I've noticed that there isn't much discussion about the effect of the lens used in a projector (well I tried a search and couldn't find anything). From my own viewing of projectors I thought it was quite an important component for creating a sharp image with depth (for example the lens in the Infocus IN76 is quite a lot softer than the Zeiss lens in the SP7205 but both have a great feeling of depth to them). Does anyone have any information on the lenses used in the latest crop of 1080p projectors?

Is there a better return in image quality by focusing on other aspects of the design and the inclusion of a higher quality optical system would increase the final cost of the projector more than any corresponding gains in image quality? The Marantz range comes to mind (though I'm not sure what optics are used) as a projector that produces differing opinions on whether the price increase is worth it. How do other people rank the importance of optics in projector design? What does it take to beat raw lumens and CR?

I guess I should widen this topic to include all aspects that are difficult to measure (or compare in marketing). So please mention anything else you feel is important.

I chose the dVision108p for its superior optics. The optional wide angle lens I needed came in a seperate box even! But you pay for it - that lens cost as much as many a projector. Which tells you something about the cheaper projectors lens - its cheap!!

Similar story here. Swapped one of my D80s for an HT3000 to have the long throw option fitted. The optics on this machine probably cost more than most machines in this "hi-end" forum. Im in agreement with Craig that most machines use cheap and nasty optics, this seems particularly common with non specialist PJ companies.

I've noticed that there isn't much discussion about the effect of the lens used in a projector (well I tried a search and couldn't find anything). From my own viewing of projectors I thought it was quite an important component for creating a sharp image with depth (for example the lens in the Infocus IN76 is quite a lot softer than the Zeiss lens in the SP7205 but both have a great feeling of depth to them). Does anyone have any information on the lenses used in the latest crop of 1080p projectors?

Is there a better return in image quality by focusing on other aspects of the design and the inclusion of a higher quality optical system would increase the final cost of the projector more than any corresponding gains in image quality? The Marantz range comes to mind (though I'm not sure what optics are used) as a projector that produces differing opinions on whether the price increase is worth it. How do other people rank the importance of optics in projector design? What does it take to beat raw lumens and CR?

I guess I should widen this topic to include all aspects that are difficult to measure (or compare in marketing). So please mention anything else you feel is important.

The lens is clearly a very important consideration and in theory higher quality should yield improvement in image quality. Like most things the law of diminishing returns applies assuming you don't have a specific install requirement.

The Marantz lens in their top end single chip DLP's is manufactured by Konica-Minolta who also make cheap cameras. I read a recent review in an Italian forum comparing the Sim2 HT3000 and VP11S1. The reviewer commented on the extra detail that was visible on the Marantz compared to the Sim2. He put this down to the superior lens of the VP11 so it appears not all high end products optics are equal.

Dazzer

I chose the dVision108p for its superior optics. The optional wide angle lens I needed came in a seperate box even! But you pay for it - that lens cost as much as many a projector. Which tells you something about the cheaper projectors lens - its cheap!!


Craig this is exactly the reason I hang on to my Marantz VP-11S1 the lens alone is about 5k the prebuy for the whole Jvc projector wasnt even that much, with optics you get what you pay for, believe me I know, the Isco III anamporphic lens was another jagged little pill "hard to swallow" but its at the top of its game with regards to optics and flexibility.

The lens is clearly a very important consideration and in theory higher quality should yield improvement in image quality. Like most things the law of diminishing returns applies assuming you don't have a specific install requirement.

The Marantz lens in their top end single chip DLP's is manufactured by Konica-Minolta who also make cheap cameras. I read a recent review in an Italian forum comparing the Sim2 HT3000 and VP11S1. The reviewer commented on the extra detail that was visible on the Marantz compared to the Sim2. He put this down to the superior lens of the VP11 so it appears not all high end products optics are equal.

Dazzer

Andrea Manuti did the review and yes I did read what he said about the optics edging out the Sim, as an owner of the Marantz I can attest to the fine optics however Im definately not calling the optics on the HT3000 mediocre either, I think the average person would be hard pressed to tell the difference

Funlvr,
I just looked at your pic a little closer. Are you a dog?

Andrea Manuti did the review and yes I did read what he said about the optics edging out the Sim, as an owner of the Marantz I can attest to the fine optics however Im definately not calling the optics on the HT3000 mediocre either, I think the average person would be hard pressed to tell the difference

I think you are probably correct in terms of minimal difference between high-end machines. Its the difference between that and an entry level machane that really shows where the money goes, optics being a very obvious diferrence, and one that stands out a mile, particularly with machines that are capable of good (above 700)ANSI CR

Also agree with you regarding the ISCOIII. I have a sled system going in my main room and have to say considering the quality, it is money well spent.

Having read Andreas review the staement "I have always suspected that the Japanese machine’s lens was among the best, and this type of comparison allows to a better appreciation of details" in no way states a superiority, infact he observes.....

"What about the differences? Let’s analyze their ability to reproduce details: in case of low lights, the SIM2 has the upper hand. Although the difference is small, Pordenone’s machine displays a slightly better ability when it comes to details. This is made possible by the interaction between the test environment and the gamma curve: a rating of 2.24 is slightly preferable to S1’s 2.18. These are subtleties, of course, but in a direct on-screen comparison, they were visible.

The difference is more easily detected in case of high lights: with some details (see the screenshots below) the Marantz is less remarkable, and a few spots actually disappear from the picture."

The dVision lens is huge too. I had to buy a 5" hole saw for the lens opening from my projector room and that was barely big enough!!

Craig.... How have you found DP as a company? I am ready to finish my big room and its a shortlist of HT5000 and Titan 1080p-250.

Craig.... How have you found DP as a company? I am ready to finish my big room and its a shortlist of HT5000 and Titan 1080p-250.


Well let me jump in and answer that and say that I dont know that Craigs experience is with them but when I had my Ivision HD it was horrible, I will never buy another unit from them, ask them about calibration and they will say that they dont believe in calibration they feel that their units should be setup just as is, now my projector was a 720p and no where near what Craig paid for his unit so that might have something to do with it, also digital projection makes clones of projection design which is a norwegian company, the Ivision series was upgradeable just send your unit in and it would be upgraded to the next unit in its class so long as the chasis was the same, when I asked Digital Projection about that same upgrade path they said they didnt offer any :confused:, also I guess the company doesnt beleive in sealed optics since my unit ended up with dust blobs and the final straw for me was when the bulb exploded in the unit,,,,,FOR SALE...GONE!!!!!!

Funlvr,
I just looked at your pic a little closer. Are you a dog?


'Devil Dog" yes, any other type of dog well you have to ask my wife about that :D

uhh, I haven't had any problems like Funlvr. Buy from a good dealer like AVS here for added support.

'Devil Dog" yes, any other type of dog well you have to ask my wife about that :D

That's cool. I think there are a couple of us running around this forum.:)

uhh, I haven't had any problems like Funlvr. Buy from a good dealer like AVS here for added support.


UMMMM I DID buy it from AVS it was the demo unit from Jason, the company was just not very responsive.

That's cool. I think there are a couple of us running around this forum.:)


Semper Fi, do or die!

Lots of kool-aid drinking going on in this thread! 8)

Lots of kool-aid drinking going on in this thread! 8)

How do you figure? You must think that fixed lens point and shoot cameras are nearly as good as Nikon interchangable lenses. I can see the difference on the screen. So could Greg Rogers of WSR.

I can also taste the difference between a good Brunello and Boones Farm! And it's worth the extra $ 50.00 ! ;)

I can also taste the difference between a good Brunello and Boones Farm! And it's worth the extra $ 50.00 !

Kool-aid by any other name is still Kool-aid! 8)

Seriously, though, after the internet posting of his RS1 review, right here on these forums, Greg did tell of his preferences. Even in his most diplomatic moments, if I remember correctly, Greg dances to say that the RS1, the Sharp 20k, and the Marantz are all good at different things.

If you like to watch movies, the RS1 and its contrast is good. However if you need accurate colors, or like to watch test patterns, or evaluate video processor performance (8)) then maybe you should go with one of the other two. 8)

Sure a good lens is important, but at what point does the incremental benefit gained on a better lens outweigh other, possibly more noticeable, factors?

The best indicator for objectivity to me is the pocketbook. There are a few (some well) respected folks who have taken a loss getting rid of their Marantz, SIMs, PDs, Sonys, CRTs, etc to take on the RS1 (which they will again have to take a loss on in the future.)

Ive heard that some of that might have been "profit-taking" or "loss-minimizing" but it just doesnt make sense to me that those people will lose money now, to lose more money again down the road, while living with an inferior picture in the interim.

I could have had many of these other projectors for what I paid for my HD1 and AVM50 but what I was seeing with the HD1 versus the Sharp 20k would not have justified the expense.

To me, the HD1 isnt just the better value, it puts out the better image .... lens, CMS, price, etc considered or not.

Sure a good lens is important, but at what point does the incremental benefit gained on a better lens outweigh other, possibly more noticeable, factors?

Hard to say, as there are so many variables when it comes to setting up a projection system.

The best indicator for objectivity to me is the pocketbook. There are a few (some well) respected folks who have taken a loss getting rid of their Marantz, SIMs, PDs, Sonys, CRTs, etc to take on the RS1 (which they will again have to take a loss on in the future.)

And there are several lucky ones that have multiple pj that say the Sharp or Marantz puts out a better picture ( to them anyway ).

Ive heard that some of that might have been "profit-taking" or "loss-minimizing" but it just doesnt make sense to me that those people will lose money now, to lose more money again down the road, while living with an inferior picture in the interim.

Nobody wants to live with an inferior picture, but some people seem to change projectors around here like I change my socks. Fact is, all of these machines put out an outstanding picture but have different strengths and weaknesses. Some of us happen to value quality optics more than other qualities. That doesn't make me a " kool aid drinker " any more than you.

To me, the HD1 isnt just the better value, it puts out the better image .... lens, CMS, price, etc considered or not.

Maybe, but in my theater it wouldn't have worked anyway due to no power zoom and focus. Bottom line is I value a sharp clear picture more than higher contrast if i have to choose between the two and the dVision 1080p delivers.

[QUOTE=Catdaddy67] Greg dances to say that the RS1, the Sharp 20k, and the Marantz are all good at different things.

UMMM I believe Gregs "Reference projector is STILL the Marantz VP-11S1, the JVC will NEVER be any reviewers "REFERENCE" unit because of lack of control over saturation


I could have had many of these other projectors for what I paid for my HD1 and AVM50 but what I was seeing with the HD1 versus the Sharp 20k would not have justified the expense.



Dont look now but Anthem has sent the calibration microphones out for screen printing so room calibration is upon us and looks like you and your AVM50 may be stuck, hope you werent counting on "moving on" with the rest of us D2 people :D , sorry Mike you give it so you gottat take it 2

Man, you know me, Wayne .. Im here to carry the bags for you Marantz and D2 folks. 8) Oops, forgot the Isco. 8)

I did make a compromise decision on the D2 vs. AVM50. You got me there, but thankfully room EQ is not even on the list of what is important to sound quality for me. 8) I had to set a good example on financial restraint for my wife. 8)

If you gotta do it, do it where you wont notice it. 8) Unfortunately, on top of the new house, Ive spent more on new furniture in the last two months then I have on my projector, panamorph lens, screen, and AVM50 combined. 8(

Oh well, at least I havent compromised on picture quality! Thank god for 5 years no interest financing!

Man, you know me, Wayne .. Im here to carry the bags for you Marantz and D2 folks. 8) Oops, forgot the Isco. 8)

I did make a compromise decision on the D2 vs. AVM50. You got me there, but thankfully room EQ is not even on the list of what is important to sound quality for me. 8) I had to set a good example on financial restraint for my wife. 8)

If you gotta do it, do it where you wont notice it. 8) Unfortunately, on top of the new house, Ive spent more on new furniture in the last two months then I have on my projector, panamorph lens, screen, and AVM50 combined. 8(

Oh well, at least I havent compromised on picture quality! Thank god for 5 years no interest financing!

Man do you ever live on the edge, and thats coming from a Marine thats had to train contra rebels in Honduras, man youre my hero :D

Well, you know .. training rebels aint got nothing on raising 4 kids .. and dealing with my wife. 8)

Well, you know .. training rebels aint got nothing on raising 4 kids .. and dealing with my wife. 8)


Dont shoot im comin out with my hands up!!

Sure a good lens is important, but at what point does the incremental benefit gained on a better lens outweigh other, possibly more noticeable, factors?


I'd be interested to hear more views on this issue. My other money-sucking hobby is photography, and in photography the lens is almost everything. I know, for instance, that resolution and contrast are strongly influenced by the design and materials used for a lens, and that a cheap lens will make an entry level dSLR and the top end model yield identical (low quality) images. We digital-age photographers study this by enlarging images to the point where we can see individual pixels, and I have wondered whether the tools used to measure e.g. contrast in a projector have sufficient resolution to do the same. A checkerboard pattern can easily be reproduced by a consumer grade lens, but if you look closely at the edge between black and white you will see color distortion and blurring which is absent in a high-end optic.

So, is it possible that the tools used to examine PJ performance are less influenced by lens quality than the ones used to examine SLR camera performance?

The Marantz lens in their top end single chip DLP's is manufactured by Konica-Minolta who also make cheap cameras. I read a recent review in an Italian forum comparing the Sim2 HT3000 and VP11S1. The reviewer commented on the extra detail that was visible on the Marantz compared to the Sim2. He put this down to the superior lens of the VP11 so it appears not all high end products optics are equal.

Well, maybe the 11S1 has the best lens in it's class, but I compared a projectiondesign 1080p DLP to the 11S1 in a same setup on the same 120" diag screen. With a 1080p 1:1 on/off test pattern in pixel mapping mode, the projectiondesign image looks MUCH MUCH SHARPER! The screendoor looks way much visible than the 11S1. The pixel grid is black on the projectiondesign while the 11S1 grid looks like a gray faint line in comparison. The projectiondesign does use a MUCH BIGGER (media throw lens) lens than the 11S1 though.

regards,

Li On

Well, maybe the 11S1 has the best lens in it's class, but I compared a projectiondesign 1080p DLP to the 11S1 in a same setup on the same 120" diag screen. With a 1080p 1:1 on/off test pattern in pixel mapping mode, the projectiondesign image looks MUCH MUCH SHARPER! The screendoor looks way much visible than the 11S1. The pixel grid is black on the projectiondesign while the 11S1 grid looks like a gray faint line in comparison. The projectiondesign does use a MUCH BIGGER (media throw lens) lens than the 11S1 though.

regards,

Li On

Thank you Li On. Having watched about 150 hours of HD movies and video, I rest my case. I can see nose hairs on Jay Leno and tiny skin blemishes on Kiefer Sutherlands nose on 24. And zero screen door even though I'm sitting about 1.25 screen widths away!! HD DVD porn should be interesting on my dVision / projectiondesign 1080p ! :eek:

man, seeing too much of those things (noise hairs, pimples, warts) may make me sick....I'll take the porn though.

man, seeing too much of those things (noise hairs, pimples, warts) may make me sick....I'll take the porn though.

Watching the local news women on HD TV is starting to be like having her in the room with you - warts and all. The picture on my dVision can look that good - period!!

Is there a good short throw replacement lense for the RS-1? and if so how much is it?

Well, maybe the 11S1 has the best lens in it's class, but I compared a projectiondesign 1080p DLP to the 11S1 in a same setup on the same 120" diag screen. With a 1080p 1:1 on/off test pattern in pixel mapping mode, the projectiondesign image looks MUCH MUCH SHARPER! The screendoor looks way much visible than the 11S1. The pixel grid is black on the projectiondesign while the 11S1 grid looks like a gray faint line in comparison. The projectiondesign does use a MUCH BIGGER (media throw lens) lens than the 11S1 though.

regards,

Li On


I don't own a Marantz just commenting on various reviews I've read. I think Craig Peer may have mentioned he owns a dvision rebadge version. :)

Dazzer

The 11S1 gives a great picture. The On/Off contrast is much better than the big projectiondesign with dual bulb! Though I think the projectiondesign may seem to have slightly better ANSI contrast in some scene maybe due to the lens. All I am saying is the 11S1 may perform even better with a better lens.

On the other hand, I think current 1080p projector lens no matter how worse can easily resolve all the 1080p pixel info as we still see the pixel grid up close which is way finer than a pixel! :)

regards,

Li On