For a 144" diagonal, scope, 1.4 gain Black Diamond screen, which projector if not the Sony vw1000ES? - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 29 Old 09-05-2013, 09:23 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
adanny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 320
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Hi folks

I have recently upgraded to a new 144" diagonal, scope, curved, 1.4 gain, screen innovations black diamond screen. Love the screen. Running it with my ancient but still good pioneer elite FPJ1 projector. Projector is quite obviously not bright enough, especially since I often (usually) watch with some lights on. The room is a multi use, movies, pool, games and TV room. It can be made pitch black if requid for serious movie watching. Walls are black or deep grey. But like I said, 60% or more of the use is with lights on, weekend football, kids movies and documentaries etc.

I was pretty much set on a Sony vw1000es, with a panamorph DC1 lens, auto sled, for the obvious reasons of picture, image, and overall sex appeal. That said, it is a ~$25k+ package and I am asking myself the age old question: "how much better" will the picture be versus a capable, top of the line cheap projector?

I see two cheaper options:
1. Ditch the anamorphic lens. Saves ~$5-7k depending on whether I use with or without auto sled. Use Sony's auto zoom, with memory, instead. Research appears to indicate this is almost a no brainer trade off since the 4k up sampling of the Sony almost obviates need for an anamorphic lens
2. Get the brightest, blackest, deepest contrast, JVC, or one of the Panasonic, epson, mits variety that at least claim to put out 2k lumens in torch mode and 1k calibrated. Auto zoom with lens memory is a must-have (which eliminates for example the epson 5020, I think)

The projector MUST deliver capable brightness (ie 2000 lumens although all the projectors notoriously over report), with good contrast and blacks and MUST have lens memory for zoom, and 3d. I know I could get one of the DP cine or projectiondesign entry level projectors for under 10k if I punt the 3d requirement t I've decided not to do that.

If Sony had a NON 4k projector that put out 2k lumens, and didn't cost 25k msrp, I would have bought that in a heart beat! If JVC's best was as bright as the panny or the epson 5020/6020, I would have bought that in a heartbeat as well.

What do the gurus recommend? How bright REALLY is the brightest JVC?
adanny is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 29 Old 09-05-2013, 09:29 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
AV Science Sales 5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: A beautiful view of a lake
Posts: 7,586
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 292 Post(s)
Liked: 405
Epson 5010/6010, high lamp calibrated around 700 lumens.
JVC RS66, high lamp calibrated around 800 lumens.
Sony VW1000 high lamp calibrated around 1,200 lumens.

If you want 2,000 calibrated lumens, then you are in 3 chip territory.

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 online now  
post #3 of 29 Old 09-05-2013, 09:45 AM
AnalysisParalysis Analyst
 
TMcG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,678
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 250 Post(s)
Liked: 290
The Epson 6020 IS a 3-chip technology and is posting calibrated lumens in the mid 1600s in Dynamic mode and approaching 1000 in THX and other modes targeting 6500K color temperature.

And I wouldn't dump the lens. Sure, you make up for resolution with pixel density, but you lose 25% of the brightness simply by having 25% of the panel produce black bars that are now zoomed off the screen. So keep the lens in the system for resolution and brightness. It's really the only way to go, especially for a top-end setup. You could save a few bucks by going with the UH-480 instead of the extreme of the DC-1 for slightly improved performance.
TMcG is offline  
post #4 of 29 Old 09-05-2013, 09:50 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Seegs108's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Schenectady, New York
Posts: 4,104
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 306 Post(s)
Liked: 226
Why the black diamond screen? It seems like such a horrible material compared to other similarly priced ones. If you need something high gain I'd make the switch and go with Da-Lite's High Power material. The BD material is known to have horrible texture and offsets the color terrible as well compared to most screen materials. Even something like a Stewart Studiotek 130 screen would be a huge step up in regards to image fidelity and has a measured gain of 1.3 which I'm sure is actually higher than the claimed 1.4 of BD screen material. Unless you have ambient light to deal with, you don't need a BD screen. Also, if you had a high power screen you wouldn't need a true 2000 lumen projector to meet your brightness needs.

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

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 #5 of 29 Old 09-05-2013, 09:53 AM
AnalysisParalysis Analyst
 
TMcG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,678
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 250 Post(s)
Liked: 290
He said it is a multi-purpose room that has lots of ambient light. Nothing deals with that more effectively than the black diamond screen. If it were a dedicated room at reference level, then Studiotek 130 G3, for sure.
TMcG is offline  
post #6 of 29 Old 09-05-2013, 09:54 AM
Advanced Member
 
baloo_btru's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 703
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)
Liked: 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seegs108 View Post

Why the black diamond screen? It seems like such a horrible material compared to other similarly priced ones. If you need something high gain I'd make the switch and go with Da-Lite's High Power material. The BD material is known to have horrible texture and offsets the color terrible as well compared to most screen materials. Even something like a Stewart Studiotek 130 screen would be a huge step up in regards to image fidelity and has a measured gain of 1.3 which I sure is actually higher than the claimed 1.4 of BD screen material. Unless you have ambient light to deal with, you don't need a BD screen. Also, if you had a high power screen you wouldn't need a true 2000 lumen projector to meet your true brightness needs.

Pretty sure he already has the screen and said that he watches with lights on, which is why he got it (I'm assuming).

- Klipsch RF-82 ii, RC-62 ii, RS-52 ii
- Klipsch RW-12D
- Sony HW50es
- Firehawk G3
- Denon 2113
baloo_btru is offline  
post #7 of 29 Old 09-05-2013, 09:58 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Seegs108's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Schenectady, New York
Posts: 4,104
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 306 Post(s)
Liked: 226
Edited my post. I wouldn't be buying a 1000ES and pair it with that screen. It isn't worth 18-20 thousand dollars to do so. I have a friend with a 1.4 BD screen and I think it looks horrendous in terms of texture. It would almost ruin how naturally sharp the 1000ES is.

Mike is right. There aren't any projectors that meet his requirement for true 2000 lumen output and high contrast without getting into 3 chip DLP territory. Sim2 is releasing an updated Lumis that's 3D. I'd look into that. It should meet both his requirements.

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

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 #8 of 29 Old 09-05-2013, 10:02 AM
AnalysisParalysis Analyst
 
TMcG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,678
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 250 Post(s)
Liked: 290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seegs108 View Post

Mike is right. There aren't any projectors that meet his requirement for true 2000 lumen output and high contrast without getting into 3 chip DLP territory. Sim2 is releasing an updated Lumis that's 3D. I'd look into that. It should meet both his requirements.

Didn't you just say you wouldn't be spending the extra $18-$20k? Unless the Lumis 3D has come down substantially in price, it's still one of the more expensive projectors out there and comparable to the Sony 4K in price.
TMcG is offline  
post #9 of 29 Old 09-05-2013, 10:31 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
adanny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 320
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMcG View Post

He said it is a multi-purpose room that has lots of ambient light. Nothing deals with that more effectively than the black diamond screen. If it were a dedicated room at reference level, then Studiotek 130 G3, for sure.

Exactly. I've gone and seen friends go the dedicated HT room route before, and the family rarely uses it. Multi purpose rooms, for us, is the way to go.

I would have preferred a DNP but they are very poorly represented in the US. No showrooms, no place to see, few dealers. They also only have either a 0.8 gain screen, or a 2.3 gain screen whereas the BD 1.4 , to me, seemed just right. And the curved DNP is double the price of a same size curved BD. the DNP technologyappears to be much more expensive to curve. Therefore the black diamond.

The da lite hi power has a very narrow viewing and projector placement angle. That's a deal breaker.

I had a Dalite pearlescent earlier and it has WAY more texture and sheen than my new black diamond.

Yes, the BD definitely has a visible texture/sheen in bright white scenes. Wish it didn't. But the advantages in real world usage WAY overcome the disadvantages. Sparkles are absent and over hyped.
adanny is offline  
post #10 of 29 Old 09-05-2013, 10:53 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Seegs108's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Schenectady, New York
Posts: 4,104
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 306 Post(s)
Liked: 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMcG View Post

Didn't you just say you wouldn't be spending the extra $18-$20k? Unless the Lumis 3D has come down substantially in price, it's still one of the more expensive projectors out there and comparable to the Sony 4K in price.

I said to pair the 1000ES, which happens to be that expensive, with a screen with a lot of texture is a bad idea.

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

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 #11 of 29 Old 09-05-2013, 10:57 AM
Member
 
Matrixfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 34
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Are sparkles only coming from having 1.4 gain, or would also the 0.8 gain version have some sparkles because it's inherent to BD technology?
Matrixfan is offline  
post #12 of 29 Old 09-05-2013, 11:27 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
adanny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 320
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Do i really need 2000 calibrated lumens that 3 chip dlps deliver, with this screen, despite the size? Might ~1000 calibrated lumens be plenty, except for 3d, where I can run it in torch mode?

In other words, in real word usage, with my 56" CIH screen:
1. Watching movies, room is made totally dark, image is 144" diagonal, anamorphic lens in place; 800 calibrated lumens should deliver ~20 ft-l according to my calculator
2. Watching tv or playing games, with ambient light, image is 115" diagonal, anamorphic lens not in place; 1200 torch-mode lumens should deliver ~40ftl , which along with the light rejection capabilities of the BD might also be enough

The above would imply that more than 1000 calibrated lumens or more than 1200 torch mode lumens for this screen is not really necessary? Am I missing something?

Is the Sony vw1000es calibrated really just 20% brighter than the epson 6020?

How much brighter is the epson in real world usage than the Sony vw95 or the JVC x75? On paper, the epson is exactly twice as bright (2400 versus 1200 lumens) but I get confused in whether those numbers mean anything in real world usage?

In terms of ease of use, i see that the epson does not have auto zoom. How would the epson project a 235:1 image, without auto zoom? Assuming I get an anamorphic lens, can I program with macros for the lens to slide in place, and the image to automatically vertically stretch every time we turn the bluray player on? Else, my family will be very unhappy!
adanny is offline  
post #13 of 29 Old 09-05-2013, 11:37 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
adanny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 320
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matrixfan View Post

Are sparkles only coming from having 1.4 gain, or would also the 0.8 gain version have some sparkles because it's inherent to BD technology?

Playing around with this screen for a few weeks, and in dealer showroom demos, i could not find the sparkles that others have reported.

I did however confirm that there is visible screen texturing, similar to Dalite pearlescent or high power, but to my eyes much less visible than those screens. But there's no denying it: for critical viewers, you will see the screen texture. You have to be convinced that the other advantages of this screen more than overcome that irritation. In my opinion, in anything other than a dedicated Movie screening room, one really needs to consider a BD or a DNP or a Stewart firehawk
adanny is offline  
post #14 of 29 Old 09-05-2013, 12:17 PM
Advanced Member
 
baloo_btru's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 703
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)
Liked: 106
I know this is OT, but what made you go with the black diamond vs the firehawk G3? I'm assuming that was one of your considerations.

- Klipsch RF-82 ii, RC-62 ii, RS-52 ii
- Klipsch RW-12D
- Sony HW50es
- Firehawk G3
- Denon 2113
baloo_btru is offline  
post #15 of 29 Old 09-05-2013, 12:29 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
adanny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 320
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Reviews and dealer recommendation. I couldn't do an a/b. tons of reviews online here. My dealer sells both and even their two guys were divided! Young Owner loved the BD but the veteran expert loved the Stewart.

I am an in curable researcher and after reading everything in sight, I would put the DNP highest (sight unseen), BD next and Stewart last for multi media rooms where AT is not a requirement. For an AT screen, Stewart is the only game in town.

And when I saw the BD in person, multiple times, I was sold that I was ready to move on to this next gen technology which seemed more high tech, better at light rejection than Stewart
adanny is offline  
post #16 of 29 Old 09-05-2013, 01:18 PM
AnalysisParalysis Analyst
 
TMcG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,678
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 250 Post(s)
Liked: 290
I had a Firehawk in my last theater and I can honestly say I wasn't very happy with the way it rejected ambient light. Everything was really washed out and then the lower gain really sucked extra life out of the projector's brightness.
TMcG is offline  
post #17 of 29 Old 09-05-2013, 04:13 PM
Member
 
Matrixfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 34
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Thanks for the reply adanny! I saw the 1.4 BD a few weeks ago in a showroom. The texture was visible sometimes, but he contrast enhancement was also immediately noticeable. The screen being compared to was no slouch either, it was a Sreeen Research 1.1 gain lateral masking motorized screen. The room was completely set up as a living room theater: could be darkened, but had white walls. What you said is exactly my situation, I don't have a dedicated screening room. Although I can darken the ceiling a bit near the screen, and will have dark blackout curtains on the right side, this is still far from a dedicated room. For me ambient light rejection is not important at all, but reduction of light scatter is crucial. I have a hunch that the lower gain 0.8 would be the bomb with even less or no texture at all, but I'm afraid I would have to sacrifice 3D with that. Not that I'm that much pleased with shutter glass 3D, but why not, and PC gaming is a big factor for me.

Please excuse me for not being strictly on topic and I can't be of any help, but where I live it's almost impossible to ask someone or see these screens in person. It was a miracle itself that I could check in for a demo to see the BD 1.4 in person. I also have read that DNP has no or the least visible artifacts of these screens, but I am a bit afraid to order one whiteout demo.
Matrixfan is offline  
post #18 of 29 Old 09-05-2013, 05:15 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
adanny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 320
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
You are in a very similar place i was a few months bavk.

I read somewhere that the BD owner himself recommended the 1.4 gain to the overwhelmining majority of users. I remember reading that article or interview with him during m y research. If im not mistaken, paradoxically, the 1.4 also has a Slightly wider viewing angle. For my use, I.e while I can make my room a bat cave, I never do, I always have lights on, and I went with the largest screen Bd sells - the 1.4 gain was more obvious. I wish I had been able to a/b the 0.8 versus the 1.4 but it's just hard frown.gif

If I had a smaller screen, I think I would have strongly considered the .8 gain screen. I will be at cedia btw. If they have both screens and you aren't buying before month end, happy to share what I see
Matrixfan likes this.
adanny is offline  
post #19 of 29 Old 09-06-2013, 05:38 AM
AVS Special Member
 
rcohen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,081
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 195 Post(s)
Liked: 70
I'm in a similar situation, too. I have a bunch of screen samples, but not a projector, yet. Has anyone found a good way to do this kind of test, to experiment & help decide on screen size, gain, and projector brightness? Comparing the Sony & JVC projector calculators at Projector Central, it seems like it must be extremely inaccurate. It says that the JVCs are much brighter, when everyone says the Sonys are brighter.

Ideally, it would be possible to rent a projector and try it in my house before purchasing it, but I can't find a place that rents these out.

Is there a reliable source for measured calibrated lumens at different screen sizes & throw ratios? I wish reviews would include some graphs or tables of those numbers.

I suppose I could roll the dice, based on a projector calculator, test it in my home with screen samples before ordering the screen, and return the projector if the calculator was wrong.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
rcohen is offline  
post #20 of 29 Old 09-06-2013, 05:47 AM
AVS Special Member
 
rcohen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,081
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 195 Post(s)
Liked: 70
I just came across this review which covers relative brightness, which is somewhat helpful:
http://www.projectorreviews.com/1080p-projector/dla-x35_vs_pro-cinema-6020ub_vs_vpl-hw50es.php


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
rcohen is offline  
post #21 of 29 Old 09-06-2013, 06:35 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
AV Science Sales 5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: A beautiful view of a lake
Posts: 7,586
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 292 Post(s)
Liked: 405
Quote:
Originally Posted by adanny View Post

Do i really need 2000 calibrated lumens that 3 chip dlps deliver, with this screen, despite the size? Might ~1000 calibrated lumens be plenty, except for 3d, where I can run it in torch mode?

In other words, in real word usage, with my 56" CIH screen:
1. Watching movies, room is made totally dark, image is 144" diagonal, anamorphic lens in place; 800 calibrated lumens should deliver ~20 ft-l according to my calculator
2. Watching tv or playing games, with ambient light, image is 115" diagonal, anamorphic lens not in place; 1200 torch-mode lumens should deliver ~40ftl , which along with the light rejection capabilities of the BD might also be enough

The above would imply that more than 1000 calibrated lumens or more than 1200 torch mode lumens for this screen is not really necessary? Am I missing something?

Is the Sony vw1000es calibrated really just 20% brighter than the epson 6020?

How much brighter is the epson in real world usage than the Sony vw95 or the JVC x75? On paper, the epson is exactly twice as bright (2400 versus 1200 lumens) but I get confused in whether those numbers mean anything in real world usage?

In terms of ease of use, i see that the epson does not have auto zoom. How would the epson project a 235:1 image, without auto zoom? Assuming I get an anamorphic lens, can I program with macros for the lens to slide in place, and the image to automatically vertically stretch every time we turn the bluray player on? Else, my family will be very unhappy!

The 1000ES has plenty of lumens for that screen. The 6020 does not have anywhere close to the lumens of the 1000ES in best image mode and that is the mode you should be looking at. The 6020 was measured by Art to have 675 calibrated lumens, mid zoom, high lamp. The 1000ES should be around 1,200 in the same setup. I will send you a PM.

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 online now  
post #22 of 29 Old 09-06-2013, 06:38 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
AV Science Sales 5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: A beautiful view of a lake
Posts: 7,586
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 292 Post(s)
Liked: 405
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcohen View Post

I'm in a similar situation, too. I have a bunch of screen samples, but not a projector, yet. Has anyone found a good way to do this kind of test, to experiment & help decide on screen size, gain, and projector brightness? Comparing the Sony & JVC projector calculators at Projector Central, it seems like it must be extremely inaccurate. It says that the JVCs are much brighter, when everyone says the Sonys are brighter.

Ideally, it would be possible to rent a projector and try it in my house before purchasing it, but I can't find a place that rents these out.

Is there a reliable source for measured calibrated lumens at different screen sizes & throw ratios? I wish reviews would include some graphs or tables of those numbers.

I suppose I could roll the dice, based on a projector calculator, test it in my home with screen samples before ordering the screen, and return the projector if the calculator was wrong.

Give me a call and I would be happy to help you with the numbers.

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 online now  
post #23 of 29 Old 09-06-2013, 12:34 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
adanny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 320
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Thanks for posting. Excellent review. Surprised that they didn't mention benQ w7000 which they have themselves reviewed very positively in another article. That should definitely have been in the mix here. This is exactly the kind of real world comparison that should be much easier to access.

The big disadvantage of the Epson appears to be that it must be used with an anamorphic lens if you have a 235:1 image. It does not have auto zoom or lens memory. Its brightness also drops to under 700 lumens calibrated. Can an epson owner or dealer confirm that?

Here's what I took away from the review. if you want to put a decent quality, 3d capable projector in a family or multi media room, which i think is a trend on the rise, the ambient light friendly, 3D choices under 10k appear to be:
1. For screens under ~110" diagonal, Sony hw50 is a better choice especially if you do not want an anamorphic lens. But it is unlikely to be good for 3d above 100" or 2d ambient light watching above say 110". That said, the review Wasn't clear whether it had auto zoom and lens memory? Can someone clarify that? This is the best all rounder especially for small screens, at a cost under 4k, although each of epson, benq and perhaps even panny 8000 are meaningful options. JVC is not light friendly.
2. For screens larger than 110" and certainly 120", Epson is the best choice, but with an anamorphic lens. Even with lens, it will be well under 10k. Not friendly to scope without an anamorphic lens. Best for larger screens in ambient light conditions (ie 120-150"). Acceptable but not the best option for reference, dark room conditions.

Of course, if money is no object, the Sony VW1000ES with an anamorphic lens remains the standard. This will set you back in excess of 25k depending on which lens you pick. The better the projector lens, the better the anamorphic needs to be as well (eg not a good idea to use a cine vista, probably want to move up to a UH480 or a DC1)

I've short listed my search to the epson or the benq or the vw1000es
adanny is offline  
post #24 of 29 Old 09-06-2013, 01:14 PM
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matrixfan View Post

I have a hunch that the lower gain 0.8 would be the bomb with even less or no texture at all,

Careful with that assumption. Most people assume that a higher rated gain screen will have have more screen texture. But screen texture generally comes from the type and amount of optical coating put on a screen to raise it's gain, not simply from the fact that it's a brighter screen.

The .8 versions of the Black Diamond screen that I viewed (last time probably a year ago or so) has more severe screen texture than the brighter 1.4 gain screen. Certainly more hotspotting. This is because the .8 gain screen is the one that most aggressively tries to combat the effects of extraneous light on the screen. They start with a REALLY dark screen substrate, almost charcoal gray, to reduce the effects of stray light. But images would be unusably dim on such a dark screen so they have to raise the brightness to an acceptable level. They do this by applying aggressive amounts of gain via optical coating, to focus the light toward the viewing position, raising screen brightness up to the .8 gain rating.
This comes with the usual cost of hot-spotting (uneven screen brightness because it is acting closer to a mirror due to the added coating) and screen texture from the coating.
So you can actually get more screen texture from a lower gain screen (just as the Stewart Firehawk, a gray screen with added gain, shows more hot-spotting and texture than the higher gain ST-130 white material).

How much any of this bothers someone is a very subjective, personal thing. One person can sit there saying "Huh, I don't see any hot-spotting or texture," while another can be driven nuts by it. Most people it seems aren't super sensitive to these issues. But if you think you might be, this really councils seeing the screen in person, or at least a decent sized screen sample.
Matrixfan likes this.

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 online now  
post #25 of 29 Old 09-06-2013, 02:15 PM
Advanced Member
 
baloo_btru's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 703
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)
Liked: 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by adanny View Post

Thanks for posting. Excellent review. Surprised that they didn't mention benQ w7000 which they have themselves reviewed very positively in another article. That should definitely have been in the mix here. This is exactly the kind of real world comparison that should be much easier to access.

The big disadvantage of the Epson appears to be that it must be used with an anamorphic lens if you have a 235:1 image. It does not have auto zoom or lens memory. Its brightness also drops to under 700 lumens calibrated. Can an epson owner or dealer confirm that?

Here's what I took away from the review. if you want to put a decent quality, 3d capable projector in a family or multi media room, which i think is a trend on the rise, the ambient light friendly, 3D choices under 10k appear to be:
1. For screens under ~110" diagonal, Sony hw50 is a better choice especially if you do not want an anamorphic lens. But it is unlikely to be good for 3d above 100" or 2d ambient light watching above say 110". That said, the review Wasn't clear whether it had auto zoom and lens memory? Can someone clarify that? This is the best all rounder especially for small screens, at a cost under 4k, although each of epson, benq and perhaps even panny 8000 are meaningful options. JVC is not light friendly.
2. For screens larger than 110" and certainly 120", Epson is the best choice, but with an anamorphic lens. Even with lens, it will be well under 10k. Not friendly to scope without an anamorphic lens. Best for larger screens in ambient light conditions (ie 120-150"). Acceptable but not the best option for reference, dark room conditions.

Of course, if money is no object, the Sony VW1000ES with an anamorphic lens remains the standard. This will set you back in excess of 25k depending on which lens you pick. The better the projector lens, the better the anamorphic needs to be as well (eg not a good idea to use a cine vista, probably want to move up to a UH480 or a DC1)

I've short listed my search to the epson or the benq or the vw1000es

I'm not sure how you can be deciding between a $1500, $2600, or $25k projector. It's really quite unfathomable, to be honest. I think you need to do some more research or at the very least, solidify your budget. Might as well get two projectors - a JVC for movies and a cheaper DLP for 3d and TV watching. That would make way more sense and would be under $10k for incredible picture in both blu ray and 3d.

- Klipsch RF-82 ii, RC-62 ii, RS-52 ii
- Klipsch RW-12D
- Sony HW50es
- Firehawk G3
- Denon 2113
baloo_btru is offline  
post #26 of 29 Old 09-06-2013, 02:30 PM
AVS Special Member
 
d.j.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Denmark
Posts: 1,262
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by adanny View Post

Thanks for posting. Excellent review. Surprised that they didn't mention benQ w7000 which they have themselves reviewed very positively in another article. That should definitely have been in the mix here. This is exactly the kind of real world comparison that should be much easier to access.

The big disadvantage of the Epson appears to be that it must be used with an anamorphic lens if you have a 235:1 image. It does not have auto zoom or lens memory. Its brightness also drops to under 700 lumens calibrated. Can an epson owner or dealer confirm that?

Here's what I took away from the review. if you want to put a decent quality, 3d capable projector in a family or multi media room, which i think is a trend on the rise, the ambient light friendly, 3D choices under 10k appear to be:
1. For screens under ~110" diagonal, Sony hw50 is a better choice especially if you do not want an anamorphic lens. But it is unlikely to be good for 3d above 100" or 2d ambient light watching above say 110". That said, the review Wasn't clear whether it had auto zoom and lens memory? Can someone clarify that? This is the best all rounder especially for small screens, at a cost under 4k, although each of epson, benq and perhaps even panny 8000 are meaningful options. JVC is not light friendly.
2. For screens larger than 110" and certainly 120", Epson is the best choice, but with an anamorphic lens. Even with lens, it will be well under 10k. Not friendly to scope without an anamorphic lens. Best for larger screens in ambient light conditions (ie 120-150"). Acceptable but not the best option for reference, dark room conditions.

Of course, if money is no object, the Sony VW1000ES with an anamorphic lens remains the standard. This will set you back in excess of 25k depending on which lens you pick. The better the projector lens, the better the anamorphic needs to be as well (eg not a good idea to use a cine vista, probably want to move up to a UH480 or a DC1)

I've short listed my search to the epson or the benq or the vw1000es


Adanny


If I was you, I would take a look at the new VPL-VW500ES - it will come more close to the 1000ES, then any other projector out there and for a much lower Price ( but still in the high end, but quality, 4K, and very bright, allways cost biggrin.gif )

dj
d.j. is offline  
post #27 of 29 Old 09-06-2013, 03:02 PM
Member
 
Matrixfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 34
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
adanny:

It would be very nice to hear from your experiences at Cedia, thank you! In my area it is next to impossible to have a demo of these optical screens. I was able to see the BD 1.4 and a Stewart G3. I found a firm who carries DNP, but they are in the office and conference room business and cant't demo.

R Harkness:

Thanks for the insight! This could be a valid point, as the darker base material requires even more gain to achieve a final gain of 0.8. What I find interesting is the BD white paper stating that the 0.8 gain has the least texture of all screens, even the 1.4 version.

I found some pictures on an arabic AV site, the 0.8 performs quite good with ambient light, and downright amazing in the dark. It seems that there is no need for masking. On the other hand photos of projection can look different compared to being there and seeing it in person.
Matrixfan is offline  
post #28 of 29 Old 09-07-2013, 07:53 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
Matrixfan,

I can't count how many times I've read about a particular screen material "It doesn't have any texture, no sparklies" and "viewing angles no problem," both from manufacturers and forum members, only to see the screen in person and be shocked by how obvious the screen texture is and hot-spotting. Some people just aren't sensitive to seeing these issues, others are. That's why I say it's best to see the screens in person.

As for claims about "not needing masking" that can be a bit misleading. It really depends. If you have an extra wide 2:35:1 screen and you project a 16:9 image on it, then you'll have unused space, black bars, on the sides of the image. But with THOSE type of black side bars, there is no projector light hitting the screen beyond the sides of the 16:9 image. The .8 screen material is very dark and with no light hitting it, with the lights off, it will look quite black. So for SIDE BARS in that situation, I can see some people being satisfied with no masking. The side black bars will be much darker than a white screen.

BUT when it comes to the typical top and bottom black bars you see with a 2:35:1 images on a regular 16:9 screen (e.g. Lord Of The Rings) then the black bars are actually projected light and are only as dark as the contrast of the projector allows it to go on that screen. That means if your screen is rated .8 gain then from the viewing position those black bars are going to be just as "non-black" and visible as any other .8 gain screen, i.e. not much darker than a standard 1.0 gain white screen. I've seen the .8 BD screen many times with 2:35:1 material, and I personally would definitely require masking since they remain visible.

And this is all even a bit more complicated because there are more caveats. The hot-spotting nature of the .8 screen material means that there isn't an even brightness across the screen. So if you are sitting in the center, brightness falls off from the center, so portions of the "projected black bars" are indeed even darker, but so is the rest of the image to the sides. Sitting more to one side of the .8 screen will leave the closer side to you brighter, the further side significantly darker, so you'll have a range of darkness to the black bars you wouldn't get with a 1.0 gain screen that has no coating and reflects light more evenly. Finally, there remain room interactions. In a more reflective room a 1.0 gain white screen will tend to reflect on to the ceiling more, which means more light is reflecting back from the ceiling to the image. And so the brighter the image on screen, the more light is reflected back on the image, washing it out. In this case the "black bars" either side or top/bottom black bars, will raise their brightness up and down with the brightness of the image, so sometimes they get more visible, other scenes the black bars are darker. A sort of "pumping brightness" effect.

The BD screen can really minimize this in a more reflective room. By focusing light away from the room boundaries, less of the room lights up to wash out the image and raise the brightness of the black bars. So the BD screen will mitigate the "pumping brightness effect," keeping the black bars a more solid level of darkness. But a reflective enough room will still show some level of brightness variation in the black bars, even with a BD .8 screen.

It's all really complex, with variations in viewer sensitivity to these issues thrown in the mix, which makes generalized claims like "removes the need for masking" pretty useless.

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 online now  
post #29 of 29 Old 09-10-2013, 08:41 AM
Advanced Member
 
Mr. Hatcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Posts: 625
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by d.j. View Post

Adanny


If I was you, I would take a look at the new VPL-VW500ES - it will come more close to the 1000ES, then any other projector out there and for a much lower Price ( but still in the high end, but quality, 4K, and very bright, allways cost biggrin.gif )

dj

+1

Respectfully,
Mr. Hatcher


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

Tags
Sony Vpl Vw1000es Projector , Epson 5010 Powerlite Home Cinema 3d Front Projector , Jvc Dla Rs66 , Benq W7000 Home Projection System
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