AVS Forum banner

Preliminary results of my mini RS1 VW60 shootout

15K views 111 replies 40 participants last post by  Craig Peer 
#1 ·
I know people are always trying to decide between these two, so last night I did a shootout in my home and with familiar material.


My RS1 has 700 hours, but is by all reports notably brighter than some others. The VW60 has 40 hours on it. Both were projecting onto a 125" grey screen from 15 feet.


The most obvious difference between them at first was that the RS1 was brighter. The VW60 needed to be in High mode to match the RS1 in Normal mode. However, both gave quite acceptable (to me) brightness on a screen that size even with the VW60 in Low.


That aside, it was really hard to pick a 'winner'. Black levels were very close, with the VW60 just a a bit better. Neither were as good in this area as I'd like. The RS1s added brightness and native contrast therefore gave the image a little more punch. But the emphasis is on 'little'.


The RS1's colours were more vivid, but the VW60 can be adjusted to give similar saturation. By the same token the VW60 was a tad more natural, especially using the Normal colorspace. Black Level uniformity was a little better on the Sony, and it didn't have any signs of colour uniformity. The only time I noticed Brightness Compression was with white type on black bcakgrounds.


Noise wasn't an issue with either, either auditory or in the image.


Both are big, dark and shiny.


So, to me, they are very very close. I even used masking to have them sharing the screen and found it pretty hard to separate them.


In the end, I may go for the Sony simply because it has the extras of powered lens, anamorphic capability and for the very slightly better blacks.


Then again, I may not.

 
See less See more
1
#29 ·
Actually, the REAL black level I'm talking about is absolute black - how much light is being transmitted through the physical elements of the projector and "leaking" onto the screen? You know, the "shadow puppet" test.


I am rarely bothered by black level in a high contrast scene, it's those dark, nearly pitch-black, low-contrast moments (i.e. Se7ven, Blade Runner, etc) where much of the screen goes "projector grey" that get my goat.


This has more to do with how much "light leak" there is than contrast per se.


If you run your projector with no signal and turn the brightness all the way down, the amount of light you now see on your screen is as dark as your blacks are ever going to get.


This is the "reading" I'd like to see more discussion and reviews of.


I know this is affected by screen size & gain, ambient light, etc, but if someone like Jason takes pictures of this under controlled, similar circumstances for every projector he reviews, you WILL get an objective idea of how units perform compared to each other in this regard.


When I think of black level, this is ultimately what I am referrring to.
 
#30 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawguy /forum/post/13192066


Why? Can't all light be reflected?

In order to raise the black level (the lowest vidoe black level) you will need a reflection that is higher level than that of the black level. The reflection comes at a lower level and can't raise the level.


If you have a mixed scene containg both white and black, the white reflection will raise the black level floor within the scene. That is ofcourse the ansi consideration not on/off.
 
#31 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaspianM /forum/post/13192242


In order to raise the black level (the lowest vidoe black level) you will need a reflection that is higher level than that of the black level. The reflection comes at a lower level and can't raise the level.


If you have a mixed scene containg both white and black, the white reflection will raise the black level floor within the scene. That is ofcourse the ansi consideration not on/off.

Of course. But, other than a fade-to-black, all other scenes will have variations in the amount of light and thus the potential for light reflection
 
#32 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawguy /forum/post/13192313


Of course. But, other than a fade-to-black, all other scenes will have variations in the amount of light and thus the potential for light reflection

True.
 
#34 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Dodds /forum/post/13184199


I know people are always trying to decide between these two, so last night I did a shootout in my home and with familiar material.


My RS1 has 700 hours, but is by all reports notably brighter than some others. The VW60 has 40 hours on it. Both were projecting onto a 125" grey screen from 15 feet.


The most obvious difference between them at first was that the RS1 was brighter. The VW60 needed to be in High mode to match the RS1 in Normal mode. However, both gave quite acceptable (to me) brightness on a screen that size even with the VW60 in Low.


That aside, it was really hard to pick a 'winner'. Black levels were very close, with the VW60 just a a bit better. Neither were as good in this area as I'd like. The RS1s added brightness and native contrast therefore gave the image a little more punch. But the emphasis is on 'little'.


The RS1's colours were more vivid, but the VW60 can be adjusted to give similar saturation. By the same token the VW60 was a tad more natural, especially using the Normal colorspace. Black Level uniformity was a little better on the Sony, and it didn't have any signs of colour uniformity. The only time I noticed Brightness Compression was with white type on black bcakgrounds.


Noise wasn't an issue with either, either auditory or in the image.


Both are big, dark and shiny.


So, to me, they are very very close. I even used masking to have them sharing the screen and found it pretty hard to separate them.


In the end, I may go for the Sony simply because it has the extras of powered lens, anamorphic capability and for the very slightly better blacks.


Then again, I may not.


good to read the comparison...as I ordered my vw60 yesterday !
 
#35 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by ilsiu /forum/post/13192013


Just watch - someone will start selling contrast enhancing home theater glasses (maybe the guys from Monster cable are listening)

Crud I need to file a patent!


I already had some guys rip off my "Magical DLPness" material

 
#36 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mojo_LA /forum/post/13192116


Actually, the REAL black level I'm talking about is absolute black - how much light is being transmitted through the physical elements of the projector and "leaking" onto the screen? You know, the "shadow puppet" test.


I am rarely bothered by black level in a high contrast scene, it's those dark, nearly pitch-black, low-contrast moments (i.e. Se7ven, Blade Runner, etc) where much of the screen goes "projector grey" that get my goat.


This has more to do with how much "light leak" there is than contrast per se.


If you run your projector with no signal and turn the brightness all the way down, the amount of light you now see on your screen is as dark as your blacks are ever going to get.


This is the "reading" I'd like to see more discussion and reviews of.


I know this is affected by screen size & gain, ambient light, etc, but if someone like Jason takes pictures of this under controlled, similar circumstances for every projector he reviews, you WILL get an objective idea of how units perform compared to each other in this regard.


When I think of black level, this is ultimately what I am referrring to.


This what I am referring to as well.
 
#37 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by reio-ta /forum/post/13194946


Ummm those are seriously all FALSE. My CRT projector has more contrast than any digital. I can put it on a wall and beat any digital you throw at it. I have white walls too. It still has better shadow detail and highlights than your digital. Black gets very black. The bars don't shine. Put up a 0 IRE pattern and you can look at the tubes, they're 100% black. Try that with a digital lamp projector and you'll go blind even looking at the lamp doing "0 IRE".


My CRT maybe puts out 7.5 foot lamberts. With that little light on a digital you'll be crying home saying "mommy, I can't see anything but daytime scenes on my projector!", in a white walled room and even with velvet over everything will still see squat.


How bright a projector is, means nothing. All it does is make your whites look like the sun at the expense of your black bars looking like they were exposed to Chernobyl the brighter it is.


A CRT reduces light instantly, a digital can't because it must block light, unlike a CRT with just shuts off. Even if you spent over $100,000 on the projector and the rest of your room, using experimental light dampening material, a $1,000 CRT, POS version from the overpriced Curt, would still beat your $100,000 projector setup. So the "numbskulls with white rooms" will beat yours with even the lowliest CRT pertaining to: real contrast,black floor, shadow detail, and highlights. Not taking into account ANSI contrast or sharpness, which even a cheapy LCD will beat the CRT.


So if what you say is true, explain why a CRT can do it and none of your digitals can? Not saying digitals don't have their place, but to say those sort of things, is 100% untrue and one day a digital will beat the CRT too. And when that day comes, you'll have nothing which will back up those claims you make.

Unfortunately, your Dwin CRT, that you just bought used, right now has 0 fl rating cause it doesn't work. Which is why I ditched my HD-700 to go digital. You've got the best blacks available right now - just no nothing else!!
 
#39 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by reio-ta /forum/post/13196442


Hey Jmouse! What's going on? How's the VW50 Pearl doing? The VWx Pearl series are so nice, but they just have too much black floor for me!
Black bars glow too much, the black credit screens at the end of movies glow bad, etc, so I MUST have a CRT!


I'm hoping in a few years a LASER projector will fix the black floor glowing issue with digitals.

In answer to your question, we began having ongoing problems with our Pearl. Convergence, focus problems, the power supply went bad for no reason after the pj had been on for 5 hours (we watched two movies back to back) and took the bulb and several chips with it. They had to also replace the video processor and when we got it back there was another problem, sent it back and when it came back again we noted a loud electrical buzzing/humming noise, reported it (sent Laredo MP3 recordings of the sound along with a written time line description) and got the usual "it's perfectly normal, working within speck" routine. Well, two weeks later, out of the blue and for no reason the pj refused to accept any commands from the remote, the pj refused to shut down and the video processor froze creating a frozen image on the screen that we could not stop! Changed the remote control batteries twice, still no go, tried to shut the pj down using the controls physically located on the pj... NOTHING WORKED! Finally, after we had shut down everything going to the pj, the bulb shut down over 45 minutes later BUT the cooling fan continued running and running and refused to shut down. Finally I had to physically pull the plug to shut the pj off. Several days later I plugged it back in again and after turning on the pj it shut down all on it's own twice within a minute and a half of being turned on! After 4 and a half months of playing pj ping pong with the repair center in Larado and having sent it back three times for numerous differing problems SONY finally agreed to replace it with a Black Pearl. It was like pulling teeth and we had to pay a fee to "upgrade" but it was worth it because I had no confidence that the pj would ever work properly. Sadly, we got a lemon, fortunately from what I have heard our experience was the exception, NOT the rule.


Before the Pearl went belly up it served us well, but as good as it was, and it was a fine projector, the Black Pearl is a definite improvement on a multitude of levels. It is sharper, the convergence was perfect right out of the box and the colors, black levels and contrast are better and the Black Pearl is brighter than it's predecessor. Lord willing, this time we will not have any more problems.


So now we have joined the ranks of the pirates and become Black Pearl owners. All I can say is "Arrr me hearties; yo ho, yo ho, a pirates life for me."
 
#40 ·
For those interested in comparative black levels here are two shots I took of the VW60 and RS1. Both were taken with a Canon S3 IS and tripod using a manual exposure of 15 seconds, 3.2 aperture, and ISO 200. No post processing was done other than to resize. They are quite dark but the differences should be apparent on a decent monitor.


Whilst they are very close, you can see that the VW60 has a slight edge.

 
#41 ·
Reio! Why stab at Curt/ He is one of the few commercial CRT places keeping parts, service, etc available. He doesn't exactly live in luxory. If he goes, the sport will have suffered probaby close to a mortal blow.


Interesting re the shots Steve. Lets assume the RS1 has an on/off CR of 15,000 and the Sony $35,000. The difference is slight. Now lets try it with an RS2. Cleary the JVC should equalor win but the difference if any would be very small. Yet to the eye under goood viewing conditions and the right viewing test material, the RS2 appears much err blacker.



In any event, the most blacks I ever watch are at CRT HT meets. The cry is always look at em blacks. At home I watch sports and the blacks look absolutely fine on everything. RSsing , RS2, Sony VPL-vw60, VPL-vw2000. On my 9 inch ref CRT.


I've got a 11S2 coming.


All this stuff is very good. The ones I like the least are the RS1 and then the very good RS2, probably due to the lenses. With a color fix and a better lens, the RS2 would be great I think.The best so far are the 200 and my CRT. When watching, total overall performancebetween the two are about the same with some qualities better in each obviously. Watching normal films too, the viewing panel likes both equally and gets anoyed with my constant switching. At some point they just want to watch the porn uninterrupted.
A joke.
 
#42 ·
I have no idea why people complain about the lens on the RS1/RS2. They are in the league of all good projectors. Mine does not display color fringing, can be adjusted for nearly perfect convergence at 60-70% of the screen and seems tack sharp, sharper than the Pearl lens. I have owned Sharp 12K dlp (same lens as 20K) and many other "fine" lens machines and none offered much better lens quality. As for a CRT having better lens or sharpness... give me a break



On comparing Sony's inflated 30K:1 contrast with iris trick to native RS1 contrast, again... give me a break



The way the eye works if you have bright highlights in the scene and dark background, which is the way most movies are shot to increase the perceived intra-scene contrast, then RS1 is a winner vs. VW60, 30K contrast ratio and all...


If Pearl has slightly lower absolute black, then this is due to clamping down of the iris and to me has little real world value as I don't watch a black wall, but rather a movie, which never is 0 IRE.


I have seen VW60 in excellent setup and have owned two Pearls and as nice as they are, the brightness compression from the iris is not for me. RS1 comes across as a more open, cinematic projector.


To me iris tricks are like breathing through a straw, sure you can do it, but why?
 
#43 ·
The corners look awful in the RS1. Are they generally that bad or is that just a fairly poor sample (or is it a photo artefact)?
 
#44 ·
Its not in the range of a good lens projector. Compare the image in sharpness or firmness if you will to a VPL-vw200, a Marantz 11S2, a say Sim2 HT3000 and then go back to an RS1 or RS2. I have, many many times. You want it to make no difference but it really does. Its like a camera. With an average lens a great photograpgher can make a great picture. But give the same photographer a Leica and the magnificant happens. Try it instead of saying it can't be.
 
#45 ·
Respectfully Mark, I would have to disagree that it's like a camera. Film has a resolution in the 20M+ range if we are just talking pixels, (forget the color depth),medium and large format photography is in 40M+, so yes there a great lens would and does make a difference. Our pj's are just barely at 2M, not exactly pushing the envelope.


The projectors you mentioned are ALL 2-3 times the price range. As such, as great as they are they are not a fair comparison. Nevertheless, the differences you attribute to the lens might be more of the difference in technology of DLP and LCOS. Still, I have seen Marantz flagship and RS1 in direct comparison fed the same material and I did not find the lens to be a decisive factor for me. Nor did the other AVS forum members that were present at that shootout. I found other parameters more important. However to each his own, it's why we all drive different cars right?
 
#47 ·
I'd be more concerned if they weren't forum members. There is far far too much following a leader here. safety in numbers.


No one including me is saying the Rs1/2 are not good values for the money. But having a lens comparable to the better stuff would make it yes several thousands more expensive but would also make a world class projector (that and a CMS).
 
#48 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by mbonikow /forum/post/13202205


Respectfully Mark, I would have to disagree that it's like a camera. Film has a resolution in the 20M+ range if we are just talking pixels, (forget the color depth),medium and large format photography is in 40M+, so yes there a great lens would and does make a difference. Our pj's are just barely at 2M, not exactly pushing the envelope.


The projectors you mentioned are ALL 2-3 times the price range. As such, as great as they are they are not a fair comparison. Nevertheless, the differences you attribute to the lens might be more of the difference in technology of DLP and LCOS. Still, I have seen Marantz flagship and RS1 in direct comparison fed the same material and I did not find the lens to be a decisive factor for me. Nor did the other AVS forum members that were present at that shootout. I found other parameters more important. However to each his own, it's why we all drive different cars right?

Why argue with Mark?


He has admitted that he can't identify what difference the lens makes.
 
#49 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by mbonikow /forum/post/13202205


Respectfully Mark, I would have to disagree that it's like a camera. Film has a resolution in the 20M+ range if we are just talking pixels, (forget the color depth),medium and large format photography is in 40M+, so yes there a great lens would and does make a difference. Our pj's are just barely at 2M, not exactly pushing the envelope.


The projectors you mentioned are ALL 2-3 times the price range. As such, as great as they are they are not a fair comparison. Nevertheless, the differences you attribute to the lens might be more of the difference in technology of DLP and LCOS. Still, I have seen Marantz flagship and RS1 in direct comparison fed the same material and I did not find the lens to be a decisive factor for me. Nor did the other AVS forum members that were present at that shootout. I found other parameters more important. However to each his own, it's why we all drive different cars right?

I tend to agree with you . I see zero problems with the lens on my HD1. It resolves down to the subpixel level and I see no abberation , diffraction or obvious flaring issues. I'd be interested in knowing what the supposed problems are that indicate the lens is a majorly limiting factor with the RS1.
 
#51 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by reio-ta /forum/post/13203128


He's probably talking about MTF, unless you have something like a Qualia level, like the VW200, $30,000 SIM2, or CRT, etc, MTF won't be 100% up to par. .

And I'd like to know how someone can judge the MTF being sub-par and that being down to the lens without something meaningful to compare it with. I hear that the lens on the RS1 is "sub-par". I don't hear anything meaningful explaining how we arrived at that conclusion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by reio-ta /forum/post/13203128



Just because you can resolve the sub-pixels, doesn't mean MTF is good. Realize he has a 9500 Ultra 9" CRT modded by Mike Parker himself and set up by MP too. The resolving power of that is probably more than what 99% of people on this forum will see.

I fail to see how a lens that is entirely capable of resolving down to the individual pixels and gaps between those pixels can be regarded as lacking in MTF. The lens only has to resolve down to the level of the pixels on the panel across the width of the lens. Which it does. The second issue is how well the lens transmits light and this isn't something we can reliably know unless we take the lens off and analyse it on its own terms outside of the system of the projector itself....which kind of defeats the point.


All that is really being said when people reach for MTF is that a theoretical lens that transmitted more of the available light on the RS1 than the original lens would be an improvement in this regard. Improving the resolving power is moot as you only have to resolve the panel which the original lens manages already.



So all that's being said here is that a better lens on a projector would perform better than an inferior lens: which you can say about any lens and projector.


From that somewhat moot point we've now arrived at the lens on the RS1 being "sub-par".


Do I hear anyone saying the lens can't resolve the panel?

Do I hear anyone saying the lens has obvious abberation ?

Do I hear anyone saying the lens is massively "slow"?

Do I hear anyone saying the lens has objectionable flaring?


All I hear is that a lens with a better MTF would offer "improvements" which as I've said you can say for any projector or lens as there is no such thing as a lens with perfect MTF except for possibly one constructed by gravity.... be a while until we get those I think.
 
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