Greg's review of the Optoma HD81 is now up at the WSR website.

I have just read it in its entirety. In summary, I would have to say that I have not seen so many disappointing numbers in quite a while.

I don't want to quote too much from the article, since I am a supporter of WSR and would prefer that people subscribe in order to be able to read Greg's comprehensive review in its entirety. However, I will mention some of the key parts, and I am sure that Greg will be willing to answer questions here as he has done with his other projector reviews.

It appears that the contrast numbers are pretty low. Blacks are not very black.



In the low power lamp mode with the Iris Off (maximum aperture),

the HD81 produced 562 lumens, which is equivalent to 25.7 foot-

Lamberts (fL) from my 1.3 gain, 85.3-inch wide, 16:9 Stewart

Filmscreen Studiotek screen. However, the full-field (on-off) contrast

ratio measured only 1260:1. The brightness increased by about 24

percent, to 696 lumens, in the Brite (high power) lamp mode.

The maximum contrast ratio was produced with the iris set at 16

(minimum aperture). In that mode, the projector produced 292 lumens

in the Brite mode, and 236 lumens in the low lamp power mode, but

the contrast ratio only increased to a disappointing 1840:1. This is

much lower than other 1080p DLP projectors that I have reviewed.



Ouch! The best C/R obtained was only 1840:1! And then, the Lumens output (supposedly one of the strong points of this pj) was down to 292 (or was it 236 in low lamp mode to get the best C/R?).

Tell me if I am wrong, but these figures aren't as good as some of the older 720p models.

Brightness and color uniformity were not too good either, with the brightness at one side of the screen more than 40 percent lower than the center of the screen!

Color-uniformity variedby as much as 5 to 6 dE at the top and bottom of the screen.

Not good.

Greg did seem pleased with the colors overall, and liked the skin tones. High praise for the Gennum chip too. Ansi contrast was good at 455:1. The lens is good, and images were sharp.

So how did this all add up in terms of actual viewing?



I found it impossible to ignore the elevated black level and veiled

detail in dark scenes that were a result of the projector’s limited fullfield

contrast ratio. I was disappointed by the hazy image of R2-D2

being loaded into the Jawa Sandcrawler in Stars Wars: Episode IV—

A New Hope, and the poor shadow detail and murkiness within its

interior. On the other hand, the excellent intra-field contrast (characterized

by the modified-ANSI contrast ratio) produced good contrast

in the mixed brightness scenes aboard the Death Star, but the darkest

areas in those images were still veiled.



Higher marks were given for HD video material, which he found to be very sharp and detailed, and the Gennum chip did an excellent job.

He discusses many other issues, including the virtually unusable dynamic Iris, that takes about 2 seconds to close down, and is very noisy.

Question for Greg: what do you believe was the cause of the low contrast ratio and raised black levels? You discuss the Gamma, and the fact that you couldn't really dial in a Gamma setting that was good for all material. Did this negatively impact darker movies?

What was more obvious in actual viewing: the lower contrast/raised black levels, or the lack of Brightness and Color uniformity?

Excellent review as usual Greg, thanks!

Thanks for the head's up, Rob! Greg's numbers seem to confirm some of the numbers I have read from other sources, though the max contrast is lower. It still looks like Optoma has a way to go to compete with Sharp and Sim2, though they still produce one of the lowest priced single chip 1080p DLPs around (maybe the very lowest?).

I think I'll head over to WSR's site and read the whole article!

I think I'll head over to WSR's site and read the whole article!

Definitely read the entire review. As I said in my post, Greg discusses many other aspects of the projector that I don't even mention in my post. You know how comprehensive Greg's reviews are! :eek:

http://www.widescreenreview.com/

those nrs are also measured and confirmed in a French HT reputable mag : around 1250:1 native and 2200:1 with acceptable iris.
in full mode iris fully open : up to 900lumens but poor CR

Ouch. Pretty dissapointing results overall I would say.

The problem with the current crop of Optoma PJs is that to get them to market quickly they simply modified existing data projectors rather than going with an HT design from the ground up.

The external scaler is nice though.

Question for Greg: what do you believe was the cause of the low contrast ratio and raised black levels?I don't want to speculate on design details, but as TzungILin pointed out about a year or so ago, the HD81 was based on a previous platform (projector) rather than designing an all new optical engine that could be optimized for Home Theater use. (I see that Tom Huffman just made the same point in his posting.)

You discuss the Gamma, and the fact that you couldn't really dial in a Gamma setting that was good for all material. Did this negatively impact darker movies?Yes, because in very dark scenes the higher black level obscures dark details (so-called shadow detail). So one reaction is to lower the gamma value (particularly at low video levels) to increase the brightness of dark details so they become more visible. However, that increases haziness in dark images because it also elevates the background that is just barely above black. On the other hand, an elevated black level (from a low full-field contrast ratio) makes moderately dark images (in particular) appear to have less contrast. In that case a higher gamma value will sometimes result in a subjective increase in apparent contrast, because dim areas of the image (often relatively large areas) become darker or nearly crushed into the black level. But when that happens you lose the shadow detail. So this was the fixed-pixel projector dilemma we dealt with for years until full-field contrast ratios got to be about 3500:1. There was no gamma that would be optimum for all dark scenes. You had to trade off shadow detail visibility and the increased perception of "adequate" contrast. Somewhere around 3500:1 it became fairly easy to pick a gamma that was "optimum" for most scenes. We would still perceive some veiling and haze in the darkest scenes, but shadow detail became reasonably good.

What was more obvious in actual viewing: the lower contrast/raised black levels, or the lack of Brightness and Color uniformity?
The lower contrast and elevated black levels are clearly more obvious. It is amazing how much we ignore brightness uniformity if it gradually drops off at the sides, rather than hot spotting (not a problem with the HD-81). Most CRT projectors have lower brightness at the sides, and it is seldom obvious to most viewers. However, hot spotting is very obvious. Color uniformity is a bigger issue, because we can see about 3 dE or more on large bright gray/white images. Snow scenes are by far the worse case images (very light blue/light gray skies are probably second). The opening of Fargo is a true torture test. Black and white films are not the worst case as some may think, because a typical image also has a wide range of brightness. But again the distribution of the non-uniformity plays a critical role. The HD-81 color non-uniformity was not a significant issue on the B&W films I watched (Casablanca, The Philadelphia Story, and the Day the Earth Stood Still).

Greg,

"Most CRT projectors have lower brightness at the sides, and it is seldom obvious to most viewers. However, hot spotting is very obvious."

What's the difference?It sounds like the inverse way of saying the same thing.

I think CR is hurt because of the incomplete design as well.
There is a lot of lens reflection inside , it definitely needs a lens mask, you see a light circle around the screen... not good.

But overall, blacklevel is same as H79 really. And the image is still very nice when playing HD. Shadow detail is not that bad when properly calibrated, but today it is easy to be spoiled by better working iris solutions, not reaching that ansi mixed contrast though.

Iris is really flunky.. "grrrr" it buzzes.. I just leave it to 16/Off. The light output is already more than enough.

Based on Greg's measurements, the HD-81 is not the light cannon that many have been led to believe. Maybe it puts out significantly more lumens uncalibrated, but once the unit is properly dialed in the lumens output is no better (and in fact may be worse) than some of the other single chip DLPs.

The on/off contrast at its brightest is pitifully low and at its dimmest remains pitifully low, though the ANSI contrast is excellent. The DI is virtually unusable (everyone seems to agree on that point). This would probably make for a great sports projector - leave it uncalibrated for max lumens and don't worry about the gray blacks and lack of dark detail (you don't need it in sports).

The Sharp 20k for movie fans is looking better every day....:)

Greg, thanks for yet another great review! What's next on the chopping block - the RS-1 or do you have other units ready to go?

Great review.

Just one note of exception, I think since the review was completed the BenQ's W9000 became the lowest priced 1080P DLP, at least selling prices, the MSRP may be the same.

Any chance of seeing a review of either of the Benq's 1080P DLPs?

Greg,

thank you for another great review. I agree 100% with you (again...) about the HD81. btw I finally went with the Sharp Z20k - couldn't be happier especially with the 24p update coming in March (see my thread about it).

Tom,

thank you for the heads up! About the HD81...

I TOLD YOU SO (2 months ago)! ;)

Where is OptomaMan.....errr I mean GuitarMan. He will somehow claim that this review confirms the HD81 is the best projector EVER!

Somehow he will make it sound like these pitifull CR, lumens measurements, poor brightness uniformity, etc... are phenom. I hope he chimes in for some amusement :D

Yes, because in very dark scenes the higher black level obscures dark details (so-called shadow detail). So one reaction is to lower the gamma value (particularly at low video levels) to increase the brightness of dark details so they become more visible. However, that increases haziness in dark images because it also elevates the background that is just barely above black. On the other hand, an elevated black level (from a low full-field contrast ratio) makes moderately dark images (in particular) appear to have less contrast. In that case a higher gamma value will sometimes result in a subjective increase in apparent contrast, because dim areas of the image (often relatively large areas) become darker or nearly crushed into the black level. But when that happens you lose the shadow detail. So this was the fixed-pixel projector dilemma we dealt with for years until full-field contrast ratios got to be about 3500:1. There was no gamma that would be optimum for all dark scenes. You had to trade off shadow detail visibility and the increased perception of "adequate" contrast. Somewhere around 3500:1 it became fairly easy to pick a gamma that was "optimum" for most scenes. We would still perceive some veiling and haze in the darkest scenes, but shadow detail became reasonably good.


The lower contrast and elevated black levels are clearly more obvious. It is amazing how much we ignore brightness uniformity if it gradually drops off at the sides, rather than hot spotting (not a problem with the HD-81). Most CRT projectors have lower brightness at the sides, and it is seldom obvious to most viewers. However, hot spotting is very obvious. Color uniformity is a bigger issue, because we can see about 3 dE or more on large bright gray/white images. Snow scenes are by far the worse case images (very light blue/light gray skies are probably second). The opening of Fargo is a true torture test. Black and white films are not the worst case as some may think, because a typical image also has a wide range of brightness. But again the distribution of the non-uniformity plays a critical role. The HD-81 color non-uniformity was not a significant issue on the B&W films I watched (Casablanca, The Philadelphia Story, and the Day the Earth Stood Still).

Thanks for that excellent explanation, on both of these points!

Greg,

"Most CRT projectors have lower brightness at the sides, and it is seldom obvious to most viewers. However, hot spotting is very obvious."

What's the difference?It sounds like the inverse way of saying the same thing.
If the brightness smoothly rolls off at the sides of the frame most viewers are not particularly aware of the issue. People have viewed CRT projectors that do this for years without realizing that the brightness at the sides may be 25% to 50% less than at the center. But if there is one or two 25% to 50% higher "ovals" of brightness (i.e. this is why they are called hot "spots") in the center of the screen that is very objectionable. It's the "headlight" effect near the center of the screen versus a much more gradual and uniform loss of brightness on the sides that makes a big perceptual difference.

Thanks for another great review Greg. I love reading these. Your reviews help to educate people what makes a good projector, making us aware what to look for.

Your reviews help to educate people what makes a good projector, making us aware what to look for.Thanks Alan. I really appreciate you saying that. I wish I had time to write more articles that are entirely educational, but I don't. So I try to make the reviews help serve that purpose.

Thanks Alan. I really appreciate you saying that. I wish I had time to write more articles that are entirely educational, but I don't. So I try to make the reviews help serve that purpose.

It would take a whole bunch of those articles to bring us up to speed with where you are at.

Best,

And so much hooey to those who say these reviews are sugar coated.

They're "fair and balanced".

Greg, thanks for your participation from one of the "unwashed"! :)

What's next on the chopping block - the RS-1 or do you have other units ready to go?
I expect the RS-1 to be my next review.

can't wait to read it :)

I expect the RS-1 to be my next review.

Any idea of when you'll get a RS1 to work on? (And thanks again for a very honest, straight-forward, tell-it-like-it-is review.)

Any idea of when you'll get a RS1 to work on?
I will be getting a production RS-1 (not an HD-1), but we don't know yet the exact date they will arrive.

"It's the "headlight" effect near the center of the screen versus a much more gradual and uniform loss of brightness on the sides that makes a big perceptual difference."

Got it, thanks.

Alan is right on the mark; I also greatly appreciate the highly educational aspect of your reviews.

Thanks

If the brightness smoothly rolls off at the sides of the frame most viewers are not particularly aware of the issue. People have viewed CRT projectors that do this for years without realizing that the brightness at the sides may be 25% to 50% less than at the center. But if there is one or two 25% to 50% higher "ovals" of brightness (i.e. this is why they are called hot "spots") in the center of the screen that is very objectionable. It's the "headlight" effect near the center of the screen versus a much more gradual and uniform loss of brightness on the sides that makes a big perceptual difference.

Hi Greg,

I've have considered the terms "lack of brightness uniformity" and "hot-spotting" as synonyms . I see that you are drawing a distinction between the terms.

I can't recall seeing an effect in either digital PJs or in screen performance that would qualify as "hot-spotting". However, there is a lot of "lack of brightness uniformity", especially in gain screens.

I have seen that the test patterns to measure hot-spotting test for exactly the type of performance that you describe, a head light affect on the screen. It is just that I havn't seen that type of effect in the digital PJs I have calibrated or screens that I have have measured. The screens I have measured that are considered to "hot-spot" experience a gradual fall off of light as one measures farther out on their periphery. Because of this and the fact that typical video images are not uniform themselves, it is rarely noticed, IMO.

I am trying to get a better understanding of this. Could you tell me what type of screens and displays from what era are/were prone to true hot-spotting? And do you consider any modern screens, such as the Firehawk, to "hot-spot", or would you agree with me that the affect is more a "lack of brightness uniformity". (The screen measurements I have taken have been with a PJ mounted at 2X actual screen widths away from the screen so as to reduce the effects of hot-spotting.)

Glenn

Hi Greg,

I've have considered the terms "lack of brightness uniformity" and "hot-spotting" as synonyms . I see that you are drawing a distinction between the terms.

I can't recall seeing an effect in either digital PJs or in screen performance that would qualify as "hot-spotting". However, there is a lot of "lack of brightness uniformity", especially in gain screens.

I have seen that the test patterns to measure hot-spotting test for exactly the type of performance that you describe, a head light affect on the screen. It is just that I havn't seen that type of effect in the digital PJs I have calibrated or screens that I have have measured. The screens I have measured that are considered to "hot-spot" experience a gradual fall off of light as one measures farther out on their periphery. Because of this and the fact that typical video images are not uniform themselves, it is rarely noticed, IMO.

I am trying to get a better understanding of this. Could you tell me what type of screens and displays from what era are/were prone to true hot-spotting? And do you consider any modern screens, such as the Firehawk, to "hot-spot", or would you agree with me that the affect is more a "lack of brightness uniformity". (The screen measurements I have taken have been with a PJ mounted at 2X actual screen widths away from the screen so as to reduce the effects of hot-spotting.)

Glenn
First of all, before anyone gets a wrong impression, hot-spotting was never mentioned in the HD-81 review. Hot-spotting, which I described in this thread as a "headlight" effect, is not an issue with the HD-81 at reasonable throw distances and low screen gains. I mentioned hot-spotting in response to a question in this thread simply to draw a visual distinction between a more gradual reduction in luminance near the sides of an image, and the much more pronounced and noticeable effect of "ovals" of increased brightness near the center of an image.

I consider hot-spotting to be one particular type of brightness (luminance) non-uniformity. So in that sense I don't think about those terms as being exactly synonymous. Luminance non-uniformity can exist for multiple reasons, and not only for purely optical reasons in fixed-pixel projectors. CRT projectors are the most difficult displays in terms of luminance hot-spotting (and color "hot-spotting") because they use three lenses that project light onto the screen at different incidence angles. Furthermore, the light fall off at the sides is normally much more dramatic for CRT projectors, which increases the problem. In addition, CRT projectors are normally mounted closer to the screen, which increases the incidence angles, and they produce less light, which encourages higher gain screens to be used. I agree that hot-spotting is seldom a problem with fixed-pixel projectors, but it can become a problem if they are mounted very close to the screen and a high-gain (non-retro-reflective) screen is used.

Great job as always Greg! You are the main reason I subscribe to WSR... I appreciate your 100% unbiased reviews (unlike others)... :) Anyway, I think I will be more than happy to keep my Ruby for awhile (2 to 3 years) until something comes out with a night and day difference...

Great job Greg.

"Great job as always Greg! You are the main reason I subscribe to WSR"

Oh yes, that too; same here.

I don't want to keep this thread off-track, but here is Iceman's thread. (http://archive.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?threadid=104630) It will help show hot spotting.

It is amazing the difference a demo can be versus a review.

Here is one of my pictures from CES of the HD81:

http://gallery.avsforum.com/data/508/Optoma800.jpg

It looked fabulous in the demo there but the images used were from one handpicked movie that had no large areas of one continuous color. So if there was a uniformity problem it was hidden well.

The other thing was the brightness. It seemed plenty bright for the 110" to 120" screen it was on but I did realize afterwards that I was shooting at ISO800 and the exposure was still 1/30th of a second at F4.0. With that info I would say the image was about 300 lumen (with probably a two-fold error margin meaning it could have been 150 to 600.) But it wasn't 1000 lumens that is for sure (The actress' teeth are full white - the image you see has been adjusted to full brightness but the original image was slight underexposed to get an accurate reading.)

Optoma's viewing room for HD81 was pitch black and in general their booth was extremely dark as well. So it was very easy for a viewer to get dark-adapted be "fooled" into the brightness of the actual image. (Having run a planetarium in the past getting viewers dark-adapted before a presentation is a real trick.)

Anyway, I don't doubt Greg's observations now that I think about it, but my initial impression of his review was "no way".

-Mr. Wigggles

I was shooting at ISO800 and the exposure was still 1/30th of a second at F4.0. With that info I would say the image was about 300 lumen (with probably a two-fold error margin meaning it could have been 150 to 600.)

Brilliant!
How the heck did you calculate that?
Leave to Mr. Wigggles to come up with another innovative solution to calculate lumens on screen. Wow!

It helps to have good eyesight... :D

Optoma's viewing room for HD81 was pitch black and in general their booth was extremely dark as well. So it was very easy for a viewer to get dark-adapted be "fooled" into the brightness of the actual image. (Having run a planetarium in the past getting viewers dark-adapted before a presentation is a real trick.)

But if they had only about 2000:1 On-Off in that black room the sources must be carefully hand picked or the milky blacks pop up in every other shot. Such contrast is deadly in a bat cave.

Where is OptomaMan.....errr I mean GuitarMan. He will somehow claim that this review confirms the HD81 is the best projector EVER!

Somehow he will make it sound like these pitifull CR, lumens measurements, poor brightness uniformity, etc... are phenom. I hope he chimes in for some amusement :D

Guitarman is clueless imo on reviewing PJ's including all the Optoma's he did. He has been so far from the truth many times I think he gets paid to promote them. Take anything he says with a huge grain of salt.

Not taking away anything from Optoma, I had an H79 & thought it was a great PJ but I also had a Sharp & a BenQ & they were far superior.

Chris,

Which Benq are you refering to ? I have a H78 and was thinking of switching to Benq.

Regards
Tom

Guitarman is clueless imo on reviewing PJ's including all the Optoma's he did. He has been so far from the truth many times I think he gets paid to promote them. Take anything he says with a huge grain of salt.

Not taking away anything from Optoma, I had an H79 & thought it was a great PJ but I also had a Sharp & a BenQ & they were far superior.

First off I'd think of how I look before I opened my mouth. You're no hero.

I did my H79 review before WSR did the H79 review and my numbers matched up about the same for lumens and CR. Why things are different with the WSR HD81 review I don't know. Plus I wasn't that happy with the 2880.1 I got with the HD81 but I posted it.

Hey Tom, what happened you changed your post..You just told me off & then went back in to change it..not very professional.

What did I say that wasn't proper? I just stated my opinion, if I think you are off with your review findings cause I happen to have the same equipment then so be it, it's my opinion & I'm entitled to express it like you do yours. I don't think I'm alone here.

Chris,

Which Benq are you refering to ? I have a H78 and was thinking of switching to Benq.

Regards
Tom


I've had the BenQ 8700+ the 8720, I've also had the Sharp 9K, 10K, and the 12K.

I've also auditioned the Sharp 20K side by side with the Meridian MF-1 and it was no contest, the Meridian is that much better & I've been knocking Lcos/SXRD PJ's since day one, they suck imo, this Meridian on the other hand? It's miles ahead of anything else in any technology which is why I opted for the RS-1 as well, very close to the Meridian if not better.

DLP's days are numbered if JVC continues with units like these. And this is coming from a DIE-HARD DLP guy where I cared for nothing else, go figure lol.

I fail to see what Florida University (FU) has to do with the poor HD-81 review Tom? :confused: :D Inteligent comeback though :rolleyes:

Guitarman is clueless imo on reviewing PJ's including all the Optoma's he did. He has been so far from the truth many times I think he gets paid to promote them. Take anything he says with a huge grain of salt.
I would thank you to take this and other petty insults that are intended to provoke people someplace else. Dare I say that what you personally think of another forum member has no bearing on this topic, which is about Greg's review of the HD81.

Thanks.

--Jerome

Thanks Jerry, couldn't have said it better.

Tom/guitarman,

As an Optoma HD81 owner, I just wanted to thank you for your information and help that you provide on the forum. Some people try to help, others just use up bandwidth.

I just can't wait for the next "best ever" Optoma pj "review" from Tom... :D

I just can't wait for the next "best ever" Optoma pj "review" from Tom... :D

Gentleman meet Joerod, another one on my list of bright rays of sunshine :) Toe will be along next. They always come out on weekends, gotta go 70degrees and got a Road Bike trip ahead of me. Have to keep the blood going.
Internet over and out.

AVS meet TOM/GUITARMAN, an OFFICIAL OPTOMA TESTER . Who claims every Optoma pj is the BEST he has SEEN... One after the other... :D

And also the H77, 78, 79, 7100 and HD81... And not to mention the DVD10 movietime... :)

Please people keep this on topic, we have all seen this before i can't even guess how bored most of us are over Tom vs somebody.

The H77 and H79 where interesting projectors for sure they forced prices down with their great value for money. This review of someone most of us trust just shows us optoma needs to work harder to do that trick again and we already know they are working on a model that is build from the ground up. So i guess this round is for someone else in the dlp camp to defend its honor.

Daniel.

I agree. I respect gregr's ability to review with 100% unbiased views. On the other hand I do not respect biased "reviews" that read more like advertisements...

@ gregr or jeff regan or any one who actually HAS (seen) a HD81.

Do you have lens reflection that ends up as a white circle around the screen (halo?)

I have it on the right side more than on the left side, just wanting to make sure if it my PJ.

@ gregr or jeff regan or any one who actually HAS (seen) a HD81.

Do you have lens reflection that ends up as a white circle around the screen (halo?)

I have it on the right side more than on the left side, just wanting to make sure if it my PJ.

vjren,

This is common to all the HD81's, left and right side. There is a halo and a lighter
ring on the outer edge at times. It does seem to be scene dependent as to how obvious it is.

@ gregr or jeff regan or any one who actually HAS (seen) a HD81.

Do you have lens reflection that ends up as a white circle around the screen (halo?)
Yes, it's mentioned in my review.

@ gregr or jeff regan or any one who actually HAS (seen) a HD81.

Do you have lens reflection that ends up as a white circle around the screen (halo?)

I have it on the right side more than on the left side, just wanting to make sure if it my PJ.

I've seen several comments that the halo is more prevalent at longest throw than short (though the throw range is so short that there's not a lot of difference between long and short throw!)

(though the throw range is so short that there's not a lot of difference between long and short throw!)

I wouldnt exactly call 100" @ 13' "short throw" Marantz 11-s1 will do the same screen at just over 10' THATS short throw

Yes, it's mentioned in my review.

The way this thread has disintegrated, I am surprised you are still reading Greg.

It would be nice if this thread could stay on track instead of people feeling the need to throw insults back and forth. :rolleyes:

Rob's right. I'm out of here... :)

I wouldnt exactly call 100" @ 13' "short throw" Marantz 11-s1 will do the same screen at just over 10' THATS short throw

I said that the throw RANGE was short; I should probably have said 'narrow'. Yes, it has a long throw, but covers a very narrow range; e.g., the throw for a 100" diag screen is 13.5 to 16 ft.

The way this thread has disintegrated, I am surprised you are still reading Greg.
It's a slow Sunday. It's either check this thread or read another post about the RS-1 from someone that doesn't have one. :)

It's a slow Sunday. It's either check this thread or read another post about the RS-1 from someone that doesn't have one. :)

:D :p

If you were a NASCAR fan, you would have seen an incredible finish to the Daytona 500! My 2nd favorite driver won, by a very comfortable 2/100th of a second! :cool: