Originally Posted by dlimatime
Why do these Sony's, JVC's & Epson mainstream models get such great reviews all the time when they all have shortcomings/issues? (ie. motion judder, blur, screen door, brightness)..
I'm beginning to think Art at Projector Reviews put way too much emphasis on black level and strictly blu-ray movie viewing. Many of us will also use the projector for HDTV & sports on DirectTV and Cable TV and not just blu-ray movies. This is mainly why I'm happy with the Sharp and it does produce a nice image on blu-ray as well. I briefly owned both the Sony HW50 & Epson 5020 and returned both of them because I was not at all impressed with the Sony & Epson on HDTV 2D sports because of the frequent motion judder problem.
Art F. either didn't test for motion judder w/HDTV sports or he is simply omitting it from his reviews. As thorough as Art's reviews appear, he should also test and comment more thoroughly on projector performance with other viewing content besides blu-ray movies. I have not seen any motion judder on the Sharp and the image is crisp and sharper than the Sony & Epson. I believe this is an advantage of dlp technology.
For a long time black level/contrast on projectors was terrible, it was by far the biggest issue, so a lot of people/us got used to just evaluating projectors almost solely on their black level/contrast. I think a lot of that mindset remains. On top of that, I'd say "most" people "serious" into projectors are for the purpose of movie watching, so that also tends to be the focus.
Based on reviews the higher end Runco's & Sim2 projectors also have flaws... As per Art's reviews and others I've read the black levels, rainbows, lower lumens etc. of these these so-called "high end" top $ projectors don't necessarily provide greater performance. One could argue that these higher end projector companies are overated/overpriced projectors that in many cases do not even outperform the mainstream models from companies like Sony, Epson, Optoma etc. Ask yourself which companies truly offer the better price/performance value?
I don't think that's fair, if you're curious, go over to the $20k+ forum and read about the Lumis vs JVCs, it's interesting. That aside, I think a lot of reviewers, especially "internet" reviewers are enamored by low price and they tend to overstate the "issues" of high end machines in an (unconscious?) attempt to justify complaining about the high price. To be sure the cost/value goes down with higher end machines, but to say they don't provide greater performance I think is naive. I might have gone along with that line of thought for my first few projectors, up until I got my Planar 8150. It replaced a BenQ W5000. By the "internet wisdom", they're very similar and the Planar would be overpriced. Same sized DMD (0.95") similar brightness, etc. Only "significant" difference is the DC3 in the Planar vs the DC2 in the W5000, so "internet wisdom" would say the Planar is overpriced vs the BenQ and not worth it. But the Planar was just in a different league. Colors, sharpness, contrast and just overall refinement are much better on the Planar (though admittedly, at this level/these days it's not a knock your socks off obvious difference).
I have no doubt a Lumis, Vango, Mico, etc would be a significant improvement too. A Sim2 may be my next projector (not soon) for all the reasons discussed here, confusingly/paradoxically/disappointingly (yet somehow happily) unless you're looking for 3D or Frame Interpolation or other "features", there's just nothing compelling out there to upgrade from one of the "older" top DLPs, other than an even better, more expensive ultra high-end DLP.
Originally Posted by dlimatime
Is the .95 chip the newest/latest dlp chip from Texas Instruments and what are the so-called advantages of the .95 chip?
FWIW, the 0.95" chip is "older" or should I say came out first. The first 1080p HT DLP chips were 0.95" and every 1080p DLP had them. There have been about 4 revisions from the original to DC2, DC3, DC4 (DC4 is found in projectors like the Sim2 Mico, the Vango, and other high end ones). For a long time the price differentiation in DLPs was the DCx chip (eg the 8150 had a DC3, the 8130 had a DC2).
My understanding is the 0.65" DMD was made only for cost considerations. The smaller chip allows building projectors good placement flexibility more cheaply. That was a common complaint with the large DMD DLPs, they were generally restrictive in placement because things like lens shift/zoom with large chips require large expensive optics. AFAIK
there's no reason to use a 0.65" DMD over a 0.95" one other than to reduce cost (at the price of performance).