Projector Mini-Shootout Thread - Page 181 - AVS | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews

AVS | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews > Display Devices > Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP > Projector Mini-Shootout Thread

Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP

d.j.'s Avatar d.j.
02:21 PM Liked: 37
post #5401 of 10553
12-07-2013 | Posts: 1,350
Joined: Oct 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Clark View Post

Warning: some boring technical information follows. It has been known to induce narcolepsy.

We've been down this road with reviewers before. Many of them have wised up to the myth about crosstalk, but this comment shows that Art hasn't. Besides watching tough material on DLP's and seeing no ghosting, I've done two tests that demonstrate how uninformed it is. Using a couple of pieces of commercial software, it's possible to split a retail 3D movie into its left and right streams. When you do this, you see clearly in scenes that show terrible ghosting on most displays that there is no such thing as "built in" crosstalk. The two video streams are completely free of it. Going in the other direction, I've used Sony Vegas Pro to create standard 24p Blu-ray 3D discs which consist of one stream of nothing but full black video and another stream of regular video material. If you look at only the all black stream (close one eye), the only regular display technology that I've seen that shows no crosstalk whatsoever is DLP (although I'd like to try it with OLED, since I've never seen crosstalk on an OLED display either). For all other displays (projection or flat panel) you can see crosstalk easily. As a matter of fact, it looks so bad on my test discs that you might wonder how 3D could work at all. In practice, though, you usually don't notice the ghosting. High contrast content brings it out best.

BTW, ghosting and crosstalk are roughly equal but not fully interchangeable terms. "Crosstalk" is any measurable "bleed-through" of parts of one video stream into the other, which may or may not contaminate the 3D image. "Measurable" doesn't necessarily mean visible. It can measure so low that virtually no one will see it. "Ghosting" is the crosstalk that we can see and is caused by the display or the 3D glasses. All ghosting is crosstalk, but not all crosstalk results in detectable ghosting. A ViewMaster or a HMD (head mounted display, like the Sony "goggles") with isolated images for each eye will not show any ghosting at all, but they're unique display technologies.


Thanks Josef and absolutly NOT boring smile.gif

dj
Crabalocker's Avatar Crabalocker
03:28 PM Liked: 75
post #5402 of 10553
12-07-2013 | Posts: 1,069
Joined: Aug 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Sorel View Post



It's not the price of a second projector that stops me...it's the price of a second ISCO 3 anamorphic lens...eek.gif

Yes, I dream of of an A-lens. One day!
Deja Vu's Avatar Deja Vu
04:13 PM Liked: 212
post #5403 of 10553
12-07-2013 | Posts: 4,703
Joined: Jul 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Clark View Post

"Measurable" doesn't necessarily mean visible. It can measure so low that virtually no one will see it. "Ghosting" is the crosstalk that we can see and is caused by the display or the 3D glasses. All ghosting is crosstalk, but not all crosstalk results in detectable ghosting. .

I believe there are still differences between individuals when it comes to cross-talk. For most "ghosting" in a particular scene may be undetectable (cross-talk as you explained) and for others it may be perceived as ghosting (detectable). RBE may not be a major problem for most viewers, but for some it is a major distraction. I think I fit into the major distraction category when it comes to what I see as ghosting and what most others don't see (cross-talk) or if they do -- they don't care enough to be bothered by it. What you call cross-talk may be described as "ghosting" by some unfortunate few.
Toe's Avatar Toe
04:16 PM Liked: 655
post #5404 of 10553
12-07-2013 | Posts: 13,584
Joined: Apr 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombie10k View Post

who would have thought my 3D benchmark is a 2 year old model that was on fire-sale @ woot a few months ago. biggrin.gif

He reviewed the 30k but it might have been too long ago to remember how flawless it handles 3D.

Flicker is rarely discussed in the reviews. I guess it's akin to RBE, some won't specifically see it but I'm convinced it plays a role in extended viewing comfort. The Epson is the best I've seen of the non-DLP's but the Sharp is better.

You and everyone else who got in on that Woot deal scored big time! cool.gif

I just find it unfortunate that he is spreading that type of misinformation to his readers and it is surprising considering how many projectors he has seen, including single chip DLPs, that he could still make that type of comment after all this time. I don't know how anyone who has spent any amount of time with a single chip DLP for 3d could still blame the content. confused.gif

Flicker bothers me as well and I really enjoyed getting away from that going from the JVCs to my 7000. How is the flicker on the Sony 1000 compared to the Epson and Sharp? I assume it is a step down from the rock solid Sharp, but is it on par with the Epson or no?
Quote:
Originally Posted by d.j. View Post

Thanks Josef and absolutly NOT boring smile.gif

dj

+1 Great description!
zombie10k's Avatar zombie10k
04:27 PM Liked: 475
post #5405 of 10553
12-07-2013 | Posts: 7,985
Joined: Dec 2007
Doesn't this bring a tear to your eye? Flawless every time.. every movie...

sharp-3d1.jpg


The Rock has no tolerance for x-talk OR ghosting....

Sharp 30K, left eye - very sharp, no added processing is neccesary for naturally sharp appearing 3D. This, combined with no x-talk makes backgrounds appear nice and detailed.

sharp-3d6.jpg

sharp-3d7.jpg




@ Toe - from my refresh sensitive eyes, the 1000 w/ factory glasses is about the same as the HW50 (but has a much better 3D presentation - sharper, better contrast, very good at handling x-talk). Perceived flicker is better than the JVC but not as good as the Epson. I have to try my Monster Vision 3D glasses, I might change my mind a bit and will let you know.
randyc1's Avatar randyc1
04:39 PM Liked: 33
post #5406 of 10553
12-07-2013 | Posts: 801
Joined: Dec 2009
Hi Zombie ,can i ask you Your comparisons of sharpness between the 6030UB vs HW 55 in 2D ?

Comparison I saw last night in a store, the HW55 was sharper ?


Thanks !
d.j.'s Avatar d.j.
04:41 PM Liked: 37
post #5407 of 10553
12-07-2013 | Posts: 1,350
Joined: Oct 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombie10k View Post

Doesn't this bring a tear to your eye? Flawless every time.. every movie...

sharp-3d1.jpg


The Rock has no tolerance for x-talk OR ghosting....

Sharp 30K, left eye - very sharp, no added processing is neccesary for naturally sharp appearing 3D. This, combined with no x-talk makes backgrounds appear nice and detailed.

sharp-3d6.jpg

sharp-3d7.jpg




@ Toe - from my refresh sensitive eyes, the 1000 w/ factory glasses is about the same as the HW50 (but has a much better 3D presentation - sharper, better contrast, very good at handling x-talk). Perceived flicker is better than the JVC but not as good as the Epson. I have to try my Monster Vision 3D glasses, I might change my mind a bit and will let you know.



Z
Could you take the same photo´s ( LR pattern and sure the Rock too biggrin.gif ) with the 1000ES - I never got the ISO file to Work ( so I use "the Brave" wich have an optimixer setup with some test pictures ).

Have to say, that I cant understand that you have about the same flicker in the 1000 as in the HW50 confused.gif evertime I see the HW50 I can find it, IF I look after it, but even if I look after it, I can allmost never find it on the 1000ES ( I really dont believe they function the same way in 3D and thats besides the pulsing technic in the 50 )


dj
zombie10k's Avatar zombie10k
06:26 PM Liked: 475
post #5408 of 10553
12-07-2013 | Posts: 7,985
Joined: Dec 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by d.j. View Post

Z
Could you take the same photo´s ( LR pattern and sure the Rock too biggrin.gif ) with the 1000ES - I never got the ISO file to Work ( so I use "the Brave" wich have an optimixer setup with some test pictures ).

Have to say, that I cant understand that you have about the same flicker in the 1000 as in the HW50 confused.gif evertime I see the HW50 I can find it, IF I look after it, but even if I look after it, I can allmost never find it on the 1000ES ( I really dont believe they function the same way in 3D and thats besides the pulsing technic in the 50 )


dj

It might be a bit less but it still bothers my eyes, I think my HP screen makes it more obvious since it's brighter than most are seeing 3D. I keep the projectors at screen center for the full 2.8 gain.

On the 30K DLP, the 3D is as 'solid' as watching 2D.

I've been so busy playing around with the 2D on the 1000 that I haven't had much time to re-visit the 3D. I will soon and see if my Monster Vision 3D glasses give me a different impression.
Joseph Clark's Avatar Joseph Clark
07:11 PM Liked: 196
post #5409 of 10553
12-07-2013 | Posts: 10,572
Joined: Mar 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deja Vu View Post

I believe there are still differences between individuals when it comes to cross-talk. For most "ghosting" in a particular scene may be undetectable (cross-talk as you explained) and for others it may be perceived as ghosting (detectable). RBE may not be a major problem for most viewers, but for some it is a major distraction. I think I fit into the major distraction category when it comes to what I see as ghosting and what most others don't see (cross-talk) or if they do -- they don't care enough to be bothered by it. What you call cross-talk may be described as "ghosting" by some unfortunate few.

I agree completely. Some people have trouble seeing ghosting that I see quite easily. As much as I work with 3D, it's next to impossible for me not to notice even very small amounts. My eyes are drawn to it like magnets. I've talked in the past about the "threshold" of acceptability - that is, the point at which I have trouble enjoying a 3D film because of ghosting. My JVC RS40 was there for maybe a couple of hundred hours and then passed it. The RS45 was above the threshold from day one. My Epson's have stayed comfortably below 98% of the time, and they never inch very far above it. I don't like it when they do, but I can live with it at that level. The ghosting threshold is probably different for every viewer, and I'm sure for some it's quite high.
zombie10k's Avatar zombie10k
07:13 PM Liked: 475
post #5410 of 10553
12-07-2013 | Posts: 7,985
Joined: Dec 2007
Sat night HT Trivia - who knows what this is? (without looking it up.... cool.gif )


rfmod.jpg

I am cleaning up the HT tonight and finding all kinds of good stuff.
SOWK's Avatar SOWK
08:32 PM Liked: 129
post #5411 of 10553
12-07-2013 | Posts: 4,112
Joined: Dec 2004
Well duh... It's a... Natural sound RF demodulator. smile.gif
zombie10k's Avatar zombie10k
08:49 PM Liked: 475
post #5412 of 10553
12-07-2013 | Posts: 7,985
Joined: Dec 2007
it goes with this for old school 5.1 surround sound... smile.gif

pioneer1.jpg


just for kicks I had to try some LD's, I played a few scenes from the original Star Wars. You can see the film flaws recorded to the LD, no clean-up. it does have an analog look, smooth like film but it just doesn't hold up on the big screen.

i'm pretty sure Han shot first on this disc....
StevenC56's Avatar StevenC56
02:14 AM Liked: 34
post #5413 of 10553
12-08-2013 | Posts: 1,716
Joined: May 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombie10k View Post

it goes with this for old school 5.1 surround sound... smile.gif

pioneer1.jpg


just for kicks I had to try some LD's, I played a few scenes from the original Star Wars. You can see the film flaws recorded to the LD, no clean-up. it does have an analog look, smooth like film but it just doesn't hold up on the big screen.

i'm pretty sure Han shot first on this disc....

I still have both the CLD-99 and the Yamaha RF demodulator in my HT.
d.j.'s Avatar d.j.
04:52 PM Liked: 37
post #5414 of 10553
12-08-2013 | Posts: 1,350
Joined: Oct 2007
AC3 RF demodulator - ahhh old LD days biggrin.gif
Had a Denon ( PIONEER clon )


dj
Joseph Clark's Avatar Joseph Clark
06:49 PM Liked: 196
post #5415 of 10553
12-08-2013 | Posts: 10,572
Joined: Mar 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombie10k View Post

it goes with this for old school 5.1 surround sound... smile.gif

pioneer1.jpg


just for kicks I had to try some LD's, I played a few scenes from the original Star Wars. You can see the film flaws recorded to the LD, no clean-up. it does have an analog look, smooth like film but it just doesn't hold up on the big screen.

i'm pretty sure Han shot first on this disc....

I found my old Pioneer LD player recently when I cleaned out my basement, along with a bunch of discs. Wow, did they look terrible! LD video was composite, and it really shows on a modern display. I ditched the lot at a local "Record Exchange" for practically nothing. I made up my mind when I started cleaning that anything I hadn't touched for more than 10-15 years had to go. biggrin.gif I had forgotten all about the demodulator tech for digital audio on LDs.
R Harkness's Avatar R Harkness
09:07 PM Liked: 439
post #5416 of 10553
12-08-2013 | Posts: 12,176
Joined: May 2001
Funny, I was recently wondering how LD would have held up on our modern systems. Not too well, it appears. (I never used LD myself, would have been a blast at the time I'm sure).

I was watching an old CRT 24" set recently, and wow it reminded me of just how awful TV looked in the days of scan lines. No wonder TV was always depicted in cartoons and comics with the scan lines going
through the image. We have it so much better now it's almost unimaginable back then.
gnolivos's Avatar gnolivos
02:07 PM Liked: 18
post #5417 of 10553
12-10-2013 | Posts: 1,753
Joined: Mar 2004
I had followed this thread for a long while and eventually gave up because I could not see a fit in any of these projectors to my needs. Anyway, people here are hugely knowledgeable, so I want to ask...
Is there ANY projector today that will meet the most basic of my needs: LOW INPUT LAG, and ABOVE AVERAGE BLACKS.

Is the only option still Sony HW50? I shied away from it because of poor sharpness, but I may have to reconsider since that is not one of my most basic needs smile.gif
randyc1's Avatar randyc1
04:11 PM Liked: 33
post #5418 of 10553
12-10-2013 | Posts: 801
Joined: Dec 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by gnolivos View Post

I had followed this thread for a long while and eventually gave up because I could not see a fit in any of these projectors to my needs. Anyway, people here are hugely knowledgeable, so I want to ask...
Is there ANY projector today that will meet the most basic of my needs: LOW INPUT LAG, and ABOVE AVERAGE BLACKS.

Is the only option still Sony HW50? I shied away from it because of poor sharpness, but I may have to reconsider since that is not one of my most basic needs smile.gif



...Poor Sharpness ????
Seegs108's Avatar Seegs108
04:16 PM Liked: 425
post #5419 of 10553
12-10-2013 | Posts: 5,188
Joined: Jul 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by randyc1 View Post

...Poor Sharpness ????

Yes, compared to other projectors in it's class, it does have a less naturally sharp image. This is due to sub par lens quality that the HW30/50/55 possess. RC is applied to make up for that lack of optical sharpness but usually gives the image an over processed digitally sharp look. Most would want an image that is capable of achieving it's sharpness through optical means, not through the use of extensive image processing like the HW50 and HW55 does to compete with other projectors in subjective sharpness. So while the HW50/55 can look "sharp" it isn't though natural means and when compared to another projector side by side the difference can be easily seen.
zombie10k's Avatar zombie10k
04:20 PM Liked: 475
post #5420 of 10553
12-10-2013 | Posts: 7,985
Joined: Dec 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by gnolivos View Post

I had followed this thread for a long while and eventually gave up because I could not see a fit in any of these projectors to my needs. Anyway, people here are hugely knowledgeable, so I want to ask...
Is there ANY projector today that will meet the most basic of my needs: LOW INPUT LAG, and ABOVE AVERAGE BLACKS.

Is the only option still Sony HW50? I shied away from it because of poor sharpness, but I may have to reconsider since that is not one of my most basic needs smile.gif

The Panasonic 8000 has a relatively low lag time and some are reporting decent lag times from the 5030 with the FAST processing turned on, although I could not substantiate the findings here, I was still seeing ~50+ MS in my testing.

seegs -did anyone ever measure the lag on the Planar/Runco's?
zombie10k's Avatar zombie10k
05:56 PM Liked: 475
post #5421 of 10553
12-10-2013 | Posts: 7,985
Joined: Dec 2007
can we please fast forward the clock to May, 2014?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjKO10hKtYw

LFE addicts have to be looking forward to this. This will motivate me to install the remaining 3 buttkickers in my seats. cool.gif


GZ is my all time favorite movie bad guy.. !

dealwithit-godzilla-sunglasses.gif
randyc1's Avatar randyc1
06:06 PM Liked: 33
post #5422 of 10553
12-10-2013 | Posts: 801
Joined: Dec 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seegs108 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by randyc1 View Post

...Poor Sharpness ????

Yes, compared to other projectors in it's class, it does have a less naturally sharp image. This is due to sub par lens quality that the HW30/50/55 possess. RC is applied to make up for that lack of optical sharpness but usually gives the image an over processed digitally sharp look. Most would want an image that is capable of achieving it's sharpness through optical means, not through the use of extensive image processing like the HW50 and HW55 does to compete with other projectors in subjective sharpness. So while the HW50/55 can look "sharp" it isn't though natural means and when compared to another projector side by side the difference can be easily seen.

How would you compare it to the 6030 ?
jimmy12's Avatar jimmy12
06:07 PM Liked: 18
post #5423 of 10553
12-10-2013 | Posts: 136
Joined: Jun 2007
Gnolivos - my apologies if this has already been covered, but you may not need as low lag of a unit as you think depending on how sensitive you are to lag, the level of gaming you do, and the lag on the display you are used to. I previously avoided epson pjs like the plague because of high input lag. I now have used an epson 6020 extensively for gaming after coming from a panny ptae7000, benq w7000, and mits hc5, and it definitely meets my gaming needs, which includes mostly offline fps. Granted, I am not the worlds premiere gamer by any stretch, but I have logged my share of hours on the old simulator believe me!

All that to say that some people are highly sensitive to lag and if you're one of them, likely the panny and the sony are your best bets as you have already determined. If however you are like me, maybe you have a few more options.
Seegs108's Avatar Seegs108
06:23 PM Liked: 425
post #5424 of 10553
12-10-2013 | Posts: 5,188
Joined: Jul 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by randyc1 View Post

How would you compare it to the 6030 ?

I've only seen the HW50. I haven't seen the Epson for myself yet. Others who've seen both have said the 6030 is quite nice. They made some optical changes and it's noticeably better than the 6020. In terms of natural sharpness, the 6030 should be noticeably better over the HW50/55 with natural sharpness, ie without RC enabled.
venkatesh_m's Avatar venkatesh_m
06:34 PM Liked: 18
post #5425 of 10553
12-10-2013 | Posts: 354
Joined: Oct 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seegs108 View Post

Yes, compared to other projectors in it's class, it does have a less naturally sharp image. This is due to sub par lens quality that the HW30/50/55 possess. RC is applied to make up for that lack of optical sharpness but usually gives the image an over processed digitally sharp look. Most would want an image that is capable of achieving it's sharpness through optical means, not through the use of extensive image processing like the HW50 and HW55 does to compete with other projectors in subjective sharpness. So while the HW50/55 can look "sharp" it isn't though natural means and when compared to another projector side by side the difference can be easily seen.

Hope to be able to test this for myself. Perceived sharpness always seems to be better on a 1 chip DLP compared to an LCD or LCOS. The 55 as you mentioned is soft without RC but I do recall that the RS46 was similar. The higher end JVCs were also similar without e-shift. RC at its minimum is not that bad and does help in the perceived sharpness especially when viewed from a distance. Movies with heavier grain is where it struggles with in my opinion.

I guess the effect of the lower grade lenses will show even more clearly at the ends of the zoom of the 50/55.
Toe's Avatar Toe
06:41 PM Liked: 655
post #5426 of 10553
12-10-2013 | Posts: 13,584
Joined: Apr 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombie10k View Post

can we please fast forward the clock to May, 2014?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjKO10hKtYw

LFE addicts have to be looking forward to this. This will motivate me to install the remaining 3 buttkickers in my seats. cool.gif


GZ is my all time favorite movie bad guy.. !

dealwithit-godzilla-sunglasses.gif

This one has HUGE LFE potential! eek.gif Cant wait!

If your looking for a recent LFE fix, check out Dead in Tombstone (great PQ on this one as well) or Frankensteins Army. They are both more like LFE ASSAULTS, but fun if the mood strikes. Hard hitting and full extension. cool.gif

Are you using the BK amp and if so, do you plan on running all 4 shakers off it? I still have it on my mind to add two more (4 total) since the hard hitting single digit ULF tracks will bottom mine at times at the levels I like to run them, but am curious how well the BK amp will drive 4 vs 2.
Seegs108's Avatar Seegs108
06:50 PM Liked: 425
post #5427 of 10553
12-10-2013 | Posts: 5,188
Joined: Jul 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by venkatesh_m View Post

Hope to be able to test this for myself. Perceived sharpness always seems to be better on a 1 chip DLP compared to an LCD or LCOS. The 55 as you mentioned is soft without RC but I do recall that the RS46 was similar. The higher end JVCs were also similar without e-shift. RC at its minimum is not that bad and does help in the perceived sharpness especially when viewed from a distance. Movies with heavier grain is where it struggles with in my opinion.

I guess the effect of the lower grade lenses will show even more clearly at the ends of the zoom of the 50/55.

The newer JVCs are actually just as sharp as a higher end DLP projector with actual video content. I've compared side by side with a Marantz VP-15S1 and a Planar PD8150 next to my X55R. The Marantz may have a VERY slight edge on a small percentage of material, but far and large they are equal and you would only know you were missing out on that last nth of sharpness when viewing side by side with something like the Marantz. Text will look better on a DLP but real film material will look identical as long as your JVC has pretty good convergence and a decent lens sample. From what I've experienced, JVC projectors are usually very good in both regards. E-shift makes a VERY subtle difference in overall picture quality. The most noticeable thing it does is remove pixel structure. It only "sharpens" the picture by a small amount, nothing anywhere near the amount of apparent sharpness increase you get with something like RC.

I'm not sure what you saw when you demo'ed that JVC unit. Either it did not have very good convergence and/or the lens sample wasn't that great, to the point where the focus couldn't delineate the pixels very well. I had an X30 that had this issue. Convergence was great but I simply could not get the focus to clamp down tight and overall sharpness suffered considerably. The difference between the X30 and X55R that I now have is night and day different with sharpness. I'm actually really surprised at how well the newer JVCs do compared to the higher end DLPs, some of which I mentioned earlier.
Mr. Hatcher's Avatar Mr. Hatcher
07:23 PM Liked: 97
post #5428 of 10553
12-10-2013 | Posts: 751
Joined: Dec 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by gnolivos View Post

I had followed this thread for a long while and eventually gave up because I could not see a fit in any of these projectors to my needs. Anyway, people here are hugely knowledgeable, so I want to ask...
Is there ANY projector today that will meet the most basic of my needs: LOW INPUT LAG, and ABOVE AVERAGE BLACKS.

Is the only option still Sony HW50? I shied away from it because of poor sharpness, but I may have to reconsider since that is not one of my most basic needs smile.gif

You're only option if you want low input lag (<35ms), excellent 2D, good 3D, and good contrast is the Sony HW50 or HW55. The only other PJ's that have low input lag are low cost DLPs, which can't even begin to compete in the contrast department. Epson 5030/6030 gets a bit lower input lag this year (~50ms), but at the expense of serious degradation in PQ (soft image) from what I've read.

The only other PJ's that are naturally sharper than the Sony are the JVCs (which wont suit your gaming needs, but rule the contrast world), and single chip DLPs (which will suit your gaming needs, but wont hold a candle in the contrast department).

The Sony is the best all-rounder at the moment, IMO and many others. I couldn't imagine you would be disappointed. Just put Reality Creation on low and from a normal viewing distance your eyes should be extremely happy. eek.gif
whitetrash66's Avatar whitetrash66
08:38 PM Liked: 21
post #5429 of 10553
12-10-2013 | Posts: 1,061
Joined: Jan 2009
Mod's edit: Post deleted - no advertising in the general forum areas.
gnolivos's Avatar gnolivos
03:33 PM Liked: 18
post #5430 of 10553
12-11-2013 | Posts: 1,753
Joined: Mar 2004
Thanks to all recent posts answering my questions about low lag, good black levels, projectors out there... Does the answer change in any way if I tell you I do NOT need any 3D capabilities? I just want fast response, and very good black levels!
Tags: Benq W7000 Home Projection System , Jvc Dla Rs55 Bundle , Jvc Dla Rs45 Home Theater Projector 1080p Hdmi , Epson V11h502020 Powerlite Home Cinema 3020e 2d And 3d 1080p Wireless Home Theater Projector , Sony Vpl Hw50es 3d Projector , Epson 5010 Powerlite Home Cinema 3d Front Projector , Epson Powerlite Home Cinema 3010 2d And 3d Projector V11h421020 , Panasonic Ptae8000u Hd Projector , Mitsubishi Hc7900dw Home Theater 3d Projector , Mitsubishi Hc8000dbl Dlp 3d Home Theater Projector With Spare Lamp 1300 Ansi 12 6 Lbs , Darbeevision Darblet Hdmi Video Processor , Epson 5020ub Powerlite Home Cinema 3d Front Projector

Gear in this thread
Reply Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP

Subscribe to this Thread

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3