It's going to use Xenon instead of UHP (Pearl) but brighter and slightly cheaper than the Ruby. Besides that it won't have substantial differences and/or improvements in comparison to Ruby. Sony is currently working on it.

- 1920x1080p 0,61-inch x3.
- Xenon.
- 8-9K MSRP.

http://www.dia-maier.de/AV-News/index.html

I have heard significantly brighter. I didn't translate the article yet.

Keep it coming!
Why xenon again? A slight update would be good enough if Sony is staying with xenon.
To get brighness Sony should use a 450 CPL lamp in a Diamond projector.

New Full HDTV 1920x1080 pixel SXRD projector of Sony with the code name "Diamond" much is not well-known yet, only that Sony already works on a new SXRD projector with 1920x1080 pixel and xenon lamp, although now only the announced Pearl VPL VW50 is available still not at all. The completely new one is to be offered to something under the price level like the Ruby VPL VW100. As characteristic it will possess an increased light achievement. Also a special meaning gets the topics size and noise level during the new development, but it will not give completely substantial differences and/or improvements in the comparison to the Ruby. Medium-term he will become probably the successor a straight year old VPL VW-100 then however on with the smallest chip size of 0,61Zoll as also in the Pearl. The code name of the new Sony Projectors is dia. moon (diamond) and it could be then a "Sony Diamond SXRD VPL Volkswagen XY". XY means that it is clear not yet where he into the Sony SXRD line incorporates itself exactly, but anyhow above the current Pearl VPL VW-50:

I would say that brightness is a significant change from the Ruby especially if they use the new iris from the Pearl. Almost nothing directly competes with this as it has contrast/brightness for under $10k.

Except for sharpness. dlp's still beat it in this important (at least for many) parameter.

Except for sharpness. dlp's still beat it in this important (at least for many) parameter.

I call it over processed, harsh and not film like. Sort of like how people do not turn sharpness all the way to 0 because they believe it adds details, but to each their own.

I call it over processed, harsh and not film like. Sort of like how people do not turn sharpness all the way to 0 because they believe it adds details, but to each their own.

Yes, I certainly agree that different folks like different 'looks'; what is 'harsh' to some, is 'realistic' to others. I've had a 1080p dlp rptv for ~ a year, but am planning to go 'FP' within the nex 6-9 months; I do like the 'edgy' dlp look. I am open minded, though, and will certainly be considering the Pearl (and the Mits HC5000), along with the 1080p dlp's that come out in the next 6 months. As a number of persons have noted, it's a great time to be shopping for a projector!

Yes, I certainly agree that different folks like different 'looks'; what is 'harsh' to some, is 'realistic' to others. I've had a 1080p dlp rptv for ~ a year, but am planning to go 'FP' within the nex 6-9 months; I do like the 'edgy' dlp look. I am open minded, though, and will certainly be considering the Pearl (and the Mits HC5000), along with the 1080p dlp's that come out in the next 6 months. As a number of persons have noted, it's a great time to be shopping for a projector!

I used to own a Samsung DLP tv. I admit at first I was iffy on the Ruby. It took me a few days and mostly movie watching to win me over. I believe LCOS really looks film-like, but I respect that others do not agree.

My point in this thread was that the Diamond will have high contrast and high brghtness. Most if not all projectors have 1, but not both characteristics.

After doing direct A/B comparisons with SXRD and DLP (both 1080p), I believe that "soft" really is not a perfect description for describing LCOS compared to DLP. I believe a better term is "smooth", as LCOS has a smoothness to it that DLP definitely does not have. But to say that LCOS is not sharp, I do not think is accurate. The SXRD actually appeared to be resolving more detail than the 1080p DLP (Samsung), and it certainly did not appear to lack sharpness.

This coming from a current DLP fan/owner.

I wonder if this unit is destined to be Sony's answer to JVC's HD-New? And I wonder how far apart the release of both projectors will be.

Andrew and Rob, thanks much for the comments. As said, I'm certainly keeping an open mind, and I'm confident that both of you have more experience than I. I'm planning to be at the CES this Jan (already have registered!), so will be spending 2 days looking at these things to try to come to a conclusion as to what to get by next spring/summer (or fall, as it often seems to turn out!). I've been thinking that it would be one of the 1-chip dlp's (Optoma, Infocus, or Samsung, if the latter two come out with a good product), but I'm certainly going to be looking at the Pearl and JVC, and the Mits 5000. I'm still a noice in FP, trying to educate myself.

Andrew and Rob, thanks much for the comments. As said, I'm certainly keeping an open mind, and I'm confident that both of you have more experience than I. I'm planning to be at the CES this Jan (already have registered!), so will be spending 2 days looking at these things to try to come to a conclusion as to what to get by next spring/summer (or fall, as it often seems to turn out!). I've been thinking that it would be one of the 1-chip dlp's (Optoma, Infocus, or Samsung, if the latter two come out with a good product), but I'm certainly going to be looking at the Pearl and JVC, and the Mits 5000. I'm still a noice in FP, trying to educate myself.

Nobody ever needs to apologize for being a novice, or giving an opinion on what their eyes see! (not that you were apologizing, but it almost seems that way when you talk about being a novice or lacking in experience).

I certainly welcome your comments and perceptions as well. I am in a similar situation, hoping to upgrade my PJ by spring 2007. Much research, demo's, and reading of AVS is in my future! :)

the information about the diamond are wrong for sure.

sony have no plan at all to come with a model above the ruby in 07.

the only way that sony change this timing is that the upcoming full hd bright 3 chip dlp will sale very good.
but with the price range of the 3 chip dlps (all above $35000) i not see high sales no.
that convince sony.

No diamond? Ha ha... I mentioned the diamond as a joke some weeks ago. Maybe someone thought it was for real and it started to spread. ;)

W.Mayer
This news is talking about something replacing Ruby at a similar price level. It is talking about a brighter projector but when it says xenon I am skeptical. If it had said CPL at 400W I would be more likely to believe increased brightness.

A real next generation projector is as many know/believe slated for late next year. I exprect such a projector to have new sxrd panels bigger than 0.61. I expect lens choices. I expect close to 2000 ANSI lumen. I expect it to cost a lot more than Ruby and this rumored lateral replacement to Ruby, a diamond.

mhafner
Why do you think you are the source of this? Where does the translation that Tryg has posted come from?

A sxrd line up that makes sense
Pearl at around 5k MSRP
Improved Ruby 8-10 MSRP
Entirely new model 20k or more MSRP

I would not be surprised to see a $15,000 model next year to do to the light-cannon market what their $5,000 model is doing to the "market formerly known as $10K".

The Sony critics can have their forum fun, but Pearl is going to basically outsell the entire DLP universe in the $5,000 - $15,000 category. Is it the best projector in the universe? No. But Sony has essentially delivered so much performance for the price that everything else in the 1-chip category seems almost overpriced before you even start looking at it. Optoma, Sim2, Marantz all have great stuff there, for sure, but about as many people as bought the last models from those latter companies are going to buy the new ones. All the market expansion is going to Pearl.

mhafner
Why do you think you are the source of this? Where does the translation that Tryg has posted come from?

Did someone use the name diamond before 08-16-06?
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=8218497&highlight=diamond#post8218497

It must be for real,
Tryg has already given details about it above.

Tryg, could you please tell us as soon as you know more.

I only translated the information from the link in the first post.

I have NO KNOWLEDGE if this is true or not. I would trust w.mayer as a good source of Sony info.

It wont surprise me if there's a new xenon based projector that replaces the ruby and is brighter but it wont suprise me either if something else is released too! ;)

What LCOS needs is a 2000+ lumen HT projector

Tryg
We know Pearl exists.
We know that a truly high end sxrd projector will come eventually.
I think a Ruby mkII makes sense. I am sure little effort would be needed to launch such a product. To make it worth while it would have to be brighter than Pearl. Lets hope there is a Diamond out there capable of 1000-1200 ANSI lumen or so.

Then Sony can use their time to counter 1080p 3DLP with sxrd with brightness needed for bigger screens and light cannon lovers.

Even if Ruby II were spec'ed at 2000 lumens, wouldn't one expect it to deliver only ~ 900-1000 once it's calibrated to 6500K? And then it's no brighter than the HD-81. To get to the next 'brightness plateau', one needs a pj that DELIVERS 2000 lumens after calibration.

Even if Ruby II were spec'ed at 2000 lumens, wouldn't one expect it to deliver only ~ 900-1000 once it's calibrated to 6500K?.
Sony, starting with the Q004 has been specing their SXRD pjs much closer to calibrated specs than other vendors.
The Ruby was speced at 800 lumens. At min throw d65 calibrated( dE < 3) mine was ~710 lumens. If we take 600 lumens as a min then that is 75% after calibration. 75% of 2,000 = 1,500! :)

JVC has been almost spot on with their 500 lumen HD2k measuring slightly above spec calibrated! That is why a lot of people are excited by the 800 lumen spec of HD-New.

Sony, starting with the Q004 has been specing their SXRD pjs much closer to calibrated specs than other vendors.
The Ruby was speced at 800 lumens. At min throw d65 calibrated( dE < 3) mine was ~710 lumens. If we take 600 lumens as a min then that is 75% after calibration. 75% of 2,000 = 1,500! :)

JVC has been almost spot on with their 500 lumen HD2k measuring slightly above spec calibrated! That is why a lot of people are excited by the 800 lumen spec of HD-New.

OK, very good; thanks.

New Full HDTV 1920x1080 pixel SXRD projector of Sony with the code name "Diamond" much is not well-known yet, only that Sony already works on a new SXRD projector with 1920x1080 pixel and xenon lamp, although now only the announced Pearl VPL VW50 is available still not at all. The completely new one is to be offered to something under the price level like the Ruby VPL VW100. As characteristic it will possess an increased light achievement. Also a special meaning gets the topics size and noise level during the new development, but it will not give completely substantial differences and/or improvements in the comparison to the Ruby. Medium-term he will become probably the successor a straight year old VPL VW-100 then however on with the smallest chip size of 0,61Zoll as also in the Pearl. The code name of the new Sony Projectors is dia. moon (diamond) and it could be then a "Sony Diamond SXRD VPL Volkswagen XY". XY means that it is clear not yet where he into the Sony SXRD line incorporates itself exactly, but anyhow above the current Pearl VPL VW-50:

Sure sounds like you want us to believe you have some inside knowledge.
I guess it was b.s. then.

Tryg

Then Sony can use their time to counter 1080p 3DLP with sxrd with brightness needed for bigger screens and light cannon lovers.

Yes, The Ruby and now the Pearl have done a magnificent job assualting 1 chip DLP penetration (although nobody can match DLPs branding and marketing at this point). They do really need 2000+ lumens to get the high end too. This may not happen as Sony's philosophy has always been to serve the masses. The Pearl does this. Although there are many like me that want a 2000 lumen projector I'm not sure it's worth takeing effort away from something else to Sony when they can make more profit by delivering the HIGHEST demand catagories. The only reason I see doing this for Sony is to recapture the "Sony is the best technology" in all catagories mantra

Well if this information about a Ruby II (called whatever) is correct, that is a huge disappointment. The new JVC pj sounds like a great step over the current generation Ruby and at a lower price. So likewise with Sony already being one step ahead, I'm expecting the Ruby 2 to be available late 07 and surpass JVC but at about the same price point. Anything less than this would be a big disappointment.

df4801
Tryg only babelfished text a bit down on the page linked to at the top of this page. You can read the original in german if you want to.

Any news on a potential Ruby replacement?

Keep it coming!
Why xenon again? A slight update would be good enough if Sony is staying with xenon.
To get brighness Sony should use a 450 CPL lamp in a Diamond projector.


If I was a Sony engineer I would have to come up with a product which would answer the challenge pose by the JVC RS1

I would replace the polarizers in the pearl with wiregrid polarizers to at least equal the contrast ratio.

I would incorporate the new HDMI 1.3 standard into the new projector.

I would use the new Perkin Elmer Xenon lamps which are supposed to have a much longer life than the older versions for two reasons

The xenon lamps have a better spectral output and although you can filter the UHP lamps to make them look like Xenon in the 1.3 broader color triangle you can't add red that is not already there

Finally the Xenon lamps have a much smaller arc which can be used with the right optics to give a better more uniform illumination

I would design a zoom lens with a lower F number which would still be well corrected. If you halve the f number you quadruple the power out without increasing the lamp power Start with a 1000 lumen projector with a 250 watt to 400 watt lamp and you would have a 4000 lumen projector

Then I would include small anamorphic prisms at the stop position internal to the lens so that you could have variable projection ratios from 4:3 to 2.35

I would also include a variable iris which could be automatic and manually controlled

I would manufacturer the complete assembly in china and sell it for 5000 dollars

I would liquid cool the lamp which is what HP does in there work stations.

Okay maybe I will charge 10,000 dollars for the unit

Next White leds

Even if Ruby II were spec'ed at 2000 lumens.....
At some stage LCOS must bump up against a lumen limit due to heat dissipation. LCOS chips have to absorb lamp energy when black is projected. And, with 200 W or so, high efficiency lamps, we are talking about a lot of W/cm^2. DLP on the other hand just reflects the energy to the light trap. Doesn't matter is the image is black or white. So it seems DLP's inherent lumens/chip limit should be a lot higher.

I don't know where this limit is though and if it would be a practical concern moving from, say, 1000 to 2000 lumens.

Brent

kiwishred
I asked about the heat issue with lcos. The answer I got is that lcos projectors too use light traps. The panels would only have to dissipate a fraction of the the incoming radiation when projecting black. The panels do not have to act as light sponges. If this is not so somebody will surely correct me.

I would design a zoom lens with a lower F number which would still be well corrected. If you halve the f number you quadruple the power out without increasing the lamp power

I don't think making a lens that's two stops faster with equal quality is quite as easy as you suggest. It would also probably increase the price by about a factor of 10 not to mention the size and weight. The depth of field is also greatly reduced, making it much harder to achieve good uniform focus.

--
Steve

I don't think making a lens that's two stops faster with equal quality is quite as easy as you suggest. It would also probably increase the price by about a factor of 10 not to mention the size and weight. The depth of field is also greatly reduced, making it much harder to achieve good uniform focus.

--
Steve

I never said it would be easy but remember the zoom range is only around 3:1 or less the distortion would not have to be that good and the color correction is only in the visible. I have designed an F1.3 20: 1 zoom lens with less than a .1 percent distortion for a military application. the design took about a year to do. The projection lens would be much easier and the cost would depend on the quantity produced and where it was produced. the lens would be large but you get a lot more bang for the buck increasing throughput as opposed to increasing lamp power. so lets ownly increase the lens size so that the throughput is doubled

Because the magnification is so high on the screen side, I don,t see that depth of focus would be a problem.

I think the problem is that there are not enough front projectors sold to justify a special lens design for a particular projector.

All specs aside I can't wait for some announcement about this one! :)

I hope Sony's answer to the RS1 is just incredible. I also hope I don't hear anything about it until a few days before its ready to ship. Having gone through 6 months of anticipation for the RS1 I don't think I can do it again! :D

Don't know if Sony's new beast with some bumped up lumens will match or beat the RS1, but the Pearl is certainly doing them some justice and earning them some loyalty and brand recognition in the 1080p game.

The RS1 will add another layer of fandom to the fp market and it appears even at this early juncture well deserved (my refrain of vaporware has run its couse) but in the scheme of things this is just another plus for LCOS and the fp market overall.

Pearl owners pretty much have a common experience on their guests seeing it in person. What I've noticed is a tremendous positive response and that will only generate more sales.

Without knowing the possible (LCOS) advances, I have to say it's pretty amazing where things are in this market for 5-6K and how far and fast things have gone in the past few years.

This is territory on a wide scale that I don't think anyone could have forecast. So as a Pearl owner, former DLP and LCD owner, I welcome the new LCOS' projectors whether from Sony or JVC as it's only going to ramp up the level of quality available to everyone.

In a year or so the Pearl will be the common man's machine and who know's what's next.
But it's great to be able to enjoy what's available now if you are lucky enough to have the right setup available for a Sony Pearl, the new JVC or any number of other noteworthy options.

Lite'm up!

I hope Sony's answer to the RS1 is just incredible. I also hope I don't hear anything about it until a few days before its ready to ship. Having gone through 6 months of anticipation for the RS1 I don't think I can do it again! :D

Man....I am SO with you on this :) It has been a fun, interesting ride, but not again. I have spent WAY to much time in this forum, and my next projector purchase after the RS1 I will wait to research it after it hits the market and bypass all the hype and speculation and head straight for the facts. I am actually looking forward to getting the RS1, and getting off the forum once I have it set up to my liking and such.

I hope Sony's answer to the RS1 is just incredible. I also hope I don't hear anything about it until a few days before its ready to ship. Having gone through 6 months of anticipation for the RS1 I don't think I can do it again! :D

I intend to get my RS1 and then, instead of watching it, I am going to spend all of my time in the forums carrying out a terrorist campaign of resent against anyone who dares suggest that anything better may come along.... ;)

I am aware that the Qualia was $30K any idea if this projector will be any cheaper?

I intend to get my RS1 and then, instead of watching it, I am going to spend all of my time in the forums carrying out a terrorist campaign of resent against anyone who dares suggest that anything better may come along.... ;)

Well, that would certainly be consistent with the "Disclaimer" in your sig! ;)

A point of clarification regarding how LCOS operates...the chips themselves only change the polarity of the the light entering them and being reflected back through the LC layer. Other than reflectivity losses, just as much light leaves the chip as enters it. The attenuation of the light comes later in the light path when the polarized light it attenuated to some level by a polarized filter, depending on how it was polarized by the chips.

There is an issue of heat that must be contended with, as there is with DLP as well, but the amount of heat is not dependent on whether or not you are projecting a full white or full black field, it's the same either way. LCOS and LCD are more sensitive to heat issues, because there is a correlation between the temperature of the LC layer and it's sensitivity and response time, thus careful thermal design and control is very important.


Cheers,

Thanks for clarifying that, Tom; good to know that the chip doesn't absorb the light/heat when displaying black.

Toe that is exactly how I felt right before and after my Ruby purchase. I knew that I wanted to get a special pj that will get me a couple of years. This May it will be 1 so hopefully I can ge to 2008... So far so good! ;)

At some stage LCOS must bump up against a lumen limit due to heat dissipation. LCOS chips have to absorb lamp energy when black is projected. And, with 200 W or so, high efficiency lamps, we are talking about a lot of W/cm^2. DLP on the other hand just reflects the energy to the light trap. Doesn't matter is the image is black or white. So it seems DLP's inherent lumens/chip limit should be a lot higher.

I don't know where this limit is though and if it would be a practical concern moving from, say, 1000 to 2000 lumens.

Brent

Hmmm

Isn't the mecahnism for toggling a pixel polarization? That is an LCoS panel polarizes light in one of 2 orientations, and then the polarizing filters in front of the panel either pass or block the light, not the panel itself?

Toe that is exactly how I felt right before and after my Ruby purchase. I knew that I wanted to get a special pj that will get me a couple of years. This May it will be 1 so hopefully I can ge to 2008... So far so good! ;)


Nice! You have a great projector in the Ruby! Enjoy. :)

We won't see the Diamond until Cedia. The Sony projector engineers were at the Sony dealer show in Vegas last week. Nothing new was shown in the SXRD projector range. All sorts of cheap LCD projector stuff though and an inexpensive pull up black screen. The rumor throughout Sony is there will be two new HT SXRD projectors shown at Cedia. The Sony engineers shook their heads yes to my question re new stuff will be shown at Cedia. That's all the info I have.

"Isn't the mecahnism for toggling a pixel polarization? That is an LCoS panel polarizes light in one of 2 orientations, and then the polarizing filters in front of the panel either pass or block the light, not the panel itself?"

Correct, as Tom Stites explained in post #42.

All sorts of cheap LCD projector stuff though and an inexpensive pull up black screen.
Any info on a 1080P LCD FP? They announced 2 new 1080P LCD RPTVs, along with the HS60 720p replacement. Is the 1080P their own panel, or are they using the Epson C2Fine panels?

It is about time that new 1080p projector have above 2,000 Lumens of brightness. Because 1080p picture need more brightness (and contrast), like Plasma!

But then why Diamond, why not Emerald?
If it's true, then after Diamond what name? there is nothing above or better than Diamond? . . .

"Isn't the mecahnism for toggling a pixel polarization? That is an LCoS panel polarizes light in one of 2 orientations, and then the polarizing filters in front of the panel either pass or block the light, not the panel itself?"

Correct, as Tom Stites explained in post #42.

Yeah, saw that when I came back to the thread after being interrupted. Thanks.

That having been said, I have a friend of mine that works in the professional A/V industry for large installations. If you've been to one of several high-profile museums in the D.C. area, you've seen his work.

For the 30'-40' wide screen sizes it's common for him to work with he often uses DLP PJ's with ratings of 25K lumens, and often stacks multiples. These are installations that have much ambient light to deal with.

Sony has apparently cut a deal to get their SXRD 4K PJ's used in some of these. He was "required" to use one of the model 110 SXRD 4K's, and at 10K lumens it had nowhere near the light necessary. (If you want a glimpse one of these, check out the 3rd-floor balcony at the Natural History Museum).

Any thoughts on if the LCoS panels themselves and/or the polarizers likely going to be able to deal with significantly higher lumen output?

I wonder if the bulbs will still cost $1000. Or if they're brighter than the Ruby, isn't there a possibility that they will cost more?

Combine that with the fact that Xenon bulbs degrade faster than UHP and that other projectors are achieving equal or close to equal color extents with UHP (if you even believe that oversaturated primaries are a good thing) and I'm not sure that this will really be a 'budget' projector. For those that really need and use twice the lumens of a Ruby, starting with max brightness, the rapid falloff would require frequent bulb swaps. If you can live with Ruby level brightness, you'd probably be able to eke a lot more usable life out of the bulb.

I hope this projector also debuts a new higher contrast engine - the JVC has made appreciable improvements in contrast, and hopefully Sony will keep this horse race going by coming out with a new contender!

Compact power lamp were / are promising. I think Philips is planning on scaling UHP-like lamps to 1kW. Since UHP gives alot more D65 lumen per watt...
I hope for a new light source
CPL from Philips
LIFI from Lumix
Lasers from any of several contenders

A point of clarification regarding how LCOS operates...the chips themselves only change the polarity of the the light entering them and being reflected back through the LC layer. Other than reflectivity losses, just as much light leaves the chip as enters it. The attenuation of the light comes later in the light path when the polarized light it attenuated to some level by a polarized filter, depending on how it was polarized by the chips.

There is an issue of heat that must be contended with, as there is with DLP as well, but the amount of heat is not dependent on whether or not you are projecting a full white or full black field, it's the same either way. LCOS and LCD are more sensitive to heat issues, because there is a correlation between the temperature of the LC layer and it's sensitivity and response time, thus careful thermal design and control is very important.


Cheers,the chip

The chip itself does not attenuate the light but the polarization attenuates the light by 50 percent because the light source is unpolarized.

My contact at Sony has confirmed 2 new projectors showing at Cedia, a replacement for Pearl which will be out this year, and a replacement for Ruby which will most liekly launch Q1 08, this higher end model will be utilising the current Qualia optics.

My contact at Sony has confirmed 2 new projectors showing at Cedia, a replacement for Pearl which will be out this year, and a replacement for Ruby which will most liekly launch Q1 08, this higher end model will be utilising the current Qualia optics.

WOOOW, polished Ruby with Qualia optic? that's 12 months away! Can we wait? :confused:

Compact power lamp were / are promising. I think Philips is planning on scaling UHP-like lamps to 1kW. Since UHP gives alot more D65 lumen per watt...
I hope for a new light source
CPL from Philips
LIFI from Lumix
Lasers from any of several contenders


Do you know if any of the projector manufacturers are looking at high powered led arrays. I don't see anything currently that they can produce that have the 1000 lumen output.

I read that Perkin Elmer manufactures a long life Xenon lamp. the Xenon lamp has a wonderful Spectral Output but is horrible in every other way.

I am not aware of any semiconductor lasers which have anywhere near thw output power in the blue or green spectrum.

A laser sourced pj from sony would definitely disrupt the market. Other than LEDs, nothing comes close to the color gamut of lasers.

My contact at Sony has confirmed 2 new projectors showing at Cedia, a replacement for Pearl which will be out this year, and a replacement for Ruby which will most liekly launch Q1 08, this higher end model will be utilising the current Qualia optics.

Any feel at all for MSRP? I assume the Pearl replacement will be about the same or likely lower than the Pearl today. But it sounds like the Ruby replacement could be more $ than the Ruby today?

The Pearl replacement (vpl-vw30??) should be 3K. And it does make no sense to price the new Ruby above the competition (RS1), as soon as it doesn't use a brand new light source AND better native contrast.

It should be because you think it should? Please. It will be what it is. Sony will make both better than the RS1. If I had to guess, the Pearl replacement will remain about the same and will be a direct competitor to the RS1. I am guessing here. Pure speculative guess. If the 2nd machine, Ruby replacement uses replaceable lens as in the Qualia, the lens MSRP would be $3K. The projector itself. My guess would be about $10k. But I really don't know. Maybe a Qualia replacement totalling with lens, $15K. But I am just guessing. Sony gave us no hints at anything except new stuff will be shown at Cedia. About 5 1/2 months from now. I bet prototypes don't even exist yet.

If I had to guess, the Pearl replacement will remain about the same and will be a direct competitor to the RS1. .

And what are you guessing the MSRP will be?

If the MSRP is $3K as someone else suggested, and will be a direct competitor to the RS1 that currently retials for $6K - this is another huge price/performance increase.

I don't think so. It is well know, commented by several people and sources, that the next Sony projector is going to be cheaper than the Pearl. As I already said it may be called VW30 (or VW25), so the price should be 2.5-3K (in theory). I do think the new Ruby should be an improvement over the RS1 (and more expensive), but that's not the case with Pearl 2 (maybe better than the Pearl, lower price).

Nothing is well known by anybody. Nothing has been decided yet. Anything is possible.

I don't think so. It is well know, commented by several people and sources, that the next Sony projector is going to be cheaper than the Pearl. As I already said it may be called VW30 (or VW25), so the price should be 2.5-3K (in theory). I do think the new Ruby should be an improvement over the RS1 (and more expensive), but that's not the case with Pearl 2 (maybe better than the Pearl, lower price).

Seems to me that better than the Pearl is the RS1 territory, so based on this the VW30 (or whatever) is the RS1 competition. The other "ruby" replacement would be a step up from the RS1

They haven't even seen an RS1 yet. They have heard about it. Bettering things is their mission. No mission to beat the RS1. That would occur by normal improvements. Better convergence. Just as the Pearl bettered the Ruby in several ways. Better on/off CR. Better ANSI CR. More lumens. Better processing. HDMI 1.3. This we shall see in the new models.

"They haven't even seen an RS1 yet. "

Who - Sony? You think they don't send anyone to the shows?

I know mine is not "wishful thinking", Mark. The RS1 seems to be a major step up from Sony's Ruby/Pearl (at least on papers), that's why I just don't see "minor fixes" doing the trick this time (like Ruby to Pearl).
Add to that Sony knows for sure that -in order to improve sharpness- they need to replace the lens. In fact they are planning to do so using the Qualia's; but it'll be a whole new project (Ruby 2), because those are too expensive to begin with.
And remember Sony is trying to move 1080p projectors/displays as fast as possible, because they have a whole HD "war" to win. They'll do that by increasing the market segment first, and then the market share. Or, in other words, by continually releasing cheaper -but not necessary better- 1080p displays.
Now it's time to speculate... if they are waiting to 2008 to replace the optics why would they care about native contrast. Anyway, as the other Mark said, the big deal here is the price/performance ratio.

I spoke to several of the Sony projector engineers. They said they hadn't seen it yet.

The lens issue. Sony is now big time in the camera business having acquired Minolta and Konica to go along with its own Sony brand. I saw a neat Zeis 300mm F2.8 lens Sony is now selling for its exchangeable lens digital. My guess is we will see a much better lens (or lenses) on its coming higher than the Pearl price model.


And CR is the marketing hype on projector introductions. Every new Sony model is hyped on improved contrast.With a number yelling at one in the thousands. I am sure Sony's numer will end up exceeding JVC's. The new SXRD rear models are hyped at improved contrast, better processing, all the stuff in HDMI 1.3 9 wider color gamut, deep color yada yada.

The new SXRD rear models are hyped at improved contrast, better processing, all the stuff in HDMI 1.3 9 wider color gamut, deep color yada yada.
I noticed they introduced 2 new 1080P LCD RPTVs. Any word if they will introduce 1080P FP? Are they using the Epson 1080P panels, or is it their own?

Are they using the Epson 1080P panels, or is it their own?
Has Sony ever used Epson panel before?

Has Sony ever used Epson panel before?
AFAIK Sony has always used their own panels, and in the past was a major OEM to other manufacturers.

They have never released a 1080P LCD based (micro display) product, and we have heard nothing about their Bi:NA 6 next gen LCD product, which was announced for Q1 '06 delivery.

My questions are:
1) Are they manufacturing 1080P LCD panels? Is it bi:Na 6?
2) More likely, are they sourcing Epson C2Fine 1080P panels?

Sony America may or may not have seen the RS1 but I know Sony Euro has. Everything starts over seas. They are further ahead then dealers and reps in the US think. US division is given the news later on. They are not part of the decision making. Rest assured things are in the works and they have proto types. There are some larger Sony contacts state side who are "in the Know" with contacts over seas who are aware of whats coming. They are all being very quiet. Cedia will be another exciting show.

Alan. I spoke with at least one of the projector design enginneers from Japan. I think there is some design and a lot of fine tuning to come.

Hi Mark

Yup some good things coming. Its amazing how competition is driving progress at a faster pace.

Sony's MO is usually to introduce their newer / better technology in a high end product first, and then filter down to the value segments.

I doubt we will see a brand new projector that is a direct replacement for the Pearl and has the latest and greatest in technology (the Pearl is not so old). We haven't seen something new in the Ruby price range from Sony in a while, and they're not trying to enter this segment like JVC is - they're already a big player in this space.

The new projector with higher native contrast with some flashy new acronym for the latest SXRD higher contrast panels will probably be a Ruby replacement.

Then 6-8 months later we'll see a Pearl equivalent of that projector. In the meanwhile the current Pearl's price will keep dropping to keep them competitive. The HS51/A started out as a $3500 projector and slowly came down to $1500. The Pearl started at 5K and still has a long way to drop. There's two ways to compete - one is on qualities / features and the other is on cost. They'll compete on cost for a while.

At least that's how they've done it in the past.

AFAIK Sony has always used their own panels, and in the past was a major OEM to other manufacturers.

They have never released a 1080P LCD based (micro display) product, and we have heard nothing about their Bi:NA 6 next gen LCD product, which was announced for Q1 '06 delivery.

My questions are:
1) Are they manufacturing 1080P LCD panels? Is it bi:Na 6?
2) More likely, are they sourcing Epson C2Fine 1080P panels?

It probably makes more sense for them to keep focusing on SXRD panels.
If they improved the panels and integrated an LED or laser backlight, then they would have a killer product.

A Pearlalike at sub $3k with user convergence shift would be just wonderful.

A Pearlalike at sub $3k with user convergence shift would be just wonderful.

Call that the Sony Onyx............

Hmmm

Isn't the mecahnism for toggling a pixel polarization? That is an LCoS panel polarizes light in one of 2 orientations, and then the polarizing filters in front of the panel either pass or block the light, not the panel itself?


I believe the LCOS panels are liquid crystal based and the polarization rotation is continuous. Teh advantage the RS1 has over the Sony is primarily due to the new visible wiregrid polarizers.

If Sony engineers are anything like the Japanese engineers I used to work with I blieve they not only have seen the JVC RS1 but bought it and have taken it apart.

I hope that Sony can come up with a solution for the brighter corners that the Ruby, Pearl and RS1 all exhibit (perhaps to varying degrees).

If Sony match the RS-1 contrast and the HC5000 19db fan noise for less than $1000 more than the RS-1, that's my next projector.

This April is the first "Vegas" installment of CEDIA. I wonder if we might see something sooner than the September show.

Nick :cool:

If Sony match the RS-1 contrast and the HC5000 19db fan noise for less than $1000 more than the RS-1, that's my next projector.

Don't count on it. Price will be more than the RS1 from what's been posted here.

what they need is a high powered led light tp opwer the projectors less heat and alot more bulb life

Don't count on it. Price will be more than the RS1 from what's been posted here.I think you should read his post a few more times.

I think you should read his post a few more times.

Much more than a thousand dollars more.

A point of clarification regarding how LCOS operates...Ah ha. That makes a lot of sense given the amount of heat involved. I had assumed there was a polarizer on the chip window. Thanks for the clarification.

And, congratulations on the RS1 :)

Brent

Much more than a thousand dollars more.Now that I wouldn't bet on. Sony has been very cutthroat in the FP arena. They seem to come out with new products that even cannibalize the sales of their own higher end products. They came out with the Ruby at $10k and when there weren't hardly any competitors to their $30k Qualia. Then they did it again with the Pearl at $5k.

Now that I wouldn't bet on. Sony has been very cutthroat in the FP arena. They seem to come out with new products that even cannibalize the sales of their own higher end products. They came out with the Ruby at $10k and when there weren't hardly any competitors to their $30k Qualia. Then they did it again with the Pearl at $5k.

As others have speculated here the Pearl replacement will have cut throat pricing and be the lower end model. The Ruby replacement, however, is rumored to be considerably higher end with great lens/optics, and as Mark has pointed that is not cheap. So I wouldn't be surprised to see a good split in both price and performance between the Pearl replacement and Ruby replacement, compared to what we had with the Pearl and Ruby (whereby the performance was about equal, with some even saying the Pearl is better).

Believe me I hope this does not turn out to be the case, and it turns out the Diamond is available on the street about what the RS1 goes for currently.

I would love to know more about the Diamond.

As long as it doesn't have a dynamic IRIS, since the RS-1 has shown there is no longer a need for that brightness compression causing IRIS.

Can someone tell me the differences between the RUBY and the RS-1? Are the Footlamberts about the same? I assume that the advantages to the RS-1 are just by having a better design chip with better native contrast and lack of brightness compression (no Iris). Not sure what to think of all this talk of the oversaturated colors. Not sure how to put all of this into perspective...

Any chance the Diamond would be available by October?

If I was a Sony engineer I would have to come up with a product which would answer the challenge pose by the JVC RS1

I would replace the polarizers in the pearl with wiregrid polarizers to at least equal the contrast ratio.

I would incorporate the new HDMI 1.3 standard into the new projector.

I would use the new Perkin Elmer Xenon lamps which are supposed to have a much longer life than the older versions for two reasons

The xenon lamps have a better spectral output and although you can filter the UHP lamps to make them look like Xenon in the 1.3 broader color triangle you can't add red that is not already there

Finally the Xenon lamps have a much smaller arc which can be used with the right optics to give a better more uniform illumination

I would design a zoom lens with a lower F number which would still be well corrected. If you halve the f number you quadruple the power out without increasing the lamp power Start with a 1000 lumen projector with a 250 watt to 400 watt lamp and you would have a 4000 lumen projector

Then I would include small anamorphic prisms at the stop position internal to the lens so that you could have variable projection ratios from 4:3 to 2.35

I would also include a variable iris which could be automatic and manually controlled


No Iris. The RS-1 has shown us that a dynamic IRIS is not necessary nor desireable. They should be able to achieve the same levels of contrast as the RS-1 and without the associated negatives such as brightness compression of the Ruby and Pearl. No dynamic Iris!! Better Panels!

2538x 1080 panels which would be able to provide native 2.35, 1.85, and 1.78 by simply stretching the image horizontally and vertically when needed. All aspect ratios are covered. These extra horizontal pixels provide even more brightness compared to an anamorphic lens and yet no anamorphic lens is needed. No longer have to deal with the cost, troubles, and distortion/degradation from external anamorphic lenses.... and even MORE lumen output for 2.35 material (while still retaining 100% lumen out put for the other aspect ratios as well)


I would liquid cool the lamp which is what HP does in there work stations.

Yes, you would think they would provide this option just as it is an option with computers. The consumer would have the option of turning off the fans and buying the optional water cooling unit for silent operation.

No Iris. The RS-1 has shown us that a dynamic IRIS is not necessary nor desireable. They should be able to achieve the same levels of contrast as the RS-1 and without the associated negatives such as brightness compression of the Ruby and Pearl. No dynamic Iris!! Better Panels!

2538x 1080 panels which would be able to provide native 2.35, 1.85, and 1.78 by simply stretching the image horizontally and vertically when needed. All aspect ratios are covered. These extra horizontal pixels provide even more brightness compared to an anamorphic lens and yet no anamorphic lens is needed. No longer have to deal with the cost, troubles, and distortion/degradation from external anamorphic lenses.... and even MORE lumen output for 2.35 material (while still retaining 100% lumen out put for the other aspect ratios as well)




Yes, you would think they would provide this option just as it is an option with computers. The consumer would have the option of turning off the fans and buying the optional water cooling unit for silent operation.

So basically when watching a movie at 2.35:1 you'd get the extra benefit of brightness without having to do anything (the pj would recognize the situation and handle it?).

Interesting. You're suggesting that a projector with a 2.35 AR pixel grid and 1080 vertical pixel resolution would be able to essentially cast any BR or HD-DVD movie in pixel pefect form regardless of the films AR. If the film's AR is 2.35, the entire grid would be used, if it was 1.85, then there would be narrow vertical bars, if it was 1.78, then they'd be a bit thicker, and lastly if it were 4:3, then they'd be damn thick, but any which way it's done, the images would still be pixel perfect. Do I have this correct? Even if the image is pixel perfect, how would you control whether the light from the bulb wasn't cast on the entire 2.35 screen? In other words, this would be set up ideally for 2.35 movies, but how would the PJ know to use all of the light for the narrower ARs?

Yes, the upcoming 4K projectors will do this, but a simpler and more cost effective version would be to simply increase the horizontal pixels. Since the cost of the 4K projector and the VP is going to be outrageously expensive, simply increaseing the horizintal pixels from 1920 total to 2538 would be something affordable yet solve manny issues including the need for an anamorphic lens. Currently, with 1920 x 1080 panels, we can only strecth a 2.35 image vertically and require the external anamorphic lens to optically stretch the image horizontally. In this case, you still have the 1920 x 1080 as usual, but you have extra horizontal pixels for 2.35 aspect movies. Really, in this case all you need is magnification since you do not need to vertically stretch the image. The video processor simply crops the black bars and enlarges the entire picture since the panel itself can display 2.35.

Quite a few of us have been talking about this. It makes too much sense. Not only do you eliminate the cost, degradation, and probelms associated with an anamorphic lens (which is a huge improvement by itself), you gain additional lumens because you are using 2538 pixels instead of 1920. So it is like a double whammy... really quadruple because 3 improvements are from removing the need for an anamorphic lens.

2.35 x 1080 = 2538, 1.78 x 1080 = 1920. Either way a 2538 x 1920 panel should be much more affordable than a 4K resolution panel and not require an expensive external video processor, only a custom modified internal video processor that can handle the 2.35 mode appropriately.

this would truely be the holy grail for cost effective projectors. Maybe 4K resolution projectors will be affordable, but not for at least another 6-7 years most likely, possibly longer. SXRD and LCD can make this happen. DLP would likely bitch about production yields and find reasons to make it cost more than their outrageous 3 chip 1080p DLP already cost...

An RS-1 with excellent color control and 2538 x 1080 panels should be soon. Maybe the ruby Diamond will do this... after all, what is left? Well, we have given the list....

Yes. that is correct. You would likely make the panels 2592 x 1080, hehe, not much different than 2538...

If the film's AR is 2.35, the entire grid would be used, if it was 1.85, then there would be narrow vertical bars, if it was 1.78, then they'd be a bit thicker, and lastly if it were 4:3, then they'd be damn thick, but any which way it's done, the images would still be pixel perfect. Do I have this correct? Even if the image is pixel perfect, how would you control whether the light from the bulb wasn't cast on the entire 2.35 screen? In other words, this would be set up ideally for 2.35 movies, but how would the PJ know to use all of the light for the narrower ARs?

Pixel perfect, yes.

I have a CIH setup... Vertical bars are not an issue on non 2.35 material. the image is still absolutely huge, in fact, my 1.78 material is bigger on my CIH setup because I moved from a 100 inch diag 1.78 screen to a 130 inch diag 2.35 screen. Technically there are vertical 'bars' on the unused portion of the screen, but you don't notice them. I have increased the image size of 1.78 HDTV as well as tremendously increasing the image size and brightness of the 2.35 (2.40) movies by going to a 2.35 CIH setup.... I gave my older setup and installed it at my fathers... It is such a huge difference, I could not imagine going back to a non 2.35 setup. Best is that I gained in all areas!!

How would the projector know? You might have to press a button. I do that now with the Lumagen HDQ... I just press a 2.35 button and that is it! I don't think having to press a button is too much to ask... It is just a matter of displaying the 1920 x 1080 or displaying the 2592 x 1080 when appropriate. No different than watching 4:3 material on current 16:9 panels....

Basically you vastly improve your 2.35 movies while giving away absolutely nothing... I do that now after spending $5,000 on an ISCO 3 lens. I can only imagine how wonderful a projector with 2538/2592 x 1080 panels would be! If they come to their senses, they can make near 4K projector type of performance affordable...

I have 2560 x 1600 NOW on my DELL 30 inch monitor, trust me, it is no big deal to make 2539 (2592) x 1080 ... Consumers just have to voice demand.....

This would revolutionize home theater projectors, so it has to happen! This soultion would be better than an a free ISCO 3! In fact you eliminate all the cost, troubles, and distortion degradation as well as the optional expense for moving the lens in/out... AND... you get a brighter 2.35 image to boot because you are using the extra horizontal pixels in the SXRD/LCD panel, not just horizontally expaning the image with a lens.

No Iris. The RS-1 has shown us that a dynamic IRIS is not necessary nor desireable..
If you are satisfied with 15000:1. I am not. I want quite some more.

If you are satisfied with 15000:1. I am not. I want quite some more.Exactly, why not use 15000:1 SXRD "panels" with a DI to achieve 100,000:1?

Well, perhaps the combination of JVC type of panel improvements, a brighter and longer lasting XENON bulb, and a dynamic Iris would be fine... But anytime you add a dynamic Iris you are going to get brightness compression, that is just a fact. Of course you could disable it. They will probably leave the Iris in and just like previous models give you the option of turning it off. I guess the only thing we can hope for is a better and brighter bulb along with better panels, probably resulting in a product that is similar to the RS-1 but capable of more Lumen output and better color controls...

The diamond if you are lucky would offer 20,000:1 or such with the IRIS on, and probably the same or slightly less than 15,000 with the IRIS off, owing to the fact that a brighter bulb causes more scatter light... So when you increase bulb output, you decrease on/off contrast because of the greater degree of scatter light... I don't expect Sony to improve their panels to a significantly greater degree than JVC, at least not for the diamond... And if you increase light output, you make it that much more difficult to keep on/off contrast high... Given the brightness compression and the fact that one of the key improvements in the RS-1 over the Sony was the lack of brightness compression from the IRIS, I don't think you can have your cake and eat it to...

Sure, I'd love 25,000 on/off, 1000 lumen output...

Exactly, why not use 15000:1 SXRD "panels" with a DI to achieve 100,000:1?

Becuase you are stuck with brightness compression, something that will never go away with a dynamic IRIS. If you had the RS-1, and increased the bulb strength further, you'd decrease the on/off CR... I don't see how sony is going to improve the panels to a greater degree than JVC this year or likely next year... If you want more light output than a Ruby AND better CR than the JVC, I don't see how the dynamic Iris is going to solve this, and you'd still have brightness compression.

I guess we will see, it certainly doesn't hurt to have the DI as an option since it can be shut off... It is just that it comes with a picture quality price, the reason the JVC is doing so well is becasue of the better panels, nothing more, nothing less. Stick a dynamic Iris on the current JVC and it would decrease the performance, not increase it. Sure you might be able to get a 25,000:1 on/off, but at what overall cost? Loss of Lumens and Loss of that "POP" that people like about the RS-1. The RS1 looks like it does becasue there is no brightness compression and the improved panels... Stick a DI on it and it would lose its magic. So how is Sony supposed to outperform the RS-1, it will be a challenge, that is for sure...

... I think we liste a bunch of things, including 2538 x 1080 panels, that would be huge. Optional water cooling, better color control, replace the polarizers in the pearl with wiregrid polarizers, HDMI 1.3, use the new Perkin Elmer Xenon lamps, a zoom lens with a lower F number which would still be well corrected,

Sure, by all means Sony already developed a good DI, so include it, but don't think that is anything great, it comes with a quality cost in terms of brightness compression and perhaps other minor issues. Yes, I agree go ahead and include it, but in reality it should be used as one minor tool, not depending on it!!!

Exactly, why not use 15000:1 SXRD "panels" with a DI to achieve 100,000:1?
With about 150 lumen output and the Iris fully constricted and brightness compression at max, you probably could get 50,000:1

In all seriousness, I really do hope they achieve 50,000:1 on/off, 1000 lumens... we all do. Sorry about the Debbie Downer...

No Iris. The RS-1 has shown us that a dynamic IRIS is not necessary nor desireable. They should be able to achieve the same levels of contrast as the RS-1 and without the associated negatives such as brightness compression of the Ruby and Pearl. No dynamic Iris!! Better Panels!

2538x 1080 panels which would be able to provide native 2.35, 1.85, and 1.78 by simply stretching the image horizontally and vertically when needed. All aspect ratios are covered. These extra horizontal pixels provide even more brightness compared to an anamorphic lens and yet no anamorphic lens is needed. No longer have to deal with the cost, troubles, and distortion/degradation from external anamorphic lenses.... and even MORE lumen output for 2.35 material (while still retaining 100% lumen out put for the other aspect ratios as well)




Yes, you would think they would provide this option just as it is an option with computers. The consumer would have the option of turning off the fans and buying the optional water cooling unit for silent operation.


I don't like the dynamic iris either but I would like a manual iris to control lumen output. the larger pixel array makes a lot of sense and i would certainly appreciate the tactile channel.

Becuase you are stuck with brightness compression, something that will never go away with a dynamic IRIS.Yet, oddly enough I bet almost every Pearl and Ruby owner have the dynamic iris enabled, even the ones who know about brightness compression. Apparently most people would rather have 15000:1 on/off and "suffer" from brightness compression than have 2000:1 on/off and no brightness compression.

Higher resolution (to achieve a scope format pj) is a possibility I suppose, because it would be an uncontested "higher spec" number to put on the box. I am somewhat skeptical at this time, because Sony is pushing "Full HD" which is 1080p, and releasing something higher than that may piss off a much larger portion of it's audience (those who bought / are buying 1080p XBR / Bravia TVs and the like.) I could only really see it as part of a wider push ("UltraHD" anyone?)

The no iris thing is highly unlikely. You have to think like a mega CE comany. THey are not about to back off on the numbers game. They already have a "15000:1" CR pj or two. The new one has to be better. Whatever they can come up with for native contrast will look even more impressive (as far as numbers go) with a DI. I can see them using less aggressive settings on the DI if native CR is high, but it will probably be there.

Isn't cinemascope 2.39:1? 2.35 is just a shorthand notation because people are old fashioned?

Decompressed aspect ratio of the exposed camera negative is still 2.34 (point something):1. SMPTE specs for projection were changed in 1969 calling for a PROJECTED aspect ratio of 2.39 (point something):1. The purpose is to cover any errant splice lines in the film print.

Either of these ratios could be considered "correct" by practical standards.

What is the overall benefit of the wider panels as far as image quality goes? I understand it will be somewhat brighter. But since the source is only 1920x1080 does the stretch really result in a noticeably improved resolution?

Is it possible for sony to just make the pearl brighter and keep the same CR?

But anytime you add a dynamic Iris you are going to get brightness compression, that is just a fact.
Let's say we have a space scene with lots of black. With a dynamic iris we'd have brightness compression here. But without the Iris we'd have less good black levels. So let me ask you: In a space scene which is more important? Great black levels or best brightness? IMHO for a dark scene the most important factor is best black level combined with great shadow detail. Brightness is not unimportant, but it's only the second important factor for me in such a scene.

There's no doubt that a native 15000:1 contrast ratio without DI is much better than a 2000:1 native contrast ratio tuned to 15000:1 by using a DI. But that's not a good comparison. What you should compare is (1) 15000:1 without DI and (2) 100000:1 with DI. If the DI is working well, I'm sure that 95% of all users would gladly take 100000:1 with the DI.

Furthermore, with a 15000:1 native contrast ratio I bet that the DI will be less visible to begin with. And the brightness compression will also be less visible. The higher the native contrast ratios go, the less visible a DI should become. I see the DI as a good way to move the already great black levels of the JVC panels up to the next level, which is true CRT like blacks.

Let's say we have a space scene with lots of black. With a dynamic iris we'd have brightness compression here. But without the Iris we'd have less good black levels. So let me ask you: In a space scene which is more important? Great black levels or best brightness? IMHO for a dark scene the most important factor is best black level combined with great shadow detail. Brightness is not unimportant, but it's only the second important factor for me in such a scene.

I think this line of reasoning is an oversimplification for a couple of reasons. The first reason is the fact that in a typical space scene, the areas of the picture that would typically be affected by brightness compression do not encompass enough of the picture to actually result in an elevated overall black level. The second reason is the fact that when the brighter portions of the picture are not affected by b/c, and thus are brighter, the black areas of the picture are actually perceived to be darker...

The first reason is the fact that in a typical space scene, the areas of the picture that would typically be affected by brightness compression do not encompass enough of the picture to actually result in an elevated overall black level.
I don't understand what you mean with that. I never said that brightness compression would elevate overall black level. Am I misunderstanding you?

The second reason is the fact that when the brighter portions of the picture are not affected by b/c, and thus are brighter, the black areas of the picture are actually perceived to be darker...
So you're saying that we should optimize for best brightness because the brighter parts of a space scene will then make the darker parts seem darker? Or in other words: We should turn the DI in the Ruby/Pearl off, so we get best brightness without brightness compression, so space scenes will appear to be darkest?

:confused:

It's correct that dark image parts around very bright image parts are perceived by our eyes to be darker than they really are. But that doesn't change the fact that every videophile will easily be able to judge if black levels are average, good or CRT level.

I think this line of reasoning is an oversimplification for a couple of reasons. The first reason is the fact that in a typical space scene, the areas of the picture that would typically be affected by brightness compression do not encompass enough of the picture to actually result in an elevated overall black level. The second reason is the fact that when the brighter portions of the picture are not affected by b/c, and thus are brighter, the black areas of the picture are actually perceived to be darker...
We are not talking about ANSI limitations polluting the black level (this is another issue) but the unpolluted black level (=gray level actually) showing up as gray and create a veil in a space scenes where not enough bright parts make the eye perceive gray as black. Here a DI can reduce the gray to nearer black and improve the depth and lack of veiling. Whether it looks better with or without DI depends on the actual brightness distributions in the space (or any other dark) scene.

The second reason is the fact that when the brighter portions of the picture are not affected by b/c, and thus are brighter, the black areas of the picture are actually perceived to be darker...

Exactly. From a neurosience view this is correct.


Also, to go from 25,000:1 to 50:000:1 might yield a 1% notieable difference, but if it causes a 10% negative noticeable difference in another aspect of pixture quality, that is not an overall improvement gain. As I said before, If you put a dynamic Iris on an RS-1, I think everybody would end up shutting it OFF and leaving it in open mode. Let's hope Sony can essentially make a brighter version of the RS-1... I would accept a 1000 Lumen projector that could still maintain all of the positive aspects of the RS-1 and also improve on its color control. Throw in 2538 x 1080 panels and we'd have one hell of a projector.

Also, to go from 25,000:1 to 50:000:1 might yield a 1% notieable difference, but if it causes a 10% negative noticeable difference in another aspect of pixture quality, that is not an overall improvement gain. As I said before, If you put a dynamic Iris on an RS-1, I think everybody would end up shutting it OFF and leaving it in open mode.
You're making a lot of assumptions here.

First of all, more important that the raw contrast ratio numbers (to me at least) is very good black level and shadow detail. I don't need 10000 lumens, so having 25,000:1 contrast with perfect black levels is much more precious to me than having 50,000:1 contrast with bad black levels but 10000 lumens.

A jump from 25,000:1 to 50,000:1 can be achieved by increasing brightness or by reducing black level. If you lower black level by a factor of two, that surely is something which should yield more than 1% visible improvement. At least to those of us who have black levels ranked high on our priority list.

The RS1 is a great projector. However JVC has left the door open for Sony to one-up them if they can produce a panel with about the same 15,000:1 on/off.

Examples of how Sony can surpass the RS1:

- the RS1 is a bit too over saturated for many people's tastes. A pj that comes closer to the Rec 709 targets and/or that has a true CMS would be a welcome improvement

- the RS1 measures only 300:1 ANSI CR. This is definitely a nice improvement over previous LCoS but still far behind DLP. If Sony can get upwards of 400:1 or 500:1 that would be a nice improvement

- the RS1 has horrendous calibration controls - well actually I saw horrendous because there basically are NO calibration controls or LUT access. Sony will clearly have an advantage here - we can bank on that.

- Sony has a ton of investment in their DI and has improved the implementation nicely from the Ruby to Pearl. Its highly likely they will indeed stick with the DI and deliver a pj that has a higher native on/off CR (hopefully in the range of the 15,000:1) along with a DI that by many accounts here seems to suggest they can reach about 50,000:1 with a DI

I'm quite content with my RS1 for now, but certainly am looking forward to seeing what Sony can come up with to surpass it.

The RS1 is a great projector. However JVC has left the door open for Sony to one-up them if they can produce a panel with about the same 15,000:1 on/off.

Pure speculation on my part... JVC came out with the RS1 when they did to beat Sony to the punch with Sony's upcoming Fall release. Many of the short comings of the RS1 are due to rushing the product out. It was a good move on JVC's part, sales are way up, and they are perceived as the current leader in LCOS technology. However, this hasn't changed Sony's development program, as most of the technical improvements that the JVC currently enjoys were already part of Sony's R&D. In the not to distant future we should see a more polished projector from JVC and a at least a couple of new projectors from Sony matching or slightly exceeding JVC's current performance.

Pure speculation on my part... JVC came out with the RS1 when they did to beat Sony to the punch with Sony's upcoming Fall release. Many of the short comings of the RS1 are due to rushing the product out. It was a good move on JVC's part, sales are way up, and they are perceived as the current leader in LCOS technology. However, this hasn't changed Sony's development program, as most of the technical improvements that the JVC currently enjoys were already part of Sony's R&D. In the not to distant future we should see a more polished projector from JVC and a at least a couple of new projectors from Sony matching or slightly exceeding JVC's current performance.

What "shortcomings" of the RS1 are due to "rushing the product out"?

At least to those of us who have black levels ranked high on our priority list.

As a 6-7 year CRT projector owner, it is highest, or I should say co-highest priority. It is just that after going from a Dwin HD-700 to a Sony Ruby, I am at the point where digitals are very good... room for improvement, but very good. My point is that even as much as Black Level and 'perfect' on/off contrast is one of my highest priorities, we are at the point where it is about achieveing best overall picture, not at the expense of trading off other aspects like lower ANSI contrast or dynamic compression. I want the most overall improvement, not 1% gain or 5% gain in one area that would cost me 10-15% loss in another area... The good part is that the dynamic IRIS is going to be user controlled, so we WILL have the choice to experiment and suit out needs the best. I'm just happy to have the choice...

... What I will ask from everybody is to write to Sony, JVC, etc... is for 2538 x 1080 panels. This would be a dream come true!

The RS1 is a great projector. However JVC has left the door open for Sony to one-up them if they can produce a panel with about the same 15,000:1 on/off.

I would also epect that Sony is only going to be able to equal the same panel technology, which is similar to how Sharp improved their panels for their new LCD HDTVS... It is the same method. So assuming Sony is going to have virtually identical panels, the improvements are possibly going to be from an improved Xenon lamp (vs the UHP lamp in the JVC) for better color and more lumens. The DI, assuming it is set to dynamic, you'll get better numbers than the JVC for on/off, but you will have brightness compression, but people will praise this projector because they will have the choice to open the IRIS fully, dynamic, etc.... so the customizeability will be seen as a strength and Allow Sony to show good numbers, although technically they will likely take the best of both worlds with IRIS on and off making the projector stats appear better than they are....

I hope for the most improvement possible, but predicting what is most likely, I'd say that what we are likely to see from Sony is a tweaked up version of the RS-1, because the panels are likely to be the same. Realistic improvements:

-- improved XENON bulbs as was mentioned previously yield superior lumens and color spectrum over the RS-1... although if the XENON bulbs are not improved enough, then this might not be as drastic since the current bulbs lose lumens much too rapidly... At least the color superiority and uniformity would be constant however. Hopefully the XENON bulbs mentioned previously will be MAJORLY improved. This was the only major dissapointment I have with the Ruby. You can't even calibrate it the bulb changes so fast.... rediculous.

the RS1 is a bit too over saturated for many people's tastes. A pj that comes closer to the Rec 709 targets and/or that has a true CMS would be a welcome improvement

As you said, this is essentially guarenteed from Sony, and likely from JVC's next model as well.

the RS1 measures only 300:1 ANSI CR. This is definitely a nice improvement over previous LCoS but still far behind DLP. If Sony can get upwards of 400:1 or 500:1 that would be a nice improvement

Would be hard to beat given this is primarily due to the panels... I think they'd have to trade On/off contrast for more ANSI contrast... maybe the DI helps with this aspect to some degree (but at the cost of dynamic compression)

- the RS1 has horrendous calibration controls - well actually I saw horrendous because there basically are NO calibration controls or LUT access. Sony will clearly have an advantage here - we can bank on that.

yes.

Sony has a ton of investment in their DI and has improved the implementation nicely from the Ruby to Pearl. Its highly likely they will indeed stick with the DI and deliver a pj that has a higher native on/off CR (hopefully in the range of the 15,000:1) along with a DI that by many accounts here seems to suggest they can reach about 50,000:1 with a DI

I think what we will see is essentially a more flexible, very tweakable, slightly brighter version of the RS-1... Essentially Sony will be doing to JVC what JVC just did to Sony... release a slightly better all around projector... If only they would release a more exxpensive version with 2358 x 1080 panels... I would gladly and wholeheartedly pay a lot more money for that....

Nothing new, just those older threads saying essentially an improved XENON bulb... would be nice to have the German one translated for us...

http://www.hometheaterblog.com/hometheater/2006/09/sonys_next_gemp.html


http://www.dia-maier.de/AV-News/index.html#09.09.2006

The full on/off contrast ratio is a ratio of the brightness between a full-screen white image and a full-screen black image.

The ANSI contrast ratio is a ratio of brightness between white sections and black sections in a projected nine-block black & white checker pattern.

I can see the Dynamic Iris helping with ON/OFF contrast... it does! BUT you DECREASE ANSI contrast and also get brightness compression artifact with a DI.... As I said before, I don't want to improve ON/OFF contrast at the expense of lowering ANSI contrast, which is already too low. The dynamic iris gives you better on/off at the cost of brightness compression artifact, decreased ANSI contrast, and decreased ANSI Lumens.

Sony to do list:

1) 2538 x 1080 panels

2) Optional water cooling option for silent operation.

3) Better color control, replace the polarizers in the pearl with wiregrid polarizers.

4) Achieve Rec 709 targets, Easy and excellent CMS

5) HDMI 1.3

6) Use the new Perkin Elmer Xenon lamps

7) A zoom lens with a lower F number which would still be well corrected,

8) ANSI contrast of 500:1

9) ANSI lumens: 1000

10) ON/Off Contrast: 50,000:1 (while maintining ANSI LUMENS of 1000 and full ANSI contrast of 500:1)

Did we miss anything... I think this is acceptable for the Diamond...

Sony to do list:

1) 2538 x 1080 panels

2) Optional water cooling option for silent operation.

....

MSRP $14,999? :)

The great thing about technology is that it always is on the move. With this announcement, I think I will postpone my purchase of a pj until, at least, we hear more details of the diamond. I would hate to buy a pj now, only to have it rendered obsolete in several months. A brighter version of the Ruby, to me, is something worth waiting for even if that was all the diamond had to offer. I think the diamond will be a pretty significant step forward for Sony.

I would hate to buy a pj now, only to have it rendered obsolete in several months.

Hah!

Not that I blame you for wanting to wait to hear more about the Diamond, but that quote, if applied literally, would keep you from buying any projector for at least the next 20 years!

;)

improved contrast... black level... resolution... brightness... HDMI 1.3... LED illumination... it goes on and on (and will for years and years to come)

What "shortcomings" of the RS1 are due to "rushing the product out"?

They didn't even spend the necessary time to hand rub each of the 5 coats on the black lacquer case .... and it's a deal breaker if they don't do it right next time.

MSRP $14,999?

That would be well worth it... Well well worth it... For what we mentioned it would be worth more than that!! Sold!!

I've defintely got Diamond fever... I just hope I can buy it by October/November of 2007...

A brighter version of the Ruby, to me, is something worth waiting for even if that was all the diamond had to offer.

????

Why would you want a Ruby over the RS-1 is all it offered was 200 more ANSI lumens? If that were the case I'd just buy an RS-1 now since it would have plenty of brightness for me on my 130 inch, 2.35 CIH setup (1.3 gain studiotek). Unless you have greater than a 130 inch screen.... Maybe you do, otherwise I'd rather have an RS-1 over the Ruby.

Sony really has a lot to pull off... The XENON lamp, assuming it is greatly improved and ages MUCH better than their previous lamp, will be helpful, but that will only do so much, and that is assuming that Sony is going to use similar new advanced panels that JVC is using... I don't see how they are going to improve on the ANSI contrast. I fully expect better ANSI Lumens, say 900 maybe 1000? (compared to JVC 700). And colors are likely to be slighly better and probably with excellent user control... But it is going to be hard for them to have more ANSI contrast... I bet that will remain around 300:1 unfortunately... On/off will likely show a better spec than the JVC with the DI, and that is what is going to get the rave, unfortunately, brightness compression would be in effect because the Dynamic Iris would be required to get better on/off over the JVC... And the ANSI contrast will likely be the same as the JVC.... I'm sure the diamond will be a better projector, but the true improvements would likely be almost entirely from the bulb... the Dynamic Iris is really a CRUTCH, nothing else, and it comes with a cost/tradeoff... the real improvements would need to be in the panels, and I don't see how they are going to beat JVC in this aspect... I hope the Diamond is much more... of course, I hope they release another version that offers 2358 x 1080 for which I'd gladly pay $15,000 for.... even more really.... Well we have a bunch of improvements listed...

To the best of my knowledge, Sony doesn't design or manufacture bulbs. It buys them from an OEM bulb manufacturer who places them in a bulb box with a Sony label. Sony could go to a higher wattage bulb than in the VPL-100, it could use a chip with less light loss than the present, it could use a more efficient optical design, including a lens with larger effective aperture, it could use a constant effective aperture zoom lens. A higher wattage bulb would require greater cooling. All these things cost yen.

All these things cost yen.

That's the problem... There are projectors with significant limitations at $10,000 and below in SXRD/LCOS/LCD projectors.... I'd love to pay $15,000 for a significantly improved Diamond... (I'm not into the DLP weaknesses, so I don't see DLP as an option). Maybe I'll lok to see what 3 chip 1080p DLP can do, but as it stands, there really is only the RS-1 as the current best choice (unless you like DLP). Would love to pay more for better SXRD/LCOS/LCD projectors... If they could do everything on the list we gave earlier, I'd pay $19,000 MSRP for that projector...

Seems like the 4K projector is going to cost $40,000 MSRP... My point is that there is room for something in-between...

That would be well worth it... Well well worth it... For what we mentioned it would be worth more than that!! Sold!!

I've defintely got Diamond fever... I just hope I can buy it by October/November of 2007...
I dunno. Even if I had that kind of dough to play with, I'm not sure I am that hard-core. Between the new Epson, Pearl, and RS-1, I kind of hope we're seeing a downward trend in projector prices. Sure, I can see having premium products, but I think it must still be available to the masses. Maybe they can use a dimmer lamp and air cooling and get it under $10k street. I never bought a Ruby because of the bulb prices, even though I know the actual cost over the life of the unit was not that outrageous. But look at the RS-1 sales... is that because it's a great unit, or because it's finally affordable? How did the Qualia sell, nice unit or not? That's right, they were discontinued. :o

Maybe they can use a dimmer lamp and air cooling and get it under $10k street.

It was rumored that the Diamond unfortunately be priced in 8-9K range: I'm only complaining because to me, that means for this price it will undoubtedly be only minimally better than the RS-1...

Certainly I'd like to see a continued downward trend in projector prices, that is given. That wasn't my point. Nobody is designing a projector for the $15,000 price point for SXRD/LCOS/LCD. 4K LCOS/SXRD/LCD with 4K resolution and 20:000:1 contrast are rumored to be $40,000. Right now the top of the line projector for this technology is the RS-1, essentially at $7,000.

All I'm saying is that there is also a large subgroup of people who would like to see a much more improved projector in the $15,000 range that would have a greater degree of improvements. They should bring more than one model to the market at a time.

Just saw a post about the Dreamvision DreamBee (http://www.markettis.com/dreamvision/html/EN/fiches/projo/dreambee.htm) for around $7800 and it does D-ILA 1080p at 15,000:1 CR

~Bobby

Right now the top of the line projector for this technology is the RS-1, essentially at $7,000.

You mean for you and your budget. We all know there is no one perfect projector and no one projector works for every ones needs.

David, you are correct. However, the two leaders in LCOS have been JVC and Sony. I have ruled out DLP for the most part, but may consider Sim. Thus, knowing that Sony is going to unveil a significant new product, makes it worthwhile to me to wait to get more information before pulling the trigger.

Sony is always unveiling significant new products. We really don't know much about the Diamond as of yet. Everything you read here is pure speculation. But Cedia is only what, four months and a few weeks away? Less than 140 days. I'd wait unless I needed a projector right away. If you need something right away, by all means get a JVC or a Sony. But people will be dumping their RS1s in a few months in anticipation of a better JVC or Sony. Remember once digested, yesterday's prime steak becomes fecal matter.

We can always count on Mark for great visuals from his posts. Thanks yet again Mark.

;)

You are quite welcome. Remember once upon a time I was an Environmental Engineer during research in anaerobic sludge digestion and designing municipal waste water treatment plants, so I do know a lot of fecal matter..

You mean for you and your budget. We all know there is no one perfect projector and no one projector works for every ones needs.

My point regarding "for this technology" meaning LCD/LCOS/D-ILA/SXRD... the RS-1, for this moment represents the best available projector: meaning those with 130 inch screens not interested in DLP limitations on black levels... but I explained that earlier. As I was saying, for those like me that are not a fan of DLP and are using 130 inch screens or less, the RS-1 is really the best you can get. My point was that I wish I could spend more to get more. I really wish Sony would go all out on the diamond, or at least design two projectors to be released at teh same time: one in the sub $10,000 range, and one in the $15,000 range... I'm defintely willing to spend a lot more than $10,000 dollars, but as I said, for this technology, the RS-1 is currently the only choice.

I wasn't including DLP in the discussion. Apparently there are 4K projectors coming out, but they are $40,000... I think designing a projector for the $15,000 range would be great... could even have optional upgrades such as water cooling, better optics, etc... Would like to get more and wiling to spend more...

How about the one carat and two carat models released at the same time? An $8,000 model and a $16,000 mode released at the same time would be great... anything....

There are so many improvements that can be made and I think a lot of us would spend more money to have some of these significant additional improvements... There is defintely room for a projector between the $8,000.00 price war we are seeing, and the soon to be released $40,000.00 4K projectors... Would love to have a projector designed at the $15,000-$19,000 price point.

My point regarding "for this technology" meaning LCD/LCOS/D-ILA/SXRD... the RS-1, for this moment represents the best available projector: 00 4K projectors... Would love to have a projector designed at the $15,000-$19,000 price point.


Ahh, agreed :)

Why not just a better projector at the $5k price point?

I think you guys are in for a real surprise. You may keep wishing for more expensive and capable machines but the reality is these things are getting commoditized.

Would you be willing to buy a $11,000 computer? I doubt it because it really doesn't offer anything more than the $3000 ones at the top level. I know we are ego driven but reality is a hard thing to overlook. ;)

Tryg,

How much would you be willing to pay for a projector that does this? All of which are realisitc by the way. Hell my Dell LCD monitor does 2560x1600 and they have 4K resolution panels already... I think the following is reasonable:

1) 2538 x 1080 panels

2) Optional water cooling option for silent operation.

3) Better color control, replace the polarizers in the pearl with wiregrid polarizers.

4) Achieve Rec 709 targets, Easy and excellent CMS

5) HDMI 1.3

6) Use the new Perkin Elmer Xenon lamps

7) A zoom lens with a lower F number which would still be well corrected,

8) ANSI contrast of 500:1

9) ANSI lumens: 1000

10) ON/Off Contrast: 50,000:1 (while maintining ANSI LUMENS of 1000 and full ANSI contrast of 500:1)

They could provide this in a projector for Q4 of this year, but for $5,000? I would pay $15,000-$19,000 for this projector... But they seem to be only making projectors in the $8000-$9000 range and only wanting to minorly improve over the previous model....

I know we are ego driven

Absolutely positively nothing to do with ego, or else I would care about what kind of car I drive, which I could care less. For me, its all about having a better projector and picture.

I would consider that projector at $10,000 ish. I have to draw the line somewhere on how much I am willing to pay for a projector, and I certainly wouldnt lean towards buying that projector for a few years from now (now that I have the HD1.)

same here

Stick a dynamic Iris on the current JVC and it would decrease the performance, not increase it. Sure you might be able to get a 25,000:1 on/off, but at what overall cost? Loss of Lumens and Loss of that "POP" that people like about the RS-1. The RS1 looks like it does becasue there is no brightness compression and the improved panels... Stick a DI on it and it would lose its magic.Why do you claim a loss of lumens if they added a DI?

Just speaking of DI's overall, a dual DI in something like a Sharp 20k could give them way more lumens in their high contrast mode than the 20k has now. One reason I would love to see them add a dual DI in place of what I believe are dual irises (one before the DMD and one after) that aren't dynamic.
I can see the Dynamic Iris helping with ON/OFF contrast... it does! BUT you DECREASE ANSI contrast...Why do you claim that? I'm not sure how to say this in a nice way, so I'll just say it. You seem to make a lot of assumptions and state them as fact, while it doesn't seem like you really understand the DI all that much.

--Darin

Tryg,
..... I think the following is reasonable:

8) ANSI contrast of 500:1

....
I'm going to hazard a guess that reaching this parameter will be the most difficult and costly of all the things you listed.

I have never seen a definitive answer as to why DILA/LCOS and LCD systems have much lower ANSI contrast than single chip DLP systems but I would bet it is the complexity of the optical block with all the beam splitters, polarizers, etc. I suspect that building an optical block for a DILA/LCOS system that will allow you to reach 500+:1 ANSI contrast will be extremely costly.

I'm going to hazard a guess that reaching this parameter will be the most difficult and costly of all the things you listed. (ANSI contrast 500 (vs 300 of the RS-1))

Hehe, yes I totally agree.

You seem to make a lot of assumptions and state them as fact, while it doesn't seem like you really understand the DI all that much.

I was trying to think of the negatives with a DI, including the cause of brightness compression associated with a DI. I did back off a bit as I do see the DI as a tool which adds flexibility to the projector as you mention. Since the DI in the Ruby, especially the Pearl is customizeable, there don't have to be any negatives since you have complete control. My point is that the 'significant' improvements come from the panel improvements, wiregrid polarizers, etc...

One reason I would love to see them add a dual DI in place of what I believe are dual irises (one before the DMD and one after) that aren't dynamic.

That would be wonderful. Add it to the list!

I would consider that projector at $10,000 ish. I have to draw the line somewhere on how much I am willing to pay for a projector, and I certainly wouldnt lean towards buying that projector for a few years from now (now that I have the HD1.)

Sure, for those that just bought... but for those that have a qualia for 3 years now, or for those that are ready for an improvement... I feel the same way having a Ruby. The mild overall improvement in the RS-1 is not significant enough to have me replace the Ruby (see the many comments on Ruby vs RS1)... Although I think I'll put the Ruby in the bedroom sometime in Q3 or Q4 and grab a Diamond or RS-1 or such since I need an HDTV for the bedroom anyway... That is why I was saying I was hoping that Sony et all would release two projectors at the same time, and also have some degree of modularity/customizeabilty for improvements... Would love to see $4,000 models, $8,000 models, and $16,000 models....

I think the following is reasonable:

...

2) Optional water cooling option for silent operation.

...



Whew... I needed a good laugh.

Hehe, someone else mentioned this but I'd certainly be interested... Would be similar but upscaled version to those seen in PC's I imagine... Why did this seem funny?

LOL

Watercooling isn't a viable option, unless it makes contact with the bulb itself. There in lies the problem, the H2O cooling a PC can handle up o about 150w of heat...so there is the problem if you use a 400 Xenox bulb..

Its a neat idea but not practicle, and image the issue with QA and customer support, with people needing to checkt he water once a month etc.

I have built enough water cooled PCs to know this won't work...

EDIT: Phase change could work but there lies the problems.

1. Size, the Phase Change Unit will double if not triple the size and weight of the projector. Think as big and heavier then a G90...

2. Noise, Phase Change is quieter but can introduce video noise and small vibration, ok for a pc but for a projector with tiny mirrors etc?

3. To refill the gas mixture you have to be certified by local municpality...

~Bobby

What "shortcomings" of the RS1 are due to "rushing the product out"?

Lack of a CMS which I believe has been on previous JVC projectors. If I recall correctly Tom Sites stated that CMS code for the RS1 couldn't be ported from their previous projectors and required new softtware. Speculation on my part but, I read that as, "we didn't have the time or funding to put it in given our release date"

Lack of a CMS which I believe has been on previous JVC projectors. If I recall correctly Tom Sites stated that CMS code for the RS1 couldn't be ported from their previous projectors and required new softtware. Speculation on my part but, I read that as, "we didn't have the time or funding to put it in given our release date"

I think the key work here is funding. If they had put in a CMS it would not only have taken longer but, it would have been priced higher. I agree with Rob here. Many people consider this to be the best projector under 10 to 15 thousand. Every projector has shortcomings.

Ahhh, but why can't they release two projectors at the same time.... One designed to a $8,000 price point and one designed to a $16,000 price point? I think key being to have at least two models released at the same time, not one...

Ahhh, but why can't they release two projectors at the same time.... One designed to a $8,000 price point and one designed to a $16,000 price point? I think key being to have at least two models released at the same time, not one...

Because there would not be a market for the $16k projector other than a handful of people willing to pay double for minimal increases in performance.

My bet is that we are looking at a $4k projector that beats the Pearl, Ruby and Qualia in many areas, but not in all.

My bet is that we are looking at a $4k projector that beats the Pearl, Ruby and Qualia in many areas, but not in all.

Are you referring to the Ruby replacement being $4k? Would love that to turn out to be the case, but I think that's wishful thinking (big time). Maybe the Pearl's replacement will be in that range, but the Diamond is supposed to have Quilia-like optics, and as has already been covered, the lens are not cheap...

It should be because you think it should? Please. It will be what it is. Sony will make both better than the RS1. If I had to guess, the Pearl replacement will remain about the same and will be a direct competitor to the RS1. I am guessing here. Pure speculative guess. If the 2nd machine, Ruby replacement uses replaceable lens as in the Qualia, the lens MSRP would be $3K. The projector itself. My guess would be about $10k. But I really don't know. Maybe a Qualia replacement totalling with lens, $15K. But I am just guessing. Sony gave us no hints at anything except new stuff will be shown at Cedia. About 5 1/2 months from now. I bet prototypes don't even exist yet.
Finally, something that I find interesting. Now, if the Ruby replacement with the Qualia lens has a Qualia light output, I'd be quick to open my wallet....

Having spent a lotof time with the Ruby and RS1, I wouldn't say the RS1 is a slam dunk over and above the Ruby. Yes it does some things better. But what I've seen from the Ruby is wonderful. Any improvements on it would certainly be welcome. And it'll still be worth the money.

I can't wait for final specs and pricing.

Richard

"I was an Environmental Engineer during research in anaerobic sludge digestion"

So you're suggesting holding one's breath as a treatment for heartburn? :)

Because there would not be a market for the $16k projector other than a handful of people willing to pay double for minimal increases in performance.

A handful, like five? Shows you underestimate the market. As was announced there are several 4K resolution projectors coming to market at $40,000.00 cost and there are plenty of expensive DLP options available now and upcoming...

Again, the point is that we ALL want lower prices, but there are many people who would be willing to pay more for better performance.

My bet is that we are looking at a $4k projector that beats the Pearl, Ruby and Qualia in many areas, but not in all.

As was said earlier, as a Pearl replacement $4-5 perhaps, but the Diamond is slated for the 8-9k range as noted in the preliminary reports. I only wish they had 3 projectors released at the same time: $4k, $8k, and $16k to achieve various price/performance points... That way each person could have the best projector they can afford....

Tryg,

How much would you be willing to pay for a projector that does this?

"Willingness to Pay" is a very interesting subject in contingency valuation. Are you talking "stated preference" or "revealed preference"?

There's plenty of people that say they would be willing to buy a extra good chocolate bar for $9. The reality is most will only actually pay $1.50.

Based on the demand curve for this industry you can make a lot more money at the low end than producing a few projectors at the high end. Also good luck on the marginal improvements. There's gonna have to be some serious design change criteria to really outdo what is currently available.

my prediction is prices are going down. But you are welcome to hope they go up :)

I think the key work here is funding. If they had put in a CMS it would not only have taken longer but, it would have been priced higher. I agree with Rob here. Many people consider this to be the best projector under 10 to 15 thousand. Every projector has shortcomings.

Just speculation again, but amortized over the volume that the RS1 is selling at it would be a much much smaller incremental price increase (I'd say drop a zero on your increase). The revenue lost to time to market would more than dwarf that. Having the market and revenue stream all to yourself on a break through product for 10 months is a tremendous boost to a company's bottom line. (I'm sure the JVC guys are getting a good laugh at all our speculation based on no information what so ever :p ) I agree with you they decided it was not worth the lost revenue stream to include the CMS since overall it still beat the pants off the competition.

Projectors are like cars. You can get a good one cheap, a used one cheaper and pay a million dollars for one with a lot of gizmos and a better engine.

To argue that prices are coming down is fine, but don't ignore the fact that Runco, Seleco, Marantz, and many other companies still have high end offerings that sell, and indeed sell well.

And to say they sell less than everyone else may be true, but it doesn't mean they don't make good gear, or aren't a profitable company.

Think Apple.

Hahaha.

Richard

Playing devil's advocate to myself, it may also be true that the reason that they only release one projector a year (ruby, Pearl, diamond...) is that diminishing returns may make it difficult to sell two models released at the same time... Is it possible that Sony couldn't release a $4,000, $8,000, and $16,000 projector at the same time because they would have a hard time selling the $8,000 and $16,000 models because there would not be enough improvements between the models when directly compared? I don't know if I buy that thought though. It seems like a company like Sony could produce three projectors at those price points each with significant differences and each reaching the best bang for the buck in their price categories. I think that if Sony wanted to design a $16,000 SXRD, they could make one that would sell in suffcient quanitities that would be significantly better then the $8,000 model... I would just like to see everybody get the best projector they can afford for the money.

There's plenty of people that say they would be willing to buy a extra good chocolate bar for $9. The reality is most will only actually pay $1.50.

I can only speak for myself of course. Do I have $20,000 to spend on a projector? Yes. If someone came out with a projector with improvements like I mention (ok, minus the optional water cooling) would I pay $20,000? Yes. Could Sony actually make such a projector? I think they could... but those are marketing decisions.

For the chocolate example, I'm not sure I follow.... If the chocolate ended up not being that good, of course I wouldn't buy it... If there is only a 5% gain over the other model, no I may not think it is worth it... If it is 15-20% overall better for the $20,000 model over the $10,000 model.... I'd buy it. Sure, ultimately there would have to be a significant difference to justify the cost... I believe Sony could design a significantly better projector if they were able to design it to a higher price point. I wish they would release more projector models at diffrent price points. JVC and others have announced 4K resolution projectors... haven't heard about Sony's 4K projector...

Originally Posted by Health Nut
I can see the Dynamic Iris helping with ON/OFF contrast... it does! BUT you DECREASE ANSI contrast...

Why do you claim that? I'm not sure how to say this in a nice way, so I'll just say it. You seem to make a lot of assumptions and state them as fact, while it doesn't seem like you really understand the DI all that much.

Hey Darin, great to hear from you. My only request is that if you feel I made an incorrect statement, why not respond scientifically with what you feel is incorrect/correct instead of the uneccessary lead-in? I was responding to Greg Roger's comments on the RS-1 and I'm sure some others feel the same way: "The Dynamic Iris can produce a 15,000:1 full field contrast ratio (with a down side): A dynamic Iris cannot produce similar black levels and peak white brightness levels in the same image."

So essentially, the Ruby has lower ANSI Contrast and likely true on/off contrast than the RS-1. While the Ruby can be measured to produce 15,000 on/off, it seems scene dependent (and with brightness compression). When the Iris opend more, the on/off ratio increases essentially, while on the RS-1, it maintains a constant ANSI contrast ratio and constant on/off contrast. Its not like the DI gives you a free ride... That was the only problem I have with it...

I still think it can be a useful tool, and perhaps a Dual Dynamic Iris would be a great improvement. The best part is that Sony is allwing us to use it in a flexible mannner so that everybody can be happy or we can adjust the projector to a greater degree depending on what material we are watching. I would say that flexibility is a great thing. But nonetheless, I am having difficulty understanding why you are havign a problem with my evaluation of the pros and negatives of the Dynamic Iris? I would have preferred your opinion on brightness compression or further thoughts on the DI.

As Greg Rogers said, "A dynamic Iris with dynamic gamma permits contrast between dark objects, or dark objects and the background, to be similar to a non-DI projector with an equivalent full field contrast ratio. But a Dynamic Iris based projector can't produce the dynamic range between its darkest blacks and its brightest peak white level in the same image." The DI projectors native contrast ratio limits the instantaneous dynamic range of the image, and it also reduces the ability to differentiate bright details and perceive image depth. Another important performance parameter is intra-image contrast, which describes the ability to diffrentiate contrast diffrences when there are bright areas near darker areas in the same image. the intra image contrast ratio is much lower than the full-field contrast ratio becasue light from bright areas will be scattered over the image obscurring darker areas. The light scattering occurs within the lens and the optical system of the projector, but it may occur within your theater as light reflects around the room and back on to the screen."

(--which is why I have everyone get into black veluxe jumpsuits before they are allowed to watch a movie.)

Anyway, assuming Sony is going to use wiregrid polarizers and a higher powered (and more stable hopefully) XENON bulb, this should again leapfrog the RS-1 and take the top spot (non-DLP).

To what I was saying earlier, Greg Rogers states, "A star field is a prime example that clearly shows the advantage of having a high full-field contrast ratio without a dynamic Iris. When a projector that uses a Dynamic Iris to produce a similar black level, the maximum brightness of the stars is limited, and that lower dynamic range significantly decreased the vividness of the image." "Scenes in Star Wars IV that clearly show the advantage of having a higher full-field or a higher ANSI contrast ratio..."

Assuming that wiregrid polarizers get the native contrast of the diamond to a 20,000:1 and with more ANSI lumens than the Ruby had, this should be a nice improvement over the RS-1... (At least we can customise the Dynamic Iris to our own liking, I'm just not sure if I think the tradeoffs are worth auto mode... with 20,000:1 native on/off, I'd probably find myself leaving the IRIS open, rather than make tradeoffs to try and get the on/off increased (with a price).

Now if they just added a few more horixontal pixels and made it 2538 x 1080...

Health Nut, you're once again comparing:

(1) a 2000:1 native contrast ratio projector with DI
(2) a 15000:1 native contrast ratio projector without DI

Of course (2) is better in any way (all other things being equal). But what you cannot extrapolate from the comparison above is what happens to ANSI contrast if you compare:

(1) a 15000:1 native contrast ratio projector with DI
(2) a 15000:1 native contrast ratio projector without DI

In this case ANSI will *NOT* be lower with the DI. Why should it?

To what I was saying earlier, Greg Rogers states, "A star field is a prime example that clearly shows the advantage of having a high full-field contrast ratio without a dynamic Iris. When a projector that uses a Dynamic Iris to produce a similar black level, the maximum brightness of the stars is limited, and that lower dynamic range significantly decreased the vividness of the image." "Scenes in Star Wars IV that clearly show the advantage of having a higher full-field or a higher ANSI contrast ratio..."

ANSI contrast != Intrascene contrast!! ANSI contrast = contrast of specific chess pattern. That's all. And nobody claims that x:1 On-Off contrast is not better if achieved with no DI than with a DI. The issue is if (x+y):1 On-Off with DI is better than x:1 without DI when the rest is the same.

hey Health Nut,

if the Diamond does list for $8k and you are set on spending 15k for a new projector, why not buy 2 of them? :D

The issue is if (x+y):1 On-Off with DI is better than x:1 without DI when the rest is the same.

My question is how does brightness compression relate to ANSI contrast? What are the negative aspects of DI? If you lower the peak white (Lumen output), you lower one end of the range... The measurment of ANSI contrast, like the checkerboard pattern is the measurement of the difference between the black and the white. But I suppose if you are achieving darker blacks, then the ANSI contrast remains the same assuming you are getting equal changes on the black end of the spectrum. In other words the improvement in Black Level is equal to the loss of peak white level.

I suppose in that case the area where a DI could really help are areas where there are generally dark scenes with no bright objects, but how often is this the case? This could give really great shadow detail and max your on/off, but it seems to come at the cost of brightness compression... Is there anybody here who sees no drawback to auto mode of auto Iris? Thanks, just trying to learn more... Things were much simpler when I had a CRT, then again, I'm thankful I do not have to deal with geometry setup of CRT ever again (If only the companies continue to immprove on panel convergence at the factory).

Madshi, You don't have to compare one projector to another, you can compare the same projector with and without DI and the positives and negatives of using it.... That is what I am interested in knowing more about.

hey Health Nut,

if the Diamond does list for $8k and you are set on spending 15k for a new projector, why not buy 2 of them?

It depends... I may do that but for use in two other rooms. I got rid of (2) 36 inch SDTV and want to replace them with HDTV. Also, I need at least one projector that has a cheaper bulb, so I may get an RS-1 for guest room for Playstation 3... don't have to worry about using up a XENON bulb and making it go out of calibration quickly from gaming/PS3 use. The RS1 would make a great PS3/guest room projector. Ruby could go to the bedroom.... And then the Diamond could take the main room. The way I look at it, HDTV cost $5,000 each anyway...

The main room currently has a curved 2.35 studiotek (1.3 gain) screen, 10 feet wide (130" diag). I think the ruby is very bright in auto Iris mode even now at about 350 hours. This is the advantage of using CIH, a short throw distance, and the ISCO 3 which allows a very short throw distance while still looking 'perfect' (the ISCO 3 is the only one that could achieve this for me). If DLP improves on/off contrast to 25,000:1, I'd certainly entertain going to a 3-chip 1080p DLP for the main room..... or ..... if the Diamond is capable of 1000 ANSI lumens, I'll probably go up to a 12'-13' wide screen and possibly a matte 1.0 screen material...

Is there anybody here who sees no drawback to auto mode of auto Iris?
IMHO the main (and almost only) drawback is the danger of being able to see it working.

Look, let's say you'd have a HD1 with a manual iris. How would you set it up? Would you go for best blacks & contrast (close the iris to the max), or would you go for best brightness (fully open the iris)? Or would you choose an intermediate setting where you give up some peak brightness to improve blacks a bit? Right now the HD1 doesn't have a manual iris (as far as I understand), so you have no other choice than to go for peak brightness.

Next question: Let's say you were able to fine tune the iris for each individual frame in the movie. Would you close the iris for darker scenes more than for brighter scenes?

Madshi, You don't have to compare one projector to another, you can compare the same projector with and without DI and the positives and negatives of using it.... That is what I am interested in knowing more about.
Bingo! You even actually *shouldn't* compare one projector to another when trying to find out which advantages/disadvantages a dynamic iris generally has. That's why I was not happy with your comparison of the Pearl/Ruby against the HD1/RS1. The dynamic iris of the Pearl/Ruby must look bad in this comparison because the HD1/RS1 has so much better native panel contrast. The *real* question is: What disadvantages would you get if you added a dynamic iris to the HD1? The comparison between the Pearl/Ruby against the HD1 doesn't really help much with answering this question.

Look, let's say you'd have a HD1 with a manual iris. How would you set it up? Would you go for best blacks & contrast (close the iris to the max), or would you go for best brightness (fully open the iris)? Or would you choose an intermediate setting where you give up some peak brightness to improve blacks a bit?

But what you say is oversimplified making your statement somewhat innacurate because the vast majority of scenes contain a mix of very bright and very dark areas. If every part of the image on the screen was grey to black, the dynamic Iris would be 100% ideal with no drawback! Or if the sceen was grey to white, then again, the auto iris can be theoretical perfect in a sense.... the problem that you keep sidestepping is brightness compression and the fact that each individual movie scenes are most often a mix of very dark and very white elements. The Dynamic Iris can optimize for darker or brighter, in a sense a sliding scale... but the problem of brightness compression remains.

Next question: Let's say you were able to fine tune the iris for each individual frame in the movie. Would you close the iris for darker scenes more than for brighter scenes?

Well that is the problem, the vast majority of scenes have parts of the picture that are both very dark and very light. So with the dynamic Iris, you can't optomize both ends of the spectrum simultaneouly... You trade peak brightness for blacker blacks...still seems like a tradeoff to me and not always beneficial which is my point. What I like most about a dynamic iris is that it does allow us to have flexibility. However, if the Diamond had a native panel on/off contrast ratio of 20,000:1 (while at full constant open IRIS with say 1000 ANSI lumens) I'd be tempted to leave it open.... and I'd probably get a 12' wide screen as well as get a matte 1.0 material just for the hell of it (currently using Ruby/ISCO 3/10' wide 2.35, 1.3 gain studiotek). I'm happy with the 10' wide screen size, but if the Diamond ends up being that good, I'd consider going 1-2 feet wider and/or dropping to a matte 1.0 screen over the studiotek.

Assuming I'd probably keep the same size screen (10' wide), would you change out the screen material from the studiotek and go to a matte screen?

You trade peak brightness for blacker blacks...still seems like a tradeoff to me
In the same way by leaving the iris always fully open you trade blacker blacks for peak brightness. Seems like a tradeoff to me, too.

Anyway, you don't necessarily have to trade peak brightness for blacker blacks with an automatic iris. You could program the automatic iris in such a way that as soon as there are any bright objects, it fully opens the iris. In this case you shouldn't get any brightness compression (if I understand things correctly). However, imagine a dark scene, where one objects begins to get brighter and brighter. You may be able to see the iris work in such a situation, because it has to open up fast to be able to draw the bright object in its full brightness. You would probably be able to see the dark background lighten up, I guess...

You could program the automatic iris in such a way that as soon as there are any bright objects, it fully opens the iris. In this case you shouldn't get any brightness compression (if I understand things correctly).

That would really be ideal. Even on a starfield where the overall gamma is very dark, if the program where to sample every pixel or at least clusters of 4 pixels or such and see values for white, then open fully, even though the overall scene is very dark.

When there is truley a very dark scene that ranges from Blacker than Black, to values approaching 'gray', then the IRIS could close an appropriate degree. I don't know if this will yield better shadow detail, but it would give darker blacks. I think shadow detail would rely more on ANSI contrast than on on/off contrast, which is what the only advantage DLP has (besides ANSI lumens) in my opinion. I suppose that if the Diamond can produce 1000 ANSI lumens, combined with the panel improvements, it's ANSI contrast should go up as well...

From what we have heard wiregrid polarizers will yield about 20,000:1 on/off contrast native. So if you add the DI, have a superior XENON bulb, and have excellent color control, the Diamond should be a nice improvement over the JVC. If only the had a model that had 2538 x 1080 panels to provide both native 1920 x 1080 and 2358 x 1080 images (without need for anamorphic lens + additional birghtness), that would just be the point of vas deference release...

Assuming they will have the Diamond at CEDIA, any chance it will be released by November?

By the way, are there any 3 chip 1080p DLP that have on/off contrast of 15,000:1? Are there any single chip 1080p DLP that have on/off of 15,000:1?

(Funny how all of the other non-DLP technologies are coming out with 4K projectors... I bet Texas Instruments will continue to cry about yields or whatever... I'm so happy I didn't contribute a dime to DLP... went from CRT to Ruby... Not that I'm totally against DLP, its just that I'll never forget their arrogant attitude when they thought they could single handedly determine what consumers should have and what commercial theaters should have, trying to deprive consumers of 1080p at one point in time.

(Thank goodness for competition. We see how terribly companies act when there is no competition. Only now does Comcast really try to improve customer service with Verizon bringing in FiOs.)

Hey Darin, great to hear from you. My only request is that if you feel I made an incorrect statement, why not respond scientifically with what you feel is incorrect/correct instead of the uneccessary lead-in? I was responding to Greg Roger's comments on the RS-1 and I'm sure some others feel the same way: "The Dynamic Iris can produce a 15,000:1 full field contrast ratio (with a down side): A dynamic Iris cannot produce similar black levels and peak white brightness levels in the same image."

So essentially, the Ruby has lower ANSI Contrast and likely true on/off contrast than the RS-1.No. That statement doesn't mean that it has lower ANSI CR. ANSI CR should not be confused with simultanteous CR in various images, as I explained in my article here:

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_13_2/feature-article-contrast-ratio-5-2006-part-1.html

under the "Types of Contrast Ratio" section.
My question is how does brightness compression relate to ANSI contrast?It pretty much has nothing to do with ANSI CR. Since the ANSI CR test is with a very bright image (half 100 IRE and half 0 IRE), I would expect the iris to be pretty much fully open for that test, so brightness compression would not come into play. Then it would only come in with other images.

ANSI CR doesn't change with the images, because ANSI CR is for the 4x4 checkerboard only. Other images don't have ANSI CRs. They have other CRs.

As far as ANSI CR between the Ruby and the RS1, it looks like Greg's measurements would give the advantage to the RS1. I measured an HD1 (the other model of basically the RS1) and got lower than Greg got for that RS1 and I believe lower than I got for a Ruby in the past. Could just be this particular HD1.

--Darin

Assuming they will have the Diamond at CEDIA, any chance it will be released by November?



Not that this is any sort of rule ,but in the past CEDIA shows things coming around April of the following year.

Art

Assuming they will have the Diamond at CEDIA, any chance it will be released by November?
Sony has shipped within 3 months of CEDIA for their last two pjS!

IIRC the Ruby was shown at CEDIA '05 and first shipments were end November '05.

The Pearl was shown at CEDIA '06 with first shipments in the same time frame.

From what we have heard wiregrid polarizers will yield about 20,000:1 on/off contrast native. So if you add the DI, have a superior XENON bulb, and have excellent color control, the Diamond should be a nice improvement over the JVC.

Yes, although the main question on my mind is "At what premium price?". Those sound like nice improvements but I wouldn't pay several thousands more for the Diamond if those were its only improvements.

I am extremely happy with my RS1. Really the only issue that bothers me during viewing is that on total fade to black scenes the absolute black level is still fairly high. Don't get me wrong - blacks during movies look exceptional - however this requires other images on the screen (preferably something bright) to make the black level look so good. So on total fade to black without this to cause the perception there's too much light. This is a key area where I think a non-aggressive DI on top of the native 15,000:1 panels could work to make fade to black exceptionally dark.

Yes, although the main question on my mind is "At what premium price?". Those sound like nice improvements but I wouldn't pay several thousands more for the Diamond if those were its only improvements.

Well, what if it could have those specs at full light output of 1000 lumens (or possibly a little higher) vs 700 of the RS1? What about 2538 x 1080 panels for the best 2.35 movies of all time (brighter and without any need for an anamorphic lens)? I don't know about cost, but that is why I was hoping Sony could release 2-3 models at the same time, instead of a pearl replacement one year, a Ruby replacement another year.... etc...

Well, what if it could have those specs at full light output of 1000 lumens (or possibly a little higher) vs 700 of the RS1?


For my needs the RS1 has plenty of light output. With a new bulb I'm getting about 18 ftL from mid throw which is plenty bright. And once the bulb loses 50% of its brightness I'll still be content with 9 ftL (I was at 7 ftL with my Ruby for a long time and still found that plenty bright with nothing to compare it to side by side). And if they did have more light output than a fix or manual iris would be an absolute necessity - otherwise the absolute black level on fade to black would be way to high.


What about 2538 x 1080 panels for the best 2.35 movies of all time (brighter and without any need for an anamorphic lens)?


Sounds intriguing as I've been reading about here, but frankly I don't really understand its key benefits besides more brightness (which I do not need) especially considering that the max resolution in the source is 1920 wide so that means scaling so again I'm not sure how this would be a positive benefit when 1080p is sufficient resolution at my viewing distance of 2x. Perhaps for this situation it is of no significant benefit?

Sounds intriguing as I've been reading about here, but frankly I don't really understand its key benefits besides more brightness (which I do not need) especially considering that the max resolution in the source is 1920 wide so that means scaling so again I'm not sure how this would be a positive benefit when 1080p is sufficient resolution at my viewing distance of 2x. Perhaps for this situation it is of no significant benefit?

This is easy to answer. I hope others will ask for this and answer this question as well as I am very busy until mid June.

There are many advantages of adding horizontal pixels to the current 1920 x 1080 panels and making 2538 x 1080 panels. First of all, it is still 1080p. You are not adding vertical resolution. You are simply adding horizontal pixels to be used only when 2.35 material is present (2.35/2.4 same thing). Internal processing to interpolate the additional horizontal pixels is not a big deal and would still be 1080p.

Eliminates the need for Anamorphic Lens:

Even the ISCO 3 has significant loss of contrast from the added air lens interface, etc... Not to mention various distortions such as barrel distortion, vignetting, etc...

1) Cost of anamorphic Lens: Gone!

2) Performance over using anamorphic lens is much improved: increased brightness from using the extra pixels to display the extra width instead of optically horizontally expanding the 1.78 image with a lens. Elimation of loss of contrast and distortion/degradation atifacts from an anamorphic lens.

3) Cost and/or pain in ass factor of dealing with anamorphic lens (moving it in/out which I do vs leaving it in all the time and accepting the slight quality loss that goes with leaving it in all the time (for non-2.35 material).

Eassentially a 2538 x 1080 projector would be ideal. It would be much more cost effective than getting a 4K resolution projector that can do the same thing. It just makes too much sense. Others here have been asking for it and it should happen. I think the $100K DLP projectors have this ability... Simply having 2538 x 1080 would allow affordable and vastly improved CIH projection.

As we know, Sony has dual lamp 4K resolution projectors out, but they cost as much as a small house or such and still have issues.... In this case of 2538 x 1080, we are only asking for a few more horizontal pixels which would be of tremendous benefit and remove the need for anamorphic lens: a significant brightness and quality increase for 2.35 movies! Not just brightness further increased, but elimination of all of the artifacts, loss of contrast, and degradation from anamorphic lenses. 2538 x 1080 is not much to ask from SXRD/LCD/D-ILA, (non DLP).

(Hell my Dell monitor is 2560 x 1600)

Thanks for the details. I'm still fuzzy though on what tangle benefits to the PQ this provides. For instance I think you are saying its still 1080p and the resolution hasn't changed. But since the 1920 number has changed to 2538 then why hasn't the res changed? If extra pixels are being added to source material to "fill in" for the extra pixels to get to 2538 wouldn't that run the risk of softening the picture. Based on all accounts here it sounds like a great feature - just not really understanding why. If someone can elaborate that would be great.

well, both methods still requires vertical stetch since there is no native 2.35 Blu Ray/HD-DVD material (essentially removing the black bars without picture information, and then vertically scaling and strectching the image to fill the 1.78 panel.

The anamorphic lens then optically stretches the image to the same degree in the horizontal plane. Horizontal resolution is much less noticeable so I doubt anyone could see the tiny bit of interpolation used to expand the image from 1920 to 2538. Hell we don't see that now when doing the vertical strecth from about 800 lines of picture info to the 1080 lines in a CIH theater. I don't think image softening would be a factor or noticeable, but the improvement from not having to use an anamorphic lens + additional brightness would be a signifcant improvement. You have to think about all of the negatives that you are eliminating from the use of an anamorphic lens.

Esssentially you get added vastly improved 2.35 image quality while having no negatives to other aspect ratios. For 2.35 you get more lumens, better contrast (no anamorphic lens), and all the other improvements related to the negative aspects of using anamorphic lenses... Then you also save on the cost and pain in the ass factor of adding anamorphic lenses... To me, this would be an absolutely huge improvement. Hopefully someone else can chime in...

Depending on how many lumens the Diamond is capable of, I'm going to be considering going from a Studiotek to a matte screen material. I know Art is thinking of going to Matte someday. Art, are you using Studiotek material now? Anyone else have opinions of going from Studiotek to matte in the future as projector lumens increase?

Sony has shipped within 3 months of CEDIA for their last two pjS!

IIRC the Ruby was shown at CEDIA '05 and first shipments were end November '05.

The Pearl was shown at CEDIA '06 with first shipments in the same time frame.

True but RS1 March,Qualia April, HT 5000 April.

Art

So is there real information on what the diamond is ?

Health Nut I'm considering a Studiotech microperf as of now but I want a lot of light and that's asking a lot with a 14' wide screen.

Joel Silver now says one should have 20fL as a starting value.

Art

I think Helth Nut speculates more on 2538x1080 than what I do about lasers or is it a draw? :)
For those that are totally into 2.35 I think if it is possible a built in stretching lens for 2.35 is the cheapest -> smartest. So much content is not 2.35 (HDTV anybody?) and CIH is not for everybody.

My take
1 1920x1080 with built in stretching lens for those that are most interested in 2.35. They can buy an extra optional lens if that is as easy to mount as a lens to a camera.
2 1920x1080 for the rest of us that watch alot of 16:9 content and naturally some 2.35. This category can live with loosing some resolition and use a good masking system.

GLV should be your dream Health Nut. It is CIH by nature. With 1080p you can select any aspect ratio 4:3 to 2.35:1.

As far as ANSI CR between the Ruby and the RS1, it looks like Greg's measurements would give the advantage to the RS1. I measured an HD1 (the other model of basically the RS1) and got lower than Greg got for that RS1 and I believe lower than I got for a Ruby in the past. Could just be this particular HD1.


You're not alone, others have measured similar results. Gregr also measured 19,000:1 on/off at longest throw which is much higher than the previous top measurement which was Cine4home's 15,000:1. I don't doubt the measurements but I think gregr got an excellent unit as far as contrast goes and probably not by chance :)

I think about LED and Laser all the time, but I know that everytime Laser is mentioned your name pops up! Yes, LED and Laser will not come soon enough. Right now they could so easily add a few horizontal pixels right now to make a huge change. I have to look more into GLV,

What is the drawback about having some extra horizontal pixels that only come into play for 2.35 material? Maybe you haven't noticed but the majority of Blu Rays and HD-DVD's are 2.35 (2.4 same thing). You don't use the pixels unless the image is greater than 1.78 aspect ratio. What is the harm?

Built in lens that goes over the other lens? Still has same problem. Help with pain in the ass factor but you still lose 30% contrast, and have same problems everytime you add another air/lens interface... Simply having a few more horizontal pixels on the panels is a huge postive for 2.35, nothing negative for other aspect ratios.

You're not alone, others have measured similar results. Gregr also measured 19,000:1 on/off at longest throw which is much higher than the previous top measurement which was Cine4home's 15,000:1. I don't doubt the measurements but I think gregr got an excellent unit as far as contrast goes and probably not by chance

What are the tradeoffs between short and long throw? I know that I'm using almost the shortest throw possible with the Ruby (screen width to throw ratio 1.45) in conjunction with the ISCO 3 and haven't noticed any significant light loss from 0-330 hours... (and only using a 1.3 gain studiotek for 10' wide image). Do any of you go out of your way to use a short or long throw on purpose and why?

The shortest throw on the RS1 gives the best lumen output while the longest throw gives the best on/off contrast. The difference is typically about 20% or thereabouts. My RS-1 is mounted at the longest throw possible but not for contrast reasons, I have a soffit at the back wall.

Makes sense as we see this relationship in radiology with distance and scatter X-RAY's. Any other considerations besides trading foot lamberts for contrast when considering throw distance?

Also I noticed this in another thread of yours Something very curious is happening between the VW50 Iris 1 and Iris Off modes. This is preliminary data, but it indicates that Iris 1 has better black level and better contrast in the dark scenes but the situation is reversed higher up the scale where Iris Off has significantly higher intra-scene contrast in the brighter scenes!

Your contrast project 2.0 was a good read...

What are the tradeoffs between short and long throw? I know that I'm using almost the shortest throw possible with the Ruby (screen width to throw ratio 1.45) in conjunction with the ISCO 3 and haven't noticed any significant light loss from 0-330 hours... (and only using a 1.3 gain studiotek for 10' wide image). Do any of you go out of your way to use a short or long throw on purpose and why?

There's a post in one of the threads in which someone claims the Ruby is 60 percent brighter at shortest throw.

As far as contrast, the initial review of the RS1 by Jason experimented with moving the RS1 from shortest throw to longest throw and Jason measured the difference in contrast and lumens.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9903836&&#post9903836

Also I noticed this in another thread of yours
Your contrast project 2.0 was a good read...

The contrast thread is going to go through a major update soon as I have some dynamic contrast data to share. Fwiw though the last update to the contrast thread showed that iris 1 was superior as far as contrast throughout the range. The first test patterns (v1.0) used only one reference white pattern for the full range and this introduced some error with DI projectors so the test patterns were changed in v2.0 so that a reference white reading is taken along with a black reading for each point on the brightness curve.

I'm moving in October/November, so whaetver place I get, I'll be trying to emphasize longer throw distance. By then we will know what the Diamond is capable of... I'll probably keep the same screen and just use the longest throw distance possible. I doubt the Diamond will have enough output to allow me to use the longest throw distance and switch to a 1.0 gain screen. So when people talk about not having enough light output, I'd disagree in the sense I can trade light output for a 1.0 screen material and a longer throw distance (if the room supports it) assuming the projector contrast is already maxed (low output/high contrast mode on RS1 and auto Iris on 'Diamond'). The only problem is that Jason measured only 384 lumens from and RS1 with a new bulb at max throw in high contrast mode. That is not a lot to work with.

Would anyone entertain going to a matte 1.0 screen as projectors continue to increase their output?

2) Performance over using anamorphic lens is much improved: increased brightness from using the extra pixels to display the extra width instead of optically horizontally expanding the 1.78 image with a lens.


Assuming the same overall lumen rating, how whould this be so? Unless you are referring to light loss thru the lens glass.

Because the 2.35 image would be formed from the extra horizontal pixels: 2538 x 1080 instead of the 1920 x 1080 portion. You'd have a further increase in lumens, so you wouldn't assume the same overall lumen rating. But at the same time, its not like you'd take a hit using the 1920 x 1080 portion relative to a similar 1920 x 1080 projector. If you could have 2 versions of the same projector, one with the additional horizontal pixels and another with the standard horizontal pixels, they should perform identical in the 1920 x 1080 aspect, but the 2538 x 1080 panel projector would have some (mild) additional brightness when doing 2.35 material as well as elimiate the need for an anamorphic lens (which would be big in terms of cost savings, contrast loss, light loss, artifacts induced, etc...)

Because the 2.35 image would be formed from the extra horizontal pixels: 2538 x 1080 instead of the 1920 x 1080 portion. You'd have a further increase in lumens, so you wouldn't assume the same overall lumen rating. But at the same time, its not like you'd take a hit using the 1920 x 1080 portion relative to a similar 1920 x 1080 projector. If you could have 2 versions of the same projector, one with the additional horizontal pixels and another with the standard horizontal pixels, they should perform identical in the 1920 x 1080 aspect, but the 2538 x 1080 panel projector would have some (mild) additional brightness when doing 2.35 material as well as elimiate the need for an anamorphic lens (which would be big in terms of cost savings, contrast loss, light loss, artifacts induced, etc...)

So are you suggesting that a 2.35:1 projector rated at 1000 lumens would be brighter than a 1.78:1 1000 lumen projector using an anamorphic lens?

Same projector, one with 1920 x 1080 panels vs. one with 2538 x 1080 panels. (Certainly much more cost effective than 4K projectors which can do this and are already on the market).

HealthNut, you mention that the 4k projectors already "do this". Is that because they already have a higher resolution, or do they basically have 3 different picture "modes", each with different resolutions, in order to natively support 2.35, 16x9, 4x3?

In other words, what I'm asking is, are these 4k projectors able to do it because of something inherent in 4k projector technology or pixels, or is it because they basically have the wider panels (wider than say the RS1 or Ruby) that support 2.35 natively?

What you're suggesting sounds like a good idea, but I haven't heard any of the very technical people, like company reps, refute or agree with you that this is possible, which makes me wonder if it is a technological possibility, or if there's something that would make this impossible or economically not feasible.

The reason I suggest that there may be something more to this technology preventing it's practical application, is not because I don't believe you, but because it sounds so damn logical, I can't understand why it hasn't already been done :). I just got my RS1 a couple of weeks ago but can't get the WAF on more purchases at the moment for a new screen or 2.35 lenses so I'm "stuck" (not that it's that bad) at 16x9 right now. If there were a projector in the future that could do both 2.35 and 16x9 inherently, I think I would be looking at trading in my RS1 at some point, assuming the rest of the PQ was up to snuff (I LOVE my RS1), simply for the lack of hassle with other lenses, external processors, etc......

I have to read up on GLV, perhaps others can chime in. In any case, 4K projectors just have lots more pixels/resolution so you just form the image within the higher resolution panel, that's all. You essentially just carve out a 2.35 aspect image on those 4096 x 2160 panels which are a 1.85:1 aspect (makes sense since it is a commercial digital cinema projector)

MSRP (USD) : $ 98,550, (Lumens) : 10000 ANSI, Contrast (Full On/Off) : 2000:1
1.6" SXRD (3) Native: 4096x2160 Pixels, Maximum: 4096x2160 Pixels, Aspect Ratio: 1.85:1 (Quad HD) Lamp: Type: 2000W Xenon

There are so many pixels on those panels, you could use 4096 x 1743 for a 2.35 image.

My point, and others here who mentioned it way before I did is that there is plenty of room for a 2538 x 1080 SXRD projector which has the benefits we mentioned above. Very cost effective and superior to an anamorphic lens. Not sure why but seems like the vast majority of Blu Ray and HD-DVD movies are 2.35 (2.4 same thing). After having used both methods, I cannot go without CIH projection. When I look at my older theater setup I installed at my dad's house with a 1.85, 100 inch screen and look at 2.35 material it is just so much less 'uninvolving'. With the current setup using a 2.35 sreen, the other aspect ratios are slightly larger and overall better (better projector moved from Dwin CRT to Ruby), the 2.35 movies have taken a whole new life. It is the first time I actually felt as though I had a real theater. I could never go back. Its not even close, not debatable.

In any case, it would be child's play for them to make a diamond version that had 2538 x 1080 panels. My only guess is that they would have to have enough people show demand or desire for this product, that's all. I hope people do indeed ask for this. If they don't, it will just slow me down a little bit... I'd just go ahead with a 4K projector in a few years. However, I think a 2538 x 1080 projector makes a lot of sense for home theater and I certainly hope people ask for this.

Would anyone entertain going to a matte 1.0 screen as projectors continue to increase their output?That is really more about the room. If you have a lot of reflections off the walls, a Matte White screen will do a pretty poor job of reducing the effect of those (maintaining good ANSI CR). For a black room a Matte White could definitely be a reasonable choice.

--Darin

Darin are you using studiotek? I forget... (I think I'm going to try and use max throw distance next time with the added light output the Diamond will likely bring, and keep everything else the same (studiotek))

I was just trying to figure out the perfect bat cave/black hole test chamber room (with people wearing black velvet jump suits) what you would use:

Longest throw
1.0 matte?
etc...

(of course this all depends on screen size, ft lambert goals, etc..., but I would just pick a screen size based on the goals desired)

Same projector, one with 1920 x 1080 panels vs. one with 2538 x 1080 panels. (Certainly much more cost effective than 4K projectors which can do this and are already on the market).

I assume this was in response to my post above yours. I'm having a hard time understanding if you are confirming the question I asked you.

A native 2.35:1 panel projector will NOT be any brighter than a native 1.78:1 pj + lens combo* projector rated at equivalent lumens.

* With the exception of light loss thru the lens, but your original post on this referenced "black bars" in regard to this.

Darin are you using studiotek? I forget...I use a High Power most of the time. I have a StudioTek 130 and was using it for a little while when I got to try a JVC HD1 the other day, but it is 8' wide and 10 minutes into a movie I was feeling that the screen was too small, so switched to my 10' wide High Power. :)

I have my projector low overhead, which is one reason I use the High Power. With ceiling mount the StudioTek 130 can be a good choice.

I'm not sure if Stewart has Matte White as an option. They have a 1.0 gain screen, but I've heard that it still has a coating on it. If somebody wasn't bothered by the coatings, I might still recommend a StudioTek 130 over a Matte White, but I haven't done a lot of testing of that in my dark room.

--Darin

A native 2.35:1 panel projector will NOT be any brighter than a native 1.78:1 pj + lens combo* projector rated at equivalent lumens.

* With the exception of light loss thru the lens, but your original post on this referenced "black bars" in regard to this.

About the black bars, I think I was acknowledging that Blu Ray and HD-DVD movies still require vertical stretch for 2.35 movies, so that would be the same. I would think that additional added brightness would come from 2538 x 1080 panels vs 1920 x 1080 panels on 2,35 mvoies becasue you would then be using the additional horizontal pixels (which have lumens :) ) to create the 2.35 image.... vs. using an ISCO 3 or other anamorphic lens which takes the 1920 x 1080 image (less horizontal pixels) and optically expands the image. My point was that this does not come at the cost of poorer performance for non 2.35 material. You should have the same lumen output as if the projector were designed to be 1920 x 1080 projector for 1.78/85 material.

This is the same (yet different) than projecting 1.33 material on 1.78 panels on current projectors. The difference is that you must compare two projectors with the same design elsewhere. You are projecting 1.78 material on 2.35 panels, but to compare apples to apples: If Sony came out with 2 Diamonds: one with 2.35 panels and one with 1.78 panels, I would suspect that both projectors, if everything else was the same, would have the same lumen output for 1.78 material. But for 2.35 material, the 2.35 panels would add additional lumens compared to a 1.78 panel projector, and it would eliminate the cost and need of an anamorphic lens and all the artifacts and loss of contrast that go with an anamorphic lens... Yes, I would expect that they would charge more for a 2538 x 1080 projector, but the overall improvement and lack of need for anamorphic lens would be more than offset...

The more non-square (i.e. wider) the display panel gets, the harder it is to uniformly illuminate it from a pseudo-point source without losing light.

About the black bars, I think I was acknowledging that Blu Ray and HD-DVD movies still require vertical stretch for 2.35 movies, so that would be the same. I would think that additional added brightness would come from 2538 x 1080 panels vs 1920 x 1080 panels on 2,35 mvoies becasue you would then be using the additional horizontal pixels (which have lumens :) ) to create the 2.35 image.... vs. using an ISCO 3 or other anamorphic lens which takes the 1920 x 1080 image (less horizontal pixels) and optically expands the image. My point was that this does not come at the cost of poorer performance for non 2.35 material. You should have the same lumen output as if the projector were designed to be 1920 x 1080 projector for 1.78/85 material.

This is the same (yet different) than projecting 1.33 material on 1.78 panels on current projectors. The difference is that you must compare two projectors with the same design elsewhere. You are projecting 1.78 material on 2.35 panels, but to compare apples to apples: If Sony came out with 2 Diamonds: one with 2.35 panels and one with 1.78 panels, I would suspect that both projectors, if everything else was the same, would have the same lumen output for 1.78 material. But for 2.35 material, the 2.35 panels would add additional lumens compared to a 1.78 panel projector, and it would eliminate the cost and need of an anamorphic lens and all the artifacts and loss of contrast that go with an anamorphic lens... Yes, I would expect that they would charge more for a 2538 x 1080 projector, but the overall improvement and lack of need for anamorphic lens would be more than offset...

But understand, if you are illuminating a larger panel surface area (i.e. your "more pixels") with the same # of lumens as a smaller surface area, you net a lesser number of lumens per square unit of area.

So whether you illuminate a larger panel with 1000 lumens and display it naively, or you illuminate a smaller pnale with 1000 lumens and then stretch it, the same number of lumens end up on your screen.

The more non-square (i.e. wider) the display panel gets, the harder it is to uniformly illuminate it from a pseudo-point source without losing light.

Good point. In this case I assume that the PJ manufacturer has taken that in to account when rating the projector at a given lumen value (I know... manufavturer honesty... fat chance ) :D

With the Diamond coming out, it's a Ruby replacement. Does that mean CEDIA 2008 until the Pearl replacement?

It certainly seems like they only work on one consumer projector at a time :( This is why I was hoping there would be three projectors released at the same time: a 2538 x 1080 projector, top optics, etc, $16K... A Ruby replacement $8K, and a Pearl Replacement $4K or something along those lines.

But understand, if you are illuminating a larger panel surface area (i.e. your "more pixels") with the same # of lumens as a smaller surface area, you net a lesser number of lumens per square unit of area.

I don't see how this 100% has to be the case. You could just have more areas where the light can go through... You are just utilizing more of the light. Now uniformity might be an issue, but apparently it isn't with a 4K projector, so it doesn't have to be here either. But the 4K projectors use two bulbs. Anyway, the advantage of elimitating the cost of the anamorphic lens, the contrast loss of using the lens, the lumen loss, the artifacts/distortions, and dealing with moving the lens in and out of place is all eliminated. Some people pay $5,000 just for the housing to move the ISCO 3 in and out of place ($10,000 total). Either way, I would think that a 2538 x 1080 projector would be a feature that everybody would want or at least have the option to buy in the near future. After seeing the huge difference from my previous screen to the 2.35 screen, I could not go back to a non 2.35 screen. Was there a reason you would not like to see such a projector available? I think that if such a projector was available, it would certainly make it easier to go to a 2.35 screen. I'm not saying the projector has to cost $16,000 either, I just threw that up there since it would (vastly) outperform $10,000 anamorphic lens solutions. It would cost more, but it would be worth it... Maybe only $2,000-$4,000 more than the standard Diamond. To me, I would pay $8,000 more ($16K) and I already own an ISCO 3.

Perhaps they could also release a model between the 4K projectors and the Diamond. I do wish they released more models and released them closer together so that everyone could buy the best projector that is right for them. We always have JVC, Red, and other projector companies as well... Maybe JVC will have the upgraded RS1 ready for CEDIA 2007...

Am I going to get an answer . Tons of stuff about the Diamond... does anyone know what it is ? Anything about it at all ? Otherwise, this thread is just a front projection wish list.

Art

Because the 2.35 image would be formed from the extra horizontal pixels: 2538 x 1080 instead of the 1920 x 1080 portion. You'd have a further increase in lumens, so you wouldn't assume the same overall lumen rating. But at the same time, its not like you'd take a hit using the 1920 x 1080 portion relative to a similar 1920 x 1080 projector. If you could have 2 versions of the same projector, one with the additional horizontal pixels and another with the standard horizontal pixels, they should perform identical in the 1920 x 1080 aspect, but the 2538 x 1080 panel projector would have some (mild) additional brightness when doing 2.35 material as well as elimiate the need for an anamorphic lens (which would be big in terms of cost savings, contrast loss, light loss, artifacts induced, etc...)


I like the idea of 2538 by 1080 but you still get a compromise in the lumen output because if you fully illuminate the chip for 2:35 you throw away light when you are at 1.78. An internal anamorphic zoom placed at the stop position would be the ideal solution.

"Willingness to Pay" is a very interesting subject in contingency valuation. Are you talking "stated preference" or "revealed preference"?

There's plenty of people that say they would be willing to buy a extra good chocolate bar for $9. The reality is most will only actually pay $1.50.

Based on the demand curve for this industry you can make a lot more money at the low end than producing a few projectors at the high end. Also good luck on the marginal improvements. There's gonna have to be some serious design change criteria to really outdo what is currently available.

my prediction is prices are going down. But you are welcome to hope they go up :)

The easiest increase in performance for the Pearl will come when they replace their current polarizers with the new wiregrid polarizers used by JVC which is how JVC achieves their contrast advantage. In addition. providing a higher quality lens would improve sharpness and supplying vertical stretch and calibrations functions will make them more competitive and I assume the next projectors will be 1.3 compliant. I would also like to see 4 HDMI inputs and a manual controlled iris for light control. An internal anamoprhic lens placed at the stop position would be nice.

Except for the last improvement none of these changes should significantly increase the price of th eprojector.

Am I going to get an answer . Tons of stuff about the Diamond... does anyone know what it is ? Anything about it at all ? Otherwise, this thread is just a front projection wish list.
Art

Art-
This is the best comment/question that I have read. Yea, what part of this issue is fact, and what is pure fiction and "wish-list?" :rolleyes:

The easiest increase in performance for the Pearl will come when they replace their current polarizers with the new wiregrid polarizers used by JVC which is how JVC achieves their contrast advantage. In addition. providing a higher quality lens would improve sharpness and supplying vertical stretch and calibrations functions will make them more competitive and I assume the next projectors will be 1.3 compliant. I would also like to see 4 HDMI inputs and a manual controlled iris for light control. An internal anamoprhic lens placed at the stop position would be nice.

Except for the last improvement none of these changes should significantly increase the price of th eprojector.

I agree. Like I said, I would think we could see a Pearl replacement that surpasses the Pearl's performance for a lower price (retail $4k, but really under $3k).

Art, the only thing we have heard is still at post number one of this thread which to me isn't very exciting, probably a minor, but perhaps significant overall improvement over the RS-1.

It's going to use Xenon instead of UHP (Pearl) but brighter and slightly cheaper than the Ruby. Besides that it won't have substantial differences and/or improvements in comparison to Ruby. Sony is currently working on it.

- 1920x1080p 0,61-inch x3.
- Xenon.
- 8-9K MSRP.

http://www.dia-maier.de/AV-News/index.html

and this, which is the same:

http://www.hometheaterblog.com/hometheater/2006/09/sonys_next_gemp.html

Haven't had any new info in a while. The only thing not mentioned would be the move to new improved panels over the Ruby, similar to the JVC model, which is also to be expected. So I guess what I am expecting from the diamond would be something around 1000 lumens, 20:000:1 native (without DI utilized, more with DI on auto Iris), and better color from Xenon and better color control. Somebody mentioned better optics, that would be nice also...

I agree. Like I said, I would think we could see a Pearl replacement that surpasses the Pearl's performance for a lower price (retail $4k, but really under $3k).

This is clearly why Sony needs to step up and produce more models simulataneously. Considering the ISCO 3 is $5,000 itself (a bit overpriced for sure, but still shows what a good quality lens cost to some degree), they need to release more projectors. I'm all for dropping projector prices, but I think there is clearly a market for $4,000, $8,000, and $16,000 projectors. I think that you could design a $16,000 projector that would be significantly improved vs an $8,000 model if engineers were given less cost restriction/bigger budget.

How about a 4K resolution camcorder for $17K:

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/gadgets/eyes+on-the-red-camera-real-and-beautiful-but-4k-launch-support-in-question-252798.php

I began to read this thread the other day with the thought of posting on how, by saying something enough times, it becomes a "fact."

As much as I'd like to think that Sony will respond in a manner that perhaps only Sony can, I'd hasten to remind everyone of some recent history.

Qualia was released, and, after nothing but gushing praise for it universally, there was a management change at Sony. Qualia, despite the high praise and state-of-the-art leadership, was quickly killed.

In its place came the Ruby, which, despite its own virtues, was much more of a "value" based item. And, in an even bolder move toward value, we saw the Pearl, which has become the functional top-of-the-line for Sony projector home theater applications (yes, the Ruby is better, but is there anyone who doesn't expect the Ruby to be discontinued, in light of the Pearl?)

Sony's top of the line projector for home theater can be purchased new for a little over $3,000 (Ruby caveats already stated). Say that a few times in a row.

If Sony decides to come out with an improvement, we can merely read this thread for the areas in which that improvement will arrive, but we should note that, while it might be a technological improvement over the Pearl (or even the Ruby . . . or, dare I say, the Qualia?), it will be a major about-face for Sony in the manner it has chosen to market.

In light of the shift in market-focus that occurred when the Qualia line was killed, it would be out of character for Sony to respond with what I think most of the people gravitating to this thread (myself included) want. Sony is selling value, not statement pieces, and I fear that CEDIA will bring Sony lovers like myself a good degree of disappointment. I hope I'm wrong.

Nick :cool:

If Sony can produce a better projector for less money, then what is the problem? I personally considered a used qualia against the ruby and pearl and ended up with the Pearl, which will likely be replaced with something better in the fall (prices were roughly equivalent, but eventual lamp and bulb replacement were obviously not).

Yes, its true that Sony could have focused on making a "super projector" in the Qualia's price range instead of lower priced projectors that are substantialy equivalent to the qualia's overall performance, but that's obviously not where they are going.

If they do go back to the Qualia's pricepoint with the Diamond, I think it would have to be one with 4k resolution.

If Sony can produce a better projector for less money, then what is the problem?

Whether it's a problem depends on your priorities. If value is the ultimate goal, then the only problem is the sacrifice to quality (lens quality, light output, for example) that comes at the cost of "value." If quality is the ultimate goal . . . well, it's the same problem. There's only so much that can be done with a product based on "value," as opposed to one that has a premium on performance.

That doesn't mean that the value-based projector can't be a very good performer. It does mean that there are inherent cost limitations that will always preclude a value-based projector from being among the best that are offered, and that happens to be the level to which many on this forum aspire. Costs, benefits . . . it's a dizzying proposition.


I personally considered a used qualia against the ruby and pearl and ended up with the Pearl, which will likely be replaced with something better in the fall (prices were roughly equivalent, but eventual lamp and bulb replacement were obviously not).

Yes, its true that Sony could have focused on making a "super projector" in the Qualia's price range instead of lower priced projectors that are substantialy equivalent to the qualia's overall performance, but that's obviously not where they are going.

If they do go back to the Qualia's pricepoint with the Diamond, I think it would have to be one with 4k resolution.

I owned a Qualia for two and a half years, and sold it off recently; my first interim projector was the Pearl. The Pearl is a comparatively great value--much better value than the Qualia--but it isn't in the same league as the Qualia, not from a performance standpoint. My current projector (Sharp XV-Z20000) is superior to the Pearl, but is still a notch below the Qualia.

The point of many posts on this thread is not that Sony has to make a projector in the Qualia's price range, but many (myself included) would like to see Sony step up with a projector that embraces some of the value components of the Ruby and the Pearl, but spares no expense where, frankly, expenses can't be spared, not from a performance standpoint (again, lens, light source, and possibly scaling/deinterlacing).

Given the things I'm talking about, Sony should be able to market a killer projector in the $15,000 price range. I'd gladly step up at those dollars, and, in light of the advancements since the release of the Qualia, I'd expect superior-to-Qualia performance. I'm betting that's really the expectation of most that are enthusiastic on the alleged--and I do mean alleged--Sony "Diamond."

Nick :cool:

Given the things I'm talking about, Sony should be able to market a killer projector in the $15,000 price range. I'd gladly step up at those dollars, and, in light of the advancements since the release of the Qualia, I'd expect superior-to-Qualia performance. I'm betting that's really the expectation of most that are enthusiastic on the alleged--and I do mean alleged--Sony "Diamond."

They should come out with a one Karat ($8,000) and two Karat ($15,000) model... We'll grab the 2 Karat version...

I would think that additional added brightness would come from 2538 x 1080 panels vs 1920 x 1080 panels on 2,35 mvoies becasue you would then be using the additional horizontal pixels (which have lumens :) ) to create the 2.35 image.... vs. using an ISCO 3 or other anamorphic lens which takes the 1920 x 1080 image (less horizontal pixels) and optically expands the image.

Brightness = lumens/screen_area

Doesn't matter if you take your 1000 lumen lamp and bounce it off 200 pixels or 2 million first. It doesn't matter if you bounce it off a .6" chip or a .9" chip. It doesn't matter if you expand it with a lens or instead simply display the native aspect ratio of the chip.

1000 lumens on a 96" screen will be the same whether you horizontally stretch a 16x9 image with a lens, or display a 2.35 native panel.

(All of the above ignore lens light loss, but refute the claim that a the panel itself somehow contributes to a brighter image for a given lumen rating)

My understanding is that projectors waste a lot of that light. It's not like if a bulb generates 1000 lumens max and you get 1000 lumens. Let me put it another way. People in the CIH section claim additional lumen output when you vertically stretch the 2.35 image from about 800 lines to the full 1080 lines. How is this different if you horizontally streth an image on a native 2.35 SXRD panel? Projectors do not transfer all of their light capability anyway due to the iris and other factors in the light engine. Sorry, but if you only Illuminate one pixel, how are you getting 1000 lumens (X amount of ft lamberts) on your screen?

In any case, The one Sony 4K projector uses two bulbs, the newer Sony 4K projector uses one larger bulb. Somebody mentioned GLV. Also, the anamorphic lens at the stop position sounds superb.

In any case, the point is that we need projectors that eliminate the need for add-on anamorphic lenses, whether it be 2538 x 1080 panels, 4K panels, GLV, or an anamorphic lens at the stop position as mentioned above by mlang.

My understanding is that projectors waste a lot of that light. It's not like if a bulb generates 1000 lumens max and you get 1000 lumens. Let me put it another way. People in the CIH section claim additional lumen output when you vertically stretch the 2.35 image from about 800 lines to the full 1080 lines. How is this different if you horizontally streth an image on a native 2.35 SXRD panel? Projectors do not transfer all of their light capability anyway due to the iris and other factors in the light engine. Sorry, but if you only Illuminate one pixel, how are you getting 1000 lumens (X amount of ft lamberts) on your screen?


Because you are illuminating the entire panel area with picture information, rather than illuminating part of the panel with black bars.

The lumen rating is what's coming out of the lens after all the light engine losses are accounted for. The lamp may be outputting 5000 lumens, of which only 20% make it to the screen...

They should come out with a one Karat ($8,000) and two Karat ($15,000) model... We'll grab the 2 Karat version...
Psst. Conoisseurs want the D-IF H&A model. Size is secondary. For the filthy rich there is the Natural Vivid Green Model. :D

At some stage LCOS must bump up against a lumen limit due to heat dissipation. LCOS chips have to absorb lamp energy when black is projected. And, with 200 W or so, high efficiency lamps, we are talking about a lot of W/cm^2. DLP on the other hand just reflects the energy to the light trap. Doesn't matter is the image is black or white. So it seems DLP's inherent lumens/chip limit should be a lot higher.

I don't know where this limit is though and if it would be a practical concern moving from, say, 1000 to 2000 lumens.

Brent

The Sony 4K projector is capable of 18,000 Lumens from a single 4kW Xenon bulb... apparently that is not an issue...

Lcos panels DO NOT absorb the light to create the dark state.
Lasers will be a great addition to lcos. Polarized light with only the wavelengths you want and no IR or UV!

If the Ruby had a 400W Xenon bulb, what do you think the Diamond will have? Not only that, what is the likelyhood it would age much more gracefully so that it wouldn't need recalibrated once a week...

Looks like we know what to expect of the Amethyst... All around mild improvements with a lower cost. From what we have heard so far, I'd rather have an RS-1. Well, I guess it is good news for those on a limited budget since the Sony VW-60 will likely be the best bang for the buck in its price category. Not too exciting if you ask me.

Ok, the real excitement, at least to me is left for the Diamond, the VW-200. Since Sony is reading these threads (according to the news that Sony asked for the photos of the VW-60 to be removed), let me please say that we expect and hope for a lot from the Diamond. Since the Diamond seems like the only 'flagship' model left for consumers and you already have the Amethyst, please make the Diamond similar quality to the older Qualia in regards to lens quality and optics.

Diamond Requests: High quality lens and optics similar to Qualia, or at least have the abilty for us to order those as options. Since the Diamond will replace the Ruby and there is no Qualia line we hope for a lot from the Diamond. Please use an 800W Xenon bulb!

Sony, the JVC panels native contrast is amazing. What can you do about improving the native contrast in the SXRD panels? What else can we expect from the VW200 over the VW60? I'll gladly drop $20,000 for it.... Whatever you want! Just make some significant improvements since this is the only top model left since you abandoned the Qualia Line... P.S. Sony, I heard JVC is making a high end model as well ;) so I hope the Diamond has substantial improvements...

(Heck I can make better projectors in my basement with some spare lasers and extra magnetophotonic crystals I have lying around....)

Liquid cooled could mean alot of things, you could couple the lamp to an additional glass element and fill the gap between it with coolant. Pretty much like CRTs worked with a C-element. Or, what I think is more likely, that you simply cool the lamps heat sink with water. This is how water coolers in computers work.

Just to let you know, the SIM HT5000 is claiming liquid cooling. So asking for Liquid cooling is something doable...

Whew... I needed a good laugh.

Perhaps you should look at the Sim HT5000. If liquid cooling means having a quiet projector, I'm all for it....

http://www.htprojectors.com/indexENG.asp

In regard to the recent 2582x1080 discussion, check out the Barco DP-1500: http://www.barco.com/digitalcinema/en/products/product.asp?element=3682 It mentions that there is "No need for expensive anamorphics on new generation 0.98 inch DLP Cinema projectors." It appears to use a high precision motorized zoom lens to achieve the effect of switching in and out an anamorphic lens.

Yea, isn't that basically the poor man's method? To be truthful, the extra anamorphic lens can only degrade the image... I don't mind putting in a little extra leg work before switching from 1.78 to 2.35... especially if it is higher quality. Maybe I should have just gone that route instead of the Isco 3... Maybe the 'poor' man's method is the way to go... and should be called the better method..?

I would think that a precisely controlled zoom lens IS probably the better method. Note that the Barco's 2048x1080 chips conform to the Digital Cinema System Specification. A 2.39 aspect ratio movie would be distributed with a 2048x858 pixel array per section 3.2.1.8. So NO scaling is needed -- just appropriate settings for zoom, focus and lens shift. Perhaps some projectors for the home theater market will take this approach.

Note that the Barco's 2048x1080 chips conform to the Digital Cinema System Specification

I didn't realize anyone made panels like that... (other than the 4K). That is really cool.

Sony Diamond Wishlist:

1) 2600 x 1080 panels

2) Water cooling for quieter operation.

3) Better color control, achieve Rec 709 targets, Easy and excellent CMS

4) HDMI 1.3

5) Use the new Perkin Elmer Xenon lamps: 700-800W range.

6) A zoom lens with a lower F number which would still be well corrected,

7) ANSI contrast of 500:1

8) ANSI lumens: 1500

9) ON/Off Contrast: 40,000:1 (while maintining ANSI LUMENS of 1500 and ANSI contrast of 500:1)

10) Dual DI (one before the DMD and one after)


So NO scaling is needed -- just appropriate settings for zoom, focus and lens shift. Perhaps some projectors for the home theater market will take this approach.

That sounds great

Sony Diamond Wishlist:

1) 2600 x 1080 panels

2) Water cooling for quieter operation.

3) Better color control, achieve Rec 709 targets, Easy and excellent CMS

4) HDMI 1.3

5) Use the new Perkin Elmer Xenon lamps: 700-800W range.

6) A zoom lens with a lower F number which would still be well corrected,

7) ANSI contrast of 500:1

8) ANSI lumens: 1500

9) ON/Off Contrast: 40,000:1 (while maintining ANSI LUMENS of 1500 and ANSI contrast of 500:1)

10) Dual DI (one before the DMD and one after)




That sounds great

Is this in case they missed it the first time?

Oh, and you forgot the dilithium crystals.

Well, at least I know that water cooling a projector isn't a joke ;) I'll take photomagnetic crystals though...

What can I say, Sony gets rid of the Qualia line and doesn't seem like they are concerned for high end consumer projectors anymore... I'm not asking for anything in that list above that isn;t being done by other companies... well, except for Darin's dual DI maybe...

Hope it's smaller than the Ruby.

I wish it has at least the same native panel contrast as the JVC. I think this and brightness are the two things which still makes a difference compared to a projector in a real cinema.

The JVC has good but not great blacks (compared to a CRT). I hope the Diamond has a lot better blacks than the JVC.

Unfortunately, if Sony uses the same panels as the Amethyst, the Diamond is only going to match the JVC with the use of the DI. The new native contrast of the amethyst panels is only 5,000:1, a far cry from the JVC. Since the Amethyst SXRD panels are newly designed (120 Hz), I doubt they have something special for the Diamond, especially if they are only going to charge $8-9K. It is unfortunate since that would mean that the Diamond would only be only mildly better than the Ruby, and many may argue that the RS-1 is better in the fact of the native contrast. Sony will have the marketing numbers, but that will be from the DI...

I only wish Sony would look at the wishlist and charge us more money, whatever it takes. Those concerned about cost already have the Amethyst... there is no other 'high-end' projector in the SXRD/lcos queue for at least another 1-1.5 years, I think... From all of the indications, the Diamond looks like it will be an Amethyst with a slightly increased Xenon bulb (guessing 500-600W), and some 'additional improvements' that will likely be of only mild visual improvement over the Amethyst and Ruby.

My guess is that the RS-1 will hold its own against the Diamond because of the 3:1 greater native contrast over the Amethyst panels, assuming the Diamond is going to use the same panels. Given the Diamonds price point (and early indications/speculations) it is probably going to use the same panels as the Amethyst... I hope I am wrong!!! I hope they do a lot of the things on the wishlist ;) Yea, I know, good luck with that....

I hope this isn't another case of Ruby and Pearl owners looking at the new Diamond projector and saying, yea, its better for sure, but I already have a projector and its not improved enough to warrant me getting the new one. Great for those in need of a new projector, but not projector replacement worthy.... I think it going to be a mixed bag, some still preferring the RS-1 native contrast over the Diamond. Speculating of course... we'll know something soon.

I think you are right on the native contrast of the panel in the Diamond

Health Nut
I am optimistic.
The 120Hz update to the old 0.61 panel is a minor one as I see it. Nice for a lower cost follow on to the pearl.

If a Diamond is to sell at 3x the price of the VW60 the former needs new panels. It makes sense to introduce new panels in a low volume product. That way it is easier to meet the demand. Think about the back orders of RS1s.

I think Diamond will get new panels but I think they will be a little short of the JVC panels. A good guess could be around 10000:1 native which could perform well on its own and perhaps better with a good DI.

That's why I'm going to start taking the DLP projectors more seriously at this point. Although I have yet to see one worthy of the price difference as well. I don't mind paying twice as much for a 25% overall improvement, but all of those expensive DLP projectors seem to have one or more major weaknesses that negate the additional cost. (and I'm not dropping $120K on any projector, just for the principle of it) No projector is perfect for sure, but you have to be able to justify the cost. I'd drop $50,000 on a projector, but I don't think anything in that price range justfies the cost for me... I can live with a 10' wide scope screen for the time being. Well see what the 1080p Titan looks like, thats next on the eval list.

I'm not going to give up the Ruby for an RS-1, there just isn't enough reason to do so. I doubt the Diamond would make me want to jump ship as well. There just isn't enough overall difference between any of these projectors for people to jump to another in my opinion... for those new people who don't have projectors, or have outdated projectors, sure it matters more. If buying today, no question I'd get an RS-1.

I think the Diamond, Amethyst, and the RS-1 are each going to have their advantages. The Amethyst will be the leader in price/performance, the RS-1 the remaining leader of native contrast and no brightness compression, and the Diamond the best colors and lumen output...

If a Diamond is to sell at 3x the price of the VW60 the former needs new panels.

But the expected price according to the articles is $8-9K, my guess: $8,999.00... Amethyst likely $3,999.00 so that is not much more than 2X cost (not 3X). I hope I am wrong!!! I hope you are right!!! I'd love to have a reason to give Sony more money!!! Do some things on that wish list and charge more money!!!

I think Diamond will get new panels but I think they will be a little short of the JVC panels. A good guess could be around 10000:1 native which could perform well on its own and perhaps better with a good DI

Let's hope for improved panels over the Amethyst. But Sony will not be able to hide with fake marketing numbers!! We will measure the native contrast of those panels with the DI off!!! :)

I'm afraid that the manufacturers simply aren't looking at low volume high cost devices in the business model. They want to sell a lot of projectors.

Art

Let's hope for improved panels over the Amethyst. But Sony will not be able to hide with fake marketing numbers!! We will measure the native contrast of those panels with the DI off!!! :)And yet, everyone will watch with the DI on. :rolleyes:

The point is that the RS-1 native contrast without DI, is the reason it looks so good. Would an RS-1 benefit from the latest Sony DI? I'm not sure... In a positive way, the DI in the Sony is adjustable and configureable in every which way, which to me only makes the DI an advantage. the flexibility of the auto-iris is what makes it great I think...

However, the RS-1 being able to achieve the contrast it does without a DI is key. That is going to be its strength. All things being equal, sure, I'd like a Sony DI. But they aren't. I'd have a preference for 15,000:1 native over 5,000:1 native achieving 15,000 (or even 20,000:1) with DI. Sorry, it is the native contrast of the JVC that makes it such a winner. You can't cheat on the advantage of native contrast.

The reason for my statement about measuring with the DI off was only to know that the true native contrast will be measured, nothing more nothing less. ... remember, the auto Iris on can cause brightness compression It is not a free ride.

My ideal hybrid projector would be the JVC panels, 800W xenon bulb, and the latest Sony DI improvements (and the improvements on the wish list one the previous page, all of which are being done in projectors today).

Lasers can not come soon enough

news?

The name "Diamond" from sony is a planned subliminal thing. Always looking for ways around the WF when we want to buy something new for the HT system. Mention the name "Diamond" and "buy it" quickly rolls off her tongue :)

The name "Diamond" from sony is a planned subliminal thing. Always looking for ways around the WF when we want to buy something new for the HT system. Mention the name "Diamond" and "buy it" quickly rolls off her tongue :)

That is sheer marketing genius!

Any more word on new projectors? I've been gone for a month... You never know :) Getting anxious to replace the Ruby (give to father soon)...

I am beginning to feel (that's right feel) it won't be introduced at Cedia. The VPL-VW60 will. You can bank on it. The VPL-VW50 has been discontinued and prices substantially lowered on existing stock. The VPL-VW100 which the VPL-VW200 would replace has not been discontinued. If Sony were going to show the 200 at Cedia it would have been discontinued by now. Just a feeling. Anything could happen but nobody here really knows anything. Check back in 5 weeks.

I am beginning to feel (that's right feel) it won't be introduced at Cedia. The VPL-VW60 will. You can bank on it. The VPL-VW50 has been discontinued and prices substantially lowered on existing stock. The VPL-VW100 which the VPL-VW200 would replace has not been discontinued. If Sony were going to show the 200 at Cedia it would have been discontinued by now. Just a feeling. Anything could happen but nobody here really knows anything. Check back in 5 weeks.

I don't disagree with any of your logic - but I
was told by SONY at CES - that the ONLY show
they would announce a NEW PJ at is CEDIA.

Therefore - I doubt they would wait until CEDIA
2008 for a VW200 announcement. That is giving
away much too much market opportunity to the
Competition.