Sony VPL-vw1000 - Page 7 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #181 of 10190 Old 09-14-2011, 12:25 PM
AVS Special Member
 
hd_newbie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Metro DC
Posts: 2,088
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

A really expensive production grade Terranex would be something to use on it as well. At this point in time, a 4K Lumagen is just vapor ware.

To evaluate a 4K scaler, one needs a reference level 4K projector. That projector will in all likilihood have an external scaler built in just like the Sony. After the capabilities of the projector itself are evaluated, then to the extent they are available external 4K scallers can be evuated against the built in one. A year from now, how many such scalers will be available. A the consumer level and at the professional level. Right now there is exactly one consumer level 4K projector entering the market, the Sony 1000. At a MSRP of say $25K, how many will buy it and then how many will have enough pesos left to buy a top quality 4K scaler? We are talking a pretty small market segment and one which some contributors here including myself are just not going to be in. It just bugs me that some just participate to make others not want it. Its not worth it, only a fool would buy it, be like me and buy a $3K projector instead of saying it might be very nice, I really couldnlt tell nor could anyone else based on Sony's short show demo, but really if it turns out to be real nice or great, I just can't afford it. Wish I could.But all I can afford is a $3K projector, and to me I liked the new Panny the best (not me, I prefer others at that price level). Once again reaching a conclusion about the Sony's PQ using 1080p scaled can not be made based on the show demo. But one can see the quality that is built in and the marvelous specs and specs from a company not known to exaggerate specs. I am sure Sony is bringing to market a $25K projector that will only look a tad better than some $3 or $6K projector. Yea right.

What amazes me is how fast the prices drop. I mean only a year ago, $4K projectors were in 6 figures. I find it hard to believe in just one year the price comes down to this (not saying it is cheap by any means, but all relative).

I am personally in the opinion it is too soon to jump. From what I know about Sony, I would expect they will start pushing for native 4K content pretty hard. Then we will have new blu-ray players and even better 4K projectors with better contrast. No?
hd_newbie is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #182 of 10190 Old 09-14-2011, 12:26 PM
Senior Member
 
Chuck Anstey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Newnan, Georgia
Posts: 256
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by millerwill View Post

One question: does all your discussion refer to SW of a 2.35 pic? E.g., I can sit very comfortably at 1 SW for 2.35, but 1 SW for 16x9 is a bit too overwhelming for me.

The digital formats are all fixed width, i.e. whether the aspect ratio is 1.78, 1.85, 2.20, 2.35, or 2.40 they all have exactly 1920 pixels across (or 2048 or 4096 for DCI 2K and 4K) and the number of active vertical pixels is variable. Since visual acuity is measured horizontally as vertical line pairs, screen width is the only measure that makes sense. I don't understand why screen height is ever used any longer because that is the variable number of pixels.

I understand that if you sit as close as you can tolerate for a 2.35:1 image, keeping the width the same and increasing height for a 1.85:1 image can be overwhelming. That is why I prefer Constant Image Area because switching ARs keeps the same overall image size feel. Others prefer CIH. Some have stated that people are more sensitive to image height to justify CIH but I find for me it is area as long as it is wider than tall.
Chuck Anstey is offline  
post #183 of 10190 Old 09-14-2011, 12:46 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
millerwill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Berkeley, CA
Posts: 11,356
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck Anstey View Post

The digital formats are all fixed width, i.e. whether the aspect ratio is 1.78, 1.85, 2.20, 2.35, or 2.40 they all have exactly 1920 pixels across (or 2048 or 4096 for DCI 2K and 4K) and the number of active vertical pixels is variable. Since visual acuity is measured horizontally as vertical line pairs, screen width is the only measure that makes sense. I don't understand why screen height is ever used any longer because that is the variable number of pixels.

I understand that if you sit as close as you can tolerate for a 2.35:1 image, keeping the width the same and increasing height for a 1.85:1 image can be overwhelming. That is why I prefer Constant Image Area because switching ARs keeps the same overall image size feel. Others prefer CIH. Some have stated that people are more sensitive to image height to justify CIH but I find for me it is area as long as it is wider than tall.

I in fact do have a 'hybrid' screen (2.0: 12' W, 6'H), though not exactly CIA. I wanted as much width as would fit in my room (which is 12'), but didn't want to limit my 16x9 pic by the ht of a 12'W 2.40 screen (which is ~ 5'H). For 16x9 I thus have a 128x72 pic, and for 2.40 a 144x60 pic.
millerwill is offline  
post #184 of 10190 Old 09-14-2011, 12:54 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
millerwill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Berkeley, CA
Posts: 11,356
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck Anstey View Post

The digital formats are all fixed width, i.e. whether the aspect ratio is 1.78, 1.85, 2.20, 2.35, or 2.40 they all have exactly 1920 pixels across (or 2048 or 4096 for DCI 2K and 4K) and the number of active vertical pixels is variable. Since visual acuity is measured horizontally as vertical line pairs, screen width is the only measure that makes sense. I don't understand why screen height is ever used any longer because that is the variable number of pixels.

I understand that if you sit as close as you can tolerate for a 2.35:1 image, keeping the width the same and increasing height for a 1.85:1 image can be overwhelming. That is why I prefer Constant Image Area because switching ARs keeps the same overall image size feel. Others prefer CIH. Some have stated that people are more sensitive to image height to justify CIH but I find for me it is area as long as it is wider than tall.

As stated a few posts above, I find that PH is what determines how large a pic I can take in, and for me this is ~ 2.0 PH. Sitting 12 ft away as I do, I would thus be happy with a CIH screen that is 6 ft H. But a 2.40 screen this high is 2.4x6' = 14.4 ft wide, and that won't fit in my room. So I had to compromise (don't we all!) and get a 6' H screen and the widest that would fit (12').

Of course with 12' wide as the max, a 2.40 screen is 5' high, so I could sit 10ft way and go CIH with PH = 2.0 for 2.35 and 16x9. But sitting this close is not convenient with my room layout.
millerwill is offline  
post #185 of 10190 Old 09-14-2011, 02:28 PM
AVS Special Member
 
W.Mayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,781
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by millerwill View Post

One question: does all your discussion refer to SW of a 2.35 pic? E.g., I can sit very comfortably at 1 SW for 2.35, but 1 SW for 16x9 is a bit too overwhelming for me.

when i do this test i project a 4096x2160 pixel image so a 1.89:1 ratio.
to compare it my older cinema 2k dlp have 2048x1080 so also
a 1,89:1 ratio.

nativ 4K content "that have also 4K inside" will push you to sit close
without feeling that bad its opposite you will like it.

in the past i think sit more close than 1.1 times the screen wide is not good and yes with 2k source thats true but with 4k its different.
W.Mayer is offline  
post #186 of 10190 Old 09-14-2011, 02:45 PM
AVS Special Member
 
fight4yu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 1,728
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by millerwill View Post

As stated a few posts above, I find that PH is what determines how large a pic I can take in, and for me this is ~ 2.0 PH. Sitting 12 ft away as I do, I would thus be happy with a CIH screen that is 6 ft H. But a 2.40 screen this high is 2.4x6' = 14.4 ft wide, and that won't fit in my room. So I had to compromise (don't we all!) and get a 6' H screen and the widest that would fit (12').

Of course with 12' wide as the max, a 2.40 screen is 5' high, so I could sit 10ft way and go CIH with PH = 2.0 for 2.35 and 16x9. But sitting this close is not convenient with my room layout.

THX recommendation for screen height is not to exceed 15 degree when you have to tilt your head up. If your eye is positioned right in the middle of the screen, that translate to tan-1(0.5/2)=14 degree.. That's just about right for you
I also find it more accomodating to "turn my head" rather than "tilting my head"..
fight4yu is offline  
post #187 of 10190 Old 09-14-2011, 03:14 PM
AVS Special Member
 
thrang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 4,124
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 60 Post(s)
Liked: 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

Justmike. Motion handling is used by many for viewing video, particularly sports. There are arguments against using motion handling for films because it changes the look of the film as intended by the film producers. My feelings, if you want to use it and like it fine. But like gamma, its a personal preference type of thing.

I break the view of "motion handling" into three sub categories - native motion handling of the panels/signal processing; frame interpolation; and dark frame insertion.

The best projector in my limited experience in all three categories was the Sony VPL-VW85. Even without either of their motionflow technologies enabled, the native motion handling on that projector was superb - the frame interpolation was also outstanding and never exhibited artifacts, and the dark frame intsertion mode worked well if you could handle the dimming - I have a 2.8 HP so I could use it.

I wish I didn't sell that projector,

The projector I owned prior, the JVC HD750, was horrible with motion handling, exhibiting severe red/green fringing on high contrast areas, and obviously blurring in fast panning as the panels or processing could not keep up.

I had the VW90 for a short while, and while it was decent natively, it wasn't as good as the 85, and they tweaked the motionflow modes detrmentally, to where they exhibited red/green fringing when enabled. Big dissappointment

My current RS50, while much better than the 750, is still not great at sports motion compared to the 85 or even the 90. Its frame interpolation modes are mild and artifact, and cmd modes one or two are just broken as they introduce color flashing that remind me of DLP color wheel flashes - you can't precisely "catch" the flash, but it registers...

Still mark, in owe you a call back on what you saw...!
thrang is offline  
post #188 of 10190 Old 09-14-2011, 03:29 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Ericglo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Just below the US in South Florida
Posts: 6,147
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonHoyaFan View Post

Reading most of the comments here one would think that it is illegal to sell a projector for more than the current top end consumer JVC. Lock Sony up!

The reality is that the VW1000 at $25K will compete with the single chip SIM2 Nero and Mico lines and the 3 chip Runco, DPI, and PD models all of which are $20k to $30K. The SIM2 Lumis 3D is $50K! The advantages the VW1000 has in on/off contrast and resolution may make it the bargain in that segment!

While some are downplaying the benefits of the VW1000's 4K resolution, we should not forget that prior to HD DVD/Blu Ray we were all watching 720x480 DVDs upscaled to our 720P or 1080p projectors. Guess what, 720x480 upscaled looked better than 720x480 displayed on a 480P device. 1080P upscaled to a 4K device will also look better than 1080P displayed on a 1080P device.

Heck, if I follow the logic used by some on this thread, JVC might as well cancel the RS65. Who is going to buy a JVC for 3x the cost of the RS45?

I agree with this. This projector really belongs in the Ultra forum. Those looking at the Sims, etc. dlp pjs will have to take a close look at this pj before making a decision. At the AVS price, I would think it makes the choice that much harder and it is why Bill is having a difficult time making a decision.

My new favorite game is Save The Titanic

Ericglo is offline  
post #189 of 10190 Old 09-14-2011, 06:06 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
millerwill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Berkeley, CA
Posts: 11,356
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 27
Any thoughts about why the 1000 has a UHP lamp, rather than a Xenon? Is this to make it more 'consumer' oriented? Is the UHP just as good if one calibrates it accurately?
millerwill is offline  
post #190 of 10190 Old 09-14-2011, 06:09 PM
Senior Member
 
Chuck Anstey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Newnan, Georgia
Posts: 256
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by millerwill View Post

Any thoughts about why the 1000 has a UHP lamp, rather than a Xenon? Is this to make it more 'consumer' oriented? Is the UHP just as good if one calibrates it accurately?

Oooh. I think I just heard a big o' can of worms just open.
Chuck Anstey is offline  
post #191 of 10190 Old 09-14-2011, 08:18 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
mark haflich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: brookeville, maryland, usa
Posts: 19,281
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 112 Post(s)
Liked: 312
Well Sony officially set the price today for the VPL-vw95ES at $6995 and the VPL-vw1000ES at $24,999. The bad news is that we can only get a couple of the v1000s at the show deal and the show deal price was set several thousand higher than we were originally told. If you have to send me a email to ask whether you made it, don't, you didn't. We will contact the couple at the top of the list who made it later.

And, it looks like Sony might not be shipping the 1000 until the 1st quarter of next year and perhaps not until near the end of the first quarter. Thank the earthquake and the damage inflicted to Sony. We can just hope for earlier shipment.

Mark Haflich
markhaflich@yahoo.com
call me at: 240 876 2536
mark haflich is offline  
post #192 of 10190 Old 09-14-2011, 09:02 PM
Senior Member
 
Chuck Anstey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Newnan, Georgia
Posts: 256
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Shipping the VW1000 not until next year or the 95ES or both?

Edit - Sorry, forgot what thread I was in. I assume you were talking about the VW1000.
Chuck Anstey is offline  
post #193 of 10190 Old 09-14-2011, 09:13 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
millerwill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Berkeley, CA
Posts: 11,356
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

Well Sony officially set the price today for the VPL-vw95ES at $6995 and the VPL-vw1000ES at $24,999. The bad news is that we can only get a couple of the v1000s at the show deal and the show deal price was set several thousand higher than we were originally told. If you have to send me a email to ask whether you made it, don't, you didn't. We will contact the couple at the top of the list who made it later.

And, it looks like Sony might not be shipping this until the 1st quarter of next year and perhaps not until near the end of the first quarter. Thank the earthquake and the damage inflicted to Sony. We can just hope for earlier shipment.

Much better price for the 95 than people were expecting.
millerwill is offline  
post #194 of 10190 Old 09-14-2011, 10:26 PM
AVS Special Member
 
blee0120's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Merillville, IN 46410
Posts: 3,528
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked: 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by millerwill View Post


Much better price for the 95 than people were expecting.

Great price
blee0120 is offline  
post #195 of 10190 Old 09-14-2011, 10:33 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
mark haflich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: brookeville, maryland, usa
Posts: 19,281
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 112 Post(s)
Liked: 312
If I remember the 5500 Euiro price, divide by 1.15 to eliminate the VAT, rounding one gets 4783 Euro. multiply by today's euros to dollars, E equal 1.3725 $, the price becomes about 6565. Assume a 1.4 exchange rate and it becomes about $6700. I don't see why a $7K MSRP in the states is a surprise. I expected between $6499 and $6999.

Mark Haflich
markhaflich@yahoo.com
call me at: 240 876 2536
mark haflich is offline  
post #196 of 10190 Old 09-15-2011, 05:25 AM
Advanced Member
 
Eternal_Sunshine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 502
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Well, there were murmurs from CEDIA that the MSRP would be "just below 10K".
Eternal_Sunshine is offline  
post #197 of 10190 Old 09-15-2011, 04:30 PM
 
Daniel Hutnicki's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: On the Internet
Posts: 6,183
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I like when they say under 25,000 it means 24,999. Couldnt it just once be 24,998
Daniel Hutnicki is offline  
post #198 of 10190 Old 09-15-2011, 04:41 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
millerwill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Berkeley, CA
Posts: 11,356
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by millerwill View Post
Advantages of the Sony 1000 vs the JVC RS55:

1. Much brighter (~ 2x), and as we all know, brightness is a seducer'!
2. Native CR is likely as great or greater, plus has an excellent DI to amplify it
3. Shorter min throw ratio (1.27 vs 1.38) [Darin, didn't you post some while ago, re the JVC, that min throw gave the sharpest pic?]
4. Quieter (probably by at least ~ 6 dB)
5. Probably better fast motion handling (at least this has been true so far for SXRD vs DILA)
6. A true 4K pj, can take 4K input (and Lumagen seems to be planning on a next generation Radiance that can output 4K from 1080i/p, etc., sources)

Both have lens memory and regional pixel adjust, so that's a draw.

So the Sony 1000 seems to best the RS55 in all important parametersbrightness, CR, resolution, quietness, throw ratio, etc.
This is a post I made several days ago, trying to list all the arguments in favor of spending the extra funds to get the Sony1000 instead of a RS55, for example. Got lots of good feedback from this.

To take the other tack, I list here the arguments I can think of getting the RS55 (or something comparable) instead of the Sony 4K pj. Would also appreciate any counter arguments any of you might have.

Arguments for the RS55 instead of the Sony 1000:
1. 1/3 the price of the Sony (based on MSRP, and probably also for 'street')
2. 800-900 lumens is probably bright enough with my HP 2.4 screen
3. 80K:1 native CR good enough (what IS native CR of the Sony?)
4. JVC has improved fast motion (with FI, etc.) considerably since my RS20
5. Installation is a slip in' from the RS20
6. 4K-lite works from 1080p input, which is what my Radiance would send it, and probably does as good a job with 1080p input as Sony's 4K scaling does. Also can turn it off if it has any issues', i.e., softening the image or with fast motion. Will be > 2-3 yrs before any true 4K input exists, and by then I can upgrade to a 4K pj (e.g., a JVC) at a considerably lesser cost.
7. Difference in noise level is only ~ 2 dB, and negligible for both

Thoughts?
millerwill is offline  
post #199 of 10190 Old 09-15-2011, 07:28 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
mark haflich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: brookeville, maryland, usa
Posts: 19,281
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 112 Post(s)
Liked: 312
My mind is sick. 4K-light?


Professor Miller try this one:


ITS MILLER LIGHT TIME!

Mark Haflich
markhaflich@yahoo.com
call me at: 240 876 2536
mark haflich is offline  
post #200 of 10190 Old 09-15-2011, 08:11 PM
 
Randall Morton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Mid South
Posts: 1,756
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
My thoughts are you shouldn't get in too big a hurry. Wait for reviews of the real product. It would be hard if not impossible to pick the best projector from what was seen at the show. I heard the Sony looked flat.
Randall Morton is offline  
post #201 of 10190 Old 09-15-2011, 08:34 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
millerwill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Berkeley, CA
Posts: 11,356
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randall Morton View Post

My thoughts are you shouldn't get in too big a hurry. Wait for reviews of the real product. It would be hard if not impossible to pick the best projector from what was seen at the show. I heard the Sony looked flat.

Good advice, and what I've also come to. Esp since there's no special early-buy price on the RS55, may just wait until cine4home, etc., get their hands on one and tell us the real scoop. By then we may also have some hard info about the Sony1000 to see just how it performs.
millerwill is offline  
post #202 of 10190 Old 09-15-2011, 08:54 PM
Advanced Member
 
DigsMovies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Arriving Somewhere...
Posts: 620
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by millerwill View Post

....Thoughts?

A couple-

First is availability. We might be 6 months away from the Sony?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

...And, it looks like Sony might not be shipping the 1000 until the 1st quarter of next year and perhaps not until near the end of the first quarter. Thank the earthquake and the damage inflicted to Sony. We can just hope for earlier shipment.

(good info Mark- thanks!)

The other is noise. I would sure like to see some definitive specs from Sony regarding this. They list a specific # for the VPL-VW95ES, but not the VPL-VW1000ES. There has been a number floating around for the 1000, but it would be nice to hear it from the horse's mouth.

If we are actually 6 months out from the 1000 hitting the market, a lot can happen in that time! Not only will we know much more about all the new models announced at CEDIA, but we may actually see additional new models in that time frame. The 2012 international CES in Las Vegas may happen before the 1000's actually hit the street. For myself, I would certainly feel a lot more comfortable dropping the coin on a 1000 if I could read some professional reviews/tests on the final production model first.

I wonder when the VPL-VW95ES will actually hit the street?
DigsMovies is offline  
post #203 of 10190 Old 09-15-2011, 09:33 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
mark haflich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: brookeville, maryland, usa
Posts: 19,281
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 112 Post(s)
Liked: 312
Sony says release of the
95 in September which means it will be in the first purchasers' hands in early September.

Sony says release of the 1000 in December. I think that might slip a bit but that's based on a little knowledge re how Sony was hit by the earthquake. Its a very complex new product with a brand new platform and almost everything else in it while the 95 looks like a 90, is based on it, with the major differential being the use of lamp dimming in 3D mode to get a big kick in 3D light with the opportunity to decrease the shutter open time to substantially reduce ghosting and the zoom etc. memories. We just don't know yet if 2D things like FI which don't show up in specifications have been improved over the 90.

There is a new better remote better and the glasses have been improved.

A few lucky ones here will save a bundle on the very few 1000s we could score at the show special price. There is a long line to take the place of the very few at the head of the line. I saw enough to want one badly, just wish I could afford it. We are getting a prototype shortly just for a few days. only a couple of these exist now. Where it goes to in AVS, hi Alan, I will be there, to enjoy and take it all in. But I won't be drinking Miller Light. This one deserves the very finest Belgium. I will be transporting some across state lines.

Mark Haflich
markhaflich@yahoo.com
call me at: 240 876 2536
mark haflich is offline  
post #204 of 10190 Old 09-15-2011, 09:42 PM
emf
Senior Member
 
emf's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 200
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Sony most likely learned from Qualia of 7 years ago. The xenon lamp cost $2,000 and at this time people are clamoring for LED lamp with no replacement cost.
emf is offline  
post #205 of 10190 Old 09-15-2011, 09:43 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
millerwill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Berkeley, CA
Posts: 11,356
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

We are getting a prototype shortly just for a few days. only a couple of these exist now. Where it goes to in AVS, hi Alan, I will be there, to enjoy and take it all in. But I won't be drinking Miller Light. This one deserves the very finest Belgium. I will be transporting some across state lines.

Just be sure you do your critical viewing and evaluation before you have too much of that fine ancient bourbon of yours.
millerwill is offline  
post #206 of 10190 Old 09-15-2011, 11:15 PM
AVS Special Member
 
JustMike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Silicon Valley, CA
Posts: 2,228
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by millerwill View Post

2. 800-900 lumens is probably bright enough with my HP 2.4 screen
7. Difference in noise level is only ~ 2 dB, and negligible for both

Thoughts?

I view the 800-900 lumen figure with skepticism until we get reviews from folks who tested last year's models and got numbers in the 500's from a projector that was spec'd to deliver 1300 lumens. If the new JVC truly turns in 800-900 calibrated lumens this year, that would be a huge improvement. When I saw the RS65 at CEDIA, it definitely looked VERY bright.

I'm also skeptical of any published noise figures. For example, both Sony and JVC quote 20dB for last year's models, I think (or maybe JVC was 19?), but audiovideohd.fr measured both and said that the JVC was 3dB noisier in low lamp, and 7dB noisier in high lamp. So, again, it will be worth seeing how they do in the real world. Plus of course the 22dB number for the 1000ES came from a guy at the Sony booth who may or may not have had the correct figures. Sony hasn't published an official number yet.

I had an opportunity to look at an RS60 earlier this week for a few minutes in a nice room, and the 2D picture looked absolutely fantastic, but I felt that it could be a bit brighter. From all the reviews I've read, the Sony 90ES is comparable in nearly all respects except raw native contrast, but is maybe 200 lumens brighter. And most reviewers say that it handles motion better. I can only hope that the 1000ES will be more of the same. Whether it's 3x more of the same, well, I don't know.

Just to share my own calculus, since I'm also projector shopping: In a perfect world, I suspect that I might put in the 1000ES, because I'm using a .95-gain woven screen and the extra lumens would be welcome especially in 3D. (Well, okay, in a perfect world it'd probably be a Lumis 3D Solo...) In the real world, it will most likely be a toss-up between the 90ES and the RS55, based primarily on which one ends up with the best combination of brightness and quiet, since they seem to be so close in image quality. Unless of course the Sim2 MICO 150 turns out to really put out 800+ lumens and I can't see the color separation phenomenon on the single DLP. That'd be great, since it won't lose substantial brightness over time, but I'm so flicker sensitive that I'm not optimistic.

Mike Kobb
(Formerly "ReplayMike". These opinions are mine alone, and in no way reflect the opinions of employers past or present!)
"Mike's Money Pit" Build Thread
JustMike is offline  
post #207 of 10190 Old 09-16-2011, 08:16 AM
AVS Special Member
 
d.j.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Denmark
Posts: 1,243
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustMike View Post

I view the 800-900 lumen figure with skepticism until we get reviews from folks who tested last year's models and got numbers in the 500's from a projector that was spec'd to deliver 1300 lumens. If the new JVC truly turns in 800-900 calibrated lumens this year, that would be a huge improvement. When I saw the RS65 at CEDIA, it definitely looked VERY bright.

I'm also skeptical of any published noise figures. For example, both Sony and JVC quote 20dB for last year's models, I think (or maybe JVC was 19?), but audiovideohd.fr measured both and said that the JVC was 3dB noisier in low lamp, and 7dB noisier in high lamp. So, again, it will be worth seeing how they do in the real world. Plus of course the 22dB number for the 1000ES came from a guy at the Sony booth who may or may not have had the correct figures. Sony hasn't published an official number yet.

I had an opportunity to look at an RS60 earlier this week for a few minutes in a nice room, and the 2D picture looked absolutely fantastic, but I felt that it could be a bit brighter. From all the reviews I've read, the Sony 90ES is comparable in nearly all respects except raw native contrast, but is maybe 200 lumens brighter. And most reviewers say that it handles motion better. I can only hope that the 1000ES will be more of the same. Whether it's 3x more of the same, well, I don't know.

Just to share my own calculus, since I'm also projector shopping: In a perfect world, I suspect that I might put in the 1000ES, because I'm using a .95-gain woven screen and the extra lumens would be welcome especially in 3D. (Well, okay, in a perfect world it'd probably be a Lumis 3D Solo...) In the real world, it will most likely be a toss-up between the 90ES and the RS55, based primarily on which one ends up with the best combination of brightness and quiet, since they seem to be so close in image quality. Unless of course the Sim2 MICO 150 turns out to really put out 800+ lumens and I can't see the color separation phenomenon on the single DLP. That'd be great, since it won't lose substantial brightness over time, but I'm so flicker sensitive that I'm not optimistic.


Mike

The 90ES measured around 790 lumen at D65 ( at Projector Central ) and 880 lumen D65 ( at Cine4Home´s pre-review ). Sony´s spec. was 1000 lumen.

I have( owned) seen and heard two off them and both was almost dead silent ( couldnt hear them in low mode from 1/2 m and in high mode from 1 m ).

I allways drove it in the low lamp mode, but have two" relative" small screens 100" 4:3 ( 92" 16/9 ) gain 1.3 micrperf studiotek and a 109" 2.40 screen gain 2.8 ( for 3D and cinemascope). I never missed light ( only in 3D - thats where the 95ES comes in )

If I cant afford the 1000ES or it not deliver the promised quality I will buy the 95ES.

dj
d.j. is offline  
post #208 of 10190 Old 09-16-2011, 09:32 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
millerwill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Berkeley, CA
Posts: 11,356
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 27
Mike, d.j.: I didn't mean to imply that the RS55 was my only consideration if I back out on the the Sony1000 (not that I'm planning to ATM), and I indeed might prefer the Sony 95ES for the reasons you describe. If it is brighter, sharper, and handles fast motion better--as are all possible--then I might very well choose it rather than the JVC. And since the 1000 will be coming out later, and there are no special 'pre-buy' prices on the 95ES and the JVC's, it is no problem to wait and see the solid reviews on these latter products before having to make a final decision about the 1000.
millerwill is offline  
post #209 of 10190 Old 09-16-2011, 09:48 AM
 
Daniel Hutnicki's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: On the Internet
Posts: 6,183
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:


The 90ES measured around 790 lumen at D65 ( at Projector Central ) and 880 lumen D65 ( at Cine4Home´s pre-review ). Sony´s spec. was 1000 lumen.

If you get 790 or 880 out of the possible 1000 lumens, i think you are doing good.

Unless you are willing to wait, its going to be hard to compare the JVC and Sony as it was mentioned earlier that the 95 is coming out soon and my guess it that the 1000 and the JVC wont come out until the end of the year
Daniel Hutnicki is offline  
post #210 of 10190 Old 09-16-2011, 09:49 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Steve Goff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Olympia, WA, USA
Posts: 1,431
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustMike View Post

I view the 800-900 lumen figure with skepticism until we get reviews from folks who tested last year's models and got numbers in the 500's from a projector that was spec'd to deliver 1300 lumens. If the new JVC truly turns in 800-900 calibrated lumens this year, that would be a huge improvement. When I saw the RS65 at CEDIA, it definitely looked VERY bright.

A JVC representative said that last year they left the native primaries so widely spaced that the projectors wasted a lot of light when restricted to a standard video color space, and that this year they changed to new dichroic filters with more restrictive primaries, and with greater light output using standard color spaces. He also said that even with the new filters the projector can display the Adobe RGB color space.

Steve Goff
Steve Goff is offline  
Reply Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP

Tags
Sony Vpl Vw1000es Projector , Casio Rs 232 Adapter Catalog Category Projectors Accessories
Gear in this thread

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off