Projector Mini-Shootout Thread - Page 22 - AVS Forum
First ... 20  21  22 23  24  ... Last
Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP > Projector Mini-Shootout Thread
dougri's Avatar dougri 12:28 AM 11-05-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by sarangiman View Post

Cool comparison, but I'm a little confused by a couple of things:
...

I'm a little confused as well... my (admittedly limited) understanding of projector technology has led me to believe that LCOS technology has pretty average ANSI contrast and exceptional native (on/off) contrast without use of an iris. DLP can have very good ansi contrast, but pretty average/poor native contrast. The scene used as an example (to me) looks like one which would be pretty demanding of ANSI contrast (needs to show bright whites and deep blacks at the same time). Why does the 8200 (purportedly 500:1 ansi) look so poor compared to the rs45 (~350:1 ansi)? Is this not a demanding scene for ansi contrast?

zombie10k's Avatar zombie10k 09:27 AM 11-05-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by tallnick View Post

zombie10k, your thoughts on the epson vs sony pixel fill (and overall image sharpness) from your x1.25sw seating distance on your 142" screen?

to my eye in your photos they looked damn near identical (with darbee on at 40%). was it different in real life?

I didn't have a problem with pixel fill on the 5020 @ 1.25 sw from the 142". It looked relatively sharp even before I turned on the 'Super Resolution' setting. (sharper than the HW50 without the RC)

In 2D, the HW50 RC @ minimum setting, MPEG=LOW was similar in appearance to the 5020 SR @ 3.

In 3D, the SR is not enabled on this 5020 I have, so the HW50 looks sharper in 3D as a result of using the reality creation. Epson needs to turn this feature on in 3D mode. Adding the Darbee @ 40% does helps quite a bit.
dougri's Avatar dougri 09:54 AM 11-05-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post

... Also people are thinking too much in photography terms and dynamic moving video when they need to be thinking in relative values of intrascene contrast. This is a static non-moving image, and all that matters is intrascene contrast, there is no dynamic range in a still image...

Thanks for the reply on ANSI contrast... so, at the opposite end of the spectrum from SciFi & other dark movies, would one expect better intrascene contrast during typical sports viewing from a low-end DLP compared to an LCOS PJ? I know no one buys an RS45 to watch Monday Night Football, just trying to understand the relative importance of various objective measurements to varied viewing habits (i.e. keep hearing, for example, that the W7000 is fantastic for sports but not so much for movies... want to understand why other than just 'its DLP').

Also, can you expand on the quoted comment regarding 'dynamic range' in photographic terms? my understanding of DR in photographic terms is that it is very closely related to what you are calling intrascene contrast... it is for a given image either: 1) the ratio of the peak signal that can be recorded to that of the lowest signal that meets some threshold of acceptable signal-to-noise ratio (where noise becomes objectionable), or 2) the ratio of the peak signal that can be captured to the signal with SNR of 1. The latter being a more consistent measure, but not too meaningful to the photographer. Note both measures are ratios for a single image capture, not comparing the max/min across different exposures.
Deja Vu's Avatar Deja Vu 10:10 AM 11-05-2012
From my experience with DLP I am reminded that a scene with black and white or bright objects looks very good as far as blacks go. When the bright parts start to dim or fade out in the scene you're then left with the grey that Coderguy shows in his photo. I would think that both the JVC and DLP should look pretty similar on a scene with that much bright and dark in it and the JVC would start to run away with black levels as the bright objects faded out.

My problems with RC and SR etc. is that they add much more detail than you would see in the "real" world and lend a metallic or hard look to objects, particularly faces. If I were to have someone stand in from of a camera hooked into my computer and then zoom the camera so that what appears on my monitor and what I see when I look at the person standing near me are the same size and therefore I now have an image that is a reasonable facsimile. To me what we are doing with RC and SR is taking that image and enhancing the detail way beyond what we really see in real life. With my example if I were to use image processing to enhance the image on my monitor I could bring out much more detail than my eyes can resolve from where I'm sitting and looking at the real person. So now the image on my monitor gives me more detail than what I see in real life! If that's what you want, then fine -- I don't have a problem with that, but it's not for me. It's a too much in my face sort of look and thank god we don't see this much detail in real life or we'd all hide our faces -- it's like someone put their nose to our face and shone a bright light on every pore.
Joesyah's Avatar Joesyah 10:35 AM 11-05-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deja Vu View Post

From my experience with DLP I am reminded that a scene with black and white or bright objects looks very good as far as blacks go. When the bright parts start to dim or fade out in the scene you're then left with the grey that Coderguy shows in his photo. I would think that both the JVC and DLP should look pretty similar on a scene with that much bright and dark in it and the JVC would start to run away with black levels as the bright objects faded out.
My problems with RC and SR etc. is that they add much more detail than you would see in the "real" world and lend a metallic or hard look to objects, particularly faces. If I were to have someone stand in from of a camera hooked into my computer and then zoom the camera so that what appears on my monitor and what I see when I look at the person standing near me are the same size and therefore I now have an image that is a reasonable facsimile. To me what we are doing with RC and SR is taking that image and enhancing the detail way beyond what we really see in real life. With my example if I were to use image processing to enhance the image on my monitor I could bring out much more detail than my eyes can resolve from where I'm sitting and looking at the real person. So now the image on my monitor gives me more detail than what I see in real life! If that's what you want, then fine -- I don't have a problem with that, but it's not for me. It's a too much in my face sort of look and thank god we don't see this much detail in real life or we'd all hide our faces -- it's like someone put their nose to our face and shone a bright light on every pore.


Daytime scenes are what look similar with most projectors. The high contrast scene in Coder's pic is exactly what sets the JVC apart from other projectors in general. The highlights look brighter, while maintaining decent black levels.
tallnick's Avatar tallnick 11:33 AM 11-05-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombie10k View Post

I didn't have a problem with pixel fill on the 5020 @ 1.25 sw from the 142". It looked relatively sharp even before I turned on the 'Super Resolution' setting. (sharper than the HW50 without the RC)
In 2D, the HW50 RC @ minimum setting, MPEG=LOW was similar in appearance to the 5020 SR @ 3.
In 3D, the SR is not enabled on this 5020 I have, so the HW50 looks sharper in 3D as a result of using the reality creation. Epson needs to turn this feature on in 3D mode. Adding the Darbee @ 40% does helps quite a bit.

so just to be clear you are not experiencing this: "The main difference between LCOS and LCD is the pixel fill, so it partly depends how close you sit. I sit so close that the pixel fill is easily visible to me in certain scenes (clouds, whiteness, etc...)"

It just that one person says one thing (sony is the sharpest thing out with RC) then another says the opposite (the one problem with the sony is its sharpness/convergence) and then I hear the same exact disagreement for the epson. one person swears it's sharp, the next swears the pixel fill is terrible and you can see pixels from seating distance. If only I was in a position to try one out, I just can't. I have to go with the consensus, which is all over the place.

for what it's worth, I seem to take your advice over everyone else's, zombie, as you seem to be quite the projector ninja and you put in so much time helping everyone out.
Joseph Clark's Avatar Joseph Clark 11:49 AM 11-05-2012
I've been in "stealth mode" the last few months. That's the period of time when I don't read much about this stuff or agonize over the "details." In other words, I stop torturing myself and simply enjoy what I have. biggrin.gif Last night I decided to find out what all the fuss was about with the Darbee, which hasn't been on my radar at all. I watched the interview with the inventor, and it sounds like the technology makes use of what I've seen for ages while looking at the real world with my own two eyes. That is, one of my eyes perceives contrast better and the other detail better, and the brain combines these into a sharper looking image. Darbee says he discovered this phenomenon 40 years ago, but had to wait for technology to catch up with his "vision." So, I ordered a Darblet from AVS. Can't wait to see what it does for the Epson 6010. biggrin.gif
Holiday121's Avatar Holiday121 12:39 PM 11-05-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post

General IDEA on Black Levels of a JVC RS-45 vs. Low cost DLP
JVC on Left, Pro8200 on Right

Overlayed Comparison Below: DLP Projector set to 1,500:1 Native On/Off Contrast
(JVC Overlayed on edges, Photo Corrected and Light Blocked with Cardboard, One-Shot Pony)

Method:
Measure FL at 15.9 on each projector (DLP was 15.7 to 15.8, as close as I can get, JVC aperture had to be opened).
Fix Camera onto Tripod, use HDMI Matrix switch to output to both projectors from Tree of Life Bluray at same time
Take three photos, first photo of DLP, second photo of JVC, third photo of JVC overlapping edge of DLP with side cardboard blocking 3/4 of lens output of JVC, and ring blocking outer edge of DLP
Correct in photo editor based on average of 3 photos to neutralize contrast of monitor vs. projectors.
This is about as close as I can represent it, the black level on the outer ring is the JVC.
I am still experimenting for a better test.


Wow what a difference in blacks. Makes the image pop and seem more brighter
kawie01's Avatar kawie01 01:16 PM 11-05-2012
Zombie or anyone else

I have been reading the forum (along with many) and reading can only take one so far. Lack first hand experience.

I am hoping to upgrade to either the 5020 or the HW50. Please help me decide. Here is my current setup:

1.) 8350
2.) shelf mounted in living room
3.) have blackout curtains. Not 100% dark, but pretty dark.
4.) screen is about 13-16 feet from pj
5.) 106" screen
6.) I watch Living room mode just about 100% of time
7.) watch tv, games, movies (in that order)

Also which HP screen (Gain) would you recommend for the new PJ? Side viewers are about 3-5 feet from center of screen.


Thank you for your help.
coderguy's Avatar coderguy 01:23 PM 11-05-2012
Maybe Zombie will tell us if he prefers the Sony hw50 for TV or the Epson 5020.
Generally DLP wins at TV, maybe wait until he gets his Mits hc8000 review out there, you have a small screen and the Mits might work as well.

Personally, I'd probably pick the Sony since I prefer it due to the more natural image.
kawie01's Avatar kawie01 01:34 PM 11-05-2012
Dang 106" is small? Coder--Whats B.I.G. smile.gif
KBMAN's Avatar KBMAN 01:36 PM 11-05-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by kawie01 View Post

Zombie or anyone else
I have been reading the forum (along with many) and reading can only take one so far. Lack first hand experience.
I am hoping to upgrade to either the 5020 or the HW50. Please help me decide. Here is my current setup:
1.) 8350
2.) shelf mounted in living room
3.) have blackout curtains. Not 100% dark, but pretty dark.
4.) screen is about 13-16 feet from pj
5.) 106" screen
6.) I watch Living room mode just about 100% of time
7.) watch tv, games, movies (in that order)
Also which HP screen (Gain) would you recommend for the new PJ? Side viewers are about 3-5 feet from center of screen.
Thank you for your help.

In my experience, the Sony's colors seem more natural and not 'forced' like the JVC. However, I'm a Sci-Fi guy and you can't beat the black levels/Native Contrast of the JVC. I'm not a DLP fan cause of the RBE/headaches. The sony pearl vw50 was my last Sony, and while it looked great in it's day, it just wasn't bright enough. I'm sure the HW50 will be plenty bright for 2D, and that would probably be my choice for you if you are doing TV first and games/movies last...just my opinion......
Neowulf's Avatar Neowulf 01:36 PM 11-05-2012
Well, after much thought and consideration, I pulled the trigger on the JVC RS46. Thanks to Mike and everyone at AVS Science for the quality support and answering questions. This will be going in a blacked out 14x12 room with a Monoprice 106" Multi-Format 1.0 white screen. I am just really impressed with the contrast of the JVC's.
coderguy's Avatar coderguy 01:43 PM 11-05-2012
@NeoWulf
Cool, I doubt you will be disappointed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KBMAN View Post

In my experience, the Sony's colors seem more natural and not 'forced' like the JVC. However, I'm a Sci-Fi guy and you can't beat the black levels/Native Contrast of the JVC. I'm not a DLP fan cause of the RBE/headaches. The sony pearl vw50 was my last Sony, and while it looked great in it's day, it just wasn't bright enough. I'm sure the HW50 will be plenty bright for 2D, and that would probably be my choice for you if you are doing TV first and games/movies last...just my opinion......

The newer JVC's have a lot better color than the older JVC's and the color is much closer between the two than in the past. The Sony probably has better saturation tracking and a slightly better gamut, plus the Sony starts out more accurate in general. I don't think the difference in color should be an issue for anyone and not a determining factor to buy one over the other.

@Kawei
I only have a 106" screen, I like the flexibility in having extra brightness with a smaller screen. I think under 120" in here we often refer to as smaller screens, over 120" medium sized to big, and over 140" pretty big. Some crazy people go over 200", but that is not for me.
coderguy's Avatar coderguy 04:01 PM 11-05-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by tallnick View Post

so just to be clear you are not experiencing this: "The main difference between LCOS and LCD is the pixel fill, so it partly depends how close you sit. I sit so close that the pixel fill is easily visible to me in certain scenes (clouds, whiteness, etc...)"
It just that one person says one thing (sony is the sharpest thing out with RC) then another says the opposite (the one problem with the sony is its sharpness/convergence) and then I hear the same exact disagreement for the epson. one person swears it's sharp, the next swears the pixel fill is terrible and you can see pixels from seating distance.

I am sitting even closer than Zombie does, he sits 1.25x, I am sitting more like 1x screen width. That is why I see SDE much easier. At my seating distance, I can almost just begin to see SDE even on a DLP (not really but almost). He will even tell you though that if he A/B's the image with an LCOS, he can still see the improved LCOS pixel fill from his own seating distance compared to an LCD, even though he might not see the SDE specifically (the effects of the pixel fill can still be seen). I said before that I wouldn't worry about it for most people and I don't think I ever said the pixel fill was terrible (just that it was visible in clouds at my seating distance)

The JVC's are some of the sharpest NON-DLP's in this price range on average, regardless of what people say (this has been confirmed by dealers and AVS forum members). The Sony is on average not as naturally sharp, but this would matter a tiny more in HTPC reading text than it does in video. Actually I was impressed by the convergence that Zombie posted earlier in the thread of BOTH the Sony and the JVC.

Sharpness is very subjective because it is also partly random. There in no exact sharpness of an Epson 5010/5020 or even a JVC or Sony, it depends how lucky you get. Zombie appears to have been in the upper echelon of luck on both those two projectors. Every unit has a slightly different sharpness due to convergence. Someone that had the 5010 I helped had to switch the unit out due to convergence, his 2nd Epson 5010 unit was sharper. However, what I can say is this, those two photos Zombie posted of the JVC and Sony both appear to have better convergence than both Epson 5010's I've seen. That said, the Epson 5010 is pretty sharp at the pixel level (especially since the pixels tend to have more spacing), so overall the Epson 5010 is probably halfway between the JVC and Sony in sharpness (if any of us had to guess), and it might even be slightly closer to the JVC than to the Sony overall.

As far as sharpness, well I have two projectors here, one that is quite a bit sharper than the other (I would say it really only makes a limited and hard to see difference in video even at my seating distance), unless I am watching very specific types of reference level movies or some type HD thing that is kind of emphasizing a sharp picture. I don't notice it unless I am really really looking for it, but I do notice it when viewing HTPC and reading text.

OK time for a break for me, I weighed in too much and don't want to overpower others opinions (just trying to clarify is all in a helpful manner, seriously)...
tallnick's Avatar tallnick 04:18 PM 11-05-2012
cheers, really helpful. I really need to find somewhere I can demo the epson. hopefully zombie's close up shots of the 5020 pixels will help me see what you're talking about. if I can't tell from seating distance of 1.25sw then it's a moot point.
dougri's Avatar dougri 04:18 PM 11-05-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post

I was using the term "dynamic range" in the projector sense of the word, not the photography sense (I am not a photographer). In projectors, we refer to dynamic range as a general term which kind of represents how well a projector can handle really dark scenes, as well as then going back to really bright scenes and still doing decent on these as well. We consider DLP projectors with IRIS's to have a better dynamic range than most DLP projectors without an IRIS for instance.

ahhh... dynamic contrast... never heard it called dynamic range before... assumed you were talking photgraphy in the context of your comments. gotcha.
coderguy's Avatar coderguy 04:19 PM 11-05-2012
If I were being a purist in how to use the word, I guess that dynamic contrast kind of implies just the measuring of the black level itself on the full black, whereas dynamic range kind of more implies what we see with our eyes (how good an IRIS or a projector's on/off really works without killing whites and all that). So still two slightly different things, but close enough I think.
velvetpoet's Avatar velvetpoet 04:26 PM 11-05-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post

I am sitting even closer than Zombie does, he sits 1.25x, I am sitting more like 1x screen width. ..

How do you guys watch movies sitting that close? This is an honest question not a judgement. Don't you find your eyes constantly focusing on different sections of the screen sitting that close?

Or is your width not standarsd16:9?

I know its all personal preference I just find I can't let my eyes releax if I sit too close to an image and i have to shift my eyes to much to pay attention to certain elements of the image.
coderguy's Avatar coderguy 04:30 PM 11-05-2012
No problem at all, actually I ask myself that same question sometimes smile.gif

I think over the years my eyes adjusted to not scanning the entire screen so fast, when I first owned a projector (first couple years), I sat more like 1.3x back (way back) and I thought the image was big.
Also, the 2.35 image is much smaller due to the black bars, so I am not really seeing that big of an image unless I am watching 16:9 TV or something. I think eventually I may get a motorized screen so I can really have both 2.35 and 16:9 without masking (or I will get masking, not sure yet). I actually scoot my couch back and forth a little between around 1.x to 1.1x or so sitting distance.

For gaming (the occassional gaming I do), I sometimes like to sit really really close so that there is no room in my peripheral vision to see beyond the screen (of course depends on the game and I don't play FPS anymore anyhow).
Deja Vu's Avatar Deja Vu 04:32 PM 11-05-2012
Art updated his 5020 review -- here's what he said about 3D on the 5020 vs. 5010

"3D is better, much better than last year. Dramatically better. I viewed the HC5010 vs. the HC5020, and no contest!

Home Cinema 5020 3D brightness is improved, noticeably. That's not so much the projector's native brightness but improvements in 3D handling and new glasses.

Home Cinema 5020 Color in 3D. Again, improved by virtue of the addition of the THX 3D mode. OK it's not near as bright as 3D dynamic, but if you can deal with the lower brightness, we're looking at some very respectable color, something that has been a real problem with 3D projectors." and

"What really makes the Epson Home Cinema 5020 UB better in terms of 3D, though, (besides brightness and color), is drastically better black level performance. This year Epson has allowed dynamic features - most importantly, the dynamic iris, to function in 3D. It really makes the blacks as close to black as you could hope for in 3D.

In summary, in terms of 3D: Better color, brighter, and dramatically better blacks! Not bad for a projector we expected to have only minor improvements over last years. You are definitely getting your money's worth in 3D.

I should also point out, that this is by far the brightest projector we've seen in 3D (for the home). While the Panasonic has similar brightness in 2D, due to glasses, or other aspects, the Epson is significantly brighter in 3D.

Speaking of glasses, this year they are much lighter, more comfortable, and, they are rechargeable, rather than battery. And they are RF, not infra-red. When you look over to your friend, you won't lose the sync, and have to wait a fraction of a second for it to return when you look back to the screen. That's a very nice touch, that makes the projector "more invisible" that is, less intrusive during your viewing experience, which, in this case, is the best yet, in 3D, when you combine all the elements."


He says nothing about SR in 3D mode in the "bottom line" section of is review.

Does Art work for Epson? biggrin.gif He's got me all hot and bothered for a new Epson. But wait, Zombie seems to have a different take on all of this. biggrin.gif
tjenkins95's Avatar tjenkins95 05:04 PM 11-05-2012
Just pulled the trigger and ordered the Epson 5020UB from AV Science! I am replacing a refurbished Epson 8500UB which I have had for the past two years. The 8500UB replaced a Sony VPL-VW60. Can't wait to check out the 3-D!
coderguy's Avatar coderguy 05:07 PM 11-05-2012
Interesting as I had an 8500ub briefly, let us know what you think of sharpness and black levels compared to your old PJ (another good opinion is helpful due to sample variances)...

The Laser projector below has actually sparked my interest a little, but I don't know if the contrast is really very good (check out the crazy specs and it is supposedly going to be released this year for under 10k). I just started researching it, I never planned to spend this kind of money on a PJ, but if it were super awesome I just might!

http://www.extremetech.com/electronics/126579-red-ray-4k-cinema-laser-projector-on-display-at-nab-show-2012

"There will be two editions of the Red Ray: The less-than-$10,000 home model supporting screens up to 15 feet in size should be released to market sometime this year, while a more expensive professional model to suit larger screens will be released later. The device has a rated laser life of over 25,000 hours, supports both 2D and passive 3D (with 4K projection for each eye) from a mean-looking T1.8 50mm lens, and has dedicated access panels for the laser phase adjustment oscillator, the angular refraction aberration indexer, and the lens filter.

Red Ray 4K projectorReports from the NAB Show floor uniformly praise the performance of the Red Ray, citing impressive contrast, color reproduction, dynamic range, and clearly defined small detail."
zombie10k's Avatar zombie10k 05:07 PM 11-05-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by tallnick View Post

so just to be clear you are not experiencing this: "The main difference between LCOS and LCD is the pixel fill, so it partly depends how close you sit. I sit so close that the pixel fill is easily visible to me in certain scenes (clouds, whiteness, etc...)"

It just that one person says one thing (sony is the sharpest thing out with RC) then another says the opposite (the one problem with the sony is its sharpness/convergence) and then I hear the same exact disagreement for the epson. one person swears it's sharp, the next swears the pixel fill is terrible and you can see pixels from seating distance. If only I was in a position to try one out, I just can't. I have to go with the consensus, which is all over the place.

for what it's worth, I seem to take your advice over everyone else's, zombie, as you seem to be quite the projector ninja and you put in so much time helping everyone out.

When viewed close up, the 5020's pixel structure is quite different than the other technologies (SXRD/LCOS/DLP). At my relatively close seating distance on a large screen, it doesn't bother me. To verify, i'll check out 'The Art of Flight' which is 3/4 snow filled mountains and this is a movie where it might stick out, especially if someone has perfect or better than perfect vision.

I realize there's a lot of mixed opinions. I don't think it would be any different if we were on a car forum. (chevy vs. ford vs. import). The best (and only way imo to compare these) is in a direct A/B setup. Otherwise, memory fails us quickly when trying to compare one model to another. My observations that I've posted are a direct A/B comparison with both projectors running from the same source (2D and 3D). I don't think too many of the 'pro' reviewers do this since it's time consuming getting them lined up perfectly on the same screen or they may not have both models at the same time.

When quickly going back and forth on The Crossroads 2010 'Buddy Guy' still (not sure what camera was used to film this, but it's very high quality) The HW50 with the RC @ resolution=minimum looks similar to the 5020 with SR =3. There is no day/night difference here imo. Native vs. Native (RC=off, SR=off) the 5020 has a bit of an advantage here.
coderguy's Avatar coderguy 05:13 PM 11-05-2012
Really good info Zombie, I'm a bit long winded the past couple threads (I just have tech info leaking out of my brain today for some reason).
zombie10k's Avatar zombie10k 05:24 PM 11-05-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deja Vu View Post

But wait, Zombie seems to have a different take on all of this. biggrin.gif

if you want me to make stuff up, I can. cool.gif

This projector feels very similar to the 5010 (which is good thing), but I'm not seeing this drastic difference from the 5010. we've heard about some improvements in lag time (I trust the 62ms times, not the 50ms since no one else can reproduce it) and the 3D brightness in cinema mode @ 1400 lumens is nice. (brighter than the HW50's cinema mode @ 1064 lumens).

If they made the iris more aggressive in 3D mode, added the SR in 3D mode and added the FI in as well, those would be some improvements I'd be excited about.

I hope the SR not working in 3D can be fixed in a firmware update since this is 1 of the few projectors we can update from home. On my 142", (IMO) the 5020 needs the Darbee to compete in 3D sharpness vs. the HW50 with the RC turned on. RC does a very good job in 3D mode on the Sony.

ps. The new RF glasses are now my favorite factory glasses (much more so than the Sony). We'll see how they compare to the new RF JVC's in a couple of weeks.
Joseph Clark's Avatar Joseph Clark 05:38 PM 11-05-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post

Interesting as I had an 8500ub briefly, let us know what you think of sharpness and black levels compared to your old PJ (another good opinion is helpful due to sample variances)...
The Laser projector below has actually sparked my interest a little, but I don't know if the contrast is really very good (check out the crazy specs and it is supposedly going to be released this year for under 10k). I just started researching it, I never planned to spend this kind of money on a PJ, but if it were super awesome I just might!
http://www.extremetech.com/electronics/126579-red-ray-4k-cinema-laser-projector-on-display-at-nab-show-2012
"There will be two editions of the Red Ray: The less-than-$10,000 home model supporting screens up to 15 feet in size should be released to market sometime this year, while a more expensive professional model to suit larger screens will be released later. The device has a rated laser life of over 25,000 hours, supports both 2D and passive 3D (with 4K projection for each eye) from a mean-looking T1.8 50mm lens, and has dedicated access panels for the laser phase adjustment oscillator, the angular refraction aberration indexer, and the lens filter.
Red Ray 4K projectorReports from the NAB Show floor uniformly praise the performance of the Red Ray, citing impressive contrast, color reproduction, dynamic range, and clearly defined small detail."

If it's anything close to what people say it is, I'd have to have it. I spent over $7,500 for a Sharp XV-Z20000. For $10k, a passive 3D laser-based projector with a 25,000 hour life span would be a steal. But when??? They've been talking about this for a while.
coderguy's Avatar coderguy 05:40 PM 11-05-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Clark View Post

If it's anything close to what people say it is, I'd have to have it. I spent over $7,500 for a Sharp XV-Z20000. For $10k, a passive 3D laser-based projector with a 25,000 hour life span would be a steal. But when??? They've been talking about this for a while.

Dang, tell me about it, that thing not only looks so good from specs, but it looks just so fun to screw around with. Look how big the lens is, that is hilarious.
They are also coming out with a 4k player supposedly (why do they tease).
rufilo's Avatar rufilo 06:24 PM 11-05-2012
Zombie and others, great review with lots of details and expert comments.
Really easy to become a projector addicted! cool.gif

I'm for HW50, but since this will be my 1st projector, not sure it will work for my setup.
- Ceiling mount at center of room
- 106" 16:9 screen (screen top at 22" from ceiling, screen center at 48").
- Distance between screen & projector lens: ~144"
- Seats at ~255" from screen

Projector should be as close as possible to ceiling, due to WAF and to avoid knocking some heads. eek.gif

Considering HW50's vshift capability, what's the minimum distance between projector lens and ceiling?

If too low, 2nd option is 5020, with superior VShift, complemented with darbee.


Thx!
ol2's Avatar ol2 07:00 PM 11-05-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post

Really good info Zombie, I'm a bit long winded the past couple threads (I just have tech info leaking out of my brain today for some reason).
If I sell my other projectors, I might be able to get into that Red Ray 4k 3D projector for around $6000 IF they ever release the thing (where is it?)
Tempting, if anyone in the forum saw it at the NAB show then let me know, but I wish Zombie was getting one for his shootout (how cool would that be). It is very doubtful I would get one, but it has me wanting to wait on buying something this year until a RED owner posts some info (when it gets released that is).

I saw the demo at NAB. It was not very impressive. Not very bright and the 4K was not working. But that was early days I guess.
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
First ... 20  21  22 23  24  ... Last

Up
Mobile  Desktop