Mitsubishi HC4000 - Page 47

If that was true, all DC3 Pj's would have the same (or similar) native contrast.

Yet you have DC2 PJ's with better measured native contrast than some DC3 PJ's.

The light engine/optics/CW, etc. have a big effect on native contrast.

Yes I agree to some extinct, but generally speaking the differences shouldn't be great if manufacturing tolerances mean anything. Brightness will affect the measurements you'd think more than anything..though I could be wrong. The dimmer projectors seem to always measure higher where native contrast is a concern.

Looking at former measurements of the Benq predecessors, it is apparent that the chip has been changed. The same goes for the Mits 3800 to the Mits 4000.

Well you just never know how two projectors match up without a proper side-by-side, otherwise specs don't really matter. The negatives of the Benq are a shorter warranty, could be less reliable, unproven in a side-by-side, Benq's sometimes have firmware issues, etc...

I don't think 3 notches of keystone is really a reason to choose a different projector, not to my eyes, I cannot tell the difference even at the pixel level.
Who knows, maybe the Benq is even better than the Mits, but we just don't know yet, from the reviews it doesn't sound like Benq's black levels are very good.

Given that I have yet to see a projector beat the Mits at cable signal processing, I imagine the Benq is going to be a bit noisier as well, but probably a tiny tiny bit sharper.

We must be reading two different reviews.lol
Yeah..who knows..I'm personally always going with the brighter unit..I like it bright though.

As far as reliability, from the forum post shows who has been the most reliable as a whole..its not Mits.
Hopefully the 4000 has a better track record than the 3800.

My little Benq has been rock solid. It is also quiet as well. Easily doing the 26dB. I wouldn't think the newer versions would be any noisier.

Hopefully you'll get bored Coderguy and do a shoot out with them. LMAO

PJ manufactures don't all use the same optical path design. Manufacturing tolerances can affect native contrast between different batches of the same brand/model PJ, but don't mean much between opposing models/brands.

Light scatter is a big issue with contrast measures. It's light that bounces around inside the optic path and bounces out of the lens onto your screen. It's indirect light, not direct light. How the optic path is designed affects the light scatter amount. Also different techs have inherently more/less light scatter (DLP, LCD, LCOS). Then there is the 'iris'. When an iris clamps down, it tends to reduce (block) light scatter. Even PJ's with manual irises have been proven to have increased contrast with clamped down irises and this has been shown to be due to reducing light scatter. With a manual iris we're talking native contrast here. The native contrast differences can be huge between open and closed irises. All with the same exact chip.

Also, the published contrast improvement between say DC2 and DC3 is minimal, even by TI's own specs.

The chip is just part of the equation, and can be outperformed by lower chips in a PJ designed to do so (in one that its main concern is native contrast, not say 'brightness'). I think the Sharp 12000mkII's were an example of that.

In the case of the HC4000 we have a PJ that is identical to the HC3800 save for the new DC3 chip. Native contrast is slightly better, PJ is a little dimmer (unknown if the DC3 chip is to blame), shadow detail might be a little less detailed.

Which Benq projector do you have? My W1100 is noisy in high fan mode. In low fan mode it's about the same as my Optoma HD70. But don't take my word for it. Both the French website and Trustedreviews share the same conclusion that the new Benq are noisy.

As for performance, I asked Kraine of the French website. The response I got was that the W1100 has better PQ than the HC4000 after calibration. I think projectors in their price class are more similar than they are different. Most people would be happy with the PQ of, say, the HD20, W1100, or HC4000.

Purchase decision should also be based on features and post-purchase customer care. The W1100 has all the features I need such as 2 HDMI outputs and built-in speakers. Like many people on AVS, I have nice a nice sound system. So naturally, I didn't give these built-in speakers any thought. But much to my surprise, they are loud and can produce a clear sound. They are good for non-action movies, documentary, nature and sports shows. I have been using them for a week now. Benq warranty and customer service, however, seem less adequate than the competition.

There's no solid numbers on how many of the HC3800's had problems. Going by what's posted here is far from scientific. If you count say 10 different members posting about their HC3800 teething issues (all of which were addressed and taken care of), is that a lot if 2000 HC3800 units were sold? And how many of the HC3800 projector owners followed the HC3800 thread here? If 200 owners followed, but never posted (or never posted about issues) 'cos they didn't have any, what does that say?

What you will notice (at least I do), is that after Mits dealt with the teething issues in the beginning, you hardly see (if any) posts about issues in the HC3800 thread now or even recently. That should say a lot. Check it out.

I own the w1000 and have only used it in low lamp mode. No reason to use it in high as it is extremely bright in low. The Mits and the Newer Benq should easily outperform the HD20.Im not a big fan of Optoma..their reliability is terrible. At least the Optoma I owned was.

I do faintly remember reading some of that stuff. I nearly bought the 3800. The reason I didn't was because of all the returns I saw you guys doing. If it weren't for that I would have owned it already.

Yes I'm aware of this, I was thinking more in the line of projectors using similar optics and chips with no iris.
All of the higher end single chip DLPs use some form of Iris. Except for the LED models that are designed differently. No doubt the Iris makes a difference...I've already seen that for myself. lol

Well, I was gonna wait till Mits sorted it out, but there was a good deal on them along with the Lamp rebate that was expiring soon, so I decided to take a chance knowing I'd have a high probability of getting a problem, but also knowing that Mits would sort it out.

And that's exactly what happened!

It was worth it in the end for me, I still have low hrs on my origianl lamp with another new lamp to spare.

I think a lot of us bought early on with knowledge of the teething problems due to the expiring lamp rebate deals. This might of flooded the forums here with 'problems' posts. I was guilty as charged with that

Please paste his response. Can you ask follow up questions asking for a more detailed comparison? Has he seen the Acer 7351d?

Are you saying the Sony had a better image than both the Mit and the Sayo? I'm not following you with what your saying about the Sony.

Kraine's response:

"Hello Davidt1,

HC4000 and W1100 are almost the same and i have doubt that they are sharing the same base.

But to my point of view the W1100 has the better picture quality after calibration.


Offset is the same on both projectors.

The HC 4000 is the quietest.

Best regards

Greg"

There are detailed reviews of both projectors on their website.

I don't know about the Acer. You can check their website, or ask him directly.

Texas Instruments, for about the last 8 years, has strongly deemphasized the advertising of which DLP chip is used in projectors. Several high-end manufactures have unofficially spread rumors (to justify their high prices) that their projectors have the best DLP chips.
The reality is over time the process technology has improved allowing for better picture quality. Similar to how Intel CPU have allowed greater overclocking with no penalty. This why the old DLP chips aren't as good even though they were the best at the time.

Mitsubishi even jumped ship to LCoS technology for their HC9000D 3D projector.
So Texas Instruments finally had to cave on price or exit the business (and ship the technology to China).
Sharp currently has a 3D projector with worse 2D picture quality than the 4000. Compare the MSRP $5k vs. 1.3K. However the 3D PQ is outstanding.

So I want a DLP projector with the 2D of the 4000 and 3D of the Sharp for $2500. That is were the projector value spot will shift to in the next year.

Here is the DC3 confirmation:
http://www.mitsubishi-hometheater.co...eet_HC4000.pdf

The Mits 6800 is not LCos or 3D capable.

The weight bias is one of the most difficult to overcome in all components of home theater. While consumers understand lighter is better in cell phones, many have outdated values for high definition audio and video.
For example the 4000 strips out lens offsets and placement flexibility. But we gain a glass lens with better image quality. That is why I took the trouble to ceiling mount. The WAF is greater that those giant, heavy projectors.
The highest technology is in the latest image processing chips which weigh next to nothing. This reduces the part count, weight and cost and increases the energy efficiency and reliability.
Notice the virtually compete absence of 4000 owner hardware based headaches. Why?
Obviously my conclusion about projector weight is the exact opposite of most. By not overspending on technology (before its refined), I already has the funds to buy the next generation 2D/3D projectors.

Another obvious subject not discussed (as others sought to skew the truth) is the Mitsubishi 4000 requires no expert calibration. How much does this rare performance feature save owners?
The new realities must be troubling for existing stakeholders. Hence the wild-west nature of this thread. Think about it - and it should all begin to make sense.

I'm curious as to what makes you believe the Mits 4000 has a better 2D image over the Sharp ZX17000?

The Sharp is available for much less than the retail price.

In all but the mixed and dark scenes the image should be comparable.

Sharps biggest negative is lamp cost. IMO overly expensive.

Then again its all up to the consumer what it is worth to get a better image for all scenes, not just the brightly lit ones.

As with technology, it will always evolve whether you buy now or two years from now, it will always be one step ahead of you.

Eventually 3D premium will get cheaper.Personally, I'm interested more in LED prices dropping than the 3D.

In some ways each projector is better than the other, like color and contrast the Sony wins, but the Sony had weaknesses in processing images (inconsistency) and is a bit softer. I prefer the Mits slightly between the three, but it's a hard call and can go either way.

FYI: I removed most of my Sanyo comparisons and my longer comments to make the complainers happy (but I did NOT do it for the people that think they own the thread). So only you guys had to suffer, new posters won't suffer through the Sanyo comparisons, at least I made someone suffer. I still say it's the most valid comparison to the Mits other than the Benq w1100.

I'll just submit to the inevitable conclusion that the Mits hc4000 is the best projector ever made under 5 trillion dollars.

My last comparison vs. the Mits --- the Mits vs. the DIGISTAR 3 LASER PROJECTOR (highest res projector in the world)

I decided the only possible projector that could ever beat the Mits would be the HIGHEST resolution projector in the world, the DIGISTAR 3, but I found the Mits to be much more pleasing. The 5120x4096 resolution was just lacking on the Digistar, even the fact the projector produced 16 million pixels on a giant DOME was no match for the overall immersive experience of the Mits hc4000's 2 million pixles. Furthermore, their precise million-dollar lasers inside the projector were just more of a distraction than a PQ benefit. So as far as the Digistar 3 vs. the Mits hc4000 goes, stick with the Mits hc4000, even if the Digistar 3 only costs a few million more.

http://www.es.com/products/digital_t...tar3-laser.asp

...

Hi David,
Can you PM his email? I tried looking for it, but couldn't find it.
Thanks

I don't know his email. Kraine posted here. Click on his name and PM him.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1325704

The specs list for the HC4000 shows support for 1080p/24

The specs list for the W1100 does not. Since they are similar projectors, why the difference?

I set my Toshiba A35 to output 1080p/24. My W1100 is working fine, though I can't tell if it accepts 1080p/24 as is, or converts it to 1080p/60. Can someone commend?

Can't speak for the BenQ (this is a Mits thread after all), but on the Mits the resolution and refresh rate is shown in the info section of the menu.

The color wheel slows down when in 24p for a DLP PJ (48hz instead of 60hz), so if you put your ear right up to the PJ and switch between 24p and 60hz, you 'might' be able to hear the CW slow down. Of course the Benq's fans are supposedly louder than the Mits, so you may not hear the CW above the fan noise.

And the only thing really similar about the Benq and Mits is they are both DLP around the same price point.

Why do you say this? IMO, excluding the 8350(quality issues), Mits HC4000 is king, and the W1100 is a competitor...

The fans on the unit of the Mits that I had are whisper quiet in LOW mode, also keep in mind that given the Mits is so much brighter than most projectors in LOW LAMP BEST MODE, that overall the Mits is actually quieter than almost any projector. For instance the Sanyo z4000 is supposed to be the quietest, but the Mits is about the same.

The Mits is REALLY REALLY REALLY quiet in LOW MODE (I didn't check much in high, but its still NOT noisey). Unless you have a giant screen, you won't need HIGH mode until the lamp is pretty worn in.

Based on the facts of the Mits being proven, the fans are quieter, the warranty is longer, it comes better OTB calibrated (I think but didn't double check), I still say to get the Mits over the Benq.

The one issue that would scare me the most for the BENQ is some are reporting occassional lockups where the Benq's fans stop running before the projector is completely shut off. I think I only saw 2 people report this, but still would lean me back towards the Mits. Although I guess Benq has some firmware updates...

Don't understand your question?

What is 'really' similar between the Benq and the Mits besides what I mentioned?

You mention an LCD and that the Benq and Mits are 'competitor's', ok, but that doesn't have anything to do with the line in my quote you highlighted in bold.

I won't ever post about the Benq in the "HC4000 only" thread. This thread, it seems, has lots of other projectors mentioned. Anyway, thanks for the information. I looked at the info menu and saw 1080p/24 there.

It looks like I am one of few people who own the W1100. I can tell you that the PQ is very nice. Of course, I haven't seen the Mit HC4000. So for me to claim that the W1100 is better than the HC4000 would be as ridiculously as some HC4000 fanboy saying that the it's the best budget projector without having seen the W1100 also.

Kraine of French website is the only person who has calibrated and tested both the W1100 and HC4000. I would listen to what he has to say.

I have, however, seen the 8350 about 10 times at my local BB. Let me just say that the PQ of that projector does not do it for me.

Added:
----------
His pre-calibrated graphs are way different than my pre-calibrated graphs were, although I waited until I had some hours on the lamp
before I even messed with the calibration.
----------

Seeing a projector at Best Buy is akin to looking up at the sky and trying to predict the weather 10 days from now. With LCD projectors, just having the brightness or contrast a few notches off blows the calibration so bad that it can look like a $200 projector. It takes 2+ hours of custom setup to start comparing a projector even if you know exactly what your looking for, and then consider another 2 hours for calibration minimum (sometimes 15+ hours). Then it requires at a very minimum at least a few hours of A/B'n, unless one projector just utterly wipes the other projector off the map.

That said, the 8350 isn't a good comparison, the Sanyo z4000 for instance easily beats the 8350 in PQ, but only after intense calibration, and the Mits slightly beats the Sanyo (although some might prefer the Sanyo, depends what you like and your environment). The hc4000 is a good bit ahead of the 8350 in too many areas. The Sanyo raises an interesting argument by adding deeper blacks than either projector, and a much higher native contrast ratio, while staying much closer to the hc4000's level of sharpness. Of course the Sanyo's brightness and calibration HELL being the deal-breaker for most.

The Benq should look practically identical to the Mits because they both have nearly identical measured NATIVE contrast ratios.

You can hardly even see such small differences with the human eye, especially given how much content uses non-standard lighting and color tables and camera filters. I mean camera men and directors use filters and weird lighting over peoples faces anyways, which I find annoying most of the time. Kudos to the new series "Game of thrones" for actually understanding how to use non-standard color tables and lighting without ruining the experience (most of the time anyhow).

The Mits custom gamma and CMS allows you to fix things if needed.

The Benq only has a 1-year warranty, louder fans, so don't see any reason to buy the Benq over the Mits unless you need the difference in offset or a slightly brighter image for a GIANT screen.

Some 0.01 difference in a reading on a colorimeter doesn't matter. You'll find more differences every few hours you add to the lamp in comparison to these tiny calibration differences he is talking about (although I didn't read the article much). I also don't know why his gamma curve isn't flat, I had no problems getting a flat one, at 300 hours a bit tougher but still do-able, just lazy.

That said, I wouldn't regret buying the Benq either if it is working ok, but the Mits still leads in longevity if only for the warranty.
I seriously would question any reviewer if he says the PQ is that different between the two, of course anything is possible, but I highly doubt it.