Sony VPL-VW500ES - 4k Projector - 2013 - Page 31 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #901 of 1083 Old 10-30-2013, 03:50 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
mark haflich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: brookeville, maryland, usa
Posts: 19,876
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 415 Post(s)
Liked: 464
M.G. You may not be a cigar smoker but as an AV salesman you are hot and smoking.

I am watching the Red game in a few minutes and I will send a cigar bet tomorrow. I think it will have to be a Cubano of some sort.

Mark Haflich

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

call me at: 240 876 2536
mark haflich is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #902 of 1083 Old 10-30-2013, 03:55 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Manni01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,375
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 136 Post(s)
Liked: 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manni01 View Post

Sure, I don't really smoke, but if I won that bet I'd sure feel like smoking a nice Cohiba, especially if it had been chosen by Mark biggrin.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

I think it will have to be a Cubano of some sort.

Did Cohiba move their production out of Cuba, or did you miss my post and do we think alike? smile.gif
Manni01 is online now  
post #903 of 1083 Old 10-30-2013, 04:07 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
mark haflich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: brookeville, maryland, usa
Posts: 19,876
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 415 Post(s)
Liked: 464
Two companies make Cohibas. One in Cuba and the other in the Dominican Republic. I think it should be the ones made in Cuba. smile.gif

Mark Haflich

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

call me at: 240 876 2536
mark haflich is offline  
post #904 of 1083 Old 10-30-2013, 04:26 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Manni01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,375
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 136 Post(s)
Liked: 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

Two companies make Cohibas. One in Cuba and the other in the Dominican Republic. I think it should be the ones made in Cuba. smile.gif

I had no idea, but definitely! smile.gif
Manni01 is online now  
post #905 of 1083 Old 10-30-2013, 04:39 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Craig Peer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: In my home theater ( when I'm not rock climbing, cycling or kayaking ) - Sacramento CA area
Posts: 5,001
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 174 Post(s)
Liked: 264
Quote:
Two companies make Cohibas. One in Cuba and the other in the Dominican Republic. I think it should be the ones made in Cuba.

I sure hope my buddy Jill managed to bring me some Montecristo Cubans back from France. I'll find out Friday. smile.gif

Craig Peer, AV Science Sales. Direct Line - 585-671-2972
I'm available 8:30am - 4:30pm PST, Monday - Friday Email me at
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Yes, we sell Home Theater gear right here at AVS !!
JVC, Sony, Epson, DPI, SV Sound, Martin Logan, RBH, Klipsch, and many more!
Craig Peer is offline  
post #906 of 1083 Old 10-30-2013, 10:16 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Chris Dallas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada & Malibu California.
Posts: 1,248
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
4K content on a disc is a done deal imo and they will beat the 2015 deadline I think manni wins this one.

This is just a link confirming the 300GB discs and that's by 2015 but a 150GB will be here much sooner than
Dec 2014 I think July-Sept of 2014

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2045518/will-new-300gb-optical-discs-be-good-for-businesses-.html

Cheers
Chris

Sony VPL-VW500ES, 150" width 2.35:1 screen, Proud owner of 1 of 399 Enzo Ferrari's in the world, a gorgeous yellow Ferrari 599GTB, + a 1970 Road Runner see it
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Chris Dallas is offline  
post #907 of 1083 Old 10-31-2013, 12:05 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Manni01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,375
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 136 Post(s)
Liked: 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Dallas View Post

4K content on a disc is a done deal imo and they will beat the 2015 deadline I think manni wins this one.

This is just a link confirming the 300GB discs and that's by 2015 but a 150GB will be here much sooner than
Dec 2014 I think July-Sept of 2014

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2045518/will-new-300gb-optical-discs-be-good-for-businesses-.html

Thanks for the vote of confidence Chris, but these are meant for business use and the BDA has confirmed they were not expecting to use these for movie distribution.

Although I probably shouldn't disclose this before Mark decides what he wants to bet, I guess a full disclosure of my sources would be more fair so here goes.

Until last February, the BDA wouldn't say a word because they didn't want people to stop buying bluray once they knew a new format was on its way.

While I always hoped that the Bluray 4K was closer than Mark did, I wouldn't have bet anything then.

But at the IFA in Berlin the BDA confirmed for the first time that a task force had been set up about a year ago and was working hard on Bluray 4K. They even detailed their goals and promised an "imminent" announcement, which meant at the time by the end of this year, but I don't think we have much chances to see anything before Q1 2014. This info was published by many other sources.

The second thing that was holding us back was that while we already had drives able to archive up to 128GB on bluray with BDXL (and that's the key thing, the technology for the Bluray 4K hardware, up to 128Gb with 4 layers or 100Gb with 3 layers and back compatible with standard blurays, already exists and might even be included in the PS4), there was no mastering devices able to serialise the generation of mass-produced bd-roms, which is needed for commercial movies distribution.

This was announced more recently by Singulus and again was published by a few sources. This means that 100Gb blurays holding commercial movie content can now be mass produced.

Apart from HDMI 2.0 which was announced at Cedia, and along with updated content protection delivered by HDCP 2.2 (both thankfully present in the VW500ES), the final piece of the jigsaw for Bluray 4K was HEVC (x265), the new compression which is due to replace x264 used for blurays and which is twice as efficient. The HEVC standard has been officially submitted for approval in August 2012 and was approved in January 2013. It is already implemented in some devices and can easily be updated by firmware should it be needed, provided the device has enough processing power.

If you add to all this 1) the fact that the internet bandwidth in the US is just sufficient to allow downloads of high quality 4K content (certainly not streaming), which means that people using say the Sony 4K server will have to wait for A DAY or more in many cases for the download of their movie to complete (and that's if just one movie doesn't explode their monthly download limit), and 2) that along with some rights issue the reason why Sony is not distributing its 4K server in the rest of the world is because internet bandwidth is not ready for the 45-60Gb files you need to download (even compressed using the Eye-IO technology which uses x.v.color), and 3) that most analysts don't expect the world pipes to be up to scratch for a decade, they desperately need a Bluray 4K to provide content (not limited to Sony movies) to most parts of the world, or they simply won't sell their UHD TV sets and projectors to more than a handful of people.

This is why I believe - just my personal opinion - that contrary to what most of us would hope for, which is a fixed and significantly wider gamut for Bluray 4K like rec2020 or DCI, we'll end up for Bluray 4K with the only options that most current consumer displays (including this year's Sony models) can support today and in the near future - at least until we get OLED for large TV sets and possibly Laser/LED for projectors - and that is either rec-709 or xvycc (x.v.color as part of Sony's Trilluminos). Sony probably has the clout to push x.v.color for Bluray 4K and most other manufacturers can support it (it's part of the HDMI specs since V1.3) even if it means in most cases that we'll get barely more than rec-709 on displays using current technologies.

Also, UHDTV is not expected before 2015 in most countries, and at the moment no consumer display or projector (including the VW500/600ES and the Sony VW1x00ES) is compatible with the standard drafted in ITU-R BT.2020, primarily because of the 10.2Gbits/ limitation of the early HDMI 2.0 implementations at the HDMI 1.4 max speed of 10.2Gbits instead of the full HDMI 2.0 18Gbits (which limits 60p to 8 bits 420 when the requirements are 50 or 60p at 10 or 12 bits) and their limited native gamut which is not able to support rec2020.

So IMHO the whole industry - as well as us enthusiasts - desperately needs Bluray 4K, as it's not only the main source of commercial 4K content that is likely to be able to be distributed in the whole world before 2015, it's also the only one that projectors like the VW500ES are likely to be able to accept in the next couple of years, unless the ITU revises the UHDTV BT.2020 recommendations to accommodate more displays and makes some requirements (like the gamut and colour depth) optional or replaces them with less demanding ones.

Sony might just get away this year with offering no 4K commercial content outside of the U.S. but I don't think they'll be able to pull that off next year, or people will - rightly - start to wonder if any 4K commercial content is to come at all.

Here you go. I still believe the odds are strongly in Mark's favour, but at least you know why I volunteered to be a sucker smile.gif.
kbfern likes this.
Manni01 is online now  
post #908 of 1083 Old 10-31-2013, 02:45 AM
Member
 
kbfern's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Wolverhampton,United Kingdom
Posts: 89
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I totally support your views Manny as they make sense, without 4k disc media UHD is almost a dead duck at this stage, 4k streaming is years away so is 4k tv transmission (other than maybe by satellite) so if the tv/pj manufacturers want to sell us kit 4k disc is a must. In any case 4k disc like 1080p bluray is the way to go to ensure a top quality image as HD streaming and sat tv is inferior to bluray disc at this point.

They will have to ensure though that 4k bluray is not too big a premium over 1080p bluray, 50% max would be comfortable for me.
kbfern is offline  
post #909 of 1083 Old 10-31-2013, 02:50 AM
AVS Special Member
 
coolgeek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,578
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 63 Post(s)
Liked: 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbfern View Post

I totally support your views Manny as they make sense, without 4k disc media UHD is almost a dead duck at this stage, 4k streaming is years away so is 4k tv transmission (other than maybe by satellite) so if the tv/pj manufacturers want to sell us kit 4k disc is a must. In any case 4k disc like 1080p bluray is the way to go to ensure a top quality image as HD streaming and sat tv is inferior to bluray disc at this point.

They will have to ensure though that 4k bluray is not too big a premium over 1080p bluray, 50% max would be comfortable for me.

The mere fact that content owners can resell old movies over and over again almost guarantees that 4K bluray disc will see the light of day.

And downloading 4K materials might be a little hard when dealing with limited bandwidth, so that solve a tiny bit of the piracy issue for them as well... so, if the pricing is right (again, I would suggest a pricing not more than bluray), then more ppl will buy it. If they had fair pricing (ie, not exhorbitant prices for developing countries (where a bluray disc amounts to 3-5 days of work), then they might actually outsell the pirates...


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
coolgeek is offline  
post #910 of 1083 Old 10-31-2013, 06:41 AM
Advanced Member
 
danieledmunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Bermuda
Posts: 986
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 15
I have to admit I have not read all the posts in this thread and have just realised this is a bit off-topic but my take on 4K distribution is that it may well be a streaming service. I am not convinced we will see a different physical format for 4K, possibly highly compressed 4K movies on a standard Blu-Ray disc as an interim. The PS4's game downloads are expected to be 40-50Gbs for each game, with players being able to stream the game before it fully downloads. I am sure the XboxOne is going to be a similar situation.
Both Microsoft and Sony fully expect people who can afford to buy their next gen consoles to be able to afford the bandwidth too or are expecting the demand for bandwidth to increase. On a global scale infrastructure may not be up to par for several years but they may only be concerning themselves with those who can afford it for the time being. As there would not be manufactured product, distribution numbers will not matter as much for a streaming service, they could just charge more if uptake is limited.

If anything, I think the reason you are not seeing a physical or streaming service for 4K at the moment is because the next-gen consoles will be used to test the water and see whether the public accepts longer download times or plan to upgrade their internet bandwidth.
Look at Sony's strategy for music, you cannot play MP3s on the PS4 but you are more than welcome to sign up for their Music Unlimited service wink.gif
Apart from saying that DVD and Blu-Rays are supported, they haven't clarified the situation regarding video file playback on their, otherwise comprehensive, FAQ page. The reason for that may be that they want to avoid the press backlash that would ensue if they announced you could no longer playback video files.

Don't be surprised if you see Video Unlimited 4K coming soon...

danieledmunds is offline  
post #911 of 1083 Old 10-31-2013, 05:58 PM
Member
 
New Design's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 104
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
I agree with the point about a disc type format for 4k. For most people though, it would look like a step backwards. Convenience seems to win over quality for most people. Cd is better than mp3 in quality but try and find a shop that still sells them....


Sony are too big to focus on people who read these forums. Enthusiasts are a small niche. The average man on the street, who they need to focus on at their size, has never heard of 4k still.

A guy I met from Sony who was answering questions on 4k tv's in best buy, was getting his information about a new content format from google searches. That isn't a good sign if they haven't announced anything internally. They are probably going to miss the holiday period for this year now. That could mean nothing until next summer at the earliest.

The Sony rep seemed to think they were going to focus on downloading instead of streaming which makes some sense. You can leave a file downloading overnight if needed. If they charge $30 per download like he said, I can't see that service being hugely popular. For $30, people want a physical disc. If you are not a collector, a $4.99 HD streaming rental is tough competition.

Content just being 4k isn't enough in my opinion. Overly compressed 4k formats will sacrifice quality and quality is the only thing 4k has going for it. I would be interested in 4k if I could get access to the same files used by movie theaters. Even if I had to take my hard drive into the Sony store to add new content, at least I would be able to view the best quality available. That has real value. We don't need another cut down and compromised home format. 1080p is fine for that. Not all 4k s equal just like not all 1080p is equal.

The super expensive early plasma tv's from pioneer which were built without compromise, could not be matched until the very last generation of plasma. Right now, we have seen the equivalent expensive 4k tv's. we won't know how much difference it will make for most people until they start making cut down and less expensive mass market versions. My bet is that it will be a long time before an affordable version will look as good as the $25k 84 inch model on sale now.

Then when you add a compressed streaming 4k content format, it becomes a tough sell. What other reason could there be for not having content available right now. They already have 4k content sitting there on servers. If Sony can't make that available, there must be a real problem.

I find it hard to tell a major difference between HD and SD streaming content sometimes. With a Blu Ray, I can see a difference. With HD streaming, it rarely looks much better than a DVD. The number of dots on the screen doesn't make that much difference on its own. Sometimes less compressed versions of content in the same resolution can look noticeably better.
New Design is offline  
post #912 of 1083 Old 10-31-2013, 06:07 PM
Member
 
New Design's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 104
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolgeek View Post

The Christie and Barcos that are 2K can't compare to the Sony 4K in terms of picture quality.. their sole purpose is brightness for large theater screens. They cost so much because they are build like a tank, for commercial use/abuse,... plus, anything commercial costs more... tongue.gif

PS: Before you say they can, I have seen the Barco and Runco at a fair before... no doubt they are very, very bright and unless your screen size is huge, they are not for the home... you get much better Picture Quality from home theater projectors...

Your statement that Runco projectors can't compare with home theater projectors is perhaps the least informed thing I have ever heard from anyone ever. The comment that you have seen them at a fair is perhaps the 2nd. Runco are known for high end home theater projectors.

Barco, christie, projectiondesign, digital projection all make amazing projectors with glass that is superior to what you find on cheaper home theater projectors. You get what you pay for in the most part.
New Design is offline  
post #913 of 1083 Old 10-31-2013, 06:18 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
AV Science Sales 5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: A beautiful view of a lake
Posts: 7,608
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 300 Post(s)
Liked: 406
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Design View Post

I agree with the point about a disc type format for 4k. For most people though, it would look like a step backwards. Convenience seems to win over quality for most people. Cd is better than mp3 in quality but try and find a shop that still sells them....


Sony are too big to focus on people who read these forums. Enthusiasts are a small niche. The average man on the street, who they need to focus on at their size, has never heard of 4k still.

A guy I met from Sony who was answering questions on 4k tv's in best buy, was getting his information about a new content format from google searches. That isn't a good sign if they haven't announced anything internally. They are probably going to miss the holiday period for this year now. That could mean nothing until next summer at the earliest.

The Sony rep seemed to think they were going to focus on downloading instead of streaming which makes some sense. You can leave a file downloading overnight if needed. If they charge $30 per download like he said, I can't see that service being hugely popular. For $30, people want a physical disc. If you are not a collector, a $4.99 HD streaming rental is tough competition.

Content just being 4k isn't enough in my opinion. Overly compressed 4k formats will sacrifice quality and quality is the only thing 4k has going for it. I would be interested in 4k if I could get access to the same files used by movie theaters. Even if I had to take my hard drive into the Sony store to add new content, at least I would be able to view the best quality available. That has real value. We don't need another cut down and compromised home format. 1080p is fine for that. Not all 4k s equal just like not all 1080p is equal.

The super expensive early plasma tv's from pioneer which were built without compromise, could not be matched until the very last generation of plasma. Right now, we have seen the equivalent expensive 4k tv's. we won't know how much difference it will make for most people until they start making cut down and less expensive mass market versions. My bet is that it will be a long time before an affordable version will look as good as the $25k 84 inch model on sale now.

Then when you add a compressed streaming 4k content format, it becomes a tough sell. What other reason could there be for not having content available right now. They already have 4k content sitting there on servers. If Sony can't make that available, there must be a real problem.

I find it hard to tell a major difference between HD and SD streaming content sometimes. With a Blu Ray, I can see a difference. With HD streaming, it rarely looks much better than a DVD. The number of dots on the screen doesn't make that much difference on its own. Sometimes less compressed versions of content in the same resolution can look noticeably better.

You are 100% wrong on that. I can promise you that Sony people do read the threads. Maybe not all of them, but they kept up with the VW1000ES thread for sure and they may be doing the same on the VW500, VW600 and VW1100 threads.

The cost to download a 24 hour rental movie is $7.99. You can buy the downloaded movie for $29.99.

You start off talking about downloading and then you switch to talking about streaming 4K content. The Sony 4K content is download, not low quality compressed to death streaming.

Mike Garrett, AV Science Sales Call Me: 585-671-2968
Email Me:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Brands we sell: 
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
 
Call for B-stock projectors
Stewart, Seymour, SE, SI, Falcon & many more.
RBH, Martin Logan, Triad, Atlantic Technology, MK Sound, BG Radia, SVS & Def Tech.
AV Science Sales 5 is offline  
post #914 of 1083 Old 10-31-2013, 06:26 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Seegs108's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Schenectady, New York
Posts: 4,109
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 310 Post(s)
Liked: 226
The way I look at it, and this has been said time and time again, is that UHD needs to prove itself a worthy upgrade over current 1080p video formats. If they don't see a worthwhile difference in quality consumers, other than the enthusiasts, will NOT buy it unless forced to. I think many will agree with that sentiment, correct? If that's the case I don't see how digital distribution will win out, at least not at first. We absolutely need an optical solution because of how much data can be stored on these new discs. Sony and others will NOT opt for 128GB per movie server downloads. It will cost them way too much money. What this means is the bitrate, among many other encoding choices, will suffer to make the download file small enough where it can still be economical. You also need to factor in a person having to redownload or restream the movie several times if one buys, as opposed to renting, the movie. Sending information over the internet can be very costly when were talking 50GB+ file sizes.

We've already seen one member stating that the only UHD download from Sony's 4K server that looked noticeably better than it's blu-ray counterpart was The Amazing Spider-man. The rest looked no better than the 1080p BD upscaled to UHD. That isn't going to cut it. People will be expecting higher quality content and streaming as it stands now is not economically feasible for any company at the file sizes needed to make UHD the clear successor to blu-ray when it comes to a videophile consumer grade format. You can also look at this from the consumers standpoint. Most homes have an internet connection that is less than 15 mbps download. To stream a file that is over 75-100GB in size would take an absurd amount of time and when we live in such a "I want it now" society waiting for something to download just won't cut it. Us here on the forum may have the patience but an everyday consumer will not. Especially when there are so many other avenues currently that can give them the content they want without a wait time.

A disc format is needed until the US, and many other areas, have an infrastructure mature enough where it can send files of this size fast and an economical fashion. Sony and others know this. If they want to sell UHD flat panels and projectors they know people need to see a just cause to spend the money. The streaming content we have now will not cut it. A disc that can hold the amount of information needed to show off that UHD panel is a necessity at this point in time. It will also be far cheaper for these companies to produce discs compared to the cost to maintain servers and send the information.
kbfern likes this.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Seegs108 is online now  
post #915 of 1083 Old 10-31-2013, 06:26 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
mark haflich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: brookeville, maryland, usa
Posts: 19,876
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 415 Post(s)
Liked: 464
Would you believe some of the Sony guys get 3 credits continuing education by monitoring these thread and scoring at least a 90% on quarterly tests of the substance in those threads. I am not a liberty to tell you who prepares and grades the tests. smile.gif

Mark Haflich

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

call me at: 240 876 2536
mark haflich is offline  
post #916 of 1083 Old 10-31-2013, 06:30 PM
Member
 
New Design's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 104
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj8xp View Post

Originally Posted by New Design View Post

I agree on the point about Seiki. In the same way as not all 1080p devices look equal. Manufacturers use specs to fool us into thinking we have a bargain. Look, it's 4k just like the $25k model and it has 1,000,000:1 contrast ratio so it must be great.

With projectors, brightness, lens quality and the image processor make a huge difference and nothing in the advertised specs really help us know. The lumens number is never real. At 2000 lumens, everything could look green or it may look great but you won't know until you see it. The $25k Sony projector claims 1 million:1 contrast ratio. I have seen it in person and it has nice contrast but I have seen better. At comparable pricing, I have seen much better.

Our perception of resolution is influenced by so many things other than the number of dots on the screen. Even with 4k native content, it won't make as much difference as some people think. The Sony looks better than other Sony 1080p equivalent projectors at a closer distance than you would ever watch from. From a normal seating distance, it gets harder to tell. The quality of the glass and processor are not consistent with equivalently priced high end devices. With no 4k content yet, that makes it a poor buy even at $10k.

Compared to real high end projectors, the Sony 4k really doesn't look that impressive. When you turn frame smoothing off, as you should for movies, it looks far less detailed. The 4k projector is a decent amount brighter than other Sony projectors which does add a lot of pop to the image. For that money though, you can get far brighter.

It won't matter is cheap 4k projectors with amazing specs get released, they can still turn out to perform poorly. I wish they advertised specs that were actually helpful.

Some of the Christie, Barco, projection design devices that are 1080p and cost $30k - $50k have little in the specs to tell you why they cost so much more except brightness. When you see them, they look so much better than $3000 projectors with higher advertised contrast ratios and identicle resolution. The difference is enough to show how little we should care manufacturer specs.

I bet the cheaper Sony 4k projector will not be in the same legue regardless of what the specs say. If the only difference was really only 300 lumens, it wouldn't explain a $5k - $10k drop in price, would it?


So your saying that all the members on here who own this 25K projector and say its one of the best pictures they have seen is sub par to you ?

Or are you saying the new lower priced unit is sub par ?

I am saying that I doubt the advertised specs tell the full story. When they drop the price by $10,000k, it is unlikely that all you lose is a few hundred lumens. I haven't seen the new 4k projector yet but I have seen the old one. At $25k, they can make the device with less compromise than they will be able to when they release cheaper mainstream versions. Specs on projectors mean nothing these days. The claims grow arms and legs with every new release. We are up to 1,000,000:1 contrast ratios now but we are not seeing the difference in quality that the numbers could make a person think.

There is more going on with a $25k projector to make to look better than just having more dots on the screen. They can have better glass and image processors etc which makes a huge difference. The additional brightness makes it fare better in side by side comparisons too.

Why could other plasma tv's not do better than the Pioneer Kuro. Cheaper models with the same or better specs were released but every review said the same thing. They were not as good. I am not slamming either projector. Just saying that more expensive projectors typically perform far better than simple spec comparisons could make a person think.

Most people don't see that many projectors and that makes it hard to have an informed view on how good a device is compared to the rest. When it comes to the ultra high end devices, the number of people who have first hand experience to compare multiple devices, is even fewer. Most of the views come from reviews and specs. Very few of the high end devices are ever reviewed which makes it harder. I am sure that most people who buy the Sony 4k projector for $25k will think it looks great. Almost none of the will have tested a number of other similarly priced devices for comparison.

I have seen a few reviews of the $25k 4k Sony and I agree with the ones who said that it's additional brightness gave it an edge over the high end JVC models in a side by side but the additional resolution gets harder to notice from a typical seating distance. Up close, the difference is noticeable. The black levels are good but not as good as the contrast ratio could would make you think. It is a very nice projector though. The test will be how much is retained with cheaper mass market versions. My opinion on that part is just speculation like everybody else's right now. I would be delighted to be wrong and first in line if $3000k versions have comparable quality.

Tj8xp cool.gif
New Design is offline  
post #917 of 1083 Old 10-31-2013, 06:55 PM
Senior Member
 
wagnerc's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 226
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I ordered the 600 in Canada as soon as I could. I did not know that the server was not available in Canada. I hope it comes soon.

I will buy a 4K Blu Ray player as soon as they are available. Hopefully sooner than later.
wagnerc is offline  
post #918 of 1083 Old 11-01-2013, 04:55 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 17,411
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 124 Post(s)
Liked: 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seegs108 View Post

Sony and others will NOT opt for 128GB per movie server downloads. It will cost them way too much money.

I don't believe that, well not that reasoning. I can't find the article/blog right now, but Netflix once posted that the incremental cost for them to transmit 1GB of data was $0.01. At that rate it would only cost Sony $1.28 for a 128GB download for which they charge $7.99. And that was a number of years ago and bandwidth has only increased/cheapened since then.
Quote:
We've already seen one member stating that the only UHD download from Sony's 4K server that looked noticeably better than it's blu-ray counterpart was The Amazing Spider-man. The rest looked no better than the 1080p BD upscaled to UHD. That isn't going to cut it.

That's true, but that sounds a lot like the early days of Blu-ray, quite a number of early Blu-ray releases were "sub par" to say the least. Remember "Blur-ray"? The re-release of The 5th Element? We know now that none that was a problem with the format, but with the content preparation.

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
stanger89 is offline  
post #919 of 1083 Old 11-01-2013, 06:11 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 11,988
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 104 Post(s)
Liked: 325
One thing I haven't really kept up with is the Sony projectors and their native contrast.

We are so used to JVC making contrast gains each year that we just expect it. Has it been the same for Sony? In other words, would we expect a higher contrast version of the VW500ES next year?

Rich H


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
R Harkness is offline  
post #920 of 1083 Old 11-01-2013, 06:59 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 11,988
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 104 Post(s)
Liked: 325
I'm really on the fence between the new JVC and the new Sony 500ES 4K unit (I can get a very good deal on the Sony here, though it still makes it just under twice as expensive as the JVC).
I've always loved deep black levels and I'm intrigued by the new JVCs on that count (and any other improvements they've made). But I also sometimes wish for more brightness, because I know that can really bring some great qualities to the party as well.

Yesterday I was able to spend a bit of time watching some familiar Blu-Rays on the big Sony VW1000ES, under imperfect conditions in a store (a relatively small black diamond screen, not perfect light control).
What I saw was truly amazing image sharpness, like "Ah, now I know what it's like to experience higher level lens optics." I thought the image on my JVC RS55 was almost as sharp as it gets, until I saw the Sony.
Motion was better too insofar as the first fly-over of the spaceship in Alien seemed clearer than it's ever been on my JVC projectors.

So the 3 main things that struck me about the image were: clarity, detail and contrast. The first two I kind of expected due to the optics and what had been reported with reality creation. But I'd really wondered about the contrast. The thing is the Sony was looking more impressive not only on bright scenes, which had more depth and "pop" (e.g. in Oblivion where Tom Cruise is walking behind windows on his way to the first scene in which he's about to drive his ship, the sense of layering and reflections on windows was palpable beyond what I"ve seen at home). But also the Sony looked more impressive in scenes like the opening of Alien, right after the credits there's that shot of the Nostromo ship against space, with the lighting fairly muted on the ship so it's a pretty low APL scene. What struck me is how the contrast actually looked better than what I see at home on the JVC - the ship looked brighter, more contrasty and visible against the black background and there were variations in the brightness of stars that I'd never seen before, some sticking out looking quite bright. These are exactly the type of scenes that the JVCs are supposed to have an advantage in so that was a bit of a surprise.

The inside of the Nostromo shots, the camera prowling through the ship, looked more "there" in terms of the variation of illumination within, the solidity of objects, and the amount of detail, shadow detail, fine detail, was more than I've seen before. All those red, white and yellow equipment lights the crew turn on in their cockpits just leapt off the screen, the contrast looking so high.
What were the image settings on the Sony? I don't know. I do know reality creation was on, and the colors were a bit over-cooked, so clearly not optimal.

So then I got home, put on the same scenes on the JVC and...was a bit deflated. Suddenly they looked dimmer and more flat, less detailed, less sharp as well. There certainly was a clear difference in image brightness, even though I zoomed my JVC down to the same image size I'd just been watching, and (in low lamp) opened the iris all the way, which I don't normally do.
It got me wondering how much of what I was seeing on the Sony was the difference in sheer brightness.

So I put the JVC into high lamp mode, which edged the image into a bit more pop and contrast. Then I took it out of it's calibrated mode into another picture mode - I can't remember which, maybe another user mode, but clearly one that was less muted and looked more dynamic. Once I'd made all these steps the image started looking more like the Sony, having that "pop" and contrast. It did a decent job of maintaining
that look when I expanded the image to a 112" wide scope image. Although all this certainly also raised the black levels and lowered contrast somewhat on my projector, the perception was higher contrast, and though the black levels were probably lower still on my JVC, I wouldn't say it quite reached the levels of the Sony in terms of image dimensionality overall. And definitely not for overall image/shadow detail. The details that were so easy to see in the Nostromo ship fly-bys and interiors, due to clarity and brightness and contrast, weren't as obvious on the JVC.

So...I'm not sure what to think. The JVC could start doing some of what I saw with the Sony, but only in high bulb mode, with the image put out of calibration. Once I went back to my normal settings I could see all sorts of images that, while they looked really nice, I knew could also benefit from some more "oomph" that a Sony would bring. But then...I'm not sure how the black levels would be for me on the Sony once in my bat-cave conditions, especially with the 500ES being lower contrast than the 1000ES. I'm still stuck between "go for the JVC because financially it's relatively painless and I can live with whatever upgrade it brings until 4K shakes out next year...and hopefully I can find a similar deal next year on a Sony if I find myself still pining for one." Or...grab the Sony now, and hope that it retains some re-sale value at all, so that if I flip it for a higher contrast model in a year or two, given I got a really good deal, it wouldn't be too painful to do so. And then I think: what if I get the Sony, love the brightness, but find myself missing the JVC's black levels.
Well, then I'll have adjusted myself to the amazing brightness of the Sony over the JVC, and I'll likely miss that aspect of the Sony if I go back to JVC. With the JVC since I'm used to it's level of brightness there is a sort of "don't know what's missing if I don't have it" thing. (Except, now I think I kind of do know...)

But this is one reason I'm wondering if Sony tends to increase their native contrast ratio each year like JVC or not; whether we can expect next year's Sony 4K models to increase contrast.

Aggh!

And, in a Sony thread...I wonder what people are going to advise biggrin.gif

(As you can see, Mark H, I'm still torn...mostly because my decision has to be immanent).

Rich H


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
R Harkness is offline  
post #921 of 1083 Old 11-01-2013, 07:37 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
mark haflich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: brookeville, maryland, usa
Posts: 19,876
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 415 Post(s)
Liked: 464
JVC keeps redesigning their chips and now employs an II so it can keep its face in the spec war of on/off contrast between manufacturers. Sony has 1 4K chip and uses it in its 4K HT projectors. This year they have added one more dynamic iris mode, now they have three. No clue what this new mode does. It most all BS with on/off specs. Far throw, minimum iris, low bulb says JVC. But still that in our best machine only gives you an on /off, hey advertising department what did you say, 120,000. to one. But Epson gives them a million to one. OK .the ad guys said, be smart, suck up your shorts and stick in a DI and we can say 2 zillion to one. Its all BS. Blacks will still look gray in all black fields. As long as you have enough on/off to not crush your blacks at your chosen gamma. After that, going up makes things a little blacker but not by much to your eyes. Sure I'd rather have the option of using a DI if I want.

Mark Haflich

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

call me at: 240 876 2536
mark haflich is offline  
post #922 of 1083 Old 11-01-2013, 07:42 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
mark haflich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: brookeville, maryland, usa
Posts: 19,876
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 415 Post(s)
Liked: 464
Rich. I think its interesting that you used the word immanent and not the word imminent. I think you meant to use the word imminent but your id took over because of the threat to your logic center and used the word immanent.

Mark Haflich

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

call me at: 240 876 2536
mark haflich is offline  
post #923 of 1083 Old 11-01-2013, 07:50 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Wendell R. Breland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 4,372
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 36 Post(s)
Liked: 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Design View Post

Convenience seems to win over quality for most people. Cd is better than mp3 in quality but try and find a shop that still sells them....

True for many but you may want to read this:
Quote:
Nearly three-quarters of U.S. consumers are not interested in buying a smart TV during the next 12 months — with price and ignorance about Internet-connected TV as principle factors, according to new research from IHS. A total of 73% of 1,000 respondents in the 2013 survey said they are not interested in buying a smart TV that includes Internet functionality and related apps.

I still see many CD's at B&Ms, Amazon seems to have everything from A to Z in the way of CDs.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Wendell R. Breland is offline  
post #924 of 1083 Old 11-01-2013, 08:13 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Wendell R. Breland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 4,372
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 36 Post(s)
Liked: 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

I'm really on the fence between the new JVC and the new Sony 500ES 4K unit (I can get a very good deal on the Sony here, though it still makes it just under twice as expensive as the JVC).

Aggh!

And, in a Sony thread...I wonder what people are going to advise biggrin.gif

(As you can see, Mark H, I'm still torn...mostly because my decision has to be immanent).

Close your eyes, cover your nose and jump smile.gif.

We spend a good deal of time in the HT watching movies, high quality nature, science and other types of programing via Blu-ray, PBS via AMC-21 satellite and even some CBS shows (edited). We don't eat out very often, keep autos for longer than most, do most of our repairs, etc. in order to feed our travel and media desires wink.gif. After all, its only money.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Wendell R. Breland is offline  
post #925 of 1083 Old 11-01-2013, 08:47 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
millerwill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Berkeley, CA
Posts: 11,419
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 43 Post(s)
Liked: 40
Rich, My guess is that most of the wow factor the Sony was delivering to you was its brightness, along with its very high quality pq. Brightness really is a seducer, and provided all the other attributes are good, it will always carry the day.
millerwill is online now  
post #926 of 1083 Old 11-01-2013, 09:30 AM
AVS Special Member
 
egrady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: San Antonio, TX USA
Posts: 1,025
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by millerwill View Post

Rich, My guess is that most of the wow factor the Sony was delivering to you was its brightness, along with its very high quality pq. Brightness really is a seducer, and provided all the other attributes are good, it will always carry the day.

As much as I like my RS35, a film like image doesn't come close to real world light levels. If I open the Iris up all the way and use the high lamp setting, the RS35 has a light output similar to my Sony 65XBR929. I'm blowing the truly deep blacks, but live sporting events look much more life like. Brightness truly is a seducer

A projector that has a black level close to my JVC, while being able to maintain it at higher light levels, is my holy grail. The VW500/600ES is the first product that has caught my attention since I got my RS35. I'm willing to give up a small degree of black level for siren of brightness. The VW1100ES fails the WAF test.
egrady is offline  
post #927 of 1083 Old 11-01-2013, 10:01 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
darinp2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 21,174
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 54
Definitely some interesting observations Rich.
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

a relatively small black diamond screen, not perfect light control
Was there extra lighting coming from somewhere? If so, do you know the direction it was mostly coming from? The reason I ask is that with that screen and extra lighting placed correctly the screen should be able to do great looking blacks partially from a kind of backlighting effect. That is, if the light is coming from directions where the screen mostly kills it, especially if the wall around the screen doesn't.

I don't doubt that the Sony was better, but if I were in your situation and there was any doubt I would want to try to eliminate that screen and light control situation difference as much as possible. Not sure if that is possible, but if you can figure out a way it would be interesting to hear what you discover.

Thanks,
Darin

This is the AV Science Forum. Please don't be gullible and please do remember the saying, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
darinp2 is online now  
post #928 of 1083 Old 11-01-2013, 10:46 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 11,988
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 104 Post(s)
Liked: 325
Darin,

Well this is sort of interesting. I just confirmed it was the Black Diamond 1.4 gain screen. It was in a super small room, like maybe 6 ft wide by 10 0r 11 ft deep, brightish decor, black out blind blocking almost all window light, but it adjoined the rest of the upper show room. They dimmed all nearby lights, but it was essentially open to the rest of the room, whatever daylight (it was a cloudy/rainy day) could light up the rest of that other room. Far from ideal, but it still held pretty good contrast. Unfortunately the screen texture was so pronounced on that BD screen - that dirty speckling overlaying the image you get with such screens - that it was hard to tell which image noise was coming from the screen vs reality creation settings a bit too high (it got a bit gritty looking). I sure as heck would never put a 4K projector like that on a screen like that one.

Anyway, what's interesting with that being the 4K screen is that it was quite small, under 100" diag, maybe around 95 to 98" I'm guessing. But actually the image wasn't as bright as I would have guessed it would be with such a set up. That's a tiny screen, highish gain, with what is supposed to be a light canon projector. (I asked about the iris/brightness setting, they hadn't touched it, so we both presumed a sony setting would have left it pretty wide open). It was a bright image, brighter than home, but still not at all eye-popping bright. Just bright enough. Weird. But it's a two year old projector without having changed the bulb, so maybe bulb age was the culprit.

One more observation from viewing at home when I tried pumping up my JVC. In my batcave I felt a tinge of eye-strain, probably not being used to having the image pumped up so bright. But then, when I dimmed it again, while it got a bit more comfortable, it also got predictably flatter and had less contrast/realism. I wondered how I'd do with the Sony being brighter. One would probably adjust over time.

Rich H


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
R Harkness is offline  
post #929 of 1083 Old 11-01-2013, 10:49 AM
Senior Member
 
roxiedog13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North 48 °
Posts: 446
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

I'm really on the fence between the new JVC and the new Sony 500ES 4K unit (I can get a very good deal on the Sony here, though it still makes it just under twice as expensive as the JVC).
I've always loved deep black levels and I'm intrigued by the new JVCs on that count (and any other improvements they've made). But I also sometimes wish for more brightness, because I know that can really bring some great qualities to the party as well.

Yesterday I was able to spend a bit of time watching some familiar Blu-Rays on the big Sony VW1000ES, under imperfect conditions in a store (a relatively small black diamond screen, not perfect light control).
What I saw was truly amazing image sharpness, like "Ah, now I know what it's like to experience higher level lens optics." I thought the image on my JVC RS55 was almost as sharp as it gets, until I saw the Sony.
Motion was better too insofar as the first fly-over of the spaceship in Alien seemed clearer than it's ever been on my JVC projectors.

So the 3 main things that struck me about the image were: clarity, detail and contrast. The first two I kind of expected due to the optics and what had been reported with reality creation. But I'd really wondered about the contrast. The thing is the Sony was looking more impressive not only on bright scenes, which had more depth and "pop" (e.g. in Oblivion where Tom Cruise is walking behind windows on his way to the first scene in which he's about to drive his ship, the sense of layering and reflections on windows was palpable beyond what I"ve seen at home). But also the Sony looked more impressive in scenes like the opening of Alien, right after the credits there's that shot of the Nostromo ship against space, with the lighting fairly muted on the ship so it's a pretty low APL scene. What struck me is how the contrast actually looked better than what I see at home on the JVC - the ship looked brighter, more contrasty and visible against the black background and there were variations in the brightness of stars that I'd never seen before, some sticking out looking quite bright. These are exactly the type of scenes that the JVCs are supposed to have an advantage in so that was a bit of a surprise.

The inside of the Nostromo shots, the camera prowling through the ship, looked more "there" in terms of the variation of illumination within, the solidity of objects, and the amount of detail, shadow detail, fine detail, was more than I've seen before. All those red, white and yellow equipment lights the crew turn on in their cockpits just leapt off the screen, the contrast looking so high.
What were the image settings on the Sony? I don't know. I do know reality creation was on, and the colors were a bit over-cooked, so clearly not optimal.

So then I got home, put on the same scenes on the JVC and...was a bit deflated. Suddenly they looked dimmer and more flat, less detailed, less sharp as well. There certainly was a clear difference in image brightness, even though I zoomed my JVC down to the same image size I'd just been watching, and (in low lamp) opened the iris all the way, which I don't normally do.
It got me wondering how much of what I was seeing on the Sony was the difference in sheer brightness.

So I put the JVC into high lamp mode, which edged the image into a bit more pop and contrast. Then I took it out of it's calibrated mode into another picture mode - I can't remember which, maybe another user mode, but clearly one that was less muted and looked more dynamic. Once I'd made all these steps the image started looking more like the Sony, having that "pop" and contrast. It did a decent job of maintaining
that look when I expanded the image to a 112" wide scope image. Although all this certainly also raised the black levels and lowered contrast somewhat on my projector, the perception was higher contrast, and though the black levels were probably lower still on my JVC, I wouldn't say it quite reached the levels of the Sony in terms of image dimensionality overall. And definitely not for overall image/shadow detail. The details that were so easy to see in the Nostromo ship fly-bys and interiors, due to clarity and brightness and contrast, weren't as obvious on the JVC.

So...I'm not sure what to think. The JVC could start doing some of what I saw with the Sony, but only in high bulb mode, with the image put out of calibration. Once I went back to my normal settings I could see all sorts of images that, while they looked really nice, I knew could also benefit from some more "oomph" that a Sony would bring. But then...I'm not sure how the black levels would be for me on the Sony once in my bat-cave conditions, especially with the 500ES being lower contrast than the 1000ES. I'm still stuck between "go for the JVC because financially it's relatively painless and I can live with whatever upgrade it brings until 4K shakes out next year...and hopefully I can find a similar deal next year on a Sony if I find myself still pining for one." Or...grab the Sony now, and hope that it retains some re-sale value at all, so that if I flip it for a higher contrast model in a year or two, given I got a really good deal, it wouldn't be too painful to do so. And then I think: what if I get the Sony, love the brightness, but find myself missing the JVC's black levels.
Well, then I'll have adjusted myself to the amazing brightness of the Sony over the JVC, and I'll likely miss that aspect of the Sony if I go back to JVC. With the JVC since I'm used to it's level of brightness there is a sort of "don't know what's missing if I don't have it" thing. (Except, now I think I kind of do know...)

But this is one reason I'm wondering if Sony tends to increase their native contrast ratio each year like JVC or not; whether we can expect next year's Sony 4K models to increase contrast.

Aggh!

And, in a Sony thread...I wonder what people are going to advise biggrin.gif

(As you can see, Mark H, I'm still torn...mostly because my decision has to be immanent).

Yes indeed, the delivery of Canadian units is around the corner, Nov 14th as I understand. The 500 will not be as good as the 1000 in detail but apparently it is the same in brightness and contrast according to the folks in France.
I have to make a decision today as well and I think I will go with the 500. My motives are different from yours, however It will still hurt as I only bought my HW50ES a year ago. Nevertheless, I'm going to jump on board and get the 500
your comments above regarding the brightness and PQ of the 1000 make that even more apparent. I believe you already have your decision made too. No matter what product you buy the glamor of it all fades rather quickly and the
OTHER product starts looking better. If I don't buy it now I will be wishing I had so to that end......where's the cheque book??
roxiedog13 is offline  
post #930 of 1083 Old 11-01-2013, 01:22 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Seegs108's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Schenectady, New York
Posts: 4,109
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 310 Post(s)
Liked: 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post

I don't believe that, well not that reasoning. I can't find the article/blog right now, but Netflix once posted that the incremental cost for them to transmit 1GB of data was $0.01. At that rate it would only cost Sony $1.28 for a 128GB download for which they charge $7.99. And that was a number of years ago and bandwidth has only increased/cheapened since then.
That's true, but that sounds a lot like the early days of Blu-ray, quite a number of early Blu-ray releases were "sub par" to say the least. Remember "Blur-ray"? The re-release of The 5th Element? We know now that none that was a problem with the format, but with the content preparation.

If sending data is so cheap why doesn't Sony opt for higher quality encodes? It seems pointless not to.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Seegs108 is online now  
Reply Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP

Tags
Sony Vpl Vw500es
Gear in this thread

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