I now have a Panasonic PT-AX200U and after fiddling with various colour/contrast settings and screen fabric swatches and paints, I've now got the thing set up to more or less how I like it (although I have more tweaking to do).

Yes, it's 720p and the blacks aren't perfect, and the PT-AE2000U is 1080p with superior contrast & blacks, but that doesn't really concern me that much, as I knew going in that was going to be the case at this price point.

However, as I expressed in this post (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=12032467#post12032467), I wonder how much better the lens is on the Panasonic PT-AE2000U over its much cheaper little brother.

The PT-AX200U's lens suffers from noticeable chromatic aberration, as well as non-planar focus.

We know that the AE2000U has a similar 2X zoom lens and similar throw ranges and lens shift (so that the AE2000U is almost a drop-in upgrade to the AX200U in terms of placement options), but I wonder how much better the AE2000U's lens is. Given that it's Panasonic's flagship model and it costs twice as much or more, I would have guessed Panasonic may have put a noticeably higher end lens in the unit. Was this true with the AE1000U vs AX100U?

I'm satisfied with the AX200U for now, but bought it with the idea that I may upgrade to a higher end model in the future, not really for 1080p so much (although it's a bonus for sure), but for other characteristics such as better blacks, contrast, and I guess lens quality. I just didn't want to pay over $2000 for a projector at this point.

Here's that previous post in full:


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e5/Lens6a.png

Also, besides the slight R, G, B misconvergence, this AX200U's lens does not have completely planar focus (at least when using significant lens shift and max wide angle zoom).

I have confirmed this by hooking up a computer to it and loading up a page of text in a browser. (Actually, I'm typing on my computer with the projector as my display device right now. :))

If you focus the centre of the image completely, the edges are slightly out of focus. If you focus the edges completely, the centre is slightly out of focus.

Disappointing yes, but surprising no. For example, I use microscopes at work, and to get completely planar and apochromatic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apochromatic) lenses you have to spend thousands on the lens objective alone.

So, what I have done is adjusted focus so that the centre of the image is in near perfect focus, but the edges aren't quite.

The culprit here is not just the price point, but also the fact that this Panny has such a huge zoom range. At these prices, one cannot expect professional image quality from this huge a zoom range. For instance, if we guessed that the projector electronics and housing is worth about 2/3rds of the cost, then that means that of the $1299 for this projector, less than $500 went to the optics. $500 for camera lens is peanuts. :p

BTW, at max wide angle zoom there seems to be very slight pincushioning of the image. It's not really noticeable in normal viewing, but you can see it if you put a straight edge up to the side of the image. It's so minor though it's not significant in real-world usage.

So it would seem that the reported imperfect sharpness is not just due to the SmoothScreen technology, but also to the lens itself. One wonders if one of the reasons other projectors are reported as sharper is the fact that many of those have such a limited zoom range. It's a lot easier and cheaper to get a good looking image with limited zoom options.

P.S. One of the benefits of 1080p with the PT-AE2000U would be specifically how I'm using my projector right now. Although there is no screen door at all with any reasonable seating distance with the AX200U, you can make out some pixelation in text with close seating distances. Unfortunately most OSes aren't very resolution independent, which would kinda make 1080p moot in a lot of situations. Without resolution independence, 1080p text may simply be smaller. (Mac OS X Leopard, which came out yesterday, was originally supposed to be resolution independent. Unfortunately, it isn't.)

I also wonder how much better the AE2000U lens is.

The lens assemblies are from the same manufacturer and are so closely related you could say they are in the same bed together.

The optics on over 90% of any projectors we service is no better than the panasonic's.

The lens assemblies are from the same manufacturer and are so closely related you could say they are in the same bed together.

The optics on over 90% of any projectors we service is no better than the panasonic's.
I can understand your second sentence, but I don't quite understand your first sentence. Can the lens assembly be that similar in a 1.2X zoom DLP with no lens shift vs. Panasonic's 2.0X zoom 3LCD with lens shift?


My guess is the lenses used in the PT-AE2000u are A LOT better.

Cine4Home:

" The glass lenses from Japanese production facility (also Leica optics) form with partly Aspherischen elements in three groups of the optics. Special coatings are designed for maximum yield with minimal contrast optical distortions. The list of properties with the new optics is not affected, the projector is still a 2x zoom with 40% horizontal, and 100% vertical lens shift margin."

Leica lenses are very good quality. I already saw the PT-AE2000u in action and was very impressed by its optics.

I personally don't understand how Panasonic does it. Even if you were to project it on the wall with a 73" image (the largest RPTV), in low lamp mode, you'll get ~3,000 hours with an image that beats every single RPTV out there hands down, for only $2,700.
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cine4home.de%2Fnews%2FPanaAE200 0%2FAE2000Preview.htm&langpair=de%7Cen&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&prev=%2Flanguage_tools
The names Leica or Zeiss don't guarantee great quality. For example, a lot of low end point-and-shoot cameras have Zeiss lenses. The lens quality is good for the money, but no better than the competing Canon or Nikon point-and-shoots.

I've also had cheap low end (crappy) SLR zoom lenses with aspherical elements, so similarly, the mention of aspherical doesn't guarantee good quality (although I agree it often points in that direction).

Do you have a comparable link describing the the manufacturer and specs of the lens of the AX200U? It's unfortunate that the projector companies don't usually go into as much detail as the camera companies do about lenses. I can understand why though, since the consumer projector crowd seems to focus in on stuff like 1080p and lumens, etc.

However, I do not doubt the AE2000U has a significantly better lens than the AX200U. It's also possible that some of the improved contrast might not just be due to the 3LCD panels themselves. Some of it could be due to the improved lens. I'd like to see it for myself though with the ability to tweak it. Right now my local shop (in Toronto) only has the AE1000U only, but I wouldn't be allowed to play with it anyway. Not that I'd bother though, since they charge WAY too much money for it, partially because Panasonic Canada sets the MSRP way too high here, and partially because that store often charges full MSRP or close to it.

BTW, this all leads me to be believe that projectors with better optics may not drop too much below the $2000 mark (street) for quite some time. Non-optics specs will continue to improve, but the glass is going to be a limiting factor.

ie. In 2009 we may have $1299 1080p models with improved blacks, but I'm guessing the optics will be no better than what we have now with 720p models.

Where can you get a "cheap" Leica lens other than a lensbaby?
I'm just saying the name guarantees nothing. For example, some of the lower Leica microscope lenses aren't the greatest either. They're good, but no better than similarly priced Olympus lenses, and sometimes they're worse when you factor price into the mix.

If that Panasonic lens is a great lens then great (and I trust your personal impression that it is great), but just because it happens to be made in a facility that makes Leica products doesn't automatically make it great.

(I am no expert, but I work with microscopes, so I have at least some experience with Zeiss, Leica, Olympus, and Nikon optics.)

I have nothing against Leica per se, and in fact I agree that most Leica lenses are very good, but I feel the assumption that Leica automatically means awesome is misguided. The same used to be said about Zeiss, but we know how that turned out.