tomorrow night so won't get much view time until Sunday. BTW, I now know what screen spill is. I now remember it from my 400q, not very distracting but it makes you wonder why Sony hasn't perfected it. The HS10 didn't have it.

Jim

Just to be clear, are you talking about light spill around the edges of the screen (and if so, how many inches?) or light spill out of the projector's light path at the unit itself?

Just to be clear, are you talking about light spill around the edges of the screen (and if so, how many inches?) or light spill out of the projector's light path at the unit itself?

Edges of the screen. About 1-2 inches of spill around the image. If you have a 2-3" border then it is not an issue. I have a .5-1" border so I see it every now and then with all black on the screen. Very hard to notice otherwise.

I agree with all of the posts that the Pearl looks better in detail than the HS-10 . I also know that the bulb has to burn in if you will on the Pearl. But I believe that the HS-10 is badly calibrated.

I am sure the Pearl is out of the HS-10's league. Screen shots are hard to judge. Looking forward too seeing the Pearl in person. Johnathan

Edges of the screen. About 1-2 inches of spill around the image. If you have a 2-3" border then it is not an issue. I have a .5-1" border so I see it every now and then with all black on the screen. Very hard to notice otherwise.

Bummer. I'm building a dedicated home theater and I have a wierd situation in my room where I'm going to have to project underneath a steel I-Beam wrapped in a soffit that sits about 4 feet in front of the screen. I'll bet that light spill is going to light up the soffit like the 4th of July. I'm going to have to cover it in Black Fidelio Velvet if I get the Pearl. I can't lower the screen (the obvious solution) due to line-of-sight issues with my second row.

Hmm, i have the H78 and was thinking about the pearl. Now I'm not too sure... I wish there was a good DLP 1080p solution in this price range without having to wait a year.

You might check out the two BenQ W10000 threads; it's due out before the end of the year, 1000 to 1200 spec'ed lumens, lens shift, etc. MSRP 5999, !K more than the Pearl.

gremmy
Is your margin only 2-3 inches? Are you really sure Pearl will not work for you?

gremmy
Is your margin only 2-3 inches? Are you really sure Pearl will not work for you?

If this is the pj I decide to get, I can make it work. But I will probably have to cover that soffit in velvet to absorb the light spill. Yes, my margin of error really is 2-3 inches. We are cutting it very close in this room due to several factors: low ceiling, a 2nd row with riser-height limitations (due to the ceiling), the need to project under a soffit, and line of sight from the second row. There has been a lot of number crunching! :D

JAMMAN,

Thanks for posting the pictures. As an HS10 owner, it's great to be able to see a comparison to the Pearl. I'm planning to upgrade in the Spring (after having the HS10 for five years!) I've been happy with my HS10, but I think it's more a matter of having gotten used to the picture rather than the picture being that great. The Pearl screenshots look fantastic to me!

True. That's why I mentioned in one of my posts that I'd like to see the black level dropped a few clicks on the Pearl. I'll bet we're not yet at the point where Pearl will start crushing shadow details, and we're certainly not at her floor yet. While it is unfair to compare projectors, even in person, when they haven't been calibrated properly, and even more unfair to do so via screen shots, to me the only glaring problem with the Pearl shots is the black level and the resulting washed out image and color desaturation. To my eye, it looks very much like my CRT when I jack the brightness up, which is very exciting to me.

Either way, I can tell you which projector I'd rather own, even if those pictures represented the best they were capable of (which of course, they probably don't).

Agreed!

Agreed!

909

Hmm...I'm not blown away by these screenshots. The Pearl clearly wins, but I would expect the difference to be more noticeable than they are, given the Pearl is up against an 800 hour bulb on few-generation old projector. Maybe there would be a bigger difference with HD content?

Hmm, i have the H78 and was thinking about the pearl. Now I'm not too sure... I wish there was a good DLP 1080p solution in this price range without having to wait a year.


I puchased the Opoma HD7100 and BenQ8720, and returned both within few days. I thought DLP looked terrible. Detail was really lacking on both units. I just got the Pearl a few days ago, and it's a night and day difference. Blows the DLP single chips away. Pearl's imagine is insane!! Haven't seen any 1080P DLP, but not sure if I would consider DLP at this point. At least for a few years.

Just curious

Anyone planning to send their Pearl to William Phelps?

I have a LCOS projector (the JVC sx21) and he transformed it.

I would like to get the new JVC but will not wait till 2007 so it's a Pearl I think - I need to get off my a*& and phone Daniel.

Just curious

Rob

Just curious

Anyone planning to send their Pearl to William Phelps?

I have a LCOS projector (the JVC sx21) and he transformed it.

I would like to get the new JVC but will not wait till 2007 so it's a Pearl I think - I need to get off my a*& and phone Daniel.

Just curious

Rob


If I knew how much it cost I would consider it. I'm not so sure why people care so much about D6500k, it should be all about what you like best.

Oh and Tryg is going to get my first born child. The man is brilliant and unbelievably helpful. If any one ever needs to know about screens he is the man to talk to. Genius, pure genius!

You might check out the two BenQ W10000 threads; it's due out before the end of the year, 1000 to 1200 spec'ed lumens, lens shift, etc. MSRP 5999, !K more than the Pearl.

Does that also include a bucket to collect my vomit for when the rainbows make me puke? If so I may consider selling my Pearl and picking one up.

Would anyone be intrested in a Pearl with 9 hours on it? Oh and as a bonus it was the first one in the entire country.

Just curious

Anyone planning to send their Pearl to William Phelps?

I have a LCOS projector (the JVC sx21) and he transformed it.

I would like to get the new JVC but will not wait till 2007 so it's a Pearl I think - I need to get off my a*& and phone Daniel.

Just curious

Rob

How much does a WM transformation cost? :)

If I knew how much it cost I would consider it. I'm not so sure why people care so much about D6500k, it should be all about what you like best.

Well, if you think it should be all about what you like best and not a set standard, then that's what it's all about to you. Many folks want to see movies the way they were mastered onto the format they're viewing, so they prefer calibration.

One more thing too. I don't think a WM calibration is just about D65K. I believe whitefield uniformity can also be addressed, based on what I've read. You may be lucky enough to have a perfectly uniform Pearl, but others are not.

Well, if you think it should be all about what you like best and not a set standard, then that's what it's all about to you. Many folks want to see movies the way they were mastered onto the format they're viewing, so they prefer calibration.

One more thing too. I don't think a WM calibration is just about D65K. I believe whitefield uniformity can also be addressed, based on what I've read. You may be lucky enough to have a perfectly uniform Pearl, but others are not.

No, I'm not saying it's not worth it believe me i have heard many fantastic WM sucess stories. I was just mentioning that we should trust our own eyes a little more.

Does that also include a bucket to collect my vomit for when the rainbows make me puke? If so I may consider selling my Pearl and picking one up.


I was responding to someone who asked about dlp's. You may not like them, but a great many people prefer them. No need to get defensive, there's room for all. I will certainly looking at the Pearl, the new JVC, as well as the new 1080p dlp's that come out within the next 6 months.

Would anyone be intrested in a Pearl with 9 hours on it? Oh and as a bonus it was the first one in the entire country.

Wow, you must really dislike the Pearl. I have had mine for 26 hours and already have 14 hours on it :D