...in the face of the Pearl?

What I'm really asking is: is there any reason to consider buying a Ruby now that the Pearl is available, which seems to have almost identical specifications as the Ruby, costs less, and can do things the Ruby cannot, such as 1080p24?

search my friend. It's been covered. :D

The Ruby has the xenon bulb and better optics. I just saw a Ruby at a Sony outlet store today discounted to $4999. Too bad they didn't have the Pearl discounted to $2500. ;)

Although the written specs may seem the same on the surface, there are possibly other factors that may be different that may not show up in the specs.

For example:

* Better optics
* Better quality control (less change of mis convergence)
* Better scaling/deinterlacing electronics
* Bigger, beefier power supply (the Ruby weighs almost twice what a Peal weighs)

All of the above is speculation--I have no direct evidence for any of it--but it might be true. Why else would Sony keep the Ruby in the product line?

* Better optics
I think they use the same lens.
* Better quality control (less change of mis convergence)
Or possibly worse. Look at this picture: convergence.jpg (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=64534)
* Better scaling/deinterlacing electronics
Or possibly worse. I have seen at least one situation where the Pearl performed better de-interlacing than the Ruby.
* Bigger, beefier power supply (the Ruby weighs almost twice what a Peal weighs)
And hotter. :)

Ruby bulb is three times the cost of the Pearl bulb.

I still would NOT trade my Ruby in for a Pearl... Now a Diamond is another story (maybe)...

I still would not trade my Pearl in for a Ruby... ;-)

Interesting. Lots of differing opinions here.

Mit07 says the Ruby has better optics and Erik says it has the same optics as the Pearl.

Joerod wouldn't trade his Ruby for a Pearl but blackbird wouldn't trade his Pearl for a Ruby.

This still leaves open the question of why anyone would buy a Ruby when the Pearl is nearly identical in performance (better in some areas vis support for 1080p24) yet much lower in cost. Why would Sony even bother to keep it in the product line unless they expect to make lots of sales to people who think it must be better just because it costs more?

Interesting. Lots of differing opinions here.

Mit07 says the Ruby has better optics and Erik says it has the same optics as the Pearl.



This was my understanding, however, it appears to be incorrect. My apologies. Here is a quote from cine4home review of the Pearl: "Because the same optics and the same optical structure of the VPL-VW100 were used, not many changes are to be expected here compared to the Ruby."

This still leaves open the question of why anyone would buy a Ruby when the Pearl is nearly identical in performance (better in some areas vis support for 1080p24) yet much lower in cost.


Also from cine4home:

This is all good and well, but what's the catch compared to the Ruby? What are benefits of the more expensive model?
For one, there is the color representation based on the Xenon lamp technology. Even when critics will question the benefits, a look at the picture clearly shows: the VPL-VW100 succeeds in presenting an even more accurate color representation, the picture has that extra quality that completes the perfect cinema simulation. This was not only our impression, but also that of our Shopping-Mall partner Grobi (Patrick Schappert) who is equally "in" to the SXRD technology since the Qualia era. In addition the Ruby succeeds in maintaining the full contrast range with accurate colors due to its Xenon lamp technology, while the Pearl looses about 30% of its contrast due to adjustment of the color temperature. A better de-interlacing in the Ruby hints at better signal processing, and especially the newly discovered DRC mode which further enhances the sharpness of the Ruby image with HD sources. The Pearl does not offer this function. We would like to expressly send our greetings to Alan Gouger and the entire AVS-Forum, who have extensively covered the DRC option.

To answer the Ruby vs. Pearl dilemma, one need only spend a little time with both. For those who claim the Pearl is equal to or outperforms the Ruby, they clearly have not auditioned both projectors.

If it is true that the Ruby can be had for under $5000.00 then the decision is a no-brainer.

The Ruby outperforms the Pearl, in my opinion, in color reproduction, light output (even though the Pearl is rated 100 Lumens higher, perhaps because of the xenon bulb), deinterlacing, "pop" (3 dimensionality) and overall picture quality. I believe that anyone who has as opportunity to perform an A/B comparison will agree.

Unfortunately both projectors do not fare well when exposed to ambient light. In a light controlled theater, the Ruby displays an outstanding picture while the Pearl displays a nice picture in normal to brightly lit scenes, but falls short in dark scenes where significant detail is lost.

To answer the Ruby vs. Pearl dilemma, one need only spend a little time with both. For those who claim the Pearl is equal to or outperforms the Ruby, they clearly have not auditioned both projectors.

.

...and you have not properly auditioned both projectors in regards to a true comparison until you have seen them with the same screen and sources.

Originally posted by Mit07:
"...and you have not properly auditioned both projectors in regards to a true comparison until you have seen them with the same screen and sources."

You make an excellent point and I did consider this. In a perfect world we could conduct a direct A/B comparison. Unfortunately, for most of us we are limited to some variables.

In my comparison, the source material was identical. Same hard drive was feeding both projectors.

The screens were different, however. The Ruby was displayed on a Screen Innovations Visage which is a higher gain screen but the image size was considerably larger, the Ruby at 108", the Pearl at 92". The Pearl was displayed on a Firehawk G2, 1.2 designed to minimize ambient light reflection. The difference in the size of image should offset the difference in gain. Although the higher gain screen will allow for greater light output, it may suffer in other areas such as picture uniformity (smoothness) and contrast.

The difference in picture quality was dramatic. Not only was light output greater with the Ruby, which may be partially explained by the screen gain, although as noted offset by image size, the Ruby was as smooth and appeared to have better contrast than the Pearl. I doubt the screen variations were so different that they would explain the discrepencies. Also, one would expect a retailer to display its products in the most favourable light. It would have been interesting to see the Pearl on a Firehawk SST.

Your point, however, is well taken and should be taken into consideration when comparing any projectors.

If it is true that the Ruby can be had for under $5000.00 then the decision is a no-brainer.


If this is true, I'd agree, but this is much lower than I've seen it from a reputable dealer. If anyone knows otherwise, I'd appreciate a PM.

Originally posted by Jerry Gardner:
"If this is true, I'd agree, but this is much lower than I've seen it from a reputable dealer. If anyone knows otherwise, I'd appreciate a PM."

Me too.

If it is true that the Ruby can be had for under $5000.00 then the decision is a no-brainer.
The bulbs will not be reduced in price by half. So one should still employ a little brain before making the decision.

Someone mentioned on another thread that the bulbs are cheaper in Asia. Perhaps several Ruby owners can get together and do a "power buy" of bulbs directly from Asia.

Someone mentioned on another thread that the bulbs are cheaper in Asia. Perhaps several Ruby owners can get together and do a "power buy" of bulbs directly from Asia.
On the surface, that sounds good. But what about shipping and insurance costs? And what would the warranty be and would it start when bought (if any, yes) or when first installed (alas, no)? :(

You make an excellent point and I did consider this. In a perfect world we could conduct a direct A/B comparison. Unfortunately, for most of us we are limited to some variables.

In my comparison, the source material was identical. Same hard drive was feeding both projectors.

The screens were different, however. The Ruby was displayed on a Screen Innovations Visage which is a higher gain screen but the image size was considerably larger, the Ruby at 108", the Pearl at 92". The Pearl was displayed on a Firehawk G2, 1.2 designed to minimize ambient light reflection. The difference in the size of image should offset the difference in gain. Although the higher gain screen will allow for greater light output, it may suffer in other areas such as picture uniformity (smoothness) and contrast.

The difference in picture quality was dramatic. Not only was light output greater with the Ruby, which may be partially explained by the screen gain, although as noted offset by image size, the Ruby was as smooth and appeared to have better contrast than the Pearl. I doubt the screen variations were so different that they would explain the discrepencies. Also, one would expect a retailer to display its products in the most favourable light. It would have been interesting to see the Pearl on a Firehawk SST.

Your point, however, is well taken and should be taken into consideration when comparing any projectors.


There are too many variables at play here to draw any conclusions IMO. Until they are both on the same screen, same material, same amount of hours on the lamps, etc......I personally would not even try to compare these 2 projectors, or any 2 projectors for that matter.

I just returned from a local retailer and was able to view both the Pearl and the Ruby on the same screen (Firehawk) using the same source (Sony Blu-Ray DVD).

The Pearl had 100 hours on it, the Ruby 260.

My previous conclusions remained unchanged. There is no question that color reproduction on the Ruby is superior to the Pearl. There is a noticeably "richer, more natural texture to the Ruby's color. There is also noticeable difference in detail, especially low level detail. Perhaps for me the biggest difference was the "pop" factor. The Ruby had a more 3 dimensional image than the Pearl and appeared less "soft".

One advantage the Pearl did have over the Ruby was its newer advanced iris. After careful comparison the Pearl maintained darker blacks while a light object was injected into the scene. The Ruby, although very respectable in this regard, seemed to lighten the entire image, ie stars and space when a bright image, ie a spaceship entered the picture.

Notwithstanding all of the above, whether the Ruby is worth twice the price is a personal decision. The Pearl, for its price, is a very nice projector that most of us would be happy with for many years. To suggest that the Pearl is a successor to the Ruby is, in my opinion, ludicrous. They are two different animals. Sony did not intend for the Pearl to replace the Ruby. I am sure we will see, in the not too distant future a successor to the Pearl, with either a fourth generation advanced iris or at least the same one currently in the Pearl.

I just returned from a local retailer and was able to view both the Pearl and the Ruby on the same screen (Firehawk) using the same source (Sony Blu-Ray DVD).

Were both of these projectors calibrated and to the same standard?

Why get either the Perl or the Ruby when the RS-1 beets them both! ;) (You just knew some smart ass would eventually chime in with this)

Originally posted by Jerry Gardiner:
"Were both of these projectors calibrated and to the same standard?"

I believe so. I was told that no service menu calibrations were performed on the units. I went through the user settings for both units and played with gamma, color, sharpness, brightness, contrast etc. Obviously different settings looked better for each projector.

Originally posted by tllava:
"Why get either the Perl or the Ruby when the RS-1 beets them both!"

I guess time will tell. I hope the JVC will be the next coming as predicted by so many. I have my suspicions.