Epson 8500UB 200,000:1 CR - Page 3

So how does 9,500:1 native translate into 200,000:1? A DI on steroids maybe! No extra bulb with the 5500?

I am wondering if both Epson & Panasonic have decided to make only incremental updates this year. I am sure that the fixed some of the major bugs and problems. Next year I suspect we will see the D8 chip and other big changes including the ability to use HDMI 1.4, 3D & possibly an LED projector. Waiting to see actual reports and reviews.

TW5000 has been quoted a native contrast of ~6000:1 (from Epson), so the native contrast has increased with 55-60%.

200K:1 is a fairytale number....

Those 9500:1 you reported for the TW5500, is that also an Epson quote? Or is that a measurement? I'm asking because it doesn't make much sense to compare a quote with a measurement. Or even to compare 2 different measurements, when they were made under different conditions. With the TW5000, the native contrast grows 60%, if you go from max to min zoom. So comparisons between TW5000 and TW5500 must be made with identical setups.


According to the cine4home TW5000 review, the TW5000 has up to 9000:1 native contrast and reaches up to 92000:1 dynamic contrast. Ok, these numbers are with a non-calibrated setup and min zoom. But still, it does almost reach its specced (dynamic) contrast.

Both 6000:1 and 9500:1 are Epson numbers.


I only care about calibrated numbers

Oh, that's cool!

Do you happen to know whether Epson made the dynamic iris silent in the TW5500, finally?

Thanks!

We now have more information available. Epson's press release.

http://www.aboutprojectors.com/news/...new-flagships/

Art's impressions and information from Projectorreviews.

http://www.projectorreviews.com/blog...ails/#more-461

It seems that the 8500 & 9500 are similar. The 8500 is the like to 6500 sold through internet dealers in white. The MSP should be similar to the 6500. The 9500 is the black pro model with isf calibration settings, an anamorphic setting and a 3 year warranty vs two for the 8500. The big difference seems to be the new auto iris and a improved CFI with a split screen review setting.

I suggest get the Sony HW-15 this month, rather than wait 3 months for the Epson. I believe that in reality, it will measure out with better native CR, and ansi CR... the DI CR numbers are misleading.

The native contrast of the HW15 is about 10k:1. Last year's Epson did already about 8k:1. The new Epson supposedly improves native contrast by 50%, so I'd guess that the new Epson will slightly beat the HW15 in native contrast. ANSI contrast? The HW15 does a little south of 400:1, just as last year's Epson. So no advantage for the HW15 here, either. IMHO the only advantage of the HW15 is less SDE. And maybe higher reliability (last year's Epson had a lot of problems).

Those are pretty big advantages. As another, add Sony's dust-free design.

It seems to me that the native (calibrated) CR of the HW15 if I read anbjornk translated review correctly and from what I know about the Sony light engine is > 12K:1. The Epson's highest credible native (calibrated) CR IIRC was Cine4Homes 5K:1. The Epson measurements on this side of the pond has been ~ 4K:1.

Where did you see measurements of 9K:1 and 8K:1 for the Epson?

Yes, forgot about dust-free design. The Epson has some advantages, too, though.


http://cine4home.de/tests/projektore...TW5000Test.htm

With the "Light Power Edition" external filter (only ships in Europe) cine4home measured the TW5000 with 8700:1 native contrast and 85000:1 dynamic contrast. Without the external filter cine4home measured 7400:1 native contrast and 35000:1 dynamic contrast. All these measurements with max long throw and proper calibrated, as far as I understand the review.

The reason I won't look at the Sony is that it doesn't have FI. I find it makes a huge improvement for animation and music concerts filmed live.
Every one seems to have a different opinion when it comes to FI, but its a must have for me and I suspect a few others (wasn't it your poll that supports the supposition that people want it?)

So Cine4Home measured the "regular" TW5000(7500UB) at 5K:1
http://www.cine4home.de/news/TW5000/TW5000Preview.htm

Later measured the "light power" TW5000 (7500UB) at 7.4K:1?

Thanks

No, look at your URL, it reads "preview". Those were measurements of preproduction machines. There is no "regular" TW5000 here in Germany. Each TW5000 comes with the Light Power external filter. Epson did some improvements from preproduction to final machines. The final cine4home review is from April 2009. Only by that time Epson had done all fixes and firmware updates etc, it seems.

Yes. This is true. But, like all things, it is about priorities. At this price level, it seems that one must compromise on at least one feature. Personally, dust blobs are a deal killer fme.

I have owned the 7500 for 8 month without a dust blob. The 6500/7500 have a very good filter and have had few dust blob problems. Epson will even clean blobs under warranty.

Cant wait for a pro review.

Over here the 6500/7500 did not do as well with a native CR of ~4K:1 See TJN's review (3.5k:1) in HT Mag http://www.hometheatermag.com/frontp...or/index3.html.

So anyone who bought a TW5000 when it was released has a pj that has 50% lower contrast than those purchased in the spring?

Maybe whatever mid production "improvements" that went into the Light Power is comming to the 8500 which is now speced at 9.5K:1 native.

Good stuff!

Ehm, I've checked through a few other HT Mag reviews. Their measurements seem really weird to me! E.g. they measure the HD750 with 18,362:1 and the HW10 with 6,905:1 (with dynamic iris turned on!). It seems to me that HT Mag always measures *much* lower contrast numbers than other reviews?

How much have they increased contrast from the 1080UB to the 8500? Seems pretty amazing how much they can improve and yet use the same panels.

Seems like they've been using D7 for a long time... must be time for D8 next year?

Epson really missed the boat by not adding the zoom memory feature.

Most new theater build threads that i read about on this forum are using 2.35:1 screens. The zoom feature really tips the scales to the AE4000 for many.

I've had my 6500 for about 6 months with about 30 hours on the unit (theater is still being built) and I love it. The only fix I want is for FI to work properly in NORMAL mode. Depending on the deals you can get later in the year for the 8500 and the actual improvement in that area, I'll probably wait another model year or two to upgrade.

Hopefully we will get several member reports during Cedia on this unit. For anyone going, Epson had both an upstairs and a downstairs display room in the same booth. It took me a while to catch on that the 6500 UB was upstairs.

Decisions, decisions.
Do I buy the 6500 now for a good price and rebate, or wait 2 months for the 8500, and pay full price (~$3000).

On another note, Art in his blog says that there is no difference b/w the 8500 and the 9500 besides the warranty, extra lamp and projector mount. The 9500 also has anamorphic stretch. While the European models 5500 and 4400 have different contrast ratios (130K vs 200K). So i am confused. Are the 8500 and the 9500 gonna have the same CR of 200k:1 or not?

Is it possible that the 4400 is the european replacement for the 6100.

Same case means I can upgrade without the wife knowing.

That's a good question. Based on what Art said, the 8500 & 9500 will have the same CR of 200k:1. However, he might have made a mistake....the European ones have different CRs. I hope that the 8500 has a CR of 200k:1!

Are we to conclude from the above posts that by April 2010 Epson will have a special European version with 300,000:1 contrast (using the same 5000:1 D7 panels) and people will trade their JVC 990 for it... ;-) I'd like to keep the science in the audio-video science forum. It seems that in the $2600 price range, we have started the debate which will run for at least the next 6 months: 8500UB vs. HW15. If Epson can deliver an independently measured 200,000 or 300,000 CR with a calibrated PJ, using the old D7 panels, and the same optics, I'm sure they'd like to explain how they did it. Must be one heck of a dynamic iris, maybe even a dynamic shutter...

My understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that both these PJ have the same panel as their last years model. I believe Sony changed the optics, while still keeping them sealed; I believe Epson did not change the optics, and they remain unsealed. Both PJ seem to have changed and increased their dynamic iris.

For native, or non-iris numbers, for the Epson we can look at last years numbers, though even a year later they seem unclear. Really for both PJ what we want is to stop the iris down and actually measure it. I'm a little annoyed at Epson for what seems a practice of muddying the waters on CR. At least JVC gives accurate numbers, and actually the Sony HW15 seems to live up to its published specs in a recent review. I would be tempted to conclude that this is because JVC has nothing to hide but Epson does.

The price of these two units will be similar. There are also other factors like the Sony's sealed light path, or the Epson's FI, that may decide on your choice. I notice even JVC added FI this year. Interestingly, in a nod to the purists, JVC does not do FI on 24p... we should confirm if the new Epsons do.

It looks like there was a misunderstanding here, with some comments from JVC meaning that FI isn't recommended for 24p, but that it will allow it. How well it will do it remains to be seen.

--Darin