Projector Central has posted their review of the Sony Pearl. (Apologies if this is a repost, but I didn't find anything when searching.)

http://www.projectorcentral.com/sony_vw50.htm

I've only skimmed through it, but it seems the author thought the picture was too soft for 1080p, and expected a much sharper picture.

I am a little confused because based on what I have read on the forums here, there seems to be a serious discrepancy in the description of the vertical lens shift. The author states that rear shelf placement is preferred because of the long zoom and lens shift, but everything I have read here points to the opposite.

I was under the impression that the lens shift works primarily in one direction, i.e., you can only shift "up" when the projector is right side up (and consequently only "down" when it is upside down in ceiling mounted configurations). Also, I thought the range was 65%. The PJC article states it is 50% in both directions, which seems to contradict what I have read here. Maybe I've just got it worng - can anyone clarify?

there are a bunch of errors in that review- unless he was given a prototype.
I counted several in the first two paragraphs alone. And while it may not be the greatest pj ever made, the value rating he assigns to it seems way off the mark, imo.

as to the soft picture he is seeing- Having two of the units with me right now, I can say for sure that there is a hell of a lot of variance between them in several key areas. It wouldn't surprise me that the unit Powell is reviewing has poor convergence which would minimize the impression of sharpness. The first unit I got had generally excellant convergence and a very sharp, but not edgy, picture. The second unit not as much (but still well defined when the source permits it).

This review just proves to me that there is a big disconnect between PJC and most of us video / projector enthusiasts in this forum. Ocassionally, for new LCD projectors that present a tremendous price performance bargain such as the introduction of the AE700 or the Z4, I would mostly agree with their reviews, but their ratings are just getting stranger. They prefer LCD and rate it higher than other technologies, including, apparently, LCOS. It started with the Z4 is better than the H79 review, and just went from there.

They gave the HC5000 a much better review despite its close price, inferior blacks / contrast, inferior color, inferior brightness and inferior DI. Now the HC5000 has advantages including sharpness and de-int/scaling (except PAL, apparently) but to give it a much higher rating is just indicative of bias, IMHO. If they both got approximately the same rating, I couldnt complain as much. Here, I'm just seeing a strange pro-LCD bias.

I've never understoof that myself. They highly highly rate the AX100, and I realize it is a great unit, especially for the money. However, they make it out to be the best thing when I can think of many examples of better units.

Honestly, I find it somewhat comforting to think that a prominent reviewer might be even more eccentric than we enthusiast members of AVS.

;)

Their reviews are weak at best and always seem to be pro-LCD, but its still a fun read.

I've never understoof that myself. They highly highly rate the AX100, and I realize it is a great unit, especially for the money. However, they make it out to be the best thing when I can think of many examples of better units.


That is because they love bright pjs at the expense of everything else.

Could be.

I really dont get this review either. How did they only measure 500 lumens max when everything else I have read has been between 650-800 calibrated in high? Oh well.....

their pro LCD bias (to not say more...) is well known. either it's LCD bias or certain brands.
no need to say more...

it's a commerial website. solo purpose of promoting products for its sponsors. No suprise all of them are lcd resellers. 3.5 star for the pearl is a joke if 720p lcds get 5 stars.

I've never understoof that myself. They highly highly rate the AX100, and I realize it is a great unit, especially for the money. However, they make it out to be the best thing when I can think of many examples of better units.

Jason,

I remember your review of the AE900 was very positive and it was your projector of choice until the Samsung H710 came along.

Have you reviewed the AX100 and compared its image quality and features to these other units (Pearl, etc)?

thanks

I've never understoof that myself. They highly highly rate the AX100, and I realize it is a great unit, especially for the money. However, they make it out to be the best thing when I can think of many examples of better units.
Jason,
We are at the point where we are crossing over the impartiality line from science to sales. Its hard not to notice an escalation in attempts to influence and steer sales. Certainly others are noticing this in-your-face upwards trend too.

Any chance of going back to the way it used to be here? That was when AVS forum was considered a most valuable resource to its membership.

it's a commerial website. solo purpose of promoting products for its sponsors.
This is one of the most humorous posts I've read in quite a while. Last week it was trash Consumer Reports for rating DLP so highly. No we see just the opposite. Jason took exception to both:)
And what do you define a "commerial" website to be?:)

Note: I've just read the Projector Central review and it is spot-on as it reinforces the Widescreen Review by Greg Rogers. This is a simple truth.

I've never understoof that myself. They highly highly rate the AX100, and I realize it is a great unit, especially for the money. However, they make it out to be the best thing when I can think of many examples of better units.

Jason please tell me of what better unit that does everything the ax100 does for it price.That is which FP has the brightness- color -blacks-lens shift -zoom - processing- fan noise- ect better than the ax100,I will buy one now.THANKS BUDDA :)

helmets on this is going to be hot thread...

they ARE pro-LCD. point. doesnt mean the PEARL is the best projector

lol to me the best digital projector is a 3DLP 2K with real 3000ansi and 4000:1 on off and 500-600 ansi CR :)
loud and expensive :D

There is no horizontal lens shift movement, so the projector must be placed on a projection line that is perpendicular to the center of the screen.

Riiiight...... :confused:

Has he even seen the manual?

I agree that they favor the LCD projectors. However, I disagree that they are biased toward them.
Here is a quote from the review of my projector:
"With the release of the HD7100, price/performance levels between 720p DLP and 720p LCD products have reached a more realistic balance. You will pay a premium for the HD7100 over the LCD alternatives. That is as it should be since the image quality is, in some important respects, superior. "

When I read over the Pearl review, it seemed just for what they experienced. It's not like every one of you will have the EXACT same calibration results, or the exact same experience with your set up. I thought he had a lot of good things to say about the pearl as well. He makes reference to it's superior Black levels and super high contrast several times.
Of course this is just my $.02, but I don't feel like he bashed the projector or didn't give it it's due.

When I read over the Pearl review, it seemed just for what they experienced. It's not like every one of you will have the EXACT same calibration results, or the exact same experience with your set up. I thought he had a lot of good things to say about the pearl as well. He makes reference to it's superior Black levels and super high contrast several times.
Of course this is just my $.02, but I don't feel like he bashed the projector or didn't give it it's due.

I agree, but he should get his facts right :)

Almost all reviews are *potentially* suspect in one way or another, either because there is the suggestion of bias (coddling advertisers, illiciting sales) or because of improper methodology or sloppy journalism.

My opinion has always been that reviews for a particular unit have to be treated in aggregate. Look at the numbers, the cold hard math, and throw out the outliers. If 5 reviewers measure the Pearl and come up with 700+ calibrated lumens in high lamp mode, that figure is probably pretty accurate. Reviews, considered in aggregate, are very helpful for determining key PQ characteristics, like lumens, black level, shadow detail, gamma tracking, color accuracy, etc.

The soft, fluffy stuff that permeates most reviews is mostly (but maybe not entirely) useless to me because these obervations are usually not helpful for making purchasing decisions and are not easily rolled-up. For example, comments that a projector has a "nice picture." I cannot remember the last time I saw a truly negative review of any projector from any reputable, professional review source -- which makes me question my use of the word "reputable" to describe them.

So consider the reviews in aggregate, and then you have to be smart enough to draw your own conclusions. It also helps if you can find a few reviewers that you trust based on their body of work and your own observations. GregR is one of these guys.

i like Jason's reviews (AVS). wished he could test more projectors, and the way it is presented. i'd like him to review the big monsters too (CHRISTIE , DP etc). and i dont buy projectors from him being in Europe.

First - remember that all reviews are biased in some way, even if only on a subconscious level.

Second - Aren't most the websites mentioned in this thread commercial?

Third - I have seen the Pearl on 2 occasions and IMO the Projector Central review seems pretty accurate in regards to issues relating to sharpness and brightness. Nobody thinks the Pearl is bright, and many owners turn to high gain screens to improve that aspect of the picture. Sharpness is another subjective criteria, however, almost everyone notices the differences between DLP and SXRD in this respect. Call them personal preferences.

The reviewer did point out the areas that he thought the Pearl excelled - like black level and color saturation.

The Ruby may be the ideal PJ for some people based on their room, needs and expectations. To a lot of other people (including me) there are too many tradeoffs with the Ruby and will look at other options.

I've never understoof that myself. They highly highly rate the AX100, and I realize it is a great unit, especially for the money. However, they make it out to be the best thing when I can think of many examples of better units.

I think it's pretty obvious that PJC's reviews and ratings are simply based on a cost/performance basis. The AX100 gets five stars in comparison to what he's seen in that price range. The Pearl gets 3.5 compared to what he's seen from 1080p PJ's in that price range. That doesn't mean that the Panny is a better PJ than the Pearl.
It's more of a "consumer reports" type of rating review. If you keep it in the proper context it is valuable info. For instance if you've got only $2K to spend he's giving you a useful comparator in that price range.

The PJC review is spot on and details exactly why my decision to buy the AX100 over this Sony unit was a good one.

It is simply to early to spend five grand on the 1080p projectors. I will get a 1080p projector when they figure out they need to be brighter.

Don't repond to this post telling me how the Panny doesn't do this or that, it looks great to me and thousands of others.

Count me as one who values black and shadow detail far more than brightness. The Pearl exceeds theater brightness levels, which is fine for me. Obviously, "one size" does not fit all.

Don't repond to this post telling me how the Panny doesn't do this or that, it looks great to me and thousands of others.

Confuscious Say: He who tell others what not to say sure to hear it anyway.

All of my reviews are biased. If its hanging in my theater its the best thing sense sliced bread :)

there are a bunch of errors in that review- unless he was given a prototype.
I counted several in the first two paragraphs alone. And while it may not be the greatest pj ever made, the value rating he assigns to it seems way off the mark, imo.

as to the soft picture he is seeing- Having two of the units with me right now, I can say for sure that there is a hell of a lot of variance between them in several key areas. It wouldn't surprise me that the unit Powell is reviewing has poor convergence which would minimize the impression of sharpness. The first unit I got had generally excellant convergence and a very sharp, but not edgy, picture. The second unit not as much (but still well defined when the source permits it).

If you are correct and Sony cannot manufacture a uniform product why would anyone want to deal with the frustration and uncertainty of not knowing what they were going to get when making a fairly expensive purchase? If you are correct regarding Sony's poor QC then it is just another example of their longstanding display of arrogance regarding the quality of their consumer products. Of course this doesn't even begin to address their stupidity for allowing a sub-par example of the Pearl into the hands of the most influential projector website on the internet.

I'm not sure where reviewers have a benchmark to compare to, but don't you think it should be your best local cineplex??????? That's why I love the Pearl, because it's got that film look you have when you go to the theater for crying out loud. These people need to keep that in mind, instead of comparing other projectors for reference....end of rant;)

The tricky part of the big ones is my room. I don't have a large screen so it can present a problem. For instance, the C3X Lite I did was too bright for my room so the screenshots didn't turn out that well. Take a bigger unit and it is more of a problem.

Jason,
We are at the point where we are crossing over the impartiality line from science to sales. Its hard not to notice an escalation in attempts to influence and steer sales. Certainly others are noticing this in-your-face upwards trend too.

Any chance of going back to the way it used to be here? That was when AVS forum was considered a most valuable resource to its membership.

Avs science is a Panasonic dealer as well! it's great Jason has been very honest about what he really thinks.

AVS forum was a much better place without someone like you trolling the place.

Anybody heard if Art from ProjectorReviews is planning a review of the Pearl? His are a helluva lot better than Projector Central - pics, screen recommendations, comparisons.... I'd like to read his take on the Pearl.

The projectorcentral review certainly seems at odds with everything I've read on AVS.

This is one of the most humorous posts I've read in quite a while. Last week it was trash Consumer Reports for rating DLP so highly. No we see just the opposite. Jason took exception to both:)
And what do you define a "commerial" website to be?:)

Note: I've just read the Projector Central review and it is spot-on as it reinforces the Widescreen Review by Greg Rogers. This is a simple truth.


Really :eek:

Gregr has high praise for Pearl's deintelacing but PJC think it's only ok.

Gregr stated although ruby/pearl's not the sharpest 1080p projectors, they are still much better than any 720p projectors resolving 1080i details, PJC thinks a lcd projector with 1/3 the price can almost match it.

I guess that's close enough for you :)

The strange thing about the PC reviews is that they make the 5000 out to be God's gift to the FP market, but did they not see the lesser contrast, lesser black level, noticable DI, and somehow they see this as a BRIGHT projector? The Pearl is not perfect, but neither is the 5000 and they seem to be ignoring or are just somehow oblivious to its weak points. They made the Pearl weak points PLENTY obvious, cant they do the same for the 5000?

One thing is noticeable, they seem to have had some kind of spat with Sony in the past. The ruby was hardly even mentioned on PC when it came out and a review was never done, despite the breakthrough nature of the Ruby at the time.

In a half-hearted defense of PJC, they did love the Canon SX60 LCOS. It is 4:3 and a light canon, which allowed them to get the brightness that they wanted on their large screen.

I have always wondered why no Ruby review, it seems kind of wierd to me.

I'm not sure where reviewers have a benchmark to compare to, but don't you think it should be your best local cineplex??????? That's why I love the Pearl, because it's got that film look you have when you go to the theater for crying out loud. These people need to keep that in mind, instead of comparing other projectors for reference....end of rant;)

I think it's okay to compare a projector to other projectors, plasma TVs, whatever, but I agree that the gold standard for many of us is whether it accurately mimics the best film projection that is possible. When I read a review that says the projector compared favorably with the giant plasma in the poster's favorite sports bar, I know that's not a projector I'd want for watching movies in my media space.

They seemed to think the HC5000 was better than the Pearl.

Definately LCD bias. They didn't do a full review of the products

Have you seen the 5000 Tryg? If so, how did you think it compared to the Pearl?

i have the pearl here, and got about 3 hrs to compare it to the AX100 i have (and now sold)

the ruby is plenty sharp, and detail is fantastic.

gregr`s quote was

"the Sony VPL VW50 will redifine everyones expectations of a $5000 projector".

sounds good to me.

It will also depend on how much lens shift was used because i find like gregr that if you use alot of lensshift it will effect the sharpness/focus. PJC may of used alot of lens shift for all we know

The strange thing about the PC reviews is that they make the 5000 out to be God's gift to the FP market, but did they not see the lesser contrast, lesser black level, noticable DI, and somehow they see this as a BRIGHT projector? The Pearl is not perfect, but neither is the 5000 and they seem to be ignoring or are just somehow oblivious to its weak points. They made the Pearl weak points PLENTY obvious, cant they do the same for the 5000?

Go back and read it again, he did say that he would give the Pearl 5 out of 5 stars for black level and color saturation... :D

You keep bring up the DI of the 5000 as a fault, sorry but it's not. :rolleyes:
I've been watching this thing in Auto 1 mode for a week now and it's a NON-issue. And I'm not the only one to report that.

In a light controlled room or with the right sized screen brightness is not a really weakness. If the contrast and black level is good, but not as good as the Pearl, is that a weakness? It's better than a hell of a lot of other PJ's - I consider that a strength of both PJ's.

What I consider to be an indisputable "weakness", based on several reviews is the "softness" of the Pearls' image. This and placement flexibility for this "category" are the only things that served to lower PC's opinions of this unit.

Jason,
We are at the point where we are crossing over the impartiality line from science to sales. Its hard not to notice an escalation in attempts to influence and steer sales. Certainly others are noticing this in-your-face upwards trend too.

Any chance of going back to the way it used to be here? That was when AVS forum was considered a most valuable resource to its membership.

This other ain't.

Jason,
We are at the point where we are crossing over the impartiality line from science to sales. Its hard not to notice an escalation in attempts to influence and steer sales. Certainly others are noticing this in-your-face upwards trend too.

Any chance of going back to the way it used to be here? That was when AVS forum was considered a most valuable resource to its membership.

Apparently you have never talked to me about projectors. If you had, you would know that the simple fact is I am open minded when I do my reviews. I have no inside ties to ANY companies. In fact, ALL of the projectors I review I purchase. Companies do not send them to me to solicite reviews. Why? Simple...I want to remain unbiased and not have to feel like I have to kiss butt to a certain manufacturer. My "reviews" are essentially my opinion backed up with actual measurements (after calibration). You don't have to agree with me...it won't bother me in the least bit. But I don't appreciate you implying that I am trying to influence sales.

If the sharpness of the Pearl is good, but not as good as the 5000 is that a weakness? Call it fair on both sides. If you wont call the 3x contrast ratio advantage of the Pearl a weakness for the Mits, or the better black level/shadow detail, or better brightness, or better DI, certainly you should not call the sharper pic of the 5000 a weakness of the Pearl. They each seem to have advantages and disadvantages, but the Pearl seems to have more significant advantages for ME.


Jason reported the DI to be "Distracting" at times in his 5000 review, so I dont see this as a non issue. The soft look of the Pearl is relative. It may look soft compared to the 5000, but compared to the 900 I am using now it has been reported to be MUCH sharper. I would prefer the 5000 sharpness, but the Pearl is plenty sharp from what I have seen of it at Cedia and never in my mind did I look at the picture and think it was soft in general. It is only soft compared to some other units, and it is also sharp compared to some other units (like my 900).

I did not mean to offend you, but the DI IS of concern to me since there are reports of it being noticable, and Jason's comments about it are especially concerning to me.

The thing is, I still may end up buying the 5000 since it is cheaper, I would not have to buy another mount ( I would with the Pearl), and it is a bit sharper. I have Pearl concerns as well, but there seem to be more big advantages with the Pearl IMO for ME. People who value sharpness higher than better brightness, contrast, black level should go with the 5000. You are right, I do keep mentioning the DI in the 5000 and am probably beating it to death, but I want to hear more reports on this as this is my #1 concern with this unit, and just because it is a non issue for you does not mean it is a non issue in general.

Jason,
We are at the point where we are crossing over the impartiality line from science to sales. Its hard not to notice an escalation in attempts to influence and steer sales. Certainly others are noticing this in-your-face upwards trend too.

Any chance of going back to the way it used to be here? That was when AVS forum was considered a most valuable resource to its membership.

Still a troll I see.

Unbelievable. :rolleyes:

I don't think PJC is biased to LCD, but rather to what they consider bank to buck breakout projectors. We all have different ways to value incremental improvements - most often driven by financial circumstances. So Evan is probably taking on the perspective of the majority of people coming to his site that would rather have a "pretty darned" picture for $2K than an "all that" for $10K (or even maybe $5K).

Music and sound is my thing, so I have an "all that" Cary Audio HT sound system. There are people that would say spending 3X what I could get a Denon system for is just stupid. Not in my value system by a long shot, but then again I suppose Evan has to role play the average perspective of his audience.

I don't think PJC is biased to LCD, but rather to what they consider bank to buck breakout projectors. We all have different ways to value incremental improvements - most often driven by financial circumstances. So Evan is probably taking on the perspective of the majority of people coming to his site that would rather have a "pretty darned" picture for $2K than an "all that" for $10K (or even maybe $5K).

Music and sound is my thing, so I have an "all that" Cary Audio HT sound system. There are people that would say spending 3X what I could get a Denon system for is just stupid. Not in my value system by a long shot, but then again I suppose Evan has to role play the average perspective of his audience.
I do agree. Generally projectorcentral caters to the lower end price points. However they have started doing more with teh higher end units recently.

Am I the only one who sees how silly this thread has become? Maybe I am.

But its very funny to me to see people instantly bash anyone who doesnt agree with their opinion, or should I say their "purchase decision".
Fact is, most on here do not ever even see many different pj's.
Proj. Central does!
Their opinion has to count for something, as does Consumer Reports, as does AVS. Dont take it as gospel, but just more info. Do you all really think that 2 "good" reviewers will always see eye to eye on each pj?

And to say that proj. central is just out to sell advertising space is a horrible argument. No offense to AVS, but that is what they are out to do as well. And also no offense to Jason (as I think he did a great job selling me some of my stuff), but can he really be totally unbiased? His business depends on sales. Some pj's he can sell, others he cant, and his profit margin is likely different on each model. Does that affect his reviews? Probably about as much or as little as it affects Evan or Art.

Nothing wrong with that, its just that he is in business to make a profit... as he should be.
And who is to say who the "better" reviewer really is.

The point is to read ALL the reviews AND user opinions and then make an informed decision. People on here act like there is only one best pj and they are so afraid to make the wrong choice, when they likely would be happy with anyone of a dozen pj's.

Actually I sell everything. Litterally. That is so I can remain unbiased. Sure I have my own personal preferences, but you can talk to anyone who knows me and has dealt with me, and you will quickly find out I am FIRST AND FORMOST about getting the proper piece to the customer...not what is profittable, in stock, etc... In fact many people can attest to me referring them to other dealers if they need something I don't have a good price on. Sure I am in business to make money, but I do remain neutral. All I can say is before anyone judges me, talk to me first and see what I am all about.

By the way that was not geared towards you df4801 since we have worked together and I think you know how I work. :)

there are a bunch of errors in that review- unless he was given a prototype.
I counted several in the first two paragraphs alone. And while it may not be the greatest pj ever made, the value rating he assigns to it seems way off the mark, imo.

as to the soft picture he is seeing- Having two of the units with me right now, I can say for sure that there is a hell of a lot of variance between them in several key areas. It wouldn't surprise me that the unit Powell is reviewing has poor convergence which would minimize the impression of sharpness. The first unit I got had generally excellant convergence and a very sharp, but not edgy, picture. The second unit not as much (but still well defined when the source permits it).

The reviewer said he was referencing the "softness" in reference to the other 3 1080 PJ's currently under review.

Not trying to single you out Jason. I would recommend you highly, even made one of my friends call you first when he was looking for his pj, and I'm sure I'll call you first when I upgrade.
But its human nature for anyone to have some bias, even if its unconsciously.

it's a commerial website. solo purpose of promoting products for its sponsors. No suprise all of them are lcd resellers. 3.5 star for the pearl is a joke if 720p lcds get 5 stars.

How is it a joke? It's all relative. You pay approx. $1500 for the 720p PJ and in that field it scores very well, while in the 1080p field prices start in excess of $4500 and the Pearl was deemed a 3.5 amongst it's peers.

Seems reasonable to me.

You can get 1080p quite a bit less than $4500 just as an FYI.

Not to change topic here, but had a quick question for Jason...

In the 5000 review, when you noticed the DI working from a light to dark scene, was it in auto 1 iris mode?

One thing is noticeable, they seem to have had some kind of spat with Sony in the past. The ruby was hardly even mentioned on PC when it came out and a review was never done, despite the breakthrough nature of the Ruby at the time.

They did grade the Sony HS VPL 20 highly, giving it the "highly recommeded" award. In fact, I hold PC responsible for my purchase of the HS20 which to this day I am grateful.

wow !

This review has touched a nerve with many people.

Not to change topic here, but had a quick question for Jason...

In the 5000 review, when you noticed the DI working from a light to dark scene, was it in auto 1 iris mode?
No problem...I'm done with the other topic anyways. :) I tried all 3 modes. Don't get my wrong, it was something I got used to. I merely pointed it out as I had not noticed it as much on some competitors.

but you still noticed it even in auto 1?

Yes I did.

but you still noticed it even in auto 1?

You're a DI pit-bull!!! :D

Just to reiterate, what I was alluding to was most of the comparsions between PJ's tend to be about things where unless the PJs are in the exact same environment, the differences will be more affected by outside parameters than by the actual differences in the projectors. For instance on a smaller screen the difference in brightness becomes a moot point. Or if one has ambient light issues could you really see the difference in CR? I think a sharper image is one that you'd appreciate regardless of the environment.

Apparently you have never talked to me about projectors. If you had, you would know that the simple fact is I am open minded when I do my reviews. I have no inside ties to ANY companies. In fact, ALL of the projectors I review I purchase. Companies do not send them to me to solicite reviews. Why? Simple...I want to remain unbiased and not have to feel like I have to kiss butt to a certain manufacturer. My "reviews" are essentially my opinion backed up with actual measurements (after calibration). You don't have to agree with me...it won't bother me in the least bit. But I don't appreciate you implying that I am trying to influence sales.

Jason, I think everybody here knows what you just stated and very much appreciates the service you provide to this community. Keep it up. please. (And those of us that have been around for even a little while know the mischievousness that reincarnate like to try to create.)

No worries but thanks for the kind words.

And who is to say who the "better" reviewer really is.



You made some good points, but this part I have to disagree with. There are many factors to consider when determining who the "better" reviewer is. It is very easy to tell the best reviewers from the more "casual", less technical reviewers. This becomes even more clear if you have been following the reviews of certain reviewers for many years, especially if in combination with your own viewing of the same equipment.

DI pitbull huh? I kind of like that :p I was thinking more like the OCD-DI pitbull :)

I hear what you are saying mrgagne, and I agree. However, if you do have a fully deadicated theater, you WILL be able to see the differences. I dont have any ambient light in my black hole of a theater, and 3x better contrast ratio would be noticed in this situation easily. The better black levels would also be noticed easily, as well as a bit better shadow detail. I do agree though that those with less than ideal rooms may not notice these advantages quite as much, while the sharpness would still come through. This is the other reason I am so stuck on the DI issue of the 5000 is I can see things like this more easily in my deadicated thater.

I simply dont agree on brightness being a moot point though. Why? Because the bulb will loose lumens over time, and a higher lumen unit will stay brighter longer. A calibrated Pearl gets on average, from the reviews, of ~700 lumens in high bulb. If you average out Art's review of the 5000 at projectorreviews with the PC review as far as lumens, the 5000 is averaging ~505 calibrated in its highest mode (Art got 480, while PC got 532). On a 92" 1.3 gain screen the Pearl gets about 36ftL in high bulb, while the 5000 gets 26ftL with these average numbers at the short throw. That is a big difference if you ask me. I would much rather have 18ftL over 13 when/if the bulb looses half its lumen output. If you go by Jasons measurements between the 2 units, there is almost a 250 lumen difference which is an even bigger advantage. I dont really see this as moot, even on a small screen.

Like I said though, I may still go with the 5000. Overall, I think these are both fantastic units and most would be happy with either. Seeing both of these at Cedia, I thought they both looked amazing.


One thing is for sure though....Whenever I do make a decision on what to buy and get my unit tweaked and calibrated, I am staying OFF this forum for a long time and am simplly going to enjoy what I have. I dont go into the speaker or subwoofer forums any more, or the amp/processor forums because I dont want to know, and I am happy with what I have and dont want to find a reason to not be that way. I have become way to obsessed with the research part of this (it is fun dreaming :p ) and look forward to completing this last step to my theater (atleast for a while :rolleyes: )

Sorry, didn't mean to spark a firestorm of controversy over the review by starting this thread. I take their review as just another data point. At the end of the day I will go with what my eyes tell me and what my wallet can afford. My real concern here is that there seemed to be some basic factual errors in the review (e.g., lens shift), and I'm just wondering if they had some kind of pre-production unit. If they did, maybe that partly explains their opinion.

This thread is why I choose never to do reviews. I think Greg Rogers is the only one to pull it off successfully yet some still give him a hard time. Not that he is inaccurate but we as humans do not want to hear the truth especially if its negative against something we own. I own the Ruby so anyone in this thread saying anything negative about it, its just plain BS :)
For the most part you never hear from those who appreciate and agree with the review its only those who disagree or are offended that find the energy to post.

DI pitbull huh? I kind of like that :p I was thinking more like the OCD-DI pitbull :)

I hear what you are saying mrgagne, and I agree. However, if you do have a fully deadicated theater, you WILL be able to see the differences. I dont have any ambient light in my black hole of a theater, and 3x better contrast ratio would be noticed in this situation easily. The better black levels would also be noticed easily, as well as a bit better shadow detail. I do agree though that those with less than ideal rooms may not notice these advantages quite as much, while the sharpness would still come through. This is the other reason I am so stuck on the DI issue of the 5000 is I can see things like this more easily in my deadicated thater.

Toe, You make a very interesting point here, i.e., the question about how much the very best CR and black levels of the Pearl really matter in a 'less than perfect' room. E.g., in my 'non bat cave' type den, essentially all external light can be excluded (esp at night), but there is still ambient light from light (though not white) walls/ceiling. How much does the better CR and black level of the Pearl really matter in this situation? (I know that some people will say 'just paint your walls black', but this is not going to happen.) On the other hand, the extra lumens of the Pearl will presumably be a plus for it in this kind of room; but with a HP screen, the Mits (optimally located for the HP) can turn out a lot of ftL even with Jason's 550 lumens. It's very hard to know how to weight the pluses and minues of these pj's in various room situations.

wow !

This review has touched a nerve with many people.

Reminds me of some of the early reviews of the Tosh HD DVD players. I remember the one from CNet was particularly annoying. Like the Pearl, the Tosh was not the greatest player ever made, but its bang-for-the-buck value was easily apparent to many people. A lot of people though were/are biased towards a competing format and I have no doubt that colored some of the reviews.
(ironically enough PJCs review the Tosh was quite the opposite and more in line with what a lot of us were feeling/experiencing).

"How is it a joke? It's all relative. You pay approx. $1500 for the 720p PJ and in that field it scores very well, while in the 1080p field prices start in excess of $4500 and the Pearl was deemed a 3.5 amongst it's peers.

Seems reasonable to me."

The problem I have with that is that there's already a separate value rating, yet it seems to affect all rating categories.

That makes it hard to compare one pj's absolute performance to another's.

All of my reviews are biased. If its hanging in my theater its the best thing sense sliced bread :)

Finally and honest reviewer!!! :p :p :p

Jason : you wont review the CHRISTIE HD5Kc then since you have to buy it ? :)

i'm very curious to see if someone can match WMayer's nrs on this unit (CR much higher than specified).

as for the PEARL it's reall amazing how more detailed (background -depth) it brings to DVDs. ultra focused (thanks to the remote), it's very very detailed.
this is a projector that will spare us tens of thousands of dollars in immediate HD repurchases imho.
SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE SUPERBIT, LORD OF THE RINGS, BANDIDAS, RENAISSANCE, were very very detailed and improved tonight on the PEARL. (in 1080P from a Marantz player, killer combo).
LCD is no match. 2millions ultra densed pixels yes.

as for the PEARL it's reall amazing how more detailed (background -depth) it brings to DVDs. ultra focused (thanks to the remote), it's very very detailed.
this is a projector that will spare us tens of thousands of dollars in immediate HD repurchases imho.
.

wow, I'm having just the opposite reaction. I agree its very detailed, and more than sharp enough- so sharp that I'm finding a lot of my dvd collection is not holding up as well as thought. Things that I thought were creamy smooth reference discs now display all the limitations of the original film and the original encoding. Some hold up well, but there is such a gulf between even the best dvd and an HD like Spartacus (and I choose that because its been getting slagged a lot as a poor example of HD). I'm wish I could upgrade every title I really care about asap. Unfortunately for some of them, its going to be a long wait I'm afraid.

lol
crap dvd will remain crap dvd
but great dvds (shakespeare in love, renaissance, training day or even bonds remastered (dr no tested) really look better
my philosophy:

buy new movies in HD
buy movies you haven't yet but wanted, in HD
buy great movies but poorly transfered, in HD (black rain for instance i hope)
all this with a great 2K Projector.

Go back and read it again, he did say that he would give the Pearl 5 out of 5 stars for black level and color saturation... :D

You keep bring up the DI of the 5000 as a fault, sorry but it's not. :rolleyes:
I've been watching this thing in Auto 1 mode for a week now and it's a NON-issue. And I'm not the only one to report that.

In a light controlled room or with the right sized screen brightness is not a really weakness. If the contrast and black level is good, but not as good as the Pearl, is that a weakness? It's better than a hell of a lot of other PJ's - I consider that a strength of both PJ's.

What I consider to be an indisputable "weakness", based on several reviews is the "softness" of the Pearls' image. This and placement flexibility for this "category" are the only things that served to lower PC's opinions of this unit.


That is what i took of the Pearl review,Their main problem with the Pearl was sharpness,When a 720p such as the Z5 is sharper than a 1080p their is a problem.But they say the blacks and contrast were great,If one does not need a super sharp image then the Pearl sounds like a great FP for small screens.Myself the Pearl is off my list for a 1080p.BUDDA

When a 720p such as the Z5 is sharper than a 1080p their is a problem.
If PJC said that (I didn't read the review), then it is utter nonsense...I have both the Ruby and the Z5 and have compared them side by side. The Ruby is a far better unit in EVERY way, including sharpness. The Z5 is a nice budget projector, but it shouldn't be mentioned in the same breath as the Ruby/Pearl....whole different league of performance.

To each his own... I've been watching the Star Wars movies in HD all weekend on the Ruby and while I've been critical of the Ruby at times, it really does look wonderful with these films. Perhaps my Ruby is getting better with age. The original Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back films surprised me at how good they looked. In particular I was surprised at the level of sharpness. The contrast, colors, shadow detail and of course black level are important attributes needed to enjoy some of the newer films and the Ruby was quite good in this regard.

If PJC said that (I didn't read the review), then it is utter nonsense...I have both the Ruby and the Z5 and have compared them side by side. The Ruby is a far better unit in EVERY way, including sharpness. The Z5 is a nice budget projector, but it shouldn't be mentioned in the same breath as the Ruby/Pearl....whole different league of performance.

No they did not say the z5 was sharper than the Pearl.They just said that the Pearl was not that more sharper than most 720p FP out their'That's how they made it sound to me.I wonder if Sony has some type of smooth screen like panny they use on the Pearl and Ruby.All the complaints I here on here are mostly a soft pic with the Ruby an Pearl,when I say soft I do not mean a bad pic just not as crisp as other 1080p,Hopefully the next sony will have the blacks and sharpness.THANKS BUDDA

At the risk of offending existing Pearl owners, misconvergence has got to have an effect on perceived sharpness. Even if the misconvergence cannot be seen directly. I'd love to know how good or bad PJC's unit was in this regard. Personally, I think they got a dog...

If it was a bad'un then I guess their comments are completely justified and Sony only have themselves to blame for lax manufacturing tolerances (but PJC should have investigated this and commented on it). The comments about max 560 lumens in dynamic mode also suggest something seriously wrong.

Nobody is biased here except me :)

I tried to sell myself a $5,000 fake powercord when all I really needed was a $15 one. I was desperate for the commission. ;) In the end I couldn't pull the trigger because Projector Central contradicted Greg Rogers :D

It is odd that he got 562 lumens with basically all of the best/brightest settings, while others have reported 700+ lumens. That's quite a bit of difference.

There has been at least 3 prior detailed reviews on the Pearl supported by objective measurements: Cine4Home, Widescreen Review, and our own AVS. The all agree on the numbers within 10%. Why would anyone pay any attention to this PJC review, which is such an outlier?

I have read this thread in full, without reading at first the Projector Central review. I gathered from most contributions that this review was probably out of line and/or substantially off the mark. I have then read the review. I am sorry to say that I find it fair and balanced, echoing exactly my impressions of the Pearl. I am starting to believe that some units are much `better' than others, which would be a shame for Sony, and for us customers too.

Much Better? NO

1000 out of 1000 people could not tell the difference in any of the units from normal viewing distances.

People find differences using calibration equipment and looking at test patterns from 2 feet away from the screen. Most people dont watch movies like this ;)

Then, I don't understand the difference of opinion on the Pearl.

There have been a few forum members on here who have had 2 units and commented on noticable differences between units. AVS even considered doing a QC inspection on these for a fair price before shipping which means there must be relative variation between units. I would really like to get one, but it is a bit unnerving to not know how good of a Pearl you get, and that some may be considerably better out there. I still may get one, but I am really curious to see what this JVC turns out like. If it is better in the QC area compared to the Pearl with more consistency between units, I will have to find a way to stretch my budget.

DI pitbull huh? I kind of like that :p I was thinking more like the OCD-DI pitbull :)

One thing is for sure though....Whenever I do make a decision on what to buy and get my unit tweaked and calibrated, I am staying OFF this forum for a long time and am simplly going to enjoy what I have. I dont go into the speaker or subwoofer forums any more, or the amp/processor forums because I dont want to know, and I am happy with what I have and dont want to find a reason to not be that way. I have become way to obsessed with the research part of this (it is fun dreaming :p ) and look forward to completing this last step to my theater (atleast for a while :rolleyes: )

Wow that's scary, I was thinking OCD too, but decided to be more conservative. :p

And even more scary, I totally echo that last paragraph. :D

I don't think PJC is biased to LCD, but rather to what they consider bank to buck breakout projectors. We all have different ways to value incremental improvements - most often driven by financial circumstances. So Evan is probably taking on the perspective of the majority of people coming to his site that would rather have a "pretty darned" picture for $2K than an "all that" for $10K (or even maybe $5K).

Music and sound is my thing, so I have an "all that" Cary Audio HT sound system. There are people that would say spending 3X what I could get a Denon system for is just stupid. Not in my value system by a long shot, but then again I suppose Evan has to role play the average perspective of his audience.

Amen.

There has been at least 3 prior detailed reviews on the Pearl supported by objective measurements: Cine4Home, Widescreen Review, and our own AVS. The all agree on the numbers within 10%. Why would anyone pay any attention to this PJC review, which is such an outlier?

Because his test is objective? Because there appear to be variances between Pearl units? Because maybe he's right? If he is right, it's disconcerting to know that you have a possibility of getting a projector that's off by 150 lumens (approximately) from another one. That's terrible quality control, if true, and not deserving of a $5,000 MSRP projector. Do we know it's true? No, but I have no reason to doubt his test. (Sometimes I doubt the way he applies his test results. For instance, he gets low calibrated lumen output levels from the Mitsu HC5000, yet says that this can fill a 120 inch screen. This doesn't make logical sense. However, I tend not to doubt what his results are, only how he applies the results. This is the case because I do not see why he'd lie about his test results and I assume he uses the same test conditions and equipment for each test.)

Is my OCD that obvious mrgagne? :o Actually I know it is. Well atleast we can both find humor about my condition :) You guys still love me right :p My GF on the other hand does not find it too amusing as it spills over into more than just HT unfortunately :( Oh well....Life is good! ;)

Let's just all agree to the point we are all trying to make...I am right and everyone must agree with me. :)

Kidding of course.

Is my OCD that obvious mrgagne? :o Actually I know it is. Well atleast we can both find humor about my condition :) You guys still love me right :p My GF on the other hand does not find it too amusing as it spills over into more than just HT unfortunately :( Oh well....Life is good! ;)

I can spot it because I suffer from it too! :D

There has been at least 3 prior detailed reviews on the Pearl supported by objective measurements: Cine4Home, Widescreen Review, and our own AVS. The all agree on the numbers within 10%. Why would anyone pay any attention to this PJC review, which is such an outlier?


Exactly what part of the PC review is such an outlier? Please read his conclusion and tell me specifically what is inaccurate?

The Sony VPL-VW50 is a solid 1080p projector that offers beautiful color saturation, contrast, and black level as its most noteworthy advantages over the competition. However, it basically offers the consumer two trade-off propositions, neither one of which is particularly appealing. The first is that along with the beautiful color saturation and contrast you give up some sharpness and detail that is available from other 1080p models. Accordingly, it is difficult to rate this model on our five star scale--if rated on sharpness alone it would get two stars in performance (remember, our 5-star system rates a projector against others in its same resolution class). But if rated just on black level and color saturation it would get five stars. So we will average the two and call it 3.5 stars. It is up to the buyer to determine which of these are the most important factors in selecting a projector.

The second trade-off relates to ceiling mounting vs. rear shelf deployment. The relatively long throw distance potential and limitation in vertical lens shift argues for a rear shelf mount. However, the lumen output may be curtailed in that set up, and since video-optimized lumen output is not particularly high to begin with, we can see many users going for the ceiling mount in order to get the incremental brightness. This adds cost and complexity to the installation, not to mention the possibility of the projector being suspended in the middle of the room from a drop extension tube. But if you are going to ceiling mount anyway, it is a non-issue.

On a personal note, I feel strongly about the VW50 in two ways. It certainly produces a beautiful picture, and if you have not seen how razor sharp 1080p can really be, you probably will not sense any deficiency in sharpness on this projector. I have thoroughly enjoyed watching it in the theater, although with darker material I found myself fiddling with the adjustments to squeeze a few more lumens out of it. I am quite sure that many owners of the VW50 will be 100% satisfied with it. But since I have seen the competitive 1080p products, I find myself being aware that I am not seeing all the detail that is in the source.

From my perspective, maximum image sharpness is absolutely vital on a 1080p projector. After all, high resolution image detail is really what the user is paying the premiums dollars for. If you are considering a 1080p projector but are willing to compromise on HD image sharpness, then you should be looking at any one of the latest 720p projectors that are selling for one-third the price. They are capable of delivering HD pictures that are very close to matching those of the VW50. On the other hand, if you are not willing to compromise on image sharpness, then check out some of the other new low-cost 1080p projectors coming to market this fall before making a final decision. In the end you might find that the VW50 is plenty sharp enough for you, and its rich blacks and gorgeous color saturation are deciding factors in its favor. As long as you know your options, you will be able to buy with confidence.

Mit07: I think the statement you quote is quite fair. The quibble I have with the review, as do many others, is the lumen output he gets, 562 lumens in 'dynamic' mode with lamp on 'high'. I think Jason gets ~ 800 lumens (and I don't think he was in 'dynamic' mode, but don't remember), and Cine4home's very thorough review gave ~ 700. So PJC does seem quite a bit off on this critical parameter.

"So PJC does seem quite a bit off on this critical parameter."

This has been brought up several times, but as has been poiinted it, is it PJC or the pj?

The only way to know is to have someone else measure the same pj, and/or wait for more samples to be measured.

Exactly what part of the PC review is such an outlier? Please read his conclusion and tell me specifically what is inaccurate?
Ok, I'll tell you which part is inaccurate...It's this:
If you are considering a 1080p projector but are willing to compromise on HD image sharpness, then you should be looking at any one of the latest 720p projectors that are selling for one-third the price. They are capable of delivering HD pictures that are very close to matching those of the VW50.
IF (and that's a big "if") he is talking about the Panasonic AX100 and/or Sanyo PLV-Z5, then his statement is extremely inaccurate. As I said earlier and in other threads, I did some level field testing between the AX100 and my Ruby, and then the Z5 and my Ruby, and in no way whatsoever does the picture quality of these low cost units rival that of the Ruby, including sharpness - not even in same league. So unless the Pearl is a LOT worse than my Ruby, or he is talking about some other "720p machine selling for one third the price" then the above statement is, as I said earlier, UTTER NONSENSE.

That is what i took of the Pearl review,Their main problem with the Pearl was sharpness,When a 720p such as the Z5 is sharper than a 1080p their is a problem.BUDDA

Print is inconvenient sometimes, huh?

PS. (there) ;)

Exactly what part of the PC review is such an outlier? Please read his conclusion and tell me specifically what is inaccurate?.
Read the objective reviews! Why are the lumen numbers for the other reviews so far off from the PJC review? 200 lumens in what mode? No horizantal lens shift? Really?

As far as his subjective conclusions, well subjective conclusions are like a-holes, everyone has one. :) How about citing a single scene where the other 1080p showed more detail than the Pearl?

For a usefull comparison between a Pearl and a 1080p 1DLP unit please see
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=734568&page=1&pp=30

Several people have called out Evan Powell for being factually inaccurate when it comes to his claim of no horizontal lens shift.

Technically, yes, the Pearl has horizontal lens shift but practically it is almost useless. On a 100 inch image you get only 15 cm (about 6 inches) horizontal shift and it requires disassembly of the lens mechanism and even Sony suggests that only qualified personnel do the shift to avoid damage to the lens (p75 of the manual). So many members here at AVS (myself included) see very little gain to this type of lens shift.

Overall the review seems to be consistent with what several people on this forum have reported (with the exception of the low lumens, ouch!). It is a great, great projector but not without its shortcomings, one of which is what many see as a "soft" image.

Ok, I'll tell you which part is inaccurate...It's this:

IF (and that's a big "if") he is talking about the Panasonic AX100 and/or Sanyo PLV-Z5, then his statement is extremely inaccurate. As I said earlier and in other threads, I did some level field testing between the AX100 and my Ruby, and then the Z5 and my Ruby, and in no way whatsoever does the picture quality of these low cost units rival that of the Ruby, including sharpness - not even in same league. So unless the Pearl is a LOT worse than my Ruby, or he is talking about some other "720p machine selling for one third the price" then the above statement is, as I said earlier, UTTER NONSENSE.

Why is it that when anyone comes up with some defect in the Pearl or Ruby, people come out of the woodwork to attack and lambaste the person? Often, I feel as this is the "I LOVE Sony" forum. If he thinks that there are 720p projectors that are close to the level of the Pearl, then that's his opinion. You obviously have yours. Calling something "UTTER NONSENSE" when it's his opinion is, well, childish. You may believe he's incorrect, but I personally think PC's reviews are overall balanced and command some respect. I do wonder at anomolous instances when he appears to make non sequitur conclusions (like saying that a projector that produces 500 calibrates lumens in high mode can be used to project onto a 120 inch screen). However, overall, I like his reviews, and am beginning to feel that he's right in the case of the Pearl. In fact, I've effectively crossed it off my list of projectors to buy.

I have an idea...Why don't you go look at the three projectors I mentioned for yourself, side by side, on a level playing field, LIKE I DID, and then come back to lambaste me. If you actually did the work, I'm 100% sure that you would agree with my assessment. The differences here are well beyond "a matter of opinion".

And BTW, I never said that the Ruby/Pearl doesn't have problems - I simply pointed out the single obviously inaccurate statement from the review.

Ok, I'll tell you which part is inaccurate...It's this:

IF (and that's a big "if") he is talking about the Panasonic AX100 and/or Sanyo PLV-Z5, then his statement is extremely inaccurate. As I said earlier and in other threads, I did some level field testing between the AX100 and my Ruby, and then the Z5 and my Ruby, and in no way whatsoever does the picture quality of these low cost units rival that of the Ruby, including sharpness - not even in same league. So unless the Pearl is a LOT worse than my Ruby, or he is talking about some other "720p machine selling for one third the price" then the above statement is, as I said earlier, UTTER NONSENSE.

It's a good idea that people that have seen different products can speak to the issue of how projectors differ.

A friend came over yesterday and watched Sunday night football. I've gotten in the habit of not saying anything about the new Sony Pearl. He surprised me by noting the Pearl sitting where the Optoma H78DC3 used to be and said is this new? I said yes and without comment we watched the game.

In all of two minutes he just came out and said, the picture's better. I didn't ask him to detail how or what he found better. He just volunteered it and I said, well it should be.

At the end of the night he asked how many pixels. That was far more technical than I ever expected to hear from him. Bottom line: he's seen my first pj, the Panny AE700, then the Optoma and now the Sony Pearl. He's not into projectors as he has a plasma but he was just speaking from his perspective as a viewer of all three.

I think the projector central review was weak. But then again, it's pretty clear that a strong desire to push LCDs has been going on for a while. Every year we hear about how LCD has closed the gap or is now a real rival to the other approaches.

Such is the way of this hobby.

OK, let's all take a deep breath.

In our view, the primary rationale for investing premium dollars for 1080p resolution is to get the sharpest picture possible. If you don't care about maximum clarity and detail, one of the new 720p projectors for 1/3 the price will deliver most HD source images with close to the same high resolution quality as the VW50.

That's direct from the PJC review. Nowhere does Powell say that the Pearl is equivalent to 720p. Nowhere. Not once. What he SAYS is that the Pearl does not deliver maximum sharpness and clarity, and if you are the kind of person that does not care about maximum sharpness and clarity, why not save some money and buy 720p? The wording is a little clumsy, but that's what it says.

This whole debate is ridiculous.

In our view, the primary rationale for investing premium dollars for 1080p resolution is to get the sharpest picture possible.

I thought the primary rationale for investing premium dollars for 1080p resolution is to get more resolution. Sharpness is different, no?

Yes, sharpness is different -- and often the video equivalent of forward, shrill, grainy, and sibilant in the audio world.

As many of us learned during the CRT days of home theater with our direct view sets: It's easy to mistake sharpness for detail and accuracy.

The PJC review seems to conflate the two, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they mean detail and clarity, not sharpness.

Of course, given that, I can see way more detail and clarity on the Pearl than on any 720p projector I've viewed, and test patterns indicate that one can see all the detail that 1080p contains, on the Pearl.

That said, this is the most interesting quote in the article, to me:

"I have thoroughly enjoyed watching it in the theater, although with darker material I found myself fiddling with the adjustments to squeeze a few more lumens out of it."

Dark material is supposed to be dark. Why would anyone want to raise the absolute black level (lumens) of a dark scene?

Bob,

"Ok, I'll tell you which part is inaccurate...It's this:

Quote:
If you are considering a 1080p projector but are willing to compromise on HD image sharpness, then you should be looking at any one of the latest 720p projectors that are selling for one-third the price. They are capable of delivering HD pictures that are very close to matching those of the VW50. "


IF (and that's a big "if") he is talking about the Panasonic AX100 and/or Sanyo PLV-Z5, then his statement is extremely inaccurate.... "

This isn't about facts.

Whatever the actual sharpness/detail differences there are, people will disagree on how subjectively big/important they are.

Hi guys,

I really didn't intend to debate this point to this degree, but the part that I disagree with is in this one sentence:
They are capable of delivering HD pictures that are very close to matching those of the VW50. "
My point is, no, they are not capable of delivering HD pictures anywhere near what the VW-100 (I have a Ruby, not a Pearl) can, and believe me, I have tried everything imaginable to bring the PQ of the Z4/Z5 up to that of the Ruby. After spending many hours trying, I have come to the conclusion that the bargain 720ps just can not deliver the goods. Is the picture nice? Yes, but it doesn't even remotely compare to that of the Ruby.

Honda and Ferrari both make cars, but I doubt that anyone would make a statement claiming that the performance of the Honda is "very close to matching that of the Ferrari". Honda makes a great product for the average consumer and presents a high price/performance ratio, but it is in no way considered a high performance automobile, and should not be compared to one. That's all I was pointing out.
This whole debate is ridiculous.
Agreed 100%...I will leave this alone now. There are bigger and better fish to fry...:)

P.S. - I'm sorry if I offended any AX100, Z4, or Z5 owners, as that was not my intention. I guess I can understand why you people are upset with me.

Why is it that when anyone comes up with some defect in the Pearl or Ruby, people come out of the woodwork to attack and lambaste the person? Often, I feel as this is the "I LOVE Sony" forum. If he thinks that there are 720p projectors that are close to the level of the Pearl, then that's his opinion. You obviously have yours. Calling something "UTTER NONSENSE" when it's his opinion is, well, childish. You may believe he's incorrect, but I personally think PC's reviews are overall balanced and command some respect. I do wonder at anomolous instances when he appears to make non sequitur conclusions (like saying that a projector that produces 500 calibrates lumens in high mode can be used to project onto a 120 inch screen). However, overall, I like his reviews, and am beginning to feel that he's right in the case of the Pearl. In fact, I've effectively crossed it off my list of projectors to buy.


I think that it is somewhat funny that the only example of something you disagree with him (highlighted in red) is something that may actually be a valid statement!

At 500 lumens post D65 calibration, you would get aproximately 14.5 ft lamberts from the 120" screen, which many consider to be a perfectly acceptable number. Even if you disagree with that, and you would want a projector that is brighter for that size screen, there is nothing "non sequitur" about it.

^