Steve Atkinson (HiHoSteve), Kevin Anderson, and I got together yesterday to compare the Pearl and the HD81. A good time was had by all and I'd like to thank Kevin for his hospitality. It was great to meet Steve who is clearly quite knowledgeable and experienced about video and projectors. Kevin's setup was very comfortable and his sound system was very dynamic. He is in the process of getting darker walls and ceiling. WAF was involved and I congratulate Kevin, who's wife came in for a while to offer some astute observations.

I'm going to give my subjective opinions about the two pjs. I think overall they are in line with what Kevin and Steve thought, but I will leave to each of them to amplify and / or give differing opinions.

I may include a screenshot or two later but with my technique at least I don't think they capture the differences we saw between the two pjs. The differences are too subtle and get lost in the digital processing, etc.

Conditions: Screen 116” diagonal Carada Brilliant White with 1.4 gain. Walls, carpet, ceiling all light.

HD81: iris off, lamp low – calibrated previously by Kevin. Ceiling mounted with a reported slight keystone not observed by me.

Pearl: iris off, lamp high – “quickie” calibrated using Kevin's gear to reasonably flat RGB. Autoiris calibration was not attempted. A major caveat here is that further calibration might have affected color performance and other performance parameters to varying extents. Blue convergence off by a pixel in right lower area of screen.

Observations: Here are some parameters with my opinion of which pj "won" in each, in this viewing and in Kevin's HT:

Brightness - HD81 (and it was on "low" lamp while the Pearl was on high.)

ANSI CR – HD81 (This and brightness made the HD81 look "punchier" than the Pearl in Kevin's HT - see more below.)

Shadow detail – Pearl (Very close to the HD81, however.)

Black level – HD81 (The Pearl has brighter black left lower and right upper corners. In actual use this was seldom, if ever, visually intrusive. The HD81's higher simultaneous CR helps here with perceived black level in mixed high contrast image elements.)

Smoothness - “film-like” – Pearl, unanimous vote.

Contouring / Banding - Pearl (Seen once with the HD81 in an underwater scene in U-571, and not troublesome or seen in many other scenes)

Motion – Pearl (Related probably to single chip rainbow. This is a main reason I like the Pearl, and something I notice as a significant difference having had two single chip DLPs previously)

Color rendition – Pearl (Kevin might say HD-81. IMO this goes to the Pearl but the higher ANSI and brightness of the HD81 at times made colors stand out, just as going from a low or negative gain screen to a high gain screen with the same pj would make colors stand out. With more calibration or tweaking it is possible the Pearl could have looked more like the HD81, not that the difference was significant. In many scenes one would have trouble telling which pj was which, but with Seabiscuit in the initial ride through the fall forest scene I thought there was greater subtlety and, again, a more film-like quality with the Pearl. On my High Power colors from the Pearl don't look quite as muted as they did at times with Kevin's 1.4 gain Carada.)

Color uniformity – HD81 (No surprise, the Pearl showed disuniformity on higher IREs, not bad or intrusive, but visible on white fields.)

No possibility of rainbows - Pearl. (No contest and arguably an unfair item to toss in. Actually, I didn't see them per se on the HD-81 but I think I perceive them almost unconsciously and that's a primary reason I find the Pearl more relaxing to view, based on about three years with single chip DLP before getting the Pearl. As they say, YMMV.)

Value / Bang for the Buck – Pearl.

Discussion: (Might as well continue the format of a formal report although this should be considered quite informal): I warn all potential Pearl buyers about setup and possibly excessive brightness expectations. We had to put the Pearl, that already was on high lamp setting, on autoiris off to begin to match brightness with the HD81. If the Pearl hadn't been compared directly with a brighter pj, brightness wouldn't have been an issue, I think. Still, I highly recommend a high gain screen with the Pearl, and as dark an HT as possible. This was a big takeaway point for me: The ANSI or simultaneous CR of the Pearl is not as high as the HD81's, and environments that have light reflective surfaces will further compromise this leaving the Pearl looking not very punchy and kind of flat in comparison. I am thinking here of posts by visitors to retail shops who have said the same about the Ruby. The HD81 may "take" a more typical home environment (assuming this will not be a super-dark, non-reflective one) better while the Pearl will begin to look a little flat as that environment gets lighter.

We talked of seeing the two pjs again in different environments. Steve was kind enough to offer his HT for another shootout. I'd like to see a comparison in my very dark HT with the High Power. I think I could install the HD-81 in my setup with minimal keystoning based on what I saw in his HT. That would be for comparison purposes because I am keeping my Pearl.

Conclusion: We all enjoyed very much watching each projector. It was easy to get distracted from technical analysis and pulled into the film with each. As Steve said, a buyer won't go wrong getting either pj (I'd add, if he/she considers his viewing environment.)

Dan

Good stuff, thanks. :)

what kind of zoom was used on the pearl?

Excellent writeup, thanks. Do you have any ideas on the screen gain for the Pearl?
Retroreflective screen at 1.5, 2, 3 etc.

Boy this was a great read.

Thanks Dan! I hope Kevin and Steve chime with their impressions also. This is very helpful.

Both projectors appear to have a lot of bang for the buck and you couldn't go wrong with either one. It seems like it comes down to room parameters, feature preferences and personal viewing tastes. :D

Thanks a ton for posting this, Dan. Great info.

Since you didn't comment on "sharpness," can we assume that they are comparable in this area?

-tony

Pearl: iris off,

Why? Auto-iris is probably what 99% of Ruby/Pearl users are using, and the best way to use it.

So if the H81 was close in performance to the Pearl w/o the auto-iris, then the Pearl would have been the clear winner if it was used the way almost all users would use it (auto-iris).

Did you try to compare both projectors, but with the Pearl with auto-iris on?

So if the H81 was close in performance to the Pearl w/o the auto-iris, then the Pearl would have been the clear winner if it was used the way almost all users would use it (auto-iris).

Not necessarily, as the HD81 has an auto iris and also has the ability to go automatically from low bulb power to high bulb power depending on the scene too.

Seems to me that if one wants a BIG screen the HD81 is a better choice. Sure, some will say use a high gain screen with the Pearl, but I can use a BIGGER high gain screen with the HD81!!

So if the H81 was close in performance to the Pearl w/o the auto-iris, then the Pearl would have been the clear winner if it was used the way almost all users would use it (auto-iris).
Not necessarily correct. In dark scenes in very dark movies (Dark City, AVP, ... ) the Pearl with auto iris would have a clear advantage in CR snd shadow detail. In the end the pjs would still have a different "look" ( electrostatic speakers vs. conventional drivers :) ). Different viewers may prefer a different look! For film-look fans, the Pearl will be the choice. For giant plasma, choose the HD81.

I agree that not using the auto iris on the Pearl is like taking away all bit 1 of Tiger's clubs, still very good, but not at his best. It did not hurt the HD81 because according to TJN, the HD81's auto iris is useless!

A better solution would have been to put a ND filter on the HD81 to match brightness.

My problem is I have a fairly new F-Hauk, 115" 1.25 gain , and I am not sure if the pearl will be bright enough for my set up. Especially after it has a little run time on the bulb.
I want to be able to use in light controlled for movies, but with some ambient light for sports. Like when My Bears are in the Super Bowl! Don't want it to dark for the party!
Any Opinions out there?
Thanx
Tony

Why? Auto-iris is probably what 99% of Ruby/Pearl users are using, and the best way to use it.

So if the H81 was close in performance to the Pearl w/o the auto-iris, then the Pearl would have been the clear winner if it was used the way almost all users would use it (auto-iris).

Did you try to compare both projectors, but with the Pearl with auto-iris on?I use the autoiris all the time in my HT with a High Power and I'd almost never use the Pearl without it. Mainly we used the iris off setting because we wanted to calibrate the pjs to similar conditions - that is, with Kevin's gear showing each tracking RGB similarly. We didn't have the time to get into calibrating with autoiris as this is a bit more complicated.

It was striking how in Kevin's environment autoiris just seemed to dim the picture somewhat and render it apparently inferior in A-B comparisons to the HD81 on that basis. I think the improved ANSI or simultaneous CR afforded by the autoiris was also to a significant degree lost in Kevin's more reflective environment and this is very important for a prospective Pearl owner to note. In my HT iris off just bumps up overall brightness to unnecessary levels.

Regarding sharpness, no one spoke out about the Pearl looking noticeably fuzzier than the HD81 in actual use. Ratings advisory screens, for one example, looked about equally as sharp with the Pearl and HD81. The grid up close with the SXRD looks sharper than I anticipated. They say convergence is better with the Pearl versus the older Rubies. Basically, there might have been more of an edge to images with the HD81, due in part to other factors like CR, brightness with the SXRD looking smoother overall but I didn't ever get a real sense of missing detail. Steve and Kevin should chime in about this one.

The Da-Lite High Power provides gain of 2.8-3 on axis and for those viewers close to on axis.

The Pearl was placed about 15 feet from the screen at Kevin's, putting it I believe toward the brightness over contrast end of the zoom (unless I've got that in reverse.)

Dan

My problem is I have a fairly new F-Hauk 115" 1.25 gain , and I am not sure if the pearl will be bright enough for my set up. Especially after it has a little run time on the bulb.
I want to be able to use in light controlled for movies, but with some ambient light for sports. Like when My Bears are in the Super Bowl! Don't want it to dark for the party!
Any Opinions out there?
Thanx
Tony

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.

Why? Auto-iris is probably what 99% of Ruby/Pearl users are using, and the best way to use it.

So if the H81 was close in performance to the Pearl w/o the auto-iris, then the Pearl would have been the clear winner if it was used the way almost all users would use it (auto-iris).

Did you try to compare both projectors, but with the Pearl with auto-iris on?

I second that! (Probably) Nobody will use the Pearl with Iris off/open in the real world. The state of the art auto iris is one of the BIGGEST features the Pearl has going for it. So comparing these two projectors with real world, realistic settings (auto iris on with Pearl, iris closed down to step 10-13 with HD81) that consumers actually use them with would make much more sense IMHO.

...It was striking how in Kevin's environment autoiris just seemed to dim the picture somewhat and render it apparently inferior in A-B comparisons to the HD81 on that basis.
Until you see it is hard to believe but in quick A/Bs brighter will always look "better", colors will be "punchier", thats the nature of the HVS. Same with comparing speakers, louder will sound 'better".

Thanks for the update. =)

15 should put the zoom dead center.

Interesting observations thanks

Not necessarily correct. In dark scenes in very dark movies (Dark City, AVP, ... ) the Pearl with auto iris would have a clear advantage in CR snd shadow detail. In the end the pjs would still have a different "look" ( electrostatic speakers vs. conventional drivers :) ). Different viewers may prefer a different look! For film-look fans, the Pearl will be the choice. For giant plasma, choose the HD81.

I agree that not using the auto iris on the Pearl is like taking away all bit 1 of Tiger's clubs, still very good, but not at his best. It did not hurt the HD81 because according to TJN, the HD81's auto iris is useless!

A better solution would have been to put a ND filter on the HD81 to match brightness.

I agree, You should not only turn on the auto-iris of the pearl but also set the brightness level of the hd-81 to its preferred level. Projectors should not be modified to match another projectors specs especially in a shoot-out. Both projectors should be setup exactly how the end user will use them in their optimal mode.

What is the relative msrp of these two projectors? noone mentioned cost

Just a couple of quick notes, and then I'll shut up:

1. The Pearl should be shown at minimum or close to minimum throw and in auto iris mode - any other setup would clearly put the Pearl at a disadvantage - a MAJOR disadvantage. Iris on is way too dim and iris off is brighter, but has poor black levels and "apparent" contrast. The auto iris of the HD 81 supposedly is broken at this point, so unfortunately there is no way to tell how effective it is.
2. Brightness is a purchase consideration and I'm sure that the HD 81 won easily in this department (or at least should have). Once that comparison is made, it is essential to match brightness levels in order to compare all of the other picture quality traits, much like speaker volumes need to be equalized in order to compare sound quality. Brighter always looks better, especially in quick side by side comparisons. And let me repeat, before someone jumps all over me - BRIGHTNESS IS AN IMPORTANT PURCHASE CONSIDERATION!! You just don't compare other PQ traits until you equalize the brightness.

A friend of mine ordered a Pearl and once it arrives I will be calibrating it for him and then running a quick comparison to my Ruby. The biggest single obstacle I am facing for the "faceoff" will be the ability to equalize brightness levels between his brand new Pearl and my ~600 hour Ruby - They won't be even close!

Edit: I see that in the long time that it took me to compose my post, others had already made my points for me...:)

Great writeup, Dan.

What is the relative msrp of these two projectors? noone mentioned cost

$10000 for the HD81 and $4999 for the Pearl.

sureSure. 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.



Really?

You Mean the whole team already bought tickets to see the Bears in the Super Bowl? They Probably used the money they won when they bet against themselves last Sunday night! They must of, because nobody can play that bad unless they wanted to. HaHa

The opinion I was really looking for was about the Pearl brightness issue. Not Yours.

Just kidding!

This is a Major decision so I must try to get it right!

Oh, and great writeup, Dan! :)

Where are my manners? :rolleyes:

Outstanding -thanks for this very useful review Dan, guys like you are what make this forum so valuable. These 2 PJs are on my short list. i happen to like the sharpness of DLP vs softness of Sony lcd and sxrd and was considering HD81, except lack of lens shift is a concern in my 7' 9" ceiling basement theater. Can you estimate how far above the top of the screen your HD81 was mounted? Best i can do is about 4-5" above the top of my 45" high FireHawk. I can live with minor keystoning if, as you mention, it not really noticeable - i would probably just let it spill over the screen frame rather than use correction.

1. The Pearl should be shown at minimum or close to minimum throw and in auto iris mode - any other setup would clearly put the Pearl at a disadvantage - a MAJOR disadvantage. Iris on is way too dim and iris off is brighter, but has poor black levels and "apparent" contrast. The auto iris of the HD 81 supposedly is broken at this point, so unfortunately there is no way to tell how effective it is.
2. Brightness is a purchase consideration and I'm sure that the HD 81 won easily in this department (or at least should have). Once that comparison is made, it is essential to match brightness levels in order to compare all of the other picture quality traits, much like speaker volumes need to be equalized in order to compare sound quality. Brighter always looks better, especially in quick side by side comparisons. And let me repeat, before someone jumps all over me - BRIGHTNESS IS AN IMPORTANT PURCHASE CONSIDERATION!! You just don't compare other PQ traits until you equalize the brightness.

A friend of mine ordered a Pearl and once it arrives I will be calibrating it for him and then running a quick comparison to my Ruby. The biggest single obstacle I am facing for the "faceoff" will be the ability to equalize brightness levels between his brand new Pearl and my ~600 hour Ruby - They won't be even close!

Edit: I see that in the long time that it took me to compose my post, others had already made my points for me...:)All the comments about brighter seeming to be better in comparisons are important. When I was viewing the Pearl at Kevin's the comparison I kept making mentally was with how it looks in my HT where is image has almost 3 gain and with very little side or scattered light reflection back to the screen. The High Power tends to suppress any side reflections by virtue of being retroflective as well. In Kevin's theater, that I think is more typical than mine is, it was much harder to see the autoiris work. It simply did not look like the same projector, but looked actually closer to my mental picture as well as the HD81 after the calibration with iris off.

Dan

i happen to like the sharpness of DLP vs softness of Sony lcd and sxrd and was considering HD81, except lack of lens shift is a concern in my 7' 9" ceiling basement theater. Can you estimate how far above the top of the screen your HD81 was mounted? Best i can do is about 4-5" above the top of my 45" high FireHawk. I can live with minor keystoning if, as you mention, it not really noticeable - i would probably just let it spill over the screen frame rather than use correction.I didn't notice keystoning with Kevin's Optoma mounted on his 7 1/2 - 8 ft ceiling, by my estimate. He said keystoning was there but subtle. It was probably masked in the border of his Carada.

I know Kevin's busy in DC so he may not post for a couple of days. When he does he may clarify his ceiling height and other setup details for his HD81.

Dan

Dan great review.

What sources and content did you use for the comparison?

Did anyone take lumen readings?

Was there a significant difference in the video processing of the HD81's VPX solution vs the Pearl's internal processor?

If the two pj were hidden and brightness equalized with a ND filter, how quickly would you be able to tell them apart?

Would you be able to distinguish them simply by the sharpness difference?

Great writeup, Dan.



$10000 for the HD81 and $4999 for the Pearl.

It is actually more like $6990.- HD81, $4990.- Pearl MAP

Oh really?

Projector Central is normally spot on and they have the MSRP at $10,000

Where did you guys get those numbers?

Oh really?

Projector Central is normally spot on and they have the MSRP at $10,000

Where did you guys get those numbers?

"Projector Central is normally spot on" :rolleyes:

Ok fine, don't like them just type optoma hd81 msrp and see how many come up for 10k

Pretty much ALL of them

The UltimateAv review listed it at $7K.

The street price difference between the HD81 and Pearl is ~$3K!

The last I checked, MSRP was $10k for the HD-81 and $5k for the Pearl. Of course both are available for considerably less, but we are only allowed to talk MSRP in the forum. ;)

The UltimateAv review listed it at $7K.

The street price difference between the HD81 and Pearl is ~$3K!



Now you are comparing the Street price of the HD81 to the MSRP of the Pearl.

That is not fair. Of course the Pearl can be had for less than that.

As Bob said MSRP only here so bottom line

HD81 - $10,000

VPL-VW50 - $4,999

And the Pearl is being had for <$3950.

And the HD81 is being had for ~$6000.-

So $2000.- real world difference no matter how you look at it ;) Which is about the price of the Gennum scaler you get with the HD81...

How does the Pearl compare to Optoma's H79?

How does the Pearl compare to Optoma's H79?That was my previous projector for a year and a half. I previously saw screen door, now I don't. In my setup that is very dark the autoiris works well and shadow detail and intrascene contrast are better. Check out my screenshots here (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=8610976&&#post8610976) that exaggerate the depth of black a bit but give a general idea of what I'm talking about. I find motion smoother and more continuous, for lack of a better word. I think colors are better but this is more subtle.

My wife, who is indifferent to technology of this kind, said she sees a clear improvement.

Dan

And the HD81 is being had for ~$6000.-

So $2000.- real world difference no matter how you look at it ;) Which is about the price of the Gennum scaler you get with the HD81...

Is that MSRP or street price on the scaler??? :D :D :D

And the HD81 is being had for ~$6000.-

So $2000.- real world difference no matter how you look at it ;) Which is about the price of the Gennum scaler you get with the HD81...
From my recent research the street price differential is just a couple of hundred dollars over $2k.

These two projectors were at the top of my very short list. I went with the HD81 because of:

1) Fantastic external scaler
2) Longer throw than Pearl (I have an ISCO II I need to use with it)
3) Brightness
4) I've had 3 chip projectors for so long I wanted to give DLP a shot. :)

I'm ecstatic with my purchase. The ANSI contrast blows me away (I'm a die hard DILA guy but now I know what the DLP guys have been bragging about for so long). The perfect convergence is also a big bonus. The brightness really lights up my microperf Grayhawk with plenty of room to spare (I have the iris almost all the way closed).

A two box solution is a really great idea and one that I'll look for in any future projectors. If I'd bought the Pearl I'd have had to buy an external scaler and probably spent at least $2k on it, so price differential was a wash for me.

Just thought I'd throw out the perspective of somebody who agonized over these two projectors and went with the HD81. I'd do it all over again if I were given the choice.

-Dave

My wife, who is indifferent to technology of this kind, said she sees a clear improvement.

Dan

From now on we should have the wives do the reviews :)

Until you see it is hard to believe but in quick A/Bs brighter will always look "better", colors will be "punchier", thats the nature of the HVS. Same with comparing speakers, louder will sound 'better".

There's just something about those lumens, huh? I know for which this member speaks/writes. Not much is sadder than going to a cinema with a dimmed lamp.

Excellent review and write up Dan! Very professionally done. What a great service to the forum. This is what we come here for. :)

I think you guys were between a rock and a hard place on how to run the Pearl: Auto Iris vs Iris off. With Iris off, of course you are going to be accused of running the Pearl at a disadvantage, since most of its benefits come from the auto iris. But, as others have said, the HD81 is going to be quite a bit brighter than the Pearl, and brighter will always look better in direct a/b comparisons, so running it in auto iris would have been unfair as well, since the HD81 would look so much brighter.

I would be very interested in hearing about another review if you get the chance. If you could all spend time watching each projector calibrated to its best performance, then make some general impressions it would be interesting.

As is, though, I think you guys did an excellent job. And perhaps most importantly, I appreciate what appears to be a very objective post.

Thanks!

I think you guys were between a rock and a hard place on how to run the Pearl: Auto Iris vs Iris off. With Iris off, of course you are going to be accused of running the Pearl at a disadvantage, since most of its benefits come from the auto iris. But, as others have said, the HD81 is going to be quite a bit brighter than the Pearl, and brighter will always look better in direct a/b comparisons, so running it in auto iris would have been unfair as well, since the HD81 would look so much brighter.
The interesting comparison for me would have been Pearl auto iris vs. HD81 iris closed. That would have put the pjs in their respective best CR states and similar brightness. A ND filter on the HD81 would have also done the trick for Pearl iris off comparisons.

A similar comparison between the Marantz 11S1 and the HD81 will have similar problems. The Marantz has less light output than the Pearl, yet according to the experts has arguably the finest image currently available! :)

The interesting comparison for me would have been Pearl auto iris vs. HD81 iris closed. That would have put the pjs in their respective best CR states and similar brightness. A ND filter on the HD81 would have also done the trick for Pearl iris off comparisons.

A similar comparison between the Marantz 11S1 and the HD81 will have similar problems. The Marantz has less light output than the Pearl, yet according to the experts has arguably the finest image currently available! :)

Yep. There are obviously several different ways to go about these comparisons. That's what makes them so challenging!

I didn't realize that the Marantz had less brightness than the Pearl! :eek:

Yep. There are obviously several different ways to go about these comparisons. That's what makes them so challenging!

I didn't realize that the Marantz had less brightness than the Pearl! :eek:
According to the WSR review:
economy F6 (best CR) 330 lumens @ 4,020:1
Normal F6 416 lumens @ 4,020:1

Normal F3 608 lumens @ 2,360:1
lumens 3% at min throw, 6% lower at max throw.

Excellent review and write up Dan! Very professionally done. What a great service to the forum. This is what we come here for. :)

I think you guys were between a rock and a hard place on how to run the Pearl: Auto Iris vs Iris off. With Iris off, of course you are going to be accused of running the Pearl at a disadvantage, since most of its benefits come from the auto iris. But, as others have said, the HD81 is going to be quite a bit brighter than the Pearl, and brighter will always look better in direct a/b comparisons, so running it in auto iris would have been unfair as well, since the HD81 would look so much brighter.

I would be very interested in hearing about another review if you get the chance. If you could all spend time watching each projector calibrated to its best performance, then make some general impressions it would be interesting.

As is, though, I think you guys did an excellent job. And perhaps most importantly, I appreciate what appears to be a very objective post.

Thanks!
Rob and others, thanks for the nice feedback.

We could have tried other modes with both projectors had we had more time. Also, we could have used our time more efficiently to stay on task but we just kept getting pulled into the movie with each projector and admiring the qualities of each.

The interesting comparison for me would have been Pearl auto iris vs. HD81 iris closed. That would have put the pjs in their respective best CR states and similar brightness. A ND filter on the HD81 would have also done the trick for Pearl iris off comparisons.I agree. Looking back I think the best comparison would have been with the Pearl calibrated in an autoiris mode with a bright screen and fixing the iris in the HD81 to generally match brightness, for the reasons you give. Maybe that will be next although those results could and likely would be dependent on that setup.

Dan

NICE review!

I will wait for the HD81 to come down a bit in price and then upgrade my IF 7200.

I just know I would miss a BRIGHT PJ if I bought the Pearl.

First allow me to express my gratitude for being included in the evenings festivities! :D

My background is that I put 2500 hours on a BenQ 8700+, then sold the home and the theater!

I currently have an InFocus 7210 in a light controlled room in my basement. The walls are still the standard light tan ("apple core" to be precise) and I have not made up my mind on a screen, so I am currently projecting on the tan wall an image of around 137." Projecting this large of an image has really spoiled me to the point that I really really really like the large screen experience. (I could mention that my Theater is 13' wide by 16.5' long) I mounted the projector in the attic crawl-space outside the theater so the only evidence that the room is a Theater when not in use are the "big honking" speakers which I purchased from John of Integrity Home Theater (who has been a major contributor on AVS). I include this just so people will have an idea where I am coming from.

I am currently shopping for a projector for a town-house I purchased in Las Vegas and my needs are colored by the environment in which I will have to mount any projector. I mention this because one of the things Dan mentioned in his review is that your individual environment can make the choice for you between these two projectors.

As everyone knows by now, the HD-81 has a pretty large fixed offset (36.2 degree's if memory serves) with no lens adjustment. This means your installer has to be "spot-on" with their installation. The good news is as Dan mentioned that tilting the HD-81 even in the 7.5' ceilings of Kevin's basement did not provide any obvious flaws in the image. Kevin was able to hide the trapezoidal image with the border of his Carada screen (Kevin has the older model with the smaller borders also...) and it was never apparent even when I was up within 4' of the screen. Yes, had I attempted to find it with a "hand-puppet" test, I probably could have done so, but it was completely unnoticeable during normal viewing.

To me this is significant as I believe it removes one of the major installation barriers for many potential buyers!

As for throw distances the HD-81 needs to be mounted farther away from the screen for a given image than the Pearl does..., but then if Brightness is an issue you will need to mount the Pearl as close as possible to the screen for any given image size.

Now a word about Brightness...... The Pearl appears to my untrained eye to be Brighter than the Ruby I have seen. Of course I was looking at the Ruby in a dark light controlled environment on a 170" screen! However, I still believe the Pearl has the edge over the Ruby in the Brightness department. As everyone knows the HD-81 has more lumens available than the Pearl.

Is this an "issue?" Well yes and no... (how is that for being a politician.... sorry I have been watching the national news). If your viewing environment will be like mine in Las Vegas (a Great Room open to the Kitchen, Dining Room, etc. then yes, light is an issue. This can be dealt with by only watching the projector at night, Black-Out Blinds, writing a macro for control of all the lighting circuit breakers into your favorite Remote Control, or perhaps one of the new technology screens. Each person has to decide what is going to work best for them... however it is my guess that if you want to operate your Pearl in an open Great Room with many people milling about and chatting during Sunday afternoon Football that you better get a SilverStar. I am looking forward to getting a chance to see Dan's Theater with his HP screen (133" I believe). I am sure this looks terrific in Dan's BatCave environment and undoubtable provides an incredibly immersive environment. Just a word here however... now most everyone in this forum is aware of the pro's and con's of the High Power screen, but just as a reminder to use this screen you will have to be mounting the projector on a table or rear shelf and not inverted on the ceiling. Using a ceiling mount completely eliminates all the wonderful gain of the HP.

I agree that the more accurate way to compare any two displays if you are only considering the image is to match their brightness... and this is what Dan and Kevin tried to do with the time and tools available. None of us happen to have an ND filter hidden in out pockets and the time involved in doing an auto iris calibration left us with the solution to have the Pearl more closely match the HD-81, thus running in high lamp with IRIS off. Under these circumstances it was easier to not be totally swayed by the change in brightness when going back and forth between the Pearl and the HD-81.

So now to the image.......... I am personally turned off by SDE, so I am thrilled to report that unless you plan on sitting within arm's reach of the screen you will NOT be seeing SDE with either of these projectors! It is amazing what you can do with only TWO MILLION dots!

The first impression I had of the Ruby was that I was watching a really bright really well converged CRT. Many lifetimes ago I was the personal pilot for some of the Hollywood crowd. Among my various duties was keeping a humongous Advent CRT projector converged that sat in the "Green Room." I guess this is where I became polluted with the whole "big screen" complex. Well I never had the opportunity to play with the newer CRT's like the Sony G90, but I think the Pearl comes so darn close to that undefinable reference we call "film-like" that I think it would make any CRT owner cry. Smooth, serene, images flow by and you are immediately "absorbed" into the movie.

The HD-81's image on the other hand is a more aggressive partner in the movie viewing experience as the image is definitely "sharper" and more crisp than the Pearl. This is the "look" that DLP owners are accustomed to and normally cherish. The colors on the HD-81 seem to be a bit "bolder" if you will, they seem to ask you to give them more attention. After we switched back and forth several times the HD-81 definitely had more "pop" in this particular environment, but I think we all felt the colors on the Pearl were probably more accurate... just not as demanding of attention. The shadow detail on the HD-81 was excellent... the mines in LOTR have never looked so good on any Home Theater I have seen... and this was on both projectors. However, there was a slight edge to the Pearl in shadow details both in LOTR and in PHOTO. The best example I can share was on the roof top scene from Phantom where the Count and (oops forgot the female leads name) were singing. The Count was wearing a black suit and with his back to the camera you could definitely see the complete collar (black collar on black suit) where with the HD-81 you could see the line of the collar, but not the collar itself.

I personally like (and have owned) DLP projectors so the crisp look of the HD-81 was very comfortable to me. Gratefully I have never seen (nor do I wish to) a rainbow and this was also a non-issue for me on the HD-81.

Given the appropriate environment I would be thrilled to own either of these projectors. However, as I discussed earlier I believe the individual environments you each deal with will make a major difference in which projector you pick for your home.

I think price must be mentioned here also...... First.... isn't it great the downward trend in price and the upward trend in quality!!! Whoopee!

That said for many of us price is always an issue and here the Pearl is the hands-down champ. Yes if you factor in the cost of an external scaler using the Gennum chipset then the street prices would probably be dead even.

However, do you need an external scaler to enjoy the Pearl? Not in my humble opinion. At least not for viewing HD-DVD or SD-DVD upconverted by either the HD-DVD player or an Oppo.

At no time did I see (remember I am not an expert either) any need for a scaler on the Pearl... now we did not watch any SDTV with the Pearl, so I cannot comment on that... however if Kevin and Dan ever venture south I have promised to hook their projectors up to HDTV via both a HD-Tivo, OTA, and DTV's newest Mpeg4 DVR... on which we can view HDTV and SDTV adnauseum!

Thanks for the review, Steve!

-tony

I would concur with the impressions of Dan and Steve in what admittedly was an “informal” shoot out. My only regret is that we didn’t have more time to try many of the options suggested in this post.

When we started, I thought there was an obvious difference in the two because I had previously calibrated the Optoma to a very flat D65 from 20 IRE to 100 IRE. As Greg Rogers has pointed out, calibrating the Sony with the auto iris is a complicated process, so with the time available, we thought it best to try and match color accuracy between the two projectors, which I think we accomplished. We did view the various iris modes of the Pearl, and felt we were more comparing apples to apples by leaving the iris out of the equation for both projectors. I don’t think there is any question that for someone looking for the benefits of an iris, the Sony is the hands-down winner, and that they will (should) factor that in weighting the comments made by Dan, Steve and myself. I would also agree that the viewing environment makes a big difference. Dan’s set-up is a true “black-hole” – a room covered in dark cloth and felt from which no stray photon can escape. I never come away from Dan’s room without feeling disappointed in my theater room, which is light controlled but with white walls (which I’m finally going to paint), but I agree that my room is probably the more typical viewing environment and comparing impressions between our two theater rooms will help people in deciding which projector works best for them.

Here are my observations that I submit not to promote one projector over another but to hopefully help forum members trying to make the difficult decision between the Sony and the Optoma.

The HD81 has a bright image, fully-saturated colors, and high ANSI contrast – a much more up front “look at me” kind of presentation, and I thought it had a slightly more 3D look than the Sony. I am sure this is why some people find the DLP look to be “harsh” and digital, but as mentioned, if you like the DLP look, the HD81 delivers it in spades. I did find the Sony to be smoother and more film-like with neutral colors that, as Dan noted, did not draw attention to themselves. I agree with Steve that the Sony most closely matches the look of a CRT projector. I would also give the Sony the nod in the area of color nuance, but both projectors were really excellent in this area. (NOTE: Dan made the interesting observation that with commercial theaters going to digital projectors -- essentially a giant DLP projector -- the perception of what is a more “film-like” look may start to swing in favor of the DLP.)

The HD81 has excellent shadow detail, but I would have to agree with the others that the Pearl had a slight advantage in this area. For example, in POTO when the former owner of the opera is telling the new managers to “grovel,” you could more distinctly make out that he was wearing pin-stripe pants. You could certainly see it on the HD81, but it was just more noticeable on the Sony. However, I thought the Optoma did a little better job showing color detail at low luminance levels (e.g., Christine's roses in the graveyard scene of POTO). I felt that depending on the scene, the Pearl and the HD81 continually swapped first place as to which appeared to show more resolution.

Both projectors would do 1x1 pixel mapping, but the Sony had a slight red smear on the chroma multi-burst pattern from the Accupel (alternating black, cyan and red lines that are exactly one pixel wide), but this was not noticeable in real viewing conditions.

As everyone probably knows, the HD81 has very inflexible installation parameters (long throw and significant offset), but I made it work in my room with a 7.5’ ceiling, 16.5” from the screen, and with about an inch of keystone (I’m not at home right now, so I don’t want to guess on my final measurements). In contrast, the Sony is very flexible with its adjustable offset and more “normal” throw. A big plus is that the HD81 only needs the one HDMI cable from the Gennum processor that also acts as a switcher, while the Sony could require you to run two HDMI cables and a component cable (depending if you have a switcher or a receiver that outputs everything over HDMI like the Yamaha RX-V2600). The Sony is also substantially larger and heavier than the HD81 projector unit.

The Optoma has a very neutral fan noise that is only heard during the quietest scenes, but the Sony is even quieter.

We ran a color-gamut test on both projectors. The HD81 falls more in line with the ATSC standard while the Sony is substantially over saturated as to the red and green primaries, but none of us noticed such a difference in actual viewing conditions. My very preliminary impression is that the HD81 can be calibrated with a little more accuracy than the Sony (at least with auto iris off) in that the Sony tended to have a very subtle pink and green hue on a white field, but we didn’t really notice this watching HD-DVDs. I also thought that both units produced very true blacks, meaning there was no tint to the blacks at very low luminance levels.

On the banding issue, I don't think we viewed the same scene in U-571 on the Sony. Generally, the HD81 has much fewer banding artifacts than prior DLPs.

As Dan mentioned, there is something almost subconsciously noticeable about the color wheel that makes watching movement on the Pearl more pleasing over the long haul. I observed it most in the horse racing scenes of Seabiscuit and the fog scenes of Christine in the graveyard. As Sony continually promotes it, this is more a DLP vs. SXRD issue than a problem with the HD81, which, as the rainbow issue goes, is better than previous DLP models.

The Gennum processor is excellent (the same processor used in the $20k Marantz VP-11s1), but with a high-quality source, like HD-DVD, we did not see any significant difference between the two as to processing ability. One might see a difference on more problematic source material.

I would agree that the auto iris on the HD81 is not something I would use in critical viewing because of its obvious luminance pumping and audible clicking; however, I have enjoyed it watching HDTV sports. On the other hand, the manual iris on the HD81 is very usable and is a nice option. As stated, if auto iris is an important factor to you, then get the Sony.

As we all agreed, the Optoma and Sony are both amazing display devices that throw extremely engaging images. Many times, we just couldn’t take our eyes off the screen or interrupt the movie – the images were that compelling and beautiful. Either of these projectors coupled with a solid HD source will blow you away.

The cost factor makes the choice more difficult. If they were both the same price, I would easily choose the HD81 because of the outboard processor and the option to couple it with an anamorphic lens for a 2.35:1 setup. As it is, the significant price difference and indisputable quality of the Sony would make it very hard to pass up if I had a very dark theater room or used a smaller screen (say less than 100”) such that brightness was not an issue.

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), both of whom are certainly easy on the eyes. Hopefully, this little experiment gives you some context in which to determine which projector will best fit your viewing situation and best satisfy what you value most in a home theater system – either way, the owner of a 1080p projector is the winner.

Great write-up Kevin!

What a tough decision! Both sound excellent for many reasons. Great reviews BTW, this exemplifies why AVSforum is such a great place for projector feedback.

Thanks for the comparison review. Great job. I'm very close in deciding which of these two projectors to go with. I would appreciate any opinions in view of my set up. I will be using a 123" diagonal screen, with some ambient light issues. It is in a Great room not a dedcicated theater. The room dimension is 21x30x12. Given the high ceiling the lens offset on the Hd81 is not a problem. Because I want to use a 123" screen and would like to have the projector behind the prime seating area I'm leaning towards the Optoma. Any suggestions? Also screen material reccomendation? Thanks.

Kevin and Steve, thanks for fleshing out this report with your observations.

We also briefly checked out the RCP function on the Pearl but couldn't use it in a helpful way. We brought in red while looking at the gamut in real time with Kevin's calibration setup and when it was on target on the HD Rec. 709 color triangle and what was on screen looked washed out and magenta. We couldn't get the green primary to move in very well. Blue was nearly right on its triangle point. As Kevin noted, the red the green primaries measured off the chart. Greg Rogers said in his Ruby review that RCP didn't control the hue of the primaries and that engaging the RCP shifted the gray scale necessitating a custom gray. And I recall others, especially Bob Sorel, ending up back on wide colorspace after using RCP to attempt to adjust colors. In any case, we didn't stay in RCP too long and I can't say whether Sony has upgraded RCP to control hue for adjusting primaries or otherwise.

Kevin mentioned the pink and greenish parts of a white field with the Pearl. That is due to color non-uniformity with the SXRD chips. It wasn't bad enough to intrude with even black and white source viewing.

We also used the "Standard" video setting on the Pearl at Kevin's and I believe ended up doing the quickie calibration in that mode. It somehow looked cleaner, we thought, even over "Cinema" although I use the latter in my theater as I presume the overall gamma applied is closer to 2.2 or so. (We calibrated fairly close to 2.2-2.3 while in Standard mode, IIRC, and Kevin, correct me here if I am wrong.) "Dynamic" mode crushed blacks and pumped up color saturation. More calibration and measurement will happen in different modes later after the Pearl's bulb is a little older and more settled.

Dan

This was a big takeaway point for me: The ANSI or simultaneous CR of the Pearl is not as high as the HD81's, and environments that have light reflective surfaces will further compromise this leaving the Pearl looking not very punchy and kind of flat in comparison.
A highly-reflective room would not only make the Pearl look flatter, but would also make the HD81 look flatter and probably more similar to the Pearl in terms of simultaneous CR. In other words, the HD81 would still have an advantage over the Pearl, but it would be less of an advantage, not more of an advantage.

Weatherby........

In that enviornment I believe the HD-81 would be the projector I would select.

For screen choice....... I would consider the SilverStar... I believe the largest version is at 122 inches.

Dan, Kevin and Steve,

You obviously put a lot of thought and time into both your testing and your postings. Thanks for one of the best threads I have read in a while - informative, non-partisan and well-written!

Mike

First of all thank you very much guys, a GREAT read!

But I still don't get it regarding the difference in color saturation between the two:

On the one hand I read "the colors on the HD81 are definitely bolder, but with the Pearl they seem more accurate". But then I read "while measuring the color gamut the Pearl shows clearly over-saturated reds and greens while the HD81 closely matches the Rec.709 norm"... :confused:

So what is it now - regarding color saturation - is the HD81 or the Pearl "more colorful". I remember the Ruby to have highly (over)saturated colors - I would love to hear how the HD81 compares to that!

And regarding sharpness - Is the difference in (perceived) sharpness immediately obvious while comparing these two projectors? The smooth, film-like (read: soft) look of the Ruby always was a big turn off for me - I hope the HD81 does clearly "better" in this regard.

Thank you.

Excellent reviews. I love to hear users opinions on such subjective matters. Means more to me than any specs...

I am currently running a Pearl and Ruby setup in my home. I would love to add the H81 because I do watch a lot of sports. I prefer the look of DLP for all sports and love LCOS when it comes time for movies.

Thanks again for the comments!

And regarding sharpness - Is the difference in (perceived) sharpness immediately obvious while comparing these two projectors? The smooth, film-like (read: soft) look of the Ruby always was a big turn off for me - I hope the HD81 does clearly "better" in this regard.

Thank you.

I have not viewed the H81 yet, but do have a DLP TV in my home. To me the difference in sharpness is easily noticeable. DLP looks overprocessed while LCOS is very fimlike.

For sports and even video games I prefer the DLP. I would love to hear from these guys, but I expect them to answer the same when comparing the look of the projectors.

Looks like the Pearl just jumped to the top of my list, thanks guys!

One question, I will have to mount the Pearl's lens about 9.4 feet from my screen... any idea what my max screen size will be (16:9) given this short throw? I didn't see this info listed on the specs.

I would guess Max would be 92 - 94 inches

Don't quote me though

Check Projector Central under the Ruby for the dimensions.

For projection calculations use the Ruby (VPL-100W) at www.projectorcentral.com

If you read some of the comments that other folks are making here, perhaps that will help you better understand the "look" and decide which you prefer.

Note that one person describes the HD-81 (ne: DLP) "look" as Overprocessed.... and another describes the Ruby as too "soft."

So remember that each persons view of whether the "look" of an individual projector is good/bad/acceptable/terrible... in a large measure will depend on what they have internalized as the "proper" look for a display.

These are folks with opposing expectations of what an image is "supposed" to look like.

If you are coming from a background of CRT, Lcos, or DILA you are conditioned to want/expect a "film-like" smooth image.

However, you can easily spot a person who is coming from a DLP background whose wants/desires are more conditioned to the "crispness" (CRT fans would say overprocessed) look that is the hallmark of DLP.

Kevin and Dan both alluded to the fact that the many of the newer digital theaters coming online are now using DLP projectors for commercial cinema. It will be interesting to see what effect this has on the expectations of viewers and whether the definition of "film-like" will become morphed to "theater-like" which will more represent the DLP "look" rather than the classic smooth "look" of film.

Hi Steve :) , Dan, and Kevin!

All three of you guys - excellent writeup! And greatly appreciated. I had been considering the HD-81 in my theater, but I really thought that due to my low ceiling height (84") and my screen size (119" diagonal) that the tilt would be too severe, but if it worked for you with a 90" ceiling, it should still work for me. :) I have a couple of questions about the tilted setup:

1. Did you tilt the projector only, or did you also tilt the screen to compensate for the projector tilt? Since you mentioned a "trapezoidal image" I assumed that you left the screen perfectly vertical, but I don't know for sure.
2. With the PJ tilted, were there any focus issues between the top and bottom of the screen. In my setup, I figured that I would have around a 10% tilt, which is pretty severe, and my thoughts are that there might be a signficant focus difference from the top to the bottom of the screen with such a severe tilt. What can you tell me about any focus issues that might arise, or are they nonexistent?
And I recall others, especially Bob Sorel, ending up back on wide colorspace after using RCP to attempt to adjust colors.
Please don't misunderstand me, I do not use, nor ever have used, Sony's "wide colorspace" on the Ruby. I tried it and could not get the colors right, but the normal colorspace calibrated nicely, so all I ever use is the calibrated normal color space. I DO NOT recommend the wide colorspace at all! :)

As far s brightness issues go, I agree that everyone needs to determine what works best for them in their particular situation - screen size, gain, and type, projector mounting, ambient light situation and one other consideration not often discussed - desired viewing brightness level. When I got my first digital PJ, I was going from a relatively dim 9" CRT, so I really ached for more brightness. I bought the IF 7210 and really liked it - I remember mentioning words along lines of "the brighter the better" and "there is no such thing as an image that is too bright". But as I continued watching the brighter images, I started noticing that along with the extra pop and wow factor of the brighter colors, I could also detect a lot more artifacts that were previously hidden by the dimmer image - MPEG noise, macroblocking, dithering, etc. As my lamps aged and dimmed the artifacts became less noticeable, and as a result I have found what the "sweet spot" is for my personal viewing preference - 12 to 16 ftL. Once the image gets below that level, I find it too dim to enjoy thoroughly and above that level I can see too many PQ imperfections. Everyone will have their own personal preferences as to what brightness levels they find most desirable, so choice of projector should be very closely related to screen choice. Pick out the combination that works best for you to keep you in your desired viewing level range for the life of the lamp, keeping in mind that the lamp will lose about half its brightness within several hundred hours.

Ok, enough of this off topic rant - Now I forgot why I brought it up in the first place...:rolleyes:

Thanks again, guys! Your contribution to the forum information pool is huge!

1. Did you tilt the projector only, or did you also tilt the screen to compensate for the projector tilt? Since you mentioned a "trapezoidal image" I assumed that you left the screen perfectly vertical, but I don't know for sure.
2. With the PJ tilted, were there any focus issues between the top and bottom of the screen. In my setup, I figured that I would have around a 10% tilt, which is pretty severe, and my thoughts are that there might be a signficant focus difference from the top to the bottom of the screen with such a severe tilt. What can you tell me about any focus issues that might arise, or are they nonexistent?

Please don't misunderstand me, I do not use, nor ever have used, Sony's "wide colorspace" on the Ruby. I tried it and could not get the colors right, but the normal colorspace calibrated nicely, so all I ever use is the calibrated normal color space. I DO NOT recommend the wide colorspace at all! :)

As far s brightness issues go, I agree that everyone needs to determine what works best for them in their particular situation - screen size, gain, and type, projector mounting, ambient light situation and one other consideration not often discussed - desired viewing brightness level. When I got my first digital PJ, I was going from a relatively dim 9" CRT, so I really ached for more brightness. I bought the IF 7210 and really liked it - I remember mentioning words along lines of "the brighter the better" and "there is no such thing as an image that is too bright". But as I continued watching the brighter images, I started noticing that along with the extra pop and wow factor of the brighter colors, I could also detect a lot more artifacts that were previously hidden by the dimmer image - MPEG noise, macroblocking, dithering, etc. As my lamps aged and dimmed the artifacts became less noticeable, and as a result I have found what the "sweet spot" is for my personal viewing preference - 12 to 16 ftL. Once the image gets below that level, I find it too dim to enjoy thoroughly and above that level I can see too many PQ imperfections. Everyone will have their own personal preferences as to what brightness levels they find most desirable, so choice of projector should be very closely related to screen choice. Pick out the combination that works best for you to keep you in your desired viewing level range for the life of the lamp, keeping in mind that the lamp will lose about half its brightness within several hundred hours. Thanks for that correction, Bob. I use normal colorspace, too.

I'll tell you what I saw at Kevin's HT and he'll post and correct and elaborate if needed. If Kevin's screen was tilted it was not obvious and I didn't notice it. The tilt of the projector was subtle. Tonight I'll post photos of the screen and his HD81 mounted on the ceiling; I know Kevin posted a shot of his ceiling mount in the big HD81 thread. I also did not see any focus issues even with apparent lack of countertilt. As Steve noted any trapezoidal boundary was hidden in the relatively narrow Carada black frame. On menus, etc. that might have shown geometry problems I didn't see any.

I think the Pearl's brightness using the High Power will end up around 12-16 ftL after bulb aging. I like that range, too, though higher quality sources such as HD DVD look quite OK brighter. I do look forward to the Pearl's "black level" dropping with bulb dimming and I use high lamp setting because I find the fan noise more constant and unobtrusive that way. If needed I'll zoom in a bit for greater brightness and take care of any light spill with masking panels at that time. Right now my image is around 126" diagonal and plenty bright.

Dan

For projection calculations use the Ruby (VPL-100W) at www.projectorcentral.com


Guys, I'm only coming up with a 54" screen pluging in a 9.4' throw!?!? Can this be right? :confused:


Edit: My bad... I see it's 54" - 93"


Thanks guys! :)

change the option to diagnal range instead of throw range


nvm you figured it out :)

Regarding the main differences of these pjs being described as the HD81 being more bold, sharp, and "in your face", with the Pearl being more neutral and smooth, how big is this difference?

Is this something that is easily noticeable without doing direct A/B comparisons? Or are the differences in this regard more subtle?

Hope this question make sense. :o

Regarding the main differences of these pjs being described as the HD81 being more bold, sharp, and "in your face", with the Pearl being more neutral and smooth, how big is this difference?

Is this something that is easily noticeable without doing direct A/B comparisons? Or are the differences in this regard more subtle?

Hope this question make sense. :o

This is very noticeable and is inherent in the technologies. If you see LCOS on its own (and have not owned a DLP) you will love the image. if you are used to a DLP (I liken it to be used to a high sharpness setting) then view an LCOS it will take your eyes some time to adjust (similar to adjusting to '0' sharpness setting.)

The detail on the LCOS is still amazing, but the picture is not as razor sharp as DLP.

Kevin and Dan both alluded to the fact that the many of the newer digital theaters coming online are now using DLP projectors for commercial cinema. It will be interesting to see what effect this has on the expectations of viewers and whether the definition of "film-like" will become morphed to "theater-like" which will more represent the DLP "look" rather than the classic smooth "look" of film.
Currently the reverse is true. DCI has taken great pains to create a "film-like" image from the dCinema 2K projectors. Part of the process as explained in the film/2K shootouts I have seen is to ever so slightly defocus the DLP units, partly to reduce SDE and partly to reduce the "sharp edges". Hollywood has issues with the "video look".

Michael Mann is one of the film makers who has been pushing the sharper/edgier/more colorfull presentation with Heat, Collateral, and Miami Vice. I would love to see Collateral on an HD81!

Another camp led by Speilberg is adamant that movies should not look like "the local 6 pm news in HDTV" :)

The reality as demonstrated by your shootout is the technologies are getting closer together from an image output standpoint. SXRD closed the on/off contrast gap, 1080p DLP closed the SDE gap. The serve is now to SXRD LCOS, with the new wiregrid polarizers they may close the ANSI CR/MTF gap. LEDs may close the DLP rainbow gap.

In the end, better and cheaper videophile performance for us consumers. :)

First of all thank you very much guys, a GREAT read!

But I still don't get it regarding the difference in color saturation between the two:

On the one hand I read "the colors on the HD81 are definitely bolder, but with the Pearl they seem more accurate". But then I read "while measuring the color gamut the Pearl shows clearly over-saturated reds and greens while the HD81 closely matches the Rec.709 norm"... :confused:

So what is it now - regarding color saturation - is the HD81 or the Pearl "more colorful". I remember the Ruby to have highly (over)saturated colors - I would love to hear how the HD81 compares to that!
Thank you.

Please share some comments about color saturation (see above)...

Thank you!

Where "being had for ~$6000.-"

So $2000.- real world difference no matter how you look at it ;) Which is about the price of the Gennum scaler you get with the HD81...[/QUOTE]


Do You Know of a reputable dealer that would sell the HD81 for $6000?

I did see Plasma city have it for $5,999 but their reviews were mixed. I need to buy 2 units, but want to make sure the dealer is authorized and reputable.

Your help would be appreciated.

Tony

[QUOTE=tjgar]
Do You Know of a reputable dealer that would sell the HD81 for $6000?

AVS science, the owner of this forum.

[QUOTE=tjgar]
Do You Know of a reputable dealer that would sell the HD81 for $6000?

AVS science, the owner of this forum.


Bah! I hear those guys are crooks. :)

-tony

p.s. I'm kidding of course. They provide excellent prices and top-notch service, this forum being Exhibit A of the latter. Reward them with your business, as I am planning to do with my Pearl or HC5000 order.

Who do I contact, and how do I go about Ordering From AVS?
Do You Know if they have any HD81's not accounted for?

Bah! I hear those guys are crooks. :)

-tony

p.s. I'm kidding of course. They provide excellent prices and top-notch service, this forum being Exhibit A of the latter. Reward them with your business, as I am planning to do with my Pearl or HC5000 order.[/QUOTE]

Contact Jason Turk. Either Pm him or email at: jason@avscience.com

Well I can tell you that they are not $6000 but I would be happy to give you a quote. Drop me a line and I can discuss.

Hey Guys: Glad you found the information helpful. Just got back from a quick trip to DC, but I'm looking forward to reviewing your comments and providing more information -- as soon as a I get a little sleep (notice the time of my original post).

Kevin
Can you talk about the sharpness difference between the pjs?

Did you do any lumens/CR measurements?

Another compliment to you guys for comparing these two projectors and providing all this information. Two questions. Is there a noticeable difference in heat output between the two? Do either of them have a threaded lens for attaching filters?

Thanks,

Dan

First of all thank you very much guys, a GREAT read!

But I still don't get it regarding the difference in color saturation between the two:

On the one hand I read "the colors on the HD81 are definitely bolder, but with the Pearl they seem more accurate". But then I read "while measuring the color gamut the Pearl shows clearly over-saturated reds and greens while the HD81 closely matches the Rec.709 norm"... :confused:

So what is it now - regarding color saturation - is the HD81 or the Pearl "more colorful". I remember the Ruby to have highly (over)saturated colors - I would love to hear how the HD81 compares to that!

And regarding sharpness - Is the difference in (perceived) sharpness immediately obvious while comparing these two projectors? The smooth, film-like (read: soft) look of the Ruby always was a big turn off for me - I hope the HD81 does clearly "better" in this regard.

Thank you.Last night I was thinking about this sharpness issue while watching Batman Begins with the Pearl last night. I had the BenQ8700 and then the Optoma H79 prior to the Pearl and I don't perceive a softening in image going to the Pearl. Putting it another way, I don't "miss" a sharper picture. There's immense detail to be seen in good source material and of course a big part of that is going from 720 to 1080p. I haven't seen the HD81 in my theater, though, and I bet a direct comparison there would result in the Optoma being "sharper" (or should I say edgier?) This will be interesting to see, but it was not at all like I have been perceiving a distinct SXRD soft look. Last night I was reminded, paradoxically, of what I'd seen at CEDIA in the Digital Projection demo, a very bright and detailed image, though I am sure a direct A-B comparison would show a difference.

Regarding color saturation, the gamut was very big with the Pearl but colors would look only subtly more saturated going from wide to normal colorspace in Kevin's HT with a 1.4 gain screen. It took a brighter image (we were switching back and forth between wide and normal colorspace with the Pearl while watching LOTR Mines of Moria scenes) to see the difference. I thought the brighter red in Christine's roses in the graveyard scene in POTO and highlights in her hair with the HD81 were there because the pj was brighter. Going back to my High Power and watching the same scenes again with the Pearl there was more of the color there because the image was much brighter. Also, in my HT I can much more readily see the changes in saturation in color between wide and normal colorspace. So, the "bolder" colors with the HD81 in Kevin's theater were in part due to its greater brightness.

Bottom line, if your setup with a Pearl will ensure good brightness, colors will not look faded. You can bring them "up" by increasing the brightness overall which may lead to using no iris as we did. Once again, I always use the autoiris with the Pearl in my HT.

I do think there's a difference in color rendition, with the SXRD better, but it is subtle and subject to so many factors and adjustments a user can change. I am sure most people would not have been able to tell which projector was what very readily in Kevin's setup for many scenes. If you really got down to it and mastered RCP in the Pearl and comparable adjustments in the Gennum/HD81 to really equalize the pjs in their color rendition it would be even more difficult to tell.

Dan

In my mind, resolution always means the ability to see detail, and it requires something more than just a high pixel count. A projector must be able to reproduce the entire luminance scale based on a correct settings for brightness, contrast, and gamma. The image must not have any artifacts from image processing, such as what occurs when sharpness is set too high or other “picture enhancement” processes are used. The projector must be able to accurately produce colors, which is achieved by correct primaries, an accurate color decoder, accurate saturation and hue, and a D65 grayscale across the entire luminance range. In this regard, I think both projectors are excellent.

Based on this, I don’t think that you can say that the Pearl has less resolution than the HD81 – it just creates resolution in a different way. When we say the Pearl has a smoother image, that doesn’t mean (at least in my mind) that it has a softer image. I think if you showed me a Pearl and HD81 image side by side, I could easily identify which is which, but saying which one is better is like choosing between steak and lobster. As others have suggested, I’m sure if you did an A-B comparison with people off the street, they would choose the Optoma because the initial perception is that it is brighter, sharper and more colorful, but as we all know that doesn’t really mean anything.

On color saturation, I think they both were excellent and Dan may be correct that the appearance of more color resolution in the HD81 may have been due to the higher brightness.

On the heat issue, my impression just by putting my hand in front of each projector’s fan is that the Optoma runs a little warmer. When I get home, I will stick a thermocouple in the fan vent and measure the actual temperature of the exhaust air. I will also check about a thread on the lens cover.

The screen essentially has no tilt (maybe ¼” on the top), but it is something I want to play with and see if I can minimize the keystone effect (just so it is clear, I would never use the digital keystone correction on a projector since it really creates some noticeable artifacts -- I will try and take some pictures showing this). I did take a photo this morning showing the amount of keystone I’m living with, and I will try to post the picture and provide exact measurements of the projector and screen setup.

If you want to get a flavor of the difference between DLP and SXRD, go see a movie on film and then try to see the same movie on a digital projector.

Dan, I think we need to get together in your bat-cave ASAP and experiment with some of the suggestions made in this thread and take some contrast ratio measurements.

Dan, I think we need to get together in your bat-cave ASAP and experiment with some of the suggestions made in this thread and take some contrast ratio measurements.
Kevin
Is there much of a CR difference between iris off and min iris on the HD81?

I think that for us CR junkies ( ex CRTers ) a Pearl iris auto vs HD81 iris closed would be ideal from a Cr and comparable brightness standpoint!

Is there much of a CR difference between iris off and min iris on the HD81?

This is a really good question. My colorimeter and software has an automated contrast test for ANSI and full field CR. Let me see if I can run that test on Saturday, if not sooner, because it would be interesting to know.

The plan as of now is to have the "bat cave" as the setting for another comparison this coming Monday afternoon. It just so happens that Batman Begins will be included in the viewing material. It looks like another reference disc IMO.

Dan

Last night I was thinking about this sharpness issue while watching Batman Begins with the Pearl last night. I had the BenQ8700 and then the Optoma H79 prior to the Pearl and I don't perceive a softening in image going to the Pearl. Putting it another way, I don't "miss" a sharper picture. There's immense detail to be seen in good source material and of course a big part of that is going from 720 to 1080p. I haven't seen the HD81 in my theater, though, and I bet a direct comparison there would result in the Optoma being "sharper" (or should I say edgier?) This will be interesting to see, but it was not at all like I have been perceiving a distinct SXRD soft look. Last night I was reminded, paradoxically, of what I'd seen at CEDIA in the Digital Projection demo, a very bright and detailed image, though I am sure a direct A-B comparison would show a difference.



I have not yet had the opportunity to do a direct A/B comparison with DLP and SXRD front projectors. However, I have spent a good amount of time viewing a Sony Qualia 004. More importantly, I recently did a direct A/B comparison with a Sony 60" SXRD and 61" Samsung DLP (1080p).

I completely agree with Dan's comments here (and subsequently Kevin's as well). There appears to be what I consider a misconception that DLP is sharper and LCoS is softer. Well, the important thing is what is meant by these terms. They must be defined.

In my comparisons, the Samsung, just as Kevin says in his post, immediately stood out more. It was a bit brighter and punchier. But after I sat down in front of these two sets (sitting right next to each other), I really began to enjoy the SXRD a lot. If anything, I thought the SXRD was actually very slightly resolving more detail than the Samsung DLP. Some of this could have been due to calibration (or lack thereof) and the fact that the Samsung had slightly more noise in the picture.

In any event, I would definitely describe the SXRD image as being "smooth". Somehow the term smooth has been interpreted by many people as being "soft". Well, I interpret "soft" to mean slightly blurry, which is obviously not something we want. And based on my comparison, it isnt the case at all.

I think the "sharper" appearance of the DLP can be described as having a bit of an "edge" to it. Frankly, the way that I use the term "sharp", I thought the SXRD was sharper. The outlines of objects were smoother, so it gave the perception of more detail. I equate more detail with a "sharp" image.

I think Kevin and Dan's comments here are very well taken. I hope this excellent review and their descriptions regarding the relative "sharpness" of these projectors will help correct (what I believe to be) the misconception of LCoS technology being "soft" (and the negative connotation that term has) and DLP "sharp" by comparison.

Yes, they definitely do have different looks to them. But I don't think that the "smoother" look of LCoS should be interpreted as being "soft" because of the negative connotation it has. LCoS does a superb job in terms of sharpness (assuming good convergence). It just doesn't have the "edgier" look that DLP has. Which is preferable is purely a personal preference.

And anyone who has seen a Sony Qualia 004 would certainly not describe it as not being sharp!

Edit: I meant to mention this previously, but it should be pointed out that the 1080p rear projection unit (Samsung) uses the "wobulated" 1080p chip, whereas the front projection 1080p's use the full 1080p panel. This can make a difference in terms of perceived sharpness between rear projection and front projection DLP's.

I completely agree with Dan's comments here (and subsequently Kevin's as well). There appears to be what I consider a misconception that DLP is sharper and LCoS is softer.

Agreed, I went from a DLP FP to the Pearl. LCoS is definitely not softer, if anything, LCoS has more detail.

Agreed, I went from a DLP FP to the Pearl. LCoS is definitely not softer, if anything, LCoS has more detail.

I agree Kipp. And my current pj is a DLP, and I have never owned a LCoS based display. Yet.

There's no use fighting it guys. LCOS LCD is not as sharp as a good DLP. This has been known for a long time.

A better question is why is DLP so dam sharp. I think Greg Rodger answered that in his later reviews. Zero convergence worries.

As Mark Twain said, "There are lies, dam [sic] lies and statistics."
The head to head comparisons of those who have seen both of the current crop firsthand are a benefit to us all, prior stereotypes notwithstanding.

The detailed efforts in the head to head are much appreciated.

The plan as of now is to have the "bat cave" as the setting for another comparison this coming Monday afternoon. It just so happens that Batman Begins will be included in the viewing material. It looks like another reference disc IMO.

Dan

Since it's going to have round 2 of the shootout (this time at the bat cave!), let me chip in what I've learnt when I shootout HD81 against VW100 Ruby at our home theater room five month ago, probably more similar to Kevin's home, than a cave. :)

1. Matching brightness
We also first set VW100 to auto IRIS, but immediately finding it too dim for the comparison purpose, even though HD81 was at IRIS tightly closed and ECO mode. The thing about auto IRIS is that when the APL (Average Picture Level) is not high, the IRIS closing out the lamp light, hence making the color weaker and perceived contrast lower. This is what Dan was saying about the color of the rose. Dimmer image always have a weaker color appearances. A brighter image will "appear" to have stronger color. A simple way to see this, is to turn HD81 IRIS On/Off, then you can see the differences in color apperances due to brightness changes. So we also set VW100 IRIS fully open and HD81 at IRIS tightly closed to match the lumens for comparison purpose.

2. Dark details
Both Dan and Kevin commented that, though both excellent, but VW50 seesm to resolve more details of a dark scene on the clothing texture or something. SONY tends to use higher gamma to reveal more dark details. HD81 has four preset degammas, PC is 2.2, film/Graphics are darker gammas and TV degamma is higher gamma. So, when you shoot out again, please pick the same dark detail scene, and change HD81 degamma to TV, and/or play with Gamma +1 or +2 to boost the dark details, and compare again.
Last time before we end the shootout, just for fun, I was trying to make HD81 to "look like" a VW100, so I chose TV degamma, increase gamma level to +2, put color vividness to +3, then Brightness -1 or -2, Contrast -6, I actually came out a very VW100-LCOS-like image. Try it! and see if you can make HD81 to look like VW50. :D
What this was saying to me, is that degamma, contrast, etc all plays a big part in what the image looks like. DLP has higher ANSI contrast than LCOS/LCD, so it will always "appear" to be more edgy, more pop. Try to decrease the Contrast a bit or change the degamma, you may be able to make DLP to look like LCOS.

3. Sharpness
Well, my words do not count, but in addition to the degamma, contrast, the 3-panel convergence also plays a part in perceived image sharpness. Like many have said, LCOS resolve all the details just the same as DLP, but then why does it seem more smooth, and "less sharp"? Try to change HD81's degamma/contrast/colors/brightness first, then the DLP will be less edgy, less pop. Then final factor is the 3-panel convergences, like Greg pointed out. LCOS and LCD being 3-panel, will always have convergence issues, which will cause a slightly less defined pixels, and color uniformity. Shoot a white or grey color field, and you will see the uniformity issue due to 3-panel convergence. Although in complex scene, one will not notice it, like Dan/Kevin has observed also. 3-panel convergence is the last factor that will set DLP and LCOS/LCD apart from the image look.

4. Fair shootout?
Well, nothing is fair! :p Especially when the two projectors are really like steak and lobster. Even though I can "force" HD81 to look similar to VW100 before, you may also try to make HD81 to look similar to VW50, but HD81 was designed for BIG screen, so one could never place them equal to compare. It's like comparing a LSUV with 4.2 V8 to a sports coup, how shall we compare them? first 10 laps in race track, then a backroad cross-country?

So, what is a thorough shootout comparison?
1. Big screen, say, try 170" 2.35 like we did in CEDIA. :p (O.K., not fair, sorry, just a joke!)

2. Mid-size screen. 120"-130"
VW50 with Hi-power or other high gain screen, and fine tune the best image possible with auto IRIS such that a 12-ft-L image brightness can be achieved. HD81 with a Greyhawk RS or HD130 screen, with IRIS set at postions that give out 12 to 16 ft-L. Then compare side-by-side, with a black curtin between the screens. Now! That would be a fair comparison for this size screen! :cool:

3. 100"-110"
I wouldn't consider any less than this size for 1080p. Otherwise, go for 720p! ;) Again, use screens and IRIS controls to get 12-16-ft-L, and compare.

As for contents, sports HD, NBC Jay Leno show, and POTO chp. 14-17 (for mid-level color and black level). Van Helsing Chp.2 (for dark details and black level)

If Dan's bat cave couldn't set up two different screens, HD81 will be made to lose its strength (big image and lumens to use). But hey, just have fun! Don't worry about it, I would like to be there with you guys, just to see how HD81 match with HP screen. :rolleyes: Actually, in Dan's environment, HD81 may still be too punchy (due to HP screen) and maybe an elevated black level. It's not the best for HD81 setup. Then try to make HD81 to look like VW50. If you guys succeed, it shows the flexibility of HD81, I'm sure it's very tough, if not impossible, to make VW50 to look like HD81 ...

Have fun for the shootout, and do try once to see if you guys can make HD81 to look like LCOS. I did it once (since I know HD81 inside-out), though it will never be the same, but just for fun, this will let you see how degamma/contrast/brightness/colors play in the final image look.

Enjoy!

I have not yet had the opportunity to do a direct A/B comparison with DLP and SXRD front projectors. However, I have spent a good amount of time viewing a Sony Qualia 004. More importantly, I recently did a direct A/B comparison with a Sony 60" SXRD and 61" Samsung DLP (1080p).

One thing to note about this comparison is the Samsung RPTV uses the xHD4 chip with the overlapping diamond shaped mirrors using "wobulation", not the newer square pixel 1080p chip. Thus sharpness comparisons don't translate directly to the front projection world.

WOW TzungILin, your posts are a rare pleasure, but when you go out and give us some info its always just the most interesting thing! Thank you very much!

Please allow for one question: What do you mean with TV preset being a "higher gamma" setting in contrast to the "darker" PC and Film/graphics presets??? Does "higher gamma" mean >2.2 (steep curve like 2.4 - 2.5 CRT gamma) or does it mean <2.2 (therefor resulting in a flatter/"brigther gamma curve)? :confused: What's the numeric gamma value for the TV gamma preset? Thank you!

WOW TzungILin, your posts are a rare pleasure, but when you go out and give us some info its always just the most interesting thing! Thank you very much!

Please allow for one question: What do you mean with TV preset being a "higher gamma" setting in contrast to the "darker" PC and Film/graphics presets??? Does "higher gamma" mean >2.2 (steep curve like 2.4 - 2.5 CRT gamma) or does it mean <2.2 (therefor resulting in a flatter/"brigther gamma curve)? :confused: What's the numeric gamma value for the TV gamma preset? Thank you!

I always confuse the degamma and gamma ... :o

TV degamma is to make the final image to look flatter/brighter gamma, so it's <2.2. This will give you more details in the dark scenes, just like most TVs. Film degamma is darker to imitate the movie theater. Most DLP projectors are defaulted to use TI's Film degamma. Thus the DLP image looks more contrasty, more steep and 3D like. TI also provides degamma for rendering standard 2.2, that is the PC degamma in HD81.

TI Film degamma needs a bat cave in order to really show off the cinema-like image.

The "Gamma" function inside the Image/Advanced menu of HD81 is to raise the gamma by small increment. So, if you select PC degamma, and then select Gamma +2, you actually get 2.1 gamma, revealing more details, but image will be flatter/brighter like you describe. If you select Gamma -2, then you get 2.3 gamma, which is darker and steeper image, contrast will seem better, but the dark details is less noticeable (still there).

My personal experiences of viewing all LCOS technologies are that, they tend to choose the final image to look flatter and brighter. I've always thought in the past, this was due to their constrat ratio is not as good as DLP, hence they chose to go the other way, to show very smooth and flatter grey scale, to reveal more details. In doing so, they will need to add more color saturation to help the flatter gamma. Hence the VW100 that we shootout against has a almost overly-done color saturation, hence I add Color Vividness to +3 in order to imitating the look. So, ...

TV degamma and +2 Gamma setting --> get the image to more LCOS/VW100 like
-2 Brightness --> to shift the image gamma curve slightly downward to compensate a bit on the brightness increase of TV degamma
-6 Contrast --> to get an image that is less "pop" or "edgy" due to DLP's higher ANSI contrast.
+3 Color Vividness --> to get to the saturation of VW100 (at least the unit)

And it turned out to be very VW100-like! ;)

If Dan/Kevin want to have fun and tune HD81 to look like VW50, the above is just some general guideline, SONY may have some modifications to VW50, compared to VW100 which uses Xenon lamp, so that you may not need +3 Color Vividness.

When we did our shootout, we have two projectors side-by-side on a huge screen at the same time, so we can freeze a dark scene, and play with degamma and gamma to closely imitate SXRD gamma. YMMV! :cool:

Why would anyone want a flatter and less 3d like image???

Shovven

One thing to note about this comparison is the Samsung RPTV uses the xHD4 chip with the overlapping diamond shaped mirrors using "wobulation", not the newer square pixel 1080p chip. Thus sharpness comparisons don't translate directly to the front projection world.

Absolutely correct, and I meant to mention that in my post. Thanks for pointing it out.

I am going to edit my post to add this.

Thanks.

Since it's going to have round 2 of the shootout (this time at the bat cave!), let me chip in what I've learnt when I shootout HD81 against VW100 Ruby at our home theater room five month ago, probably more similar to Kevin's home, than a cave. :)

1. Matching brightness
We also first set VW100 to auto IRIS, but immediately finding it too dim for the comparison purpose, even though HD81 was at IRIS tightly closed and ECO mode. The thing about auto IRIS is that when the APL (Average Picture Level) is not high, the IRIS closing out the lamp light, hence making the color weaker and perceived contrast lower. This is what Dan was saying about the color of the rose. Dimmer image always have a weaker color appearances. A brighter image will "appear" to have stronger color. A simple way to see this, is to turn HD81 IRIS On/Off, then you can see the differences in color apperances due to brightness changes. So we also set VW100 IRIS fully open and HD81 at IRIS tightly closed to match the lumens for comparison purpose.

2. Dark details
Both Dan and Kevin commented that, though both excellent, but VW50 seesm to resolve more details of a dark scene on the clothing texture or something. SONY tends to use higher gamma to reveal more dark details. HD81 has four preset degammas, PC is 2.2, film/Graphics are darker gammas and TV degamma is higher gamma. So, when you shoot out again, please pick the same dark detail scene, and change HD81 degamma to TV, and/or play with Gamma +1 or +2 to boost the dark details, and compare again.
Last time before we end the shootout, just for fun, I was trying to make HD81 to "look like" a VW100, so I chose TV degamma, increase gamma level to +2, put color vividness to +3, then Brightness -1 or -2, Contrast -6, I actually came out a very VW100-LCOS-like image. Try it! and see if you can make HD81 to look like VW50. :D
What this was saying to me, is that degamma, contrast, etc all plays a big part in what the image looks like. DLP has higher ANSI contrast than LCOS/LCD, so it will always "appear" to be more edgy, more pop. Try to decrease the Contrast a bit or change the degamma, you may be able to make DLP to look like LCOS.

3. Sharpness
Well, my words do not count, but in addition to the degamma, contrast, the 3-panel convergence also plays a part in perceived image sharpness. Like many have said, LCOS resolve all the details just the same as DLP, but then why does it seem more smooth, and "less sharp"? Try to change HD81's degamma/contrast/colors/brightness first, then the DLP will be less edgy, less pop. Then final factor is the 3-panel convergences, like Greg pointed out. LCOS and LCD being 3-panel, will always have convergence issues, which will cause a slightly less defined pixels, and color uniformity. Shoot a white or grey color field, and you will see the uniformity issue due to 3-panel convergence. Although in complex scene, one will not notice it, like Dan/Kevin has observed also. 3-panel convergence is the last factor that will set DLP and LCOS/LCD apart from the image look.

4. Fair shootout?
Well, nothing is fair! :p Especially when the two projectors are really like steak and lobster. Even though I can "force" HD81 to look similar to VW100 before, you may also try to make HD81 to look similar to VW50, but HD81 was designed for BIG screen, so one could never place them equal to compare. It's like comparing a LSUV with 4.2 V8 to a sports coup, how shall we compare them? first 10 laps in race track, then a backroad cross-country?

So, what is a thorough shootout comparison?
1. Big screen, say, try 170" 2.35 like we did in CEDIA. :p (O.K., not fair, sorry, just a joke!)

2. Mid-size screen. 120"-130"
VW50 with Hi-power or other high gain screen, and fine tune the best image possible with auto IRIS such that a 12-ft-L image brightness can be achieved. HD81 with a Greyhawk RS or HD130 screen, with IRIS set at postions that give out 12 to 16 ft-L. Then compare side-by-side, with a black curtin between the screens. Now! That would be a fair comparison for this size screen! :cool:

3. 100"-110"
I wouldn't consider any less than this size for 1080p. Otherwise, go for 720p! ;) Again, use screens and IRIS controls to get 12-16-ft-L, and compare.

As for contents, sports HD, NBC Jay Leno show, and POTO chp. 14-17 (for mid-level color and black level). Van Helsing Chp.2 (for dark details and black level)

If Dan's bat cave couldn't set up two different screens, HD81 will be made to lose its strength (big image and lumens to use). But hey, just have fun! Don't worry about it, I would like to be there with you guys, just to see how HD81 match with HP screen. :rolleyes: Actually, in Dan's environment, HD81 may still be too punchy (due to HP screen) and maybe an elevated black level. It's not the best for HD81 setup. Then try to make HD81 to look like VW50. If you guys succeed, it shows the flexibility of HD81, I'm sure it's very tough, if not impossible, to make VW50 to look like HD81 ...

Have fun for the shootout, and do try once to see if you guys can make HD81 to look like LCOS. I did it once (since I know HD81 inside-out), though it will never be the same, but just for fun, this will let you see how degamma/contrast/brightness/colors play in the final image look.

Enjoy!Thanks, TzungILin, for your recommendations for the next shoot-out. We'll try different parameters that you discuss for each projector to show each at its best and comment on those differences without being as swayed by brightness as we were at Kevin's.

Frankly, as you point out, the Pearl needs the High Power much more than the HD81 does. We'll minimize aperature on the HD81 and I might have to spring for a ND if Kevin doesn't have one to further dim it if we do a side by side on the 116" wide High Power I have. I zoomed the Pearl in fully last night for maybe 60" wide image and it looked like an HD81 in terms of brightness. If we do that I'll feel obligated to make my HT even more non-reflective because there will be a lot of photons to contain in that situation, and we don't want any of them ending up in the black portions of its own or the others' image. Two different screens might be tough logistically unless Kevin doesn't mind bringing his Carada(!?)

Dan

We could also try split screen. Not having done that before, any recommendations on how to do it properly would be appreciated.

Dan

I just had the pleasure of seeing the HD81 at Optoma in Milpitas, Ca.. Many thanks to Wing for taking time to demo the pj for my wife and I! We also recently saw a demo of a Pearl and a Ruby. I had seen the Ruby before, but it was nice to see a Pearl and Ruby together.

I am used to a CRT image from 13 years of viewing on my Sony VPH-1251Q, now at 10,000
hours. I never thought I would be a big DLP fan, and indeed, 720P DLP left me ambivalent.

The Pearl and Ruby are lovely projectors, the most CRT like of any digital I've seen. I went
to the HD81 demo not wanting to like it because of the installation challenges it poses in
my HT.

Well, it's too late. I am absolutely in awe of the HD81. It's everything I could ever dream
of for a HT image. I am a director of photography by profession for over 25 years. I am
picky about optics, noise, latitude, detail artifacts, compression artifacts, black blacks, shadow detail, colorimetry, you name it.

After seeing this HD81 on a DaLite 1.5 gain 150" screen, first without, then with the Schneider anamorphic lens, all I can say is, this is the most theatrical, filmic HT demo I
have ever experienced. My wife is in total agreement and says the HD81 is worth the
extra dollars over a Pearl.

Detailed yet smooth, incredibly bright, great contrast ratio with fixed iris at F9, for my
screen I could get away with F16 for better blacks. Lovely colorimetry, no optical issues,
no white field uniformity issues like I saw with Pearl. No convergence issues like I've seen
with two Rubys. The HD81 always gave a 3D look and no video artifacts of any kind from
SD DVD, HD DVD, D-VHS(just an hour of viewing time, so not a lot of different titles). I think the HD81 will be less forgiving of bad sources than Pearl, but on good sources it's beyond every expectation I could have had. Anamorphic is just way too cool.

I really thought I would be ordering a Pearl, it would be so much easier to install, it is quieter, the pj is more sexy looking, but I'm an HD81 believer!

Jeff Regan

I zoomed the Pearl in fully last night for maybe 60" wide image and it looked like an HD81 in terms of brightness. If we do that I'll feel obligated to make my HT even more non-reflective because there will be a lot of photons to contain in that situation, and we don't want any of them ending up in the black portions of its own or the others' image.
Again you seem to be misunderstanding the effect of room reflections.

By using a smaller screen (while keeping everything else the same), you usually reduce the effect of room reflections, and thus improve the simultaneous CR.

For example, in my reflective room, a 112"x63" matte-white screen limits ANSI CR to 27:1 maximum (even for a hypothetical projector that would have infinite ANSI CR in a totally non-reflective room), whereas a smaller 80"x45" matte-white screen limits ANSI CR to 53:1 maximum.

..........
I am a director of photography by profession for over 25 years. I am picky about optics, noise, latitude, detail artifacts, compression artifacts, black blacks, shadow detail, colorimetry, you name it.

Jeff Regan

Jeff,

Based on the above, and depending on your time line to purchase, you might want to wait and get a look at the new JVC projector. To my eye, it produced the ONLY picture at CEDIA that really "sucked me in". Caveat; I have not seen the HD81 under the same conditions you viewed and I don't think the HD81 CEDIA setup was optimal(especially the material shown). FWIW, I am also one of those people that gets eye fatigue when viewing DLP's for any length of time.

If you have the time to wait, you will be doing yourself a disservice if you don't see the JVC.

Wow, nice write up Jeff! Thanks for the comments.

Again you seem to be misunderstanding the effect of room reflections.

By using a smaller screen (while keeping everything else the same), you usually reduce the effect of room reflections, and thus improve the simultaneous CR.

For example, in my reflective room, a 112"x63" matte-white screen limits ANSI CR to 27:1 maximum (even for a hypothetical projector that would have infinite ANSI CR in a totally non-reflective room), whereas a smaller 80"x45" matte-white screen limits ANSI CR to 53:1 maximum.Eric, here's more per my understanding on simultaneous CR and room influences, to clarify. If I've got something wrong, let me know as I'm always willing to learn:

I agree that if you have less light overall going back into a viewing room you will have less light reflecting back. I assume that when you say "while keeping everything else the same" you include ftL. If you use a smaller screen with the same ftL measurement found on a bigger screen that of course means less total light coming from the screen, into the room, and back from reflective elements in the room. (A matte screen would of course scatter that light about the room equi-directionally. A higher gain screen starts to become directional and the High Power quite directional being retroflective.)

I was referring to the possibility having more brightness overall emanating from the screen with a zoomed-in smaller Pearl image side by side with a bright HD81 image. That total increased light amount is what I was concerned about. At shows where side by side demos have been done these issues come up. If the demo room is reflective and a lot of projectors are lighted up in that room, that light will mess up ANSI CR for a given projector just like turning on lights at home in the HT washes out the image. If brightness were equalized for both side by side images each would equally suffer extraneous light reflections back to the screen, more or less, although with the High Power's retroflectivity it starts getting a little trickier. (For example, if I had a white ceiling the HD81 would suffer more because the HD81 would be installed near the ceiling and light from areas adjacent would be sent back to the screen.) In my HT the ceiling and areas adjacent to the HD81 will be light absorptant so it's light won't be scattered back to darker parts of its image (I'm assuming an image with mixed bright and dark parts) or the Pearl's. If the Pearl were dimmer and the HD81 brighter in a side by side comparison I believe the simultaneous CR of the Pearl image would suffer more, unless you posit that reflected light exactly matches that going from the Pearl to the High Power in the first place so its contrast ratios aren't affected.

So, the ceiling mounted HD81 with the High Power may serve to equalize brightness some as we viewers will be more off pj-screen axis. We will be much more on-axis with the Pearl. will be areas .

Dan

maddogmc,

I wish I had gone to CEDIA, the JVC has certainly made an impression amongst members of
this forum who saw it.

Rob,

A couple of things that I wanted to add:

I forgot to mention how incredibly bright the HD81 is--it lit up that 150" screen with the
bulb on its mid setting. The Pearl, by comparison was not as bright with a 92" screen,
but I don't know what setting its bulb was on.

I really like the outboard scaler, lots of connectivity, including BNC connectors, VGA or component on the front panel, compression modes for anamorphic display, Gennum processor, beefy build quality.

I had a very tough time pulling myself away from that HD81 demo--it was so compelling,
really pulled me in, in part due to the huge screen size and brightness, but also because
of the 3D effect on every HD source including CBS HD off air recorded onto D-VHS. The
pearl only gave me that 3D effect a couple of times very briefly. I watched video and film
HD sources on both projectors, albeit not the same material because the Pearl didn't have
an HD DVD source feeding it. I didwatch an SD DVD piece that I shot recently on both projectors and both looked quite good.

Jeff Regan

Looking at these comments about the simultaneous or ANSI contrast of the HD81, I am not surprized. That was evident in Kevin's HT and I'm sure we'll see it even more so Monday.

Touching again on the side by side on the same screen comparison, another complicating issue is that of light spill straight from the projector itself. The Pearl has some, although I haven't seen its effect too much with my dark borders. Zooming in for a smaller image could create problems with spill not absorbed by a boundary and spilling into the HD81's image. I just read about a light spill someone saw with the HD81 but I didn't see it at Kevin's.

Dan

When you shoot out again, please pick the same dark detail scene, and change HD81 degamma to TV, and/or play with Gamma +1 or +2 to boost the dark details, and compare again.
I used the "TV" mode with gamma set to +2 for the comparison (I like lots of shadow detail). As you noted, the measured gamma with these settings was approximately 1.9.

When we say there was a difference, it was very slight, and both were excellent. For a long time, Dan and I have used the "Mines of Morea" scene in LOTR I to check shadow detail, and I think we felt that it had never looked so good as to both projectors.

We will definitely try some of your suggestions to get a look on the HD81 that is similar to the Pearl.

I forgot to mention how incredibly bright the HD81 is--it lit up that 150" screen with the
bulb on its mid setting. The Pearl, by comparison was not as bright with a 92" screen,
but I don't know what setting its bulb was on.
Something is not right here, but I don't know what:

HD-81 = 900 lumens (iris fully open), 1.5 gain screen, 150" = 20.45 ftL
Pearl = 700 lumens (iris open, min throw), 1.0 gain screen, 92" = 28 ftL

I assumed the lowest gain screen (1.0) for the Pearl and I gave the HD-81 more lumens than was likely (iris open is brighter than the mid setting reported). I'm not doubting what you saw at all - I'm just saying that something is definitely wrong if the HD-81 appeared so much brighter with such a huge difference in screen size.

I took some measurements on my set-up for those who are interested.

My ceiling is 7.5 feet high. The center of lens is 6" from the ceiling and 16' 7" from the 110" diameter screen. The top of the screen is 14" from the ceiling. Keystone from the bottom of the screen to the top is approximately 3/4 to 1".

The lens does not have any threads. The diameter of the lens cover is 80mm and the lens itself is 66mm (at least according to my cheap Vernier caliper).

Bob,

That's what blew me away--huge screen with lots of brightness. The Optoma demo room is
a bat cave--everything is black, nothing to reflect onto the screen. The Pearl was seen in a
retail environment with gray walls, plasma and lcd displays that were left on at the side walls.

These flat panel displays can really throw some light as you know, so not optimal. The Ruby
demo room was darker with no flat panel displays to ruin the contrast range. The Ruby
actually looked a bit brighter even with much more bulb time from 6 months of demo time.

The Pearl was shown on a 92" Firehawk, the Ruby on a 92" Greyhawk. So it's pretty clear
that the Pearl was being hamstrung by the flat panel displays in the room. I am sure the
Pearl would have impressed more in a bat cave--but 150"? I don't think it could have done
what the HD81 did.

Jeff Regan

Kevin,

What kind of projector mount are you using? Are you about 4" below the ceiling with the projector? No heat issues? My ceiling is only 8' and my throw will only be around 11.5' at
lens. The anamorphic lens is the only way I'll be able to get to 100" wide.

Jeff Regan

Attached are photos of my projector mount (a freebie that came with a prior projector).

A test pattern showing the level of keystone (be sure and expand this one to full size and note that the artifact on the 6.75 MHz pattern is from the camera -- in real life the patterns are solid and perfect). Note how the "A" is cut in half on the top left side and the "K" is cut in half on the top right.

A ramp pattern showing the lack of banding (the digital camera has clipped the white and black -- in real life there is no clipping).

No heat issues with the mount.

Attached is the gammut report for the HD81 and the Pearl.

maddogmc,

I wish I had gone to CEDIA, the JVC has certainly made an impression amongst members of
this forum who saw it.

Rob,

A couple of things that I wanted to add:

I forgot to mention how incredibly bright the HD81 is--it lit up that 150" screen with the
bulb on its mid setting. The Pearl, by comparison was not as bright with a 92" screen,
but I don't know what setting its bulb was on.

I really like the outboard scaler, lots of connectivity, including BNC connectors, VGA or component on the front panel, compression modes for anamorphic display, Gennum processor, beefy build quality.

I had a very tough time pulling myself away from that HD81 demo--it was so compelling,
really pulled me in, in part due to the huge screen size and brightness, but also because
of the 3D effect on every HD source including CBS HD off air recorded onto D-VHS. The
pearl only gave me that 3D effect a couple of times very briefly. I watched video and film
HD sources on both projectors, albeit not the same material because the Pearl didn't have
an HD DVD source feeding it. I didwatch an SD DVD piece that I shot recently on both projectors and both looked quite good.

Jeff Regan


Thanks for the additional comments Jeff.

Here are some of my concerns regarding the Optoma based on my reading here at AVS:

1) Relatively loud fan noise (not a general consensus on this, I would like to hear from more owners)

2) Light spill from the lens that hits the wall next to the screen (I would find this very distracting and unacceptable)

3) There appears to be an issue with PC levels vs Video level settings (can be fixed with firmware?)

4) Limited installation ability with the long throw and large offset. The latter isn't a problem for me, but the long throw is still an issue and would require some reworking of my wiring from the ceiling.

Here are some of my main concerns with the Pearl:

1) Brightness (or lack thereof). This is by far the biggest concern to me with the Pearl, especially since I have a 123" diagonal screen with a gain of 1.3. The HP screen is not an option, and I refuse to go back to the Silverstar (the sheen bothered me).

2) Convergence. This is a potential concern with any 3 panel pj, and isn't exclusive to the Pearl. If anything, it appears that the Pearls are a bit better than the Ruby. But it is still a concern.

3) Color uniformity (or lack thereof). Definitely a concern. I would prefer not having to spend an additional significant amount of money to have William Phelps perform his magic ( he hasn't yet determined whether he will do this for the Pearl).

4) Light spill. Some Pearl owners have reported a light spill on their units that, like the Optoma, falls next to the screen area. Not acceptable, depending on how big and how far outside the screen area it falls.

So both pj's appear to have some issues. Which issues are deserving of the most consideration can be difficult to determine.

Rob,

I will try and tackle some of your observations/concerns:

Optoma
1. Fan is considerably louder than Pearl or Ruby--quieter than my CRT though.
2. Did not see.
3. Don't know. Wing told me about a couple of features of C06, like HD81 will
sense aspect ratio and go to anamorphic mode if 2:35 to 1 automatically.
4. Yes, installation difficult for small rooms/ceiling height, anamorphic is how I
will get back to a 100" display for scope movies, anyway.

Pearl
1. I share your concern based upon my viewing of Ruby and Pearl, I would not
go over 100" with a 1.3 gain screen, which is what I have.
2. Pearl I saw had good convergence, unlike the two Rubys I've seen.
3. I didn't get to put up a white field test signal, but saw some issues on DVD
I shot with lots of white areas in footage.
4. Didn't notice it.

Additional to the HD81:

Digital Iris is a non-starter, but variable iris settings are nice. Wing doesn't like
digital iris, didn't get the impression that it was a big priority with him. Don't
think firmware will ever make DI as good as Sony's.

Rob, you must demo the HD81. It is worth looking at, as is the Pearl.

Jeff Regan

Rob,

I will try and tackle some of your observations/concerns:

Optoma
1. Fan is considerably louder than Pearl or Ruby--quieter than my CRT though.
2. Did not see.
3. Don't know. Wing told me about a couple of features of C06, like HD81 will
sense aspect ratio and go to anamorphic mode if 2:35 to 1 automatically.
4. Yes, installation difficult for small rooms/ceiling height, anamorphic is how I
will get back to a 100" display for scope movies, anyway.

Pearl
1. I share your concern based upon my viewing of Ruby and Pearl, I would not
go over 100" with a 1.3 gain screen, which is what I have.
2. Pearl I saw had good convergence, unlike the two Rubys I've seen.
3. I didn't get to put up a white field test signal, but saw some issues on DVD
I shot with lots of white areas in footage.
4. Didn't notice it.

Additional to the HD81:

Digital Iris is a non-starter, but variable iris settings are nice. Wing doesn't like
digital iris, didn't get the impression that it was a big priority with him. Don't
think firmware will ever make DI as good as Sony's.

Rob, you must demo the HD81. It is worth looking at, as is the Pearl.

Jeff Regan


Thanks Jeff. I guarantee you that I will be doing some serious demoing of these pjs before pulling the trigger.

My plan was to wait at least until the JVC is released, and perhaps the BenQ, to make a decision, but my current pj is having some real issues and I will need to send it in. Depending on whether it can be fixed and for how much, I may need a new pj sooner than I had planned on.

...My wife is in total agreement and says the HD81 is worth the
extra dollars over a Pearl.

...The Optoma demo room is
a bat cave--everything is black, nothing to reflect onto the screen.

...The Pearl was seen in a
retail environment with gray walls, plasma and lcd displays that were left on at the side walls.

These flat panel displays can really throw some light as you know, so not optimal. ...

I very am glad Bob asked his question. So you are making a determination on the relative PQ of the Pearl and the HD81 after seeing them in totally different settings and sources!

You are doing this in a thread posted by three knowledgable AVSers who saw saw said pjs in the same setting and sources?

How would your wife feel if the settings were reversed, The Pearl in a bat cave, and the HD81 in a retail setting with LCD and Plasmas on! : )

The HD81 may be a much better pj, but you cannot make that determination from the settings you saw the pjs in.

I think the HD81 will be less forgiving of bad sources than Pearl, but on good sources it's beyond every expectation
The HD81 has a better, gennum based scaler than the Pearl. I suspect it will do a better job on bad sources, particularly SD sources than the Pearl.

I assume that when you say "while keeping everything else the same" you include ftL.
I mean that the lumens stays the same. So, by going to a smaller screen, the light coming directly from the projector produces more ft-L (not the same ft-L) on the screen. However, the light reflected back onto the smaller screen produces the same ft-L as it did on the larger screen, since the lumens bouncing around the room did not change. Thus, the CR increases.

Something is not right here, but I don't know what:

HD-81 = 900 lumens (iris fully open), 1.5 gain screen, 150" = 20.45 ftL
Pearl = 700 lumens (iris open, min throw), 1.0 gain screen, 92" = 28 ftL

I assumed the lowest gain screen (1.0) for the Pearl and I gave the HD-81 more lumens than was likely (iris open is brighter than the mid setting reported). I'm not doubting what you saw at all - I'm just saying that something is definitely wrong if the HD-81 appeared so much brighter with such a huge difference in screen size.

Jeff said he didn't know what lamp setting the Pearl was on; perhaps it was in 'low' lamp mode, thus producing ~ 400+ lumens rather than 700.

HoustonHoyaFan,

Your points are well taken. No side by side was possible. I did watch a DVD that I shot and know very, very well, having just edited it, on both PJ's--but, yes, different rooms, screens types and sizes.

I have seen the Ruby in two completely dark settings, once just with SD DVD, a few days ago with BD. It looked a little better than the Pearl, but the Pearl was not in a dark enough room.

With the Rubys, I was bothered by convergence error, lack of brightness and didn't
get much 3D effect, compared to HD81, which always looked 3D with HD source. Ruby and Pearl certainly look better than my old 1251 CRT, but not enough to really excite me. So two Rubys in a completely dark room didn't rock my world. HD81 in a completely dark room did. My wife has seen a Ruby in a bat cave and even with a much smaller screen--albeit a Greyhawk--it didn't make the impression that the HD81 did on her as far as brightness and detail and 3D effect.

While I am hoping the Gennum scaler in the HD81 will do better than internal scaling in Pearl on SD sources, I expect the HD81 will be more revealing of things like compression artifacts due to being brighter and to my eyes, more detailed. Ruby and Pearl look softer to me, maybe partly due to not being as bright.

I am sure Pearl and Ruby can and do throw beautiful images under the right circumstances, but not with ambient light in the room. I had Wing turn on a ceiling light that had a little spill on the screen and the HD81 still popped, albeit with poorer blacks.

I certainly wouldn't refute Kevin, Dan and Steve's findings with side by side comparison, I just think that to my surprise, I'm leaning toward the look of 1080P DLP, since I've always considered my self a Sony guy(with the possible exception of BD).

Jeff Regan

I mean that the lumens stays the same. So, by going to a smaller screen, the light coming directly from the projector produces more ft-L (not the same ft-L) on the screen. However, the light reflected back onto the smaller screen produces the same ft-L as it did on the larger screen, since the lumens bouncing around the room did not change. Thus, the CR increases.I see now how that could work; thanks for the clarification. It might be considered a trade-off of better ANSI CR for smaller screen size that might be compensated for by sitting closer if the field of view wanted to be maintained.

Dan

I measured the Carada BW screen a while back. If the Studiotek 130 is 1.3 gain, then the BW measures to be 1.1 gain by comparison. It has exceptional color and brightness uniformity and imparts almost no color shift to the image.

Its exceptional uniformity provides for a wide viewing angle. There is a downside though, in a white colored HT. A lot of light is sent to the walls, floor and ceiling and gets reflected back to wash out the image. One would expect this effect to apply evenly to both PJs however. I have to wonder if Drapps memory of his Pearl in his dark hole HT has something to do with his perception that the washout due to the light colored walls affected the Pearl more than the HD81.

In terms of making a valid comparison between PJs with different lumens output, the only real way to level the playing field is by using screens of the same size for each PJ, but with different screen gains to equalize the fL of screen brightness produced by each combo. The screens need a velvet curtain between them so they don't wash each other out. Using a screen like the Firehawk in a light colored HT for one of the PJs will give that PJ an unfair advantage due to its superior ability to quench cross-light reflections.

Essentially, this merely mates each PJ with the screen that is appropriate for it. However, this is a difficult comparison to set up in the real world and one very rarely sees a comparison done this way.

There are allot of considerations when pairing PJs and screens. If the HT is light colored, a FH screen has some significant advantages. I would place a high priority on selecting a PJ with sufficient brightness to run a FH screen in this situation. Better yet, convince your wife to darken the decor, walls and ceilings of the HT. You will have a lot more choices this way. I'm not suggesting trying to convince her to paint the walls black. That's not going to fly. However, she and her decorator (it might be worthwhile to get a decorator involved to convince her) might like the idea of using jewel tones such as burgundies, forest greens, deep blues, golds, etc.

If you want to get the most from a Carada BW screen, you need to darken the walls, etc. Doing so will make a significant improvement in PQ. The improvement is not subtle. I've seen this personally. If you use a FH screen the improvement in PQ that comes from darkening the decor/walls is relatively modest.

Glenn

I measured the Carada BW screen a while back. If the Studiotek 130 is 1.3 gain, then the BW measures to be 1.1 gain by comparison. It has exceptional color and brightness uniformity and imparts almost no color shift to the image.

Its exceptional uniformity provides for a wide viewing angle. There is a downside though, in a white colored HT. A lot of light is sent to the walls, floor and ceiling and gets reflected back to wash out the image. One would expect this effect to apply evenly to both PJs however. I have to wonder if Drapps memory of his Pearl in his dark hole HT has something to do with his perception that the washout due to the light colored walls affected the Pearl more than the HD81.

In terms of making a valid comparison between PJs with different lumens output, the only real way to level the playing field is by using screens of the same size for each PJ, but with different screen gains to equalize the fL of screen brightness produced by each combo. The screens need a velvet curtain between them so they don't wash each other out. Using a screen like the Firehawk in a light colored HT for one of the PJs will give that PJ an unfair advantage due to its superior ability to quench cross-light reflections.

Essentially, this merely mates each PJ with the screen that is appropriate for it. However, this is a difficult comparison to set up in the real world and one very rarely sees a comparison done this way.

There are allot of considerations when pairing PJs and screens. If the HT is light colored, a FH screen has some significant advantages. I would place a high priority on selecting a PJ with sufficient brightness to run a FH screen in this situation. Better yet, convince your wife to darken the decor, walls and ceilings of the HT. You will have a lot more choices this way. I'm not suggesting trying to convince her to paint the walls black. That's not going to fly. However, she and her decorator (it might be worthwhile to get a decorator involved to convince her) might like the idea of using jewel tones such as burgundies, forest greens, deep blues, golds, etc.

If you want to get the most from a Carada BW screen, you need to darken the walls, etc. Doing so will make a significant improvement in PQ. The improvement is not subtle. I've seen this personally. If you use a FH screen the improvement in PQ that comes from darkening the decor/walls is relatively modest.

GlennYou are absolutely right about what I was thinking about the Pearl in Kevin's HT, and described that a few posts back. I think it was a combination of washout and diminished brightness with associated apparent reduced color saturation. The difference in how the Pearl looks in the two different environments - very dark vs. light environment - is striking. I couldn't agree more with your last paragraph.

At CEDIA Firehawks were in use everywhere for the reasons you give.

I don't think I'm going to be able to set up a black velvet curtain with a side by side between the two pjs by this Monday. Basically the Pearl will likely look a lot better to Kevin and Steve and I am sure the HD81 will be brighter with even better apparent intrascene CR.

Dan

It might be considered a trade-off of better ANSI CR for smaller screen size that might be compensated for by sitting closer if the field of view wanted to be maintained.
Exactly, but you don't want to go too small. :)

There are additional ways to improve simultaneous CR, such as using a larger room, using a darker-colored room, and/or using a screen that is better at handling reflected light.

If you want to get the most from a Carada BW screen, you need to darken the walls, etc. Doing so will make a significant improvement in PQ. The improvement is not subtle.
After taking my wife to CES twice and the Home Theater Cruise once, she has gained an appreciation for the importance of having a darker theater. We've picked out some colors in the same vein as your suggestions and it is now just a question of finding the time to get it done. After your comments, I can't wait to see it.

Thanks for the answers to the heat and filter thread questions.

Sounds like there's already a pretty full plate for the next round of comparisons, but an interesting thing to try if time permits, that I didn't see mentioned yet, would be to view some black and white footage on both projectors. Any misconvergence or rainbow issues would be pretty prominent, plus it would give another sense as to contrast, grayscale and shadow detail differences/similarities between the two.

Why would anyone want a flatter and less 3d like image???

Shovven

I prefer to use the Film mode in HD81 myself to get a dark cinema look. But not everyone has the same taste in image. Some do prefer the brighter gamma that will bring out more details in the dark scenes.

I really don't want everyone to turn their HD81 into a VW-look-alike (after all, why would I designed HD81 to be a bright projector from the beginning?), but rather just to point out the different image look between DLP and LCOS, and what is my personal view about it, or my private observations of Sony's gamma choice in their displays.

If people other than me can repeat what I have experimented (meaning to make a DLP look like an LCOS, to a degree), then maybe that will get people to think the important roles of degamma and gamma controls.

HD81 provides four different DLP degamma and one user degamma controls (9 points independent adjustment from 10iRE to 90 IRE), once you select a DLP degamma, you can furhter use the gamma control (stepping control from -5 to +5, default at 0) to get to a preferred image. Combined with 16 step IRIS control, you can really create many different looks on HD81, from a punchy 100" plasma to 170" cinema, from a DLP look to a possibly LCOS look, from a film look to a TV look.

HD81 provides 3 user memories, you can create three different looks and store them in memory, so that you can select the look according to the sources you're watching. If I own an HD81, I would create one look using film degamma and imitating a dark cinema look (for watching movies). I will also create one look using graphic degamma to get a high contrast, punchy plasma look (for watching braodcasting HDTV or sports). Hey, I might even use TV degamma to create a SXRD/LCOS look just for comparison sake or for watching a very dark movie.

I prefer to use the Film mode in HD81 myself to get a dark cinema look. But not everyone has the same taste in image. Some do prefer the brighter gamma that will bring out more details in the dark scenes.

I really don't want everyone to turn their HD81 into a VW-look-alike (after all, why would I designed HD81 to be a bright projector from the beginning?), but rather just to point out the different image look between DLP and LCOS, and what is my personal view about it, or my private observations of Sony's gamma choice in their displays.

If people other than me can repeat what I have experimented (meaning to make a DLP look like an LCOS, to a degree), then maybe that will get people to think the important roles of degamma and gamma controls.

HD81 provides four different DLP degamma and one user degamma controls (9 points independent adjustment from 10iRE to 90 IRE), once you select a DLP degamma, you can furhter use the gamma control (stepping control from -5 to +5, default at 0) to get to a preferred image. Combined with 16 step IRIS control, you can really create many different looks on HD81, from a punchy 100" plasma to 170" cinema, from a DLP look to a possibly LCOS look, from a film look to a TV look.

HD81 provides 3 user memories, you can create three different looks and store them in memory, so that you can select the look according to the sources you're watching. If I own an HD81, I would create one look using film degamma and imitating a dark cinema look (for watching movies). I will also create one look using graphic degamma to get a high contrast, punchy plasma look (for watching braodcasting HDTV or sports). Hey, I might even use TV degamma to create a SXRD/LCOS look just for comparison sake or for watching a very dark movie.

TzungILin, the puzzling thing about your comments is that Sony Ruby's standard "cinema gamma" curve (which is clearly the preferred choice) measures in at gamma 2.21 just like HD81's default setting. Maybe you used another gamma curve on the Ruby for your comparison/shootout? If both, the HD81 and the Ruby measure in at ~ 2.2 gamma at a certain setting there should be no difference in the subjective look between them (regarding gamma curve) - although the lack of ANSI contrast might make the SXRD picture appear flatter no matter which actual gamma curve is applied?!?

On another matter: Can you give us your point of view about the included "picture enhancement" features of the HD81 - color vividness, "edge enhancement"? Why did you include them? What are the advantages compared to color saturation/BrilliantColor and sharpness/other detail enhancement settings? Where do you see problems? Isn't it always arguable to increase color saturation with your "color vividness" setting without expanding color gamut - by logic this always results in lost color details (if there is no expanded color gamut to support higher color saturation color detail is lost)!?! Does the HD81 allow to expand the color gamut by investing some of its brightness for more saturated color points - is there an option for this? About the "edge enhancement" feature - does it prevent artifacts like haloing by limiting the overshoot?

TzungILin, thank you very much!

This thread has been the best, and most useful read I've had in a while! Thanks much to you guys for doing this detailed comparison (though I know it's fun for you) and the excellent write-ups.

BUT, I'm having a hard time getting my mind around the brightness issue. Let me explain the conclusions I come to, for my planned 120" diag screen (42.7 ft^2) in a 'non bat cave' type room (external light excluded, but light [but not white] colored walls). Because of the room, I WANT a screen with a narrow viewing angle (it's basically just the wife and I), so am essentially considering only the Firehawk (gain 1.25, or maybe just 1.0) or HighPower (gain 2.8, or maybe 3.0) screens.

1) With the HD-81, because of the offset and thus ceiling mount at ~ 8ft high, I would have to go the the FH screen, and with the ~900 calibrated lumens (MAX, at high lamp) of the HD-81, this produces ~26 ftL if I assume 1.25 gain, or 21 is 1.0 gain. This is OK (but not overwhelming) when the lamp is new, but marginal when it goes down to half power.

2) Now with the Pearl and its lens shift, etc., I can mount it right behind our heads, at the Pearl's closest throw and at the HP's 'sweet spot' to get its full gain, and even in LOW lamp mode the Pearl's ~480 calibrated lumens (according to Jason) will produce ~32 ftL. And if I switch to high lamp mode, the Pearl's ~ 800 calibrated lumens (according to Jason) will produce over 50 ftL!

So because of how one can position these pj's, and the screen this dictates, the Pearl scenario is MUCH brighter. Am I nuts? This brightness discussion seems cockeyed.

To make things more complicated, I really WANT a 1-chip dlp pj: the color-uniformity and alignment issues of the lcos pj's just scares me; I want the crisp, punchy dlp look (I have a 73" Mits 1080 dlp rptv, and love it--just want something bigger). So I think I'm at the point of hoping that the BenQ W10000 (which can be located similar to the Pearl, and thus use a HP screen) has as good PQ as the HD-81, and has as many (or at least not many fewer) calibrated lumens as the Pearl. [All the 1-chip 1080p pj's of course use the same TI chip, and the ones out so far--the Marantz, the Optoma, the Sharp--all seem to produce comparable, and excellent PQ. Is it reasonable to expect that all the pj's using this chip will be comparably good? I do know, of course, that optics, and VP'ing, will certainly matter, but I'm assuming that they will be done well.]

So because of how one can position these pj's, and the screen this dictates, the Pearl scenario is MUCH brighter.
Ah, you learn fast, Grasshopper! ;)

Most of the brightness discussion has been centered around using similar gain screens, and in that context the HD-81 will be 28.57% brighter (not much difference). But you are correct in that the different mounting considerations of each projector will allow the use of totally different screens. Retroreflective screens work for lens shift projectors where they won't work for fixed offset projectors. However, you can also get around that problem by using a Silverstar (angular reflective) with the HD-81 if you really feel the need for more brightness.

The perceived brightness difference mentioned in this thread is probably due to a number of interworking factors:

1. The HD-81 actually is 28.57% brighter!
2. The Pearl/Ruby setups are always unknown - To get to 700 lumens, they must be at minimum throw in high lamp mode using either auto iris or iris off.
3. The HD-81 has greater ANSI (and simultaneous) contrast!. Higher ANSI CR makes the picture look brighter in mixed APL scenes due to less washout. Higher on screen CR looks brighter than lower CR at the same brightness.
4. Ambient light has a more profound effect on the dimmer projector than it does on a brighter one, causing the image to look lifeless more easily. The dimmer the image, the more important it is to have total light control.
Digital Iris is a non-starter, but variable iris settings are nice. Wing doesn't like
digital iris, didn't get the impression that it was a big priority with him. Don't
think firmware will ever make DI as good as Sony's.
That's a real shame. I haven't bought the HD-81 because of two reasons:

1. The fixed 136% offset (too difficult to make it work in my 84" high room)
2. The dynamic iris is broken!

If Optoma were to redesign the HD-81 to employ lens shift AND fix the DI, I would buy one in a heartbeat!

Ah, you learn fast, Grasshopper! ;)

Most of the brightness discussion has been centered around using similar gain screens, and in that context the HD-81 will be 28.57% brighter (not much difference). But you are correct in that the different mounting considerations of each projector will allow the use of totally different screens. Retroreflective screens work for lens shift projectors where they won't work for fixed offset projectors. However, you can also get around that problem by using a Silverstar (angular reflective) with the HD-81 if you really feel the need for more brightness.

Thanks for the feedback, Bob; always enlightening! The reason I have eliminated the SS from my screen considerations is that they are supposed to be very poor in any ambient light situations. And though I don't think my AL is severe, it is certainly not the most ideal. The screen texture/sheen of the SS has also often been mentioned, whereas the HP, which is just about as high gain [though much narrower viewing angle, but no problem for me] is reported to have the very best surface characteristics.

I was also wanting to be sure that I wasn't making some foolish oversight in my ftL analysis. The arithmetic is no question, but the question in my mind is 'are all ftL equivalent?'. I.e., are the ftL generated by a Pearl (or BenQ), say, + the HP, just as 'good' as those generated by a higher lumen pj (the HD-81) + the FH. I would think the latter would be slightly preferable in that the FH will regain some CR. But if the HD-81 + FH has many FEWER ftL than the Pearl/BenQ + HP, then it's a different story.

And I certainly agree with your final statement: if the HD-81 had a modestly shorter throw and less offset, it would be my choice without a question. (I don't even care about the DI, a manual iris would be fine with me.) If the offset had been 27%, in fact, and the throw 1.78 (not 1.85) as was originally stated by the Optoma people, I could have made it work.

.... the question in my mind is 'are all ftL equivalent?'. I.e., are the ftL generated by a Pearl (or BenQ), say, + the HP, just as 'good' as those generated by a higher lumen pj (the HD-81) + the FH. I would think the latter would be slightly preferable in that the FH will regain some CR. But if the HD-81 + FH has many FEWER ftL than the Pearl/BenQ + HP, then it's a different story.



That is a very interesting question. I guess this might be where the term "apparent contrast" might come into play with the HP?

I'd like to hear others respond to this one! :)

The arithmetic is no question, but the question in my mind is 'are all ftL equivalent?
Good question, Bill, and one for which I do not have an answer. If I have a choice, I prefer to use natural light output from the projector on a unity gain screen, but most times it is not possible due to the nature of lamp brightness loss over time. If your lamp is too bright initially (like the 3 chippers), then you need to reduce brightness using a ND filter of some kind, OR if the initial brightness is fine, then you will need to boost brightness with a higher gain screen once the lamp dims, so either way you won't get to watch optimum brightness without some sort of compensation along the line. Maybe if you got a projector with just the right amount of difference between its high and low lamp settings you might get away without any other form of compensation, but that would be tricky to get just right.
(I don't even care about the DI, a manual iris would be fine with me.)
Funny you should mention that, Bill, as tonight I ran an experiment with my Ruby. I watched the HD-DVD version of Phantom of the Opera (BTW, incredible transfer!) using auto iris for the first half and then I switched to iris off for the second half. I didn't even consider iris on, as with almost 600 hours on my lamp the image would simply be too dim for my taste. But by comparing auto iris (16k:1) to iris off (3k:1) I at least got the chance to see how well the projector performed at a similar on/off CR to the Optoma when it is in iris on mode (the Pearl/Ruby iris off is approximately the same as HD-81 iris on except that since the Optoma is brighter, the black level would also be higher, so the Ruby in iris off mode actually has the better black level).

In the bright scenes I did not miss the auto iris at all. The blacks looked very black , the colors were popping and punchy, and the detail was amazing. But when there were extended dark scenes, that is where I noticed a problem. With the iris off the blacks simply were not as convincing, dark detail was lessened, and there was the dreaded "haze" that I had not seen since I first bought my Ruby. I watched the entire second half of the movie figuring that I would give my eyes and brain time to adjust to the raised black level, but as the movie went on it just bothered me more and more. The lesson I learned from this experiment is that no matter how good a projector looks with mixed APL and bright scenes, unless it has sufficient on/off CR to handle the dark scenes, I just won't be happy with it. I have been spoiled by 16k:1 CR and there's no going back.

So Optoma, I'd love to buy your projector for all of the other wonderful qualities that it provides, but unless you can get the on/off CR up to somewhere around 10k:1 or better, regardless of how you get it there, it will be a non starter for a lot of folks. This is not a complaint, but rather a plea to take on/off CR seriously and get that DI fixed ASAP!

Bob, OK, I'm willing to agree that I've got plenty still to learn about all this FP business, and this is likely one aspect of it. I have just been thinking of the (manual) iris as a simpler mechanism than an ND filter to vary the brightness of the pj from daytime/amibient light/Sunday afternoon football situations, to nighttime movie time. You're making the point that a DI, properly implemented, can do much more than this, and I'm sure you know what you're talking about. And when I finally make the leap into all this, I imagine I will recongnize it too.

You're making the point that a DI, properly implemented, can do much more than this, and I'm sure you know what you're talking about.
Yes, Bill, a dynamic iris is an iris that opens and closes on the fly during video playback. When the scene is bright, the iris opens to allow more light out and when the scene is darker the iris closes in order to achieve a lower black level and greater black detail. An adjustable iris is one which is manually adjustable by the user to a preset level determined by the manufacturer, but the iris remains static. This allows the user to trade brightness for contrast (contrast goes up as brightness goes down) so that the user can determine for himself what balance of brightness and contrast suits his needs the best. Think of an auto iris as having a person manually closing the adjustable iris on the fly as the material changes needs. The DI algorithm also adjusts gamma on the fly, so the DI algorithms are a lot more complex than my simple description implies. The DI in the Ruby is very good, but once in awhile it can be fooled and you can see "pumping" or if not adjusted well it can cause brightness compression, but the tradeoff in on/off CR is well worth it to many of us (but certainly not all!). The DI algorithms in the Pearl are supposedly much improved, making its operation invisible - Sony has a lot of experience with DIs and does them well...:)

It seems as if the HD-81 is Optoma's first attempt at a DI, and so far from the reports it doesn't work well (obvious pumping and noisy operation), and from the sound of things from Jeff's talk with Wing, Optoma is not all that interested in making it right. Thus my comment "what a shame"...:(

Bob,

Interesting that you watched Phantom. I watched much of the second half with the HD81 at Optoma. There were some very dark scenes where I wasn't happy with black level and told Wing. He changed the iris from F9 to F16 which made for good blacks, but not enough brightness on his 150" screen. I think F16 will give me enough brightness on my 100" screen. What kind of on/off CR could I expect on a 1.3 gain Studiotek with iris closed down
to F16 on a 100" screen in a HT with dark gray walls? Will DI still make a big difference in a
dark room?

I demoed the Pearl with DI on. It was completely seamless, I was totally unaware of it
working, but the room I watched in had too much ambient light. The Ruby in the room next
door was in a totally dark room and saturation and blacks looked better for that reason, but didn't have the brightness, detail or 3D effect displayed by the HD81.

What about white compression from DI? Is that ever an issue with your setup?

Jeff Regan

I'm suprised, and a little disappointed, that TzungILin has not commented on the DI issue with the HD81, especially since he seems to be following this thread.
How about it TzungILin? Is Optoma going to address the algorithms on the iris to make them better? Is the iris just too slow to correct? I assume nothing can be done about the sound.

Thanks

What kind of on/off CR could I expect on a 1.3 gain Studiotek with iris closed down to F16 on a 100" screen in a HT with dark gray walls?
With the iris closed down completely, I believe that the HD-81 does about 3k:1 CR, the best it can deliver without the use of a DI. I'm just going by memory, though, so I don't know if my figure is accurate.
Will DI still make a big difference in a dark room?
It makes the BIGGEST difference in a dark room. When ambient light is present, it can raise the black level enough so that the benefits of the DI are negated.
What about white compression from DI? Is that ever an issue with your setup?
I have almost zero problems with BC (brightness compression) because I learned very early on how to minimize it (adjust brightness and contrast at the SOURCE, not at the DISPLAY). In very few instances have I seen the DI pumping, and from what I have heard (I have not seen it personally), the DI algorithms in the Pearl are even better. Yes, there is a minimal amount of BC and pumping that takes place, but to me the benefits FAR outweigh the negatives (not even close), especially in those dark scenes. Of course high native contrast is the Holy Grail, and the new JVC with 10k:1 CR and 800 real lumens just might be the next great projector to come along if it lives up to its initial reports from CEDIA.

My point with the HD-81 is pretty simple - Optoma already have a DI manufactured and installed, and even have a partially working algorithm. I'd just like to see them place it high on their priority list of things to do. There is a heck of a big difference between 3k:1 and, let's say, 9k:1 CR, and in my eyes the ability to do great blacks makes the difference between a good projector and a great one.

I've made this point several times in other threads and I'll make it again here...It is pretty easy to impress and wow people with mixed APL and brighter scenes (and for that reason you will see a lot of demos done like that), but once you get the projector home you will discover that there are a heck of a lot more dark scenes than you might have thought. To me, the ability to reproduce deep blacks and dark detail separates the men from the boys, but that's because I am a movie buff. For those whose primary interest is in sports and other brighter material this ability is nowhere near as important.

Bob,

Interesting that you watched Phantom. I watched much of the second half with the HD81 at Optoma. There were some very dark scenes where I wasn't happy with black level and told Wing. He changed the iris from F9 to F16 which made for good blacks, but not enough brightness on his 150" screen. I think F16 will give me enough brightness on my 100" screen. What kind of on/off CR could I expect on a 1.3 gain Studiotek with iris closed down
to F16 on a 100" screen in a HT with dark gray walls? Will DI still make a big difference in a
dark room?

I demoed the Pearl with DI on. It was completely seamless, I was totally unaware of it
working, but the room I watched in had too much ambient light. The Ruby in the room next
door was in a totally dark room and saturation and blacks looked better for that reason, but didn't have the brightness, detail or 3D effect displayed by the HD81.

What about white compression from DI? Is that ever an issue with your setup?

Jeff Regan

As far as CR tests,
3000.1 open Iris
3700.1 closed
8300.1 DI

But you could probably add 700.1 to all these figures. I tested the HD81 at full opened zoom. I didn't know closed zoom PJ further back could add about 700.1 .

I'm suprised, and a little disappointed, that TzungILin has not commented on the DI issue with the HD81, especially since he seems to be following this thread.
How about it TzungILin? Is Optoma going to address the algorithms on the iris to make them better? Is the iris just too slow to correct? I assume nothing can be done about the sound.

Thanks

Putting mine in a remote fan extracted hush box, lined with loaded vinyl. That should take care of three things .... any noise issues with the PJ's cooling fans, combatting any iris sound and light spill issues from the PJ housing.

In very few instances have I seen the DI pumping, and from what I have heard (I have not seen it personally), the DI algorithms in the Pearl are even better. Yes, there is a minimal amount of BC and pumping that takes place, but to me the benefits FAR outweigh the negatives (not even close), especially in those dark scenes.
Jeff, the dynamic iris produces a tradeoff between better contrast (particularly in dark scenes) and brightness compression (in dark to moderately bright scenes). I think most people would agree with Bob's assessment, that the benefits outweigh the negatives, although they may differ on how much the benefits outweigh the negatives. However, there are also some people that can not accept the brightness compression in the Ruby. Although the image may be much improved in dark scenes, and only "badly distorted" in a few scenes, I am consciously aware of how brightness compression is modifying the image in many other scenes. So even though I may agree that in totality the film looks better (based on how much better the dark scenes look) I don't like the tradeoff of knowing (and being able to recognize it as I watch) many other scenes are being modified. I believe a few pages back you said you are a DP, so this may be worthy of consideration.

The dynamic iris in the Pearl is very different than the dynamic iris in the Ruby. More about that in my review ...

The dynamic iris in the Pearl is very different than the dynamic iris in the Ruby. More about that in my review ...
You are killing me with anticipation! :) :D

When will this review be out :)

Toe:

Review submission deadline is Monday for the December issue. I just submitted my copy for CEDIA coverage.

Cheers,

The dynamic iris in the Pearl is very different than the dynamic iris in the Ruby. More about that in my review ...

Different in a good way, or a bad way? Let me guess: it depends! ;)

Thanks John :)

Different in a good way, or a bad way? Let me guess: it depends! ;)
Rob, you've read too many of my reviews. :)


Review submission deadline is Monday for the December issue.
What ??!! Monday??!!

I was just about to tell Rob all the ways the Pearl was different than the Ruby ... But clearly I don't have time. Gotta finish the review. Sorry Rob, blame Kotches. :)

I was just about to tell Rob all the ways the Pearl was different than the Ruby ... But clearly I don't have time. Gotta finish the review. Sorry Rob, blame Kotches.
So can we take this as an offical announcement that your Pearl review will be in the December issue? :D

When will this review be out :)
December issue, mails out mid-November. Hopefully Gary Reber can be persuaded to put it on line early at the WSR subscriber's website in about a week.

Rob, you've read too many of my reviews. :)


Never miss 'em! :)

What ??!! Monday??!!

I was just about to tell Rob all the ways the Pearl was different than the Ruby ... But clearly I don't have time. Gotta finish the review. Sorry Rob, blame Kotches. :)

Damn you Kotches! Damn you to hellll!!!!!

:p

December issue, mails out mid-November. Hopefully Gary Reber can be persuaded to put it on line early at the WSR subscriber's website in about a week.

Greg do you have a date also for the HD81 review? I must read the two of them before buying and I would like to have a projector this year :)...

I have almost zero problems with BC (brightness compression) because I learned very early on how to minimize it (adjust brightness and contrast at the SOURCE, not at the DISPLAY).

It is pretty easy to impress and wow people with mixed APL and brighter scenes (and for that reason you will see a lot of demos done like that), but once you get the projector home you will discover that there are a heck of a lot more dark scenes than you might have thought.

Bob,

Could you explain what you are doing set up wise at your sources, besides normal calibration? Are you running contrast at lower than normal levels?

I agree with your point about mixed APL, this is what was dazzling with the HD81,
whereas a very dark scene looked lacking in the blacks, until the iris was adjusted
from F9 to F16. So your point is that even a pj with very poor native CR will look
impressive with a scene that has very bright whites and black levels simultaneously?

Jeff Regan

However, there are also some people that can not accept the brightness compression in the Ruby. Although the image may be much improved in dark scenes, and only "badly distorted" in a few scenes, I am consciously aware of how brightness compression is modifying the image in many other scenes. So even though I may agree that in totality the film looks better (based on how much better the dark scenes look) I don't like the tradeoff of knowing (and being able to recognize it as I watch) many other scenes are being modified. I believe a few pages back you said you are a DP, so this may be worthy of consideration.

Greg,

I am very sensitive to knee compression, aggressive slope settings and gammas that are set too high in video cameras. I believe in as little electronic intervention in the form of highlight compression as possible, ditto detail enhancement circuits. So I tend to run with very mild knee, detail and slope settings, especially when using factory preset film gammas in video cameras. A projector that is compressing highlights would bother me a lot. I wish I had seen the HD81 with DI on, but Wing made it clear that he isn't a DI fan, so I didn't push the matter.

Jeff Regan

Greg do you have a date also for the HD81 review? I must read the two of them before buying and I would like to have a projector this year :)...
I had expected to review the Optoma when it first shipped to customers (i.e. before the Sony), but they did not send me one of the review units.

My next review will be the Sharp XV-Z20000.

Could you explain what you are doing set up wise at your sources, besides normal calibration? Are you running contrast at lower than normal levels?
Jeff, I am not doing anything special, but I have great control of all of my sources due to the use of a Crystalio 2 video processor which is inserted between my sources and projector. I first calibrate the Ruby's input using an Accupel generator, a GMB EyeOne sensor, and i1dcs software. Then I calibrate the source levels (brightness and contrast) using the controls found on the C2. By keeping the Ruby's B and C close to default (which is where they wound up after calibration), I have gotten much less BC than I did when I tried leaving the sources at default levels and adjusting the display's levels. I really don't know why this works, though I suspect that I am somehow maintaining maximum video dynamic range with this setup. Maybe Greg knows more about it and will be kind enough to offer some insight after he finishes his Pearl review...;)
So your point is that even a pj with very poor native CR will look
impressive with a scene that has very bright whites and black levels simultaneously?
Heck yeah! A bright projector with even as little as 2k:1 on/off CR will look great on those types of scenes as long as it has decent simultaneous CR.

I was also wanting to be sure that I wasn't making some foolish oversight in my ftL analysis. The arithmetic is no question, but the question in my mind is 'are all ftL equivalent?'. I.e., are the ftL generated by a Pearl (or BenQ), say, + the HP, just as 'good' as those generated by a higher lumen pj (the HD-81) + the FH. I would think the latter would be slightly preferable in that the FH will regain some CR. But if the HD-81 + FH has many FEWER ftL than the Pearl/BenQ + HP, then it's a different story..

The general answer to your question is "Yes, they are the same." if you consider the PJ and screen in isolation. However, when you factor in the different kinds of HTs that they might be used in, some differences appear. For example. If there is ambient light in the HT, a super bright PJ with an ultra low gain screen would largley negate the washout affect of the ambient light because the low gain screen would reflect very little of it. Or in the case of an HT with white walls and ceilings, a higher lumens output PJ might allow the use of a Firehawk screen which is particularly effective at quenching cross light reflections. Even in a light controlled, "black hole" theater the brighter PJ might allow the use of a lower gain screen with better uniformity charectoristics.

The most important thing in choosing a screen is to get the right brightness (fL). The standard recommendation is 12 fL. I usually recommend at least 14-16 fL with a new bulb to allow for bulb dimming. I find image brightness down to about 7fL to still be acceptable in a light controlled theater, but I still consider this a tradeoff. Below that it is just too dim for me.

The tradeoff for achieving higher fL is that Black becomes elevated and it is too grey already in most digital PJs. There is a definite penalty for a "brighter is better" approach.

Glenn

I don’t want to deviate away from the subject of this link, so let me write down my observations on auto IRIS in the context of VW50/100 vs HD81.

1. Frankly, I am not a big fan of the current implementation of Auto IRIS (see point 2 below). I’m more in line with Greg Rogers that I am bothered by the brightness loss of auto IRIS, especially when subtitles are on. Granted, it is a nice feature to help LCD/LCOS to get to better black levels. But it’s killing too much image and color intensity for me, part of the brightness compression that Greg mentioned. I prefer punchy, high contrast images!

2. Ideally, I would go crazy for per-pixel auto IRIS, it will be the best ! Hopefully, we will get there one day … Current implementation of per-lamp basis has its weakness that it reduces the overall image brightness, even those mid-level and bright pixels that should be left alone!

3. Different display technology needs different IRIS strategy. Aggressive auto IRIS like those implemented on LCD/LCOS may be good for technology with weak native contrast, but may not be ideal for a high contrast technology.

4. On VW100 auto IRIS that I saw and shootout against, even though SONY claims 15,000:1 contrast with auto IRIS, at any instance, the IRIS is closing to some place, so the image you see at any instance is less than 6000:1 (IRIS tightly closed). The contrast of auto IRIS varies between say, 3000:1 (IRIS open) to 6000:1 (IRIS closed). But when the IRIS closes down during dark scenes, the image loses its intensity and vivid colors, especially if side by side shoot out against DLP.

5. On HD81 IRIS design, the original goal is to make one with multiple steps, just like Greg suggested in his Yamaha DPX-1200 review. Once we have 16 steps, I began to think about what would be a workable auto IRIS for DLP in general. DLP has good contrast ratio to begin with, hence, theoretically, it could stay IRIS fixed for most of the times, and only when the scenes get very dark that the IRIS can closed down to help lower the black level. So based on the multiple step, we designed an algorithm tailored to the characteristics of high contrast nature of DLP. The basic idea is that the algorithm will automatically change IRIS, but not so often. It’s like when I watch Van Helsing, for Ch. 2, I want to close down the IRIS to have lowered black level, HD81 will do that automatically for me. It’s not ideal for some people who are used to LCD/LCOS’s constant-moving auto IRIS. For now, one can always enjoy the benefit of 16-manual-step IRIS.

So when Kevin and Dan shoot out VW50 and HD81 in the 2nd round, maybe you can freeze the scene when Christine dropped the red rose on the rooftop, compare VW50/auto IRIS to HD81 at fixed IRIS, to see the color and image intensity/contras. Or freeze the Batman scene (like in the projectiondesign webpage) with the torch light calling for Batman.

Just my own observations to share with you, YMMV though!

(like in the projectiondesign webpage) with the torch light calling for Batman.



Here is the link:
projectiondesign webpage (http://www.projectiondesign.com/Default.asp?CatID=1411) see at the bottom page pictures for the idea of brightness impact due to auto IRIS.

After seeing this HD81 on a DaLite 1.5 gain 150" screen, first without, then with the Schneider anamorphic lens, all I can say is, this is the most theatrical, filmic HT demo I have ever experienced.

Could you comment a little more on the Schneider lens? Pincussion, focus uniformity, chromatic abberation, etc... Have you seen other similar lenses in action like the ISCO II or Prismasonic? I presume given your profession you have some knowledge of anamorphic lenses used in film projection.

I'm trying to get a feel for where it falls on the undesirable artifacts scale. The ISCO III seems like the holy grail, but it had better be given the cost.

But it’s killing too much image and color intensity for me, part of the brightness compression that Greg mentioned. I prefer punchy, high contrast images!

Brightness Compression as described by gregr in his WSR article is merging of several levls of bright portions of the image, caused by the image processing system compensating for the overall lowering of light levels caused by the iris closing. IMO, it is so innocous, that less people will see it than will see rainbows!
3. Different display technology needs different IRIS strategy. Aggressive auto IRIS like those implemented on LCD/LCOS may be good for technology with weak native contrast, but may not be ideal for a high contrast technology.

You are not implying that SXRD has "weak native contrast", are you? :)
at any instance, the IRIS is closing to some place, so the image you see at any instance is less than 6000:1 (IRIS tightly closed). The contrast of auto IRIS varies between say, 3000:1 (IRIS open) to 6000:1 (IRIS closed).

That would be true if there was no image processing (per scene dynamic gamma). The Ruby does have per scene processing, which is why gregr talked about the clear dark scene CR improvements in moving from iris closed ( 5,200:1 measured) to iris auto (16,000:1 measured )
It’s not ideal for some people who are used to LCD/LCOS’s constant-moving auto IRIS.

Sony's auto iris is extremely effective in the Ruby, and has reportedly been improved in the Pearl!
The more important question is the effectiveness of the HD81 auto iris? One reviewer, TJN has already stated it is "useless".

If guitarman's numbers are correct the shootout setup should be Pearl iris auto vs HD81 iris closed. This would put both pjs in their best contrast setting, and at the same time similar brightness, ~ 500 lumens!

I think both pjs will look spectacular!

gpshumway,

I have no experience with anamorphic lenses for video or film projection, other than seeing the Schneider/HD81. I am a video DP, so anamorphic 16:9 is accomplished electronically, not optically.

On a non curved screen, the HD81/Schneider combo, albeit at a fairly long throw, looked very sharp at the corners, no discernable CA, it was very impressive. After swinging the
Schneider in and out of position several times, I saw vignetting once at the top left and
right of frame, but it was only because Wing didn't get the lens close enough that time.
I did not see a test signal with pincushion, but movie content looked perfectly normal.

I do have concerns about the Schneider in a very short throw situation. My HT throw will
only be 12' due to room size limitations.

The Schneider, like the ISCO, offer very good German optics. The Schneider, through Optoma, is $4K, which is less than if bought directly from Schneider. I use Schneider
filters on my camera lenses and they are very high quality. I am currently leaning toward the Panamorph UH380 for cost considerations and because I believe it will work well for short throws, but the Schneider looked absolutely great to me.

Jeff Regan

Here is the link:
projectiondesign webpage (http://www.projectiondesign.com/Default.asp?CatID=1411) see at the bottom page pictures for the idea of brightness impact due to auto IRIS.
That happens only without dynamic image processing, as stated in the article.

Sony, and Panasonic have extremely good per scene dynamic processing algorithms, which makes their auto iris implementation very effective.

That happens only without dynamic image processing, as stated in the article.

Sony, and Panasonic have extremely good per scene dynamic processing algorithms, which makes their auto iris implementation very effective.

The images on the right are with DI, presumably, and not as dynamic, according to
the article. At least that's what I take away from it.

Jeff Regan

The images on the right are with DI, presumably, and not as dynamic, according to
the article. At least that's what I take away from it.
Jeff Regan
The images on the right is what happens if one uses a DI without a scene level dynamic image adjustment. The dynamic image adjustment algorithms ("dynamic gamma") would be responsible for transforming the image so it looks better than the one on the left.

Neither Sony or Panasonic ship pjs without dynamic gamma, so the images on the right never occur!

Houston...... did you mean the images on the "right" never appear?

Glenn

Then what do you recommend for a screen when one is forced to place the theater in a "great room" where there are more ambient light issues? I hope I can control much of the light as I am going to be installing shutters in the house, but it will never be a "black hole" enviornment.

I also don't think I can talk the wife into painting the entire Great Room, Dinning Room, nook, and Kitchen a nice dark blue or black :-)

The images on the right is what happens if one uses a DI without a scene level dynamic image adjustment. The dynamic image adjustment algorithms ("dynamic gamma") would be responsible for transforming the image so it looks better than the one on the left.

Neither Sony or Panasonic ship pjs without dynamic gamma, so the images on the left never occur!


I dont see how it is possible for it to look better than the image in the left. The Sony DI process may be the best one out there but all DI have to make sacrifices to match a greater simulanteous contrast.

I dont see how it is possible for it to look better than the image in the left. The Sony DI process may be the best one out there but all DI have to make sacrifices to match a greater simulanteous contrast.
If the image on the left is the 4,000:1 PD 1080 and the right is the 16,000:1 Ruby, then the right would have darker blacks and better dark contrast and shadow detail. The downside may be some compression in the searchlight, but there is not much gradation there in the firstplace.

Houston...... did you mean the images on the "right" never appear?
You are so correct!

If the image on the left is the 4,000:1 PD 1080 and the right is the 16,000:1 Ruby, then the right would have darker blacks and better dark contrast and shadow detail. The downside may be some compression in the searchlight, but there is not much gradation there in the firstplace.

That is where I am a little confused about this DI. In my mind you would not see a greater black level in this scene because the bright white area is so bright that it forces the DI mechanism to make a choice at what level to set its iris to equalize white and black levels. I am not trying to start a debate here, although I have been in the hobby quite a long time I still consider myself a novice in this crowd.

If it is a matter of the DI optimizing the image frame by frame or even scene by scene then the On/Off CR spec is really irrelevent when looking at very rich contrasty scenes. Is there even a way to measure On/Off CR with an actual film image on the screen?

Please guys correct me if I am making no sense but wouldnt ansi contrast be the major spec we should be looking at with film based material ??

That happens only without dynamic image processing, as stated in the article.

Sony, and Panasonic have extremely good per scene dynamic processing algorithms, which makes their auto iris implementation very effective.
I agree that the Ruby or Pearl would never look like the picture on the right. It is without dynamic gamma processing. Although that is explained in the text above the picture, I don't think everyone would follow the explanation and realize the picture is without dynamic gamma. A good dynamic iris would not work this way. The text states the issue of using dynamic gamma, but then they should have used pictures to show the potential artifacts. It is possible the top image would have caused some noticeable brightness compression, but I doubt any brightness compression would have been easily noticeable on the bottom image. In any event, these pictures do not show the potential artifacts of a good dynamic iris.

In my mind you would not see a greater black level in this scene because the bright white area is so bright that it forces the DI mechanism to make a choice at what level to set its iris to equalize white and black levels.

You seem to have some misconceptions about DIs. The DI is not trying to set its iris to equalize white and black levels. It is adjusting the iris to give the best possible dark scene contrast. That typically results in closing the iris to lower the black floor while simultaneously raising changing the bright elements in order to maintain the correct intra scene element contrast!

If it is a matter of the DI optimizing the image frame by frame or even scene by scene then the On/Off CR spec is really irrelevent when looking at very rich contrasty scenes. Is there even a way to measure On/Off CR with an actual film image on the screen?

The Sony and Panny DIs do analyze, adjust, and optomize the image on a frame by frame (Panny) and scene by scene (Sony) basis. If the DIs don't do this, they are not usefull! If fact panny brags in their brochure that their histogram analysis detects 3 billion brightness and darkness levels!
Please guys correct me if I am making no sense but wouldnt ansi contrast be the major spec we should be looking at with film based material ??
I believe the film folks would say that a darker checkerboard may be usefull, but ANSI (50%/50%) is much too bright for typical film. You need both benchmarks, ANSI CR tells us about bright scene contrast, on/off tells us the dynamic randge, thus dark scene contrast.

I think of a good DI implementation as providing native intrascene CR over a lowered (darker) range of dark scenes.

Glenn

Then what do you recommend for a screen when one is forced to place the theater in a "great room" where there are more ambient light issues? I hope I can control much of the light as I am going to be installing shutters in the house, but it will never be a "black hole" enviornment.

I also don't think I can talk the wife into painting the entire Great Room, Dinning Room, nook, and Kitchen a nice dark blue or black :-)

HiHoSteve,

If you do an "advanced" search for posts from the member "glenned", you will find several recent rather extensive posts concerning these exact issues, plus some responses from others. This will give you more info than trying to repeat all that.

Glenn

gpshumway,

I have no experience with anamorphic lenses for video or film projection, other than seeing the Schneider/HD81. I am a video DP, so anamorphic 16:9 is accomplished electronically, not optically.

On a non curved screen, the HD81/Schneider combo, albeit at a fairly long throw, looked very sharp at the corners, no discernable CA, it was very impressive.
I do have concerns about the Schneider in a very short throw situation. My HT throw will
only be 12' due to room size limitations.

I am currently leaning toward the Panamorph UH380 for cost considerations and because I believe it will work well for short throws, but the Schneider looked absolutely great to me.

Jeff Regan

Thanks, Jeff. I'll add this data point to my mental tally. I currently have an ISCO II , and it does very well on my low resolution projector at approximately 2:1 throw, but I would hesitate to use it with a 1080p projector at the same throw ratio, the focus is too soft at the edges. Nice to hear you didn't feel you were missing anything. I don't notice anything on with my ISCO II on video, but then I put up the windows desktop and the start button seems very fuzzy.

BTW it's the throw ratio that matters, not the absolute throw.

BTW it's the throw ratio that matters, not the absolute throw.

Yes, you're right. I will have a 1.92 throw ratio, which should work with the UH380,
I hope.

Jeff Regan

HHF-

I'd like to thank you for a series of good, informative posts on the implementation of DI. Thanks!

If the image on the left is the 4,000:1 PD 1080 and the right is the 16,000:1 Ruby, then the right would have darker blacks and better dark contrast and shadow detail. The downside may be some compression in the searchlight, but there is not much gradation there in the firstplace.

I'm not sure if I understand exactly what you mean here. But if you are trying to implied that the Ruby can display 16000:1 contrast on one shot you are wrong. It's not how a dynamic Iris work. The 16000:1 contrast for the Ruby can not and will never be able to be display simultaneously in one specific frame. The max the projector will be able to achieve will be it's native contrast of around 5000:1. But for reason related to each technology the image will be more contrasty on the DLP projector because ANSI contrast on DLP is probly double what the Ruby can achieve (gregr could give us the exact numbers). Why exactly I don't know. I think cell bleeding maybe the answer. Gregr?

Were the Ruby will be better would be in very dark scene. Were there is almost no bright object but gray object. In those scene the DLP would use only a portion of its dynamic range lets say in a specific dark seen it would use black a zero and the brightness object of that scene would be at 400. you would get 400 possible gradation of dark. The ruby would use it's full 5000:1 gradation and make everything in that specific scene more contrasty. That is achievable by changing the gamma curve.

That is an example in real life the variation will be less. If it's 400 gradations for dark with the DLP it would probably for sure less than 5000 possibles gradations for the Ruby. I don't really know how well the system work.

Bruno

You seem to have some misconceptions about DIs. The DI is not trying to set its iris to equalize white and black levels. It is adjusting the iris to give the best possible dark scene contrast. That typically results in closing the iris to lower the black floor while simultaneously raising changing the bright elements in order to maintain the correct intra scene element contrast!

The Sony and Panny DIs do analyze, adjust, and optomize the image on a frame by frame (Panny) and scene by scene (Sony) basis. If the DIs don't do this, they are not usefull! If fact panny brags in their brochure that their histogram analysis detects 3 billion brightness and darkness levels!

I believe the film folks would say that a darker checkerboard may be usefull, but ANSI (50%/50%) is much too bright for typical film. You need both benchmarks, ANSI CR tells us about bright scene contrast, on/off tells us the dynamic randge, thus dark scene contrast.

I think of a good DI implementation as providing native intrascene CR over a lowered (darker) range of dark scenes.

I agree 100% with your statements. So I guess I didn't understand exactly what you were trying to say in the other post.

Bruno

I'm not sure if I understand exactly what you mean here. But if you are trying to implied that the Ruby can display 16000:1 contrast on one shot you are wrong.
Bruno
I did not imply that the Ruby could display 16,000:1 in a single scene, nor that the PD could display 4,000:1 in a single scene.
Were the Ruby will be better would be in very dark scene. Were there is almost no bright object but gray object

The Ruby will do better in dark scenes even if there are bright objects. :) In some cases if there are bright objects of varying intensities, the Ruby may compress them into a smaller range of intensities, that is "brightness compression".
In those scene the DLP would use only a portion of its dynamic range lets say in a specific dark seen it would use black a zero and the brightness object of that scene would be at 400. you would get 400 possible gradation of dark. The ruby would use it's full 5000:1 gradation and make everything in that specific scene more contrasty

You just made that up, right. :) :)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bgosselin
In those scene the DLP would use only a portion of its dynamic range lets say in a specific dark seen it would use black a zero and the brightness object of that scene would be at 400. you would get 400 possible gradation of dark. The ruby would use it's full 5000:1 gradation and make everything in that specific scene more contrasty

You just made that up, right.

Of course. Numbers are bogus. Just trying to illustrate that the DLP without the DI will only use a small part of it's dynamic range compare to the Ruby that would use a wider dynamic range. But you got the point. :)

But at a certain point both the Ruby and the DLP would display an image with there native CR as a dynamic range. Right? For exemple lets thing about a starfield. If there is only one star the DLP will use all it's dynamic range (let's pretend that the white dot is 100 IRE, I know bogus numbers again) The Ruby will lower it's DI trying to get more details for black. In doing so the white star will appear darker. If you add more stars in that frame the Ruby will open it's Iris more and more making it's image closer and closer to what it could do with the Iris full open. I'm I wrong or I'm really really wrong! :)

Of course. Numbers are bogus. Just trying to illustrate that the DLP without the DI will only use a small part of it's dynamic range compare to the Ruby that would use a wider dynamic range. But you got the point. :)

But at a certain point both the Ruby and the DLP would display an image with there native CR as a dynamic range. Right? For exemple lets thing about a starfield. If there is only one star the DLP will use all it's dynamic range (let's pretend that the white dot is 100 IRE, I know bogus numbers again) The Ruby will lower it's DI trying to get more details for black. In doing so the white star will appear darker. If you add more stars in that frame the Ruby will open it's Iris more and more making it's image closer and closer to what it could do with the Iris full open. I'm I wrong or I'm really really wrong! :)

You are wrong.

But I will let HHF explain why since he has been doing an excellent job of explaining DI in this thread.

I think both pjs will look spectacular!This turned out to be the case in our comparison tonight.

Briefly, there wasn't any real change from our original observations from the comparison at Kevin's HT. The HD81 was not an ideal fit in my HT; due to it's throw the widest we could get was about 108" at 14.5 ft (edit: correction: ~100" wide at 15.7 ft) from the screen. Hugging my 7 ft ceiling, some tilt was required to fill the bottom part of the High Power. The HD81 was on low lamp.

We initially tried some CR measurements but it became apparent that better instruments were needed for accurate measurements. Kevin did another another quick calibration of 70 IRE with the Pearl and just a few measurements using Autoiris1 with Accupel generated signals at lower IREs. At lower IREs we did a combination of sensor and visual estimates to obtain a good gray scale. My Pearl's bulb is now at 80 hours so I am going to spend some time with my Spyder2 sensor and Calman software soon. I also await an update from Greg Rogers or others regarding calibration recommendations with the new autoiris, or just proceed with those he gave for the Ruby in the meantime. The Pearl was set on normal rather than wide colorspace and default settings otherwise.

The HD81 was in autoiris at points and otherwise at a small fixed aperature setting. I didn't hear clicking or see pumping with it though Kevin says he has experienced both before.

Source material, that we quickly got pulled into once again, mainly consisted Batman Begins on HD DVD and recorded Dish HDNet broadcasts of Star Wars III and 2001: A Space Odyssey. Kevin and I are both big fans of 2001, having viewed it originally in Cinerama many years ago on several occasions and through the decades in SD and now in HD 1080i. I look forward to the HD DVD release of this film.

The HD81's fan was noticeably noisier than the Pearl's, even with the HD81 at low fan (though Kevin usually keeps it at high fan given our altitude here) and the Pearl's fan at high.

So, on to subjective impressions:

The Optoma, again as it was in Kevin's HT, is brighter. With the High Power, the Pearl was still quite bright even on low lamp, as long was one was within the viewing cone. At times, viewers even preferred low lamp which brought the black level down in overall dark scenes. Sitting off axis more than beyond the three person couch resulted in a noticeably dimmer image.

I would pick the Optoma over the Pearl for overall "punch" or "pop." I'd attribute some of this to the superior ANSI CR of the HD81. C3PO and other objects with metallic surfaces looked brilliant or more dynamic (edit: and possibly simpler optical path and ? MTF superiority in the Optoma optics). This is the difference that will pull many viewers to the HD81 or maybe other DLPs over SXRD. The autoiris goes a long way in improving CR overall for dark scenes, but the Pearl just doesn't convey that same brilliant look to such objects that more subdued by comparison with the Pearl.

The Optoma's images seem a bit cleaner or sharper than the Pearl's. The Pearl in isolation still looks sharp and the image is full of detail, but my impression of the Optoma is that it is higher quality in this respect. Back to back this difference is clear to me, but switching back to the Pearl did not result in a disappointed feeling or sense that sharpness was missing.

Shadow detail is a better with the Pearl, we thought, at least in certain scenes. The dark terrain at the near-demise of Annakin at the hand of Obi-Wan looked better defined on the Pearl. Smoke and fog looked smoother on the Pearl. Batman Begins cave surfaces and the walls and details on the walls of the dark medical suite where Annakin gets his Darth Vader suit were easy to see. In this aspect the HD81 was very close, however.

Motion still looks better to me on the Pearl. I assume this is largely due to a three vs. one chip advantage. Kevin agreed there was a subtle but real difference with a "settled" or "relaxed" quality to images in movement, and even some more static ones with high contrast elements where simply looking from one side of the image to the other might result in a rainbow perceived consciously or subconsciously. This is obviously an individual issue that many won't have but it's perhaps the main reason I'm keeping the Pearl.

In conclusion, if I had a longer room with a higher ceiling and could hushbox the HD81, I'd be tempted to get it. I don't know if I'd be willing to give up the Pearl toward that end because I value the ease of viewing with the Pearl; it's quieter, too and for my setup that matters, and with a shelf mount and High Power is quite bright. Kevin said he preferred the Pearl for some scenes/movies and the HD81 for others. Steve reiterated that if one has a dark theater the Pearl (with High Power for very bright images) is a great choice.

Dan

Great reviews again! Thanks, Dan. So, Pearl was in her comfort zone (bat cave) and autoIRIS1 and low lamp or high lamp? Are both ceiling mounted? Or Pearl ceiling mounted and HD81 at the floor? Is HP reflective or retroflective? Do both projectors enjoy the high gain of HP?

Your observation is pretty much in line with my own when I shoot out HD81 against VW100. DLP, though at fixed IRIS, appears to be more lively, or 3D or punchy or higher contrast than SXRD though claimed and measured to have higher CR. My take on that, like I wrote in my previous post, was that the auto IRIS is killing too much lumen that weaken the image intensity and color performance.

I wish I could be there with you guys, I always enjoy various shoot-out, becuase it tells you many things from the differences and comparisons, that we could learn and improve in the future.

I wish I could borrow the following machines and make some shootout:

DILA HD10K (the newer, smaller DILA from JVC, I saw it at CEDIA with very decent blacks!)
Epson 1080p model (just announced at Japan)
Panasonic AE1000 (Panasonic always make very good projectors!)

I have seen HC5000 in two different occasions, I was not too impressed, I prefer VW50 over it.

Enjoy your Pearl!

First and foremost, I can’t overstate how visually satisfying, emotionally engaging, and incredibly fun these projectors are! I’ve seen 2001: A Space Odyssey scores of times starting in 1968 with the old Cinerama Dome in LA, through endless TV runs, low-rez VHS, and wide-screen DVD, but I have never been so caught up in the stunning imagery of this film as watching it last night on both the Pearl and the HD81. It was a potent reminder of how carefully-crafted images, exceptionally reproduced, are essential to evocative storytelling.

A few facts to better understand the comparisons between the two viewing environments. I have a 116” diagonal Carada Brilliant White with a 1.4 gain in room with light paint. Dan has a 133” diagonal Da-lite High Power (2.8 gain) in a “black” room. The Pearl was just above our heads behind the couch and the HD81 was maybe 3 feet higher on a shelf. In home theater, size definitely matters, and sitting in a truly dark room, 13’ from a 133” screen and watching HD material on 1080p projectors is about as good as it gets.

I found it interesting that in my theater, I run the HD81 either with the iris off or at a relatively high setting of 2-5 (1 is full open and 16 is full closed). With Dan’s hi-gain screen, we ran the HD81 with auto iris or at a 12-16 fixed-iris setting. If permanently installed in Dan’s theater, I would probably leave the HD81 at 16 until the lamp settled in. With iris full open, the HD81 was just too bright on Dan’s hi-gain screen.

As was mentioned by others, there is no question in my mind that given the right room environment, the Pearl can certainly produce a very bright picture with solid saturation, even at low luminance levels. Playing with the iris, lamp, and gamma settings, we were able to create a more similar look between the two projectors; yet they still retained their distinctive differences – and I mean that it a positive sense.

My perception of which projector looked better continually shifted from scene to scene, but after a while I started to categorize the differences into two areas. The Pearl appeared to have the advantage in displaying images of soft, organic materials with natural movement such as fabrics, foliage, clouds, smoke, etc. Amidala’s “I’m-beautiful-because-I’m-so-in-love” costumes in Star Wars III really showed off this difference. On the other hand, the HD81 had the edge with more solid or metallic objects. For example when Alfred arrives to pick-up Bruce Wayne in the corporate jet, the fuselage just looked more real, round and dimensional to me on the HD81. This perception of a more corporeal, tactile look to the HD81 continued with images of C3-PO, the Bat Mobile, and the space pod in 2001. However, I thought both projectors imaged skin-tones with pleasing accuracy.

As to the motion issues between 3-chip and 1-chip projectors, I thought a scene from 2001 demonstrated the differences. When Frank goes out to repair the antenna array, there are some great images of the relatively high-contrast pod, Frank and Discovery floating slowly across a star field. Again this is almost a subliminal difference, but such movement appeared to have a more pleasing and natural look on the Pearl.

In contrast, scenes with a large depth of field such as the opening battle in Star Wars III with all of the space ships in the foreground and Coruscant’s city lights in the background appeared to have more depth on the HD81. Also, the 2001 scene with the astronauts overlooking the Clavius moon base appeared particularly 3-dimensional.

Like Dan, I love both of these projectors for different reasons. Indeed, I think the perfect solution would be to own both! I would use the HD81 to watch action movies like Batman Begins and Star Wars with high-contrast scenes and lots of hardware, and I would use the Pearl to watch something like Pride and Prejudice with its detailed costumes and extensive use of natural-light cinematography.

Consider your environment and which "look" you prefer and get either of these projectors, because once you've tasted 1080p on a big screen, there is no going back.

The HD81 was not an ideal fit in my HT; due to it's throw the widest we could get was about 108" at 14.5 ft from the screen. Hugging my 7 ft ceiling, some tilt was required to fill the bottom part of the High Power.

Dan, Was that 14.5 ft from the lens to the screen? If you could get an image 108" wide from that distance, this is a much smaller throw ratio than the 1.85 listed on the spec sheet. 14.5 ft = 174", therefore the throw ratio is 174/108 ~ 1.6. This can't be right, can it?

I'm not sure if I understand exactly what you mean here. But if you are trying to implied that the Ruby can display 16000:1 contrast on one shot you are wrong. It's not how a dynamic Iris work. The 16000:1 contrast for the Ruby can not and will never be able to be display simultaneously in one specific frame.


I don't know if this has been mentioned already, but there seems to be some confusion here between on/off CR and ANSI CR. I believe the ANSI CR of LCOS is in the area of 250:1 (or somewhere in that ballpark) and that is all you will ever see in any one specific frame. There is no display on the market anywhere that's going to give you 16000:1 (or even 5000:1) in-scene contrast. I believe that DLP is the highest of the big three pj technologies in this regard, but even there I think we're talking 500:1 or so. The on/off CR of the Pearl is much higher than its ANSI contrast (as to be expected), and it becomes the limiting factor to maintaining good ANSI CR in dark scenes.

I'm sure one of our gurus can provide a better explanation, but I wanted to make sure this was at least addressed.

By the way, the Auto-Iris2 functionality in the Pearl was designed to maintain more overall brightness. Contrast is more limited, but the picture remains more vibrant because the iris doesn't close down quite as much.

gremmy
With ANSI cr being close to a worst case scenario I would expect to see more than 250:1 within one frame in a good room.

Dan, Was that 14.5 ft from the lens to the screen? If you could get an image 108" wide from that distance, this is a much smaller throw ratio than the 1.85 listed on the spec sheet. 14.5 ft = 174", therefore the throw ratio is 174/108 ~ 1.6. This can't be right, can it?

Bill beat me to the punch!

My screen is 107" wide, and believe me, there is a HUGE difference between 14.5 feet (Dan's measurement) and 16.5 feet (Optoma's spec).

Dan, Was that 14.5 ft from the lens to the screen? If you could get an image 108" wide from that distance, this is a much smaller throw ratio than the 1.85 listed on the spec sheet. 14.5 ft = 174", therefore the throw ratio is 174/108 ~ 1.6. This can't be right, can it?Sorry for the confusion. Going back and actually measuring, the HD81 lens surface was 15.5-15.75 ft. from the screen surface yielding an image about 100" wide. There might be some error still in that because for image width I am going from mental notes of how far it extended across the screen.

Dan

Based on my installation experience, the ratio for distance to screen size as listed in the HD81 manual is accurate.

I havent seen this covered, other than maybe a slight mention, but as someone that is very susceptible to rainbows, I would like to know how this compares to other current, or previous gen high end DLP.

The only DLP I have spent serious time with was the Marantz S3. I did see rainbows, but it was better than any others. Is there any reason to think the Optoma would exhibit rainbows less than that unit?

I don't know if this has been mentioned already, but there seems to be some confusion here between on/off CR and ANSI CR. I believe the ANSI CR of LCOS is in the area of 250:1 (or somewhere in that ballpark) and that is all you will ever see in any one specific frame.
ANSI CR refers specifically to the CR of the ANSI checkerboard, which is a standardized 4x4 black-and-white checkerboard. It is improper to refer to ANSI CR as being the CR of any other image. In other images, the proper term is simultaneous CR.

That being said, in scenes where the APL is less than 50% (which is the APL of the ANSI checkerboard), the simultaneous CR is usually higher than the ANSI CR, and possibly much higher. Furthermore, as the APL approaches 0%, the simultaneous CR approaches the on/off CR (assuming that there are some black and white pixels in the image).

ANSI CR refers specifically to the CR of the ANSI checkerboard, which is a standardized 4x4 black-and-white checkerboard. It is improper to refer to ANSI CR as being the CR of any other image. In other images, the proper term is simultaneous CR.

That being said, in the vast majority of scenes where the APL is less than 50% (which is the APL of the ANSI checkerboard), the simultaneous CR is usually higher than the ANSI CR. Furthermore, as the APL approaches 0%, the simultaneous CR approaches the on/off CR (assuming that there are some black and white pixels in the image).

I almost came back and corrected my earlier post shortly after writing it, but I figured that leaving it as-is would lead to more interesting discussion (due to human nature, mostly).

I do think I need a refresher on simultaneous CR. I just wanted to make sure that people understood there was a difference, and to explore that difference, which appears to be relevant.

I believe the ANSI CR of LCOS is in the area of 250:1 (or somewhere in that ballpark) and that is all you will ever see in any one specific frame.
Not true. The ANSI contrast ratio is a figure of merit. It is not a numerical limit in real video images.

Not true. The ANSI contrast ratio is a figure of merit. It is not a numerical limit in real video images.

See my post two above. Further illuminate, please. :D

Mister Anderson, if you think we are going to be fooled by your comparison you'll soon realize we can not be so easily persuaded. You must take a side and pick a team and join us as we will be the unquestionable winner Mister Anderson.

You and your neo class think you can just make positive statements inside and outside the matrix.

I can assure you Mister Anderson you will regret you made that decision.

Kevin, I've really enjoyed this thread and your efforts to be emotionally well balanced in the viewings of these two. Thanks alot. Maybe I'll have less anxiety now awaiting the Pearl to arrive.

See my post two above. Further illuminate, please. :D
I see that Erik already covered it above. The ANSI contrast ratio is a specific measurement process (and a very bad one) applied to a specific test pattern. The result is simply a figure of merit that describes intra-field contrast based on that one pattern. The value can not be used to mathematically determine the intra-field contrast for any normal video image.

I see that Erik already covered it above. The ANSI contrast ratio is a specific measurement process (and a very bad one) applied to a specific test pattern. The result is simply a figure of merit that describes intra-field contrast based on that one pattern. The value can not be used to mathematically determine the intra-field contrast for any normal video image.

Yes, I read that post. But I was hoping to merit a comparison of intra-scene contrast to the on/off contrast figures that have been mentioned within the last couple of pages. There have been multiple comments mentioning on/off numbers in the context of "a single frame," usually being careful to state that one would never see contrast numbers so high in a single frame, but there has been no real discussion (as far as I have seen) regarding what one could expect to see in terms of intra-scene contrast and why, exactly, the high on/off numbers are indeed relevant.

But I don't want to clog this thread up anymore(since it's becoming clear that I'm not going to be able to articulate the issue well enough to get this to come of anything), so I'll go find that contrast primer and re-read it, and others can do the same if they are interested.

I havent seen this covered, other than maybe a slight mention, but as someone that is very susceptible to rainbows, I would like to know how this compares to other current, or previous gen high end DLP.

The only DLP I have spent serious time with was the Marantz S3. I did see rainbows, but it was better than any others. Is there any reason to think the Optoma would exhibit rainbows less than that unit?
The HD81 has a 4x 7-segment color wheel. My guess is that the Optoma would be about on par with the Marantz. If I make an effort, I can see rainbows on the Optoma, but not in normal viewing and I think it is better than the majority of DLP projectors.

Of course the 3-chip Pearl doesn't have rainbows (but a particular Sony unit might have convergence errors).

Someday I'm waiting for Greg Rogers to tell us he has found the perfect projector for $5,000 or less -- but I'm not holding my breath.

Thanks for the info on the color wheel. I would really like to spend some time with the Optoma.

I have another thread on here talking about my Pearl experience. As you can see in my pics, the convergence on my unit was horrible.

I am waiting for AVS to get some more in stock to try again, although I dont want to try their patience either....

but there has been no real discussion (as far as I have seen) regarding what one could expect to see in terms of intra-scene contrast and why, exactly, the high on/off numbers are indeed relevant.
The high full-field (on/off, sequential) contrast ratio numbers are relevant not because we want 5000:1 or 10000:1 contrast ratios in bright scenes, but instead because we want to increase the contrast ratios in dark scenes from 10:1 to 50:1 (just an example). That's the real goal, and that is done by lowering the black level relative to the image brightness, which we express indirectly using the full-field contrast ratio. I think this topic is relevant to this thread because just making an image brighter does not contribute to this goal.

Great reviews again! Thanks, Dan. So, Pearl was in her comfort zone (bat cave) and autoIRIS1 and low lamp or high lamp? Are both ceiling mounted? Or Pearl ceiling mounted and HD81 at the floor? Is HP reflective or retroflective? Do both projectors enjoy the high gain of HP?

Your observation is pretty much in line with my own when I shoot out HD81 against VW100. DLP, though at fixed IRIS, appears to be more lively, or 3D or punchy or higher contrast than SXRD though claimed and measured to have higher CR. My take on that, like I wrote in my previous post, was that the auto IRIS is killing too much lumen that weaken the image intensity and color performance. Thanks for the kind comment about the review, TzungILin. You do have a great pj in the HD81.

I do have the Pearl just above and behind me on a shelf. The Da-Lite High Power is retroflective. The HD81 still had enough lumen output to overcome the mild-moderate brightness loss due to the viewers being not nearly on-axis. So, we were still getting perhaps 1.8 - 2 gain with the HD81 versus 2.8-3 near on-axis viewing position with the Pearl.

As I reported earlier, we found our available tools inadequate to reliably measure black levels starting with the Pearl at black. I gave it a try with another light meter I got with the Steve Smallcombe Smart III calibration system some time ago, varying the distance of the meter from the lens to try to increase reliable black readings, but will need more time to get readings I consider more reliable. In any case, we also weren't prepared to black velvet the entire room and screen (to prevent light square "backwash" assuming we were to use the standard checkerboard test pattern) to attempt accurate ANSI CR measurements. You begin to appreciate more what Greg Rogers and other professional reviewers do when you try this at home.

The Sony manual indicates that autoiris1 offers higher contrast, so it is making a smaller iris aperature and applying algorithms to compensate for overall lumen reduction (see the Cine4Home review of the Ruby and Greg Rogers'). I've come to see a very subtle blooming in highlights due to what must be more aggressive (compared to autoiris2) algorithms employed. If it is brightness compression it is a subtle form of it. There is a tiny loss of apparent resolution seen in hair strands, for example, going from autoiris2 to autoiris1. I reiterate, I am talking tiny changes, here. The interiors of the space ship at the beginning of SWIV look good to me without loss of differentiation in most lighter IRE material, at least nearly to the degree that Greg Rogers described in his Ruby review. I have tried using the fixed iris set at various aperatures with different gammas and it has been interesting to do so. At times I've felt there is an increased picture stability when I use these fixed iris settings. This might be due to the absence of subliminal pumping and moment by moment application of algorithms when in the fixed mode versus the autoris mode, but I am not sure. But, the pq advantage with the autoris1 leaves me there most of the time because the increased apparent CR for me outweighs fairly negligible downsides. With my Pearl and High Power set up the way they are, the autoiris (with the accompanying countering algorithms) is not reducing overall lumens too much ("killing too much lumen").

Dan

The high full-field (on/off, sequential) contrast ratio numbers are relevant not because we want 5000:1 or 10000:1 contrast ratios in bright scenes, but instead because we want to increase the contrast ratios in dark scenes from 10:1 to 50:1 (just an example). That's the real goal, and that is done by lowering the black level relative to the image brightness, which we express indirectly using the full-field contrast ratio. I think this topic is relevant to this thread because just making an image brighter does not contribute to this goal.

Thanks for the response, Greg. I probably need a refresher on the intricacies of contrast myself, but let me try to ask gremmy's question (at least my interpretation thereof) using a couple of scenarios.

When you talk about dark scenes and moving from 10:1 to 50:1 I think of scenes where the brightest object in a single frame is significantly below 100 IRE, is this what you're reffering to above, or do scenes like a star field with large areas of black and small areas of 100 IRE also qualify? In the first scenario the combination of dynamic iris and dynamic gamma can result in substantial increases in instantaneous contrast, but in the star field case we're limited to something between the native On/Off and ANSI contrast, correct?

As the size of the "stars" in the starfield grows we can expect the instantaneous contrast advantage to shift from the pojector with highest On/Off contrast(Pearl) to the projector with higher ANSI contrast (HD81), right? Have any thoughts on when this crossover is likely to occur, that is what APL of a scene composed of objects at 0 IRE and 100 IRE?

This seems relevant to the discussion given the comments about space scenes given by the reviewers.

I always enjoy and appreciate your insights.

Sorry for the confusion. Going back and actually measuring, the HD81 lens surface was 15.5-15.75 ft. from the screen surface yielding an image about 100" wide. There might be some error still in that because for image width I am going from mental notes of how far it extended across the screen. Dan

Dan and Kevin, Thanks for clarifying this; I was afraid that this was the situation.

Wow, did you see Jason's post that the BenQ W10000 is on its way to him? Say, could you guys get one of these and run through the comparisons again? This has all just been too much fun (to read about)!

Wow, did you see Jason's post that the BenQ W10000 is on its way to him? Say, could you guys get one of these and run through the comparisons again? This has all just been too much fun (to read about)!

:eek:

:D

On a serious note, I have to say that this has been one of the best threads I have read on AVS in a while. Of course part of that is due to the fact that I plan to purchase a new 1080p pj in the next 6 months or so, so it is particularly relevant to me. But that aside, the participants here have all been particularly articulate and helpful.

The HD81 has a 6x seven segment color wheel. Kevin

When you talk about dark scenes and moving from 10:1 to 50:1 I think of scenes where the brightest object in a single frame is significantly below 100 IRE, is this what you're reffering to above, or do scenes like a star field with large areas of black and small areas of 100 IRE also qualify? In the first scenario the combination of dynamic iris and dynamic gamma can result in substantial increases in instantaneous contrast, but in the star field case we're limited to something between the native On/Off and ANSI contrast, correct? .
The key point people miss in understanding the relationship between on/off cr and instantaneous CR is that luminance of displays and the HVS is non-linear. The following is one of the places where the lightbulb went on for me!

The video signal is non-linear, and luminance (scene brightness) is equal to the video signal level raised to the power of gamma (usually 2.2). At medium video levels of 50, 40, and 30 percent, the corresponding brightness is 22, 13, and 7 percent. But at 20 percent video level, brightness is only 3 percent, and at 10 percent video level, brightness is an extremely low 0.6 percent. Therefore, achieving 30:1 image contrast in dark scenes requires a high on-off contrast ratio. At 20 percent video level, the required on-off contrast ratio is 1000:1, and at 10 percent video level 5000:1 is required. A 2000:1 on-off contrast ratio translates to a 12:1 image contrast ratio with a 10 percent video level

It would be great to have 100:1 image contrast at 10 percent video levels, which requires an on-off contrast ratio of 16700:1. A more realistic ideal would be 10000:1, which would give 60:1 image contrast at 10 percent video level

A DI conceptually operates in very simple manner
1) Determine the the video level and adjust the iris size to create the proper base (black) level
2) adjust (boost) the value of bright objects so that their pre iris adjustment visual contrast is maintained.

If the device native simultaneous contrast is say 200:1, the DI does not change it, it just allows the pj to show 200:1 in the bright scenes (linear range), and 200:1 in the dark scenes.

The HD81 has a 6x seven segment color wheel. Kevin
I got my info from the Audioholics CEDIA report (see this link (http://www.audioholics.com/cedia/cedia2004/OptomaHD81projector.php)), usually a very reliable source, and a Google search brings up numerous hits showing a 4x spec. I hope you are right.

The HD81 has a 4x 7-segment color wheel. My guess is that the Optoma would be about on par with the Marantz. If I make an effort, I can see rainbows on the Optoma, but not in normal viewing and I think it is better than the majority of DLP projectors.

Of course the 3-chip Pearl doesn't have rainbows (but a particular Sony unit might have convergence errors).

Someday I'm waiting for Greg Rogers to tell us he has found the perfect projector for $5,000 or less -- but I'm not holding my breath.

HD81 is actually 6x 7-segment. We spin the color wheel at 180Hz, not 120Hz.

So, the rainbow maybe less than other compeititors using 5x.

HD81 is actually 6x 7-segment. We spin the color wheel at 180Hz, not 120Hz.

So, the rainbow maybe less than other compeititors using 5x.
Good to know. We were watching the light-saber fights in Star Wars III looking for rainbows but did not see any, which I thought was a pretty good test. I've only seen rainbows doing the intentional "eye jiggle" with white text on a black background.

If the device native simultaneous contrast is say 200:1, the DI does not change it, it just allows the pj to show 200:1 in the bright scenes (linear range), and 200:1 in the dark scenes.

I found your explanation to be incredibly helpful. And your comment, above, is sort of what I was trying to get at, in my own bumbling way. I think there are some finer points I'm still not getting, but this is helpful.

Thanks for the kind comment about the review, TzungILin. You do have a great pj in the HD81.

I do have the Pearl just above and behind me on a shelf. The Da-Lite High Power is retroflective. The HD81 still had enough lumen output to overcome the mild-moderate brightness loss due to the viewers being not nearly on-axis. So, we were still getting perhaps 1.8 - 2 gain with the HD81 versus 2.8-3 near on-axis viewing position with the Pearl.

As I reported earlier, we found our available tools inadequate to reliably measure black levels starting with the Pearl at black. I gave it a try with another light meter I got with the Steve Smallcombe Smart III calibration system some time ago, varying the distance of the meter from the lens to try to increase reliable black readings, but will need more time to get readings I consider more reliable. In any case, we also weren't prepared to black velvet the entire room and screen (to prevent light square "backwash" assuming we were to use the standard checkerboard test pattern) to attempt accurate ANSI CR measurements. You begin to appreciate more what Greg Rogers and other professional reviewers do when you try this at home.

The Sony manual indicates that autoiris1 offers higher contrast, so it is making a smaller iris aperature and applying algorithms to compensate for overall lumen reduction (see the Cine4Home review of the Ruby and Greg Rogers'). I've come to see a very subtle blooming in highlights due to what must be more aggressive (compared to autoiris2) algorithms employed. If it is brightness compression it is a subtle form of it. There is a tiny loss of apparent resolution seen in hair strands, for example, going from autoiris2 to autoiris1. I reiterate, I am talking tiny changes, here. The interiors of the space ship at the beginning of SWIV look good to me without loss of differentiation in most lighter IRE material, at least nearly to the degree that Greg Rogers described in his Ruby review. I have tried using the fixed iris set at various aperatures with different gammas and it has been interesting to do so. At times I've felt there is an increased picture stability when I use these fixed iris settings. This might be due to the absence of subliminal pumping and moment by moment application of algorithms when in the fixed mode versus the autoris mode, but I am not sure. But, the pq advantage with the autoris1 leaves me there most of the time because the increased apparent CR for me outweighs fairly negligible downsides. With my Pearl and High Power set up the way they are, the autoiris (with the accompanying countering algorithms) is not reducing overall lumens too much ("killing too much lumen").

Dan

Dear Dan,

I stand corrected, what I was referring to was the shoot-out of VW100 against HD81 that I saw. At that time, we were not using high gain screen, and maybe VW50 has improved on the autoIRIS than VW100.

From what you and Kevin were saying, it seems like your setup is ideal for Pearl with auto IRIS, to use high gain screen to help on the brightness. Very clever! I think maybe all other Pearl owners or soon-to-be-owners should try your combo.

Again, thanks for the write-up, I really enjoy it, just hope I can be there to witness it all! :)

I've posted some screenshots and pics of my HT here (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=8682061&&#post8682061). As always, don't take the screenshots seriously. Included is a shot of the 2001 Clavius base Kevin referred to.

Dan

Has anyone done a comparison between these two regarding computer games and computer screen fonts at 1920 x 1080 resolutions. Thanks.

It sounds like the Pearl is the better choice for my dedicated HT room since I will be painting it a dark color, but it depends mostly on how computer screens will look. The scaler would be a definite plus for my setup, but as others have mentioned, for the difference in price I can buy one for the Pearl separately, or better yet, just buy a cheaper switching receiver for video input. Does anyone have recommendations for devices of these types that can take 3 HDMI inputs at 1080p as well as two or more component inputs?

Oh, sorry for being so impolite... Thank you for starting this thread and doing the comparisons. This has been very useful information for me at this point in time where I am trying to decide what projector will best suit my HT situation.

Oh, sorry for being so impolite... Thank you for starting this thread and doing the comparisons. This has been very useful information for me at this point in time where I am trying to decide what projector will best suit my HT situation.

I cannot agree more, you don't know the help you are providing to all of us who won't be able to see those two side by side.

That being said, I would be also most interested on knowing how the computer looks. Theoretically single chip should be better for convergence, shouldn't it?

And another question that keeps bothering me: did you see lack of manual zoom as a problem for you in the HD81 (I mean did you need to readjust zoom when switching sources?)

Finally, did you have the chance to compare the scaler with SD DVDs?

Again, thanks so much

My son brought home from college his super gaming computer and he played Half-Life in 1080p and we watched some Apple movie trailers in 1080p. Absolutely exceptional! I would think that the HD81 would be more of the "pixel perfect" look that computer users are accustomed to. 1080p, DLP projectors are really going to create some amazing options for HTPCs.

With the proper use of a digital projector and the scaler, I see reason to use the zoom other than to install the projector. Set zoom, set focus, and unless you move your screen or projector, that should be the only time you would touch these controls.

I warn all potential Pearl buyers about setup and possibly excessive brightness expectations.
Dan
This is one of the worst formed sentences I've ever seen. What this really demonstrates is reviewer bias.
What the writer is attempting to do is blame the new owner rather than the projector.

Its like when I call up the cable company when the Internet goes out. The ask me what my problem is.
The fact is I don't have the problem. Rather its the cable companies problem and they need to fix it. But maybe I've got excessive service expectations:)

This is one of the worst formed sentences I've ever seen.
Still a troll I see.

Kevin and Dan did a tremendous amount of work in providing some of the most comprehensive and unbiased info on this forum, and you come up with this nonsense!

Shame

Still a troll I see.

Kevin and Dan did a tremendous amount of work in providing some of the most comprehensive and unbiased info on this forum, and you come up with this nonsense!

Shame

Once a troll, always a troll! :rolleyes:

I was afforded the privilege of partaking of Dan's hospitality for this part deux of the comparison as well. (by the way Dan knows a place with GREAT pizza) :)

I brought my wife along to keep me from trying to spend the night and she echoed the mantra that both of these projectors are great.

After observing the calibration stuff (which is always interesting) we got down to some serious movie watching. Dan's HT setup is absolutely perfect for someone owning a Pearl. Where I might have wished for a bit more brightness when we were at Kevin's HT, Dan's Da-Lite HP made up for any weakness in that area.

I personally was amazed at just how narrow the viewing cone is for the HP... Dan was very serious when he said the cone was the width of a 3 person couch at a distance of 15 feet from the screen. I had read that the HP had a viewing cone of 7.5 degree's, but for some silly reason i was thinking that this cone would extend out 7.5 degree's from the edge of the screen....... oh no grasshopper... the 7.5 degree measurement is from the center of the screen... so get out your handy-dandy protractors ahead of time!

Yes my wife and I both agree that DLP has the edge with hard and metallic surfaces like C3PO. To compare when we got home we fired up the same Star Wars scenes recorded on my HD-Tivo (DirecTV). With my IF 7210 and projecting a 135" diagonal image on my apple-core colored wall, the crisp metal look of C3PO was still there... so I will attribute this to the DLP technology rather than the 1080p resolution of the HD-81. The scene with Anakin in the volcanic rock and ash at the end of the movie was not nearly as refined in all of the dark portions of the scene as we had seen on Dan's Pearl. I felt the HD-81 had done a better job at this than my 7210 also, but not nearly as good as the Pearl in this particular scene.

After several hours of viewing and pizza I came to the dramatic conclusion that my first observations at Kevin's had been accurate... at least for me. That is these are both terrific projectors! Which one you should buy must be answered by each person individually, but I believe will be governed to a great extent by two factors.

1. Your particular home theater, it's size, setup, and light control. As has been mentioned Dan's Theater allows the placement of the Pearl just behind the viewers in a totally light controlled room. This plays perfectly for coupling the Pearl with a Da-lite HP screen as long as your room is not too wide. Now in Dan's room if you needed room for more people you would have to have a bit longer room where you could have a second tier of seating, but that would bring projector placement into the equation. To keep the advantage offered by the HP you would probably have to have a table mount for the projector that would sit between the seats on the upper row, or the same on the lower row. Otherwise you would lose the benefits of the HP for the people in the front row. So to me the HT location is one of the main decision makers with the two projectors. Now if I had to ceiling mount the Pearl, then i believe I would suggest the SilverStar screen which would double the screen cost for the HT (thus negating some of the cost benefit of the Pearl) and limit you to a maximum of a 121" screen (I think it is listed at 122, but is actually more like 120.8).
Now the HD-81 has it's mounting issues also, which are well known and poor TzungLin has been drug over the coals enough about those. The good news from our comparison is that tilting the HD-81 a bit to make up for a low ceiling does not seem to cause any discernable (at least to the three of us) issues. Assuming you have a screen with a wide enough black border to hide the geometry.

2. The Look. There are some folks out there that movies just "must" have a certain "look" or it is just not correct... at least in their view. Personally I grew up with a CRT background and certainly appreciate it's particular "look" for what it is. However, I have also owned DLP projectors for several years and I find the sharp, crisp, DLP look also very enjoyable. So for me this is not really an issue, but I know for many of you out there it is... so do yourself a favor and stick with the "look" that you feel most comfortable with! You want "smooth" go with the Pearl, you like "sharp" go for the HD-81.

Once again I am probably a true "heathen" to many of you as I watch the Evening News on my projector! I think they are great and cannot see why I would want to watch anything on a "normal" TV if there is a projector available.

So to close... if you have "light control" and your HT will allow you to shelf mount or table mount your projector I think the Pearl is just wonderful. Save some money for some really comfortable seats... or whatever.

If you have ambient light issues, a high ceiling, or a white/light colored room, I feel you would be happier with the HD-81.

If you require the image to have a particular "look & feel" then pick the technology that provides you what you want. If your room does not support the technology you prefer, then wait for the next round of 1080p projectors there will probably be something there that works better! :D

This is one of the worst formed sentences I've ever seen. What this really demonstrates is reviewer bias.
What the writer is attempting to do is blame the new owner rather than the projector.

Its like when I call up the cable company when the Internet goes out. The ask me what my problem is.
The fact is I don't have the problem. Rather its the cable companies problem and they need to fix it. But maybe I've got excessive service expectations:)

Get a life... Don't you have anything better to do?

HiHoSteve: What great write-up, thanks much! OK, so the HP is the choice screen for the Pearl, that I understand and would have readily expected. But what about the screen for the HD-81? Is it bright enough for a 120" diag Firehawk, say, with light-colored walls? The Draper M2500 is also retro-reflective (and thus good for ceiling mount) and higher gain, but I'm not sure that it doesn't have objectionable properties. As I remember, Kevin's screen is the Carada BW, but I don't think it is so great with any ambient light. Suggestions?

Still a troll I see.

Kevin and Dan did a tremendous amount of work in providing some of the most comprehensive and unbiased info on this forum, and you come up with this nonsense!

Shame
Time and time again it has been proven that one good professional review is better than a 1000 pages of posts here at AVS forum. Ultimate AV tested the HD81 and was only lukewarm in rating its performance. Up until that time we were being fed a manufactures infomercial.
The Sony may be better overall than the HD81. That is not the point. This is AVS science forum. Stick to the facts. When someone writes such a poorly thought statement, it should be acknowledged and corrected (this improves the objectivity). Then move on. Is this asking too much?

Ultimate AV tested the HD81 and was only lukewarm in rating its performance.
Yes, let's stick to facts. Ultimate AV was lukewarm as to glitches in the operating system and problems with the auto iris (which were also discussed in our review). However, as to picture quality, this is in FACT what they said:

The deinterlacing and scaling performance of the HD81's Gennum video processing is the equal of any other high quality video processor I've tested.

The Optoma's resolution with an HDMI connection was superb on multiburst test patterns, all the way up to the maximum burst at 1080i (my AccuPel generator does not do 1080p). There was virtually no chromatic aberration or color fringing from the lens either at the center or in the corners.

The Optoma is beautifully detailed, particularly on the best HD DVD discs and, yes, on Blu-ray Discs as well. In fact, the detail on the best Blu-ray Discs on this projector (even on the compromised Samsung BD-P1000 Blu-ray player, which has a software update pending) surprised me.

I agree with Kevin and I've read that review several times. They didn't criticize the picture quality but actually indicated a desire to see the other issues rectified in short order.

Really appreciate the folks repeated viewings of the two projectors and their comments. I owned the Optoma H78DC3 and just got the Pearl. It was great getting these first hand reports in real environments in multiple viewings with all the comments.

Great work guys!

HiHoSteve: What great write-up, thanks much! OK, so the HP is the choice screen for the Pearl, that I understand and would have readily expected. But what about the screen for the HD-81? Is it bright enough for a 120" diag Firehawk, say, with light-colored walls? The Draper M2500 is also retro-reflective (and thus good for ceiling mount) and higher gain, but I'm not sure that it doesn't have objectionable properties. As I remember, Kevin's screen is the Carada BW, but I don't think it is so great with any ambient light. Suggestions?

Bill, I think the HD-81 would be terriffic with the new FireHawk at 120" and probably fine at 133." From what I have read the new FireHawk is supposed to be better at rejecting side light than the older model and also has a gain closer to it's advertised. (as you probably know the old FireHawk in tests was closer to 1.05-1.1 than it was to 1.25)

Many folks desparage the SilverStar, but the times I have viewed it at CES it was shown both inside a light controlled both and outside the booth on the show floor. I did not find the SilverStar overly sensitive to side light... at least not anymore than other screens I have seen. I think the FH would probably be an excellent choice for a person with ambient light concerns.

Yes, let's stick to facts. Ultimate AV was lukewarm as to glitches in the operating system and problems with the auto iris (which were also discussed in our review). However, as to picture quality, this is in FACT what they said:

The deinterlacing and scaling performance of the HD81's Gennum video processing is the equal of any other high quality video processor I've tested.

The Optoma's resolution with an HDMI connection was superb on multiburst test patterns, all the way up to the maximum burst at 1080i (my AccuPel generator does not do 1080p). There was virtually no chromatic aberration or color fringing from the lens either at the center or in the corners.

The Optoma is beautifully detailed, particularly on the best HD DVD discs and, yes, on Blu-ray Discs as well. In fact, the detail on the best Blu-ray Discs on this projector (even on the compromised Samsung BD-P1000 Blu-ray player, which has a software update pending) surprised me.
If you read the Ultimate review of just posted of the Pioneer 1080p plasma you will see that the Marantz 1080p DLP is much better than the still "rough cut" Optima. The Optima needs refinement especially in its medicore black level. The 1080p DLP chips can do better than this first generation implementation.

HiHoSteve: What great write-up, thanks much! OK, so the HP is the choice screen for the Pearl, that I understand and would have readily expected. But what about the screen for the HD-81? Is it bright enough for a 120" diag Firehawk, say, with light-colored walls? The Draper M2500 is also retro-reflective (and thus good for ceiling mount) and higher gain, but I'm not sure that it doesn't have objectionable properties. As I remember, Kevin's screen is the Carada BW, but I don't think it is so great with any ambient light. Suggestions?

With the obvious caveat that I haven't seen the HD81 or Pearl, I have seen the Firehawk on several occasions: personally, Bill, if I had to set up a pj in your conditions (ambient light issues) I would definitely go with a BRIGHT pj and combine it with a Firehawk screen. I have seen this combo and it looks fantastic (and that is with a 720 DLP InFocus). Worked excellent even with a fair amount of ambient light.

For what its worth. :)

Now back to your regularly scheduled thread (aside from the occasional troll post).

With the obvious caveat that I haven't seen the HD81 or Pearl, I have seen the Firehawk on several occasions: personally, Bill, if I had to set up a pj in your conditions (ambient light issues) I would definitely go with a BRIGHT pj and combine it with a Firehawk screen. I have seen this combo and it looks fantastic (and that is with a 720 DLP InFocus). Worked excellent even with a fair amount of ambient light.

For what its worth. :)

Now back to your regularly scheduled thread (aside from the occasional troll post).

Rob, The more 'on topic' question is, is the Pearl--with 800 calibrated lumens in high lamp mode (a la Jason)--bright enough for a 120" FH? 800 lumens is almost the ~900 that the HD-81 does, at least on paper, and twice as much (it seems) as the Mits 5000 will be doing, and probably more than the BenQ W1000 will deliver. So the Pearl seems like it might be among the brightest pj's in this </~ $5K price range, right?

I agree with Kevin and I've read that review several times. They didn't criticize the picture quality but actually indicated a desire to see the other issues rectified in short order.

Great work guys!
Exactly. Don't we learn for our mistakes? Last year the Ruby was tops and worshiped. Now its all over eBay. Now who is going to be foolish enough tell a relative or coworker that you paid $1,000 for a light bulb?

Here the Ultimate AV reviewer spoke of, as you state "the other issues (to be) rectified in short order." Yeah, your check is in the mail too...
The savvy reader will pick up on this. Also Optima declined to give Mr. Rodgers of Widescreen Review a sample to review. Kick me if I'm stupid. :) Why is there such a lack of critical reasoning?

Bottom line, I'm not going to consider any $7K DLP projector that does not have inky blacks. So we wait for the JVC?

Rob, The more 'on topic' question is, is the Pearl--with 800 calibrated lumens in high lamp mode (a la Jason)--bright enough for a 120" FH? 800 lumens is almost the ~900 that the HD-81 does, at least on paper, and twice as much (it seems) as the Mits 5000 will be doing, and probably more than the BenQ W1000 will deliver. So the Pearl seems like it might be among the brightest pj's in this </~ $5K price range, right?

The bottom line as I see it is that the HD81 is the brighter projector. And I'm glad you use the term "on paper", because based on the comments from the reviewers in this thread, there definitely seems to be a consensus that the HD81 was noticeably brighter than the Pearl.

If the Pearl could, in fact, deliver 800 actual lumens after the bulb wears and after calibration, then yes, it would probably would be bright enough.

Time and time again it has been proven that one good professional review is better than a 1000 pages of posts here at AVS forum.

So please stop reading the posts here at AVS forum. That would help everyone.

If you read the Ultimate review of just posted of the Pioneer 1080p plasma you will see that the Marantz 1080p DLP is much better than the still "rough cut" Optima.
If you read both reviews "you will see" that the HD81 uses the same DLP chip and, more importantly, the exact same Gennum VPX video processor as the Marantz VP-11S1. "Kick me if I'm stupid" for not spending $14,000 more for the Marantz.

Now that's critical thinking!

Exactly. Don't we learn for our mistakes? Last year the Ruby was tops and worshiped. Now its all over eBay. Now who is going to be foolish enough tell a relative or coworker that you paid $1,000 for a light bulb?

Here the Ultimate AV reviewer spoke of, as you state "the other issues (to be) rectified in short order." Yeah, your check is in the mail too...
The savvy reader will pick up on this. Also Optima declined to give Mr. Rodgers of Widescreen Review a sample to review. Kick me if I'm stupid. :) Why is there such a lack of critical reasoning?

Bottom line, I'm not going to consider any $7K DLP projector that does not have inky blacks. So we wait for the JVC?

Seriously, do you get paid for this crap? Or is this your personal service to the world?

Seriously, do you get paid for this crap? Or is your personal service to the world?

It's just in his nature to be a troll. Believe me.

Rob, The more 'on topic' question is, is the Pearl--with 800 calibrated lumens in high lamp mode (a la Jason)--bright enough for a 120" FH? 800 lumens is almost the ~900 that the HD-81 does, at least on paper, and twice as much (it seems) as the Mits 5000 will be doing, and probably more than the BenQ W1000 will deliver. So the Pearl seems like it might be among the brightest pj's in this </~ $5K price range, right?

800 ANSI lumen is PEAK brightness for the Pearl (when used in auto iris mode you get this level of light output just on full white test/calibration screens...). 99.5% of the time the auto iris will close down more or less and the actual light output of the PEARL will be much less than 800 ANSI lumen. And NO, magical gamma correction does not help with that... :rolleyes: That's the reason why in real world viewing there is a HUGE difference in brightness between the 800 ANSI lumen Pearl (in auto iris mode) and the 900+ ANSI lumen HD81 (in Iris fixed/open mode). Of course you can put the Pearl in fixed/open iris mode as well...but then you loose one of its biggest strenghts.

Bill..........

I realize this is heresy as we are all glorying in the wonderfulness of 1080p here..., but if you have serious light issues have you considered combining the FireHawk with the new Panasonic AX100 which outputs 2000 lumens... and in reviews as much as 1800 calibrated (projectorreviews.com)??

Or perhaps combining the HD-81/Pearl with one of Screen Innovations(I think that is the corporate name anyway...) SuperNova screens. They work really well for "off axis" light. John of Integrity Home Theater demonstrated that for us over in Denver a few months ago.

We are getting closer to the Pearl's real competition. The Mits 5000 D6 panel projector:

http://www.hdtvexpert.com/pages_b/hc5000.html
http://www.projectorcentral.com/projector_news102006.htm

But it too maybe, just possibly could inflict damaging excessive brightness expectations. Ouch! :)

If you read both reviews "you will see" that the HD81 uses the same DLP chip and, more importantly, the exact same Gennum VPX video processor as the Marantz VP-11S1. "Kick me if I'm stupid" for not spending $14,000 more for the Marantz.

Now that's critical thinking!


It does seem like a lot of extra money to pay for the better lense (and whatever else is different - if anyone knows what else is different feel free to enlighten me, no sarcasm intended). At least for me it seems like a lot extra, and I could afford either one with a few more months to save up the money. It is the same reasoning I used for buying the B&W 802Ds instead of the 800Ds.

I ended up ordering the Pearl though. The throw distance was longer, which lets me place it all the way at the back of my room where it will potentially cause less problems in the room. Plus, it is such a great price compared to everything else out there... I can always replace it in a few years with something mind blowing if I feel the need.

800 ANSI lumen is PEAK brightness for the Pearl (when used in auto iris mode you get this level of light output just on full white test/calibration screens...). 99.5% of the time the auto iris will close down more or less and the actual light output of the PEARL will be much less than 800 ANSI lumen. And NO, magical gamma correction does not help with that... :rolleyes: That's the reason why in real world viewing there is a HUGE difference in brightness between the 800 ANSI lumen Pearl (in auto iris mode) and the 900+ ANSI lumen HD81 (in Iris fixed/open mode). Of course you can put the Pearl in fixed/open iris mode as well...but then you loose one of its biggest strenghts.

Good post! This is basically what I was trying to say in my earlier response to Bill about the post calibration brightness ratings of the Pearl being "on paper", as actualy use of the Pearl with DI will be quite different.

800 ANSI lumen is PEAK brightness for the Pearl (when used in auto iris mode you get this level of light output just on full white test/calibration screens...). 99.5% of the time the auto iris will close down more or less and the actual light output of the PEARL will be much less than 800 ANSI lumen. And NO, magical gamma correction does not help with that... That's the reason why in real world viewing there is a HUGE difference in brightness between the 800 ANSI lumen Pearl (in auto iris mode) and the 900+ ANSI lumen HD81 (in Iris fixed/open mode). Of course you can put the Pearl in fixed/open iris mode as well...but then you loose one of its biggest strenghts.
Actually that is NOT accurate. When comparing auto iris mode to iris off mode, both pictures appear equally bright but the auto iris picture just has better blacks. The way you describe it it sounds as if the auto iris mode is substantially dimmer than iris off mode, but that simply is not the case. Auto iris lowers the black level, not the white level in most scenes leaving you with a bright picture with better blacks.

Actually that is NOT accurate. When comparing auto iris mode to iris off mode, both pictures appear equally bright but the auto iris picture just has better blacks. The way you describe it it sounds as if the auto iris mode is substantially dimmer than iris off mode, but that simply is not the case. Auto iris lowers the black level, not the white level in most scenes leaving you with a bright picture with better blacks.

But you are talking about gamma correcting for the brighter scenes, correct?

In other words, if the iris closes down, obviously all parts of the picture will get dimmer, including the white level. Gamma is then adjusted in order to attempt to keep the bright/white level higher, resulting in the increased CR. At least that was my understanding.

Yes my wife and I both agree that DLP has the edge with hard and metallic surfaces like C3PO. To compare when we got home we fired up the same Star Wars scenes recorded on my HD-Tivo (DirecTV). With my IF 7210 and projecting a 135" diagonal image on my apple-core colored wall, the crisp metal look of C3PO was still there... so I will attribute this to the DLP technology rather than the 1080p resolution of the HD-81. The scene with Anakin in the volcanic rock and ash at the end of the movie was not nearly as refined in all of the dark portions of the scene as we had seen on Dan's Pearl. I felt the HD-81 had done a better job at this than my 7210 also, but not nearly as good as the Pearl in this particular scene.


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

Rob, very seldom is the average picture level anywhere even close to 100% stimulus, so visually speaking, the APL looks the same in either iris off or auto iris mode. When the iris closes what happens is that the parts of the picture that are supposed to be displayed at 100% are displayed at the same brightness as, let's say 90%, so you end up seeing the famous "brightness compression". BC appears as a loss of detail in the most extreme bright areas of the scene due to the fact that the peak level has been lowered (as you said) to match 90% level (as in my example).

Now if the scene were actually close to 100% (like in extremely bright daytime scenes at the North Pole), then you might notice some brightness loss depending on how much 0% (or close to 0%) black also appears in the same scene, but if the darkest black is only, let's say, 20%, then the iris won't close at all. The algorithms in the Sony are very adept at knowing when to lower the brightness and when not, though they can be fooled from time to time, or at least on the Ruby.

The point is simply that in most (average) program material the difference in brightness is not noticeable in real world conditions between iris off and auto iris, though the apparent black level in extended low APL scenes is very noticeable.

Now if you are watching a 50% APL scene with half 0% black and half 100% white (like an ANSI checkerboard), then yes, maximum brightness will take a significant hit.

Actually that is NOT accurate. When comparing auto iris mode to iris off mode, both pictures appear equally bright but the auto iris picture just has better blacks. The way you describe it it sounds as if the auto iris mode is substantially dimmer than iris off mode, but that simply is not the case. Auto iris lowers the black level, not the white level in most scenes leaving you with a bright picture with better blacks.

Bob, for instance please compare the Ruby in Auto Iris mode and iris off mode. Both measure the same peak white level (~750 ANSI lumen @ D65 on a brand new lamp). Now watch real world content in both modes. Your theory is that both modes will have the very same level of brightness and just different black levels. This certainly is not what I experience. Gamma correction can not bring back any light output filtered by an iris. All it can do is give mid level IREs the same level of brightness they would have had with open iris. Take a scene with a starfield for example. Dark/black space filled with a couple of light stars (which are close to peak white, IRE 90+). When such a scene is viewed on a projector with auto iris the iris will close down (due to the overall "dimness" of the scene), gamma correction will shift the IRE levels of the stars up as much as possible (resulting in brightness compression = shades in the stars get lost) BUT the brightness of the stars can never match the brightness they would have in iris off mode. (in iris off mode their brightness level would approach the max. 750 ANSI lumen, in auto iris (in a dark scene like this) they are limited to something like 400 ANSI lumen). All the fancy gamma correction in the world can never bring back light output filtered by an (auto) iris. It is as simple as that. Gamma correction is really nothing more than a form of "auto contrast" - if you look at the histogram of a certain scene all it does is "stretching" the levels to match the physical possible contrast ratio (defined by the aperture of the iris) at a certain frame.

In real world content - whenever you have highlights (parts of the frame that have very high levels of brightness) in a scene/frame - which will be ALMOST ALL OF THE TIME (not just in your north pole example :rolleyes: ) - at least those highlights will loose their brightness due to the auto iris aperture. And not just some brightness but as much as 50+%. You will see this in almost any frame of a movie. The only time where auto iris mode is as bright as iris off mode is a frame which consists just of consistent/equal levels of brightness - all parts of the frame have simular brightness.

Rob, very seldom is the average picture level anywhere even close to 100% stimulus, so visually speaking, the APL looks the same in either iris off or auto iris mode. When the iris closes what happens is that the parts of the picture that are supposed to be displayed at 100% are displayed at the same brightness as, let's say 90%, so you end up seeing the famous "brightness compression". BC appears as a loss of detail in the most extreme bright areas of the scene due to the fact that the peak level has been lowered (as you said) to match 90% level (as in my example).

Now if the scene were actually close to 100% (like in extremely bright daytime scenes at the North Pole), then you might notice some brightness loss depending on how much 0% (or close to 0%) black also appears in the same scene, but if the darkest black is only, let's say, 20%, then the iris won't close at all. The algorithms in the Sony are very adept at knowing when to lower the brightness and when not, though they can be fooled from time to time, or at least on the Ruby.

The point is simply that in most (average) program material the difference in brightness is not noticeable in real world conditions between iris off and auto iris, though the apparent black level in extended low APL scenes is very noticeable.

Now if you are watching a 50% APL scene with half 0% black and half 100% white (like an ANSI checkerboard), then yes, maximum brightness will take a significant hit.

I agree (almost).

Fact is: Auto Iris/gamma correction works (best) with low contrast frames (frames where all parts are of similar brightness). 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.

Rob, very seldom is the average picture level anywhere even close to 100% stimulus, so visually speaking, the APL looks the same in either iris off or auto iris mode. When the iris closes what happens is that the parts of the picture that are supposed to be displayed at 100% are displayed at the same brightness as, let's say 90%, so you end up seeing the famous "brightness compression". BC appears as a loss of detail in the most extreme bright areas of the scene due to the fact that the peak level has been lowered (as you said) to match 90% level (as in my example).

Now if the scene were actually close to 100% (like in extremely bright daytime scenes at the North Pole), then you might notice some brightness loss depending on how much 0% (or close to 0%) black also appears in the same scene, but if the darkest black is only, let's say, 20%, then the iris won't close at all. The algorithms in the Sony are very adept at knowing when to lower the brightness and when not, though they can be fooled from time to time, or at least on the Ruby.

The point is simply that in most (average) program material the difference in brightness is not noticeable in real world conditions between iris off and auto iris, though the apparent black level in extended low APL scenes is very noticeable.

Now if you are watching a 50% APL scene with half 0% black and half 100% white (like an ANSI checkerboard), then yes, maximum brightness will take a significant hit.


Very good explanation Bob, I appreciate it! :)

Bob, for instance please compare the Ruby in Auto Iris mode and iris off mode. Both measure the same peak white level (~750 ANSI lumen @ D65 on a brand new lamp). Now watch real world content in both modes. Your theory is that both modes will have the very same level of brightness and just different black levels. This certainly is not what I experience.
Have you done a complete calibration for iris auto seperate from iris off seperate from iris on on the Ruby? Have you gone into the service menu and changed when the iris comes on?

On my Ruby I dont notice a brightness difference in auto vs. on in bright scenes. I suspect the iris is not even activated until < 60% APL.

In mid low APL scenes one can notice some brightness difference, and on very dark scenes there is a clear brightness difference in terms of how much the oferall room lights up.

It does seem like a lot of extra money to pay for the better lense (and whatever else is different - if anyone knows what else is different feel free to enlighten me, no sarcasm intended).There are MANY differences between these products. I'll have a lot to say about this sometime next week.