You can rule out the Marantz Bob as he stated "(Who says I use a VP-11S1 today?)".

Yes, remember to Greg the RS1's lack of color accuracy is a non-issue as he has his proprietary CMS contraption and the Lumagen and he has intimated lately that he liked to watch black blacks when watching movies.

Im thinking RS1, still.

Im thinking RS1, still.

Perhaps if he got a "good" one and he corrected the colors to be "accurate".

I can understand why he doesn't just tell us because then everyone will go out and think ""Greg's Favorite" is the best one for them. Then he will have to hear about why everone is unhappy. Why do we all feel the need to be led? Is it really so hard to make a choice based on the objective information that we have all been handed. I did and am quite happy with the one I made. There are things that I wish the RS1 was better at, but I can live with them for now because they are not weaknesses that distract me from the picture. The on/off contrast and image pop DOES distract me, but in a pleasing way.

That said, I vote for the Sony. It's weaknesses are all kind of tolerable. It is bright, "accurate", quiet, good on/off, good ansi. The Sharp and/JVC do some things better, but the vw-60 has no weaknesses that can take you out of the movie (perhaps the DI if you are looking for it (I know I would be)). I doubt this guess somehow because I expect that on a 100" screen, the JVC or vw-60 would be too bright and I expect would cause eye fatigue. That is a nice size screen for the 20k in high contrast/economy lamp mode.

I dont think its a matter of being led as it is probably a matter of affirmation/bragging rights. Not with the people who are speculating anyways.

Its kind of like a presidential candidate getting an endorsement from Madonna. Except in this case, Greg is considered one of the leading "intellectuals" on front projectors. 8)

[QUOTE=Catdaddy67;12248819]I dont think its a matter of being led as it is probably a matter of affirmation/bragging rights. Not with the people who are speculating anyways. [QUOTE]

Yeah. I know. I am taking a "holier than thou" position on all of this until such time as Greg says that the RS1 destroys all of the rest.:D

Wait. Did I just post that?

Yeah. I know. I am taking a "holier than thou" position on all of this until such time as Greg says that the RS1 destroys all of the rest.

Wait. Did I just post that?

We dont expect your position on this to be any different than your position on everything else? 8)

And you know I say that with a lot of BROTHERLY love and warm fuzzies. 8)

That said, I vote for the Sony. It's weaknesses are all kind of tolerable. It is bright, "accurate", quiet, good on/off, good ansi. The Sharp and/JVC do some things better, but the vw-60 has no weaknesses that can take you out of the movie (perhaps the DI if you are looking for it (I know I would be)). I doubt this guess somehow because I expect that on a 100" screen, the JVC or vw-60 would be too bright and I expect would cause eye fatigue. That is a nice size screen for the 20k in high contrast/economy lamp mode.
Take a minute and think about your own analysis:

1. Of the 4 projectors listed, the Sony may not be the best at ANYTHING, but it has fewer glaring weaknesses than any of the others...;) (and BTW, I challenge you to see the iris in action, especially if you don't know that the projector you are watching is using a dynamic iris - for a lot of people it is all in their heads).
2. More brightness is not always better! For some reason there is a mindset in this forum that more lumens are always better, and that is not always the case. The brightness you want should be calculated based on your preferred ftLs coming off of the screen tempered with the expected loss of lumens over the life of the lamp (insert cheap plug to read my tutorial linked in my signature :) ).
3. Weaknesses take you out of the movie, while strengths should serve to keep you in it. Yes, I know that any particular strength can cause you to constantly "wow" over the picture quality (for some it is ultra high contrast, for others it is popping, accurate colors, etc.), but it is the weaknesses that can ruin the experience. For some it is rainbows, for others it is a noisy projector, for others it is inaccurate colors :D ...we all have our own little things that distract us more than other things, so we must choose which set of weaknesses distract us as individuals the least.

...Of the 4 projectors listed, the Sony may not be the best at ANYTHING, ...That is what stood out to me. Of the 10 catagories, the Sony came in 2nd 6 times and 1st 3 times. The 20K leads in 1st with 5 but came in last 3 times. The JVC leads in lasts with 5!

I would like to add the following categories:

Sharpness /Detail
SD Deinterlacing
1080i MA Twitter
1080i MA Jaggies
1080i MA Panning
Color Decoding
Brightness Compression
Dithering
Anamorphic Support
Price

I would like to add the following categories:

Sharpness /Detail
SD Deinterlacing
1080i MA Twitter
1080i MA Jaggies
1080i MA Panning
Color Decoding
Brightness Compression
Dithering
Anamorphic Support
Price
I'd lump all of the 1080i MAD (motion adaptive deinterlacing) categories together as one category, since they are interdependent and otherwise you have 4 categories devoted to just how well the projector deinterlaces 1080i "live" video broadcasts. You can see by the analysis you have already done that each category will often get more or less equal weight even though you know that you care more about some categories than others. A don't care at all about anamorphic support for instance, but if rainbow artifacts bothered me it could be a knockout category.

I feel like there should be two sets of categories:

One category for features/attributes where the projector cant get help from an outside source like a video processor. Items that I feel could belong to this inherent features group: native on/off contrast, DI on/off, ANSI contrast, sharpness/detail, lens quality/CA, dithering/rainbows, misconvergence/fringing, install flexibility (h/v lens shift), convenience factors (power zoom, power focus), etc. The gist of this group being that these features cant be improved on by adding other available peripherals.

The other set of items could be considered luxury features: brightness (could be offset by screen selection - as some have argued), CMS, video processor - deinterlacer/scaler, and other features/attributes that can be replaced/enhanced by outside sources.

When comparing projectors, despite the lack of a gennum processor the Sharp 20k can easily be up to speed with the Marantz or JVC projectors by using a video processor. Same can be said for vertical stretch or CMS. Obviously these would put an upward pressure for some on the price of the processor required so these would be important features to have, but not nearly as important as a feature that can NOT be enhanced such as native CR, DI CR, and ANSI CR.

I know some would likely disagree as this seems to put more of an emphasis on native CRs and lens quality rather than color or vertical stretch but I think the simple answer is that the inherent features set baselines that you really cant improve on.

I feel like there should be two sets of categories:

One category for features/attributes where the projector cant get help from an outside source like a video processor. ....

... and other features/attributes that can be replaced/enhanced by outside sources.
I evaluate projectors for my own use very much like that. Although some features that can be "replaced/enhanced by outside sources" are often better done for quality or convenience reasons in the projector. So that becomes a bit of a gray area to assess.

Although some features that can be "replaced/enhanced by outside sources" are often better done for quality or convenience reasons in the projector.

Then maybe those features could be given more weight/importance in grading than other features in that subset but if it is mitigatable by an outside device it doesnt seem like it should be as important as the features which cant be at all.

I know some would likely disagree as this seems to put more of an emphasis on native CRs and lens quality rather than color or vertical stretch but I think the simple answer is that the inherent features set baselines that you really cant improve on.
Or we could just divide the qualities into these 2 groups:

1. Things that Bob finds most important
2. Things that Bob finds less important.

:)

I'm just kidding, of course, but I hope that the point is clear - we all have different priorities, so everyone will put a different weight on any given quality, and even the "solutions" available externally may not be as ideal as having it done differently in the first place.

For example, the obvious one is color accuracy. :D Until a couple of weeks ago it was not even possible to be done externally, right now it has yet to be perfected, and even if you accept the current "solution" it costs $4k MSRP when it should be free with the projector. Should that be considered a "luxury" trait?

Another example is brightness. If a PJ is TOO bright for a screen, some would argue that it can be cut down by use of an ND filter. While that is true, there are other performance hits that you take in exchange for the reduced brightness - loss of sharpness and more light scatter right off the bat. Should that be equated with a projector that outputs the reduced lumens by way of a voltage reduction in the power supply or by use of a reduced iris?

Or how about mounting flexibility? My room is built such that I can use literally ANY throw, long, medium, or short, BUT I am limited by height, so I absolutely NEED vertical shift. Another person might be limited by throw but has the height to accommodate either a vertical shift or preset offset. Does mounting flexibility belong in the essential or luxury category?

As a result, I don't think that there should be any division of performance characteristics, as everyone will have different needs and wants and will consider one characteristic far more important than another. Each person is, of course, free to assign whatever weight he feels is right for his own set of needs/wants.

Sure Bob, but a division of features based on what you or I like is certainly SUBJECTIVE.

Objectively on the other hand I think we can all agree that just because the Sharp 20k doesnt have a gennum or realta chip or that it and the RS1 dont have vertical stretch that those arent major handicaps that cant be overcome on those projectors. Even in your various assessments just on this thread, you have stated a few times that despite the 20Ks not as good performance in the video processing department (and whatever that entails) because of your C2 its really not much of an issue to you.

You seemed to agree with Tom when you guys were discussing the set of features that were geared towards picture quality (where best was always best I think) and those that were ergonomic. It seems a lot more clear to me that something can either improve a projectors performance in a certain category or not.

Of course, we can just continue to say that the RS1s colors arent accurate but they can be made accurate with the Radiance and that the Sharp 20Ks processor is lacking but can be enhanced by an external VP or we can keep choosing to group them how we choose to group them.

I know some would likely disagree as this seems to put more of an emphasis on native CRs and lens quality rather

Yes, I put you at number 1 or 2 of that group. 8)

I evaluate projectors for my own use very much like that. Although some features that can be "replaced/enhanced by outside sources" are often better done for quality or convenience reasons in the projector. So that becomes a bit of a gray area to assess.

If thats the way that Greg does it, its probably the best way to do it. 8) The assessing the gray area part, thats where its best left to people that arent so emotionally entrenched like many would argue you or I are. As usual Greg would be at the top of the list of the most objective judges for that gray area assessment.

Full field contrast (max brightness/min black level) - JVC, Sony, Sharp (subjectively better than numerical comparison because brightness is low)

One thing that I had overlooked yesterday when reading this post was Greg's comment that the Sharp's full field contrast, while last, is "subjectively better than numerical comparison because brightness is low."

I assume that what Greg means is that while the contrast ratio is not as large on the 20k as it is on the others, its black level is low, meaning that its black level is comparable to the others even if its brightness was not.

If this is what Greg means, to me it demonstrates something that I have thought for some time: it is a projector's ability to display convincing blacks that is the most important part of what is demonstrated by a contrast ratio. I think we can all forgive a projector that is not bright. We can't forgive one that displays gray-blacks. This is why I really look in reviews for a projector's black level (on a given screen size) and if two projectors have the same contrast level, I will take the dimmer one every time. I'll pass on the 3 chip dlps for that reason. This is obviously very screen-size dependant, but for me this holds true.

Perhaps intrascene image depth is more complicated than just looking a a m-ANSI for a given projector, but I wonder if some version of this hypothesis holds true for intrascene contrast. Is it possible that the difference in brightness between two given points in a scene may be sufficient to create a sense of image depth, but only when the darker of those two points is "dark enough"? Conversely, perhaps image depth can be lost, even if the contrast ratio remains the same, if the darker of those two points is increased such that what should be black is now gray?

Could this not explain why CRTs are known for great image depth while lacking in ANSI contrast? I have not spent any amount of time with CRT projectors but assume that their reputation is well deserved.

I feel like there should be two sets of categories:
I couldn't disagree more. I understand where you're coming from, but many of the things that can be fixed externally, can't be handled as well as they could be internally. And then there is the cost of external assistance. $4k for an external box that only partly addresses a problem is certainly not feasible IMO. If these external processors came with the PJ's I'd agree, but I certainly don't feel one PJ should be considered equal to another just because (costly) external processing can make it equal.

Objectively on the other hand I think we can all agree that just because the Sharp 20k doesnt have a gennum or realta chip or that it and the RS1 dont have vertical stretch that those arent major handicaps that cant be overcome on those projectors. Even in your various assessments just on this thread, you have stated a few times that despite the 20Ks not as good performance in the video processing department (and whatever that entails) because of your C2 its really not much of an issue to you.
Again, to me it is a major handicap if costly external processing is required. Why should I have to shell out thousands of extra dollars to address something that could be handled internally? We are grading/evaluating the PJs, not the complete chain of unique components which few people will share.

If thats the way that Greg does it, its probably the best way to do it. 8) The assessing the gray area part, thats where its best left to people that arent so emotionally entrenched like many would argue you or I are. As usual Greg would be at the top of the list of the most objective judges for that gray area assessment.

Again, I completely disagree. No disrespect intended, but what Greg decides is important criteria for his own selection, has little impact on what every other individual finds important for their selection. If Greg uses external processing, a hush box, a 2.8 gain 100" screen, and requires a 2.5x throw with zero offset, don't you think his criteria (and subsequent PJ choice) is going to be a lot different that most other users? Everyone has their own needs, preferences, budget, and unique supporting equipment. Someone like Greg is great help for listing the technical differences between PJs, but just because Greg is a respected reviewer doesn't mean he should blindly be the one to tell me what's important for my application.

IMO, PJs should graded against each other, not against each other plus a possible combination of costly external components which could make them competitive with one another. This way the PJs are placed on a level playing field and the potential buyer can prioritize what's important to them. If I have a VP that can improve signal processing, handle vertical stretch, and fix poor colors, great, I can discount those categories in making my selection... But, we shouldn't assume everyone owns (or is willing to buy) a similar VP.



BTW, if we are going to continue this discussion, it might be a good idea to start a new thread and move this latest discussion to that location.

Someone like Greg is great help for listing the technical differences between PJs, but just because Greg is a respected reviewer doesn't mean he should blindly be the one to tell me what's important for my application.


I fear that you are missing the point. Greg is telling us that we should make our own decisions based on our own needs. Your misinterpretation is exactly what he is seeking to avoid: people assuming that what is best for him is best for them.

For Greg (and some others), that fact that a defect can be fixed by an external procerssor or something else is a factor he considers for himself, not when making recomendations to others. You don't see him hooking projectors up to video processors in his reviews do you?

Actually, I'm now using (and will use for reviews following the VP-15S1) a 100" diagonal, 16:9, new Stewart StudioTek 130 G3 (non-perf) screen. (It was 98" [16:9] diagonal, older ST130. That was just too darn small. :))


I don't know how we all missed this bombshell from Greg. His comments above have validated that a 2 inch diagonal increase in screen size constitutes a major upgrade. Shortly Stewart will be releasing details on their newly concieved screen upgrade program.

I'd lump all of the 1080i MAD (motion adaptive deinterlacing) categories together as one category, since they are interdependent and otherwise you have 4 categories devoted to just how well the projector deinterlaces 1080i "live" video broadcasts.That was my initial thought, however, IIRC some posters have stated that resolution pumping is very objectionable while others don't care but have issues with panning artifacts.

I like the idea of a more granular list where each individual can select the features which are most relevant for his/her specific needs. I almost never watch 1080i vidoe on a pj, so none of the 1080i MAD features are important to me. :)

BTW, if we are going to continue this discussion, it might be a good idea to start a new thread and move this latest discussion to that location.I agree. Maybe a moderator can either change the title or move the relevant posts to a new thread?

[QUOTE=gregr;12257080]Actually, I'm now using (and will use for reviews following the VP-15S1) a 100" diagonal, 16:9, new Stewart StudioTek 130 G3 (non-perf) screen. (It was 98" [16:9] diagonal, older ST130. That was just too darn small. :))


I don't know how we all missed this bombshell from Greg. His comments above have validated that a 2 inch diagonal increase in screen size constitutes a major upgrade. Shortly Stewart will be releasing details on their newly concieved screen upgrade program.

I agree. Maybe a moderator can either change the title or move the relevant posts to a new thread?
Sounds good to me. Start a new thread and I'll move all of the relevant posts there.

I fear that you are missing the point. Greg is telling us that we should make our own decisions based on our own needs. Your misinterpretation is exactly what he is seeking to avoid: people assuming that what is best for him is best for them.

For Greg (and some others), that fact that a defect can be fixed by an external procerssor or something else is a factor he considers for himself, not when making recomendations to others. You don't see him hooking projectors up to video processors in his reviews do you?

No, I didn't miss the point at all. I believe other poster is making an argument for using Greg's selection process for our group exercise.

Sounds good to me. Start a new thread and I'll move all of the relevant posts there.

What, you don't want to own this slithering snake? :D

No, I didn't miss the point at all. I believe other poster is making an argument for using Greg's selection process for our group exercise.

I think that for our purposes it is a good idea to point out those areas that can be improved (at additional expense (scaling, color) and those that cannot(e.g., contrast). Someone may like the RS1, for instance, but hate its colors and still buy one kowing that the colors can be changed if they don't like them. That was my actual view on it when I bought my RS1, for instance.

Here is a chart I made. If anyone can figure out how to add it as a post, please do.

I think that for our purposes it is a good idea to point out those areas that can be improved (at additional expense (scaling, color) and those that cannot(e.g., contrast). Someone may like the RS1, for instance, but hate its colors and still buy one kowing that the colors can be changed if they don't like them. That was my actual view on it when I bought my RS1, for instance.

I hear where you're coming from, and I'm not opposed to identifying that possible external solutions exist. OTOH, I am partly opposed to creating two groups of criteria (one that can be fixed externally and one that can't).

Using your example, yes, the color on the RS1 can be partly addressed (as of today), but not completely, and not without some issues... not to mention the external solution basically costs as much as the PJ itself! I don't think it's fair to say (in this case), the color on the JVC is as good as the Sharp, even if you do add the $4k external processor.

It just makes more sense to me to let the PJs play on a level playing field (stand alone PJs), and mention at the beginning of the thread that some aspects of performance could possibly be fixed or improved with the use of additional external equipment.

I hear where you're coming from, and I'm not opposed to identifying that possible external solutions exist. OTOH, I am partly opposed to creating two groups of criteria (one that can be fixed externally and one that can't).

Using your example, yes, the color on the RS1 can be partly addressed (as of today), but not completely, and not without some issues... not to mention the external solution basically costs as much as the PJ itself! I don't think it's fair to say (in this case), the color on the JVC is as good as the Sharp, even if you do add the $4k external processor.

It just makes more sense to me to let the PJs play on a level playing field (stand alone PJs), and mention at the beginning of the thread that some aspects of performance could possibly be fixed or improved with the use of additional external equipment.


What level playing field? The PJ's don't cost the same to begin with so where is the level in allowing one to be thousands more than the other at purchase but you couldn't add anything external because it costs money?? :confused:

That's half the reason the VW60 is so attractive, because it's a really great bang for the buck pj. So an RS1 with a Lumagen is a couple grand more than a Sharp, wasn't the Sharp a couple grand more than the RS1? Sounds like a perfectly level playing field unless I'm missing something and the Sharp is the same price as the RS1.

What level playing field?
PJ vs. PJ.

The PJ's don't cost the same to begin
Correct, but that info is easily obtainable and could easily be quantified and graded as a category just like CR or noise if we chose to do so... but the buyer can decide for themselves how much weight this category should carry.

... so where is the level in allowing one to be thousands more than the other at purchase but you couldn't add anything external because it costs money?? :confused:
When R&T reviews cars, they don't review stock vs. modified do they? You can add a turbo kit to a Mustang and make it quicker than any Ferrari... But the turbo kit doesn't come with the car from the manufacture and not everyone is willing (or even wants) to spend $5k on a turbo kit.

The idea is to compare PJ vs PJ, not one PJ against another PJ IF a certain screen, VP, cables, etc. are used. If the buyer wants to add these items, there's nothing wrong with noting that external components can help deficiencies. You're right though, overall, a more expensive PJ should out perform a less expensive PJ. As you know it doesn't always work this way. Regardless, it's up to the buyer to decide if the premium price is worth it for them.

That's half the reason the VW60 is so attractive, because it's a really great bang for the buck pj. So an RS1 with a Lumagen is a couple grand more than a Sharp, wasn't the Sharp a couple grand more than the RS1? Sounds like a perfectly level playing field unless I'm missing something and the Sharp is the same price as the RS1.
Again, the idea is to list and rank the PJs against each other. The buyer can decided how much weight each category carries, overall value, and whether or not they would want to add external equipment to address deficiencies. If we are comparing PJ to PJ this is the only logical choice. If we want to compare complete video chains to other complete video chains, that's a separate and much more complicated thread... IMO.

If these external processors came with the PJ's I'd agree, but I certainly don't feel one PJ should be considered equal to another just because (costly) external processing can make it equal.

I didnt vouch for them being equal, I just feel, certainly to me, that features that can not be enhanced, or made better, carry more weight than features that can be.

I think that for our purposes it is a good idea to point out those areas that can be improved (at additional expense (scaling, color) and those that cannot(e.g., contrast). Someone may like the RS1, for instance, but hate its colors and still buy one kowing that the colors can be changed if they don't like them. That was my actual view on it when I bought my RS1, for instance.

This sounds like it could be an acceptable compromise, but I think that my point is still missed.

Brightness can be addressed with a screen or with a filter. Scaling, vertical stretch, colors can be addressed with a processor. I dont think those should have equal weight in an assessment as on/off contrast, ANSI contrast, lens quality/CA, color wheel/dithering, convergence/MC, and other features.

I hear where you're coming from, and I'm not opposed to identifying that possible external solutions exist. OTOH, I am partly opposed to creating two groups of criteria (one that can be fixed externally and one that can't).

I dont really see the difference in either grouping the features into two separate categories or with identifying the categories which can and cant be improved on externally.

Using your example, yes, the color on the RS1 can be partly addressed (as of today), but not completely, and not without some issues... not to mention the external solution basically costs as much as the PJ itself! I don't think it's fair to say (in this case), the color on the JVC is as good as the Sharp, even if you do add the $4k external processor.

Noone is saying that one is as good as the other. The only point with separating them, or even identifying them, is that people know that with certain attributes/features they can NOT be improved on. What you see, is what you get.

It just makes more sense to me to let the PJs play on a level playing field (stand alone PJs), and mention at the beginning of the thread that some aspects of performance could possibly be fixed or improved with the use of additional external equipment.

They really shouldnt be equal in grade if one feature can be easily enhanced/improved on/worked around and another absolutely cant. I havent had time to see Lawguy's piece yet, but if it includes something identifying each of the features which can be impvoed on externally it sounds fair enough.

What are the prices on the actual projectors? I found about $5000 for the JVC and $7000 for the Sharp. So assuming the differential holds at actual sale price the RS1 is about $2000 less. Correct me if I'm wrong on that.

From some brief skimming of the Lumagen thread it appears they might be adding the color correction function to the much lower priced box they sell, retail about $1200. If that turns out to be the case the price of the RS1 plus CMS is less than the Sharp alone? Do you honestly think a person is going to say, oh I can only buy the PJ, that's an extra part that doesn't come with it I can't have that! Don't be daft, they're going to say, hrmm it's still cheaper and fixes that "HUGE" problem Bob had with it? I'll take it and still be $800 ahead!

What are the prices on the actual projectors? I found about $5000 for the JVC and $7000 for the Sharp.
MSRP for the JVC is $5500 and the Sharp is $7000.
Don't be daft, they're going to say, hrmm it's still cheaper and fixes that "HUGE" problem Bob had with it? I'll take it and still be $800 ahead!
Without making any subjective judgements, even if the colors are 100% corrected in the RS-1, the picture quality based on other performance aspects is still substantially different from the Sharp. Basically a color corrected RS-1 does not equal a Sharp Z20k, though it does get it a step closer.

...Basically a color corrected RS-1 does not equal a Sharp Z20k...

I think a large number would say it makes it better, not just equal. Good observation.

I think a large number would say it makes it better, not just equal. Good observation.
When I said "equal" I meant it in an objective way meaning that they would not be the same, and color accuracy is but one parameter of performance. I purposely stayed away from making any qualitative judgements, as each person can decide for himself which projector is "better" for his particular set of needs and wants.

But I am sure that all of the current RS-1 owners feel that it is "better" or they would have bought something else, don't you think?

Having reviewed all of this, if I were in the market for an RS1 I would be concerned about several things including color, convergence, white field uniformity m-ansi (to the extent that equates with image depth).

Funny thing is though, now owning one, I am not concerned about any of them and consider each of these to be excellent qualities of the RS1.

Color: not "accurate" as that term is used, but awfully pleasing.

Convergence: Before the RS1 people jumped up and down with happiness if their Pearl's convergence was only off by a pixel. My convergence is perfect, or almost perfect, everywhere on the screen. I think that it is functionally indistinguishable from single chip dlp at any reasonable seating distance. Some can vary from this, but convergence will never really be off more than a pixel. People

White field uniformity: Mine is completely uniform and I would put it up against any projector on this quality. Those that I am aware of that have less than perfect uniformity have been repaired or replaced, if I am not mistaken.

M-ANSI. Measurements don't lie, I guess, but I wonder if M-ANSI really is an accurate measurement of intra-scene image depth.

The other thing that I realized is that the chart does not reflect things like build quality (lens assembly feels cheap and lens is hard to focus) and the bright corner issue. These are things that people should be aware of.

Here is a chart I made. If anyone can figure out how to add it as a post, please do.One correction to your chart, for "Fine Line Color Artifacts", the Sony should be a 3, not a 4.
Fine Line Color Artifact - VP11/Sharp (none), Sony, JVC (distant 4th)

One correction to your chart, for "Fine Line Color Artifacts", the Sony should be a 3, not a 4.


Do you know what those are? Maybe I don't want to know.

Having reviewed all of this, if I were in the market for an RS1 I would be concerned about several things including color, convergence, white field uniformity m-ansi (to the extent that equates with image depth).

Funny thing is though, now owning one, I am not concerned about any of them and consider each of these to be excellent qualities of the RS1.

Color: not "accurate" as that term is used, but awfully pleasing.

Convergence: Before the RS1 people jumped up and down with happiness if their Pearl's convergence was only off by a pixel. My convergence is perfect, or almost perfect, everywhere on the screen. I think that it is functionally indistinguishable from single chip dlp at any reasonable seating distance. Some can vary from this, but convergence will never really be off more than a pixel. People

White field uniformity: Mine is completely uniform and I would put it up against any projector on this quality. Those that I am aware of that have less than perfect uniformity have been repaired or replaced, if I am not mistaken.

M-ANSI. Measurements don't lie, I guess, but I wonder if M-ANSI really is an accurate measurement of intra-scene image depth.

The other thing that I realized is that the chart does not reflect things like build quality (lens assembly feels cheap and lens is hard to focus) and the bright corner issue. These are things that people should be aware of.

This is interesting and I'm happy for you but having spent about ten hours viewing three different RS1s, the uniformity was very poor compared to DLP,the image looked flat (ANSI) compared to DLP and the panel registration was poor and had significant visible fringing with black and white films at 1.2x width seating distance( my HT 5000 has no visible fringing at 0.8 screen widths). I will admit that the color seemed to be fine to me.

Art

This is interesting and I'm happy for you but having spent about ten hours viewing three different RS1s, the uniformity was very poor compared to DLP,the image looked flat (ANSI) compared to DLP and the panel registration was poor and had significant visible fringing with black and white films at 1.2x width seating distance( my HT 5000 has no visible fringing at 0.8 screen widths). I will admit that the color seemed to be fine to me.

Art

It's hard to imagine how anyone who bought one could be happy with an RS1 if your experience is typical.

A poster I respect had this to say about the RS1. I think you know him:

Well I had a fantastic time seeing the RS-1 in action in my theater for about five hours today. Tom Stites was in Michigan for training and he brought the new JVC star with him.

I can say that it is very easy to see what all the hype has been about. This device is going to make everyone who has ordered one extremely happy. We ran the SOB through the ringer starting with a series of test patterns for setting the gray scale contrast brightness and ,with this beauty ,grids to move the alignment to get best panel registration.Ken Whitcomb used his PR 650 to calibrate gray scale , as well as a look at the purity of the primaries. A great great device !

We then watched several clips of selected HDDVDs and BD discs to look at color, shadow detail,visibility of registration errors ,contrast and low APL blacks.

I was quite awed at how good this looked top to bottom. I watch a lot of older films sop of course we looked at the HDDVD of Casablanca. This is a true torture test of convergence/registration errors and this was as good as any I've ever seen in the regard. Tom said this unit would pass QC but that he had seen several others with even better registration... but even at 1x width it looked great in this regard.Pixel structure was invisible at 1x as well.

More later along with some pictures.................

Ahhhh yes, the first date... Funny how we have a different perspective after we spend more time with them and get to see them w/o all the makeup! :D

Or meet a hotter chick with a better personality! :eek:

Ahhhh yes, the first date... Funny how we have a different perspective after we spend more time with them and get to see them w/o all the makeup! :D

Or meet a hotter chick with a better personality! :eek:

In my profession we call this impeaching the credibility of the witness through the use of prior inconsistent statements. In the several minutes that I looked, I found prior posts by Art that contradicted basically everything he wrote in that post. :D

A few days ago saw the new Infocus DLP with HD1 in a dealer showroom.
Both in the same room but projected on different walls.
There were some ambient. I thought the IF looked very good in mixed contrast and color.

In my profession we call this impeaching the credibility of the witness through the use of prior inconsistent statements. Well we all have those. :D

Do you know what those are? Maybe I don't want to know. I called it "Fine Line Color Artifacts" because this is the problem of red and cyan tinting on finely spaced lines, i.e. areas of high contrast fine detail. The color of the tinting is related to the angle of the "lines". I'm not entirely sure what causes the problem in the RS-1, but currently the best guess is probably the polarizers. I originally thought it was just a combination of panel misconvergence and chromatic aberration, which can cause a similar effect. I wrote in my RS-1 review,

"However, despite the perfect mapping of each 1920 x 1080 source pixel to the projector’s 1080p D-ILA panels, single pixel black and white lines in an AccuPel multiburst pattern were rendered with a reddish tint and slightly reduced contrast because of the minor panel misconvergence and/or chromatic aberration. Red and cyan color tinting was also visible on 1080p resolution wedges and zone plates during motion."

Well we all have those. :D

True, but it is a matter of degree. ;)

I called it "Fine Line Color Artifacts" because this is the problem of red and cyan tinting on finely spaced lines, i.e. areas of high contrast fine detail. The color of the tinting is related to the angle of the "lines".


Would you please identify a scene in a movie where I can see this?

Thanks.

"White field uniformity: Mine is completely uniform and I would put it up against any projector on this quality. Those that I am aware of that have less than perfect uniformity have been repaired or replaced, if I am not mistaken."

Consider yourself lucky then. The thing I miss most about the Sharp 12k compared to the RS-1 is shading/uniformity. If you don't see it on yours do not go looking for it.

"Would you please identify a scene in a movie where I can see this?"

An easy place to see this is the hidden test patterns on the Casino Royal BR disc for example. There is a gray field that if you look at this on the RS-1 ends up having cyan lines added to the picture.

Shawn

Greg,

"I'm not entirely sure what causes the problem in the RS-1, but currently the best guess is probably the polarizers. "

I wonder if this is related to the 'rainbows' some people see on the edge of things like football referees shirts during movement?. I've seen others think that might be caused by polarizers too but I guess I just don't understand how they could cause that. I was thinking you might see artifacts like that if the panels were not updated in sync.

Shawn

Would you please identify a scene in a movie where I can see this?Someone identified the tiger pattern in the tie of the guy who had his pocket picked near the the beginning of Casablanca. I checked this scene out and did see the anomaly a bit while paying close attention. I also see it occasionally in referees' shirts but only when the lines are spaced a certain distance from each other. It hasn't intruded on my viewing generally.

Overall, the fundamental difference between these two pjs for me is the RS1's clearly superior black level and on-off CR.

Dan

Overall, the fundamental difference between these two pjs for me is the RS1's clearly superior black level and on-off CR.
That is variable from one unit to another. It all depends on the actual lumens output and the actual on/off contrast ratios of the units being compared. In my case the on/off CR of the RS-1 was 9.7k:1 (at the low end of the measured CRs for that model), while the Sharp measured 7.5k:1 (also a little bit low). When two units are that close, neither one is *clearly* superior to the other.

And my RS-1 measured 424 lumens while my Sharp measured 200 lumens (both of them relatively dim for those machines). Doing the math we get black at 0.0437 lumens for the RS-1 and 0.0267 lumens for the Sharp. That means that the Sharp's black level is almost half that of the RS-1.

Now if we take more typical cases of 15k:1 CR and 700 lumens for the RS-1 and use 8k:1 and 250 lumens for the Sharp, then we get black at 0.0467 lumens for the RS-1 and 0.0313 lumens for the Sharp, still a considerable win for the Sharp. Then consider the almost 3:1 advantage in ANSI for the Sharp and the Sharp has an even better black level due to less washout effect (in mid to brighter scenes).

Under most any situation, assuming the Sharp is in its highest contrast mode, it ALWAYS has the better black level. The advantage of the RS-1 is in its on/off CR and the net effect of that CR is not blacker blacks, but rather whiter whites. The whites of the RS-1 can be anywhere from twice to four times brighter than those of the Sharp depending on actual CR and lumens output.

You seem to have a black cloud hanging over you Bob, you got bad apples of the RS1 and Sharp? Let me know when you're playing poker. :D

As for the black levels don't you think it's a bit silly to be talking about the Sharp having a better black level at almost 1/3rd the lumen output? Let me ask for a more honest variation on this. Which has a better black level with the RS1 using ND filters strong enough to bring the lumen outputs of both PJ's to the same relative value? Oh wait, let me guess, the RS1 doesn't come with the filters so it doesn't count :confused:

You seem to have a black cloud hanging over you Bob, you got bad apples of the RS1 and Sharp?
The math still works with the more typical examples that I provided for you.

As for the black levels don't you think it's a bit silly to be talking about the Sharp having a better black level at almost 1/3rd the lumen output? Let me ask for a more honest variation on this. Which has a better black level with the RS1 using ND filters strong enough to bring the lumen outputs of both PJ's to the same relative value? Oh wait, let me guess, the RS1 doesn't come with the filters so it doesn't count
Ummm...black level is defined as the light output when displaying a 0% full field pattern on a properly calibrated display. Now matter which way you want to spin this, the black level of the Sharp is lower...Thank God you can't defeat the mathematics involved...:rolleyes:

Now if you want to bring ND filters into the situation, then yes, I can make ANY projector have a better black level by simply putting an ND filter of the right density in front of the lens to make it lower than that of the Sharp. BUT natively the RS-1 is brighter and the Sharp has the better black level. The ND filters also have other detrimental effects like softening of the picture and reducing the ANSI contrast. Is that really what you want to do? But you are correct in that if you cut down the lumens output of the RS-1 down to that of the Sharp, then it would have a lower black level. But now you are taking away the brightness advantage of the RS-1 in favor of lower black level with a less sharp picture and less ANSI contrast...If you think that is a good deal, then go for it.

Your argument holds a lot more weight if you claim that the JVC is capable of producing whiter whites, as that is in fact true, again using the highest contrast mode of the Sharp.

Unaided, the Sharp has the better black level, has half the on/off CR, about 3X the ANSI CR, and less than half the white level of the RS-1. THAT is a FAIR assessment.

And just to be fair to the RS-1, the bright white level also means that each IRE level up from 0% is also brighter on the RS-1 than on the Sharp, so it is not just a matter of 100% being brighter. 10% will be brighter, 20% will be brighter...right on up the scale to 100%, so the advantages of a brighter picture should not be underestimated.

But black level is not really the RS-1's greatest strength. When the rest of the picture is as bright as it is on the RS-1, it provides the illusion of black being blacker as your eye compares it to the white elements in the same scene.

"Now if you want to bring ND filters into the situation, then yes, I can make ANY projector have a better black level by simply putting an ND filter of the right density in front of the lens to make it lower than that of the Sharp. BUT natively the RS-1 is brighter and the Sharp has the better black level. "

But if you don't have the brightness in the first place the ND filters are not a good choice. My RS-1 has roughly 3x the contrast of the 12k I had. With filters (and I used a filter on the 12k too) I can have the same brightness as the 12k with 1/3 of the black level. Or the same black level with 3x the brightness.

The CR advantage of the RS-1 was pretty close to the difference between the Sharp's 'white' in its brightest mode and its black in the high contrast mod.

Shawn

"The ND filters also have other detrimental effects like softening of the picture and reducing the ANSI contrast. Is that really what you want to do?"

As do anamorphic lenses... is that really what you want to do? ;)

Filters and lenses are the same... there are trade offs.

Shawn

As do anamorphic lenses... is that really what you want to do?
Right...I pointed that out earlier in the thread when I said something along the lines of "Even my $5k ISCO III softens the picture slightly, so you can just imagine what a $50 piece of glass is doing." I really don't like having ANY extra glass in front of my lens, but I can understand situations where the tradeoffs are desirable.

Well I better get the largest negative gain screen I can find, then I will have the best "black level". :eek: 200" Carada Gray here I come.

So Bob, why are you using a Hi Power, you must have terrible "black levels". :D

So Bob, why are you using a Hi Power, you must have terrible "black levels"
With the Sharp and my very large screen the black levels are acceptable, but today the Sim2 HT-380 arrived...:)

If it proves to be as bright as the one that Jason measured, then I will probably build another screen made out of blackout cloth (1.0 gain) to use while the lamp is new and then switch over to the High Power once the lamp dims. I would prefer this method of brightness reduction to using an ND filter, though it certainly will cost more (though not all that bad since I already have a good size piece of the wider blackout cloth) and require a lot more effort to implement.

""Even my $5k ISCO III softens the picture slightly, so you can just imagine what a $50 piece of glass is doing.""

That isn't really the same thing though. The lens is intentionally optically distorting the picture (also called stretching) through multiple lenses so it is much harder to do that without overly softening the picture (or other artifacts) compared against a single piece of flat glass.

My $2k ISCOII does far more damage to the picture then my $50 ND2.

Shawn

"I would prefer this method of brightness reduction to using an ND filter, though it certainly will cost more (though not all that bad since I already have a good size piece of the wider blackout cloth) and require a lot more effort to implement."

If you do go this way it would be interesting to see measurements at the screen comparing ANSI with the ND filter and the HP vs. no filter and the blackout cloth.

I think one could make an argument that the ND+HP could have higher ANSI contrast at the screen (which is where it is important) vs. the blackout cloth at the screen.

Shawn

Now if we take more typical cases of 15k:1 CR and 700 lumens for the RS-1 and use 8k:1 and 250 lumens for the Sharp, then we get black at 0.0467 lumens for the RS-1 and 0.0313 lumens for the Sharp, still a considerable win for the Sharp. Then consider the almost 3:1 advantage in ANSI for the Sharp and the Sharp has an even better black level due to less washout effect (in mid to brighter scenes).

Under most any situation, assuming the Sharp is in its highest contrast mode, it ALWAYS has the better black level. The advantage of the RS-1 is in its on/off CR and the net effect of that CR is not blacker blacks, but rather whiter whites.

This is the most, seemingly, illogical argument from you I've seen. Projectors don't have inherent black or white levels just contrast ratio and lumens, I'm not sure what else to say but have you read your tutorial on picking the correct projector screen? A projector with 700 lumens would generally be used in a slightly different application that one with 250 lumens, even if both had the same contrast ratio to say one has a better black level makes no sense to an end-user whatsoever. They both have potential to produce identical black levels and/or white levels and the user has at least three methods to do so but you already know this.

Hugh, I don't know what the problem is with my statements. When Greg measures projectors, he measures them without taking into consideration outside factors. My statements were made on the same basis. Sure I can play with screens and ND filters to attain the desired results (and every person should do just that), but that doesn't change the facts:

The RS-1 is brighter
The RS-1 has the better on/off contrast
The Sharp has the better ANSI contrast
The Sharp has the lower black level

all based on Greg's measurements.

I don't understand the problem :confused:

I'm often asked why I don't just publish the black level of the projector's I review (although I sometimes mention what they are on my particular screen along with the full-field contrast ratio and lumen output). The discussion above points out the reason we use the full-field contrast ratio to indirectly specify the black level relative to the peak white level (so we can take variables such as screen size, screen gain, and ND filters out of the discussion). I understand Bob's point, but I think it's confusing to say that the black level of the Sharp (or any projector) is lower than the black level of the RS-1 (or any other projector). I know that Bob is carefully (I assume he thought about it) discussing the black level in terms of lumens which makes his statements true independent of screen size, but most people think about brightness in terms of what they actually see (i.e. relative to foot-Lamberts off the screen) so then screen size is a key factor. In essence you can have any black level you want from most any projector by picking an appropriate screen size and screen gain, but then you get a different picture brightness with those selections. Hence, as Bob pointed out, if you adjust the variables (ND filter, screen size, screen gain) to get equal black levels, the RS-1 produces a much brighter picture. I really think discussing this issue in terms of lumen output and full-field contrast ratio is much better.

Originally Posted by gregr
I called it "Fine Line Color Artifacts" because this is the problem of red and cyan tinting on finely spaced lines, i.e. areas of high contrast fine detail. The color of the tinting is related to the angle of the "lines".

Would you please identify a scene in a movie where I can see this?
I don't have an RS-1 (but I should have an RS-2 in for review shortly) so I can't give you any scenes right now. But scenes have been identified in other threads.

Bob,

It just seems a little bizarre to me for someone to compare a projector with 700 lumens and one with 250 lumens regardless of contrast ratio and say one will "always" have the better level. Better black levels would be compared after setting up both systems to achieve the same defined reference foot lamberts at the screen, when this is done then black levels can be compared. Perhaps I'm just not seeing the point to this sort of "absolute" black level comparison where in my mind none can be made.

Hugh, I think Greg explained it well. I was taking screen size, screen gain, and ND filters out of the equation and carefully making my statements based on lumens, not footlamberts. Of course we all choose our screen sizes and gains based on the the desired footlamberts we want to end up with, and thus the desired white and black levels. But if you display both projectors on the exact same screen, then my statements are true - it was in response to someone who had said that the RS-1 had better black level than the Sharp, and independent of screen choice and ND filters, that is not true. That's all I was saying.

That's cool, I understood exactly what you were saying but using that in the context of "better" and absolute was IMO incorrect. Your "better" black level argument was no less deserving of a reply than the guy who stated the JVC had better black levels.

Sorry...It appears as if my HT-380 arrived DOA unless I am doing something really stupid (a distinct possibility), so I am not in the best of moods right now. So much for first impressions of the first Sim2 product I have owned...:mad:

Sorry...It appears as if my HT-380 arrived DOA unless I am doing something really stupid (a distinct possibility), so I am not in the best of moods right now. So much for first impressions of the first Sim2 product I have owned...:mad:I'll bet you don't know how to turn on a Sim2 projector. Read the manual (I'm not kidding about this). Hint: Think numbers! (Or think about the strangest way imaginable to turn on a projector from a remote control.)

Yup, it really was my stupidity...Real men don't read manuals!

Ok, I got it started now...thanks, Greg! :p

Yup, it really was my stupidity ... Your stupidity???

Yup, it really was my stupidity...Real men don't read manuals!

Ok, I got it started now...thanks, Greg! :p

Just Greg? I feel left out.

The thinking behind it is actually quite elegant(once you know whats going on)

Greg

I know the RS1 and the HD1 are consumer and commercial differences but have you compred the hd1 to the xvz20000 and what are the main differences between the rs1 and the hd1. Im asking because I sell the hd1 but i dont sell commercial and was wondering the differnces

Thanks to both of you! I actually got your PM a few minutes after Greg had posted. I decided to break down and read the manual now...:p

Greg

I know the RS1 and the HD1 are consumer and commercial differences but have you compred the hd1 to the xvz20000 and what are the main differences between the rs1 and the hd1. Im asking because I sell the hd1 but i dont sell commercial and was wondering the differnces

Zero differences, just color and name.

With the Sharp and my very large screen the black levels are acceptable, but today the Sim2 HT-380 arrived...:)


WTF are you doing posting here?!?! Go fire-up the new PJ! :)


Looking forward to hearing how impressive it is!!! :)

WTF are you doing posting here?!?! Go fire-up the new PJ! :)


Looking forward to hearing how impressive it is!!! :)

What he said :) I am flip flopping back & forth between the VP-15S1 and the HT380 (coming from an S3 myself). I am waiting for Gregs 15S1 review to come out to lead me in the right direction but it seems to be taking forever ;) I am even tempted just to get a VW60 to tie me over until the C3X1080 drops down in price. Ahhh.

I am waiting for Gregs 15S1 review to come out to lead me in the right direction but it seems to be taking forever ;) The VP-15S1 review is done and will be in the WSR issue that mails out about Dec 15. I suspect it will be on line (WSR subscriber's website) earlier.

The VP-15S1 review is done and will be in the WSR issue that mails out about Dec 15. I suspect it will be on line (WSR subscriber's website) earlier.

Great news. Any hints? :) Can you find out from Gary when it will be placed on the site for subscibers? Can't wait to read it as you can tell.

Great news. Any hints? :) Can you find out from Gary when it will be placed on the site for subscibers? Can't wait to read it as you can tell.I'll check next week (closed until then for the holidays) and see when it might be placed on line.

I'll check next week (closed until then for the holidays) and see when it might be placed on line.

Thanks. Did you still have the 11S1 to compare it to ;)

Thanks. Did you still have the 11S1 to compare it to ;)yes

yes

Cool. That was like 2 answers in one :D

Cool. That was like 2 answers in one :D
How so?

Maybe as to which projector it is that you own. 8)

Maybe as to which projector it is that you own. 8)
That seems pretty reasonable...:D

I don't think that Marantz would be good hearted enough to have left Greg with an 11S1 for free for the last year (or more), so how else would Greg have one there to compare the 15S1 to?

The Marantz 11S1 was my Final Jeopardy answer...Do I win a prize? :)

You guys....

That seems pretty reasonable...:D
Doesn't prove anything. At the time of the 15S1 review I had 6 other front projectors on hand.

Doesn't prove anything. At the time of the 15S1 review I had 6 other front projectors on hand.


That doesn't sound like a denial to me.

That doesn't sound like a denial to me.
:) OK, I do not own an 11S1.

:) OK, I do not own an 11S1.


If I were you, I would take the position with respect to demo projectors that manufacturers "can pry them from my cold dead hands" (except for the bad ones, of course). Perhaps I'd send the vw-50 back when Sony sends me a vw-60.

If I were you, I would take the position with respect to demo projectors that manufacturers "can pry them from my cold dead hands" (except for the bad ones, of course). Perhaps I'd send the vw-50 back when Sony sends me a vw-60.Will you defend me when they send me a bill for the projector? :)

Will you defend me when they send me a bill for the projector? :)


Only if you pay me with some of the toys that you undoubtedly have collecting dust around your house.

Greg. Come on man. Buy some stock in Acer today. Tomorrow let it slip out that you actually have the Acer PH530 and refer to it as your "REFERENCE DISPLAY" (all caps just like that). We can make.....I mean you can make some quick money and buy that Sim2 (and the velvet bag) you've been dreaming of.

Only if you pay me with some of the toys that you undoubtedly have collecting dust around your house.

Make sure you sign him up beforehand and demand the above as a retainer! :D

:) OK, I do not own an 11S1.

Therefore you must of sold your own 11S1, couldn't live without it and are now borrowing another 11S1 :D

I appreciate the complexity of such an undertaking, which is why I will continue to be a PITA and suggest/insist/plead that you lead and or participate in any such effort. Your industry expertise is essential to creating a more effective benchmark. I am sure you will get an army of 813 light meter wielding AVS weekend warriors who would be happy to beta test whatever patterns you develop on their personal pjs. :D

Mark has put an incrediable amount of effort into the project, simply for the benefit of the AVS community. I am an old school East Coast Liberal so I will also continue to hope that you, Mark, and WM can combine efforts. After all, Egypt and Israel are now friends. :D

I've been busy with a tight deadline to get a demo finished for CES so I haven't kept up on this forum and I just read the part of this thread that pertains to the discussion about the AVS Contrast project.

As far as the issue of comparing a specific scene with a given APL to a test pattern APL goes, I will say that gregr correctly criticized this as a flawed strategy early on. At the time we had discussed this as a goal of the Contrast project and many people including Darinp2, Eric Garci and myself realized that luminance played a role in contrast so that this strategy might work. Greg argued that geometry plays a role. In the end both luminance and geometry play a role and I think such a comparison can be made at best with only with roughest of generalities.

Contrary to what was mentioned in this thread tho, I did take gegr's criticism to heart and I removed all of the wording of APL from the graphs and the write ups and the current project says specifically that such a comparison (scene APL with test pattern APL) can't be made (see the second post in the contrast thread which says:

"Intra-Scene contrast is complicated by the luminance distribution of the image, the spatial relationships between light and dark pixels as well as the gamma used by a projector. Because of these complications, it must be stressed that intra-image contrast and intra-scene contrast are not the same."

Later in the discussion at the end of the contrast thread I reiterated this point:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=11282770#post11282770
"Incidentally, extrapolating the contrast of real world scenes based on measurements from the contrast project based on APL alone is going to yield at best only a rough guesstimate. Geometry also plays an important role and the geometry of real world images is unique to each image. The spatial and luminance distribution of real images are very different from the test patterns utilized in this project."

Despite the fact that such a comparison can not be precisely done, the static contrast test patterns still provide a useful comparison benchmark much the same way as a synthetic test pattern like the ANSI pattern provides a comparison benchmark. The chief benefit the static contrast test patterns provide is that they readily give a person a feel for how the contrast of a projector performs over a wide range of luminance which is something that ANSI and on/off contrast do not. Even more importantly, it allows a person to measure the maximum intra-image contrast that a projector is capable of rendering which by itself should be a key metric of projector performance.

At one time On/Off contrast alone provided a pretty good clue about the contrast performance of a projector in dark scenes but this isn't true anymore with the advent of dynamic gamma and dynamic irises. On/Off contrast with a DI is really more of a measure of dynamic range than having anything to do with contrast.

A person may argue that a DI improves shadow detail and I will agree with that but with the caveat that unless it's measured no one really knows the extent or what ranges of pixel stimulus are improved. In fact a DI without gamma boost will yield the same on/off values as an infinitely better performing DI that does perform gamma boost. So how does one know which performs better without measuring it? If we rely only on the subjective opinions of reviewers then why bother to measure on/off or ANSI in the first place? Maybe these measurements should be replaced by a thumbs up scale from 1 to four or something equally subjective.

Now getting back on topic and addressing your point above. I'd welcome it if someone were to come along and take over the AVS Contrast Project. I don't think people realize how much time goes into creating test patterns, taking the data, refining the test patterns, taking more data, graphing the results and then posting it. It's much easier for someone to sit back and just throw out criticisms than to add something constructive. I've tried to be as professional as I can but I have to say that it's tough to do when you're constantly attacked about something that you've put a lot of effort into for the benefit of others. I realize that some of the discussion in the past has been very contentious and I don't feel that I shoulder all of the blame for this (or even the majority of the blame) but despite this I'm still willing to listen to everyones perspective on this so long as they can keep it a constructive discussion and refrain from sarcasm and personal attacks. If a person decides they would like to take the project and run with it I'd be more than happy to let them do so.

Mark: Nothing worse than when you do volunteer work that is subject to nothing but criticism. This is unfortunately always the case, it seems.

Still, so long as criticism is constructive, it should be welcomed. I welcome it anyway because it always makes my work better. Take the criticism for what it is worth. If it is valid, accept it and use it to improve. If it is not, simply reject it.

If you get no reward from this, why do it? It is supposed to be a hobby and should be fun. I am sure that the work you get paid for gives you enough grief.

Mark: Nothing worse than when you do volunteer work that is subject to nothing but criticism. This is unfortunately always the case, it seems.

Still, so long as criticism is constructive, it should be welcomed. I welcome it anyway because it always makes my work better. Take the criticism for what it is worth. If it is valid, accept it and use it to improve. If it is not, simply reject it.


I agree that constructive criticism is a good thing. I draw the line though at personal attacks or when a person attempts to squash the project by deliberately twisting the facts. I would rather see a person offer improvements and alternative methodologies than to use their influence to get the whole thing rejected.

I think HHF hit the nail on the head when he said earlier in this discussion that throwing the whole thing out because of a dislike in a few areas is like throwing the baby out with the bath water.


If you get no reward from this, why do it? It is supposed to be a hobby and should be fun. I am sure that the work you get paid for gives you enough grief.

I did this for several reasons. One was because of my belief that ANSI and particularly on/off have become increasingly irrelevant as the industry has rolled out dynamic mechanisms to improve contrast. I was interested in finding new ways to characterize contrast that can be more revealing than ANSI and on/off. I believe that this goal has been achieved in fact let me provide a real-life example:

Sony has rolled out a new projector, the VW60 which offers much higher on/off contrast specs. This sounds great on the surface but what did they really do to improve the contrast? They could have: 1) improved the native contrast 2) changed the iris so that it closes more or 3) done a combination of the two. Armed with only on/off as a measure it's very difficult to determine what has been done. With the test patterns and methodologies in the AVS contrast project a person can measure the maximum intra-image contrast in the auto iris position and compare that with what was done in the VW50.

In addition to measuring the effects from native contrast there is another crucial area of performance in a DI that is completely ignored by anyone using On/Off or ANSI metrics. This is the contrast enhancements from the applied dynamic gamma. People have commented for example that the Ruby has a more aggressive DI algorithm than the Pearl which in turn results in more BC but no one has really tried to quantify this. It's unknown for example what the degree of dynamic gamma in the VW60 is compared to the VW50.

The AVS contrast project provides exactly this sort of information and I think it's achieved one of the main goals by doing so. Interestingly enough, HHF pointed me to an old WSR review of one of the first Sony DI projectors by Bill Cushman and I was surprised to find that he applied a very similar methodology in measuring the dynamic gamma in that review that is used in the AVS Contrast project. It used only a single data point to prove that dynamic gamma was being applied but it was a similar idea. The contrast project uses a suite of test patterns that measure the degree of boost as a function of pixel stimulus and also the degree of BC which is something that hasn't been done before.

So at any rate, despite the criticisms and contention I have been able to get some enjoyment out of the project. Being able to gain insight into areas of contrast that haven't been readily explored is something that I have found to be enjoyable.

:) OK, I do not own an 11S1. So that narrows it down to the Sharp 20000 or the Sony VW60. My money is on the Sharp!

After looking at both HD-1 & Z20000. I ended up buying the z20000 and amazed by its wow factor. I will be getting it calibrated in early january.