Projector Mini-Shootout Thread - Page 345 - 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

Seegs108's Avatar Seegs108
07:18 PM Liked: 387
post #10321 of 10350
01-28-2015 | Posts: 4,957
Joined: Jul 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Hatcher View Post
Yeah, but those black levels on that Sony are mediocre at best. I had the HW55 and those two are very similar in the black level and contrast departments. I immediately sold the HW55 and got the X700, which still doesn't have good enough contrast and black levels for my liking. But I'm a contrast guy. Black is the canvas that all other colors are painted on, IMO. If the blacks aren't realistic, then the image fails to be realistic and believable. I would rather have perfect blacks than a really bright image.
I wouldn't call them mediocre in the context of what's currently available. Mediocre may be the appropriate word to use if you're talking in absolute terms, but by today's standards in the front projection market they are class leading. Other than perhaps the VW1100ES, what projector this bright can offer the same contrast performance? There are a handful of three chip DLPs that come close and are on par with it but that's it. If you have a large screen and want better than average contrast to fill a large screen a JVC will not cut it.
Mr. Hatcher's Avatar Mr. Hatcher
07:31 PM Liked: 94
post #10322 of 10350
01-28-2015 | Posts: 738
Joined: Dec 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seegs108 View Post
I wouldn't call them mediocre in the context of what's currently available. Mediocre may be the appropriate word to use if you're talking in absolute terms, but by today's standards in the front projection market they are class leading. Other than perhaps the VW1100ES, what projector this bright can offer the same contrast performance? There are a handful of three chip DLPs that come close and are on par with it but that's it. If you have a large screen and want better than average contrast to fill a large screen a JVC will not cut it.
Well JVC is the only projector I would even consider purchasing (in today's market) unless the Epson LS10000 proves to be a serious contender. But even then, those are both 2K machines, well pseudo 4K. And I have the X700 now and wouldn't dare buy another 2K/pseudo 4K projector. Native 4K or nothing for my next purchase.

But yes, in terms of what's currently available, JVC is the clear leader in the black level dpt. I still wouldn't buy a Sony projector because they are not up to my black level standards. They are mediocre at best, IMO, not even close to class leading. The only classes they are leading in is 4K and out-of-the-box color. The image on my HW55 looked much more flat and dull compared to my X700. And the VW600 is a glorified 4K version of the HW55, with a brighter lamp.

Now I'm not saying the VW600 is a bad projector, it just isn't something I would spend my money on. If it had JVC black levels and retained the same lumen output, then I'd take her on a date.
Seegs108's Avatar Seegs108
07:45 PM Liked: 387
post #10323 of 10350
01-28-2015 | Posts: 4,957
Joined: Jul 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Hatcher View Post
Well JVC is the only projector I would even consider purchasing unless the Epson LS10000 proves to be a contender. But even then, those are both 2K machines, well pseudo 4K. And I have the X700 now and wouldn't dare buy another 2K/pseudo 4K projector. Native 4K or nothing for my next purchase.

But yes, in terms of what's currently available, JVC is the clear leader in the black level dpt. I still wouldn't buy a Sony projector because they are not up to my black level standards. They are mediocre at best, IMO, not even close to class leading. The only classes they are leading in is 4K and out-of-the-box color. The image on my HW55 looked much more flat and dull compared to my X700. And the VW600 is a glorified 4K version of the HW55, with a brighter lamp.

Now I'm not saying the VW600 is a bad projector, it just isn't something I would spend my money on. If it had JVC black levels and retained the same lumen output, then I'd take her on a date.

You're missing the point being made. The JVC isn't bright enough for large screens. As you step up past the JVCs brightness you can't do better than the Sony projectors. There are a couple 3-chip DLPs that are about par with 600ES, but that's it. If you're in need of a lot of lumens the Sonys are "state of the art" in terms of contrast and black level.

So while they may not be for you there are some who need the brightness and commend Sony for having a product this bright that still allows them to get decent contrast performance.
Mr. Hatcher's Avatar Mr. Hatcher
07:57 PM Liked: 94
post #10324 of 10350
01-28-2015 | Posts: 738
Joined: Dec 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seegs108 View Post
You're missing the point being made. The JVC isn't bright enough for large screens. As you step up past the JVCs brightness you can't do better than the Sony projectors. There are a couple 3-chip DLPs that are about par with 600ES, but that's it. If you're in need of a lot of lumens the Sonys are "state of the art" in terms of contrast and black level.

So while they may not be for you there are some who need the brightness and commend Sony for having a product this bright that still allows them to get decent contrast performance.
Yes, I agree if you "need" larger than 120" diagonal, you will either have to get a brighter projector or a high gain screen.

But, I would sacrifice screen size for better black levels any day of the week. I'm content with what I have for now, but if nothing REVOLUTIONARY is announced within the next 3-4 years in the projection world that has better black levels and brightness and contrast & is 4K/8K and LED/laser powered, I will be jumping ship to OLED.
thezaks's Avatar thezaks
08:54 AM Liked: 18
post #10325 of 10350
Yesterday | Posts: 806
Joined: Dec 2005
I always like your suggestions Mr. Hatcher - great stuff! A couple of comments/questions:

1) Yes, the Darkstar is retro-reflective. However, the Darkstar allows for installation of the projector to be lined up with the top of the screen. In fact, it allows for the projector to be installed up to 5% of the screen height above or below the screen. This is how I tested with the sample, checking out how it would look at the bottom of the screen. The blacks on the Darkstar are really close to the blacks of the DNP 08-85, and the whites are brighter than the whites on the BD 1.4. Overall, great contrast! And, like the DNP's, the screen is fairly scratch resistant, unlike the BD's or especially the Seymour ambient light screens which are really bad with scratches.

2) I agree about the BD viewing angles - it's so easy to see with the sample. You can't even sit on the other side of the screen, without having the other side darkened. The Darkstar is so much better than the BD - more in line with the DNP's. It's a smooth drop off, after the 70 degree viewing cone.

3) Regarding your option with the Stewart ST100 for night viewing, would that screen be OK for a room that is not optimized for home theater? (white ceiling, beige walls, etc) Or, is an ambient light screen still recommended?

4) I completely agree with your final comment - get the best screen possible + a decent placeholder projector, and then get a really nice 4K projector in a few years.


Dave
AV Science Sales 5's Avatar AV Science Sales 5
09:15 AM Liked: 630
post #10326 of 10350
Yesterday | Posts: 9,002
Joined: Sep 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by thezaks View Post
I always like your suggestions Mr. Hatcher - great stuff! A couple of comments/questions:

1) Yes, the Darkstar is retro-reflective. However, the Darkstar allows for installation of the projector to be lined up with the top of the screen. In fact, it allows for the projector to be installed up to 5% of the screen height above or below the screen. This is how I tested with the sample, checking out how it would look at the bottom of the screen. The blacks on the Darkstar are really close to the blacks of the DNP 08-85, and the whites are brighter than the whites on the BD 1.4. Overall, great contrast! And, like the DNP's, the screen is fairly scratch resistant, unlike the BD's or especially the Seymour ambient light screens which are really bad with scratches.

2) I agree about the BD viewing angles - it's so easy to see with the sample. You can't even sit on the other side of the screen, without having the other side darkened. The Darkstar is so much better than the BD - more in line with the DNP's. It's a smooth drop off, after the 70 degree viewing cone.

3) Regarding your option with the Stewart ST100 for night viewing, would that screen be OK for a room that is not optimized for home theater? (white ceiling, beige walls, etc) Or, is an ambient light screen still recommended?

4) I completely agree with your final comment - get the best screen possible + a decent placeholder projector, and then get a really nice 4K projector in a few years.


Dave
Yes, you can mount there, but you lose most of the gain that you are needing. There is no way around that with a retro reflective screen.
Craig Peer's Avatar Craig Peer
09:47 AM Liked: 404
post #10327 of 10350
Yesterday | Posts: 5,855
Joined: Aug 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Hatcher View Post
Yeah, but those black levels on that Sony are mediocre at best. I had the HW55 and those two are very similar in the black level and contrast departments. I immediately sold the HW55 and got the X700, which still doesn't have good enough contrast and black levels for my liking. But I'm a contrast guy. Black is the canvas that all other colors are painted on, IMO. If the blacks aren't realistic, then the image fails to be realistic and believable. I would rather have perfect blacks than a really bright image.

I like JVC projectors, and I've had a couple in my theater. And yes, the blacks look great. But I prefer the look of both my Lumis and my VW600 overall. And I like a brighter picture and much brighter projector. So we will have to agree to disagree on this one. Black levels as set up in my theater, on my screen, are excellent with both projectors.
thezaks's Avatar thezaks
09:55 AM Liked: 18
post #10328 of 10350
Yesterday | Posts: 806
Joined: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by AV Science Sales 5 View Post
Yes, you can mount there, but you lose most of the gain that you are needing. There is no way around that with a retro reflective screen.
Hi Mike,

You would think it would lose the gain, and it probably does, compared to having the projector about mid-screen. However, it's still comparable to the BD 1.4, with respect to gain, when projector is mounted level with the top of the screen. In fact, the Darkstar is better with contrast and angles, when setup the same way as a BD+projector.

Have you tried out a sample of the Darkstar yet? The EPV folks have a 40" sample for dealers, which would be a nice way to get an idea of how it performs.


Dave
thezaks's Avatar thezaks
10:28 AM Liked: 18
post #10329 of 10350
Yesterday | Posts: 806
Joined: Dec 2005
By the way, I forgot to mention one other advantage of the Darkstar - the image with the Darkstar 1.4 is sharper than both the BD 1.4 and the DNP 2.3.

Dave
Mr. Hatcher's Avatar Mr. Hatcher
04:43 PM Liked: 94
post #10330 of 10350
Yesterday | Posts: 738
Joined: Dec 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by thezaks View Post
I always like your suggestions Mr. Hatcher - great stuff! A couple of comments/questions:

1) Yes, the Darkstar is retro-reflective. However, the Darkstar allows for installation of the projector to be lined up with the top of the screen. In fact, it allows for the projector to be installed up to 5% of the screen height above or below the screen. This is how I tested with the sample, checking out how it would look at the bottom of the screen. The blacks on the Darkstar are really close to the blacks of the DNP 08-85, and the whites are brighter than the whites on the BD 1.4. Overall, great contrast! And, like the DNP's, the screen is fairly scratch resistant, unlike the BD's or especially the Seymour ambient light screens which are really bad with scratches.

2) I agree about the BD viewing angles - it's so easy to see with the sample. You can't even sit on the other side of the screen, without having the other side darkened. The Darkstar is so much better than the BD - more in line with the DNP's. It's a smooth drop off, after the 70 degree viewing cone.

3) Regarding your option with the Stewart ST100 for night viewing, would that screen be OK for a room that is not optimized for home theater? (white ceiling, beige walls, etc) Or, is an ambient light screen still recommended?

4) I completely agree with your final comment - get the best screen possible + a decent placeholder projector, and then get a really nice 4K projector in a few years.


Dave
No problem at all Dave. My suggestions are purely subjective, and are solely based on what "I" can afford without selling organs on the black market, LOL!

1) Now you're making me want to order some screen samples, LOL! I did some additional research and you're absolutely correct, the projector can be placed +/-5% above/below the top/bottom edges of the screen, respectively. So as long as your angle of incidence is lined up so the light from the lens reflects off the screen and straight to the sweet spot where you will be seating, you will see "up to" 1.4 gain.
http://catalogs.infocommiq.com/avcat...hite_Paper.pdf

How is sparkling/graininess? That's the biggest turnoff of any screen for me. Every ALR screen I have tested thus far (besides DNP) was atrocious in regards to sparkling! DNP was the only screen that minimally exhibited sparkling enough for me to even considering purchasing.

2) Thumbs up!

3) I believe you would be better off with just using an ALR screen in this regard. Yes, the ST100 is the absolute best screen I have tested as far as not exhibiting any distracting artifacts whatsoever. But it will reflect light in all directions since it's a Lambertian diffuser. So even with the lights off in your room, the ALR screen will still have better contrast because it will still be absorbing light that's reflecting around the room.

4) +1, we're just in that unfortunate transitional period where it can be easy to get sucked into making poor purchasing decisions by fancy marketing #'s and terminology. This is fine if you have the money to help beta test in production (the wealthy fuel continued R&D and help work out the early bugs, firmware updates/minor hardware revisions). But I tend to let new tech get on the market for 4-5 years so all the bugs and revisions have been fixed and implemented and the prices come down before I jump on the bandwagon.

Check out these links:
EPV eFinity - I wish the Darkstar materials were compatible with this frame. I much prefer the zero edge look and LED surround lighting.
EPV Darkstar 9 (isf Certified) - This is a .9 gain version of the Darkstar material that has received isf Certification. Color me intrigued. I definitely need to order some Darkstar samples now.
Vutec SilverStar 2.2 (isf Certified) I've been waiting for this screen to come out, but information has been scarce lately. I figured it would've been released by now since it has received isf Certification. A first for a high gain screen.
Revosoft Couch Screen - This screen looks super nice, but it's curved and doesn't have very good viewing angles. I've had extensive conversations with customer service and they have been very pleasing to speak with. So that speaks highly of them. They have lots of videos comparing their screen to DNP and others, pretty impressive stuff.
thezaks's Avatar thezaks
05:08 PM Liked: 18
post #10331 of 10350
Yesterday | Posts: 806
Joined: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Hatcher View Post
How is sparkling/graininess? That's the biggest turnoff of any screen for me. Every ALR screen I have tested thus far (besides DNP) was atrocious in regards to sparkling! DNP was the only screen that minimally exhibited sparkling enough for me to even considering purchasing.
That's a great question. I have not been looking for sparkling, but graininess is something I noticed with the BD screens. I have not noticed it as much with the Darkstar - then again, I have only seen a Darkstar sample, not a full screen. I'll be excited to see what you think of the Darkstar. By the way, I received a sample that had been cut the wrong way. I had to turn it on its side to have the correct orientation. Otherwise, it was nearly completely black, when standing 3-4 or more feet to one side of the sample.

Dave
Mr. Hatcher's Avatar Mr. Hatcher
05:10 PM Liked: 94
post #10332 of 10350
Yesterday | Posts: 738
Joined: Dec 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Peer View Post
I like JVC projectors, and I've had a couple in my theater. And yes, the blacks look great. But I prefer the look of both my Lumis and my VW600 overall. And I like a brighter picture and much brighter projector. So we will have to agree to disagree on this one. Black levels as set up in my theater, on my screen, are excellent with both projectors.
No, I'm not really disagreeing with you per se, it's all purely subjective. We all have different tastes, that's why having many options/choices is a good thing for us consumers.

And I may end up purchasing a bright single chip DLP to stack with my JVC and take outside for game day sometimes, but I can't get rid of my JVC. JVC for 2D & 3D (lights off viewing). And whatever else I end up with for 2D (lights on viewing) and gaming.

I will however be replacing my JVC with whatever native 4K beast comes out that has the same or better black levels, brightness & contrast and is LED/laser powered (since it's my primary display). I do want a brighter projector, hell we all do. But black levels just make the image much more believable to my eyes. I feel like I'm there more often when watching movies on my JVC vs any other display I've ever seen outside of OLED. But I watch a lot of movies with dark content so having a convincing shade of black is a must for me, else the whole image falls apart and I'm not a part of the experience any longer.

I'm sure your screening room is most excellent though, Craig. Cheers!
Mr. Hatcher's Avatar Mr. Hatcher
05:44 PM Liked: 94
post #10333 of 10350
Yesterday | Posts: 738
Joined: Dec 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by thezaks View Post
That's a great question. I have not been looking for sparkling, but graininess is something I noticed with the BD screens. I have not noticed it as much with the Darkstar - then again, I have only seen a Darkstar sample, not a full screen. I'll be excited to see what you think of the Darkstar. By the way, I received a sample that had been cut the wrong way. I had to turn it on its side to have the correct orientation. Otherwise, it was nearly completely black, when standing 3-4 or more feet to one side of the sample.

Dave
Well if you still have the sample and can look for sparkling, just try to position the sample where the image is the brightest (somewhere in the middle vertical section of the image, from the center of the screen up). This should be the worse case scenario/most demanding test for sparkling, and would be the most visible on a full screen in this area (this is also the area where hotspotting would occur).
DavidHir's Avatar DavidHir
06:16 PM Liked: 494
post #10334 of 10350
Yesterday | Posts: 10,682
Joined: Dec 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Hatcher View Post
Yes, I agree if you "need" larger than 120" diagonal, you will either have to get a brighter projector or a high gain screen.

But, I would sacrifice screen size for better black levels any day of the week. I'm content with what I have for now, but if nothing REVOLUTIONARY is announced within the next 3-4 years in the projection world that has better black levels and brightness and contrast & is 4K/8K and LED/laser powered, I will be jumping ship to OLED.

Whoa, 8K in 3-4 years? I cannot envision that.
Mr. Hatcher's Avatar Mr. Hatcher
06:21 PM Liked: 94
post #10335 of 10350
Yesterday | Posts: 738
Joined: Dec 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by thezaks View Post
Hi Mike,

You would think it would lose the gain, and it probably does, compared to having the projector about mid-screen. However, it's still comparable to the BD 1.4, with respect to gain, when projector is mounted level with the top of the screen. In fact, the Darkstar is better with contrast and angles, when setup the same way as a BD+projector.

Have you tried out a sample of the Darkstar yet? The EPV folks have a 40" sample for dealers, which would be a nice way to get an idea of how it performs.


Dave
Just remember, samples wont tell the whole story, but doing it the way you are is the best way to get a good idea of what will look better to your eyes in your viewing environment. That's the most important aspect of the whole process. You have to match the projector and screen to your room and it's a tedious process/delicate balancing act. You have to figure out the pros and cons and what you can/can't live with/without. Nothing is perfect, but you're doing things the right way to help you make the most informed purchasing decisions. Do plenty of research and in-person demos to ensure you purchase quality products and avoid the snake oil.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thezaks View Post
By the way, I forgot to mention one other advantage of the Darkstar - the image with the Darkstar 1.4 is sharper than both the BD 1.4 and the DNP 2.3.

Dave
That sounds excellent! The DNP screens were sharper than any of the other ALR screens I tested. I'm inclined to believe that the sharpness is directly related to sparkling. More sparkling = more graininess = less sharpness. So that bodes well for the Darkstar material if it is indeed sharper than the DNP material.

Andrew Robinson seemed to really like it as well in his review.
Mr. Hatcher's Avatar Mr. Hatcher
06:28 PM Liked: 94
post #10336 of 10350
Yesterday | Posts: 738
Joined: Dec 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidHir View Post
Whoa, 8K in 3-4 years? I cannot envision that.
Yeah, I may have over-exaggerated there by a few years, LOL!

But Sharp, LG & Samsung are already demoing 8K prototypes. Physical media content is still a ways off (if it doesn't get killed off entirely by then), but I bet it will be here within 10 years. OTA (over-the-air) or OTW (over-the-wire) content may take a bit longer to materialize, but at the rate technology is progressing these days and with better data compression techniques and algorithms on the horizon, 8K is sure to get pushed on us sooner rather than later. From all I've read, 8K is truly like looking out a window into the world, 0 pixel structure even with your nose pressed to the screen. Sign me up!
Craig Peer's Avatar Craig Peer
10:01 AM Liked: 404
post #10337 of 10350
Today | Posts: 5,855
Joined: Aug 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Hatcher View Post
Yeah, I may have over-exaggerated there by a few years, LOL!

But Sharp, LG & Samsung are already demoing 8K prototypes. Physical media content is still a ways off (if it doesn't get killed off entirely by then), but I bet it will be here within 10 years. OTA (over-the-air) or OTW (over-the-wire) content may take a bit longer to materialize, but at the rate technology is progressing these days and with better data compression techniques and algorithms on the horizon, 8K is sure to get pushed on us sooner rather than later. From all I've read, 8K is truly like looking out a window into the world, 0 pixel structure even with your nose pressed to the screen. Sign me up!

We wouldn't necessarily need 8K content. I certainly don't " need " 4K content to watch my VW600. It looks excellent with current good Blu Rays.
zombie10k's Avatar zombie10k
10:24 AM Liked: 452
post #10338 of 10350
Today | Posts: 7,897
Joined: Dec 2007
I like Pioneer gear, I have an old school CLD-99 Laserdisc player (with the wood side panels), an SC-07 and SC-68 receiver but this is a seriously expensive bluray player..

http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/PU...ayers/BDP-88FD

it does have the full HDMI 2.0 spec for output but not sure what value this has for the current BD content. A $2,000 BD player better make me breakfast in the morning.
stanger89's Avatar stanger89
10:38 AM Liked: 197
post #10339 of 10350
Today | Posts: 17,688
Joined: Nov 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Peer View Post
We wouldn't necessarily need 8K content. I certainly don't " need " 4K content to watch my VW600. It looks excellent with current good Blu Rays.
Yeah, I think 8K TVs/projectors are like 4K smartphones.
Barry C's Avatar Barry C
10:46 AM Liked: 54
post #10340 of 10350
Today | Posts: 313
Joined: Oct 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Peer View Post
We wouldn't necessarily need 8K content. I certainly don't " need " 4K content to watch my VW600. It looks excellent with current good Blu Rays.
From any NORMAL viewing distance- resolution wise- 8K is even more meaningless then 4K in most home theater applications. I'm using a 10' wide screen and have very little interest in 4K other than, perhaps, for the increased color capabilities and HDR. But, even with that, the jury is still out for me until I see how in real world viewing terms, as opposed to hype and meaningless specs on paper, these new features are implemented.
AV Science Sales 5's Avatar AV Science Sales 5
11:01 AM Liked: 630
post #10341 of 10350
Today | Posts: 9,002
Joined: Sep 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post
Yeah, I think 8K TVs/projectors are like 4K smartphones.
The very few that have 12' wide and larger screens would probably appreciate 8K.
Craig Peer's Avatar Craig Peer
11:23 AM Liked: 404
post #10342 of 10350
Today | Posts: 5,855
Joined: Aug 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry C View Post
From any NORMAL viewing distance- resolution wise- 8K is even more meaningless then 4K in most home theater applications. I'm using a 10' wide screen and have very little interest in 4K other than, perhaps, for the increased color capabilities and HDR. But, even with that, the jury is still out for me until I see how in real world viewing terms, as opposed to hype and meaningless specs on paper, these new features are implemented.
Sure, but if they build them, we will buy them. And at some point, all the new improvements will be in the latest and greatest projectors - whatever those are.


I have a screen about the same size as yours, and my 4K projector is an improvement - not so much from the increased resolution, more for the brightness and other attributes of the projector.
Barry C's Avatar Barry C
11:47 AM Liked: 54
post #10343 of 10350
Today | Posts: 313
Joined: Oct 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Peer View Post
Sure, but if they build them, we will buy them. And at some point, all the new improvements will be in the latest and greatest projectors - whatever those are.


I have a screen about the same size as yours, and my 4K projector is an improvement - not so much from the increased resolution, more for the brightness and other attributes of the projector.
Agreed. On my next update cycle- which won't be for 2 or 3 years, I'm sure that I'll get a 4K projector, not because I'm excited about 4K but because that's what will be broadly available by then. My projector is extremely bright and for 2D, I watch it at at cinema normal mode. Even for screens 12', I'm very skeptical that, from normal viewing distances, there will be ANY discernable advantage with 8K. I suspect, Joe Kane would agree.
cardoski's Avatar cardoski
12:56 PM Liked: 120
post #10344 of 10350
Today | Posts: 986
Joined: Feb 2011
Certainly not against 4K, but for me a significantly brighter JVC would get me to upgrade before 4K would. If they released a 4k PJ that is basically the JVC X500 with 4k and no significant improvement in brightness I would likely pass.


As it is now, my X500 has to have the iris all the way open in low lamp mode. My 1.0 gain screen looks amazing as far as color uniformity and contrast, but lacks some real punch it the brightness department. I have mentioned in this thread a few times that I agonize over getting a higher gain screen, but in the end it always comes down to me feeling like I would be giving up too much. So JVC give me 1500-2000 calibrated lumen light cannon.lol
stanger89's Avatar stanger89
01:03 PM Liked: 197
post #10345 of 10350
Today | Posts: 17,688
Joined: Nov 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by AV Science Sales 5 View Post
The very few that have 12' wide and larger screens would probably appreciate 8K.
It's not so much the size as the viewing angle. Supposedly we can see about 100 pixels per degree, at that rate "4K" is 2160 lines, so 21.6 degrees, or about 2.5 picture heights before there aren't enough pixels to "saturate" our eyesight. For 8k that's 43.2 degrees, or about 1 picture heights. I'm a bit over 3 picture heights right now, and I'd like to be a bit closer, but I don't think I'd go under 2PH. How many actually sit, or want to sit at or less than 1PH, that's basically a 100 degree (horizontal) viewing angle for scope.

That said I am excited about 4K resolution. I've said before, but even at ~3PH, I can see artifacts/limitations (jaggies) on my 1080p DLP under the right conditions. 1080p "saturation" point is only 10.8 degrees (at 100pixels/degree), which amounts to a bit over 5PH seating distance. I'm well within that, for me UHD/4K/2160p would be about perfect.

NHK did a study on resolution vs realness:
http://www.nhk.or.jp/strl/results/an...0_chapter1.pdf

They found 120 pixels/degree (60 cycles/degree) is about the beginning of the saturation point with over 300 being where reality and reproduction are indistinguishable. By 300 pixels/degree, that's 4PH for 8K. That said with the general consensus of ~100pixels/degree, it seems 4K is about the perfect resolution for projection at SMPTE/Fox/THX recommended seating distances, 1080p is really not sufficient to make pixels invisible at those distances (2-4 picture heights).
Craig Peer's Avatar Craig Peer
01:10 PM Liked: 404
post #10346 of 10350
Today | Posts: 5,855
Joined: Aug 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by cardoski View Post
Certainly not against 4K, but for me a significantly brighter JVC would get me to upgrade before 4K would. If they released a 4k PJ that is basically the JVC X500 with 4k and no significant improvement in brightness I would likely pass.


As it is now, my X500 has to have the iris all the way open in low lamp mode. My 1.0 gain screen looks amazing as far as color uniformity and contrast, but lacks some real punch it the brightness department. I have mentioned in this thread a few times that I agonize over getting a higher gain screen, but in the end it always comes down to me feeling like I would be giving up too much. So JVC give me 1500-2000 calibrated lumen light cannon.lol

Now you are talking my language !! The best thing about Sony's new 4k projectors IMO ( beside the 4K thing ) is the brightness. I love a bright punchy picture!! In fact I have friends that are dying to watch Avatar on my VW600 ( so am I ) this weekend !!
millerwill's Avatar millerwill
01:53 PM Liked: 49
post #10347 of 10350
Today | Posts: 11,456
Joined: Apr 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post
It's not so much the size as the viewing angle. Supposedly we can see about 100 pixels per degree, at that rate "4K" is 2160 lines, so 21.6 degrees, or about 2.5 picture heights before there aren't enough pixels to "saturate" our eyesight. For 8k that's 43.2 degrees, or about 1 picture heights. I'm a bit over 3 picture heights right now, and I'd like to be a bit closer, but I don't think I'd go under 2PH. How many actually sit, or want to sit at or less than 1PH, that's basically a 100 degree (horizontal) viewing angle for scope.

That said I am excited about 4K resolution. I've said before, but even at ~3PH, I can see artifacts/limitations (jaggies) on my 1080p DLP under the right conditions. 1080p "saturation" point is only 10.8 degrees (at 100pixels/degree), which amounts to a bit over 5PH seating distance. I'm well within that, for me UHD/4K/2160p would be about perfect.

NHK did a study on resolution vs realness:
http://www.nhk.or.jp/strl/results/an...0_chapter1.pdf

They found 120 pixels/degree (60 cycles/degree) is about the beginning of the saturation point with over 300 being where reality and reproduction are indistinguishable. By 300 pixels/degree, that's 4PH for 8K. That said with the general consensus of ~100pixels/degree, it seems 4K is about the perfect resolution for projection at SMPTE/Fox/THX recommended seating distances, 1080p is really not sufficient to make pixels invisible at those distances (2-4 picture heights).
Sony's literature claims that 4K allows one to sit as close at 1.6 PH. I sit at ~ 1.8 PH (~11 ft from a 6 ft high screen), and this is about as close as I find desirable (but do really like it at this distance). I thus agree that I don't see any point in 8K.
Craig Peer's Avatar Craig Peer
02:16 PM Liked: 404
post #10348 of 10350
Today | Posts: 5,855
Joined: Aug 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by millerwill View Post
Sony's literature claims that 4K allows one to sit as close at 1.6 PH. I sit at ~ 1.8 PH (~11 ft from a 6 ft high screen), and this is about as close as I find desirable (but do really like it at this distance). I thus agree that I don't see any point in 8K.

You aren't looking at 8K from a marketing perspective - " New, Improved 8K SUHD ( Super Ultra High Definition ).
Mr. Hatcher's Avatar Mr. Hatcher
02:46 PM Liked: 94
post #10349 of 10350
Today | Posts: 738
Joined: Dec 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by AV Science Sales 5 View Post
The very few that have 12' wide and larger screens would probably appreciate 8K.
I am really excited for 8K. 4K was so 2014, LOL! LG is supposedly releasing a 55" 8K OLED by the end of the year. Some people will say you can't see a difference from a normal seating distance, and some may not be able to (depends on your visual acuity), but higher resolution really helps with aliasing, gradation, zooming on fine details, text, etc...

http://www.homecinemachoice.com/news...u-think/14385/
http://www.hfrmovies.com/2013/09/27/...or-resolution/

Screw 4K, I'll upgrade straight from 2K - 8K in 5-years.
DavidHir's Avatar DavidHir
03:01 PM Liked: 494
post #10350 of 10350
Today | Posts: 10,682
Joined: Dec 2004
I wouldn't be surprised to see some sort of 8K upscaling in 4-5 years though. They are going to need to something "new" to market and hype.
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