looks like the RUBY PEARL RS1/HD1 DIAMOND RS1/HD1 packages are making a deep leathal wound into the DLP $5,000-20,000market....

do we espect to see some breakthrough innovations in the DLP world any time soon ? aside from Sharp Yamaha leaving, Optoma hoping to score better with the H81 $3000 etc ?

is there a killer DLP machine coming anytime soon ?

is there a killer DLP machine coming anytime soon ?

I consider my dVision 1080p and all the related versions ( Cineo 3 etc. ) to be killer DLP machines availabe now. But it will be interesting to see what come next.

The bigger issue for TI/DLP is what LCD/Plasma are doing to their RPTV sales...long the cash cow for TI. If that volume goes away, is it worthwhile to invest large sums of money in further development for the relatively small FPTV market and 3-chip professional market (which only cares about brightness/cost anyway)?

TI is really going to have to pull a rabbit out of their hat to get their native CR much beyond where they are now. I won't go so far as to say that they've run out of ways to improve the technology, but further gains become much more difficult given the underlying nature of the technology.

And don't count on JVC or Sony to give them a stationary target! :-)

Cheers,

Isn't this how it always goes though? TI rakes manufacturers over the coals with DLP chip pricing, then only once they are in jeopardy of losing big market share suddenly the DLPs get much cheaper, until again that threshold of pain is reached.

How much does the dVision list for? Is it in the same price range as the Ruby/Pearl/RS1?

TI is really going to have to pull a rabbit out of their hat to get their native CR much beyond where they are now. I won't go so far as to say that they've run out of ways to improve the technology, but further gains become much more difficult given the underlying nature of the technology.

Havent you heard, Tom? Apparently, past 1000 to 1, the human eye cant notice the CR difference anyways. This is all hype! Its about the lens costing as much as the RS1 itself, the lack of convergence problems, the CMS, their quality builds, and vertical stretch being included in their top of the line processors. 8)

Seriously, though, I have to admit Im very curious to find out about the IN82s 12,000 to 1 CRwith iris at a minimum. I wonder how bright that really is, what independent reliable folks actually measure that CR at, and just how much detail gets lost.

Definitely sounds like a winner, though.

Its easy reading everyones comments to figure out who owns what when in reality I do not think anyone here is format loyal but are really price loyal. Why should I pay more for a 1080 DLP when I can have a 1080P for 5k or less. It just so happens those machines in that price range currently are Lcos and LCD. If indeed 3 chip DLP were the same price it would sherly mix up the numbers and you would find a good mix of support for both technologies.
I do not think DLP has to re invent anything any more then Lcos/SXRD does. Lcos needs to double their ANSI and DLP needs to match Lcos on/off. Both show room for improvement. Why would someone think DLP has to do something drastic any more then SXRD/Lcos.. Maybe you mean price. We all want something for nothing and on the net cheaper always wins :)

Theres lots of 1080p DLPs under $5k, Alan. The BenQs, Optoma, and now even the Infocus. I agree that its not about DLP vs. LCoS or LCD, but I disagree that its about cheaper always wins. The BenQs and Optoma can actually be had for cheaper, probably similar with the Infocus.

I actually spent more for my HD1 + Anthem AVM50 then I would have spent for a Marantz 11s1 off these boards, probably close to what you guys probably sell them for, and the Marantz has vertical stretch, a Gennum processor, and CMS. Make no mistake about it, if the RS1 had vertical stretch I would NOT have bought my AVM50.

Its really about the differences in on/off contrast ratio making more of a difference than the differences in ANSI contrast on these machines. A few people who have had 11s1s have sold/are selling them at what appear to be big losses to keep their RS1s, even.

I usually agree with you but in this case I think you are wrong. 8)

The Marantz VP-11S1 does not have a CMS.

I usually agree with you but in this case I think you are wrong. 8)

This thread makes it sound like there is something wrong with DLP.
If 3 chip DLP became available tomorrow cheaper then the RS1 people would buy it and never look back. They would start a new list of what Lcos needs to do to get their attention again. There is nothing wrong with DLP anymore then there is with its competition. Nether are perfect. If you prefer ANSI you go DLP. If you prefer on/off you go Lcos but the cheaper machine will always win over the mass market.

The bigger issue for TI/DLP is what LCD/Plasma are doing to their RPTV sales...long the cash cow for TI. If that volume goes away, is it worthwhile to invest large sums of money in further development for the relatively small FPTV market and 3-chip professional market (which only cares about brightness/cost anyway)?

TI is really going to have to pull a rabbit out of their hat to get their native CR much beyond where they are now. I won't go so far as to say that they've run out of ways to improve the technology, but further gains become much more difficult given the underlying nature of the technology.

And don't count on JVC or Sony to give them a stationary target! :-)

Cheers,

hi

in Europe the dlp rtpv is almost inexistant; Optoma had two models but it was rigged with problems and they dumped it. in the US the rptv is a large market, alwayswas. don't know about Japan but i doubt they have space for large tvs vs flat screens (plasma lcd)

Its easy reading everyones comments to figure out who owns what when in reality I do not think anyone here is format loyal but are really price loyal. Why should I pay more for a 1080 DLP when I can have a 1080P for 5k or less. It just so happens those machines in that price range currently are Lcos and LCD. If indeed 3 chip DLP were the same price it would sherly mix up the numbers and you would find a good mix of support for both technologies.
I do not think DLP has to re invent anything any more then Lcos/SXRD does. Lcos needs to double their ANSI and DLP needs to match Lcos on/off. Both show room for improvement. Why would someone think DLP has to do something drastic any more then SXRD/Lcos.. Maybe you mean price. We all want something for nothing and on the net cheaper always wins :)

:)
at too low a price i think something is wrong (new Pana plasma vs Pioneer ? when something becomes too cheap... even the mercedes 20years, 10y ago were built to last longer, samed for Audi etc :) ).
it seems the flat screens prices have it bottom and are starting to rise-stabilize
(so says some sces)

you summed it up: double triple the ansi contrast on lcos and double triple the on off contrast on dlp. (while continuing improving dithering be it 1 or 3DLP, the dithering from the mirrors movement)

i think $5-7K is a fair price for 2K 700ansi 10000:1 native (ideally 600:1 ansi) at home. with a lens shift, and nice remote, low vent noise. ideally with v stretch

but can dlp reach natively 10000:1 and lcos 600:1 ansi ? or 20000:1 and 1000:1 ?

This thread makes it sound like there is something wrong with DLP.
If 3 chip DLP became available tomorrow cheaper then the RS1 people would buy it and never look back. They would start a new list of what Lcos needs to do to get their attention again. There is nothing wrong with DLP anymore then there is with its competition. Nether are perfect. If you prefer ANSI you go DLP. If you prefer on/off you go Lcos but the cheaper machine will always win over the mass market.

hi Alan
the title ain't: i want to see some hot new dlp product. i very much agree on the ansi/pop/3D advantage of DLP (be it mono or singla chip, seems the ansi remains in the 600-800:1)
too bad we wont see 3DLP in the same sony jvc price range to see 'volume' of units sold. two reasons remains imho: price of chips (sony and jvc don't have to pay any exclusive manufacturer for theirs) and assembling/design which remains more complex than lcd-lcos imho.

What is the best projector? The one with the problem you can best tolerate :)

Did someone say that there's something wrong with DLP? :)

Did someone say that there's something wrong with DLP? :)

hi Tryg hi Alan

well i think there are too many "not well known enough" dlp brands while there's only 2 main lcos brands and with well known names in the mind of the uninformed general public.
that plays a part too.

if Panasonic for instance would do a 3DLP 1080p at $7500 success could be huge
with such a well known brand name/awareness and skills in projectors (they have the expertise with their pro models).

but given the price of the 3 chips it can't be...

Seriously, though, I have to admit Im very curious to find out about the IN82s 12,000 to 1 CRwith iris at a minimum. I wonder how bright that really is, what independent reliable folks actually measure that CR at, and just how much detail gets lost.

Definitely sounds like a winner, though.It's easy. You measure your white screen luminance with the iris open. Measure your black screen luminance with the iris closed. Sounds fine until you discover the iris isn't automatic like the ones people like Sony are using.

hi Tryg hi Alan

well i think there are too many "not well known enough" dlp brands while there's only 2 main lcos brands and with well known names in the mind of the uninformed general public.
that plays a part too. Sorry, but I disagree. Look at the brands of LCD TVs people are buying. They're not only buying Sony, Samsung and Sharp. They're buying Vizio, Maxent, Insignia, etc on price. And, they're doing so in large numbers.

We all want something for nothing and on the net cheaper always wins :)

You know your customers very well which is why you are successful. Everyone says that they are willing to pay more right up until the time they pull their credit card out of their wallet.

The RS1 is a success because it is a good projector that is priced right. If, for instance, the Sharp 20k was priced comparably, How many RS1 owners would now regret their purchase? The 20k is arguably a better projector, but who would pay $5,000 more for it?

I think that dlps biggest problem (maybe the problem of those companies that make dlp projectors) is that they have been slow to realize that they have to actually compete and that they have to bring more value to the table. The cheaper 1080p dlps aren't even DC3, but some unnamed dlp process. Why not 1080p DC3 dlp projectors that are reasonably priced? You can say a lot about how LCD does not offer the same PQ as rival technologies but at least LCD manufacturers are improving their products and pricing them so that they will sell in volume.

You know your customers very well which is why you are successful. Everyone says that they are willing to pay more right up until the time they pull their credit card out of their wallet.

The RS1 is a success because it is a good projector that is priced right. If, for instance, the Sharp 20k was priced comparably, How many RS1 owners would now regret their purchase? The 20k is arguably a better projector, but who would pay $5,000 more for it?

I think that dlps biggest problem (maybe the problem of those companies that make dlp projectors) is that they have been slow to realize that they have to actually compete and that they have to bring more value to the table. The cheaper 1080p dlps aren't even DC3, but some unnamed dlp process. Why not 1080p DC3 dlp projectors that are reasonably priced? You can say a lot about how LCD does not offer the same PQ as rival technologies but at least LCD manufacturers are improving their products and pricing them so that they will sell in volume.

(Little secret: I paid a mere $600 more for my Sharp Z20k than the cheapest price you can buy a JVC RS-1 for... Never judge by MSRP, always TALK to your dealer. You will be surprised...)

What is the best projector? The one with the problem you can best tolerate :)
Good definition. :)

Did someone say that there's something wrong with DLP? :)


Over priced compared to LCOS or LCD? :p

Seriously, is TI being greedy or is the manufacturing process of DLPs much more expensive due to high rejection rates?

it costs more (the chips, possibly the rejection % also and the architecture is more complex).
but that does not explain solely the success of the SONY and the JVC in this $5K-15K segment
First there's brand awareness and that helps for selling these to the people unaware of the multitude of brands that they probably don't know.
Then it's of course the price of machines vs the high end dlp competition.: sharp mazantz yamaha sim2 got stuck in their $8-15K price bracket while SONY and JVC attacked with $5-10K prices and of course OPTOMA BENQ with $4-7K bracket but are not as well known brands as SONY and JVC (again for the consumers who are not as aware as many members here).

I think the BENQ W9000 W10000 merit more awareness marketing btw. i think these are very fine machines with great "pop". and fully loaded with features. aggressively priced.

I wonder if PANASONIC couldnt't provide a mono DLP or even 3DLP for the home theater market. they have expertise. big brand name too. massive awareness.
but they are so focused on plasma.

This thread makes it sound like there is something wrong with DLP.
If 3 chip DLP became available tomorrow cheaper then the RS1 people would buy it and never look back. They would start a new list of what Lcos needs to do to get their attention again. There is nothing wrong with DLP anymore then there is with its competition. Nether are perfect. If you prefer ANSI you go DLP. If you prefer on/off you go Lcos but the cheaper machine will always win over the mass market.

Alan,

I always enjoy your Comments on your Post. This Thread and your comments are an Excellent Example. It seems to me after reading as many Threads/Post here that "Usually" Price has a lot to do with the decisions that are made on Projectors.

I still find it Very-Hard to believe that Runco sells their Example: VX5000d "Replaced now with the 6000d" for Approx. $27K and the Projectors that are mostly purchased here and discussed cost between $5K-15K. So Runco I would think would not be charging these prices for nothing more than just profit margin. I think quality and performance has something to do with the price. I'm certainly not the Expert in this field and do not claim to be. But I do think you get what you pay for in most instances.

Terry

As someone who owns DLP, I'm perfectly open to other technolgies.
I'm much more open to LCoS than LCD for a fair number of reasons.

Even though I can have a nice LCD 1080 for <$3,000 brand spanking new with full warranty, I'm not pulling the trigger because having viditioned (TM) many of them I came out pretty dissatisfied that I would live happily with them for the next 3-4 years. I'm not a yearly upgrader like many in this forum.

If you look at my sig you can get a sense of my priorities, Everybody's priorities are different and as such we can buy products from many different companies without one specific company being head and shoulders above the competition.

However, JVC IS head and shoulders above the competition right now and they are being rewarded in the marketplace for it.

I'd live very happily with the RS1 at this moment but there's just something nagging me to wait a bit longer. The timing is just not right for me, I'll have to wait until February to pull the trigger, solid state illumination or not...

As far as the 1-DLP field right now it goes like this for me:
1) Sharp 20k. If it were >$1k cheaper I'd own one right now. Excellent machine and to my eyes looks better than the RS1 despite the lower CR on paper. This one should be close to sales to the RS1 but it's not.
2) Optoma: I wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole. 'Nough said.
3) Benq: Great value but I'm not quite thrilled with the picture compared to the Sharp machine. I'd buy one if I thought it was 95% close to the Sharp, I'd own one.
4) Marantz: Superb machine but too expensive. They're sold to people who are willing to spend more that I do. Even Darinp2's machine at $8,800 is too expensive for me.
5) Panasonic: Good picture but there's something in its quality that just doesn't satisfy me no matter ow cheap it is. This goes for pretty much all the LCD machines to my eyes. I wish it wasn't because the price point is definitely there. But, they;re cheap for a reason.
6) Pearl: I'd own one bt at this point in time it's too "old" to buy one new. I'll wait till the next incarnation to see what's up.

CONCLUSION:
I'm wide open (mostly for DLP and LCoS). Give me solid state illumination, good lumens, natural colors, great CRs (both), great pricepoint and I'm there!
Am I asking for too much? ;)

Andrikos,
you mean don't touch Optoma because of reliability ?
marantz: i just read Home cinema choice where they tested the 1080p VP and they didnt like the black level contrast. it was lacking. super colorimetry and sharpness though.
panasonic: given their ability to do superb pro 3DLP stuff, it would be nice for the market to see one BIG actor entering the dlp market.

it's time we see a DLP leading machine. bit it 1DLP or 3DLP. at the price range of the JVC.

It's easy. You measure your white screen luminance with the iris open. Measure your black screen luminance with the iris closed. Sounds fine until you discover the iris isn't automatic like the ones people like Sony are using.

That's not how they do that, at least not InFocus*. The only real question about the IN82 is just how bright (or how dim) will it be to provide "12000:1" CR.

*If that is how they come up with 12000:1, then it's over for IF basically, they'll have abandoned their one big differentiator in the market, that they're rated at D65 calibrated and they basically reach their specs (at least far closer than the alternatives).

All I know is I'm optomistic about the IN82 (I love my IN76 save the black level, if the IN82 hits even 5000:1 at the same brightness as my 76 it may be enough for me). I'm also not sure if the IN82 has a static or dynamic iris.

That's not how they do that, at least not InFocus*.Well, how else did they get a DLP to 12,000:1 without a dynamic iris when no one else can do it?

The bigger issue for TI/DLP is what LCD/Plasma are doing to their RPTV sales...long the cash cow for TI. If that volume goes away, is it worthwhile to invest large sums of money in further development for the relatively small FPTV market and 3-chip professional market (which only cares about brightness/cost anyway)?

TI is really going to have to pull a rabbit out of their hat to get their native CR much beyond where they are now. I won't go so far as to say that they've run out of ways to improve the technology, but further gains become much more difficult given the underlying nature of the technology.

And don't count on JVC or Sony to give them a stationary target! :-)

Cheers,

The last line is interesting.

Yes this it true.


Thanks
Ben

dlp rptv sales in Europe are virtually zero. SIM2 didnt sell well at all his, Optoma's dlp rptv was a technical fiasco (lots of failures). beyond that there's no dlp rptv market here.

the rptv market in general in Europe is very bad: people only want a plasma or an lcd, flat.
even Sony and JVC struggle with their "semi flat" rptvs.

too many dlp projectors manufacturers, not one big brand well known name coming out of the pack. and even more manufacturers coming (planar)
though optoma and benq have the <EUR 3,000 dlp market.

now what is the dlp chip market for TI, compared to all the various chips they manufacture ?

the rptv market in general in Europe is very bad: people only want a plasma or an lcd, flat.
even Sony and JVC struggle with their "semi flat" rptvs.

too many dlp projectors manufacturers, not one big brand well known name coming out of the pack. and even more manufacturers coming (planar)
though optoma and benq have the <EUR 3,000 dlp market.

now what is the dlp chip market for TI, compared to all the various chips they manufacture ?As I understand it this has always been the case. According to a report I read big RP TVs have only ever sold well in the US, Canada and China. People in other countries presumably don't have the space to put a huge TV with a big cabinet.

The bigger issue for TI/DLP is what LCD/Plasma are doing to their RPTV sales...long the cash cow for TI. If that volume goes away, is it worthwhile to invest large sums of money in further development for the relatively small FPTV market and 3-chip professional market (which only cares about brightness/cost anyway)?

TI is really going to have to pull a rabbit out of their hat to get their native CR much beyond where they are now. I won't go so far as to say that they've run out of ways to improve the technology, but further gains become much more difficult given the underlying nature of the technology.

And don't count on JVC or Sony to give them a stationary target! :-)

Cheers,

Well there is an easy way for TI to triple their projector market; they just need to lower the 3 chippers to similar pricing than the LCOS/XRD based projector.

That's not how they do that, at least not InFocus*. The only real question about the IN82 is just how bright (or how dim) will it be to provide "12000:1" CR.

*If that is how they come up with 12000:1, then it's over for IF basically, they'll have abandoned their one big differentiator in the market, that they're rated at D65 calibrated and they basically reach their specs (at least far closer than the alternatives).

All I know is I'm optomistic about the IN82 (I love my IN76 save the black level, if the IN82 hits even 5000:1 at the same brightness as my 76 it may be enough for me). I'm also not sure if the IN82 has a static or dynamic iris.

For the Sharp to achieve this level of CR, the lumen output need to be dropped below 300 lumens. If the IN82 could achieve 12000:1 at around 500 lumens such as the RS1, that would be a really nice achievement.

Alan,

I always enjoy your Comments on your Post. This Thread and your comments are an Excellent Example. It seems to me after reading as many Threads/Post here that "Usually" Price has a lot to do with the decisions that are made on Projectors.

I still find it Very-Hard to believe that Runco sells their Example: VX5000d "Replaced now with the 6000d" for Approx. $27K and the Projectors that are mostly purchased here and discussed cost between $5K-15K. So Runco I would think would not be charging these prices for nothing more than just profit margin. I think quality and performance has something to do with the price. I'm certainly not the Expert in this field and do not claim to be. But I do think you get what you pay for in most instances.

Terry

Runco OEMs. OEMs will never sell cheaper then the original and add to this the Runco added value. I think Sam realized the impact the internet is having on retail B&M which over time making it harder to compete against the larger Sonys/JVCs who are mass producing product with satisfying performance level. This could have led to the sale of the company. Just my personal 2 cents!

Runco OEMs. OEMs will never sell cheaper then the original and add to this the Runco added value. I think Sam realized the impact the internet is having on retail B&M which over time making it harder to compete against the larger Sonys/JVCs who are mass producing product with satisfying performance level. This could have led to the sale of the company. Just my personal 2 cents!

Alan,

I thought that Sam figured that if he got the Huge Resources of Planar along with the Expertise of Runco that would provide perhaps a larger market and better pricing as time goes by for their products.

I will say though that the other thing that comes to my mind is Sam is probably now a Very-Wealthy person from the sale of Runco to Planar.

So your thoughts along with these, I think are very close to the total package on the sell.

But as you say, these are just nothing more than my and your opinions.

Terry

I think Alan's point gets to the heart of the pricing matter for all DLP vendors. None are the maker of the DMD device, so there will always be a lack of control over pricing and design. Sony and JVC don't have that problem.

While I do agree that there is nothing wrong with DLP, they just need to keep improving their product at the same pace that their competition is improving, I still disagree with the premise that cheaper always wins. Cheaper has always been available but as recently as a year ago the consensus price point, at least for our forums argument's sake, was at $10,000 MSRP with the Ruby. Some people even argued that it was a budget projector, not as good as the Qualia or the more expensive PJs for some of the same reasons that you hear them arguing about the RS1 now.

Now though, those same folks are calling the RS1 a budget product and are clamoring for a more expensive, non budget projector, to come in under $10,000, around $7,000 or $8,000.

The bar is not at $5000 because its $5000. The bar is at $5000 because that just happens to be what the RS1 sells for.

The RS1 is a success because it is a good projector that is priced right. If, for instance, the Sharp 20k was priced comparably, How many RS1 owners would now regret their purchase? The 20k is arguably a better projector, but who would pay $5,000 more for it?


I know you own a Sharp 12k and that you love it. I used to own one, too, and loved it as well. Ive seen the Sharp 20k and it is a very nice projector but dont you long for the blacks of your 12k in high contrast and the punch of it in high brightness, at the same time? Maybe your screen is small enough and/or you are using a high power.

I think its probably fair to say that if the Sharp 20k were priced less (much less in my opinion) that it becomes more desirable and depending on how much less it was priced some folks who bought RS1s might have bought the Sharp 20k.

(Little secret: I paid a mere $600 more for my Sharp Z20k than the cheapest price you can buy a JVC RS-1 for... Never judge by MSRP, always TALK to your dealer. You will be surprised...)

I think youd be surprised at the price differences though, like The Lion states above. Its not really $5,000 difference, they are available at pretty close to each other in price.

DLP seemed to sit on their 1080p chips for a LONG TIME to keep selling more 720p chips and they have been paying the price for that since the Ruby came out. I think they are having a hard time catching up.

I agree, though, if they priced their 3 chippers to be competitive with LCoS they would sell a ton of those. I might go for a two projector setup, myself. 8)

Catdaddy67

Good thoughts. One thing for sure is that while we are talking about this months hot ticket and what TI or Sony or JVC should do next we are already to late. The next product was probably on the drawing board a year ago with the molds being made as we speak for production this fall. All our ideas are old news or a little to late. I hope what ever is next is a good one:)

While I do agree that there is nothing wrong with DLP, they just need to keep improving their product at the same pace that their competition is improving, I still disagree with the premise that cheaper always wins. Cheaper has always been available but as recently as a year ago the consensus price point, at least for our forums argument's sake, was at $10,000 MSRP with the Ruby. Some people even argued that it was a budget projector, not as good as the Qualia or the more expensive PJs for some of the same reasons that you hear them arguing about the RS1 now.

I am not privy to Sony's sale figues, but I have no reason to expect that Sony's experience is any different than any other manufacturer of any other product.

While, it may be true that recently the "consensus" price around here was $10,000, I think that you are not seeing the forest through the trees. If Sony, for instance sold X number of Ruby's at $10,000, it would have sold $4X at $5,000 or less. True, margins decrease but overall profits can increase exponentially when prices are cut. In well run companies, volume decreases manufacturing costs and promotes efficiencies. The companies that are now major players in front projection think in "high volume, low price." That is their mantra. Overall, I think it is a good one because it truly grows the market.

While the street price of something like the Sharp 20k may not be much different than that of the RS1, the disparity between msrp and street price surely scares away buyers. People may be prepared to haggle when buying a new car but they are not prepared for it when buying a projector.

Again, I am arguing that dlp projector manufacturers have misjudged the market and are acting much like dinosaurs after the meteor struck. It can not be business as usual for them, they have to adapt or die. You appear to agree. DLP does not need some unnamed 1080p DMD based projector to be priced competitively. It needs a DC3 DMD-based projector with features like lens shift to take on LCOS head-on. Maybe some dlp manufacturer needs to experiment with a dynamic iris. No one in the consumer market wants to spend thousands on something and feel like they compromised.

As to whether the 20k is better or worse obectively than the RS1, I say pick your poison. The RS1 has a set of imperfections which some would find hard to live with, so does the 20k.

I think that you are not seeing the forest through the trees.

Ive been wrongfully acused of worse before. 8)

While, it may be true that recently the "consensus" price around here was $10,000, I think that you are not seeing the forest through the trees. If Sony, for instance sold X number of Ruby's at $10,000, it would have sold $4X at $5,000 or less.

Spoken like a true attorney, or paralegal. 8)

Pick two projectors, one $10,000, and one $5,000. You think the projector that ANY projector that is priced at $5000 sells 4x as much as a projector that is priced $10,000? Of course if the Ruby was priced at $5,000 it would have sold more than if it was priced at $10,000. We dont really know if its 4x more, or a few hundred more, but I agree that it probably would have sold more.

The point I was trying to make with that statement you quoted is that its not really about $10,000 or $5,000 but its about the RS1, and in this case you refer to involving the Ruby it wouldnt be about $10,000 and $5,000 but more about the Ruby.

Even in the Ruby's case, the Pearl (because its agruably, to use your word, incrementally better than the Ruby, at $5,000 or less ($3,000 now), didnt sell nearly as much. The RS1 (note my case that its the RS1) which came a few months after the Pearl, at $5,000, because its arguably a large leap in native CR/PQ improvement over the Ruby/Pearl sells a ton, even as other nice 1080p machines (BenQs, Panasonic, Mits, etc) are at the market at less than $5,000 (again, they arent the RS1) and they arent having that same success.

True, margins decrease but overall profits can increase exponentially when prices are cut. In well run companies, volume decreases manufacturing costs and promotes efficiencies. The companies that are now major players in front projection think in "high volume, low price." That is their mantra. Overall, I think it is a good one because it truly grows the market.


This one seems to be grounded in some logic that I agree with. Makes good business sense to me.

While the street price of something like the Sharp 20k may not be much different than that of the RS1, the disparity between msrp and street price surely scares away buyers. People may be prepared to haggle when buying a new car but they are not prepared for it when buying a projector.


I dont think you give most people who can afford to spend $5,000 on a projector enough credit on what they know about making purchases. Well, anyways, you dont believe that people who are in AVS forum dont know that they can haggle when they buy their electronics, do you?

I think, too, that to most people the BenQs are very comparable to the Sharp 20k, in many aspects. I would think that they are very close to each other in performance and specs, myself.

Far overwhelming, the number who have bought the RS1 despite any other projector available, cheaper (some even half as much), or more expensive.

Again, I am arguing that dlp projector manufacturers have misjudged the market and are acting much like dinosaurs after the meteor struck. It can not be business as usual for them, they have to adapt or die. You appear to agree. DLP does not need some unnamed 1080p DMD based projector to be priced competitively. It needs a DC3 DMD-based projector with features like lens shift to take on LCOS head-on. Maybe some dlp manufacturer needs to experiment with a dynamic iris. No one in the consumer market wants to spend thousands on something and feel like they compromised.

After re-reading, I would say that I mostly agree, though I think its more of a performance issue than a price issue. Evidenced by the available (much cheaper) 1080p DLPs. The Sharp 20k, the Benq W10000, even the Optoma HD81 are all DC3 1080p.

As to whether the 20k is better or worse obectively than the RS1, I say pick your poison. The RS1 has a set of imperfections which some would find hard to live with, so does the 20k.

Sure, you definitely pick your poison here. Some people will argue a 3 year old 720p projector can still look better than the RS1. Most people will disagree with them, but they can argue it.

"True, margins decrease but overall profits can increase exponentially when prices are cut."

Lawguy,interesting do you have any evidence/source for such a effect ?

Because i believe that you can't compare company x with company y and talk about profits as a function on price reduction only. This without knowing their current finanical status, cost for their process (thresholds, dead zones etc), employess etc.

i dont belive that for example a 150 % increase in volume sales with a 50 % lower price would have yield a better profit in this industry. Sometimes, as i said, depending upon your industry/process, a 100 % incraese in volume sale would have been nessacry to be followed by lowering the product price with a small 10-20 %.

However having said that, it's true that TI is currently suffering financial losses ( i can't rember the the exact number but you can check it up in their Q1 report) because of declines in DLP products, which for most accounts can be dervied directly to to a declined FP market.

As for fighting back, yes ofcourse.
when talking to a employee in the industry, they (TI) will present a new DMD with a higher tilt angle (14). Sure that means new RAM, mabey a new CMOS structure. I dont think this will be in the next wave of high-end DLP projector becuase of the re-do in raytracing in the light-engine nor do i belive that TI has shipped a reference design for it yet.


"volume decreases manufacturing costs and promotes efficiencies."

Well yes, to a certain degree, it really depends on the manufacturing plant and organisation. While i do agree, we are talking about highly automed manufacturing, like the automotive industry and in some other flexible manufacturing plants and structures.
Some organization can't handle volume variance equaly good and make a profit of it.

I just want to add, that altough volume plays a key factor, a company can do good profits even on "low" volumes. However i have my reasons to belive that many profits for FP DLP manufactures can be done by a incresed engineering (production simulations, organisation etc) within the manufacturing plant (Coretronic/optoma for instance).

Catdaddy

I don't think that we are very far apart here.

There are reasons that prices are falling. The RS1 is part of that, but prices were falling long before it ever arrived on the market.

There was a time not long ago when CRTs ruled the planet that the home theater projection market was extremely small. Those companies that entered the home market at that time (Runco for example) had to (and were able to) command very high premiums on their products. They had to because it was a small market and they were able to because their customers were a small group of very wealthly people.

One thing that is basically a law of nature is that high profit margins beg for competition. Many companies entered the market. Competition invites cost cutting. Cost cutting expands the markey by making products available to people who formerly couldn't afford them.

This cycle of competition and cost cutting and market growing has brought us to where we are today.

For a company to survive today they need both high quality products and to price them within reach of the masses. It is that simple.

JVC didn't price the RS1 in a vacuum in order to be generous to customers. It priced the RS1 because it has real competition at the $5k level from Sony and because it wants to steal marketshare.

My point is that dlp manufacturers are acting as if they can somehow avoid this competition. They are losing customers and are seemingly doing nothing to stop it. Some, such as Sharp, are rumored to have abandoned the HT market entirely.

There is some price and some margin at which it will no longer be profitable for many companies to continue to offer new projectors. Then, prices will stop falling. I don't think that we are there yet.

"True, margins decrease but overall profits can increase exponentially when prices are cut."

Lawguy,interesting do you have any evidence/source for such a effect ?

Because i believe that you can't compare company x with company y and talk about profits as a function on price reduction only. This without knowing their current finanical status, cost for their process (thresholds, dead zones etc), employess etc.

i dont belive that for example a 150 % increase in volume sales with a 50 % lower price would have yield a better profit in this industry. Sometimes, as i said, depending upon your industry/process, a 100 % incraese in volume sale would have been nessacry to be followed by lowering the product price with a small 10-20 %.

However having said that, it's true that TI is currently suffering financial losses ( i can't rember the the exact number but you can check it up in their Q1 report) because of declines in DLP products, which for most accounts can be dervied directly to to a declined FP market.

As for fighting back, yes ofcourse.
when talking to a employee in the industry, they (TI) will present a new DMD with a higher tilt angle (14). Sure that means new RAM, mabey a new CMOS structure. I dont think this will be in the next wave of high-end DLP projector becuase of the re-do in raytracing in the light-engine nor do i belive that TI has shipped a reference design for it yet.


"volume decreases manufacturing costs and promotes efficiencies."

Well yes, to a certain degree, it really depends on the manufacturing plant and organisation. While i do agree, we are talking about highly automed manufacturing, like the automotive industry and in some other flexible manufacturing plants and structures.
Some organization can't handle volume variance equaly good and make a profit of it.

I just want to add, that altough volume plays a key factor, a company can do good profits even on "low" volumes. However i have my reasons to belive that many profits for FP DLP manufactures can be done by a incresed engineering (production simulations, organisation etc) within the manufacturing plant (Coretronic/optoma for instance).

Your points are all well taken.

The relative quality of a product is always a factor. Better products command higher prices (while still increasing volumes). The question is how much of a higher price will the market allow for what have to be considered incremental differences in PQ between todays high end projectors?

I do not believe that companies can survive today in the mainstream HT market with a low volume strategy. While you are correct that high volumes do not always translate into lower costs, this is ordinarily true, and I think, true in fact for the companies that we are concerned about (JVC, Sony). Small companies dealing in low volume goods can only only survive if they cater to a niche market (such as the "stupid rich") and offer more than just a product (high levels of service).

the abundance of DLP based pj brand is causing cannibalism of their market share

add the offensive of SONY and JVC with well priced machines and lots of brand awareness

so yes there is problem for the $4-15K DLP market.

dlp pj manufacturers: (for HT)
OPTOMA BENQ SHARP MARANTZ PLANAR SIM2 RUNCO MITSUBISHI INFOCUS and i miss some

lcos pjs manfacturers:
SONY JVC (and Vidikron Cineversum Meridian but this is trivial): two brands with already massive awareness in the brains of the public.

we surely benefit from a war between Sony and JVC, while dlp pj manufacturers pay the price of this war ! for now.

nevertheless lcos based machines should triple their ansi contrast ad dlp should improve a bit the on off contrast. i can live with well done 1DLP machines. though 3DLP is sweet :)

...Even in the Ruby's case, the Pearl (because its agruably, to use your word, incrementally better than the Ruby, at $5,000 or less ($3,000 now), didnt sell nearly as much. ....
According to an article in UltimateAvmag, the Ruby was the #1 volume seller in HT pj in the > $3K MAP segment in Q1 '06. My Sony contact said the the Ruby was the #1 volume seller in that segment for most of '06, before it was overtaken by the Pearl at the end of '06.
...The RS1 (note my case that its the RS1) which came a few months after the Pearl, at $5,000, because its arguably a large leap in native CR/PQ improvement over the Ruby/Pearl sells a ton, even as other nice 1080p machines (BenQs, Panasonic, Mits, etc) are at the market at less than $5,000 (again, they arent the RS1) and they arent having that same success....
I put in a call to my contact, but I would be very surprised if the RS1 had greater volume sales than the Pearl to date.

...add the offensive of SONY and JVC with well priced machines and lots of brand awareness...
One major advantage that Sony, and JVC have as far as FPs are concerned, is the ability to leverage the R&D investments geared towards the mass US RPTV market. In the case of Sony the 0.61" SXRD panels, and a significant portion of the light engine design is shared between the FPs and the RPTVs.

One major advantage that Sony, and JVC have as far as FPs are concerned, is the ability to leverage the R&D investments geared towards the mass US RPTV market. In the case of Sony the 0.61" SXRD panels, and a significant portion of the light engine design is shared between the FPs and the RPTVs.

This is true. For this reason I am surprised that Samsung is not a bigger player in the front projection market since it is such a big one in the dlp TV market.

This is true. For this reason I am surprised that Samsung is not a bigger player in the front projection market since it is such a big one in the dlp TV market.
One issue is that the 1080p DLP RPTV market uses the "wobulated' (960x1080)chip, which requires a different light engine design than the 1920x1080 DMDs used in the FP products.

There are reasons that prices are falling. The RS1 is part of that, but prices were falling long before it ever arrived on the market.



I am not disagreeing with you here.

Im just saying that there were a lot of projectors priced under $10,000 when the Ruby came out and there are currently many projectors, even 1080p ones, that are priced under $5000 that arent having anywhere near the success of the RS1.

Its not really about the $10,000 price when the Ruby came out, it was about the Ruby then, and not about the $5000 price now, but rather its about the RS1, that just happens to be priced at $5,000 ($6200+ actually.)

For a company to survive today they need both high quality products and to price them within reach of the masses.

Sure, that makes good sense in a broad stroke. Dont you think, though, the Sharp 20ks, or the BenQ W10000s, or even the Optoma HD81s, and even the Sony Pearls, are good quality projectors with good prices?

While its tough to agree with the generalities of what you say, I think specifically in the case where "cheaper always wins" or that the $5,000 is now some kind of magic price point (for any other reason than the RS1), or that $10,000 was over a year and a half ago (for any other reason than the Ruby), thats where my disagreement is.

The BenQW10000 is pretty close to the Sharp 20k, to me, and its MSRP is priced very comparably to the RS1s, the Sharp 20k sells on the street similarly to the RS1 with the BenQs even less, and even the Pearl now sells for substantially less than the RS1, and none of them are enjoying the current success of the RS1.


I put in a call to my contact, but I would be very surprised if the RS1 had greater volume sales than the Pearl to date.

I should have qualified that with forum members/numbers, as you are right, it is possible (maybe even likely considering JVCs supply issues), though I find it doubtful, that more Pearl's have sold than RS1s. Id be curious to see some real numbers, myself. I guess its possible that the Pearl, like the Ruby a year before, might have defined a niche for itself in that $5000 or so range, but I dont believe that is the case anymore, now, even as it finds itself selling for almost half as much as the RS1.

According to some here who would know, the Pearl is no longer being manufactured. Its undergone some serious price reductions, discounts, in the last few months. It did have a several month headstart on the RS1, and the RS1 has only been selling for 6 months.

Please let us know what you find out. As I said, Im curious about it myself, so Ill be digging around and asking some of my retailers/distributors what they know about numbers and Ill post the same.

According to an article in UltimateAvmag, the Ruby was the #1 volume seller in HT pj in the > $3K MAP segment in Q1 '06.

Definitely goes to the point of my disagreement with "cheaper always wins." Without a doubt (to me), as I referred to it in my other posts, the Ruby was a landmark product that set the bar for us (forum's argument's sake) at $10,000.

I feel the same way, as many others who do, that the RS1, and not the other quality projectors named above that retail for more or less than it, sets the bar now at $5000.

Tom (Stites), do you have any numbers in re the Pearl and the RS1? When the Pearl first came out, and now?

I bet he probably does. 8)

Tom (Stites), do you have any numbers in re the Pearl and the RS1? When the Pearl first came out, and now?

I bet he probably does. 8)

Catdaddy, I don't think anyone will argue that the RS1 is not a successful projector for JVC. It clearly is.

It's success is not at all diminished in my opinion by the fact that it was priced to compete with the Pearl. I expect that Sony's Amethyst will, in turn be priced to compete with the RS1. That is the way competition works.

Again, do you really think JVC priced the RS1 at the level it did for reasons other than competitive reasons?

Again, do you really think JVC priced the RS1 at the level it did for reasons other than competitive reasons?

Im sorry if this was asked before. I missed it, if it was. 8)

Im sure there are other reasons, but of course I believe that every manufacturer should, and likely, prices their products based on what they think the market would bear for them.

As I stated in my last post above, I did not disagree with you that prices were falling before it arrived in the market. What I have been saying is to say that "cheaper always wins" isnt reflective of what is actually occurring.

You seemed to disagree with that. You stated that the Sharp 20k was "arguably" better and implied that the numbers would be different if the prices were more similar. When I stated that their street prices werent as far as you thought, you seemed to argue that projector purchasers werent quite as knowledgable/sophisticated a purchaser and implied that the sales numbers would still be different if their MSRPs were closer.

I offer to you, again, that the BenQ W10000 is very similar to the Sharp 20k, in just about every aspect to me, MSRP included. It can actually be had for less and it doesnt have anywhere near the success of the RS1, just like most every other projector out there.

Despite that, I certainly havent said that the RS1 isnt priced the way that it is, by JVC, because of the Ruby, the Pearl, and all of the other projectors that came before it. What I am saying is that the bar was raised (lowered) by Sony when it came out with the Ruby, and it outsold other projectors that went down in price to as low as $3,000, according to Ultimate AV via HHF. In outselling those other projectors, and because of the performance gains it accomplished I believe the Ruby set the bar (on the forum's anyways, at $10,000.) A lot of folks, me included, moved the bar to what we would pay for a projector down to $10,000 MSRP.

Since then the Pearl has come out, nothing earthshattering except the price. It was arguably worse, or better, than the Ruby but I dont believe that the Pearl moved the "consensus price" on the forums to $5,000 MSRP. The Sharp 20k at above $10,000, the Optoma HD81 at $8,000, others, even the then coming RS1/HD1 at $6,300 were all still viable value propositions that many on these boards believed were worth considering over the Ruby, or the Pearl.

Aside from outselling all the other projectors mentioned above, since its release, the RS1 changed that - the bar was moved down for very many of us to $5,000 street. There is talk of Sharp 20k being discontinued, or of Sharp getting out of the HT business. The Sony Pearl, which was out just months before the RS1 has dropped to around $3000 street, from $4000 street right at the time of RS1s launch. BenQ has dropped the MSRP on the W10000 substantially, to match the RS1s MSRP, with street prices lower, as mentioned above.

Despite all those projectors being priced similarly to, or in many cases cheaper than, the RS1 the bar has been set for many of us (on the forums - consensus price for arguments sake, anyways) at $5,000 street. Solely, because of the RS1, not because $5000 street is some kind of magic number.

Im not disagreeing, or never said anything that would have implied that I did, with you on the simple marketing principles that you seem to be championing, or on the benefits of mass production. It seems to me that you are disagreeing that "cheaper always wins" is not the case in re the projector market, as evidenced by the RS1 and the Ruby before that, and that the RS1 has set the bar for $5000 (street) the same way that the Ruby set the bar at $10,000 (though MSRP) a year and a half ago.

DLP has one major problem. Single DLP implementations suffer from the RBE. Get rid of this and it's wide open.

...Since then the Pearl has come out, nothing earthshattering except the price. It was arguably worse, or better, than the Ruby but I dont believe that the Pearl moved the "consensus price" on the forums to $5,000 MSRP. .
I agree. Maybe instead of "consensus price" it should be "reference projector (digital) price" :)

Before the Ruby, the "reference projectors" were the $30K 1080p Qualia 04, JVC HD2K, and to a lesser extent the $30K 720p 3 DLPs from SIM, Infocus 777 and Marantz 10S1. Did they sell even a single $30K 10S1?

The Ruby came out at $10K for 1080P with the then industry best static CR at 5,200:1 and a DI CR of 15,000:1. Instantly the reference pj price moved to $10K.

The RS1 at $6.3K, 1080p with a 15,000:1 native CR moved the reference pj price to $6K.

I suspect that the initial target price for the RS1 was $10K, the release of the Pearl with "Ruby-like' performance at the $5k mark forced JVC to lower the price to the bare minimum which explains the "strange" $6.3k price.

Cheaper does not always win.

All other things being equal, cheaper wins, but that is not saying much. People compromise on what they want to avoid paying more than they want. With the RS1, many people feel that they are only compromising a little or not at all.

Keep in mind the market for $5000 projectors is much, much larger than the market for $10,000 projectors.

DLP has one major problem. Single DLP implementations suffer from the RBE. Get rid of this and it's wide open.


You missed the other major problem... cost... presently TI can't compete with Sony or JVC in that category. If TI can't lower their costs and maintain the quality DLP is doomed.

You missed the other major problem... cost... presently TI can't compete with Sony or JVC in that category. If TI can't lower their costs and maintain the quality DLP is doomed.

DLP in the $5-10K market perhaps.
DLP has great success in the $1K-2.5K market.

DLP must be viewed as two sides: TI and projectors manufacturers. two different things.

DLP has one major problem. Single DLP implementations suffer from the RBE. Get rid of this and it's wide open.


RBE is a problem for only a small percentage of people. DLP units whether they are rear projection or front projection, have a great deal of market share (Somewhere above 55%?).

Tom (Stites), do you have any numbers in re the Pearl and the RS1? When the Pearl first came out, and now?

I bet he probably does. 8)

Yeah, right, like I'm going to post that info here....mwwwaaaahahahahaha

Cheaper does not always win.

All other things being equal, cheaper wins, but that is not saying much. People compromise on what they want to avoid paying more than they want. With the RS1, many people feel that they are only compromising a little or not at all.

Keep in mind the market for $5000 projectors is much, much larger than the market for $10,000 projectors.

Ok, so it seems like we are agreeing more than we were agreeing before. That progress. 8)

In the last two years, cheaper hardly wont at all, if any.

I would agree that the market for $5,000 projectors should be larger than the market for $10,000 projectors, despite that though, according to Ultimate AV, the Ruby outsold all projectors $3,000 and up.

I think the RS1 has expanded on that market. Whereas others preferred their flat screens or CRT projectors or needed 3 chip DLPs, or G90 stacks, to fill up their fairly large screens with a decent enough image, the RS1 now fits that bill for many new RS1 owners.

Hopefully something better and cheaper comes out soon. Im sure if its better and cheaper enough, that the "argument point for "reference projector price" that many people will not have a reason to pay more for will drop down from the current $5000 street price of the RS1.

Yeah, right, like I'm going to post that info here....mwwwaaaahahahahaha


Yeah, thanks a lot! 8) Thats about the same thing you said when we asked for vertical stretch and CMS.

Well, that and "Buy the RS2!" 8)

DLP in the $5-10K market perhaps.
DLP has great success in the $1K-2.5K market.

DLP must be viewed as two sides: TI and projectors manufacturers. two different things.


I was specifically referencing the DC3 chip which is TI's high end product. Three chip DC3 DLP projectors can't even economically compete with Sony's or JVC's 3 chip projectors.

".. cost... presently TI can't compete with Sony or JVC in that category."

There are XLNT 720P DLP pj's for <$1K, so even if that's true now for 1080 DLP, I doubt it will be for long.

Again, I am arguing that dlp projector manufacturers have misjudged the market and are acting much like dinosaurs after the meteor struck. It can not be business as usual for them, they have to adapt or die. You appear to agree. DLP does not need some unnamed 1080p DMD based projector to be priced competitively. It needs a DC3 DMD-based projector with features like lens shift to take on LCOS head-on. Maybe some dlp manufacturer needs to experiment with a dynamic iris. No one in the consumer market wants to spend thousands on something and feel like they compromised.

I feel the same. The DLP projector manufacturers controlled the 720p market and probably though it would be easy to achieve that for 1080p market. The reacted too late and they now in catching mode.

You missed the other major problem... cost... presently TI can't compete with Sony or JVC in that category. If TI can't lower their costs and maintain the quality DLP is doomed.

TI managed to control the 720p market and there is a slew of cheap 720p based projectors. I don't see why TI cannot achieve this with 1080p. They could start increasing the 1080p volume by using the same chip for projectors and RPTV.

TI managed to control the 720p market and there is a slew of cheap 720p based projectors. I don't see why TI cannot achieve this with 1080p. They could start increasing the 1080p volume by using the same chip for projectors and RPTV.

Only a matter of time. Those that say TI is doomed haven't looked in the under 3k forum which is 4 times the size of this forum and DLP lives within the masses and is out selling our fav in this forum.

Maybe an Optoma HD80 might just start a cheap 1080p DLP? I read from the thread that it can be gotten from CC at $2430 only.

Peter

Problem with DLP projector is MSRP. They put high MSRP and sell way bellow it. JVC MSRP is coloser to the selling price. Most people won't consider the Sharp XV-Z20000 as an alternative to the JVC because everyone thinks it sell for twice the price. Bad marketing.

I think 1080p DLP should sell way cheaper. The monochip DLP design seem very simple and should come out cheaper than LCOS and LCD in my opinion. TI is milking the cow as much as they can for now. I doubt producing a 1280x720 chip is that much cheaper than the 1920x1080.

The 3 chips DLP will stay more expensive because it's the only solution for high end , high lumens projectors.

I will like to see a DLP with LED illumination that can produce 500 lumens. The should be able to boost on:off contrast with those. The 14 degres chip could be interesting if it can produce a least twice the contrast.

It would be interesting to see hybrid. One DLP chip and one LCD for exemple. Am I dreaming or somebody already tried it?

Bruno

Only a matter of time. Those that say TI is doomed haven't looked in the under 3k forum which is 4 times the size of this forum and DLP lives within the masses and is out selling our fav in this forum.

Good point Alan. DLP projectors like the Optoma HD70 I saw at Best Buy the other day sell for considerably less than what I paid for my Denon receiver. I imagine they sell quite a few at that price point.

Good point Alan. DLP projectors like the Optoma HD70 I saw at Best Buy the other day sell for considerably less than what I paid for my Denon receiver. I imagine they sell quite a few at that price point.

DLP is alive and well in the sub 3k forum:)

DLP is alive and well in the sub 3k forum:)

Yes it is.

Question: A 720P 1-Chip DLP ranges from= $1000-$2000. Why does a 3-chip 720P not = $3000- $6000?

I would pull the trigger on a 3K-6K 720P 3-Chip PJ much quicker than I would on a 1080P LCOS or Single Chip DLP in the same price range.

Regardless of 1080P, High lumens + High ANSI + High On/Off = Video Bliss

Question: A 720P 1-Chip DLP ranges from= $1000-$2000. Why does a 3-chip 720P not = $3000- $6000?
Answer: 720P 1 DLPs range from $1,000 to > $15,000

Answer: 720P 1 DLPs range from $1,000 to > $15,000

While this is true, does it not suggest that some companies are living in a fantasy world? Of course, the $15,000 PJ will throw a better picture than the sub $1000 one, but can anyone say that the difference in PQ is worth $14,000?

While this is true, does it not suggest that some companies are living in a fantasy world? Of course, the $15,000 PJ will throw a better picture than the sub $1000 one, but can anyone say that the difference in PQ is worth $14,000?

That does get you thinking but yes the more pricey machines do throw a better image. It can be said the more expensive projectors have added features, better case design ( for those who care ), better optics with lens shift. Superior on board scaling/de interlacing eliminating the need for an outboard scaler and some of these these companies are easy to get a hold of for 1 on 1 support. What is all this worth to someone?

I do expect we will see 1080 1 chip DLP drop in price from a select few main stream manufactures the next few months closer to or after Cedia.

That does get you thinking but yes the more pricey machines do throw a better image. It can be said the more expensive projectors have added features, better case design ( for those who care ), better optics with lens shift. Superior on board scaling/de interlacing eliminating the need for an outboard scaler and some of these these companies are easy to get a hold of for 1 on 1 support. What is all this worth to someone?

I do expect we will see 1080 1 chip DLP drop in price from a select few main stream manufactures the next few months closer to or after Cedia.

It does seem that way doesn't it. This time reminds me a lot of where 720p DLP was before the price plummet. I remember probably three years ago looking at PJs (hadn't yet bought one) when the 8720 was the "big dog" and MSRP'd for about $8k and sold for ~$5k. And then, seemingly out of nowhere BenQ and Toshiba came out the the 7700/MT700 for MSRP $3k.

Seems like we're right about there with 1080p, good 1080p DLP machines are MSRP in the $8-10k range, LCDs are already out in the ~2-3k range. seems like about the time for ~$3k 1080p DLPs to start sprouting up.

Optoma HD80 MSRP at $2999 and street price at $2699, quite a few people gotten at $2430 after 10% coupon off in CC. I think both HD80 MSRP and street price is half of the RS1, but does RS1 2 times better than the HD80?

The answer I think is no, worse still, I guess there might be no clear winner out of the 2 projector. HD80 has 2 times more ANSI contrast compare to RS1, higher lumans output compare to RS1, no convergence issues, give sharper picture compare to RS1. Therefore, I think it has more POP, 3 dimensional, sharper image than the RS1. Although I do agree that RS1 has an edge for on/off contrast but at half the price of RS1, I think HD80 will just be the winner.

Peter

You can have the Optoma HD81, new, for a little bit north of $4,000. That is with DC3 chip and separate processor. Why would you think that a DC2 chip, without the VP, is a better deal?

BenQ already makes a very nice, more featured, projector in the range of the HD80.

Funny before the Sanyo Z2 and the Panny equivalent came out the talk on the boards was about the death of LCD and how it couldn't compete on CR and was doomed. How fast the sky is falling elsewhere. I think DLP can price themselves as low as needed to stay competitive. First off I think many of these projectors are way fat on margin when you consider that almost the same hardware is found in RPTV's. But even with all the expense of the added big box, screen, and shipping they the DLP tv's can be had for much less. Thus just based on raw materials the projector should cost less. As for mass production the question is how much do you reap from a 20x or more higher production. It's not 20X. Then add to this that if TI sees sales slipping on a chip that has already paid for it's non-recurring costs then they will decrease their cost to increase sales. In the end until the margins are used up or one technology is drastically able to undercut the other with the same performance DLP will be around for a long time.

Just my 25cents, I went over the two cents limit.

Just my 25cents, I went over the two cents limit.

That will cost you 17 cents please :)

You can have the Optoma HD81, new, for a little bit north of $4,000. That is with DC3 chip and separate processor. Why would you think that a DC2 chip, without the VP, is a better deal?

Because it's about 1.5K cheaper, has an integrated Processor ( reported to be "Working" better than the HD81's seperate config), and based on the 1080 BenQ threads, the DC3 1080 chip does not seem to have an apparent advantage over the DC2 1080 chip.

Seems like a great PJ, especially at its price. I would love to see a side by side with the HD80 and an RS1.

I wonder when WideScreen review will be getting one.

You can have the Optoma HD81, new, for a little bit north of $4,000. That is with DC3 chip and separate processor. Why would you think that a DC2 chip, without the VP, is a better deal?

BenQ already makes a very nice, more featured, projector in the range of the HD80.

Actually the HD81 is a bit north of $3k but I still wouldn't buy one because of all the reliability nightmares I've read about over and over...

The HD80?
Very appealing at ~$2,500 but I'll have to wait for more beta test..., errr, I mean user reports... ;)

hi
in Europe the dlp rtpv is almost inexistant; Optoma had two models but it was rigged with problems and they dumped it. in the US the rptv is a large market, alwayswas. don't know about Japan but i doubt they have space for large tvs vs flat screens (plasma lcd)

In palatial Paris and Neuilly appartments and hotel particuliers they have plenty of room to swing those rptvs, and more. Without counting the study and the dining room, the average living room in those is three times as big as the kind of shaq and shelter they build in america. But they are cultural differences. First it is cheap to have any kind of tv in a living room in places like those. Second, you don't build a home theater from sctrach, you have to work around beautiful 17th or 18th century old spaces, big and high in ceiling, you cannot touch anything. Third, also the French are very much so videophiles, they always preferred books and litterature and it has always been much cooler to show books lining up the walls of your residence than showing a big screen tv anywhere in a room.

In palatial Paris and Neuilly appartments and hotel particuliers they have plenty of room to swing those rptvs, and more. Without counting the study and the dining room, the average living room in those is three times as big as the kind of shaq and shelter they build in america. But they are cultural differences. First it is cheap to have any kind of tv in a living room in places like those. Second, you don't build a home theater from sctrach, you have to work around beautiful 17th or 18th century old spaces, big and high in ceiling, you cannot touch anything. Third, also the French are very much so videophiles, they always preferred books and litterature and it has always been much cooler to show books lining up the walls of your residence than showing a big screen tv anywhere in a room.

Well I can tell by "Your-Post" that I better stay in the U.S.A. with my (Custom Designed Home Theatre)

It is interesting to read what those in other countries prefer and how they do things. The World is a very big place with lots of different countries. Plenty of room for all people to do it the way they see fit to relax and entertain friends.

Personally I just simply love sitting in my H/T and watching HD Discovery, Movies, History Channel, DVDs etc. It is very relaxing to me after all the hrs. I work.

Terry

In palatial Paris and Neuilly appartments and hotel particuliers they have plenty of room to swing those rptvs, and more. Without counting the study and the dining room, the average living room in those is three times as big as the kind of shaq and shelter they build in america. But they are cultural differences. First it is cheap to have any kind of tv in a living room in places like those. Second, you don't build a home theater from sctrach, you have to work around beautiful 17th or 18th century old spaces, big and high in ceiling, you cannot touch anything. Third, also the French are very much so videophiles, they always preferred books and litterature and it has always been much cooler to show books lining up the walls of your residence than showing a big screen tv anywhere in a room.



30 hour work weeks. 20% unemployment. The GNP of North Dakota. Socialism at its best. Plus, french fries are awesome. 8)

You gotta love the French. 8) "Shaq and shelter." Nice. 8)

BTW, "French" fries are actually Belgian.

Welcome to the Projector forum Richie!
Glad to see you pollutin... errrr posting here. ;)

BTW, "French" fries are actually Belgian.

Oops, my mistake. 8)

It was 35 hours..

I know. 8)

Richie (AKA Refugio, AKA Summer Baez)

Thanks for the fried potato recipe.
That's exactly what I do when I make them and they're fantastic.
They call those "steak fries" over here.

Cheers.
PS Good luck with your new pres. hopefully he'll be good for the country.

PPS Belgian beers kick French beers a$$ anytime ;)

I was just throwing one cliche for another. Dont take that post, too seriously. 8)

Good to hear about your country's new economic outlook and the success of its new leadership. 8)

In palatial Paris and Neuilly appartments and hotel particuliers they have plenty of room to swing those rptvs, and more. Without counting the study and the dining room, the average living room in those is three times as big as the kind of shaq and shelter they build in america. But they are cultural differences. First it is cheap to have any kind of tv in a living room in places like those. Second, you don't build a home theater from sctrach, you have to work around beautiful 17th or 18th century old spaces, big and high in ceiling, you cannot touch anything. Third, also the French are very much so videophiles, they always preferred books and litterature and it has always been much cooler to show books lining up the walls of your residence than showing a big screen tv anywhere in a room.
30 hour work weeks. 20% unemployment. The GNP of North Dakota. Socialism at its best. Plus, french fries are awesome. 8)

You gotta love the French. 8) "Shaq and shelter." Nice. 8)From a neutral place I can without any personal risk make the assessment, that both the French and the Americans (statistically) are world-leaders with respect to chauvinism, but that it is very obvious, that finally the French win by a thin but clear margin :D :D :D

From a neutral place I can without any personal risk make the assessment, that both the French and the Americans (statistically) are world-leaders with respect to chauvinism, but that it is very obvious, that finally the French win by a thin but clear margin :D :D :D

I love the name the Brits have for the French..."Cheese eating surrender monkeys" :D

I love the name the Brits have for the French..."Cheese eating surrender monkeys" :DNobody appears to love the French, so it becomes obvious, that they have to do the job by themselves :D

I love the name the Brits have for the French..."Cheese eating surrender monkeys"

Lets not make them feel bad for their affinity to cheese. 8)

...
The French method calls for cooking the patatoes twice. The first immersion in oil at 325F for 10 minutes cooks the center of the fries and firms the exteriors. The second cooking at 375F for 2 minutes makes the potatoes golden brown.

Neither the Belgian nor the Americans follow those steps. Therefore they cannot call their French fries.. French.

I'll leave the rest of this thread alone but I thought I should address one item. There is at least one restaurant in New Orleans that uses the twice cooked method and it does indeed produce a "different" French fry. No necessarily better, just different. On the other hand, I have eaten fries in Paris restaurants that had almost the identical taste and texture of McDonald's fries. :rolleyes: :D :D

What happens if I half eat a cooked twice fry ? Would it then taste like a normal fry :)

Originally Posted by maddogmc
...On the other hand, I have eaten fries in Paris restaurants that had almost the identical taste and texture of McDonald's fries.
I've eaten at McDonald's in Paris... It still tastes like McDonald's.

I've eaten at McDonald's in Paris... It still tastes like McDonald's.
You're right! I should have been more precise.

A more precise phrase would have been, "I have eaten in Parisian restaurants, not American chain related, that served fries almost identical in taste and texture to McDonald's fries." :D :D

anyone has clues on the BENQ W5000 ? supposedly be a mono 1080P dlp to compete
with optoma HD80

too low priced and quality suffers, reliability.

Originally Posted by Summer Baez
American's women do.. Most of them lose their virginity in Paris in August, never in Switzerland...
Would one be able to verify that fact in the Guinness World Records book?

American's women do.. Most of them lose their virginity in Paris in August, never in Switzerland -they are prude, never in Belgium -they just eat bad French fries all day, never in Great Britain -they just care to drink, and like Jackie they never forget about it. You guys are jealous.



Yes, but you left out one small, but important fact. They lose them to Spaniards or Italians, not the French. 8)

Only the French show that inexhaustible surge of affection toward women that is theirs, that joie de vivre that american women find irresistible.. They are used to lampshades in America, reading of the Bible. Italians are hairy and scary. Spaniards wake up too late.


Uh huh. Gotta love the French. 8)