This is just a quickie but thought I'd mention that yesterday I had a chance to do a very mini-shoot out between the new Sony VW60 (SXRD/LCOS) projector vs the more expensive (by about $2,000 or so) Sharp XV-Z20000 single chip 1080p projector. This was on a 100" Stewart Firehawk screen, with good (but not perfectly light sealed) light control.

I'd tested out the Sony "black pearl" not long ago on a larger Firehawk screen and found it a bit bland looking, although with a noted increase in sharpness over the previous "Pearl."

In this case when the Sony was fired up we viewed some HD concert footage, which took place outside in city streets, at night time. The image immediately impressed me with what seemed to be deep blacks and very good image "punch" along with excellent sharpness (again, definitely sharper than any previous versions of the Pearl I'd seen). The microphone in front of the singers had that neato level of clarity and dimensionality you get with great high-def. Also, colors looked quite controlled and generally natural. That was the most impressive I've seen the Sony to this point.

But when we put in one of my favourite movie tests - the Blade Runner DVD - I was less thrilled. For whatever reason, the black levels didn't look very black in this case - both the black bars of that 2:35:1 film and within the film itself. The auto iris was engaged and we played a bit with brightness level, bringing the black levels as low as we could manage, but still the contrast just didn't look very impressive. The "blacks" were still pretty gray.

On the good side: the image was VERY smooth. I find the BadeRunner DVD a great test for how well the processing of a display handles some inherently noisy images, for instance the opening fly-overs of Los Angeles can bring lots of projectors/displays to their knees with it's combination of grainy smokey atmosphere, film grain and transfer noise. But on the Sony it looked beautifully smooth. The Sony produces an image that, more than any other projector or display, strikes me as "film-like." And, again, colors were not overblown or particularly unnatural looking. So it was a very easy image to
sink in to.

However...AV geek beanie cap on...the general sense of contrast just wasn't that impressive. In fact, to my surprise, even though I was now viewing the Sony on a much smaller screen than last time, I was still finding the image to be sort of bland and lifeless - just looking a bit "drained" of color with the dynamics of all the city lights and flying vehicles looking flatter and less impressive than I've seen on other projectors. It lacked "life." Perhaps this is the result of the dynamic iris design and the lower actual native contrast, combined with average ANSI contrast. But, still, given other people's enthusiasm I still have trouble believing this is all that projector can do.
If I can get another demo in even better conditions, I'll leave the door open
to that projector as a possibility for my purchase. But so far, my two encounters have been mildly disappointing.

Then we played the same material on the Sharp projector. HOLY COW. What a difference! Now, I should point out that the Sharp had a little advantage in that, due to it's not having as great a throw ratio as the Sony, and given both projectors were just beyond 11 feet or so away from the screen, the Sharp ended up with a slightly smaller image on the screen. That will tend, in of itself, to produce a slightly tighter, contrastier image. But it really went well beyond that. The inherently high contrast ratio, particularly the ANSI (I presume) just seemed to make the image burst from the screen in terms of contrast. The first images in Blade Runner, moving over the oil refinery landscape at night time, tons of lighted towers and fire bursts littering the landscape, was just as dynamic as when I remembered first seeing this on this Sharp projector. The light sources piercing the darkness had that brilliant lights-at-night quality. And the differentiation in the levels of intensity from light source to light source, made the image much more realistic, dynamic and life-like.

This was true also of the range of shadow density and detail. On the Sharp, some oil refinery towers were much deeper black in shadowing than others, with much greater range, making even the darker areas imbue the landscape with a significantly enhanced solidity and dimensionality.

Throughout many scenes the sharp just had much greater punch and solidity and depth, with faces having a less film-like, more solid "touch the skin" vibe.

In fact, the Sharp was able to be so dynamic occasionally I felt it had almost crossed a line I'm not sure I wanted it to go. That is, the dynamic contrast was beyond what I've seen in any theater. This was great for, as I said, bringing the images to life. But at the same time it could give almost a more video-like vibe to images I'm more used to seeing as film-like. Of course, if this actually proved to be an issue, one could always calibrate the Sharp for a more sedate image...but then, you are calibrating away some of the very strengths of the Sharp. I've yet to see a projector that can imitate the punch of a plasma as well as the sharp.

Also, the blacks looked significantly deeper and more solid on the Sharp. That too had me wondering if I'd really seen the Sony's black levels as they could be.

Now, my main reason for viewing the Sharp was that I wanted to give DLP another chance. I'm rainbow sensitive and for this reason had been heading toward a LCOS-based display, particularly the JVC RS1 or RS2 (leaving open the possibility of the Sony black pearl, and perhaps the new Panasonic). But
I'm aware of the certain qualities that seem to be the province of DLP, and the Sharp had impressed me so much before, I thought I'd give it another shot.

Unfortunately...I saw rainbows on the Sharp. And not just here and there, I saw them almost continually! Throughout most of blade runner. Rainbows
were unavoidable in the obvious problem areas - e.g. the first scenes of Deckard with pedestrians walking by carrying umbrellas that were on the end of vertically-oriented light sticks. That kind of high-contrast image moving across the screen is a DLP's nightmare, and rainbow it did. But I found I was noticing rainbows, and a general sense of image break-up, constantly, through all scenes. Even as my eyes naturally scanned from one actor's face to the other I constantly was aware of the image having this breaking-into-parts quality. This is certainly no small issue and it was impossible for me to get past this frustrating experience. So...with a heavy heart, it looks like I have to keep single chip DLP crossed off my list at this point.

I think this has mostly solidified my intent to go with either the JVC RS1, or more likely, the RS2 (I'm a black level fiend). Having demoed the JVC at a forum member's house (and having seen it a few other places) I found it to sort of occupy a sort of in-between of the Sony pearl and the Sharp. I found the RS1 to have a very dynamic image - Bladerunner had me saying "wow" throughout, even if it didn't always reach the stellar ANSI contrast as on the Sharp. The RS1 had a really beautiful combination of "dynamic" with "film-like." Given the severity of the DLP rainbow issue with me, I think I can take the good of the JVC projector without the sense I'm missing too much.

Naturally, I wouldn't take what I've reported too seriously, given the conditions weren't optimal for comparisons. But I do think the general differences in performance between the Sharp and the Sony played out in the comparison.

Over 'in out.

Let us know when and if you compare these 2 to the new Panny.

Thanks for the review. I'm in the same situation as you. I'm rainbow sensitive but love the three dimensionality and pop of a single chipper. I have had the VW50 since it was released and I'm currently on the prowl for something that I can keep for years. What has swayed me towards the VW60 is the remote lens functions and improved sharpness. The RS1 is a possibility as well. Have you viewed the Infocus IN82? I'm very curious to see a comparison between it and the higher cost DLPs like the HT380 and the Sharp.

Looks like Sharp is the clear winner! Actually, I own one for 2 months now and I'm extremely happy with it. The blacks and sharpness are what truly impressed me. Occasionally, I do see rainbows but it doesn't bother me at all. This only happens when I roll by eyes side to side but when I'm focused to the screen I don't see rainbows.

So, desconsidering the rainbow effecf, I`m immune to it, do you think that to a light controlled ambient, the Sharp is worth despite being an older model without 1080p/24 and HDMI 1.3 deep color compatible like the black pearl? I have the pearl and I want to change for a better pj. What about the Sony diamond?

So, desconsidering the rainbow effecf, I`m immune to it, do you think that to a light controlled ambient, the Sharp is worth despite being an older model without 1080p/24 and HDMI 1.3 deep color compatible like the black pearl? I have the pearl and I want to change for a better pj. What about the Sony diamond?

IIRC the Sharp had a FW update to support 1080p/24. What source material do you plan on using that requires HDMI 1.3 additional video featues ?

D

So, desconsidering the rainbow effecf, I`m immune to it, do you think that to a light controlled ambient, the Sharp is worth despite being an older model without 1080p/24 and HDMI 1.3 deep color compatible like the black pearl? I have the pearl and I want to change for a better pj. What about the Sony diamond?

Based on my having viewed the Sharp with plenty of content many times before, as well as having demoed all the previous Sony projectors...I'd say
the Sharp is certainly worth it as an upgrade, including from the new Pearl from what I can tell. It's not subtle to my eyes - it's a "wow" factor in several ways. The Sharp is so good as it is in terms of color, sharpness, black levels and eye-popping contrast that in my mind it's a great long term (as long as we AV-geeks can stand it) projector. It's just really satisfying in almost every way with no "Gee I wish X were better" problem sticking out.

That's why I was considering it, even though it has now becoming an "older" model.

The "problems" with the Sharp are, I believe, less inherent picture quality problems as practical issues: I understand it's not the brightest projector, which can limit screen sizes in many cases. Also, it is not nearly as flexible for accommodating a variety of installations as the Sony (or JVC) due to lens/throw issues. In fact, I realised this time that even if the Sharp didn't bother me with rainbows, it probably wouldn't cast the image size I desire, given my throw distance.

...The auto iris was engaged and we played a bit with brightness level, bringing the black levels as low as we could manage, but still the contrast just didn't look very impressive...Were either of these 2 projectors calibrated?

Hopefully projector central gets a hold of the Z20000. The Panny will probably squish it too! ;)

Practically every review/preview I've read about the VW60 complained about its relatively low dynamic range in comparison to this year's 1080p models (both DLP and LCD). The fact that a projector like the AE2000 provides better dynamic range (and better color accuracy and better sharpness etc.), at a fraction of the VW60's cost, implies the VW60 is going to stay on the shelves this year (like the Mits HC6000).

Sorry about that Rich. Didn't mean to side track your thread.

Practically every review/preview I've read about the VW60 complained about its relatively low dynamic range. ).Except for the reviews done by professionals with supporting measurements. :)
The fact that a projector like the AE2000 provides better dynamic range (and better color accuracy and better sharpness etc...Cine4Home which has done previews on both, does not agree with your assesment.

Hopefully projector central gets a hold of the Z20000. The Panny will probably squish it too! ;)


Did the Projector Central review just come up saying that the Sanyo Z2000 and Panasonic AE2000 were pretty much equal?

EDIT: Doh.. that's the wrong Z2whatever... Sorry, my bad. I just can't believe every company has to name their projectors with similar titles (Z2000, Z20000, AE2000). Just ridiculous.

Cine4Home which has done previews on both, does not agree with your assesment.

First of all, I'm not basing my assesment on just one opinion. Several people who came back from Cedia 2007 claimed the VW60 did not impress at all in terms of dynamic range. ProjectorCentral might not be professionals, but they are watching the VW60 at the same time with other 1080p projectors (which is the most professional thing one could do to check differences between projectors), and confirm the VW60's dynamic range is low in comparison.

I've read Cine4home's review of the VW60 (regarding color accuracy it confirms my claim). Yes, it say the VW60 did 4300:1 native On/Off CR at video standard color (with closed iris), while the AE2000 only did 2500:1, so in terms of sequential contrast, the VW60 is the winner. Still, for intra-scene dynamic range, the important factor is not native On/Off CR, rather ANSI CR, and the new 1080p LCDs might be better on this regard (early reports claim the AE2000 to have 400:1 ANSI).

If DLPs taught us anything, it's that high intra-scene contrat is more pleasing to the eye than high sequential contrast, and hence this could explain the alleged discrepancy between Cine4home's measurements and real world opinions.

Unfortunately...I saw rainbows on the Sharp. And not just here and there, I saw them almost continually! Throughout most of blade runner. Rainbows were unavoidable in the obvious problem areas - e.g. the first scenes of Deckard with pedestrians walking by carrying umbrellas that were on the end of vertically-oriented light sticks. That kind of high-contrast image moving across the screen is a DLP's nightmare, and rainbow it did. But I found I was noticing rainbows, and a general sense of image break-up, constantly, through all scenes. Even as my eyes naturally scanned from one actor's face to the other I constantly was aware of the image having this breaking-into-parts quality.I really find this phenomenon really interesting. To a person who is not rainbow sensitive, this description sounds more like an LSD trip than a movie-viewing experience. It is fascinating how the variability of human perception is so extreme that what one person finds intolerable to another is completely invisible. It makes me wonder about the validity of almost any subjective description of what we see.

I really find this phenomenon really interesting. To a person who is not rainbow sensitive, this description sounds more like an LSD trip than a movie-viewing experience. It is fascinating how the variability of human perception is so extreme that what one person finds intolerable to another is completely invisible. It makes me wonder about the validity of almost any subjective description of what we see.

Excellent point, Tom.

I am damn glad I took a WV60 off the shelf! :D

Based on my having viewed the Sharp with plenty of content many times before, as well as having demoed all the previous Sony projectors...I'd say
the Sharp is certainly worth it as an upgrade, including from the new Pearl from what I can tell. It's not subtle to my eyes - it's a "wow" factor in several ways. The Sharp is so good as it is in terms of color, sharpness, black levels and eye-popping contrast that in my mind it's a great long term (as long as we AV-geeks can stand it) projector. It's just really satisfying in almost every way with no "Gee I wish X were better" problem sticking out.

That's why I was considering it, even though it has now becoming an "older" model.

The "problems" with the Sharp are, I believe, less inherent picture quality problems as practical issues: I understand it's not the brightest projector, which can limit screen sizes in many cases. Also, it is not nearly as flexible for accommodating a variety of installations as the Sony (or JVC) due to lens/throw issues. In fact, I realised this time that even if the Sharp didn't bother me with rainbows, it probably wouldn't cast the image size I desire, given my throw distance.

I have both the old Sharp XVZ20000 and the New Marantz VP15S1 in my theater and they look similar in all respect. They have the same DLP chip, both use dual iris system. My Sharp is a bit brighter, has more contrast thant the Marantz, better colors accuracy (CMS). The Marantz has a better processor, slightly better optics. By looking at them you can't see one as being old and new.

Both projector are dim when optimize (Iris close and low lamp) but you can open the Iris and get in the 800 lumens range calibrated. That would not be consider dim.

Bruno

I am damn glad I took a WV60 off the shelf!

WV60 is a different story, I talked about the VW60.

More seriously, I'm sure you took it off the shelf *before* you were aware better projectors are available at a fraction of the price.

You can still ebay the VW60 to some Sony fanboy for close to what you paid, and get the better 1080p LCD projectors for a fraction of the price. That's the reasonable thing to do.

I really find this phenomenon really interesting. To a person who is not rainbow sensitive, this description sounds more like an LSD trip than a movie-viewing experience. It is fascinating how the variability of human perception is so extreme that what one person finds intolerable to another is completely invisible. It makes me wonder about the validity of almost any subjective description of what we see.
This extension of attempted logical thinking is just plain stupid. The first attack of the reviewers observations (with being on an LSD trip) are just shameful.
Then in you include doubts about the validity of what everyone is seeing as not being real. The ironies are profound. Its as if you are casting doubt by looking at yourself in a mirror. Is this image is not valid either? :(

This extension of attempted logical thinking is just plain stupid. The first attack of the reviewers observations (with being on an LSD trip) are just shameful.
Then in you include doubts about the validity of what everyone is seeing as not being real. The ironies are profound. Its as if you are casting doubt by looking at yourself in a mirror. Is this image is not valid either?

Rainbows perception is at the limit of average human perception, hence some people see it and some don't. It's an artifact and shouldn't have been there in the first place (if the technology wasn't flawed).

On the other hand, large differences in color, contrast and shape of an object, are at the middle of human perception, hence reports in this regard will not vary much between different people.

Better LCDs at a fraction of the price? I do plan to audition a Panny but you can't really expect these to be better. Do they offer panel alignment adjustment for convergence? Even if they are close (which I do not doubt) there is no way I would go to one of them. If I were going to switch pjs it would be the WV200. But even at that pricing I would have to be blown away. I do not expect it to be much better than the WV60. So with your statements you would think the Sanyo and Panny can compete with their new 14,999 pj. :eek:

I really find this phenomenon really interesting. To a person who is not rainbow sensitive, this description sounds more like an LSD trip than a movie-viewing experience. It is fascinating how the variability of human perception is so extreme that what one person finds intolerable to another is completely invisible. It makes me wonder about the validity of almost any subjective description of what we see.

Tom,

Yeah it's pretty weird huh? I started out looking for the rainbows with particular shots I knew should bring them out, and they were very visible.
Then I moved on to other scenes to test general image quality and contrast, not thinking about the rainbow aspect. But to my surprise I kept getting bothered by what I described: the sense that many times as I looked around the scene the image was breaking up with my eye movements.

Whereas I have watched the Sharp for longer periods before and was not nearly so distracted by this problem. I do think it is something the brain starts to get used to. But frankly it's such a big hurdle for me I have a hard time justifying paying so much for the experience of having to get over, or try to ignore, such a distracting type of artifact. I don't want to gamble with thousands of dollars on the idea "Maybe I'll get used to it."

I'm quite sensitive to flicker and one reason I loved buying my plasma five years ago was that it was free of the visible flicker that annoys me with many CRTs. But, here's another weird one: A few people in the plasma forum have said they prefer LCDs due to plasma flicker. Which blows my mind because I can't see it in plasma. Likewise, some people have complained about rainbows on plasmas (a legitimate issue, caused by something somewhat different than DLP of course)...and I can't see rainbows on any plasma. Meanwhile, the guys who do are like "how can you stand it?"

Yup. Human perception varies. BUT...it isn't supernatural or utter chaos either, as countless scientific studies on our perception - audible/visible/taste/smell etc - have established pretty reliable base-lines for the limits and typical capabilities of human perception.

Rich,

If you get a chance to try the VW 60 again, give these settings a try. You should find a dramatic improvement in contrast without sacrifice of fine detail. At first I wondered if my VW60 had contrast problems, but now am very impressed with it, and it is even superior to my DLP Runco CL-710 which was a very fine projector, now replaced without any regret with the Sony.

Omar

Lamp: Low
Auto Iris: Auto 2, "Fast"
Color Space: Wide
Contrast: Max
Brightness: 49
Color: 45
Hue: 50
Color Temp: Low
Sharpness: +5
Black Level Adjust: Off
Gamma Correction: Gamma 3

I really find this phenomenon really interesting. To a person who is not rainbow sensitive, this description sounds more like an LSD trip than a movie-viewing experience. It is fascinating how the variability of human perception is so extreme that what one person finds intolerable to another is completely invisible. It makes me wonder about the validity of almost any subjective description of what we see.Beautifully described, but I think 99.9% of RBE susceptibility can be attributed to quantifiable factors. Most notably: projector brightness, scene contrast, color wheel speed/segments, and screen size/eye movement.

I can sum it up to this: people have different PJs/setups and use their eyes differently.

That's not to invalidate RBE at all, but let's not reduce it to pseudoscience.

First of all, I'm not basing my assesment on just one opinion. Several people who came back from Cedia 2007 claimed the VW60 did not impress at all in terms of dynamic range. Several people have made all kinds of statements about projectors they saw at CEDIA. Here is Projector Central's VW60 CEDIA Report

The demonstration of the VW60 at CEDIA was in a well-darkened alcove on a 100" Stewart Studiotek 130 screen. The inherently high contrast subject matter being used for the demo looked spectacularly high in contrast, and colors were extremely saturated and vibrant. If one were to complain about anything, it would be that the contrast looked too high, as if artificially overdriven .
...(early reports claim the AE2000 to have 400:1 ANSI)My contact in post production who measured a AE2000 at ~400:1, also states that IHO the Black Pearl is still clearly better!

I am damn glad I took a WV60 off the shelf! :D


You will be one of the few who did or do:D In all fairness I have not read a review yet of the new pearl that the reviewer really got excited about it'or is it me.I just read the WSR and Greg really never sounded excited.Yes he said it was a littel better than the vw50 but I never got the impression he would buy one.I thought the vw50 had a great pic and if the vw60 is better then it should be really nice.My main problem is the price,as with the new mit hc6000,They need to get the price down to the low 3k's to compete:)

...If you get a chance to try the VW 60 again, give these settings a try....That is a very good point. Any comparison between 2 pj without properly calibrating both, is just silly IMO.

...I just read the WSR and Greg really never sounded excited.Yes he said it was a littel better than the vw50...
See: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=11757363#post11757363

"....But I didn't see him jump up and down and do cartweels!" :D:D

RobZ

Laugh!

So, if the WV60 was near the same price as the Panny or Sanyo then many would buy it? But because it cost somewhat more and is out of some people's (not anyone here of course) price range they are saying the Panny or Sanyo is better? And better because it gives the better bang for the buck or better because it outperforms or just simply better because it fits into their budget? :eek:

So, if the WV60 was near the same price as the Panny or Sanyo then many would buy it? But because it cost somewhat more and is out of some people's (not anyone here of course) price range they are saying the Panny or Sanyo is better? And better because it gives the better bang for the buck or better because it outperforms or just simply better because it fits into their budget? :eek:


It cost somewhat more,I would say it cost quite a bit more.I know what AVS is selling them for and that is still allmost double the price of the sanyo after rebate.Same for the Mit.I can see Mit lowering the price,But Sony,Heck they can't even get a Blueray player out for under $500,Their will allot of vw60 unsold.Hopefully Sony will wake up one day and join the rest of the world.:eek:

See: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=11757363#post11757363

Reviewer or Politician?
--------------------
I have not read Greg's comments here. But I don't need too. Anyone who aviods objectivity, selectively emphasizes certain points, speaks in half-truths or tells different things to different audiences is defined as a politician in my book.

Very good point! :) I have to think if I am going to switch pjs anytime soon(which I am very happy with the Black Pearl) it would most likely be either their WV200 (because I am sick like that-:eek:) or the RS2... But that's just me. :) I will more than likely hang onto the WV60 until next year or the year after (probably next year) and then re-evaluate the market. My ultimate goal is to end up with a 3 chip 1080p DLP but if these LCD pjs (DILA and SXRD) keep improving I may not need to...

Reviewer or Politician?
--------------------
I have not read Greg's comments here. But I don't need too. Anyone who aviods objectivity, selectively emphasizes certain points, speaks in half-truths or tells different things to different audiences is defined as a politician in my book.

SO, just when are you running for office MR REINCARNATE? I would treat Greg;s comments,views, opinions, on anything VIDEO, with interest. Yours, well I just don't think I will go there.

CHEERS,T

GregR's reviews are the ones I trust most. His are and have always been second to none... :)

SO, just when are you running for office MR REINCARNATE? I would treat Greg;s comments,views, opinions, on anything VIDEO, with interest. Yours, well I just don't think I will go there.
CHEERS,T
I don't enjoy the game playing practiced by Greg Rodgers and his employer Widescreen Review Magazine here at AVS:
The rules of the game are to 1) continuously read the preview hype comments here at AVS, then 2) subscribe to Widescreen Review to read the rosy formal review, then 3) read follow-up threads for months to learn what Mr. Rodgers really thought all along.

AVS members rely on the objective facts and expert observations in order to make an informed buying decision when considering between competing projectors. Very simply each reviewer should be judged by their published formal review. WSR modus operandi milks each popular review for months in an effort to get AVS members to subscribe and to visit their website.
Its no different than a TV weatherman giving a teaser to make the unwitting listen through 25 minutes of commercials before being giving 25 seconds of information. Who here will admit to waiting 25 minutes to hear 25 seconds of information?
What happens when the published review omits direct comparisons or unflattering comments to please their advertisers? Then you get to read here several months later how they maybe really feel or felt. But how knows as there is no accountability, just as there is for politicians. :)
I don't know how anyone else feels, but I tire easily of this exceptionally well planned game playing (for commercial purposes) here at a “science” forum. It just doesn't seem to offer a sense of fair play or untarnished expert advice.

I don't enjoy the game playing practiced by Greg Rodgers and his employer Widescreen Review Magazine here at AVS:
The rules of the game are to 1) continuously read the preview hype comments here at AVS, then 2) subscribe to Widescreen Review to read the rosy formal review, then 3) read follow-up threads for months to learn what Mr. Rodgers really thought all along.


I really think that you are really wrong about this one.

I spent a lot of time (too much time) debating my upgrade choice and studied Greg Roger's reviews pretty much word by word. There is nothing that he said in his review of the RS1, for instance, that has since been contradicted by him or proved wrong. He mentions the color issue and states that many people prefer this. He points out instances where he found those colors unrealistic. He touched on every criticism that people now harp on (bright corners, lens, etc.).

The difference is that his reviews he puts all of these things in context. Many people here can't do that and it seems that Roger's reviews were overly optimistic or something. People here create the hype and then destroy it. Then they repeat the cycle. Don't blame WSR for that. Read the reviews carefully. All the stuff, good and bad, is in there.

And he nailed a good review on the WV60. He touched on all subjects and features. If you want to read a crappy "review" (I use that term loosely) then check out P.C.'s article on the Black Pearl. If you are going to complain about a fluff report then by all means complain about that one!!! ;)

And he nailed a good review on the WV60. He touched on all subjects and features. If you want to read a crappy "review" (I use that term loosely) then check out P.C.'s article on the Black Pearl. If you are going to complain about a fluff report then by all means complain about that one!!! ;)

Right. The things that people will ultimately complain about in the vw-60 are all in there too. There is no hype machine from WSR, at least from Greg Rogers.

I thought that the Monster Cable interview was shameful though. It was as softball an interview as anyone could get.

Just asking...what does this have to do with the thread topic- of comparison between the VW-60 and the Sharp XV-Z20000 ? I believe that this is a thread hijack.:rolleyes:

Lol... if you want to get technical, I think that the thread went off track with the very first response.

Speaking of the first response. This is what I want to see. I'm going to compare the AE2000u and the VW50 on Tuesday. What I really want is to audition the VW60. Does AVS allow for 100% refund if less than 4 hours use (like Projectorpeople, etc.)?


Yes, another hijack.

Rob,

I've seen that pic of yours in many posts and I just think it's inappropriate.
There are many people that have been affected by a real hijacking and very hurt.
I know it's a joke and I like a laugh as much as anyone, but I think it's in poor taste.

Others may correct me if I'm way off base, but there ya go.

This is not meant to be anything other than constructive critisism.

scott

Maybe I should start a new thread for this but reading observations from the thread starter got me thinking about Sharp and other rainbow prone projector owners and screen size. Some of the people defending the Sharp elsewhere have mentioned it only happens when you move your head and eyes and acted as if normal people don't keep their eyes moving around during a movie or they'd get terrible strain. Because of that nobody should worry about rainbows in a good theater.

When you have a good size screen and tighter viewing distance to screen size ratio, I'm using 159" diag from 15 feet, your eyes are constantly darting around the screen soaking in all the little details throughout the scene and background. Everytime my eyes shift to look at something somewhere else on the screen when I'm looking at a DLP I see that rainbow effect, not just when moving my whole head. So does it appear, on average, that Sharp and other DLP owners use smaller screens and subsequently don't notice the rainbows as much because they don't have to shift their eyes much with the more TV like experience on the smaller screens? It'd be interesting to hear third party reviews of very large screens (or large ratio) with the Sharp and other DLPs and how it seems to impact the RBE issue.

Kevin W.

Rob,

I've seen that pic of yours in many posts and I just think it's inappropriate.
There are many people that have been affected by a real hijacking and very hurt.
I know it's a joke and I like a laugh as much as anyone, but I think it's in poor taste.

Others may correct me if I'm way off base, but there ya go.

This is not meant to be anything other than constructive critisism.

scott


I'd be willing to bet of the entire user base of AVS that between 0-1 have any direct experience with a real world hijacking of themselves or a nuclear family member. Furthermore I'd wager that the odds of any person in that minute fraction of the population viewing this particular thread are even smaller than the odds of Bob Sorel admitting that the JVC RS1 is one of the best overall home theater projectors made today. I didn't see the picture in question, apparently it was removed already, but your reply screamed of political correctness run amuck without any grounding in reality. Put your man pants on and worry about important things like the amazing image of an RS1 :D

Does AVS allow for 100% refund if less than 4 hours use (like Projectorpeople, etc.)?They offered me that deal on a JVC RS1. You just pick up the shipping unless it's defective. Very nice to work with!

Just asking...what does this have to do with the thread topic- of comparison between the VW-60 and the Sharp XV-Z20000 ?Not much, but it's entertaining! I've been waiting to find out what projectors RobZ and Lawguy buy.

Not much, but it's entertaining! I've been waiting to find out what projectors RobZ and Lawguy buy.
Well Greg, you're right on that one. Hey, I'm a probably little A.D.D. and have been known to drift on AV topics myself. ;)

You gotta love the enthusiasm around here. :D

I really think that you are really wrong about this one.

I spent a lot of time (too much time) debating my upgrade choice and studied Greg Roger's reviews pretty much word by word.
Lawguy,
This is not the first time I remember you posting unintentional witty responses. If I were in court I'd hire you for the opposition. :cool:

You say I'm wrong in your first sentence then make my exact point in the second. Oh funny day here at AVS. Just priceless!

Lawguy,
This is not the first time I remember you posting unintentional witty responses. If I were in court I'd hire you for the opposition. :cool:

You say I'm wrong in your first sentence then make my exact point in the second. Oh funny day here at AVS. Just priceless!

Sorry to say that I don't follow what you are saying at all. My point is that Greg's reviews put it all in there, warts and all. I don't see the hype or "rosy formal review" that you do. People see what they want to see and ignore the rest.

Not much, but it's entertaining! I've been waiting to find out what projectors RobZ and Lawguy buy.

Greg, after having read your RS1 review for perhaps the 30th time, I went and bought one. So far, so good. It is as you described, but I was not prepared for how bright it was. Maybe I am used to my old Sharp 12k, but I found that an ND4 filter is necessary to get the brightness down in a dark room.

Greg, after having read your RS1 review for perhaps the 30th time, I went and bought one. So far, so good. It is as you described, but I was not prepared for how bright it was. Maybe I am used to my old Sharp 12k, but I found that an ND4 filter is necessary to get the brightness down in a dark room.

Congrats on your purchase! :)

Congrats on your purchase! :)


Thanks. I am enjoying it so far.

This is just a quickie but thought I'd mention that yesterday I had a chance to do a very mini-shoot out between the new Sony VW60 (SXRD/LCOS) projector vs the more expensive (by about $2,000 or so) Sharp XV-Z20000 single chip 1080p projector. This was on a 100" Stewart Firehawk screen, with good (but not perfectly light sealed) light control.

I'd tested out the Sony "black pearl" not long ago on a larger Firehawk screen and found it a bit bland looking, although with a noted increase in sharpness over the previous "Pearl."

In this case when the Sony was fired up we viewed some HD concert footage, which took place outside in city streets, at night time. The image immediately impressed me with what seemed to be deep blacks and very good image "punch" along with excellent sharpness (again, definitely sharper than any previous versions of the Pearl I'd seen). The microphone in front of the singers had that neato level of clarity and dimensionality you get with great high-def. Also, colors looked quite controlled and generally natural. That was the most impressive I've seen the Sony to this point.

But when we put in one of my favourite movie tests - the Blade Runner DVD - I was less thrilled. For whatever reason, the black levels didn't look very black in this case - both the black bars of that 2:35:1 film and within the film itself. The auto iris was engaged and we played a bit with brightness level, bringing the black levels as low as we could manage, but still the contrast just didn't look very impressive. The "blacks" were still pretty gray.

On the good side: the image was VERY smooth. I find the BadeRunner DVD a great test for how well the processing of a display handles some inherently noisy images, for instance the opening fly-overs of Los Angeles can bring lots of projectors/displays to their knees with it's combination of grainy smokey atmosphere, film grain and transfer noise. But on the Sony it looked beautifully smooth. The Sony produces an image that, more than any other projector or display, strikes me as "film-like." And, again, colors were not overblown or particularly unnatural looking. So it was a very easy image to
sink in to.

However...AV geek beanie cap on...the general sense of contrast just wasn't that impressive. In fact, to my surprise, even though I was now viewing the Sony on a much smaller screen than last time, I was still finding the image to be sort of bland and lifeless - just looking a bit "drained" of color with the dynamics of all the city lights and flying vehicles looking flatter and less impressive than I've seen on other projectors. It lacked "life." Perhaps this is the result of the dynamic iris design and the lower actual native contrast, combined with average ANSI contrast. But, still, given other people's enthusiasm I still have trouble believing this is all that projector can do.
If I can get another demo in even better conditions, I'll leave the door open
to that projector as a possibility for my purchase. But so far, my two encounters have been mildly disappointing.

Then we played the same material on the Sharp projector. HOLY COW. What a difference! Now, I should point out that the Sharp had a little advantage in that, due to it's not having as great a throw ratio as the Sony, and given both projectors were just beyond 11 feet or so away from the screen, the Sharp ended up with a slightly smaller image on the screen. That will tend, in of itself, to produce a slightly tighter, contrastier image. But it really went well beyond that. The inherently high contrast ratio, particularly the ANSI (I presume) just seemed to make the image burst from the screen in terms of contrast. The first images in Blade Runner, moving over the oil refinery landscape at night time, tons of lighted towers and fire bursts littering the landscape, was just as dynamic as when I remembered first seeing this on this Sharp projector. The light sources piercing the darkness had that brilliant lights-at-night quality. And the differentiation in the levels of intensity from light source to light source, made the image much more realistic, dynamic and life-like.

This was true also of the range of shadow density and detail. On the Sharp, some oil refinery towers were much deeper black in shadowing than others, with much greater range, making even the darker areas imbue the landscape with a significantly enhanced solidity and dimensionality.

Throughout many scenes the sharp just had much greater punch and solidity and depth, with faces having a less film-like, more solid "touch the skin" vibe.

In fact, the Sharp was able to be so dynamic occasionally I felt it had almost crossed a line I'm not sure I wanted it to go. That is, the dynamic contrast was beyond what I've seen in any theater. This was great for, as I said, bringing the images to life. But at the same time it could give almost a more video-like vibe to images I'm more used to seeing as film-like. Of course, if this actually proved to be an issue, one could always calibrate the Sharp for a more sedate image...but then, you are calibrating away some of the very strengths of the Sharp. I've yet to see a projector that can imitate the punch of a plasma as well as the sharp.

Also, the blacks looked significantly deeper and more solid on the Sharp. That too had me wondering if I'd really seen the Sony's black levels as they could be.

Now, my main reason for viewing the Sharp was that I wanted to give DLP another chance. I'm rainbow sensitive and for this reason had been heading toward a LCOS-based display, particularly the JVC RS1 or RS2 (leaving open the possibility of the Sony black pearl, and perhaps the new Panasonic). But
I'm aware of the certain qualities that seem to be the province of DLP, and the Sharp had impressed me so much before, I thought I'd give it another shot.

Unfortunately...I saw rainbows on the Sharp. And not just here and there, I saw them almost continually! Throughout most of blade runner. Rainbows
were unavoidable in the obvious problem areas - e.g. the first scenes of Deckard with pedestrians walking by carrying umbrellas that were on the end of vertically-oriented light sticks. That kind of high-contrast image moving across the screen is a DLP's nightmare, and rainbow it did. But I found I was noticing rainbows, and a general sense of image break-up, constantly, through all scenes. Even as my eyes naturally scanned from one actor's face to the other I constantly was aware of the image having this breaking-into-parts quality. This is certainly no small issue and it was impossible for me to get past this frustrating experience. So...with a heavy heart, it looks like I have to keep single chip DLP crossed off my list at this point.

I think this has mostly solidified my intent to go with either the JVC RS1, or more likely, the RS2 (I'm a black level fiend). Having demoed the JVC at a forum member's house (and having seen it a few other places) I found it to sort of occupy a sort of in-between of the Sony pearl and the Sharp. I found the RS1 to have a very dynamic image - Bladerunner had me saying "wow" throughout, even if it didn't always reach the stellar ANSI contrast as on the Sharp. The RS1 had a really beautiful combination of "dynamic" with "film-like." Given the severity of the DLP rainbow issue with me, I think I can take the good of the JVC projector without the sense I'm missing too much.

Naturally, I wouldn't take what I've reported too seriously, given the conditions weren't optimal for comparisons. But I do think the general differences in performance between the Sharp and the Sony played out in the comparison.

Over 'in out.

Harkness,

I experienced the same albeit with the downsized sharp 3000.

Check out my post at
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1028251&highlight=trilemma

Would be glad to hear ur comments.

Hey Rich,

I think you need to check out a 3 chip DLP while you are comparing stuff too.