Sorry guys, not meaning to beat a dead horse but want to make the best choice I can. Is stated in my previous thread

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=916514

I'll be dealing with some ambient light but not anything too too bad accept during sports viewing during the day which will only be about 20% of the time. I discovered the HiPower Screens from Da-Lite which give me a much better gain then what I was thinking, therefore the lumen count becomes less important to me. This all being said can the sharp unit be mounted on a projector stand approximately 56" high and 18' from the screen wall and work well for me. According to the calculator with the 900 lumens of the 12000 (not the mk II) i'd have 24 FL with an 18' throw distance, 106" screen, and zoom set on 1.05. It seems the sharp unit is a much better detail unit for HD viewing but the only thing that doesn't seem like a plus for this unit other then the lumens is the fact that the AX200 is reported to do very well with 1080p stating that it's down conversion to 720p is much less degrading then other projectors. This will only be an issue when viewing material from my Toshiba A20 1080p dvd player i'd think considering all HD cable is 720p (or atleast HD cable is). Is the sharp an overall superior projector to the AX 200 all this said or should I stick with the AX 200. I don't really play video games so that's not even a consideration.

What do you guys think and what would you do if you were me. Thanks, this kind of money is significant to me so I want to make the best choice I can. Thanks

Nick

"FOR THE MONEY" there is not a projector made that will touch the 200 for what it is capable of for picture-features-placement flexibility.

1200$ or less. Any 'real' competition?

My main concern would be if the sharp has a HDMI imput,If it only has dvi then their is alot of problems with handshakes going to your hddvd player.Who wants problems.If you only watch movies in a dark room and the sharp has a hdmi input and you do not need lens shift then the sharp would be great,But the ax200 can do alot for a cheap price.BOB

I know 2 guys that just bought Mitsubishi 3100 DLP units only to discover they couldn't handle the rainbows. If DLP rainbows don't bother you, DLP will give you superior ANSI CR and blacks. You could also consider the Marantz that everyone is falling all over themselves about. On the LCD side I suggest you find the cine4home review of the Sony AW15 and run it through babelfish. That's the projector I chose. Lumens aren't everything. You should also tell us what you want to watch and what your room is like.

I want to watch movies and t.v. from my digital cable setup including some HD and mostly standard def channels. DVDs will be HD with some being SD uperconverted by my DVD player. For a description of my room please see the linked thread in my original post which has a good picture of my room setup.

Yeah, I noticed the lack of HDMI input as stated above. Not only that but my current reciever doesn't have HDMI input so having two (like the AX200) does is a definte plus.

The Marantz doesn't have the ability to throw the imagine long enough I don't believe but I will go back and double check that to make sure.

Sony huh, maybe i'll go back and read some more about that unit.

Thanks guys, keep the suggestions coming.

Something else to note is that I get 41 FL with the Hi Power (2.8 gain) screen and the panny unit. With the sharp (found the 12000 Mark II) i'm right at 26-27 FL (think I posted that before but can't remember). In any event keep the opinions coming. Doesn't look like the sony or the marantz would work with my required position.

Hi Nick,

Placement should not be a problem. The Sharp has a vertical lens shift (but not a horizontal one) You are right about the Marantz- it is a short throw projector and therefore it was out for me to. I currently have a new 100u and I will have the Sharp here on Monday so i can directly compare the two. My guess is the 100u will be going back either way. (if i like the 100 better than i will return it and buy a 200 or i'll return it and keep the Sharp) Also FL's are not always the same, especially when comparing a DLP projector to a LCD one. I remember readng one comparison that bascially said that the brightness of the two projectors is fairly equal-i'll know for sure when i compare them head to head. The Sharp 12000 thread has a number of good comparisons. For me, I love getting great value for the dollar and to get a brand new projector that was originally $10000 for 1500 seems like an incredible deal. I also think i like the DLP picture better than an LCD picture. But i can tell you the picture from the 100 is wonderful but i expect the Sharp to be even better- time will tell. Good luck in your decision process.

Hi Nick,

Placement should not be a problem. The Sharp has a vertical lens shift (but not a horizontal one) You are right about the Marantz- it is a short throw projector and therefore it was out for me to. I currently have a new 100u and I will have the Sharp here on Monday so i can directly compare the two. My guess is the 100u will be going back either way. (if i like the 100 better than i will return it and buy a 200 or i'll return it and keep the Sharp) Also FL's are not always the same, especially when comparing a DLP projector to a LCD one. I remember readng one comparison that bascially said that the brightness of the two projectors is fairly equal-i'll know for sure when i compare them head to head. The Sharp 12000 thread has a number of good comparisons. For me, I love getting great value for the dollar and to get a brand new projector that was originally $10000 for 1500 seems like an incredible deal. I also think i like the DLP picture better than an LCD picture. But i can tell you the picture from the 100 is wonderful but i expect the Sharp to be even better- time will tell. Good luck in your decision process.

Cool man, that's awseome. Wish you had both now, I would love to hear about the results you get.

The Sharp does not have HDMI so I will have to convert. I believe many do this. Is this an issue?

Further, I've noticed the fan noise constantly brought up. I will be having this projector pretty close to sitting position. I have a 3600 watt QSC amp for my subwoofers which has a fan (for those who are familiar with Behringer pro amps specifically the ep2500 this QSC PLX3602 is much much quieter). Is the fan noise that i'll get with the sharp equivalent to the noise I get from my QSC if any of you are familiar with this amp. Thanks.

I'm having a hard time keeping from making the jump so keep the opinions, experiences, coming!!!

P.S. I've looked at DLP vs. LCD rear projection t.v.s and I much prefer the DLP picture. Is this to be expected with the front projectors as well?

I think to some degree the rear projection differences with lcd and dlp are transferrable to projectors but i also think that the the difference in the rear projection sets is greater than in the new lcd's vs dlp's. But as you know dlp's will always have better blacks. The Panasonic smooth screen technology while eliminating sde does soften the picture a bit so a good dlp will be sharper than the panny lcd's- kind of depends what you like!!

rontron,

I am looking forward to your comparison review...I am considering the exact same two projectors. In the past I have preferred DLP...when selecting my previous projector I demoed the AE700, HD72, IF 4805, Sony HS51 and a couple others and ended up liking the optoma HD72 the best. I don't know how the panasonics have improved with the new models so I am interested to hear your comparison as a person who has historically preferred the DLP look.

Brian

I ended up breaking down and ordering the AX200 with a Da Lite HCMW screen (was talked out of the Hi Power screen with the bright AX200). I too look forward to the previously mentioned comparison.

I had both the Sharp and the AX100 in the same room shooting side by side. The Sharp won hands down, no contest. Unfortunately, the noise level was too high for my room, and it wouldn't accept 480i over HDMI, so I ended up going with the AX100. It's only a temporary projector, however, so if it was more of a long term decision, I might have gone with the Sharp - colors were pretty close to even to a trained eye (once calibrated), but the black level, shadow detail, and overall contrast was much better. The sharpness of the Sharp was what really made it stand out over the AX100 - my wife fought hard to keep the Sharp for this very reason. There was an incredible difference.

This sounds like the experience that I had when comparing the AE700 to my HD72 in the past. The panny was a good projector, but we preferred the HD72 contrast and sharpness.

I think that you are missing the important question about the AX200. We already know DLPs are much much better regarding black levels and shadow details. That's a fact case closed.

The important question is whether you can easily spot the AX200's weaknesses, without comparing it to anything.

For example, without any need for an A/B comparison, I can easily spot RBE with DLPs projectors, and can easily spot SDE with 720p LCD projectors (not panasonics), and this ruins the experience at times.

The AX200 doesn't have SDE nor RBE, and the question is whether the contrast is low enough to ruin the experience at certain scenes, or maybe without comparing it to anything, you wouldn't know you're missing anything to begin with.

I think that you are missing the important question about the AX200. We already know DLPs are much much better regarding black levels and shadow details. That's a fact case closed.

The important question is whether you can easily spot the AX200's weaknesses, without comparing it to anything.

For example, without any need for an A/B comparison, I can easily spot RBE with DLPs projectors, and can easily spot SDE with 720p LCD projectors (not panasonics), and this ruins the experience at times.

The AX200 doesn't have SDE nor RBE, and the question is whether the contrast is low enough to ruin the experience at certain scenes, or maybe without comparing it to anything, you wouldn't know you're missing anything to begin with.

This is a great point for the 1st time buyer, which includes myself. Having nothing to compare my "on the way" ax 200 too except my room mate's Panasonic LCD 52" projection t.v. (1080i) I don't think i'll be disappointed. I would think the sharp throw a much more detailed image but if I never have a chance to see one then I won't know the difference. Sometimes ignorance is bliss:)

The important question is whether you can easily spot the AX200's weaknesses, without comparing it to anything.

Yes, the low contrast ratio and softness of the AX100 bothers me consistently (even before I tried out the Sharp - I owned the AX100 for a few months prior), but at least I know it's only a temporary projector.

The AX200 doesn't have SDE nor RBE, and the question is whether the contrast is low enough to ruin the experience at certain scenes, or maybe without comparing it to anything, you wouldn't know you're missing anything to begin with.

Wouldn't you rather have the best performance for your money? Why buy something you know is inferior to something else? (providing RBE and installation problems don't affect you)

Sorry guys, not meaning to beat a dead horse but want to make the best choice I can. Is stated in my previous thread

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=916514

I'll be dealing with some ambient light but not anything too too bad accept during sports viewing during the day which will only be about 20% of the time. I discovered the HiPower Screens from Da-Lite which give me a much better gain then what I was thinking, therefore the lumen count becomes less important to me. This all being said can the sharp unit be mounted on a projector stand approximately 56" high and 18' from the screen wall and work well for me. According to the calculator with the 900 lumens of the 12000 (not the mk II) i'd have 24 FL with an 18' throw distance, 106" screen, and zoom set on 1.05. It seems the sharp unit is a much better detail unit for HD viewing but the only thing that doesn't seem like a plus for this unit other then the lumens is the fact that the AX200 is reported to do very well with 1080p stating that it's down conversion to 720p is much less degrading then other projectors. This will only be an issue when viewing material from my Toshiba A20 1080p dvd player i'd think considering all HD cable is 720p (or atleast HD cable is). Is the sharp an overall superior projector to the AX 200 all this said or should I stick with the AX 200. I don't really play video games so that's not even a consideration.

What do you guys think and what would you do if you were me. Thanks, this kind of money is significant to me so I want to make the best choice I can. Thanks

Nick

Of the two, I'd find a way to control the ambient light and opt for the Sharp, assuming parity in $. Both would serve you well, however.

Wouldn't you rather have the best performance for your money? Why buy something you know is inferior to something else? (providing RBE and installation problems don't affect you)

I can see RBE. Not all the times though. I have doubts whether I could live with it or not.

In about 5 mins I will be swapping out my AE900 for the 12k. I will try to post some observations (even though I know the AE100 is a big improvement over the AE900).

(even though I know the AE100 is a big improvement over the 12k).

You meant the AX200 over the AE900.

Here are some initial observations on the 12k. I set it up quickly last night and watched part of the Deadman's Chest Blu-ray disk on my PS3. I did no calibration, but I did drop the color temp to 6500k and set the iris to high contrast.

* The 12k managed to slot right into the ceiling mount I had for the AE900 (the same eBay guy made both mounts, so the plate on the ceiling is the identical). Unfortunately, with the long throw lens of the 12k, I'm about an inch short of filling the screen. Tough to justify remounting for that extra inch.

* The fan on the 12k is much louder than that of the AE900. But...with a movie playing it's not a huge issue (it's about as loud as my PS3, but that is inside a cabinet).

* Colors seem about the same -- quite natural-seeming on both -- but I've not done any calibrating on the 12k. Not sure there will be a big payoff for tweaking this thing: it looks good out of the box.

* What bothered me most about the AE900 was backlit scenes with dark elements in the foreground. These just washed out and looked bad. On the 12k these scenes are much better (but still not perfect).

* The 12k seems sharper. I also watched part of the Red Sox game in high-def, and I noticed many camera screw ups (focusing errors, etc) that I had never really noticed before. The 12k also demonstrates how compressed Cablevision high def really is. Any flaws are revealed.

* I love being able to change the iris setting with one click of the remote. This will be good for when I turn on the TV during the day for my little ones.

* What bothered me most about the AE900 was backlit scenes with dark elements in the foreground. These just washed out and looked bad. On the 12k these scenes are much better (but still not perfect).

It sounds like you are watching in a white room.

It sounds like you are watching in a white room.

No, I experience the same problems in a room that's very dark. It's the low ANSI contrast and usage of a dynamic iris to achieve it's contrast ratio that makes it break down under these conditions. The Sharp is miles better in this regard.

* What bothered me most about the AE900 was backlit scenes with dark elements in the foreground. These just washed out and looked bad. On the 12k these scenes are much better (but still not perfect).

Rune AVIA or DVE to set brightness and contrast. Blacks are pretty close to perfect on the 12k UNLESS you have no point of reference to compare them to (fade to blacks are not perfect). The moment that there is a light object on the screen, blacks get inky. This is, I think, perceived contrast.

Thanks. I'll try to run DVE tonight.

Question for Lawguy: any thoughts on what I should do with Picture Position, Gamma Position, and CMS Position? Leave as default?

Thanks. I'll try to run DVE tonight.

Question for Lawguy: any thoughts on what I should do with Picture Position, Gamma Position, and CMS Position? Leave as default?

I leave them at default.

Sometimes I change the gamma to Black Detail or picture from Standard to Natural. Natural is less accurate, but I like it. Then I get tired of those settings and play some more. Do what looks good to you.

Thanks, Lawguy.

I just played Nemo for my kid, and it looked damn good with the iris open. Much better than the 900 for daytime viewing.

I have now had the ax100 and the 12000mkII up together for a few days. Initial impressssions after watching both movies and NFL today:

1. Front projection sure is nice- i am shooting on a 110" blackout cloth screen, sitting about 14" away.
2. Both are wonderful projectors and a huge step up form my old 4805
3. There is a bit of a wow factor with the Sharp because of how detailed the picture is
4. The better black levels of the Sharp are very noticeable and also add depth to the picture and especially deepens the colors.
5. Sound levels of the SHarp are not an issue unless you are watching something without ANY sound at all. In that case the Sharp is SLIGHTLY louder that the Panasonic
6. The Sharp with the iris in "High Brightness" is just as bright as the Panasonic unless you have the Panasonic in "Dynamic" in which case there is a slight and i do mean slight edge to the Panasonic. With the Sharp in high brightness you can easily have side lights as well as rear lights on and watch a beautiful picture. So both projectors can be viewed nicely with some ambient light but personally i still think all projectors look better in the dark!!
7. Aesthetically, the Sharp has a much nicer finish- kind of inline with the higher original MSRP-not really that important but it is obvous when looking at the two projectors.

8. If it were between the 100 and the Sharp i would go with the Sharp hands down. However the 200 with a second HDMI and the ability to take a 1080p signal at $249 less than the Sharp is a tougher call . Fortunately i dont have to make a decision for another 11 days <G>

Has anyone seen these two together yet. I have only seen the 100 vs the 12000. I am still very much on the fence. I plan to keep this projector for two-three years. I realize that i cant use the HP screen because the projector has to be ceiling mounted so now i wonder if the Sharp will be to dim ( especially down the road as the bulb dims). Also now that the Sharp is actually mounted, the noise is fairly loud. Its about two feet behind me and four feet above. IF only the Sharp picture was not so much better!!

If you see rainbows, care about couple of db and want placement gadgets than Panny is your pick. If all you care about is picture quality then these two should not be compared. Sharp's CMS alone is worth the price of AX200, the lens double. I would pick Sharp over the Pearl I owned in overall picture quality.

has anyone tried to compare the sharp and ax200 with a ps3/1080p signal? which one wins then in darkness? i keep hearing how, and pc really made this point, the ax200 is soooo good with the 1080p signal....and better than most other 720p's....

Quattro- so why did you buy the Pearl? For me placement is not an issue and i have never seen rainbows (used to own a 4805). The db is a minor concern- main issue is brightness fading over time, not bring able to use the HP screen which at least from the comments here seems important with this projector, and the inability of the Sharp to handle a 1080p signal. Its kind of like buying the top of the line computer from a few years ago vs the new best of the budget class. The rate at which technology increases while costs decreases is kind of incredible.

I did run this AX200U projector with a 1080p signal yesterday from my Troy HD DVD through my Toshiba A20 DVD Player. Didn't have much time to full with it and this is my first project but I was amazed, simply amazed at how good it looked projected on my sandstone (tan color) wall. Once I have time to get my HCMW screen up and play around some more i'll report back with more findings!

Following is a review I posted back in the spring comparing the 12k with my previous AX100. I think most of these observations would appply to the 12k vs. the Panny 200.
Before I purchased the Sharp I asked myself if I were presented the opportunity to buy a 2006 Mercedes, BMW, Lexus etc. vs. a 2007 model year Honda Accord or Toyota Camry what would I do. I would also recommend that you visit the $3000 and up Forum where people have compared the 12k to the current state of the art PJ's like the Sharp 20K and the JVC RSI.


Sharp 12k MII vs. Panasonic AX100

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have been reluctant to post my observations about how the Sharp stacks up to the Panny because I have owned the 500, the 900 and most recently the AX100, I really like Panasonics in general and have a deep appreciation that Panasonic has been at the forefront in bringing outstanding price/performance to the masses. But I have to admit that the Sharp 12K MII is at a different level, its just that simple.

Last year, I would freqently visit my friend who at the time had the 12k MII, needless to say it was an impressive state of the art picture that I felt I would probably never have in my theater due to the cost. In the fall of last year my friend replaced the 12K with Sharp's 1080p model (the 20k). Naturally I asked my buddy what he thought, to paraphrase what he said "the 20k was better but not by much and of the noticeble improvements 1080p resolution was probably the least significant". I never forgot those words. During this time when I would visit my friend I remember I use to come back home fire up my Panny and mentally adjust to what I felt was very good PQ but not state of the art like I would see over my his house.

Fast forward to April 07, I learn on this forum that the 12k MII is available for about the same money that I paid for the AX100. I asked myself if I would rather have a 2007 Honda Accord or Toyota Camy vs a 2006 Benz, Lexus, BMW etc. to me it was a no brainer so I order the 12k. The same day that I am setting up 12k another friend who planned to purchase my 100 comes by to pick it up. He stays for a while looks the 12k showing some Comcast cable material and leaves to go home and play with his new toy (the AX100). About 9 o'clock that same evening to my suprise my friend shows up again, sits down with me to watch some HD DVD's. All the while I am wondering why he isn't home watching his new 100. Ten to fifteen minutes later my friend says he just couldn't get over what he had seen earlier that day and he just had to come back. Then he says to me "I have to get me one of these and would I be willing to take back the 100"

Easter Sunday my wife who can care less about our toys comes down to the basement and literally stops in her tracks says wow about 3 times and says to me "this television is so much better than your other television". Need I say more.

Later that afternoon friends and family are over for Easter and to make a long story short they all are impressed with the picture. My son in law who was very familiar with my Panny set up says "I got to get me one of these", I still think his wife (my daughter) is still a little PO'ed at both of us. My son in law now has the 12k as his 1st PJ (unbelievable) .

Brightness

The biggest suprise with the 12k compared to the 100 is that the 12k seems to muster up a brighter picture with fewer lumens. I would say that they are roughly equivalent in brightness when the Panny is in Vivid Cinema (approx. 1000 lumens) and the 12 K putting out about five to six hundred lumens in high brightness mode with the lamp on economy. The 12k clearly has a wider dynamic range and there is no mode you can put the Panny in that will give you the top end white detail of the 12k. This is not a knock on the Panny I know this to be true with other LCD's like the Z5.

Contrast

The 12k makes it feel like I actually painted my room a darker color, even though the contrast specs are similar the 12k has much deeper and richer blacks. Shadow detail no contest.

Sharpness

Although I never felt that the 100 was lacking, the 12k has a precison and image specificity that is startling. IMO there is a difference between clarity and sharpness and generally speaking I don't think a lot of folks have had an opportunity to see what state of the art optics contributes to the clarity of the overall presentation. I know I didn't before getting the 12k

Color

Again this was another area that suprised the hell out of me simply because I never thought the Panny was doing anything wrong. The 12K seems to extend the color spectrum and gives you shadings and nuance I didn't expect especially with greens. I see much clearer distinctive shading in flesh tones etc. but what blew me away was the rendering and differences i see when looking at different baseball fields or outdoor scenes in movies that have have shots of natural landscapes with grass, trees, and other green stuff.

3D Effect

I have saved the best for last. This is an area where the 100 and I suspect most of the other < $5000 PJ's are simply outclassed. Again this is something that most can't appreciate because they have no frame of reference but once you've seen it you will know. I believe that superior optics, excellant video processing and contrast ratio contribute to a vivid 3 dimensionallity that is uncanny. You see background details and levels that with lesser PJ's your brain tells you to ignore because it has to work too hard to resolve. Again for those of you who have been fortunate enough to see this class of projector understand what I mean.

Noise Level

The 12k is not a quiet projector. I have the Toshiba XA 1 and I always felt that the AX 100 was actually quieter than the DVD player. The 12K is noticeably louder than both.

The sharp is in a whole different league no doubt, but i'd wait to see what people say about real life true comparisons between the AX100 and AX200 before placing too much weight on comparisons made against the 100. Like I said this is my first projector but there seems to be some key items that were changed in the AX200 that may add up to an advantage. That all being said i'd still guess the 12K has the advantage in PQ.

Rontron

I sold the Pearl and bought the Sharp.

People mention that Panny "accepts" 1080p. So what??? IT"S A 720p projector! It still has to scale. Sharp does excellent telecine of 1080i, plus it syncs to 48Hz frame which is double of 24 Hz frame rate. Feed it 720p in dot by dot and this thing will shine.

NickTF
Yes, the Sharp IS in a whole different league, no need to compare. Last time I checked LCD had 50% fill rate, DLP over 90%, no matter what "key differences" were made.

Projectors are not computers, last year stuff is NOT obsolete year later or surpassed by a toy 1/5 of the price. Optics ARE expensive and there is no way to get around it. DC3 is the latest from TI, their 1080 chip is DC3 as well, so if resolution is not an issue (look at Greek shootout of 720 vs 1080) then these 720p Dlp projectors can't be beat for value at the moment.

Panny is a great product for a projector around 1.5K, but if the Sharp was not being cleared out by wholesalers then this discussion would be moot as you would not be able to compare them without spending a lot of $$$.

The sharp is in a whole different league no doubt, but i'd wait to see what people say about real life true comparisons between the AX100 and AX200 before placing too much weight on comparisons made against the 100. Like I said this is my first projector but there seems to be some key items that were changed in the AX200 that may add up to an advantage. That all being said i'd still guess the 12K has the advantage in PQ.

I understand but there are certain attributes that cannot be changed by simply introducing a new and improved model. For example the depth and 3d images that a projector like the 12k produces is a result of the high ANSI contrast and very expensive optics. Another thing; a 1 chip design cannot be misaligned or misconverged, every 3 chip design has to some extent a level of mis-convergence and or color uniformity issues. Most people don't notice these flaws that are inherent in LCD's, and other 3 chippers but they are always there.

Prior to the 100 I owned the Panny 500 and 900, when I made the upgrades my wife never noticed or commented on the PQ improvments. When I bought the Sharp she said wow. I really liked and enjoyed my Panny's and without hesitation I would recommend Panasonics to anyone who could not accomodate or afford a higher end DLP.

I know this thread is AX200 vs. Sharp, but I happen to have the PT-AE1000U and Sharp 12KmkII at home right now and will do some A/B comparisons this weekend and post my impressions. I too was considering the Panny AX200 or the sharp. I have not opened the sharp box yet so I do not have any initial impressions.

Are there any DC3's that's come close to the Sharp 12K in performance but accept HDMI/1080p ?

Marantz VPS4 is DC3 and has HDMI input...it was on sale this week for less than 2K. Very well regarded projector.

I am thinking about the same projectors (Panny 200 vs. the sharp 12K) and am quite confused about the lens shift on the Sharp. In several different posts/threads there are conflicting data regarding whether the Sharp 12KMkII can be positioned with the lens beyond the screen dimensions. I am trying to throw a 106" diagonal image relatively low on a electric screen from a ceiling mounted projector below a 7'3" ceiling. Thus I think I need some vertical lens shift as my lens will be above the image. I get conflicting reports on whether the Sharp can do this, and I want to get one if it can as the price is great now. Thanks for any help....

I know 2 guys that just bought Mitsubishi 3100 DLP units only to discover they couldn't handle the rainbows.
Out of interest's sake, did they try the 5X colour wheel setting?

I can see RBE, but to be honest I haven't checked since the 2X days. I don't know if 4X or 5X would bother me. I find SDE just as irritating, and I do like low fan noise too.

Just a caveat though. I have the Panasonic PT-AX200U and while it's fairly quiet, it's definitely not silent, even in the lower power Cinema modes. The problem though is that several other projectors are reportedly noticeably louder.

Sarkarr- you will need to have the lens at the same level as the top of the screen or within the screen and then the lens shift will work fine.

OT sorry. I'm about to jump on the Sharp 12k and would appreciate some help on calculations. My screen is 92" dia. and will be placing PJ 10'8" away from screen. Will the Sharp work?

Thanks,

Alex

One more question. If I center the Sharp with screen do I have to use lens shift?

Sorry to tell you that it will not work. For a 92" screen you would need to be 12'1" to 16'7. I got this info from here - http://www.projectorcentral.com/SharpVision-XV-Z12000_MARK_II-projection-calculator-pro.htm. With that short a throw distance you might want to try the Marantz 4001. Assuming you centered the lens you wold probably need to use the vertical lens shift a little bit.

Quattro and Ernie- what screens do you use? My projector has to be ceiling mounted so i think that rules out the High Power- any suggestions?

I am running 160"+ high power, I would setup a drop down ceiling mount to make HP work if you want to go bigger. Otherwise I guess Firehawk for light control in high end. Otherwise nothing beats Do-Able board for quality of image with a price of around $20.

I was one of them. I did try the 5x mode and it didn't really help. And the colorwheel made a high pitched whine in that mode which really annoyed me, too, so i ended up watching at 4x most of the time. The 5x sped the rainbow artifacts up a little bit and did successfully keep me from noticing the rainbows in more of the the higher brightness scenes, but in the darker scenes with vertical white patches (a lamp post on a dark street, a door in a dark room opening to a well lit room in the background, etc, etc), the rainbows are just too distractinng. even the 6x Optoma HD80 was distracting. the higher speed helps only if you are "slightly sensitive." If you are very sensitive and always look for the rainbows, 6x will not help much in dark scenes with splashes of white.. at least in my experience.

That being said, I loved the picture on my 3100 and the 2 hours i spent with the HD80. I would suggest anyone who is not sensitive to rainbows and is getting ready to pay 2000 bucks for a 720p noisy/big/hot/hard to place DLP look into spending 500 more dollars and getting 1080p. my 3100 may have had better absolute black levels, but i didnt really pay too much attention sincei was too busy ooing and ahhing at the HD80's 3 dimensional 1080p image.


Out of interest's sake, did they try the 5X colour wheel setting?

I can see RBE, but to be honest I haven't checked since the 2X days. I don't know if 4X or 5X would bother me. I find SDE just as irritating, and I do like low fan noise too.

Just a caveat though. I have the Panasonic PT-AX200U and while it's fairly quiet, it's definitely not silent, even in the lower power Cinema modes. The problem though is that several other projectors are reportedly noticeably louder.

Just a caveat though. I have the Panasonic PT-AX200U and while it's fairly quiet, it's definitely not silent, even in the lower power Cinema modes. The problem though is that several other projectors are reportedly noticeably louder.

If you're that picky about sound, i'm guessing no dlp will be quiet enough for you. Single chip dlp seems to run hot and need more cooling. I had the 3100 and while the smaller size was nice, i felt like it NEEDED a bigger housing and better, more solid engineering. high-pitched colorwheel whine is just unacceptable. and the high power fan mode was definitely noisy enough to be noticeable during movies. And it blew out a ton of hot air onto the back of my neck, too. I can totally understand why the higher quality more expensive single chip dlps are so big. the technology needs it.

I've heard the ax100, and it was pretty quiet.. but im picky like you are and could still hear it. the only projector i've seen that is not audible in low mode unless you put your ear right up to it is the hc5000.

"FOR THE MONEY" there is not a projector made that will touch the 200 for what it is capable of for picture-features-placement flexibility.

1200$ or less. Any 'real' competition?

yes.... the Marantz VP4001 at 950 shipped.