Fact is: Auto Iris/gamma correction works (best) with low contrast frames (frames where all parts are of similar brightness).
.
Not true. Auto iris works best in scenes with very low luminance, ie APL below 20%. In those scenes the iris can get the right dark/black levels while adjusting the video to get instantaneous CR up to its native CR.

Any high contrast scene (like your ANSI checkerboard example) will render it almost useless - in these scenes a 2000 on/off contrast DLP will look much "better"/not so flat (due to double the ANSI contrast) than a 15000 On/Off contrast auto iris charged SXRD.
Is this statement from detailed observation or theory? I have done comparisons with my Ruby and a Yamaha 1300. I can tell you that there is a clear difference in dark scene CR between the 4,500:1 DLP and 16,000:1 Ruby, in the darkest scenes from U571, Dark City, AVP, LOTR mines of Moria, ...

If you are not doing comparisons of those dark scenes, then there is not a whole tot of difference between the two as far as CR is concerned. :)

Greg: Are you talking about differences between the Ruby and the Pearl or the Optoma and the Marantz?

There are MANY differences between these products. I'll have a lot to say about this sometime next week.
I believe QueueClimber was talking about differences between the Marantz 11S1 vs the Optoma HD81. I know that you were impressed with the 11S1! Is your statement based on you finally get an HD81 for review? :) :)

Greg: Are you talking about differences between the Ruby and the Pearl or the Optoma and the Marantz?I was referring to the post that questioned if there were differences between the Marantz and the Pearl. I haven't seen the Optoma.

Edit: Whoops he may have been referring to differences between Marantz and the Optoma, but then he said he ordered the Pearl.

It will be very interesting to see how the Pearl compares to the Marantz. Please let us know when you've posted your review of the Pearl -- I assume on the Widescreen Review site.

It will be very interesting to see how the Pearl compares to the Marantz. Please let us know when you've posted your review of the Pearl -- I assume on the Widescreen Review site.It should be up next week, then I'll hang out here for a day to answer questions and add more information. The review is over 8200 words, but I think there will still be plenty to talk about.

Not true. Auto iris works best in scenes with very low luminance, ie APL below 20%. In those scenes the iris can get the right dark/black levels while adjusting the video to get instantaneous CR up to its native CR.

Is this statement from detailed observation or theory? I have done comparisons with my Ruby and a Yamaha 1300. I can tell you that there is a clear difference in dark scene CR between the 4,500:1 DLP and 16,000:1 Ruby, in the darkest scenes from U571, Dark City, AVP, LOTR mines of Moria, ...

If you are not doing comparisons of those dark scenes, then there is not a whole tot of difference between the two as far as CR is concerned. :)

I agree, dark scenes are what auto irises are made for. BUT as I said you need (dark) scenes with flat contrast - if you have a very dark scene but with some high brightness elements in it the auto iris dilemma starts all over again - lower black levels by closed down iris causes brightness compression and/or reduced brightness of the bright picture elements with high contrast scenes.

if you have a very dark scene but with some high brightness elements in it the auto iris dilemma starts all over again - lower black levels by closed down iris causes brightness compression and/or reduced brightness of the bright picture elements with high contrast scenes.
Again not true! Have you seen this in practice?
A black scene with some high brightness elements is actually the simplest case for the auto iris and causes no problems!

BC occurs when you have a dark background say d1 with a range of bright regions say b1,b2, b3, ...bn, btop. If bn was close to or at btop from d1 before the iria activates, ie d1 = bbottom, after activation and iris adjustment the ranges bn through bn-x may be compressed into btop. The pj basically runs out of range to adjust the brightest elements and compress them all into the top range.

I have been playing with some software simulations of this problem. Very interesting! :)

It should be up next week, then I'll hang out here for a day to answer questions and add more information. The review is over 8200 words, but I think there will still be plenty to talk about.

If there is a lot to talk about, I guess that means the Pearl isn't perfect? ;)

Again not true! Have you seen this in practice?
A black scene with some high brightness elements is actually the simplest case for the auto iris and causes no problems!

Again not true! :p

The problem is that the auto iris will either cause brightness compression and/or reduced brightness for the bright picture elements compared to iris off. That's the price for the better black level - there is no free lunch.

..will either cause brightness compression and/or reduced brightness for the bright picture elements compared to iris off.
Give some specific scenes in a Ruby where you have seen BC compared to iris off? Which elements in the scenes are compressed?

Give some specific scenes where you have seen reduced brightness for bright picture levels? Which elements in the scene had reduced brightness?

Give some specific scenes in a Ruby where you have seen BC compared to iris off? Which elements in the scenes are compressed?

Give some specific scenes where you have seen reduced brightness for bright picture levels? Which elements in the scene had reduced brightness?

HoustonHoyaFan, sorry, I do not intend to come up with a lame excuse but discussing this matter any further is obviously not worth it. Can we just agree to disagree? Would save me alot of breath and typing.

What do you need to know specific scenes for - it is a combination of logic and physics... Auto Iris is a trade off, a compromise just like almost anything else in the real world. There is no free lunch. You will reach the limits of the gamma correction/adjustment in high contrast scenes = parts of the picture on both ends of the dynamic range.

But I agree that an auto iris is a pretty good compromise...

The comparison that is going to be most useful to me is the Pearl vs. the BenQ W10000. Both of these have the same mounting/location requirements, throw, etc., that can take full advantage of a HighPower screen that seems to be the one for me. The Pearl seems to generate more lumens (than one expects from the BenQ), but the higher ANSI CR of the dlp will presumably make up for this to some degree. And if the BenQ produces even 450 calibrated lumens, this will amount to 30 ftL on a 120" diag HP, which should be quite enough (even as the lamp dims).

The mounting requirements of the HD-81 are so different, and will require a completely different screen, that comparing it with these other two is 'apples to oranges'.

...

The mounting requirements of the HD-81 are so different, and will require a completely different screen, that comparing it with these other two is 'apples to oranges'.

True, but don't discount the HD81 and Firehawk combo!

If you get the chance, you should try to see a bright DLP (such as an InFocus for example) shooting onto a Firehawk and see how you like it. You can even ask that they raise the lights a bit to see how it handles ambient light.

True, but don't discount the HD81 and Firehawk combo!

If you get the chance, you should try to see a bright DLP (such as an InFocus for example) shooting onto a Firehawk and see how you like it. You can even ask that they raise the lights a bit to see how it handles ambient light.

Rob, yes, the HD-81 + FH screen is still on my list of possibles! (And if Infocus stays in business and produces a 1080p pj this next year, I will certainly put it on the short list.) A few thou more, but no sweat. The HD-81 is a tight squeeze, but I think I could do a 118" screen (a compromise of my planned 120" diag one!); room is 17.3 ft long, and 8.3 ft high. I would love to see a HD-81/FH combo, but don't know anyway to do so unless there happens to be a AVS'er in the area that gets one (hint, hint!). Noah Katz and Tom (Guitarman) have gratiously allowed me to stop by to see their setups; it's really quite a 'band of brothers' here on the Forum!

So I seem to have two possible tracks: (1) a low lumen one--e.g., Pearl or BenQ W10000--plus a Highpower, and (2) a high lumen route--the HD-81 or Infocus--with a Firehawk. Would prefer route (2), I think, but it surely would be great to see some of these possibilities.

PS But the 'quirkiness' of the HD-81 has me skittish, esp since this is my first FP. It seems that the Pearl, BenQ, and Infocus would likely be very good OTB, needing only the simple AVIA, DVE, etc treatment that I can manage.

PS But the 'quirkiness' of the HD-81 has me skittish, esp since this is my first FP. It seems that the Pearl, BenQ, and Infocus would likely be very good OTB, needing only the simple AVIA, DVE, etc treatment that I can manage.

I hear you there. One big advantage that you have in that regard is the fact that you won't be buying for several more months. If Optoma doesn't have some of the video input quirks worked out by then, I would be surprised. A firmware upgrade should take care of those issues.

Which should you buy? I think it really comes down to an issue of boldness over subtlety – a little like choosing between Katharine Hepburn (the brassy redhead) or Grace Kelly (the cool blond)
What if I'd bang em both? Does that mean I have to buy both projectors?

What if I'd bang em both?
But not any more. They are a little too old for me now.

Steve,
How did the Optoma compare to your 7210? I have the 7205 and am considering the move. Was there an obvious improvement with the HD-81 over your Infocus? And, perhaps more importantly, did your wife think so? How did the brightness compare?

Thanks,
Jason

Hi Jason, yes we both were able to tell a difference with the HD-81 being better than our 7210. The brightness is pretty close between the two projectors with the edge possibly going to the 7210, but not by an overwhelming margin.

One of the big differences you will notice immediately (at least we did)... with my 135" diag. image our main seating area is 16' from the wall and the picture is gorgeous. However if I move forward 5' to where I have additional seating then I can notice some pixelation with my 7210. With the HD-81 you have to be within arms reach of the screen to see the pixelation.

I think the 7210 is the equal of the HD-81 in color processing and clarity, but the 81 does do noticeably better in shadow detail than the 7210.

Thanks Steve!

Steve makes a good point. On my 110" screen, I sit back 14-15 feet. This was primarily to avoid SDE with a 720p projector while still maintaining the suggested 30 degree field of view. With the HD81, I'm now sitting about 10 feet back, which gives me a 43 degree viewing angle. In other words, at least based on viewing angle, I have increased my screen size from 110" to 155"!

My point is that with a 1080p projector, you may be able to enjoy the effect of a larger screen (e.g., an increased viewing angle) without the physical and luminance challenges of having a larger screen.

Check out what I'm talking about using this Viewing Angle Calculator (http://myhometheater.homestead.com/viewingdistancecalculator.html)

With the HD81, I'm now sitting about 10 feet back, which gives me a 43 degree viewing angle. In other words, at least based on viewing angle, I have increased my screen size from 110" to 155"!


Kevin,

I thought there is a good reason they recommend 36 degree viewing angle -- this is supposed to match human angle of vision -- anything larger than that will make you turn your head left/right to be able to see the picture.

Your Eyes May Vary :)

Kevin,

I thought there is a good reason they recommend 36 degree viewing angle -- this is supposed to match human angle of vision -- anything larger than that will make you turn your head left/right to be able to see the picture.

Your Eyes May Vary :)


No, that's not right at all.

36 Degrees is the MINIMUM recommmended viewing angle for THX. 26 degrees is the MINIMUM allowable if a theater wants THX certification.

There is no maximum horizontal viewing angle specified by THX. One of the major purposes of THX certification in a commercial theater is to ensure that the experience is more immersive than what most average Joes can experience at home, which explains why there is a min. but no max. (although it's not the only reason).

While there are lots of numbers that we could throw around to justify an optimum viewing angle in a home theater environment (human visual acuity, for starters), none of these are hard and fast rules. The fact is that some people like to sit in the front 1/3 of the theater, and for these folks 43 degrees is probably a good number, as long as they have a projector with very little SDE or other negative artifacts (a Pearl with good convergence for example) and are viewing high quality content. While some other people like to sit in the back of the theater, and these folks might prefer 26 or 36 degrees.

And then once you start factoring in SDE, low quality content, misconvergence, and other shortcomings in the source or projector, adjustments may be required.

P.S.

The only unbreakable rules of thumb, in my opinion, involve making sure that you don't exceed 35 degrees vertical viewing angle (not horizontal) because that's where physical discomfort becomes a real problem. (I personally wouldn't exceed 20). I also have a somewhat arbitrary cut-off for horizontal viewing angle that seems to work well for high quality projectors and source (43 degrees), but that's not what I would consider to be an unbreakable rule.

But not any more. They are a little too old for me now.
At least you might have a chance with them now. :)

--Darin

No, that's not right at all.

36 Degrees is the MINIMUM recommmended viewing angle for THX. 26 degrees with MINIMUM allowable if a theater wants THX certification.Yep. There is a lot of confusion around about what those numbers mean. They are for the worst case seat in a commercial theater and THX doesn't tell you which seat to choose from anything I can see. With 2.40:1 movie with a theater built to THX specifications, the middle seating would be around 0.9x the screen width. With the way theaters are actually built (26 degrees for furthest seat), the middle seat would be closer to 1.2x the screen width.

--Darin

36 Degrees is the MINIMUM recommmended viewing angle for THX. 26 degrees is the MINIMUM allowable if a theater wants THX certification.


Gremmy, thanks for the info -- I'm 14 feet from 126" screen (perfect 36 degrees) and at times I catch myself having to turn my head to see something on the side of the screen -- so I guess we should treat 36 degree just as a guideline (similar to 1.5 width of the screen) . It is just a matter of personal preference.

Thanks, Davie.

Kevin, I was re-reading this thread today and wanted to clarify/confirm the numbers you reported in post #107, about how you tilted your pj to lessen the offset, with a (small) resulting vertical keystone to the pic. As I understand things, the offset (36% screen ht) for your 110" diag screen is 19.4", and you said the lens is 6" from the ceiling. Therefore the top of your picture 'should' be 19.4 + 6 = 25.4" from the ceiling. Yet you tilted your pj so that it is only 14" from the ceiling, i.e., 11.4" less than it 'should' be; and this caused only </~ 1" keystone between the top and bottom of your pic. Do I have all this right?

If so, this is really very good news. For my intended screen, offset, etc., indicates that it 'should' be ~ 26" from the ceiling, and I'm planning to tilt the pj to reduce this to ~20 to 23", i.e., to lessen it by 3 to 6". Thus the keystone should be considerably less than 1" (half?), right?

You tilted your pj so that it is only 14" from the ceiling, i.e., 11.4" less than it 'should' be; and this caused only </~ 1" keystone between the top and bottom of your pic. Do I have all this right?
Sounds right to me. To clarify, my setup results in 1" of keystone on each side of the image. Look at post # 110 in this thread where I posted a photo showing the degree of offset.

Here is a generally positive review from Sound & Vision (not surprisingly, they don't like the auto iris). Sound & Vision Review (http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/hdtvs/1848/test-bench-optoma-hd81-1080p-dlp-front-projector.html)
They also note the confusion with the DVI-PC and DVI-VIDEO level with the latter being too dark. I think it is clear that contrary to what one would think, DVI-PC is the proper black level.

Kevin, Dan, Steve: I was re-reading this thread this afternoon since these 2 pj's are, at present, the two contenders for me. [The BenQ W10000 may join this list if its throw is not too long, as may an Infocus and Samsung if they materialize, and the JVC 'new' if it's not too pricy.] I think the answer to my question is implicit in your remarks, but would appreciate your confirmation.

My room is similar to Kevin's, i.e., a 'den' with light-colored ceiling and walls (but with a variety of things on them, of course), and is relatively narrow (13 x 17.3 ft long), and I'm contemplating a ~120" diag screen, viewed from ~ 12.5 to 13 ft away.

With a Pearl I would go with a HighPower screen, with the pj mounted optimally (i.e., on a stand right behind our heads) and the narrow viewing cone is no problem. With a HD-81, it would be flush ceiling mounted at the back of the room, and I would go with a Firehawk (118" diag is the max the throw will allow). The only downsides I see with each are the Pearl's less crisp pic ('flatness' in Greg's review), and with the HD-81 its noise and screen size limitation (I might like to consider going up to 126" diag, which I could do with the Pearl); I could probably go with either, but somewhat lean to the dlp 'look'.

But which of these will work best with the 'ambient light' due to wall reflections (forget about external light)? The Pearl + HP generaltes more ftL's (~45 to 50! at light lamp power, which I probably wouldn't use at first), while the HD81 + FH generates ~25 ftL at its highest lamp setting. Higher ftL is supposed to be most helpful with ambient light, but the FH screen is supposed to be great with reflected ambient light. Which combo is better?

Dan's room had an HP screen, but was 'totally light-controlled', and Kevin's room had neither of these screens. It's probably not fair to ask you to answer my hypothetical question for a situation you haven't observed first hand, but what-the-heck, I'm sure you know more than I do!

And thanks again, guys, for the effort you went through to make these comparisons and reports to all of us.

Bill..........

If you "prefer" the DLP "crispness" then that answers the question for you....

I think either of these projectors will obviously work for you due to your ability to mount the Pearl directly behind the seating position and take advantage of the HP screen.

Personally.... I tend to be a "bit" on the frugal side... so I in your room I would save the $2 Grand and go with the Pearl..., but that is me! :-)

Bill..........

If you "prefer" the DLP "crispness" then that answers the question for you....

I think either of these projectors will obviously work for you due to your ability to mount the Pearl directly behind the seating position and take advantage of the HP screen.

Personally.... I tend to be a "bit" on the frugal side... so I in your room I would save the $2 Grand and go with the Pearl..., but that is me! :-)

Steve, Yes, price is not totally irrelevant, but both are OK in this regard. And yes, I 'think' I would like the dlp better (I have a Mits 73" 1080p dlp RPTV and like it very much), but since this is my first FP I imagine I would be wowed by either; and I haven't seen either in an ideal setup.

My real question was which of the two setups would you guys think would deal better with the ambient light from reflections. Many people say that it's the brightness that is most helpful, and I presume this means ftL's; the Pearl/HP combo produces ~ twice the number of the HD81/FH. But though the HP's retro-reflectivity (and thus narrow viewing cone) helps reject reflected light from the side, most people say that the FH is better at this. So I have no feeling as to which of these two combo's would be most satisfactory in this regard.

This has been a fantastic thread, thank you forum members. I am happy, after reading Greg Roger's great Pearl review, that he validated my personal observations of the projectors strengths and weaknesses. I was challenged by a poster who said my opinions of the Pearl vs. HD81 weren't valid because I didn't view them side by side with the same source material. While I agree that this is the ideal method, as Kevin, Steve and Dan were able to do, I knew my observations, after seeing the Ruby twice and Pearl once, couldn't be too far off base.

While so much of this stuff is subjective, the differences in detail, brightness, native CR,
depth and three dimensionality between the HD81 and Ruby/Pearl were not subtle to my eyes. Both Ruby's had convergence error that I would not be able to live with. The Pearl looked good in this area, but white field uniformity was not great--although certainly better
than my CRT projector. While Sony has done an amazing job with DI and shown other
manufacturers implementations to be laughable--especially Optoma's--I am afraid I would
be sensitive to white level compression.

The Optoma is a difficult projector to install, the DI is a non-starter and there are firmware
issues that need to be dealt with by the manufacturer, but at this moment, I don't believe
there is a better projector to be had for $7K--especially for larger screens--than the HD81.

Jeff Regan

This has been a fantastic thread, thank you forum members. I am happy, after reading Greg Roger's great Pearl review, that he validated my personal observations of the projectors strengths and weaknesses. I was challenged by a poster who said my opinions of the Pearl vs. HD81 weren't valid because I didn't view them side by side with the same source material. While I agree that this is the ideal method, as Kevin, Steve and Dan were able to do, I knew my observations, after seeing the Ruby twice and Pearl once, couldn't be too far off base.

While so much of this stuff is subjective, the differences in detail, brightness, native CR,
depth and three dimensionality between the HD81 and Ruby/Pearl were not subtle to my eyes. Both Ruby's had convergence error that I would not be able to live with. The Pearl looked good in this area, but white field uniformity was not great--although certainly better
than my CRT projector. While Sony has done an amazing job with DI and shown other
manufacturers implementations to be laughable--especially Optoma's--I am afraid I would
be sensitive to white level compression.

The Optoma is a difficult projector to install, the DI is a non-starter and there are firmware
issues that need to be dealt with by the manufacturer, but at this moment, I don't believe
there is a better projector to be had for $7K--especially for larger screens--than the HD81.

Jeff Regan

I'll back you up on this Jeff. I too have seen plenty of set ups, with both the Pearl and Ruby, and not once was I impressed. The HD81 stunned me when I first came across it. It is a great shame that Optoma came to market with a flawed product, but even then, as Jeff has said, for $7K .... I don't think you can beat it, as long as it fits your room. For those of us with HD81's (mine is coming soon), we can only hope that Optoma will finally come out in public (on this forum please!) and confess they brought an obviously flawed product to the market place and pledge to make it right for those of us who have bought in.

If a pj existed, right this minute, that had the same image clarity and brightness as the HD81, but without the glitches (even if it were a couple of thousand or so more), I would have no hesitation in dumping my HD81 order. I could well do without the thought of continual firmware updates. As it is, we (big screeners, particularly) do not have much choice, unless we fork out a great deal more cash.

I wonder, what would these manufacturers do if their products didn't have ethernet connections allowing for firmware updates? Gosh, they would probably have to come to market with a fully sorted product, just like it used to be ... well, mostly.

Steve, Yes, price is not totally irrelevant, but both are OK in this regard. And yes, I 'think' I would like the dlp better (I have a Mits 73" 1080p dlp RPTV and like it very much), but since this is my first FP I imagine I would be wowed by either; and I haven't seen either in an ideal setup.

My real question was which of the two setups would you guys think would deal better with the ambient light from reflections. Many people say that it's the brightness that is most helpful, and I presume this means ftL's; the Pearl/HP combo produces ~ twice the number of the HD81/FH. But though the HP's retro-reflectivity (and thus narrow viewing cone) helps reject reflected light from the side, most people say that the FH is better at this. So I have no feeling as to which of these two combo's would be most satisfactory in this regard.If I were in your place with a HT that could take either pj, and if cost weren't an issue, it'd be a tough call. I think a FH/HD81 in a setup like Kevin's HT -- as it was at least, because he's getting darker walls soon -- would work well. I will say that the HP/Pearl would do probably about the same as far as providing a non washed-out image as long as you didn't have extraneous light sources or light colored reflective surfaces at the viewing end of the HT.

If you prefer DLP overall, and especially value an ultra-clean super-sharp image with "punch," go with the HD81. As stated many times in this thread, you'll have made a good choice.

Addressing the Pearl "flatness" issue discussed in the Greg Rogers review thread, I don't find its images noticeably lacking in depth (they generally seem to have more depth than my H79 did), but in the A-B comparison the HD81 does better. OTOH, the Pearl gets rid of just about all haze that might show up a little more on a scene here or there with the HD81.

Perhaps the main thing that keeps me from more strongly considering a DLP (assuming one with lens shift and the appropriate throw for my setup) is the increased psychovisual ease I feel with the Pearl. My main gripe with it now is its color nonuniformity that show up in certain snow scenes, for example. If I can fix that problem satisfactorily by myself, or more comprehensively by sending to wm for an affordable cost, I'll be keeping this pj significantly longer than I kept my previous two.

Dan

I'll back you up on this Jeff. I too have seen plenty of set ups, with both the Pearl and Ruby, and not once was I impressed. The HD81 stunned me when I first came across it. It is a great shame that Optoma came to market with a flawed product, but even then, as Jeff has said, for $7K .... I don't think you can beat it, as long as it fits your room. For those of us with HD81's (mine is coming soon), we can only hope that Optoma will finally come out in public (on this forum please!) and confess they brought an obviously flawed product to the market place and pledge to make it right for those of us who have bought in.

If a pj existed, right this minute, that had the same image clarity and brightness as the HD81, but without the glitches (even if it were a couple of thousand or so more), I would have no hesitation in dumping my HD81 order. I could well do without the thought of continual firmware updates. As it is, we (big screeners, particularly) do not have much choice, unless we fork out a great deal more cash.

I wonder, what would these manufacturers do if their products didn't have ethernet connections allowing for firmware updates? Gosh, they would probably have to come to market with a fully sorted product, just like it used to be ... well, mostly.

-> BenQ W10000 (almost as bright...)

If I were in your place with a HT that could take either pj, and if cost weren't an issue, it'd be a tough call. I think a FH/HD81 in a setup like Kevin's HT -- as it was at least, because he's getting darker walls soon -- would work well. I will say that the HP/Pearl would do probably about the same as far as providing a non washed-out image as long as you didn't have extraneous light sources or light colored reflective surfaces at the viewing end of the HT.

If you prefer DLP overall, and especially value an ultra-clean super-sharp image with "punch," go with the HD81. As stated many times in this thread, you'll have made a good choice.

Addressing the Pearl "flatness" issue discussed in the Greg Rogers review thread, I don't find its images noticeably lacking in depth (they generally seem to have more depth than my H79 did), but in the A-B comparison the HD81 does better. OTOH, the Pearl gets rid of just about all haze that might show up a little more on a scene here or there with the HD81.

Perhaps the main thing that keeps me from more strongly considering a DLP (assuming one with lens shift and the appropriate throw for my setup) is the increased psychovisual ease I feel with the Pearl. My main gripe with it now is its color nonuniformity that show up in certain snow scenes, for example. If I can fix that problem satisfactorily by myself, or more comprehensively by sending to wm for an affordable cost, I'll be keeping this pj significantly longer than I kept my previous two.

Dan

Dan, thanks for the very insightful comments. The only downside I see with the HD81 at present, is the noise issue. My inclination at present would be to go with it though--since I do like a punchy, crisp image--and trust AVS to let me return it for a Pearl if the noise proves to be too much in my situation. There's always the hope, too, that the BenQ W10000 will have the good, crisp dlp look, for it will presumably have very low noise (like the 8720), though also low lumens! (but can be dealt with with an HP screen); but it needs to have a 'short throw'!

-> BenQ W10000 (almost as bright...)

Yep, may be, but it isn't available now, is it?

I am happy, after reading Greg Roger's great Pearl review, that he validated my personal observations of the projectors strengths and weaknesses.
Particularly the part where he says he subjected it to the same scrutiny and standards as a pj costing 3 to 4 times the price, and the Pearl was up to the challenge and would redefine everyones expectation of a $5K pj. :) :)

Particularly the part where he says he subjected it to the same scrutiny and standards as a pj costing 3 to 4 times the price, and the Pearl was up to the challenge and would redefine everyones expectation of a $5K pj. :) :)

Absolutely! Pearl sets a new standard at the price point. The comparison to the
$20K Marantz would extend to the HD81 as well, I submit, which is only 1.4 times
the price of the Pearl and I think a closer cousin in detail, depth and native CR to the Marantz. Plus the HD81 comes with an external Gennum scaler at a bit over a third of the price of the Marantz.

Jeff Regan

Absolutely! Pearl sets a new standard at the price point. The comparison to the
$20K Marantz would extend to the HD81 as well, I submit, which is only 1.4 times
the price of the Pearl and I think a closer cousin in detail, depth and native CR to the Marantz.
I agree, based solely on the conclusion of the 3 people who compared the Pearl to the HD81 in this thread!

As far as how the HD81 stacks up the 11S1 in detail, depth, and native CR, I will leave that conclusion to a gregr review. :)

I'm sure I would be quite happy with a Pearl--and heaven knows, it would be so much simpler to set it up in ideal fashion (on a stand with an HP screen), and I found GregR's review to be very positive. But dammit, I hate to forego the punchier, crisper pic of a dlp!! I would like to TRY a HD81 (to see if I can live with the noise), or maybe a BenQ W10000 if it reviews well and fits better throw/offset-wise (I like very much what I've heard of the 8720).

Particularly the part where he says he subjected it to the same scrutiny and standards as a pj costing 3 to 4 times the price, and the Pearl was up to the challenge and would redefine everyones expectation of a $5K pj. :) :)

Ironically Greg's review has made me LESS sure of which pj I am leaning towards at this point. I was expecting a review that indicated the Pearl was really a good PJ for the money, but the Ruby was still a noticeably better pj. He didn't say that.

Plus the HD81 comes with an external Gennum scaler at a bit over a third of the price of the Marantz.

Jeff Regan

Yes, it does. But this may not be quite as big of an advantage as I originally thought in light of Greg's positive comments regarding the Pearls processing, which was probably the thing that I was most pleasantly surprised about in the review.

The Pearl is back in the running for me to be sure.

He actually stated in the review thread that he would take the Pearl over the Ruby for its better DI, brighter image, and 1080p24. Pretty impressive :)

It sounds like you will love either PJ you choose Millerwill. The 81 (or any 1-chip DLP) is not an option for me because RBE, but for those who are not bothered, it looks to be fantastic.

Ironically Greg's review has made me LESS sure of which pj I am leaning towards at this point.
Ah, another successful review. :)

Ah, another successful review. :)

ROFLMAO!

Thanks Greg!

:D

I agree, based solely on the conclusion of the 3 people who compared the Pearl to the HD81 in this thread!

As far as how the HD81 stacks up the 11S1 in detail, depth, and native CR, I will leave that conclusion to a gregr review. :)

I would love for Greg Rogers to review the HD81 and/or BENQ10000 in a perfect
world, as well as the JVC "New", but I don't want to wait that long, even if he does review any of the above.

I am satisfied that I saw the same issues he did with the Pearl, which I posted weeks before his review was published. I can extrapolate his comparisons of the Marantz vs. Pearl with the HD81, even though I haven't seen a 1080P Marantz, which isn't in my price range. Besides, even if I did see the Marantz, you'd say it wasn't a valid comparison because it wasn't side by side with the Pearl and HD81, watching the same material. ;) I'll just have to rely on 25 years of being a director of photography and 12 years of front projection HT viewing. :)

Jeff Regan

Besides, even if I did see the Marantz, you'd say it wasn't a valid comparison because it wasn't side by side with the Pearl and HD81, watching the same material. ;)
Just to be clear, any analysis you want to use to make your purchasing decision is alright by me. :) :)

Now as far as me making my own decisions, you seeing 2 pj in different environments with different source is not good enough for me. Heck gregr seeing 2 pjs in different environments,with different sources, then drawing a conclusion would barely be good enough for me.

I'd prefer it if Greg would just come out and tell me which pj to buy! :p

I'd prefer it if Greg would just come out and tell me which pj to buy! :p
:) Me next!

He's say it depends on which 'look' you like, the specifics of your room, .... . It aint that easy (which is why we like it so!)

I'm just happy that most of us don't A-B two projectors and watch test signals all day, we'd
miss some good movies! But if Greg DID want to tell me which projector to buy.........

Jeff Regan

Hey Bill -- I'm in your neighborhood today (Orinda). Too bad I didn't haul along the HD81!

If you ever get to Salt Lake City, give me a call, and we can get together with Dan for a side-by-side comparison.

Hey Bill -- I'm in your neighborhood today (Orinda). Too bad I didn't haul along the HD81!

If you ever get to Salt Lake City, give me a call, and we can get together with Dan and for a side-by-side comparison.

Kevin, Well, you just made me 'an offer I can't refuse'! Check your PM.

But if Greg DID want to tell me which projector to buy.........
OK, OK

I would buy the first projector available that has Marantz VP-11S1 or Digital Projection dVision 1080p image definition (i.e. MTF = sharpness and detail), Yamaha DPX-1300 color management system, Ruby DI full-field contrast ratio without using a DI, Sharp XV-Z12000 intra-image contrast, Sharp XV-Z12000 grayscale, Marantz VP-11S1 color and brightness uniformity, Sony/JVC LCoS lack of dithering, no color wheel but a single image device for zero misconvergence using high rep-rate LEDs with adequate color gamut to adjust for perfect Rec 709 and Rec 609 colorimetry - and sufficient brightness for your screen size, full built-in gamma curve programmability without an external PC, Lumagen 480i/1080i inverse-telecine deinterlacing to 48/72 Hz progressive video, Pearl 1080p24 judderless display, selectable VXP and Realta 480i/1080i motion-adaptive deinterlacing, selectable Gennum and Lumagen scaling, Ruby quietness, Pearl heat output, Pearl weight, Marantz size and build quality, a Marantz remote control with Pearl IR sensitivity, interchangeable Digital Projection dVision 1080p lenses with their smooth motorized focus control and H/V lens shift, Marantz input signal format versatility, Yamaha input signal level and color space selections, and a built-in popcorn maker with extra butter. I would actually prefer that all of the video processing (and the popcorn maker) minus the gamma processing (unless HDMI 1.3 with 48-bit deep color is used) were in a separate processor with a single 1080p HDMI connection to the projector (and no serial connection between the processor and projector).

That's a projector you should buy. Or you could select the parameters that mean the most to you, and get a projector this year.

OK, OK

I would buy the first projector available that has Marantz VP-11S1 or Digital Projection dVision 1080p image definition (i.e. MTF = sharpness and detail)...

That's a projector you should buy. Or you could select the parameters that mean the most to you, and get a projector this year.

I'll take three in my throw ratio. :D

... That's a projector you should buy...

Can I get that with the 2.76:1 native AR panel option? :)

Can I get that with the 2.76:1 native AR panel option? :)I guess I'll have to start taking orders if I can get some company with deep pockets to let me design it. :)

I suggest you name the projector "The Holy Grail."

Just as desirable -- just as elusive.

I suggest you name the projector "The Holy Grail."

Just as desirable -- just as elusive.
Perfect!

OK, OK

I would buy the first projector available that has Marantz VP-11S1 or Digital Projection dVision 1080p image definition (i.e. MTF = sharpness and detail), Yamaha DPX-1300 color management system, Ruby DI full-field contrast ratio without using a DI, Sharp XV-Z12000 intra-image contrast, Sharp XV-Z12000 grayscale, Marantz VP-11S1 color and brightness uniformity, Sony/JVC LCoS lack of dithering, no color wheel but a single image device for zero misconvergence using high rep-rate LEDs with adequate color gamut to adjust for perfect Rec 709 and Rec 609 colorimetry - and sufficient brightness for your screen size, full built-in gamma curve programmability without an external PC, Lumagen 480i/1080i inverse-telecine deinterlacing to 48/72 Hz progressive video, Pearl 1080p24 judderless display, selectable VXP and Realta 480i/1080i motion-adaptive deinterlacing, selectable Gennum and Lumagen scaling, Ruby quietness, Pearl heat output, Pearl weight, Marantz size and build quality, a Marantz remote control with Pearl IR sensitivity, interchangeable Digital Projection dVision 1080p lenses with their smooth motorized focus control and H/V lens shift, Marantz input signal format versatility, Yamaha input signal level and color space selections, and a built-in popcorn maker with extra butter. I would actually prefer that all of the video processing (and the popcorn maker) minus the gamma processing (unless HDMI 1.3 with 48-bit deep color is used) were in a separate processor with a single 1080p HDMI connection to the projector (and no serial connection between the processor and projector).

That's a projector you should buy. Or you could select the parameters that mean the most to you, and get a projector this year.

Truly a great post. I know this was done half in jest, but I also recognize this as a post that contains some very useful information.

Thanks Greg!

What a excellent post. Puts it all in perspective I would say. Pluses and Minuses no matter which way you go. Choose what is best for your situation. Nice! :)

What a excellent post. Puts it all in perspective I would say. Pluses and Minuses no matter which way you go. Choose what is best for your situation. Nice! :)

I still think the plural for plus and minus should be plice and minise...

I know this was done half in jest, but I also recognize this as a post that contains some very useful information.
Exactly! In a nutshell, Greg has told us which company does what best, or at least right now. ;)

does anyone have an estimated street date for the GR HG1? looks to be, on paper at least, a pretty decent pj.
In the mean time, after watching a Pearl for a few hours last night, I don't think I would have any trouble moving from the DLP world to Lcos/Dila/SXRD. In the past, the occassions I've had to see LCDs have convinced me that DLP was where it was at, but given the whole package now (price, features, image, CR, etc) anything beyond what I'm seeing now with the Pearl would just be icing at this price point.
What I saw was plenty sharp enough- especially for the screen sizes I would be using as well as the content which for the next several years will still primarily be a large legacy collection of Mpeg2 DVDs.

The only thing I'm concerned with are any degenerative aspects over the long term for the imaging components/panels, etc.

What do people recommend in terms of HDMI switches for these projectors?

does anyone have an estimated street date for the GR HG1? looks to be, on paper at least, a pretty decent pj.
Well, we won't know for sure until Greg gets his hands on one and runs it through his exhaustive and comprehensive evaluation. Will this be the right projector for you?

It depends...:D

What is the GR HG1? :confused:

a built-in popcorn maker with extra butter. I would actually prefer that all of the video processing (and the popcorn maker) were in a separate processor with a single 1080p HDMI connection to the projector

That's a projector you should buy. Or you could select the parameters that mean the most to you, and get a projector this year.

Greg, good thing the popcorn maker would be bundled with the separate processor,
otherwise popcorn would be raining down from the ceiling.

I do have the projector on order, I need it this year because it's a tax write off--
for the client screening room of course!

Jeff Regan

What is the GR HG1? :confused:

GregRogers Holy Grail #1

GregRogers Holy Grail #1


D'oh!


:o

What do people recommend in terms of HDMI switches for these projectors?

I suggest waiting for HDMI 1.41 capabe switches. They'll support 56-bit infrared color spectrum displays.

While I'm spinning my wheels waiting for the BenQ W10000 to appear--so we can see how it compares to the Pearl and HD81--I have one question that I don't think has been discussed explicitly. Namely, does the 'smoothness' of the Pearl, compared to the 'sharpness' of the HD81, make it especially easier on the eyes if one sits very close, i.e., < 1.5 (e.g., 1.3) screen widths? [Though I think I remember Kevin saying that he now sits at ~1.3 SW with his HD81, is that right Kevin?]

While I'm spinning my wheels waiting for the BenQ W10000 to appear--so we can see how it compares to the Pearl and HD81--I have one question that I don't think has been discussed explicitly. Namely, does the 'smoothness' of the Pearl, compared to the 'sharpness' of the HD81, make it especially easier on the eyes if one sits very close, i.e., < 1.5 (e.g., 1.3) screen widths? [Though I think I remember Kevin saying that he now sits at ~1.3 SW with his HD81, is that right Kevin?]

I sit at about 1.3~ w/ my Pearl. The only time I've suffered from eye strain is with poor quality SD content. Good quality SD content is fine, and 1080p HD DVDs look awesome (and I'd hate to sit further back).

I'd order the GR HG-1, except that it doesn't come with an attached cow for automatic butter dispensing on the popcorn.

I sit at about 1.3~ w/ my Pearl. The only time I've suffered from eye strain is with poor quality SD content. Good quality SD content is fine, and 1080p HD DVDs look awesome (and I'd hate to sit further back).

I guess my question was whether or not people felt it was EASIER on the eyes to sit this close with the Pearl than with the HD81 because of the latter's 'sharpness' (or 'edginess' if you want to put it in the negative).

I suggest waiting for HDMI 1.41 capabe switches. They'll support 56-bit infrared color spectrum displays.

That's over 72 quadrillion colors. Your eyes have evolved :p

I guess my question was whether or not people felt it was EASIER on the eyes to sit this close with the Pearl than with the HD81 because of the latter's 'sharpness' (or 'edginess' if you want to put it in the negative).
I do think it is easier to watch the Pearl if you have any problems with the rainbow effect. But if you do not have such problems, then I think the DLP actually looks a little better up close because of its sharpness.

I guess my question was whether or not people felt it was EASIER on the eyes to sit this close with the Pearl than with the HD81 because of the latter's 'sharpness' (or 'edginess' if you want to put it in the negative).

Ah, got it. I read in the reverse. :=)

I need some help about a buying choice, I have an ELITE cinetension 106' HIGH CONTRAST GRAY material (to avoid refleghting ligts) installed in a partial controlled light (13" x 23") living room, with matte wall paper black out curtain and a ceiling painted white mate. I only use a FP to watch movies and I want a projector to create a cinematic wieving experience, well balanced colours, real black, good shadows details, sharps and crisp images. wich FP is better for me, PEARL or OPTOMA HD 81 (sorry my bad english, I'm fron Buenos Aires, Argentina)

thanks in advances

I do think it is easier to watch the Pearl if you have any problems with the rainbow effect. But if you do not have such problems, then I think the DLP actually looks a little better up close because of its sharpness.

Kevin,

What's your sense on long periods of watching like two or three movies in a row?
I had th Optoma H78 DLP and now the Pearl after considering it with the HD81.

I can't quantify it but the Pearl seems to be less stressful on the eyes. I have never seen rainbows but the first couple of days, I had scratchy eyes when I got the DLP.

In an audio like comparison, the Pearl has almost a relaxing picutre.

I do think it is easier to watch the Pearl if you have any problems with the rainbow effect. But if you do not have such problems, then I think the DLP actually looks a little better up close because of its sharpness.It may sound paradoxical but I agree with Kevin here and with Romanesq's observations or impressions. If one sits really close the sharpness of the HD81 may create less effort to focus. But I agree also about the overall viewing ease with the Pearl. I think that is due to not having more subliminal rainbow effects.

Dan

What's your sense on long periods of watching like two or three movies in a row?I had the Optoma H78 DLP and now the Pearl after considering it with the HD81. I can't quantify it but the Pearl seems to be less stressful on the eyes. I have never seen rainbows but the first couple of days, I had scratchy eyes when I got the DLP. In an audio like comparison, the Pearl has almost a relaxing picutre.
I can watch the HD81 for hours without any problems, but I would agree that if you bothered at all by rainbows, the Pearl is very "relaxing" to watch. I agree with Dan this this is an almost subliminal effect, and even though rainbows do not bother me, I noticed the difference on the Pearl.

Can somebody please answer a question for me on brightness for the HD81 and Pearl? I have a 136" 1.0 gain screen, and according to online tools would really need a 1.3 gain screen for the HD81. I assume the Pearl would not be able to support this size screen.

1) Is this correct (the HD81 would need a higher gain), or do others have a similar size/gain screen and could comment?
2) Would this calculation have been using econo-mode or high brightness anyway?
3) While I am at it - anyone know of where either of these are demo'd in the Dallas area?

Thanks for your help

Even though I have preordered the JVC RS1, the Optoma is still not off my list. This is the main reason: I saw a fully calibrated Sony Ruby today at a local dealer.

I was a little disappointed in something about the image. The only word I can think of to describe it, and I have seen it used before regarding LCoS displays, is "flat". There was a lack of depth to the image. It didn't have the "3D" effect. For example, The Fifth Element scene where Leeloo jumps off the ledge didn't seem to have the feeling of depth or 3 dimensionality that I see with DLP. I almost want to say the image lacked pop, but that isn't entirely accurate because the colors were great.

Is what I saw here due to lower ANSI contrast vs DLP?

If possible, I would like to have Kevin, Dan, et al revisit this issue. Was there a big difference between these pj's in terms of image "depth" or apparent contrast ("pop")? Or did I just see a poor example of a Ruby?

I was a little disappointed in something about the image. The only word I can think of to describe it, and I have seen it used before regarding LCoS displays, is "flat". There was a lack of depth to the image. It didn't have the "3D" effect.

I see the same thing. Some of us ( most of us ) don't see rainbows, and I just like the picture quality of DLP better. It is different - I would say sharper and more " real ".

If possible, I would like to have Kevin, Dan, et al revisit this issue. Was there a big difference between these pj's in terms of image "depth" or apparent contrast ("pop")? Or did I just see a poor example of a Ruby?
I have no idea how the JVC will perform for image depth (lot's of factors determine perceived image depth), but for a comparison of one DLP projector to the Pearl read my review of the Sharp XV-Z20000 tomorrow. (Again, I have no idea of how the JVC will perform relative to the Pearl, or any other projector.)

Rob, as I noted over in the other thread, I remember several very experienced folks, who were at the EXPO and saw the RS1 right along side the Sharp 20K dlp, that reported the pic of the JVC to be equal to or better than that of the Sharp in ALL aspects (sharpness, 'punch', etc.). I hope they were correct! But like you, I'm also on the RS1 preorder list and still interested in the HD81 (or a new Samsung or Infocus 1080p dlp if they should miraculously appear at the CES!)

The 3D effect is one of the main reasons I bought an HD81. I've put 40 hours on the projector and have been blown away by the contrast range, brightness, shadow detail, and overall resolving capability of fine detail. I think the HD81's simple lens plays dividends in sharpness, low light loss and lack of CA. The adjustability the scaler provides is great. After living with the HD81 for a short time, I can only say that I am happy with my decision to go DLP over SXRD--although I have seen rainbows occasionally.

Jeff Regan

I have no idea how the JVC will perform for image depth (lot's of factors determine perceived image depth), but for a comparison of one DLP projector to the Pearl read my review of the Sharp XV-Z20000 tomorrow. (Again, I have no idea of how the JVC will perform relative to the Pearl, or any other projector.)

Thanks Greg. I promise you that I will be reading your review of the Sharp tomorrow, as well as your Q&A session here (I hope you still plan on doing this).

This may be the most perfectly timed review of yours yet! ;)

Now if you could just get your hands on a early edition of the RS1!

If possible, I would like to have Kevin, Dan, et al revisit this issue. Was there a big difference between these pj's in terms of image "depth" or apparent contrast ("pop")? Or did I just see a poor example of a Ruby?
In a word -- yes.

Personally, I have never seen the "jump" scene in 5th Element look more dimensional.

I thought the Sony improved in these areas in Dan's "bat cave," which I attribute to improved the ANSI contrast. Hopefully, before the end of the year I will have painted and treated my theater in darker colors, and I'm anxious to see what that does for the HD81.

I think Dan has a JVC on order, so maybe we can do another comparison when it comes out.

In the interim, I'm anxiously awaiting Greg's review of the Sharp.

In a word -- yes.

Personally, I have never seen the "jump" scene in 5th Element look more dimensional.

I thought the Sony improved in these areas in Dan's "bat cave," which I attribute to improved the ANSI contrast. Hopefully, before the end of the year I will have painted and treated my theater in darker colors, and I'm anxious to see what that does for the HD81.

I think Dan has a JVC on order, so maybe we can do another comparison when it comes out.

In the interim, I'm anxiously awaiting Greg's review of the Sharp.

Kevin, when I originally read your response, I thought you were saying "yes, there was a big difference in terms of depth between the HD81 and Pearl". But now I'm not so sure that you weren't answering my second question, and saying "Yes, you saw a bad example of the Ruby".

I still think it is the former, but I am not sure. I assume when you say that you have "never seen the "jump" scene in 5th Element look more dimensional" you were talking about the HD81, correct?

Sorry, I meant YES as to the difference in ANSI contrast and depth between the H81 and the Sony. But I also wanted to point out that in a room where everything has been done to improve ANSI contrast, like Dan's bat cave, the Pearl did look very good. And yes I was referring to how the 5th Element looked on the HD81, but I want to clarify that I did not see this scene on the Pearl.

Thanks for the clarification Kevin, I appreciate it.

Sure. My opinion is the Bears won't be in the SuperBowl. Seattle will and this time with refs that are paid off with Paul Allen money. Seriously, sounds like the Optoma would be the clear winner for sports and ambient light conditions.

HTCrazy,

I value your opinion on HT, But not on football so much!

Last Laugh.

Tony