AVS Forum banner

High-End 1080p or Entry-Level 4K?

4K views 69 replies 18 participants last post by  Seegs108 
#1 ·
So as I start planning out my next theater room (coming this Fall!), I'm wondering what the consensus is these days on 1080p vs 4K projectors.

Should I go with the trusty Sony 55ES (or something comparable), or one of the upcoming cheap-o (comparatively speaking) 4K projectors?

As most of you know, with TVs, many of the high quality 1080p sets blow away the cheap 4K sets. So while I guess it may seem like an obvious question, will it be the same way with projectors? It's been a while since I've been in the projector game (using Optomas and Epsons of various models in the past), so just looking for some updated guidance.
 
#2 ·
If you are not buying until this fall, then the simple answer is to say, wait until we see what is announced this fall.
 
#5 ·
Anyone want to chime in on this now? there are a couple quasi 4k projectors and stuff... The JVC's come to mind as relatively inexpensive 4k capable projectors.

Through a government liquidation website I purchased a used Sanyo dht100l with a standard zoom lens for my coworking space. It's away being serviced and in the meantime I'm trying to put together a screening room as a perk for my members, and as a perk for myself.

I wonder if I have spent wisely or if in a couple months I'll be kicking myself.
 
#6 · (Edited)
The situation has remained the same. Unless you're willing to spend the money on the 600ES or 1100ES I'd avoid Sony's cheaper 4K offering. I don't think the 350ES is worth it's price. The contrast performance compared to similarly priced (and much lower priced) projectors is so far behind it's not even funny despite what many of the current owners will tell you. Not to sound like an ass, but I firmly believe many of them say the contrast performance is good because they want to feel just in their purchase. Or it could be something as simple as them not seeing any of the current offerings from JVC, Sony, Epson and others side by side with the 350ES. It will get destroyed by basically any $2000+ LCD/LCoS projector out there currently when it comes to on/off contrast. Sony should have hindered the 350ES in some other way. For a 2015 projector it truly is far behind the competition at far lower prices with only ~6500:1 contrast available to it. There are cheaper single chip DLPs that can outperform this.

I'd say either buy a JVC DLA-X500 or something similar or simply wait until CEDIA this fall. The market place will not change until CEDIA.
 
#9 ·
While I expect to see more options this fall, I don't know if they will be cheapo. Of course cheapo to one is expensive to another. Hope to hear from you this fall. :)
 
#10 ·
Whether you do it now or later in the Fall, ignore the ignorance and do your own research. Compare in person if you can. There are plenty of reviews on the "entry" level 4K projectors where they are compared to the best 1080p machines today. There are a few more European reviews on the VW300/500 than on the VW350/600 in the US (which are 100% the same models) so it is better to use "test" as opposed to "review" in your searches.
 
#14 ·
You saw what you saw and that is fine. Many others saw quite differently. So I am not making a conclusion for others here as they have to look for various sources. Two examples - the VW350 has higher native than the earlier VW600 with iris off. It is around 10,000:1 measured my me and others. Craig had the VW1100 and WV600 in one room for two months - side by side and saw no sharpness difference between the two (600 and 350 are equal there). You claim the opposite as you now have the VW1000, so one has to wonder about how you compared.


Most reviewers have said with no doubt the 4k Sony's have the most detailed 1080p picture and they mention the latest JVCs etc. At least two review compared with x700/x500 and gave the nod to the JVC for native CR only, all else goes to Sony. I know you report what you saw faithfully but I would not assume everyone else is lying as a result. If you see one car driving against the traffic in a one way street, who would assume is doing it right? Of course everyone is free to express their own opinion and draw their conclusions anyway they want.
 
#15 · (Edited)
What have I claimed the opposite about with the 1100ES? I said before that I liked the X500 more. The VW1100ES has it's strengths but it's no match whatsoever to the JVCs when it comes on/off contrast. It reminds me very much of a DLP image. This VW1100ES seems sharper to my eyes compared to the one I saw last fall and I think a lot of that is due to using it in reference mode vs cinema 1 mode which is brighter. I've had a lot more time to spend with it compared to the one I saw in the fall, but the X500 is not far behind in sharpness. Also, you haven't answered my question. Have you seen any of the other top LCoS models next to the 350ES? You're claiming some people's posts as "ignorant". I think it's important to give subjective advice only if it's your own. One should never resort to saying something is definitely better if they haven't actually seen that strength themselves. There are certain things, like lumen and contrast measurements, that can be quoted from reviews because it's something that is objective. But other aspects can be purely subjective, like sharpness, motion, and general fidelity. If you haven't seen these things in person you really shouldn't be using review site comparison quotes as your defense. Like I said, you really need to take most of those reviews with a grain of salt because they often don't have things set up properly to make fair comparisons. Brightness matching is the most important and I think, recently, turning all the post processing/sharpening crap off is also important. This right here is why you need to take those "sharpness" statements and throw them out the window. Because it's only with RC enabled will you get an appreciably sharper image like I said, but this comes as a cost. Grain, backgrounds, and faces all take on a noisier "hard" appearance. You lose some of that naturalness in the image to get the picture to look sharper. Sometimes you read what you want to read or you may not have all the information as to why someone said what they did. More often than not a review is missing information like this. Can you tell me in the reviews/comparisons you read about where the Sony's image appeared sharper than another LCoS projector, did they talk about where RC was set to and if the images were brightness matched when making these comparisons? Like the ear with louder speakers, the eye likes a brighter image more and can taint what is actually going on. It's important to brightness match and disable settings that make the comparison unfair if you're going to make definitive statements.

When I first saw the 1100ES last fall and made my comparison to the X500 it was in the same room on the same screen but it was one image right after the other. Mark's screen wasn't really large enough to do a proper A/B. Now that I've had the 1100ES here, I've been able to do my own proper A/B and yes I like the 1100ES moreso than before, but is still not as good as the JVC in a couple areas.

Contrast is very important (some argue the most important, I think a balance between a few things is more important than absolute contrast performance) and I think it's bad to downplay this on the forum when we look at the 350ES. You say you've measured 10000:1 but I've seen two well respected publications, Sound & Vision and Cine4home (who've measured a series of units that they sold) and got around 6500:1, not 10000:1. I'm not saying your measurements are incorrect, but I think it's fair to say most units aren't getting 10000:1. You may have a good sample. It's also important to note that the 600ES/1100ES got the updated optical block that the 350ES has. New 600ES units will have the same native contrast as the 350ES and the 1100ES will have more than older 1100/1000ES units. But the 600ES will also have a manual/dynamic iris on top of that. If anything don't downplay this deficiency because at the end of the day recommending this projector to someone who's expecting good contrast performance because that's what someone said on the forum is going to do more harm than good. Because it's simply not true in the context of what a $10,000 2015 projector should have and especially so when there are several sub $3000 projectors that outclass this projector in this regard. This is it's only real weakness in my opinion and it's enough enough of a difference to highlight the drawback when comparing to the current competition and even when comparing to much cheaper units. Other than that it's a stellar projector with some worthwhile valuable assets (4K panels and high brightness for instance). From what I've been told, relatively speaking, the 600ES' street price is not much more and I think would be a no brainier simply due to the addition of that highly important dynamic iris.
 
#18 ·
Definitely. I love what a good DLP image looks like. I just need better native contrast with a good DI. Oh and the DI must work in 3D as well. There's like a handful of projectors that allow the DI to be enabled in 3D mode. None of the Sony 3D units allow this. :(
 
#20 · (Edited)
I was going off of the first test numbers which indicate (at full brightness/zoom) ~6000:1 contrast. I didn't realize they posted another article since then. Sound and Vision also reports 6500:1 on their unit along with PJHC.

8000: 1 calibrated: 1 to 10,000. The serial interface is 8500: 1 (medium Zoom). Although these are not worlds to its big brother, so the increase does help compensate for the lack of adaptive iris to a certain extent. The associated black level is dependent on the image size and lamp mode. For Sizes 3,2m under the Eco Mode is recommended.

The obvious between the two is in differences in the absolute black level in and dark scenes are without strong contrast, here there was a slight gray haze that lays over the image. But as soon as even small bright elements come into the picture, the screen looks, thanks to the high Inbildkontrastes (checkerboard contrast 450: 1), plastic and appealing.
No offense but for a $10,000 2015 projector this is a "crappy" number. I don't see how you can justify it any other way. I wish they crippled it in some other way. Like I said, there are single chip DLPs that are better suited than the 350ES for dark scene handling. Other than that, I agree with what PJHC says. It's a solid projector if you can look past it's middling contrast performance.
 
#21 ·
Batter up, sports fans. How exactly is sharpness measured?


What is the definition of sharpness?


Sharpness is measured by MTF and the ability to see a specific number of line pairs. Pure and simple.


Some projectors will be reported as being sharper with the poster using his/her own perception of sharpness. Some will use a subjective metric of the ability to resolve pixels. A DLP will look sharper than a liquid crystal projector because the pixels are rectangles with nice edges. This is not an appropriate measure of sharpness. Anything using some variety of e shift will not really be sharp because of the processing done by the viewers eye/brain image system. Most sharpness reports are based, in part, on the utilization of some degree of fuzzy logic.
 
#26 ·
The Epson throws a great image. Compared with the X500 I think the JVC throws a slightly better overall image for a lot less money. But it'd be a great choice for those who'd use it like a TV ie heavy usage. If you can actually get the value out of the laser it'd be a great choice. For strict 2-3 movies a week type of usage the JVC would be the obvious choice between the two. I think it's motion is a bit better than the JVCs from what I saw. I do like the native motion performance on the Sony (quite a bit more than the JVC), though I watch mostly 24fps movies and TV shows not sports so I guess I can't really comment on that aspect. Did you get a chance to use the Sony's "Motion Flow" frame interpolation software? That should help with sports a bit.
 
#27 ·
Bob and I did try the motion modes, I don't like the effect. For me the Sony is out! I watch mostly TV and sports. I still think the best option for me is to pick up a 1080p 3 chip dlp. Keep you eye out for me;) I do agree the jvc is a better value no doubt! But the epson in its first year is pretty impressive.
 
#28 ·
1080P projectors were $10,000 when I first was looking. The best deal was the Panasonic (that I bought). the price dropped so fast on them that I bought the Panasonic when they were offering $3000 factory cash back if you bought it. I bet we have UHD-R under $5000 by the holiday season.
 
#29 ·
I'll take that bet. For you to win, first there must become available a cheap 4K set of chips. Not a chance from TI whether a single 4K DLP or a consumer set of 3. Sony won't sell its 4K chips to others and will likely replace the 350 and 500/600 with laser pumped machines at around present pricing.. JVC might have 4K in their upper end consumer machines but even if one orders from the historically cheapest source, the price would still be over $5K.
 
#32 ·
No matter what, a 1080p display will provide better picture quality than the 4k projector will for the same price. WHile the 1080p may have less pixels, it may be better with motion or colors, etc where as the 4k they will cut down on costs to make it more affordable.

So unless you spend more money 4k, a 1080p display will be better for your money. Unless you have money, and you buy a more expensive 4k projector then it will be better than 1080p.

Like for example, take a look at the projectors in a conference room at your job... those are really crappy. THere's a lot nore to a projecter than pixels.
 
#35 ·
This is only true at the moment. In a few years when video processing becomes more affordable for 4K/UHD resolutions it will drive the cost down quite a bit. As long as they don't drive the size of the imager up lens quality/size doesn't have to take a dramatic rise in cost. Judging from Sony's .74" native 4K SXRD panel I don't see this becoming a trend. The imagers will remain around the .7" size which seems to be the sweet spot for modest optics that include ample zoom and lens shift capabilities. There's nothing specific to 4K that will drive costs up compared to what they're doing with 1080p right now. It's just early adopter fee crap to recoup lost money from R&D and initial manufacture.
 
#36 ·
Great thread, as I am considering buying a new (first!) PJ this Fall and have a ton of questions as to whether 1080pbor 4k Sony is the way to go...

Leaning towards the SONY, but, does anyone have experience with Xbox ONE and PS4 on these PJs? Lag? Look? Etc?

I want the 4k to future proof and feel like, by the Fall, I can probably score the SONY for $5k...

Thoughts? Advice? Straighten me out? :grin:

Thanks
 
#39 ·
I will be down right shocked if you can score a new Sony for 5K this fall, since that is well below cost.
 
#37 ·
One other question tied to the above:

Have roughly $1000 for a receiver. More if need be. If I were to get the SONY, is there a "best in this price range" receiver to pair it with?

Thanks a million, gang!
 
#40 ·
I know this would all be speculation, but how much do you think a DLP 4K projector will start out at? For my particular application, I have a totally light controlled room with JVC RS-45 (new bulb just installed), Screen Excellence Enlightor 4K screen (.98 gain), Prismasonic anamorphic lens. I watch movies and a few tv shows, but the majority of my viewing ends up being sports (probably 67/33). So while true blacks are important, I think I value motion a bit more -- I especially watch a lot of football and soccer, and while I'm not an even close to having a finely-tuned eye, the sometimes stuttering motion of the balls is distracting at times. Would a DLP be better for that?
 
#41 ·
Let me put it this way, I think the threads for these new 4K DLP's will need to be in the 20K plus forum. Yes a DLP should be better for motion than an RS45.
 
#43 ·
I'd be shocked, too. However, folks bought them for $5500-$7000 and by the time I am in the market, clearance may be a factor for new models.

That said, my questions were not about price on the Pj so any help is appreciated!
 
#44 ·
Sony doesn't lower it's pricing like other companies do on occasion. The MSRP will remain the same and on top of that Sony has SURE pricing which means dealers cannot sell below a certain cost. If they do and it gets reported to Sony they could lose their right to sell Sony products. The price is unfortunately set in stone. Though you could score one cheaper on the used market but this will lack a warranty. Most likely they'll announce a new projector at a lower price, but expect lower performance. This will phase out any remaining stock that Sony has on the more expensive models. IIRC they manufacturer in small batches to keep up with demand. There aren't a ton of units in excess floating around so don't expect some sort of huge price drop if they do phase these units out this fall. I think this is what a lot of people assume happens and it doesn't.
 
#45 ·
Appreciate the reply... And I swear I'm not trying to be a jerk... But the price of the unit is not related to what I need to know, as I am happy to buy it (if it's the best choice) at any price...

The original questions were re: Gaming latency and experiences, and best receiver to pair with it for a price of appx. $1000.

Thoughts?

Thanks:)
 
#46 · (Edited)
If you need 4K and want low latency, the Sony VPL-VW1100ES is your best choice (in regards to PQ) if money is no object . If you input a 4K/UHD image to the projector this gets rid of the necessity to scale the image which lowers the input lag to 35-40ms. Sending it a 1080p image adds a noticeable amount of lag due to the added 4K scaling. For a 1080p projector, iirc, the Epson 8350 is around 16ms and is your best bet.
 
#48 ·
Thanks so much for the suggestions!

2 follow ups:

1. Any way to send 1080p to the SONY 350 without it upscaling, hence eliminating lag?

2. Any receiver suggestions?

Thanks!
 
#50 ·
LOL. Best reply ever. Right to the point. :)

So if I want a Sony 350, I can kiss video games goodbye...

That probably makes up my mind.

What about using the Epsom Laser PJ? Same issue or since it's Eshift no so much?
 
#63 ·
With a very dark scenes with no trace of bright light, you will likely win the wager. These do not require high intra-image dynamic range. As soon there is a bright street light at night, headlights, or anything that requires a higher dynamic range to reproduce the scene faithfully and realistically - PD8150 will fall flat.
 
#64 · (Edited)
No it won't. You haven't seen it's dynamic iris in action. It takes a decent amount of very bright highlight within the image to get it's iris to open up all the way to give the image a flat appearance. This is silly to argue about considering you haven't seen it in action. I know you own this projector and want to advocate it's use to others, but I beg you to stop trying to make it sound as if this projector is good with contrast. I have the 1000ES and without it's DI on, and remember it has even higher native on/off contrast and ANSI contrast compared to the 350ES, it does not look subjectively good by today's standards when content gets dark. There were certain scenes in Harry Potter where I thought the PD8150 did a better job with a convincing level of black within the image when having it next to the 1000ES. That's saying something. I would MUCH rather own the PD8150 if I were stuck with the 1000ES without a DI. I'm telling you wholeheartedly that not even the 1000ES without it's DI enabled can touch the PD8150 with vast majority of very dark scenes. I'll say it again, the PD8150 looks better with most dark content if you compare it to the 1000ES with it's DI off. How do you think this will play out with the 350ES?

The only SXRD projector that I've had here that looked "good" without needing a dynamic iris is the Mitsubishi HC5. This had ~20000:1 on/off native and 450:1 ANSI. But could still look a tad flat with certain dark scenes.
 
#70 ·
The PD8150 also has Unishape lamp modulation technology that works in tandem with the color wheel to enhance contrast when needed. Between the DI, Dynamic Gamma, and Unishape the contrast enhancement suite is quite impressive on the PD8150 and current Runco LS series projectors.

I think the 350ES would look best on a grey screen. It should really help with perceived contrast.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top