Projector Mini-Shootout Thread 2013-2014 - Page 332 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
Thread Tools
post #9931 of 9940 Unread Yesterday, 07:51 PM
Advanced Member
 
cardoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Beyond The Wall.
Posts: 943
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 193 Post(s)
Liked: 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Clark View Post
I'm lucky. I can tolerate just about any type of 3D - even God-awful anaglyph - without real issues. I can watch the Epson 5030's 3D for hours. But my LGs are easiest on the eyes. The LG LCD that I use for 3D editing is utterly painless, but 3D contrast blows. LG's OLED passive 3D, however, puts all the other 3D displays I've ever owned to shame. True black, infinite contrast, silky smooth 3D - these help me overlook any other flaws with the set. The closest I came to it in terms of contrast on a projector was the JVC RS45, but the JVC's 3D sucked, and it never truly passed the hand puppet test. There was always tell-tale gray in the black. Also, if I'm dead center vertically with the OLED, it's passive 3D is the most ghost-free 3D (short of DLP) that I've ever seen. And DLP can't come within a country light year of OLED's contrast.

As a long time big screen user, I know there's no real substitute for a projector's image size, but as a new believer in the beauty of true black and true infinite contrast, it's hard for me to want to watch anything else now. It's Sophie's Choice for this tortured tech nerd.

I have had 3 different 120hz 3d gaming monitors, a LG Passive 3D tv , a Benq W7000 DLP projector and now the JVC X500 PJ. Of all of those the Benq W7000 and LG were the easiest on the eyes. My big complaint with the Benq beside contrast was the DLP link, it really sucks, for me it did. The JVC is not to bad, the link with the glasses is excellent as is the contrast. Gravity was pretty good actually, I did have to take several breaks, but the image was spectacular. But for ease on the eyes the Benq was really not to bad.

James Reid:D
cardoski is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #9932 of 9940 Unread Yesterday, 08:04 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
AV Science Sales 5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: A beautiful view of a lake
Posts: 8,573
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 808 Post(s)
Liked: 577
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deja Vu View Post
Everyone here seems to accept the 1100 lumens calibrated figure as written in stone. Art found it was closer to 1300 lumens calibrated in high (laser )mode. I have no idea which figure is more accurate -- 1100 or 1300 calibrated lumens and I doubt anyone else at the moment does either.

As far as brightness in 3D is concerned PC had this to say:

"As is true of all 3D systems, the light that reaches your eyes is cut substantially compared to 2D. But it doesn't cut light quite as much as most projectors. Let's assume you have the LS10000 set up using the middle of the zoom on a 120" diagonal screen with 1.0 gain, you can use 3D Cinema (the dimmest 3D mode) and still get 6.2 fL actually reaching your eyes."

So what does 6.2 fL translate into using a 2.8 gain screen -- 18fL?

I doubt that the LS10000 will meet my needs but it has a combination of features that comes pretty close. As far as I can see projector technology is at least heading in the right direction.

I am still waiting for end users to get their hands on these projectors and comment on the questions being asked here. It makes me wonder if Epson is having some problems outside of supply and demand issues. Besides a few review units this projector is very conspicuous by its absence.
I think the max gain from a 2.8 gain HP is closer to 2.0. Still 12.4FL for 3D is pretty good. I still use a 2.8 gain HP in my family room setup, but talking about HP screens is kind of a mute point, since we have not been able to get HP screens for many months.

Mike Garrett, AV Science Sales Call Me: 585-671-2968
Email Me: Mike@AVScience.com
Brands we sell: http://avscience.com/brands/ 
Call for B-stock projectors
Stewart, Seymour, SE, SI, Falcon, DNP & more.
RBH, Martin Logan, Triad, Atlantic Tech., MK Sound, BG Radia, SVS & Def Tech, Denon, Marantz & Yamaha .
AV Science Sales 5 is offline  
post #9933 of 9940 Unread Yesterday, 08:09 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 12,093
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 171 Post(s)
Liked: 393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Clark View Post
As a long time big screen user, I know there's no real substitute for a projector's image size, but as a new believer in the beauty of true black and true infinite contrast, it's hard for me to want to watch anything else now. It's Sophie's Choice for this tortured tech nerd.
That's actually one reason I haven't upgraded our every day TVs to a truly high end flat panel, let alone OLED.
I don't want to have to see what's possible and what I'm missing on the bigger screen.
(And I don't really watch TV shows).

That said, forum member Conan was originally so enamored of his OLED that I remember him saying this was goodbye to projection, which can't compete. But he recently mentioned that after living with the OLED he came back to the importance of image size that you get with projection. (Not to speak for him, but that is what I understand from his posts).
R Harkness is offline  
post #9934 of 9940 Unread Yesterday, 09:40 PM
Toe
AVS Addicted Member
 
Toe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 13,403
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 315 Post(s)
Liked: 583
Quote:
Originally Posted by AV Science Sales 5 View Post
I think the max gain from a 2.8 gain HP is closer to 2.0. Still 12.4FL for 3D is pretty good. I still use a 2.8 gain HP in my family room setup, but talking about HP screens is kind of a mute point, since we have not been able to get HP screens for many months.
I've read a number of times over the years that the 2.8 was closer to 3.0 gain, so curious where you are getting the 2.0 figure? My own tests compared to my ST130 would suggest a gain much closer to 3.0, not 2.0.

JVC 3D: Been there, done that, bought a DLP
Toe is online now  
post #9935 of 9940 Unread Yesterday, 09:59 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Joseph Clark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 10,508
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 106 Post(s)
Liked: 186
Yes. I've read that 3.0 number, too. Seems right to me.
Toe likes this.
Joseph Clark is online now  
post #9936 of 9940 Unread Yesterday, 10:11 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Seegs108's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Schenectady, New York
Posts: 4,671
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 674 Post(s)
Liked: 330
I think he's referring to the accucal screen report:

http://www.accucalhd.com/documents/a...een_report.pdf

Also, you guys need to remember both the 2.4 and 2.8 are extremely sensitive to projector placement and seating position. I doubt most end users have it set up to get anywhere near the claimed gain. From my own personal testing (with both materials), I don't think 3.0 is a valid gain number to use.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
My Crazy Projector Journey!

For Sale: Marantz VP-15S1 1080p High End DLP Projector - $1295
Seegs108 is online now  
post #9937 of 9940 Unread Yesterday, 11:54 PM
Toe
AVS Addicted Member
 
Toe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 13,403
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 315 Post(s)
Liked: 583
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seegs108 View Post
I think he's referring to the accucal screen report:

http://www.accucalhd.com/documents/a...een_report.pdf

Also, you guys need to remember both the 2.4 and 2.8 are extremely sensitive to projector placement and seating position. I doubt most end users have it set up to get anywhere near the claimed gain. From my own personal testing (with both materials), I don't think 3.0 is a valid gain number to use.
That report was dismissed immediately as any sort of reliable indicator of max HP gain due to the measurement being taken with a ceiling mounted projector if you read the report. If the projector was optimally placed, as you allude too, the number would be much higher. I have also tested both materials and an actual 3.0 gain rating with an optimally placed projector would not surprise me from what I saw. Either way, the gain is certainly much closer to 3.0 than 2.0 with the projector placed as close to eye level as possible. There is also a clear max brightness advantage to the 2.8 vs the 2.4 ( although the 2.4 maintains its brightness better over a wider seating range)

JVC 3D: Been there, done that, bought a DLP

Last edited by Toe; Today at 12:02 AM.
Toe is online now  
post #9938 of 9940 Unread Today, 12:04 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Joseph Clark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 10,508
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 106 Post(s)
Liked: 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seegs108 View Post
I think he's referring to the accucal screen report:

http://www.accucalhd.com/documents/a...een_report.pdf

Also, you guys need to remember both the 2.4 and 2.8 are extremely sensitive to projector placement and seating position. I doubt most end users have it set up to get anywhere near the claimed gain. From my own personal testing (with both materials), I don't think 3.0 is a valid gain number to use.
We've spent a lot of time talking about the HP's cone of brightness. When I did my testing, I saw the results of moving off axis quite clearly. I compared the HP sample with a Vutec Silverstar sample and the Stewart Firehawk (my existing screen at the time). The SS and the Firehawk were angular reflective and the HP retro-reflective. As I moved around I could see how brightness varied with distance and angle relative to the projection beam. From a point of view near the projection lens, the HP was super bright and the Firehawk and SS were far dimmer. As I moved away, the Firehawk and the HP became the same brightness, then the advantage moved to the Firehawk. It's not simple of course, but for those who knew what they were doing, it was altogether possible to get a gain near maximum with the HP, at least with a seat or two. I believe mine was probably close to 3 originally, because my head was so close to the lens.

The HP is like everything else in home theater. Ignorance of limitations probably won't yield optimal results. It's academic now, unless someone is lucky enough to find a used 2.8 HP somewhere.

Joe Clark

Joseph Clark is online now  
post #9939 of 9940 Unread Today, 12:12 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Joseph Clark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 10,508
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 106 Post(s)
Liked: 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post
That's actually one reason I haven't upgraded our every day TVs to a truly high end flat panel, let alone OLED.
I don't want to have to see what's possible and what I'm missing on the bigger screen.
(And I don't really watch TV shows).

That said, forum member Conan was originally so enamored of his OLED that I remember him saying this was goodbye to projection, which can't compete. But he recently mentioned that after living with the OLED he came back to the importance of image size that you get with projection. (Not to speak for him, but that is what I understand from his posts).
I don't doubt he feels that way. I'll probably strike a balance between the projection room and the OLED one day, too. I can't see giving it up completely. But for now, it's not much of a contest. To borrow my favorite expression from Firefly, OLED is SHINY!

Sorry, Rich. That's a TV reference. But a lot of folks here will know what it means, and it applies especially to OLED.

Joe Clark

Joseph Clark is online now  
post #9940 of 9940 Unread Today, 12:15 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
zombie10k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,780
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 390 Post(s)
Liked: 406
with my rack setup, I keep the 3D projectors very close to eye level for max gain. The brightness is good between the 4 seats in a curved setup across the 142" 16:9

JC - It's been a few years, I don't recall - did you ever demo the Sony HMZ-T1 headsetup? I still have this from a while back but don't use it much since it's not very comfortable. The 3D is very bright, no x-talk and the OLED's have great contrast. I think Sony is on the 3rd version of the original headset. the idea is neat and it definitely looks good, just needs to be much lighter.

zombie10k is online now  
Reply Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP

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 - V11h421020 by PriceGrabber.com

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