AVS Forum banner

Upgrade to 4K, which projector?

10K views 78 replies 18 participants last post by  coderguy 
#1 ·
My dilemma is that I cannot demo the multitude of PJs out there, living in Central Oregon. The closest big cities to me are Portland and Seattle, Wa. All the stores demo Sonys, 365s (old) and the 675!

I currently have a Samsung SP-a800B, DLP projector onto a WAB 120" screen. Its a little dim and I want to get upgraded to 4K anyway. I need some future proof, since I can't buy a PJ every year ;-)

I'd like a laser light source, and I'm leaning to the new TI DLP chips, but the current PJs lack the great contrast ratios. Top of my list is the Sony 675, but the 60Hz/HDR limitation bothers me for the future.

I'd like some comments on the 1080p pixel shifters vs the "true 4K" Sony. Screen is 120" diagonal and I sit 12-1/2 feet from it. Who has actually compared similar? The JVCs with the best contrast and full support for some of the other UHD features are attractive, but if it is noticeably not as sharp, what would be the point of upgrade?

Any recommends/hints/help welcome.

Thanks, George in Oregon
 
See less See more
#2 · (Edited)
There is no ideal 4K projector, certainly not at a reasonable price. So you will need to decide what trade-offs you can accept. The new Sony VPL-VW385 appears to offer most of the performance and features of the VW675 that was introduced a year earlier. So you get native 4K resolution, HDR support, lens memory and a dynamic iris for better contrast than the entry level VW285. These Sony models use a lamp-based light engine. They are limited by a HDMI 2.0 input that only supports 13.5 Gbps max. input data rate which is short the 18 Gbps allowed by the HDMI 2.0 standard. As a result the available performance for using with 2160p @60Hz video sources will be more limited.. This is not a real issue today for use with Ultra HD Blu-ray discs. The price is $8K. Other under $15K projectors all use pixel shifting to provide 4K-lite or pseudo 4K support..


The JVC lamp based models use pixel shifting with 1080p display chips which means they cannot display display the full 4K resolution but they do appear more detailed than a regular 1080p projector. In fact the difference in visible details in their displayed image and that of true 4K projector is rather subtle with the vast majority of video material on UHD Blu-ray or 4K streaming video. The JVC's, such as the DLA-RS540 ($6K list), or the more expensive RS640 ($8K), do support a wide color gamut (out to DCI-P3) and have industry leading contrast/black levels and have full bandwidth HDMI 2.0 inputs, so they are good to go with all current 2160p @ 60Hz formats support by that HDMI standard. Also be aware the JVC's are allowed to be discounted while the Sony's are not, so the flagship JVC pixel shifter RS600 will have street price will under that of the Sony VW385, even though their list price is similar.


Epson has their LS10500 carried over from last year and it does have a laser light engine and uses pixel shifting along with 1080p display chips, similar approach to that used by JVC. Its light output is lower than the JVC RS500/600 when the JVC has a new or low hours lamp, but the Epson's laser should retain it brightness for a very long time with traditional lamps frequently lose 25% or their original brightness by around 1000 hours of wear on the lamp. Its HDMI 2.0 input does not support the full 18 Gbps data rates so it compatibility with 2160p @ 60Hz formats is limited.


The new DLP 4K projectors also use pixel shifting, but instead of the 1080p chips used by JVC and Epson (with 2 Mpixels each), the DLP uses 4 Mpixel display chips so there image will potentially be a little more detailed then the JVC and Epson pixel shifters, but still a little less than a native 4K Sonys. Note there are other factors at play here since the lens quality and the alignment of the red/blue/green panels in the Sony/Epson/JVC can also visible impact resolution. Also these DLP single chip projector are subject to color separation artifacts, better know as rainbow effect, that some people are sensitive to. I am in the process of reviewing an Acer 4K DLP and I can occasionally see the rainbows, but you might not. The basic 4K DLP models from such companies as Acer, BenQ and Optoma are selling for under $2.5K with the laser models start at under $5K. The entry level models tend to be short on features (e.g., manual focus, manual zoom, no lens memory, etc) and also only display Rec. 709 color space even though they may accept inputs in the wide color spaces used with most/many UHD video sources. Also these 4K DLP models have rather low, by todays home theater projector standards, contrast ratio with higher than ideal black levels. Note that manufacturer's specs. for contrast ratio are meaningless in most cases (JVC is an exception). For example, the Acer I am reviewing measures at under 1500:1 native contrast ratio, as it would be operated in the real world, while the Acer spec. sheets say it has a CR of 1,200.000:1 (I guess that was measured with the projector's lamp turned off for the black measurement).


You may want to check out some of the reviews and articles we have published at www.projectorreviews.com (but reviews for some of the very latest models are still to be published).
 
#3 ·
I'd say based on your screen size, the actual resolution you see on the screen, would be very close. Close enough that other aspects of the image might have greater impact.

If you have seen and like the sony motion flow, it's an something the sony does much better than other brands.

When it comes the native contrast and dynamic iris boosting on/off contrast, jvc is the current champ.

Then there is the issue with calibrated lumen output and impact on hdr material. All of the affordable projectors come up just a little short of enough light ouput, but som e are better than others. I think the ron's comment on the epson 10500 holding onto its initial lumen output is a great point.

Personally, I narrowed down recent decision to the 10500 and the jvc rs640/990.

In the end, for me, it's the contrast performance that really enhances my ht experience. Then when you add how recent jvc projectors have done a great job of increasing the light output on there projectors. Lastly the jvc also have the full 18g HDMI 2.2 ports.

I also want a laser based projector. I just had a hard time selling myself on the epson.

I seriously considered trying to snag a sony 760es from Europe, but I ended feeling that extra $$$ over the x990 would better spent in a few years.

I now own the jvc x990 and it's an e excellent prone 1st and I don't regret the choice.

Maybe there are some avs members you might be able to visit? It might be worth asking the owner threads of the projectors on your short list. You're welcome cost me if you find yourself in the Philly area.

Goiid luck with you decision.
 
#4 ·
#6 ·
I would definitely wait for some reviews on the new 260es and 360es projectors from Sony as they seem to be extremely good performers. Far better than their predecessors. It also seems their black level is superb.
From what I've read they're the same as their predecessors. I think what you're seeing is excitement because they're cheaper, and now folks who couldn't afford their predecessors can afford these, and the 4K machines are a large improvement over their 1080p ones.

FWIW, it's the same problem with the 4K DLP machines, there's a lot of folks who have them and are really excited (justifiably) but who don't have any experience with the alternatives in the $5k+ range.
 
#5 · (Edited)
My dilemma is that I cannot demo the multitude of PJs out there, living in Central Oregon. The closest big cities to me are Portland and Seattle, Wa. All the stores demo Sonys, 365s (old) and the 675!
FWIW, those two machines will be very representative of what you'll see with any of the new Sony machines in the same price range. From the reviews it sounds like Sony didn't really change anything this year other than reshuffling prices and lineup. No real performance changed/improvements.

Actually it seems there really haven't been any significant performance changes from anyone this year, so whatever you see demoed (assuming it's a good demo, which is a challenge) should be representative of what you'd get with a new model, even if the demo machine is a year or two old.

FWIW, (as a Planar 8150 owner, and overall DLP fan) I'd write DLP off your list, the contrast performance on those XPR machines is just too bad, if you're going to spend $5k+ you can do much, much better than these XPR DLPs and their abysmal contrast performance, low calibrated brightness, lack of WCG, 3D, placement flexibility and lens memory.
 
#7 ·
Hi glabelle17,
Welcome to AVS.
You have come to the right place for opinions on projectors. :)
FWIW, we also live in central Oregon. It's a beautiful time of year in the Willamette valley.
Another thing we have in common is wanting to invest in a 4K PJ.
I thought Ron sumarrized the current state of affairs very well. Then Stranger made an excellent point: This year, there have been some shuffling around, but no real "quantum" breakthroughs in the 4K price/performance offerings.
Like Stranger, I'm a DLP fan. Something about the native sharpness and overall image "punch". However, DLP contrast is indeed challenged, relative to LCOS.
I would +1 on christoffeldg's recommendation and wait a bit longer. That's what I'm doing. We have a Sharp XV-Z3000 DLP. It has powered lens controls and lens memory (important in our set up). Contrast is very good, but not state of the art. Sharpness is "cutting edge" (HT humor). Lamps are cheap ($65). My thinking is that 2018 is a promising year for new additions to the 4K line up. The 2nd gen 4K DLPs should be coming out. Benq has been a player in the mid to high end DLP game previously. Perhaps they will step up with a
 
#8 ·
My thinking is that 2018 is a promising year for new additions to the 4K line up. The 2nd gen 4K DLPs should be coming out.
Honestly, I've basically written off DLP until I see something really breakthrough, like sequential DMDs. Nobody in the DLP camp seems interested in pushing boundaries, they just seem interested in hoping on the 4K bandwagon and hoping resolution alone will carry them through. All the big players got out of the HT market except Sim2, who seems happy to just rebadge mediocre machines and sell them at an enormous premium.

Benq has been a player in the mid to high end DLP game previously.
But they never broke ground, which is what we need. Yes BenQ played in the mid range (W9000/W10000) but that was primarily repackaging existing technology at a more affordable price. BenQ was at is peak (in HT) when the average price of an HT DLP was ~$15k and they could sell machines that were "close enough" in performance for about half the price. But what XPR needs is someone like Sim2, Delta (at the request of a Planar/Runco/etc type) or similar to pour a lot of R&D into a new light engine for XPR that optimizes contrast. To be competitive, DLP needs to get, at the very least, to the 5000:1 native range, and ideally to the 10,000:1 native or above range. Well only a small handful of DLPs have ever managed the former, like the Sharp X20000 (at very low light output I might add) and the Sim2 Lumis. I don't think there's ever been a DLP with over 10,000:1 native.

Perhaps they will step up with a
 
#9 ·
If you want laser and native 4K, you will have to step up to the Sony VW885, RS4500 or B-stock RS4500. If those are above budget, then I would look at the Sony VW385 or JVC RS640. The JVC is not native 4K, but E-shift does a good job with 4K movies. As others have said, XPR needs a boost in contrast to be relevant. If I can help you, shoot me a PM or email.
 
#11 ·
Based on your requirements I'd demo the Optoma UHZ65 in person (or buy from place with good return policy) and see what you think. While native contrast is not as high as the Sony it has dynamic black laser modulation which boosts the contrast significantly. And it checks most of your other boxes.
 
#12 ·
Stranger,
You may be right. However, I do think that things are still in a state of flux. Sony is reducing prices and Epson is due to make a change or two. Lasers are coming into the mix...
Here at AVS, many upgrade to the bleeding edge every year. As a result, there are nice, low mileage machines available. With 4K content still limited, I can make a case for finding a good used PJ and sitting on the fence a little longer.
That's my plan and I'm sticking to it. :)
 
#13 ·
Then I would be looking at closeout pricing on an RS520 or a B-stock 520.
 
#14 ·
http://www.htforum.nl/yabbse/index.php?topic=165327.100

There is some good information in that thread , feedback from a recent show in Belgium covers all the models except the VW675 you mentioned . My take away from that is that all
the lower tier projectors are the same with the exception of minor differences , you would need to figure out which one suits your personal specific needs .

In the mean time I did 450 hours a/b testing with the VW675 Sony and RS600 JVC . I'll give you my take PM, suffice it to say what you read on that link above sums it up . One more thing
what are your watching habits? Nice to look to the future for 4K and HDR but don't forget to consider what is realistically most of your viewing habits .90% of my library is 1080 HD rec
709 content . The VW675 I owned and the VW600 did the best job of up-scaling this content to 4K , even 3D and FI , nothing else I could match . For many this is still a very high
priority .

To narrow down suggestions it will be important to know how dark is your theater, a few pictures would help even more. What are your watching habits and goals . Screen size,gain, throw
distance, anamorphic lens, seating distance/s and budget.
 
#20 ·
Both brands make great performing projectors. I think your main question shouldn't be image quality because both are great, but rather speed or brightness.

The 4k Sony pjs aren't as bright, but most likely plenty bright for you. The JVC has terrible speed tho, with very slow HDMI sync times taking up to 20 seconds before you see something on screen. Either of these may or may not concern you depending on your needs. For me both are too much a concern to buy either so I'll get a vw760es instead :).
 
  • Like
Reactions: roxiedog13
#21 ·
What's 20 Seconds? I'm retired! :)

I want the best possible picture. I don't care about a minor issue like waiting 20 Sec. for sync up. I read the German forum on the Belgium show. The Google translation makes it very difficult to understand EXACTLY what these poster mean/feel. However, it did appear that JVCs looked "edgy" and most of these posters have Sonys, so it is hard to conclude anything from it.

If I had to choose today (and I can't :) ) it would be between the Sony VW385ES, and JVC X990. (Honorable mention: UHZ65) This purchase will be in Jan. 2018 earliest. So I still have time to decide. Maybe the suggestion of getting one into my home is a good one - what retailer does that?

Thanks, George P.S. I've sent 3 PMs to 3 different posters and not received a reply. Are newbie's PMs reviewed first, or???
 
#25 ·
It depends on the type of user you are. For many it will indeed matter little, but I'm a gamer and I see many many resyncs every evening.

I did consider the x7900 a long time, but the sync already bothers me a lot right now even. And right now I own a Sony with 2 second sync times. I can barely imagine the frustration the JVC would bring me.
 
#26 ·
That is the one area that JVC definitely needs to improve and once they get that ironed out, then there will be very little to complain about. Both Sony and JVC throw excellent images, with each having different strengths.
 
#31 ·
Every year everyone say there's a price revolution right behind the corner. And every year it becomes more clear it isn't happening that fast.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Haiej
#51 ·
Ehh, saying that the JVC eshifts are sharper than the Sony native 4k is very biased. There are enough people out there that say the slight lens advantage of the JVC top end does not outweigh the 4k native sharpness of the Sony.

You're fine to express and hold your own opinion. But don't make the mistake of confusing opinion with facts.

And this is for me one of the few fora that actually prefer JVC over Sony. Most other I visit it's the reverse. Not saying they are right and you are wrong, but it's clear your opinion is not the holy truth here.
 
#53 · (Edited by Moderator)
Ehh, saying that the JVC eshifts are sharper than the Sony native 4k is very biased. There are enough people out there that say the slight lens advantage of the JVC top end does not outweigh the 4k native sharpness of the Sony.

You're fine to express and hold your own opinion. But don't make the mistake of confusing opinion with facts.

And this is for me one of the few fora that actually prefer JVC over Sony. Most other I visit it's the reverse. Not saying they are right and you are wrong, but it's clear your opinion is not the holy truth here.
I will tell you that anyone saying the Sony is sharper is being biased or did not notice ringing from RC being turned up. The Sony 885 is a fantastic projector, but it does not quite have the sharpness of the JVC 4500. The advantages of the Sony are: size, weight, noise level and price.

Added
Maybe I took this wrong and you are talking about the lamp based JVC vs the native 4K Sony? If so, I agree the Native 4K is sharper than the E-shift JVC's, but they are pretty close and will be hard to tell a difference with video content. Just like they are close with motion, but the edge goes to the Sony.
 
#52 ·
The Sony's also start with much less contrast for the price and have generally not been as sharp as the JVC's...[/QUOTE said:
Whoa. I understand the contrast has been much improved with the new SXRD panels. What is your definition of "much less"?

And I see no way that a 1080p pixel shifter can be sharper than a native 4K panel. Please elaborate on that one.

George
 
#57 ·
If you read through the Sony forum you will see the way Sony resolves the material doesn't produce a true 4k image either.

I personally think it's one of those things that unless you had the projectors side by side you'd have a tough time distinguishing between them in real world viewing, from real world seating distances.

I've swapped projectors out back and forth over the years and it wasn't until I set them up split screen that I picked up on noticeable differences.
 
#59 · (Edited)
A lot of baloney being spread around this thread...

The problem is a 10+ year history of Sony's losing contrast, ever since I've been visiting this forum.
There are those every year that claim "it's been fixed", and then every year the problem is found again.

Trustworthy sources in this forum tested Sony's from 1-2 years ago and found the same issue, losing contrast (including Cine4).

I've been in these forums a VERY long time, and I know a few dealers and installers.
One common issue the installer gets is that the Sony's need to be replaced due to a washed out looking image.
He's seen contrast drop as low as 400:1 on some of these 1-3 year old Sony's. He still sells Sony and people still buy them, as the majority of projector users do NOT use their projector that often (that's the only reason there hasn't been a class action lawsuit for this problem). But yes, for moderate to heavy users, the chances of losing contrast is extremely high, I'd say 80% chance. I've gone to Magnolia type places and seen bad Sony's myself, where they had almost no contrast left. It's not just the setup, it's because they left the projector on too long and it fried the contrast.

Go ahead and pay $6,000 to $10,000 for a projector that will lose contrast, it's your choice. However, this is a deal breaking issue for most (including myself), not that I can pay this much for a PJ right now anyhow...

Maybe the problem isn't there anymore, but most people cannot afford to take a bet that has been losing for 10+ years.
 
#60 · (Edited)
Other typical Sony QC issues: (by Cine4)
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/24-di...aser-projector-announced-29.html#post54732852

You won't find contrast loss or bad samples with JVC (rarely there is 1), it happens constantly with Sony.
The only reason Sony is still alive is because of the installer backbone, and 95% of the people they are installing projectors for have no clue about any technical stuff. That is why Sony keeps getting away with this stuff...

I wouldn't buy a Sony, nothing to do with picture quality (I may actually like Sony better), but everything to do with contrast loss and BAD QC...
I don't even evaluate or hunt down Sony's anymore because what's the point, I'm never going to buy one unless I know for certain some of these QC problems are fixed for good.

Even if a perfect Sony is sharper looking (due to its slightly purer 4k) than a perfect JVC sample, the chances of getting a Sony that is actually sharper looking than the JVC are less than 50%... Confirmed by an installer I know, a dealer, and Cine4 (and that was only 1 year ago, no reason to think its suddenly changed).

Therefore, in my book, and as I originally stated, the JVC's are ON AVERAGE by far sharper than the sub-$10,000 Sony's...
I very much doubt it has changed this year...

Like I said, people have no clue what they are talking about in this thread...
 
#61 ·
You won't find contrast loss or bad samples with JVC (rarely there is 1), it happens constantly with Sony.
Your thoughts line up pretty closely with mine with this exception. JVC certainly has had their fair share of issues over the years. RSx0 lineup having bulb issues, RSx00/RSx20 vertical banding, RSx40 initial samples with lens issues. JVC is far from the choir boy here and I've owned quite a few of their projectors including the new 990. ;)
 
#65 ·
You forgot to mention that Sony eats kittens alive and funds islamic terrorism.

And of course we're all as dumb as a rock and have never seen a projector in our lives. Hence we cannot form a decent opinion.

Anyway, Cine4 you were quoting absolutely loved the VW750ES and is calling it the projector of the year. Doesn't seem like someone that's reporting any potential contrast deterioration either. I also don't see any actual comparison between a JVC and a Sony in his report either, neither in yours.
 
#67 · (Edited)
Anyway, Cine4 you were quoting absolutely loved the VW750ES and is calling it the projector of the year. Doesn't seem like someone that's reporting any potential contrast deterioration either. I also don't see any actual comparison between a JVC and a Sony in his report either, neither in yours.
I have 3 other sources (at least), probably 5 including online...

Look, it's Cine4, the stats are the stats. He said he saw HUNDREDS of them and just the fact that almost half of them had significant distortion is enough to know that it's not going to match the JVC in sharpness on average. He even specifically called out the Sony's for not having a very good image from long distances (and that is because of the inferior lenses). I'm not just speaking in terms of hundreds of samples, but probably 1000+ if you combine all my sources.

The Sony's are not as sharp as the JVC on average due to QC (it has been this way for years, before it was lens issues, now it's more QC issues). I have ZERO brand loyalty, I don't even own any of the newer SONY or JVC's...

I am simply posting as a warning to others that are not AWARE of these Sony issues.

If you have a good dealer, and can swap the Sony if you get a bad sample, and don't mind contrast loss, go for it.

That said, it is the gambler's projector.

Go ahead and spew nonsense that is not based on any actual statistics, that's why I don't visit the forums as much anymore, because it's mostly people arguing for one brand or another. It used to be actually warning people of the issues they could face when making a large purchase.
 
#68 · (Edited)
People will argue anything, I'm not trying to make people feel bad about their Sony.
I'm just stating actual info I know about it.

I wouldn't worry about the contrast loss too much for light users, but for moderate to heavy users, it's a MAJOR issue.

A problem that has existed for 10+ years is not a POTENTIAL CONTRAST DEGRADATION ISSUE... It has been confirmed by my own eyes at dealers, by Zombie, by Seegs, and by Cine4 (and an installer and another dealer I know). Both Zombie and Seegs vw1000/11000es experienced contrast loss.

If the problem has gone on this long, it's not MY BURDEN OF PROOF that needs to be addressed, it's the other side arguing it has been fixed.
 
#69 ·
As a final note:

Cine4 specifically said he doesn't judge or rate projectors by QC issues, but that he was extremely concerned about the newer Sony's due to a huge hindrance and flood of QC issues with the sharpness in the previous year's models...

The fact he liked the projector so much is in SPITE of the QC issues with the sharpness...

It doesn't bother me that people express opinions contrary to my own (that's fine), the problem is people get politician like and try to turn around what other people said just to argue something that isn't true (and not even up for debate really)...
 
#71 ·
Right, Ekki only said there is some reason to be concerned and it might be best to do a good check when you buy one. You're adding that "extremely" all in your lonesome and it makes your entire message untrustworthy. You're exaggerating and forgetting that Ekki would not call this the projector of the year if he had any real extensive concerns.

Your exaggeration and trying to push other people's words and twisting them to suit your case isn't helping you to make yours. We will see in Ekki's final report, but I doubt he will say anything "extremely concerning" like you suggest.

As for the contrast problems, that issue hasn't been discussed at all recently. In none of the boards I'm visiting. And the VW1000ES is just ancient.
 
#73 · (Edited)
I'm not exaggerating at all, as I said multiple sources I have read said many Sony's have had QC issues with sharpness.

Cine4 Said
20% being unacceptable and 20% being bad enough to be significantly noticeable is a ridiculously high number, what post are you reading?
That is 40% that are sub-par, and again I have another source that says it is worse than that, more like 50/50 if you get one with ok sharpness...

You would not find half of all JVC owners with convergence issues, more like 1 in 10 to 1 in 20, much less almost 1 in 2 where it was a hindrance or rather too noticeable.

I never said the best Sony was less sharp than the best JVC when comparing 4k, I agree the best Sony probably looks better at 4k (never compared it personally), just based on what I heard. That said, what matters is the averages.

Your chances of getting a really good Sony sample are only 20% to 40% or so, that's not great. It's around 90%+ with the JVC, and I know that to be true from direct sources.

And I believe Stranger is wrong on one point, many Sony's resolving capabilities are bad enough to significantly affect the 4k and make it worse than JVC (almost half)... It's a serious problem, and Sony needs to be reprimanded for poor QC at these pricing levels.

What is this, a $10,000 projector or more, and with 50% of them with QC issues, that is ridiculous and absurd.
 
#72 ·
It would be interesting to compare the new Sony series with the older one to see if there're many differences.

I have seen many that thought the previous pre-550 PJ lines from Sony were very dissapointing. But were completely astonished with the new ones. I'm curious what the difference is, in sharpness and contrast.
 
#75 ·
Coderguy this is leading nowhere. Neither of us will change opinion so I'm stopping here.
 
#77 ·
It wasn't just the vw1000es that had contrast loss, it was some of LAST year's projectors that were confirmed (excuse me that I do not recall which models were or were not confirmed to have the issue). It takes a while for the contrast loss to show up, usually a year or two, that's why it's not discussed at first. Nothing has changed, this has been the same thing for the past 10 years, very little talk about it and then someone makes a post (same as always).

It's the same tiring arguments.
 
#78 ·
Since you brought up this contrast issue, I was forced to research it. I found that Sony was aware of it and fixed it about 2 years ago. It was apparently due to high humidity deterioration of a coating on the panels. Even if it still existed, I doubt I'd be effected, since I'm at 4,100 ft., high desert, low humidity.

Thanks, George
 
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