Originally Posted by CADOBHuK
Didn't you use to have mits hc6500 ? If so, how does that compare to marantz?
Oh yes I still have the Mits 6500. I love the Mits and use it a lot. The Mits was my first projector purchase, after years of Plasma and LCD sets I couldn't resist the urge to go big, with the Mits. I recently had a opportunity to purchase a refurbished Marantz 11S1 projector and set it up in a spare bedroom. I have the Mitsubishi HC6500 set up in the living room. The Marantz set up in a light controlled bedroom.
I have the Marantz set up in a room, that has three windows, and the windows have been covered with a black shades that block out the light very well. Unfortunately my walls are still, well white walls. I need to add some dark material to the walls and ceilings that would help even further block any light coming from the walls and ceilings shining back onto the screen.
I can say that comparing the Mits and the Marantz is really a un fair comparison. The Marantz simply brings out every detail from it's source that can be brought out. And sometimes that can be a problem. If the source material is not great the Marantz will really let you know it. If something is shot slightly out of focus, it will be amplified with the Marantz. The Mitsubishi is a little more forgiving with lackluster material.
The Mitsubishi is brighter than the Marantz and can handle slightly larger screens, though with my 92 inch screen for the Marantz, I really could go larger. The colors between the two projectors are also little contest. The Marantz colors are very close to accurate, where as the Mitsubishi has some of the most vivid, saturated colors I have seen. Video processing is probably a wash. Silicon Optics versus Gennum VXP are both excellent solutions. I can say for whatever reason that standard def satellite channels do seem to look better on the Marantz than on the Mitsubishi. Although this could be more so due to the better optics on the Marantz than any knock against Silicon Optics Reon processing.
Contrast and blacks. You know I really thought that the Mits had great contrast and blacks, even though the contrast full on/off spec of just 15,000:1 would suggest that maybe the contrast was still below the level of other newer projectors that have much higher contrast using auto iris, and those like the JVC that have much higher contrast and don't use any auto or dynamic iris. The Marantz is in the boat of having no auto iris, and only two manual iris adjustments (F3.0 and F6.0) with the former iris setting giving you a little more light output, versus the F6.0 which will lower the black level. After going back and forth the other night between the two projectors, I find that the Mitsubishi, with the iris engaged, could go a little darker is some scenes where there was mostly dark information on the screen. However, when there was a good mix of light and dark information in the scene, it was no contest, the Marantz, to me eyes, simply had the most 3D look, and dynamic pop to the picture.
Shadow detail, forget about it. I could write for days on the level of detail the Marantz produces in very difficult and dark scenes. I can see fine detail in dark shirts and hats that I never have seen before. The Marantz can show so many shades of gray that I am almost always amazed. The Mitsubishi loses a bit of shadow detail, most due to the auto iris imitations.
I am not RBE sensitive. So to me going DLP from LCD was no major debate. I like both of these projectors, and occasionally like the extra pop and saturation that the Mitsubishi gives me. But there is something to be said that when watching movies on the Marantz, they just look right, or maybe they seem to look like they did in the theater when I first saw them.
So far I have been impressed beyond words by how nice both the Mitsubishi and the Marantz projector have been. I really like both of them. Best of both worlds.