I wish this were so, the reasonable concern is that Epson would (understandably) send Art a cherry picked unit that performs better in all respects. Something to consider, anyway.

Not really, just demand a cherry-picked unit be sent to you...AVS will check it out before they send it to you...in fact, I insist on it! (If not, another seller will)

If you look at the screen shots of the "soft" Epson, you can see convergence issues in the unit which would cause the sharpness issues. My unit is very sharp as I do not have convergence issues like I am seeing on these units. I have seen about 10 different Epson 1080 units are most are under 1 pixel off which is less than I see in some of these screen shots. I had a reg pro1080 before and it was only slightly off(1/2 pixel off on the blue) and it still looked great and the new unit is WAY better! I did not get a hand picked unit and mine is perfect except the a small section which is 1/3 pixel off and can only be seen from 1' from a 104" screen. I don't know how many units there are with convergence issues, but I have yet to see them in person!

LAL

Is your pj Epson PRO 1080? Can you post a couple of screen pictures close up on 3 to 4 letters from the menu, just to show everybody that your 1080 is good. This is not latest UB batch made in China, but just something to compare. I have not seen any good convergence pictures from 1080 UB at all. You said, you seen about 10 previous models with OK convergence.


If you look at the screen shots of the "soft" Epson, you can see convergence issues in the unit which would cause the sharpness issues. My unit is very sharp as I do not have convergence issues like I am seeing on these units. I have seen about 10 different Epson 1080 units are most are under 1 pixel off which is less than I see in some of these screen shots. I had a reg pro1080 before and it was only slightly off(1/2 pixel off on the blue) and it still looked great and the new unit is WAY better! I did not get a hand picked unit and mine is perfect except the a small section which is 1/3 pixel off and can only be seen from 1' from a 104" screen. I don't know how many units there are with convergence issues, but I have yet to see them in person!

Thought I'd let everyone know the projection calculator is working for the 1080UB over at Projector Central.

From what I've read of Art's reviews, he doesn't get many "cherry-picked" projectors. I've seen a number of reviews where he has either received a unit that has been sent from another reviewer and is not in the best of shape or a pre-production unit that doesn't work as well as it should. Look through some of his reviews over the past two years and you'll see what I mean.

Definitely true of the pre-production units (evident in the last two Panasonic 1080p reviews), though I am less sure about other units he has reviewed. Anyway, I did not mean to imply that anyone (certainly not Art) is doing anything tricky or deceptive here, just that there is the very understandable possibility that the unit being reviewed have some extra quality control given that there can be considerable variation from unit to unit. Indeed, it would make perfect business sense for Epson or any other manufacturer to do this.

Thought I'd let everyone know the projection calculator is working for the 1080UB over at Projector Central.
Ah, finally. :) Good news, thanks.

Hey guys,

I just researched the hell out of the 1080ub HC, and I got one! You guys have been really helpful, thank you so much.

Silly question (one of many I have) :

When you turn the pj off, with the remote for example, the manual says to wait until the yellow light stops flashing, to indicate the bulb is sufficiently cooled.
Then it says to completely power off the PJ with the switch on the back, up high.

My question is ... Do you guys really do this? Or do you just let the bulb cool, and leave the pj on with out powering it off all the way? I have the pj mounted up so high, it's hard for me to get up there and power down, and i dont want a switch connected, otherwise my kids will hit the switch on and off when Im not looking.

Will leaving it on like that (with the bulb off) really shorten the life of the pj as the manual says?

Any wise words would help.
Thank you guys.

No. Just let it do the normal power down.

Hi all...

This is probably a really stupid newbie question, but are you supposed to put the lens cap back on the projector everytime you're not using it? The only reason I'm asking is that every time I take the lens cap off it moves the focus and I have to re-focus everytime.....

Thanks...

Hi all...

This is probably a really stupid newbie question, but are you supposed to put the lens cap back on the projector everytime you're not using it? The only reason I'm asking is that every time I take the lens cap off it moves the focus and I have to re-focus everytime.....

Thanks...
Absolutely not necessary. Perhaps your lens will collect some dust over the time, then just blow it off, but actually there must be a LOT of dust before it will be visible.

No. Just let it do the normal power down.


thank you. btw that was a good question on the lens cap, my wife yells at me everytime i don't put it on, and i have to climb up and down small ladder to do it.

Ugh.

A new review has just been posted at ProjectorCentral.com...

Epson Cinema 1080 UB (aka EMP-TW2000 )

http://www.projectorcentral.com/epson_cinema_1080_ub_review.htm

:D

when is the projectorreview's?

supposedly tonight. I'm holding my breath. :D

I hope so!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No. Just let it do the normal power down.


thank you. btw that was a good question on the lens cap, my wife yells at me everytime i don't put it on, and i have to climb up and down small ladder to do it.

Ugh.

Just thought I'd mention that I popped into a shop to check out the EMP-TW2000, where it was set up in a dark room with a dark back wall and a 100" matt-white screen. Throw distance was about 4 metres.

I only had an hour, and spent half of it callibrating the projector. Player was the Pioneer blu-ray, but as they had it running through an ill-matched Denon receiver, only 60p was available - not 24p.
Brought a swag of test material, but only had time to concentrate on the Casino Royale blu-ray. (I'll be back at a later stage for another session.)

As along-time lover of DLP, and a long-time hater of LCD, all I can say is this...

WOW.

It looks like LCDs have FINALLY come of age.
Fantastic contrast - even with Dynamic-iris off - and deeper blacks than 90% of the DLPS out there, including my own (a Mitsubishi HC3000).
Pin-sharp picture, easy to install, great looking chassis, VERY quiet in low-lamp mode, 3-year warranty including lamp... and no rainbow-effect (for those few who are sensitive to it). This is one future proof projector.

My only gripe was very slight LCD motion-smearing, although the 60p signal may have have exacerbated this a little.

I wants me one of these.
:D

Wow. It's finally up.

http://www.projectorreviews.com/epson/powerlite-home-cinema-1080UB/index.php

I'm sure some of you already knew but thought I'd put it here anyway.

Are you guys still fearing the sharpness issue? Pls advise.

I got the feeling that Art really liked this projector

and so do I!

Theatre Black 1 mode whats that equal to on the european TW2000 ? (the have differnet names in the menus it seems)

Theatre Black 1 mode whats that equal to on the european TW2000 ? (the have differnet names in the menus it seems)
I guess it must be Cinema Night

Are you guys still fearing the sharpness issue? Pls advise.

http://www.projectorreviews.com/epson/powerlite-home-cinema-1080UB/imagequality.php

"Bottom line: I'd say the Epson is slightly sharper than average, of all the 1080p projectors reviewed so far. It does have a slight, visible advantage over the Panasonic, as well as the two LCoS projectors shown, the JVC RS2, and Sony VW60.

Let's just say, that sharpness, is definitely not a problem."

Can we call this a settled issue now ;)?

http://www.projectorreviews.com/epson/powerlite-home-cinema-1080UB/imagequality.php

"Bottom line: I'd say the Epson is slightly sharper than average, of all the 1080p projectors reviewed so far. It does have a slight, visible advantage over the Panasonic, as well as the two LCoS projectors shown, the JVC RS2, and Sony VW60.

Let's just say, that sharpness, is definitely not a problem."

Can we call this a settled issue now ;)?

I don't understand the "sharpness" problem either. I've watched several movies on my Epson and feel it's as sharp as my Sony HS51. Here are some screen shots of Anchorman I watched yesterday. I didn't spend much time dialing in the focus and I'm using a cheap digital camera and the movie is probably a little on the "soft" side; yet, I find the sharpness very good. I guess you can be the judge.


http://www.rmwhome.com/Imagescurrent/Anch-bar.jpg
http://www.rmwhome.com/Imagescurrent/Anch-closeup.jpg
http://www.rmwhome.com/Imagescurrent/Anch-closeup2.jpg
http://www.rmwhome.com/Imagescurrent/Anch-woman.jpg
http://www.rmwhome.com/Imagescurrent/Anch-woman2.jpg
http://www.rmwhome.com/Imagescurrent/Anch-Bear.jpg

Let's just say, that sharpness, is definitely not a problem."

Can we call this a settled issue now ;)?


Don't you think we oughta wait until there's at least a couple hundred of these out there and they've stood the test of time of, say 2-3 months? I've seen enough of these threads materialize over the years to know the ultimate answer hasn't had enough time to rear its head yet... good or bad. ;)

Are you guys still fearing the sharpness issue? Pls advise.


Not me, from what I've seen so far.
The reviewers seem to have no problem either.

Not me, from what I've seen so far.
The reviewers seem to have no problem either.

Can I buy one of theirs? LOL

I saw the same things about the AX100 over a year ago when I bought that one (which I have currently) and look what I have now. ;)

Time heals all wounds (and usually introduces new ones). I think I'll wait a week or two. ;)

A few more screen shots. This is from The Day After Tomorrow. I'm no expert at taking pictures, so be easy on me here. Even though the movie itself is only listed as tier "silver", it was quite good and the Epson performed well.

http://www.rmwhome.com/Imagescurrent/movies/DAT1.jpg
http://www.rmwhome.com/Imagescurrent/movies/DAT2.jpg
http://www.rmwhome.com/Imagescurrent/movies/DAT3.jpg
http://www.rmwhome.com/Imagescurrent/movies/DAT4.jpg
http://www.rmwhome.com/Imagescurrent/movies/DAT5.jpg
http://www.rmwhome.com/Imagescurrent/movies/DAT6.jpg
http://www.rmwhome.com/Imagescurrent/movies/DAT7.jpg
http://www.rmwhome.com/Imagescurrent/movies/DAT8.jpg
http://www.rmwhome.com/Imagescurrent/movies/DAT9.jpg
http://www.rmwhome.com/Imagescurrent/movies/DAT10.jpg

While I appreciate the pictures, they do absolutely nothing for confirming how sharp or soft the Epson is. There are just too many anomalies to take into consideration to even remotely come close to an accurate view of what you are seeing in real life.

ricwhite nice screenshots, thanks. You are one lucky dude, makes me want to sell my TW1000.

bass addict you must be kidding, that shot of yours is not in the same class as ricwhites, and no where near as sharp in my eye.

bass addict you must be kidding, that shot of yours is not in the same class as ricwhites, and no where near as sharp in my eye.

That's why I said in my opinion. ;) Other than brightness, which is very deceptive, the bottom pic looks very soft to me. I'm just saying pic's don't do the live shot any justice at all and are more for eye candy than any real purpose. Now pull out a DSLR and a professional photographer and you might get somewhat close.

bass addict you must be kidding, that shot of yours is not in the same class as ricwhites, and no where near as sharp in my eye.

+1 on that...he better stick with being a bass addict :eek:

Some of the best shots I've seen yet. :cool:

Wayne

http://www.rmwhome.com/Imagescurrent/movies/DAT9.jpg[IMG]

I like this one - Sharpness and colors are outstanding

http://www.rmwhome.com/Imagescurrent/movies/DAT3.jpg

Another nice one, good job ricwhite.

Has anybody tried to take shots close to resolution of the screen? I mean in a range of 2000 horizontal pixels right out of the camera, or higher to actually capture the resolution?

Are those zoomed 2.35 guys? They don't look like 16:9s to me. :confused:

+1 on that...he better stick with being a bass addict :eek:

Cute, hope you didn't use up all your intellectual ability on that one shot. :rolleyes:

Most people can't tell a difference in resolution between a 1080 and 720p machine at normal seating distances. So you're going to tell me you can by looking at a computer monitor? Not to mention all but the best digital camera's are going to be able to resolve all the info anyways.

Is the 1080UB one heck of a machine. Sure. I am sold enough on it by the reviews that I sold my TW700 to upgrade to it. Does it show better black level and shadow detail, certainly. But those arguing about it being soft or sharp are not going to be able to make a definitive statement by looking at a pic online.

This point has been proven a while back by someone posting pics of the TW700 and TW1000. You were extremely hard pressed to tell a difference, and this was on exact frame comparison pictures. JMTC

whatever bass addict, look at that shot with the chopper, no 720p will give that kind of detail. 1920x1080p is only 2MP I'm pretty sure, so even a cheapy dig cam can resolve that.

Anyway congrats on your upgrade to the TW2000, I think you'll be proving yourself wrong pretty soon.

whatever bass addict, look at that shot with the chopper, no 720p will give that kind of detail. 1920x1080p is only 2MP I'm pretty sure, so even a cheapy dig cam can resolve that.

Anyway congrats on your upgrade to the TW2000, I think you'll be proving yourself wrong pretty soon.

If I didn't feel it was a considerable upgrade I certainly wouldn't have spent the extra money. After my TW700 I'm a huge Epson fan so I'm certainly not knocking the pj or those of you taking the pics.

Maybe you're right. It's tough to tell without pics side by side. But after staring at pics of the 700 vs 1000 a while back and noticing how tough it was to pick which one had the better resolution, I can't imaging trying to do the same thing with a 1080 vs 1080 pj. This isn't meant to be a debate of 720 vs 1080 but more of a statement that there is no way you're going to be able to definitively tell between a VW60, RS1, 1080UB, etc. (via online photos) that one is undeniably sharper than the other.

Anyways not to completely side track the thread, back to the pics. :D

whatever bass addict, look at that shot with the chopper, no 720p will give that kind of detail. 1920x1080p is only 2MP I'm pretty sure, so even a cheapy dig cam can resolve that.


I find this really funny - the picture you're looking at is roughly the same as 720p resolution! (1200 vertical lines). Our mind plays funny tricks on us.
I'd imagine that a great 720p projector seen in the flesh would outperform this image by some margin.
Having said that, I think the images are really nicely taken. IMO it's just not possible to accurately represent the projected image with photos. Unless you are trying to demonstrate one particular aspect (Art's shadow detail images, or screendoor close-ups). It can help there, but other things often still get in the way.

If I didn't feel it was a considerable upgrade I certainly wouldn't have spent the extra money. After my TW700 I'm a huge Epson fan so I'm certainly not knocking the pj or those of you taking the pics.

Maybe you're right. It's tough to tell without pics side by side. But after staring at pics of the 700 vs 1000 a while back and noticing how tough it was to pick which one had the better resolution, I can't imaging trying to do the same thing with a 1080 vs 1080 pj. This isn't meant to be a debate of 720 vs 1080 but more of a statement that there is no way you're going to be able to definitively tell between a VW60, RS1, 1080UB, etc. (via online photos) that one is undeniably sharper than the other.

Anyways not to completely side track the thread, back to the pics. :D


Here here.

1080 is sharper and more detailed than 720, without doubt... but NOT by a factor of 2:1, as the pixel-count would lead to you to expect. It's definitely diminshing returns after 720 on all but the very best HD transfers.

And online pics give nothing but a very vague impression... Indeed, that's all they're meant to do.

I've been evaluating upgrade options for my aging HS20 and really was focusing on something other than DLP due to convergence, screen door, contrast, dust blobs, etc. At the end of the day I want a great picture. I've seen a lot of discussion regarding validity of screen shots due to how well that they translate into a real world evaluation of the projectors true picture due to issues with the camera, environment and people taking the pictures. I am certainly no expert when it comes to taking photos but I snapped the following pic from Pirates on my HS20- no light- though the walls are off white. Based on that pic :eek:
And one from Art's great review. :)
So the question I have is can I expect this dramatic of a difference in the real world- are these pics representative of what I will see?
If so that pic from Art looks absolutely stunning to me...it has the type of pop, depth, blacks I've been looking for...based on the pic. Has the gap really been closed on the advantage dlp had regarding image "pop" based on what these pics are telling me.
Thanks

In a dark room (not just a lack of light, but a lack of reflecting surfaces), there is no reason why you shouldn't expect a better image than Art's photo. The whites are blown in that image for one thing. As screenshots go, it's a great one, but I don't think I've seen a screenshot yet which looks as good as the real image in a good viewing environment.

If a screenshot looks sharp on our monitors (and that's although camera and monitor's artifacts), that means the real image is actually even better and sharper.
So I don't agree that a good image on our monitors could look worse in real life... Got my point BA:)?

I don't have projector at the moment to test those theories, but I'm sure that the only way to make any good pictures of the projector screen is use high resolution camera. You should have at least 2000 pixels horizontal (note that 2MP image is not 2000 vertical lines, because camera ratios are close to 3x4). The camera should be perfectly centered on the screen, as far as possible, using zoom to fill entire frame and of course tripod. Another critical point would be to set camera white balance for projector white image projected on screen. That should do the best possible picture of the screen. Hopefully next week I'll be able to demonstrate this technique ;)

I don't have projector at the moment to test those theories, but I'm sure that the only way to make any good pictures of the projector screen is use high resolution camera. You should have at least 2000 pixels horizontal (note that 2MP image is not 2000 vertical lines, because camera ratios are close to 3x4). The camera should be perfectly centered on the screen, as far as possible, using zoom to fill entire frame and of course tripod. Another critical point would be to set camera white balance for projector white image projected on screen. That should do the best possible picture of the screen. Hopefully next week I'll be able to demonstrate this technique ;)

That will be great -- I tried with 10MB Nikon D80 (a superb camera) mounted on a tripod and used a long exposure setting, but the results were less than flattering :(. I should have probably tried with a larger aperture and a slightly shorter exposure, but I had a case of PJ-WOWitis and couldn't be bothered with more experiments with the camera ;).

BTW, one trick I learnt is that with long exposures, it's best to set the camera on the timer mode before clicking -- that way, you don't introduce motion blur when you click and release the shutter.

HEY PEOPLE,
I've logged about 50 hours on my awsome TW2000....no need to post screenshots...they are basically useless, unless you have a pro camera setup. My pj was pre-inspected and hence very good, or near perfect, convergence...making to me a pretty sharp and 3D picture. Color uniformity is perfect....no dust blobs like the panny (knock on wood). This thing is really built and looks beautiful. Sharper than my old pearl, making a crisp, film-like image......I suggest that you buy from a company that can pre-inspect before shipment. I am so happy with it!
Bass Addict: you will not be dissapointed if convergence is close. Just my 02 cents.

Anyone comment on the colours on this projector, one of the major complaints of many of the most popular projectors today. From measurents perspective it can be calibrated to be one of the most correct ones of all projectors availible in the market (at any price), se these CIE charts (rec 709) from a Swedish site (not my measuremments, link here: http://www.component.se/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=7314&view=findpost&p=94833.) Much more correct than the AE2000and Wv60 in their "correct" modes.

No overblown primaries and off secondaries here, and the luminance figures is dead on.

I would also like to se comments on the full CMS of TW2000, have anyone tried it yet?

If a screenshot looks sharp on our monitors (and that's although camera and monitor's artifacts), that means the real image is actually even better and sharper.
So I don't agree that a good image on our monitors could look worse in real life... Got my point BA:)?

No not really. :confused: Why don't you go back and actually read my reply instead of spewing out statements contrary to the discussion. Not once did I state an image ever looked better on a monitor than real life. You couldn't be further from the opposite. :rolleyes:

Some photos are very sharp despite all the stated limitations, and therefore reality can only be sharper (that's what I thought).

I tend to agree here. If you think about it it's all very logical. A poor projector is going to look that way in a screen shot unless some monkey business is going on by the poster.

So an untouched screen shot of a poor performing projector will reveal some warts. This would be providing that the photographer is competent and the camera is decent.

On the other hand, given the same caveats (good photographer, average or above average camera), an untouched photo of a great projector should show quite well. The variable here is the computer monitor that the screen shot is being viewed on. But if sharpness is the issue at hand which it seems to be in this discussion, then since most monitors seem to be set up as at least adequately sharp (every one I've seen has been this way), it appears to me that even this variable is taken out of the equation.

For instance, if we consider Art's review photos on his website at ProjectorReviews.com, we can see that he is using the same room, screen, photographer (most likely him), ambient light conditions (dependant upon what point he's attempting to prove), movies and scenes and test equipment. If you are familiar with his reviews as intimately as I am, you get to know and recognize how a particular photo looks or should look based on his setup. My computer monitor has been calibrated using Spyder2Pro software so I should be getting at least a good idea as to what these images should look like in real life. Not totally accurate perhaps but still pretty good.

Now, I have found that I've gotten to appreciate all of this as I'm able to make decisions on projectors right here in the comfort of my home by comparing his different reviews and screen shots. As you all know, it's impossible to view every projector no matter where you live and sometimes you have to rely and trust in a method such as this. I purchased an Optoma H57, H78DC3 and Optoma HD7100 largely due to Art's reviews and I can tell everyone here unequivocally that not only were his assessments spot on, but also his photos represented what I eventually saw in person quite accurately. Once you've experienced this level of trust and confirmation, it becomes quite easy to continue in that trust and base future projector purchase considerations on previously used criteria which turned out to be successful.

I have found that in reading Art's reviews, and comparing screen shots from projector to projector, I can see a difference in sharpness, color fidelity and brightness etc... which gives me a good template to formulate a rational decision about which projector to buy.

I am not arguing that one should do this with every posted screen shot by any person. I realize that there are inherent problems here. I only mention Art because I find that his consistency allows for a devil's advocate argument to some of the posts by some people who feel compelled to play down the positives of screen shots.

I maintain that the nice images posted by ricwhite if untouched and I trust that they are, are indicative of the potential of this particular projector that we're all interested in. I'm thankful that he took the time to do this. I have tried it and it isn't easy let me tell you.

Wayne

I am with mystery on this as he sums it up as good as anyone could....so for the benefit of the rest of us with no dog in this fight, can we please move on and let his eloquent summary be the final chapter on this now belabored debate?

I maintain that the nice images posted by ricwhite if untouched and I trust that they are, are indicative of the potential of this particular projector that we're all interested in. I'm thankful that he took the time to do this. I have tried it and it isn't easy let me tell you.

Wayne

Yes, the screenshots are completely untouched. The only thing I did was resize them. Having seen the source material in person that I took the screenshots from, I can say for a certainty that the actual images on screen are better than what the screenshots show.

Like I mentioned, I'm no professional with photography. I'm using an automatic setting (candlelight) and a tripod. I freeze the frame, trying to find a spot where movement and blurring is limited, and then snap it. The camera height is a little lower than center, so that is why you see the image a little oddly shaped.

The way I look at it, the sreenshots almost always reflect a slightly LOWER quality than the actual image. Maybe a perfect photographer can get a screenshot that is exactly like the actual image. But they can never be BETTER than the actual image unless they are manipulated someway.

For example, the shot below from The Kingdom shows the detail from the city. I took this shot to show depth detail which is where lower resolution sources and projectors have a hard time. However, this is a "moving" shot and there's really no way to freeze it perfectly to avoid any blurring. I tried my best, but the actual image on screen is much better than what I could do with camera. I didn't include this shot in my original posting because I thought it didn't capture fully the detail and resolution. Even so, a 720 P projector or a SD source probably wouldn't even be able to provide a image this good.

http://www.rmwhome.com/Imagescurrent/movies/kingdom%20-%20citydepth.jpg


So, I think screen shots are useful if the viewer realizes that the images are likely lower quality than the actual image on screen.

The above photo is stunning!!!!!!!!!!!!

I just got through watching Fantastic Four Silver Surfer and I took a few screenshots. This is with the Epson on the "theater 1" mode with just a few color tweaks. This movie had fairly good image quality and it shows up in the screen shots. But as before, please note that the actual images on screen are a little better than what I can do with the photos.

http://www.rmwhome.com/Imagescurrent/movies/FFSS1.jpg
http://www.rmwhome.com/Imagescurrent/movies/FFSS2.jpg
http://www.rmwhome.com/Imagescurrent/movies/FFSS4.jpg
http://www.rmwhome.com/Imagescurrent/movies/FFSS5.jpg
http://www.rmwhome.com/Imagescurrent/movies/FFSS6.jpg
http://www.rmwhome.com/Imagescurrent/movies/FFSS7.jpg
http://www.rmwhome.com/Imagescurrent/movies/FFSS8.jpg


I'll post one without the link:

http://www.rmwhome.com/Imagescurrent/movies/FFSS3.jpg

Wow ric!! :eek:

I feel like I could just step into the images they look so real. :cool: I like them all but especially the second one with the car. :)

You're going to singlehandedly sell more than a few of these projectors ric. They say a picture is worth a thousand words. I feel like I just read a review just by glancing at the photos. There's nothing to criticize. Colors, blacks, brightness, detail, contrast, they're all there. And you say in person it's better!?!?

A favor if you would: could you specifically take an image of the bars so that we can get an idea of how deeply black they are?

Also, have you critically listened to the iris to determine if it's as loud as some people say?

Thanks and great job! You've started to make me think I should ponder a little less about the Mitsubishi HC6000 that I've been contemplating on getting. Same with the BenQ W10000 and W20000.

Wayne

Hey Ric. Point of clarification, if I may. Bluray, HD-DVD or standard DVD?

I'm guessing Bluray off a PS3.

Thanks.

A favor if you would: could you specifically take an image of the bars so that we can get an idea of how deeply black they are?

Also, have you critically listened to the iris to determine if it's as loud as some people say?


Wayne

Posted below is an image including the bars. Keep in mind that I'm using a DaLite High Power screen which, at the seating area, is about a 1.6 gain. This actually lightens the blacks slightly. Even so, the bars are barely noticeable against the black background. I would have to say, however, I think they are a little lighter than this photo indicates. Just slightly though. To see them well, you're probably going to have to darken the surrounding area. The whites from this web page make it very difficult to see shadow detail.

I have the projector on a shelf about 17 feet back -- behind the second row of seats. I sit on the front row about 12 feet back. From where I'm sitting I hear no iris. When I first turn on the projector, the iris activates and it sounds a little like a hard drive of a computer working. But in all practical application, I don't hear it. I also don't SEE it at all. With my Sony HS51, I could always see the iris stepping up or down on screen. With the Epson this is totally absent.

http://www.rmwhome.com/Imagescurrent/movies/FFSSgreybars.jpg

Rick, can you be more specify with your "color tweak" in Theater Black 1 mode?

I watch mostly in "Dynamic" mode, one hell of bright picture!

Thanks

Hey Ric. Point of clarification, if I may. Bluray, HD-DVD or standard DVD?

I'm guessing Bluray off a PS3.

Thanks.

Fantastic Four was a Blu-ray title. My equipment includes a 106" DaLite High Power screen, Panasonic BD30 Blu-ray player, Toshiba A35 HD DVD player. All high definition discs are played at 1080P/24.

WOW, we can spot the skin details of Jessica Alba's face, that is not smooth at all, but she is still very beautiful!

Thanks ric! Awesome screen. I have the exact same one. Again, great photo. Good to hear about the bars and the iris.

Wayne

One more test ric if you would please. I appreciate that you don't hear the iris from where you sit. My concern is that I'm going to be sitting directly in front of the projector maybe about a foot and a half and perhaps a couple of feet below as I'll have it sitting on a shelf.

Could you sit in your back row seating and let us know if it makes a difference as to whether the iris is audible from close range?

Thanks! :)

Wayne

Earlier, I posted some ravingly positive comments about the Epson EMP-TW2000 after having spent half an hour or so in a shop.

Having gone back to audition one in depth, decently setup and with a variety of test material, I walked away having completely changed my mind - for sheer image quality, DLP STILL reigns supreme - and I really can't see this changing anytime soon.

The lack of lcd motion-smearing, the finer detail, the better native contrast, the black detail, the brighter highlights, more CRT-like performance with standard-def and interlaced material..... oh, and did I mention lack of motion-smearing? That ALONE was a deal breaker. I wonder why reviews rarely bring this point up? On a 100" screen it ain't exactly subtle.

Make no mistake - this Epson would have to be THE best lcd out there. It's a suprisingly excellent performer... but it's still an LCD.

And 50,000:1 contrast ratio? Don't think so. My Mitsubishi HC3000 at home has 3000:1, and there's no comparison. (Although the Epson does have marginally deeper blacks in Theater Black Mode.)


Looks like it's back to the Optoma HD80. Or perhaps, the Benq W5000 might be the next one to check out.
Although it's "only" rated at 10,000:1 for Contrast, I can guarantee it would beat the Epson in producing a vivid image with plenty of WOW-factor.
It also has motorised vertical lens-shift, HQV REON processing and Anamorphic support.
http://www.benq.com/products/Projector/?product=1241&page=specifications#

Earlier, I posted some ravingly positive comments about the Epson EMP-TW2000 after having spent half an hour or so in a shop.

Having gone back to audition one in depth, decently setup and with a variety of test material, I walked away having completely changed my mind - for sheer image quality, DLP STILL reigns supreme - and I really can't see this changing anytime soon.

The lack of lcd motion-smearing, the finer detail, the better native contrast, the black detail, the brighter highlights, more CRT-like performance with standard-def and interlaced material..... oh, and did I mention lack of motion-smearing? That ALONE was a deal breaker. I wonder why reviews rarely bring this point up? On a 100" screen it ain't exactly subtle.

Make no mistake - this Epson would have to be THE best lcd out there. It's a suprisingly excellent performer... but it's still an LCD.

And 50,000:1 contrast ratio? Don't think so. My Mitsubishi HC3000 at home has 3000:1, and there's no comparison. (Although the Epson does have marginally deeper blacks in Theater Black Mode.)


Looks like it's back to the Optoma HD80. Or perhaps, the Benq W5000 might be the next one to check out.
Although it's "only" rated at 10,000:1 for Contrast, I can guarantee it would beat the Epson in producing a vivid image with plenty of WOW-factor.
It also has motorised vertical lens-shift, HQV REON processing and Anamorphic support.
http://www.benq.com/products/Projector/?product=1241&page=specifications#

I am sure it is possible I could end up seeing motion smearing on an lcd if was shown what to look for, but nothing has ever caught my eye before that indicated a smearing or blurry image during motion or pans with any lcd projector I have owned or seen in action. I have seen rainbows before though :D ...and dithering isn't a very well liked characteristic of DLP tech either.

Earlier, I posted some ravingly positive comments about the Epson EMP-TW2000 after having spent half an hour or so in a shop.

Having gone back to audition one in depth, decently setup and with a variety of test material, I walked away having completely changed my mind - for sheer image quality, DLP STILL reigns supreme - and I really can't see this changing anytime soon.

The lack of lcd motion-smearing, the finer detail, the better native contrast, the black detail, the brighter highlights, more CRT-like performance with standard-def and interlaced material..... oh, and did I mention lack of motion-smearing? That ALONE was a deal breaker. I wonder why reviews rarely bring this point up? On a 100" screen it ain't exactly subtle.

Make no mistake - this Epson would have to be THE best lcd out there. It's a suprisingly excellent performer... but it's still an LCD.

And 50,000:1 contrast ratio? Don't think so. My Mitsubishi HC3000 at home has 3000:1, and there's no comparison. (Although the Epson does have marginally deeper blacks in Theater Black Mode.)


Looks like it's back to the Optoma HD80. Or perhaps, the Benq W5000 might be the next one to check out.
Although it's "only" rated at 10,000:1 for Contrast, I can guarantee it would beat the Epson in producing a vivid image with plenty of WOW-factor.
It also has motorised vertical lens-shift, HQV REON processing and Anamorphic support.
http://www.benq.com/products/Projector/?product=1241&page=specifications#

Due respect (assuming any's due in this regard), I'll trust the opinions of the pros and they all say it's the greatest thing to come along sub-$5k US since the invention of sliced bread.

EVERY projector technology has its respective give and takes but for an overall and affordable home projector, everything I'm reading tells me this guy can't be beat.

Nothing wrong with standing on an island alone but better to realize you're there alone sooner than later. ;)

Art at ProjectorReviews.com owned a BenQ 8720 DLP before he switched to a JVC RS1. Now he's comparing the 1080UB favorably to the RS1. From a former DLP guy, that's high praise I think. I favor DLP myself but these new D6/D7 panels are causing a stir.

Wayne

Ok, I ordered one at one of our forum sponsors! $2,910 shipped with free dust cover and ceiling mount and a $200 rebate. Can't wait for it to arrive! My AE900 will go on eBay!

Art at ProjectorReviews.com owned a BenQ 8720 DLP before he switched to a JVC RS1. Now he's comparing the 1080UB favorably to the RS1. From a former DLP guy, that's high praise I think. I favor DLP myself but these new D6/D7 panels are causing a stir.

Wayne


That's because, with the D7 panels, LCD is finally starting to look more like DLP. But it's not there yet.

Just try thouroughly before you buy.

Due respect (assuming any's due in this regard), I'll trust the opinions of the pros and they all say it's the greatest thing to come along sub-$5k US since the invention of sliced bread.

EVERY projector technology has its respective give and takes but for an overall and affordable home projector, everything I'm reading tells me this guy can't be beat.

Nothing wrong with standing on an island alone but better to realize you're there alone sooner than later. ;)


Admittedly, I'm a bit fussier than most, as I work in Film/TV post-production, am reared on CRTs, and am used to looking at images displayed correctly. So things like LCD motion-smearing are constantly noticable to me. I can't see rainbows unless I look for them (not at all on a 6x wheel), and dithering on modern DLPs is negligible.

Believe me, I really wanted to join the ranks of satisfied LCD owners, but after being a bit disappointed with the Epson, I came to remember four things:

1. There's a reason why DLPs are used in professional digital cinema installations, and not LCD (Panasonic comes to mind).

2. There's a reason why so many of the high-end projector manufacturers (Sim2, Vidikron, ProjectionDesign, Runco, etc) continue to stick with DLP.

3. There's a reason why, with the incredible advances LCD has made recently, DLP is still preferred by many. What are they seeing?

4. LCDs reaction time is measured in milliseconds. DLPs, when they bother, are measured in MICROseconds.

1. There's a reason why DLPs are used in professional digital cinema installations, and not LCD (Panasonic comes to mind).

2. There's a reason why so many of the high-end projector manufacturers (Sim2, Vidikron, ProjectionDesign, Runco, etc) continue to stick with DLP.

3. There's a reason why, with the incredible advances LCD has made recently, DLP is still preferred by many. What are they seeing?

4. LCDs reaction time is measured in milliseconds. DLPs, when they bother, are measured in MICROseconds.



I appreciate your points, but you have to realize that some of what you are saying is still subjective in nature. With respect to point 1, keep in mind there are business considerations at play outside of just technical specs.

As to point 2, again, we can't forget the economics. A company that picked the DLP horse a decade ago has spent considerable capital improving their product around this fundamental decision and to suddenly switch to an alternate platform, LCD, in this case is not feasible, particularly for these boutique companies where capital is not as readily available. On the other hand, a multi-billion dollar company like Mitsubishi doesn't have the same constraints and can even invest in both platforms.

Point 3 - very true, but the same can be said of those that prefer LCD, no?

Point 4 - again, true, but how much response time is needed? The human eye has a physiological limit as to how quickly it can respond to and process information and while I agree that LCD is below this threshold, hence some motion smear for certain people, DLP is overkill in a sense because that much speed isn't required. That said, point to DLP because it DOES eliminate smearing for those that would otherwise notice it in an LCD display.

DLP vs. LCD can be argued both ways. OK, here's why I pick LCD

1). I never have to worry about RBE for either myself or any guests that come over. It would really be disappointing to invite some friends over only to find out one of them get's sick/headache after about 20 minutes.

2) I can actually pick a pj based on my room and not the other way around. I prefer the flexibility the LCD's offer over their DLP counterparts.

To me these win over the minuscule advantage DLP has in black levels or motion smearing.

3. There's a reason why, with the incredible advances LCD has made recently, DLP is still preferred by many. What are they seeing?


RAINBOWS?

Seriously, your opinion was heard and considered, preach DLP to those who're interested.

RAINBOWS?

Seriously, your opinion was heard and considered, preach DLP to those who're interested.

Actually it would be RAINBOW:D

1. There's a reason why DLPs are used in professional digital cinema installations, and not LCD (Panasonic comes to mind).

Most professional digital cinema applications use 3-chip DLP units. Different animal, different cost.

bass addict,

Off topic, but...Nice cinema! I like the thorough acoustic treatment, riser, bass shakers and concession stand.

bass addict,

Off topic, but...Nice cinema! I like the thorough acoustic treatment, riser, bass shakers and concession stand.

CPC, thanks it's modest compared to most, but it does the job just fine for me (when I'm not messing with it :o) and sure beats going to the local theater.

I'm almost glad I haven't been able to make up my mind on a new pj yet. At least it gives me some time to put everything back together. :D

Great, another DLP vs LCD crapfest. Maybe time to close this thread since there's another 1080UB "official" thread?

Great, another DLP vs LCD crapfest. Maybe time to close this thread since there's another 1080UB "official" thread?

The other thread is for the Pro version (assuming we're talking about the same thread) ;)

And yes, I agree: let's not have this great thread turn into a DLP vs LCD argument.

I am sure it is possible I could end up seeing motion smearing on an lcd if was shown what to look for, but nothing has ever caught my eye before that indicated a smearing or blurry image during motion or pans with any lcd projector I have owned or seen in action. I have seen rainbows before though :D ...and dithering isn't a very well liked characteristic of DLP tech either.

I have a rear projection LCD Sony Wega, if I was going to see motion smear, would I see it on my set? If not, I'm up for another LCD because I see nothing.

I'm using Art's setting from the review at Projectorreviews.com which all indicate a high lamp, should I adjust the fan speed somehow to deal with the higher lamp temperature to avoid premature lamp failure or internal polarizer/LCD damage-would putting the settings into high altitude mode achieve this?? I’m a bit paranoid because my prior projector Sony VPL-vw51 developed blue polarizer damage right after the 2 year warranty expired.

The other thread is for the Pro version (assuming we're talking about the same thread) ;)

Well based on MSRP, the Home version belongs in the under 3K forum, as a matter of fact there's an "official" thread already there... :)

Well based on MSRP, the Home version belongs in the under 3K forum, as a matter of fact there's an "official" thread already there... :)

Really, it is kind of ridiculous that there are two threads anyway - it is the same projector. There are already people cross-posting like crazy between the two threads, which just adds wasted messages and makes it more difficult to find answers related to the 1080UB. Besides, aren't only differences to the PJ itself the default ISF calibration for the pro version? Seems like the bulk of the $1000 price difference between the home and the pro is the mount, extra bulb, warranty, and upcharge for buying from a local boutique dealer.

See my posting concerning contrast of Epson TW2000 (1080UB) and other LCD projectors.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=12957819#post12957819

I had a chance to check out the TW2000 yesterday (it was in a shootout between the Epson TW2000/Panny AE2000/Panny AX200/Mits HC6000).

What I found most concerning about the TW2000, is that at the beginning of the shootout, it had 3 very bright dust blobs (which could be seen in a black image), and after about 2-3 hours inside the shootout, the numbers of bright dust blobs increased to 5 !!!, the TW2000 accumulated 2 more dust blobs in just two hours.

This is unacceptable. Non of the other projectors in the shootout showed any dust blobs at all.

Something in the TW2000's designe regarding dust blob prevention, is very flawed.

Please share your thoughts on the Mits HC6000. The reviews are very positive. Did it impress you the most of all the projectors there? If so why, and if not why not?.

Thanks! :)

Wayne

I had a chance to check out the TW2000 yesterday (it was in a shootout between the Epson TW2000/Panny AE2000/Panny AX200/Mits HC6000).

What I found most concerning about the TW2000, is that at the beginning of the shootout, it had 3 very bright dust blobs (which could be seen in a black image), and after about 2-3 hours inside the shootout, the numbers of bright dust blobs increased to 5 !!!, the TW2000 accumulated 2 more dust blobs in just two hours.

This is unacceptable. Non of the other projectors in the shootout showed any dust blobs at all.

Something in the TW2000's designe regarding dust blob prevention, is very flawed.

You get to see this shootout and and you don't mention contrast, sharpness, colour, or brightness? Oh, the cruelty :p

I have the Panny AX200 in my home, and I was thrilled that I could see the AX200 in this shootout, in comparison to all the other great 1080p LCD projectors.

The shootout was done with a 90" screen, in totall darkness, but the room had several white walls, so I can't draw conclusions regarding ANSI contrast.

I watched all projectors from about 1.1 screen widths. All projectors were on all the time (all projecting on the same screen), their lens were covered, and we switched fast between them. We also did halve screens between many combinations.

We checked mainly HD movies.

Regarding sharpness, I felt that the TW2000 was less sharp than the AE2000 or Mits HC6000, this was most obvious when we did the halve screen test, though I don't think that without an A/B comparison I woud have got anything against the TW2000's sharpness.

Regarding black levels and dark scenes, I felt that both the Mits HC6000 and Epson TW2000 could be made to look very much alike. I really didn't feel like there was a significant difference for one in relation to the other. I felt like the Panny AE2000 was a notch worse than the TW2000/HC6000, its blacks seemed more gray.

When it came to bright scenes, I liked the AE2000 better, its image seemed more alive (it was in color1 mode). It could be that the AE2000 outputted more lumens than the other two, and this was the reason that it looked better in bright scenes, and worse in dark scenes.

Regarding color, we calibrated greyscale using a sensor and colorfacts, but didn't have time to carefully calibrate color gamut. The color gamut had oversaturated primaries for all projectors in the modes that we used (which were the best modes for each. Even color1 of the AE2000 had oversaturated primaries, and this suprised me). After calibration, each projector looked different from the other in terms of color, but I didn't put too much emphasis on color accuracy in this shootout (the AE2000 was a bit toward red, while the TW2000 and HC6000 a bit toward blue/green. Anyway nothing too dramatic).

My overall impression after the shootout was that all three 1080p projectors (HC6000/TW2000/AE2000) were more alike than different. They all were a definite step above the AX200 in terms of black levels and punch. But, when it came to picking the best out of these three, I have to say no projector looked significantly better than the other. If I was in the market for a 1080p LCD projector today, I would have not gone with the TW2000 just because its dust blobs, and would have probably gone with the AE2000, because it is significantly cheaper than the HC6000, and the image quality of the HC6000 definitely wasn't significantly better than that of the AE2000 (at least to my eyes, with the samples that we had, and the calibration that we did).

I would like to add that no matter which projector you choose from the three 1080p that I saw in the shootout, there is still a big place for improvement. For example, I would like to have a projector with the dark rendering of the HC6000/TW2000, and the white rendering of the AE2000. And even the dark rendering of the HC6000/TW2000 had a place for improvement, because I still saw traces of annoying grey for both.

The bottom line of my thoughts: don't spend too much money now if you choose LCD, we're not there yet.

Excellent. Thanks for that. :cool:

Wayne

Thanks Jones_Rush for your feedback. Wish I could attend one of these...