Originally Posted by Geof
I varied sharpness from 0 to 30 something and never noticed one iota of difference in the star chart unless I was a foot away from the screen, and then it was maybe me wanting to see something....
Interesting, the sharpness control on my RS20 definitely makes a difference. Maybe the MPC control is the new sharpness control??
Rich, I'm definitely interested to hear your impressions compared to the RS20, as I'm on the AVS preorder list but can't ship till after Xmas, and need to make a decision on the RS55 in the next week.
For those like me with an RS20 looking to upgrade but wondering if there is any significant difference (except of course for 3D support), I did a bit of research a couple of months ago to try to nail the differences based on preliminary RS65 report from Cine4Home, and I have updated based on a summary of recent posts, as follows. Keep in mind I use a large screen so am looking at the comparison with regards to a user with a large screen.Lumens
. RS20 measured lumens calibrated but on brightest settings (high lamp, max zoom, no iris) is 840 lumens. Similar test on the RS65 gave a result of 930 lumens, so about a 10 - 15% increase in lumens is good (I use a 150" diagonal Stewart 1.3 gain screen) but not a significant gain. Its probably safe to assume the bulb problems of the RS50 have been addressed in the RS55.Contrast
, as cine4home measured the RS65 which has 120,000 contrast ratio, and at full lumens it measured 36,000, while the RS20 at a similar setting measured 25,000. Scaling the RS65 measurement back to compensate for the lower contrast ratio of the RS55, gives about 24,000 so it looks like the RS55 won't be much better than the RS20 in the contrast department even though it is advertised as 80,000 vs the RS20 50,000. Mid iris the RS65 reads 50,000 so assume 33,000 for the RS55, and the RS20 was 27500 so it looks like the RS55 will do better when using the iris at the expense of lumens but not by a significant amount. As I run a big screen I won't be able to use a lot of the iris so I will assume the RS55 will have a small increase in contrast ratio, and it may not even make a visible difference, although ANSI is improved over the RS20 due to the dual apeture for all iris settings except almost or fully open.Features
. The 4K 'lite' feature looks interesting, especially for large screen users or those that sit close to the screen (I sit about 1.2 screen width away). However for my setup I can't see any pixel structure today but it does seem like the 4K lite does improve details but also doubles as a sharpening control (not sure if this is a benefit though). The 1/16 pixel adjustment also looks like a useful feature and can improve sharpness but some report that the extra processing needed to do the sub-pixel adjustment detracts from the overall picture quality. Lens memory is useful if you have a constant heigh setup but doesn't help me as I don't like anamorphic lens (I sold my prismasonic lens as it made the image look flat) and prefer to use a constant width setup with horizontal (movable) masking for 2.35:1 that works pretty well.Motion
. So far the comparison seems to be a wash. However if there one weakness to call out with the RS20 it is motion handling, and on some disks (like Band of Brothers) it is downright annoying. Any significant improvement in motion handling for the RS55 over the RS20 would be a deal clincher for most coming from a RS20, and it does seem that the RS55 is better in this area, possibly due to a side effect of the 4K upsampling. Interestingly in my setup using 60Hz makes the RS20 motion issues less annoying even though 60Hz for 24p blu-ray is not ideal.3D
. The 3D features look to be improved for the RS55 (especially contrast) and obviously its not something that the RS20 can do. I'm interested to see how 3D will work in my theater but its not my main purchasing reason. With such a large screen it seems the lumens even after the 3D tweaks for the RS55 are going to be marginal, but maybe I could zoom the screen smaller for 3D (although that reduces the immersive effect that a large 3D screen would give). There are still problems with ghosting for some titles and there is no frame interpolation support to make motion smooth which apparently is a problem for 3D viewing. Is 3D still going to be around in 3 years time?CMS
. The RS20 CMS is a pain to work with and needs a lot of time to get it right. It sounds like from Manni01 that the CMS in the RS55 is no better, with there being problems with the linearity of the presets that make it difficult to calibrate accurately across all saturation levels, although the newer CMS itself sounds like its easier to use than the RS20 one. It's still recommended to get the last 10% calibration out of this projector to use an external processor like the Radiance, which is frustrating as you are paying your $$ for a projector with a CMS but it doesn't function fully. Maybe a future firmware update can fix the linearity preset problem??
Feel free to correct my summary above if I have misinterpreted the findings from others.
1) With the RS20, if you used the lens shift the contrast ratio actually improved (due to less internal light scatter getting out of the lens). Will this beneficial side effect still be evident in the RS55?
2) The 1/16 pixel convergence option, if used, does it add any distortion to the picture? The pixel convergence features in older projectors did.
The real test is doing a side by side comparison, does the RS55 have sufficient incremental improvements in lumens, contrast, motion etc. to add up to an appreciable and recognizable 2D viewing difference compared to the RS20? From recent reports it looks like the answer is yes. The 3D although better, is not perfect and other projectors do a better job.
I'm still keen to hear ex. RS20 folks comment about the comparisons over the next few days so I can make up my mind to purchase or not. Thanks!