or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP › Sony vpl-vw95es : Ifa berlin 2011
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Sony vpl-vw95es : Ifa berlin 2011 - Page 9

post #241 of 574
I think its the same as the 90 but I am not exactly sure what the throw extremes are.
post #242 of 574
Quote:
Originally Posted by millerwill View Post

I presume it's the same as the 90ES, which is 1.4 (or maybe 1.39).

PS: 120" diag is 105" wide, so the min distance is ~ 105" x1.39 = 146" = 3.7m. So it looks like you will just sneak in at 3.8 m.

Thanks for the help mate, but I just re-checked my measurements and using 1.39 to calculate, I don't think it will work. I think 120" diag is actually 110" wide for the scope screen, which makes 152.9" (x2.54) = 3.88m.

And I think the Sony physically is a lot longer than my epson which means, given that it's shelf mounted right at the back of the room, the lens will actually be closer to the screen than my epson...

So it's an anamorphic lens or a smaller screen if the sony is to work for me
post #243 of 574
Quote:
Originally Posted by steve21 View Post

Thanks for the help mate, but I just re-checked my measurements and using 1.39 to calculate, I don't think it will work. I think 120" diag is actually 110" wide for the scope screen, which makes 152.9" (x2.54) = 3.88m.

And I think the Sony physically is a lot longer than my epson which means, given that it's shelf mounted right at the back of the room, the lens will actually be closer to the screen than my epson...

So it's an anamorphic lens or a smaller screen if the sony is to work for me

Ah, sorry; I was assuming a 16x9 screen.

Now the Epson 61000, their lcos machine, has a min throw ratio of ~1.28, so that WOULD work for you if that projector met your other requirements.
post #244 of 574
Quote:
Originally Posted by millerwill View Post

Ah, sorry; I was assuming a 16x9 screen.

Now the Epson 61000, their lcos machine, has a min throw ratio of ~1.28, so that WOULD work for you if that projector met your other requirements.

The epson is what I've been really waiting for - as you say it seems perfect for me. But whether it actually gets released, gets good reviews, or what the australian pricing will be I don't know...
Sony has a proven track record with the current vw90es and I have to consider resale value as well. As much as I don't care a lot for 3d, in the next 2-3 years selling second hand without 3d might be a tough call. A bit like trying to sell a 720p projector 3-4 years after 1080p projectors first hit the mainstream market.

I love everything about my current epson projector but now that i've built my bat cave, I want the higher native CR to really get the best image.
post #245 of 574
Quote:
Originally Posted by millerwill View Post

The Mits9000 is probably going to be a neck-and-neck competitor of the Sony95 (both are SXRD machines), and the 9000 is probably brighter and sharper, with the 95 having the better DI, etc. But if it's brightness you need most, it might work better for you. (The 9000 is not possible for me because of its larger min throw ratio, 1.57.)

If I understand Mark correctly, his impression is that the Mits 9000 3D is decent, but not a strong suit for the unit. Considering Sony's great strides with the VW30 in the 3D department, and further that the VW95's main strengths over the VW90 is said to be in the 3D department, its seems reasonable to assume at this point the VW95 will be significantly better at 3D.

As I understand it from a friend that say it and who's opinion I greatly respect and trust, he said the VW95 was extremely sharp, much sharper than the JVC and so forth. So even if the Mits is a bit sharper than the VW95 that wouldn't have much bearing for me. Also the importance of the proper functioning and operation of the DI cannot be overstated. The Mits will be cheaper but probably not by more than $1,000 or so (guessing).
post #246 of 574
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovingdvd View Post

If I understand Mark correctly, his impression is that the Mits 9000 3D is decent, but not a strong suit for the unit. Considering Sony's great strides with the VW30 in the 3D department, and further that the VW95's main strengths over the VW90 is said to be in the 3D department, its seems reasonable to assume at this point the VW95 will be significantly better at 3D.

As I understand it from a friend that say it and who's opinion I greatly respect and trust, he said the VW95 was extremely sharp, much sharper than the JVC and so forth. So even if the Mits is a bit sharper than the VW95 that wouldn't have much bearing for me. Also the importance of the proper functioning and operation of the DI cannot be overstated. The Mits will be cheaper but probably not by more than $1,000 or so (guessing).

No real argument. I did see the Mits9000 several months ago at Mark H's house and thought it looked very impressive, but I haven't seen the Sony 90ES (and of course not the 95ES). My only point was that the 9000 and 95ES are both very good, and probably close in price (though I'm sure you're right that the 9000 is somewhat less $), and a person in the market for one might want also to check out the other. Cine4home, whose reviews I have a very high regard for, did report that the 9000 does have a better lens and is also several hundred lumens brighter. I imagine he will review the 95ES as soon as it's available, and this should be very useful for someone interested in these two projectors.
post #247 of 574
Yes, I can scarcely wait to hear what he has to say!
post #248 of 574
Yikes. It's almost 3AM. You will have to wait for my call tomorrow. My glove is on and I am going to catch some zzzzzzzs. Good Night.
post #249 of 574
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

Nice thread guys. I only wish all threads had posters acting in such a mature and responsible way.

Same here, some of the threads around here get downright nasty...
post #250 of 574
Quote:
Originally Posted by millerwill View Post

No real argument. I did see the Mits9000 several months ago at Mark H's house and thought it looked very impressive, but I haven't seen the Sony 90ES (and of course not the 95ES). My only point was that the 9000 and 95ES are both very good, and probably close in price (though I'm sure you're right that the 9000 is somewhat less $), and a person in the market for one might want also to check out the other. Cine4home, whose reviews I have a very high regard for, did report that the 9000 does have a better lens and is also several hundred lumens brighter. I imagine he will review the 95ES as soon as it's available, and this should be very useful for someone interested in these two projectors.

Mark needs to rent me the unit with an option to buy.
post #251 of 574
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post

Same here, some of the threads around here get downright nasty...

You wouldn't be referring to the JVC/Panny thread would you? That thread has devolved into an all out flame war
post #252 of 574
Quote:


You wouldn't be referring to the JVC/Panny thread would you? That thread has devolved into an all out flame war

Which is ironic because imagine that most people havent see either or at best seen only one of them. Each projector has its pros can cons so I am not sure what they are fighting about. It should be interesting what happens when the Sony comes into the mix or this that one level above the Panny and the RS 45
post #253 of 574
Quote:
Originally Posted by millerwill View Post

No real argument. I did see the Mits9000 several months ago at Mark H's house and thought it looked very impressive, but I haven't seen the Sony 90ES (and of course not the 95ES). My only point was that the 9000 and 95ES are both very good, and probably close in price (though I'm sure you're right that the 9000 is somewhat less $), and a person in the market for one might want also to check out the other. Cine4home, whose reviews I have a very high regard for, did report that the 9000 does have a better lens and is also several hundred lumens brighter. I imagine he will review the 95ES as soon as it's available, and this should be very useful for someone interested in these two projectors.

The Mits 9000 and Sony 95 are at the top of my list of projectors at the moment. If the Mits turns out to be several hundred lumens brighter, then for me at least, this would trump any better performance in 3D mode by the Sony. Throw in a sharper lens and possibly a cheaper price, and the Mits 9000 looks to stand out a little more.
post #254 of 574
Quote:
Originally Posted by phisch View Post


The Mits 9000 and Sony 95 are at the top of my list of projectors at the moment. If the Mits turns out to be several hundred lumens brighter, then for me at least, this would trump any better performance in 3D mode by the Sony. Throw in a sharper lens and possibly a cheaper price, and the Mits 9000 looks to stand out a little more.

Actually, cine4 measured the Mits at 950/700 calibrated lumens (normal/eco) and the VW90 in a preview at 800 (supposedly in normal mode). So the difference to the VW95 will certainly not be "several hundred lumes" and both will be plenty bright for most setups. Also, the lens on the big Sonys is very good and basically a wash with the Mits.

Plus the Sony will probably be considerably brighter in 3D mode with the new dynamic lamp function, has a great DI compared to Mits' really crappy one, 1/16 pixel panel alignment, lens memory, an integrated 3D transmitter and includes 2 glasses (Mits: 0). Better buy IMO.
post #255 of 574
The difference between 950 and 800 is nearly 20%, so it really can make a difference.

For example. My screen is a 110" diagonal 16:9 Screen Research ClearPix2 with a gain of 0.95. 110" diagonal screens are 36 square feet. I'm also at about a 2.0 throw, which is close to the maximum for the Sony. So, let's assume ~30% loss because of the long throw.

950 * 0.95 * 0.7 / 36 = 17.5ftL
800 * 0.95 * 0.7 / 36 = 14.7ftL

Factor in a little lamp aging, and an 800 lumen machine potentially drops off below 14ftL pretty quickly. Meanwhile, the Mitsubishi can lose 150 lumens and still be above 14ftL.

(And, the Mitsubishi's maximum throw is 2.8, so it would actually not be losing the 30% brightness I factored in above.)

Now, having said all of that, I went back to Cine4home's preview, and he actually got 880 calibrated lumens in his preview of the 90ES. If that holds up, it yields 16.2ftL on my screen, which is a great number. If I'm willing to replace lamps relatively often, I can keep right in the SMPTE sweet spot until the VPL-VW1000 drops in price.

It's definitely a tradeoff -- the Sony sounds like a more evolved and refined machine. The Mitsubishi throws a very nice picture with extra achievable brightness (at my throw) and with greater lens shift that would be helpful for me as well. It'd be great to see them both in person, and to see the JVC as well, since Cine4home got 930 calibrated lumens with it!)

[edited to correct the max throw]
post #256 of 574
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eternal_Sunshine View Post

Actually, cine4 measured the Mits at 950/700 calibrated lumens (normal/eco) and the VW90 in a preview at 800 (supposedly in normal mode). So the difference to the VW95 will certainly not be "several hundred lumes" and both will be plenty bright for most setups. Also, the lens on the big Sonys is very good and basically a wash with the Mits.

Plus the Sony will probably be considerably brighter in 3D mode with the new dynamic lamp function, has a great DI compared to Mits' really crappy one, 1/16 pixel panel alignment, lens memory, an integrated 3D transmitter and includes 2 glasses (Mits: 0). Better buy IMO.

The latest cine4home review of the Mits9000 reports 1180 lumens at D65 with correct colors, in high lamp, max zoom, and iris open.
post #257 of 574
You're right, I had checked for min. zoom.
post #258 of 574
Quote:
Originally Posted by millerwill View Post

The latest cine4home review of the Mits9000 reports 1180 lumens at D65 with correct colors, in high lamp, max zoom, and iris open.

I did not see a Rec 709 accurate mode. Hopefully a CMS fix will solve this issue.
post #259 of 574
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonHoyaFan View Post

I did not see a Rec 709 accurate mode. Hopefully a CMS fix will solve this issue.

I presume that when Ekkehart said 'correct colors' he meant Rec709, but I really don't know for sure.
post #260 of 574
does anyone know the ansi of the 90? I didn't see anything posted on Cine4home. Thanks
post #261 of 574
You guys are rely trying to make some sort of calculated conclusion sort of making it what you want to wish. I could watch either machine in 2D or 3D and not feel I should have bought the other. They are both good and really do have some small pluses and minuses. To conclude one is really better than the other is not possible. Things that needed fixing in the Mits have reportedly been fixed. The Sony is an older platform machine with essentially a lamp dimming feature added to increase 3D brightness. Calling it a later incarnation is really not correct. The Mits is a newer platform. What difference this makes is beyong me, they are both good. For 2D basing my conclusions on viewing an 85, the mits image was sharper and brighter with better motion handling. The Sony has a better more refined DI. Brightness wise and sharpness wise the Sony is fine, the Mits is a little better. The value is about ythe same once you add the free glasses and emitter with the Sonyand the one year longer warranty. The 3D on the Mits is quite satisfactory especially in light of the use a normal person might make of watching in 3D. The 3D on the Sony is brighter when the glasses are set to maximum brightness, longer open shutter times and the ghosting is less but normally the ghosting won't bother you on the Mits unless you focus on when it occurs and bead your view down to the object ghosting rather than viewing the entire 3D image.
post #262 of 574
Yeah, this is why I really need to see them in person -- opinions are so subjective. Another reviewer wrote that he couldn't watch the Mitsubishi without turning the frame interpolation on, because otherwise the handling of motion was much less smooth than the Sony 90ES.

I think the only thing we can say with certainty is that different people have different sensitivities and preferences, and you really need to see with your own eyes and familiar content in order to evaluate properly.

I know that I have an extremely high flicker sensitivity, so this is something that causes real problems for me depending on the particular technology, and implementation of the technology. At CEDIA, I walked into Sim2's demo room and could tell within a few seconds that they were showing the single-chip Nero machine rather than the Lumis 3D Solo. Other people couldn't see the color separation artifacts at all, and loved the image on the Nero.

When I got to see the JVC X7 the other day with Lord of the Rings, I found it more pleasant to watch in some ways than a 3-chip DLP, because even on a 3-chip DLP, I can see the strobing of the panel refresh. I can watch and enjoy 3-chip DLP, but if the D-ILA is even smoother, well, I have to take that into consideration. On the other hand, I usually find shadow details to be more pleasing on the DLPs.

Meanwhile, the 3D on the older JVC models was intolerable to me because I could see the 48Hz-per-eye refresh of the glasses much too strongly. But, I also saw the Wolf Cub at CEDIA, based off of the X9, and it didn't bother me. The Lumis 3D Solo is still the best 3D I've seen, bar none.

Perhaps, once you have seen enough machines and compared your own subjective reactions with the reactions of reviewers, you can find a reviewer with whom you agree often, and then that reviewer becomes more of a trusted source. I'm not at that point yet, so the quest to find these projectors to audition continues!
post #263 of 574
I like Art's reviews, even though he favors black levels more than me, he seems to be the one of the more objective reviewers (of course that is a SUBJECTIVE comment).

So far out of the projectors I have compared, I have found his statements to be pretty accurate, but if someone is so sensitive to so many visual artifacts, you almost have to see them for yourself.

The Cine4 guys are the most objective of them all, but they are very engineering oriented so they often limit their findings to a different type of thing rather than all out comparisons (which isn't bad either).
post #264 of 574
Hi Guys, I got to see a demo of the vw90es yesterday. From what I have read, the 2d performance of the 95 is supposedly the same as the 90... but the 90 reviews I've read all state that the 90 was basically the same as the 85... so has the vw95es improved from the vw85es in 2d performance?

Anyway, on to my question. We were watching various 2d demo clips, and in the brighter parts of the image there was a noticeable flicker effect. For example in white clouds, the image seemed to dim/brighten very quickly. It was extremely distracting and the sales guy thought it might be a connection/cable issue due to the setup they use there but I don't know.

Can anyone comment? The image looked great but this flicker was extremely distracting.
post #265 of 574
A flicker describes exactly what the image looks like with the Film Projection engaged.
post #266 of 574
Quote:
Originally Posted by joerod View Post

A flicker describes exactly what the image looks like with the Film Projection engaged.

Thanks joe, so is this mode generally considered to be broken or am i just particularly affected by it?
When people talk about how well the sony handles motion are they referring to only the Motionflow implementation (lack of artifacts) or is the sony still considered excellent even with these features turned off?
post #267 of 574
The "flicker" is not caused by motionflow but by dark frame insertion. You can use motionflow with or without dark frame insertion.
post #268 of 574
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

You guys are rely trying to make some sort of calculated conclusion sort of making it what you want to wish. I could watch either machine in 2D or 3D and not feel I should have bought the other. They are both good and really do have some small pluses and minuses. To conclude one is really better than the other is not possible. Things that needed fixing in the Mits have reportedly been fixed. The Sony is an older platform machine with essentially a lamp dimming feature added to increase 3D brightness. Calling it a later incarnation is really not correct. The Mits is a newer platform. What difference this makes is beyong me, they are both good. For 2D basing my conclusions on viewing an 85, the mits image was sharper and brighter with better motion handling. The Sony has a better more refined DI. Brightness wise and sharpness wise the Sony is fine, the Mits is a little better. The value is about ythe same once you add the free glasses and emitter with the Sonyand the one year longer warranty. The 3D on the Mits is quite satisfactory especially in light of the use a normal person might make of watching in 3D. The 3D on the Sony is brighter when the glasses are set to maximum brightness, longer open shutter times and the ghosting is less but normally the ghosting won't bother you on the Mits unless you focus on when it occurs and bead your view down to the object ghosting rather than viewing the entire 3D image.

Mark your profile wont let me pm you.
post #269 of 574
Quote:
Originally Posted by steve21 View Post

Hi Guys, I got to see a demo of the vw90es yesterday. From what I have read, the 2d performance of the 95 is supposedly the same as the 90... but the 90 reviews I've read all state that the 90 was basically the same as the 85... so has the vw95es improved from the vw85es in 2d performance?...

The 90/95 has significantly higher native CR than the 85. In addition the 90/95 is brighter, sharper, and has newer and faster panels (240Hz). There is also a new generation of DI, Iris3, which has better mechanics and more finely tuned algorithms and heuristics. IMO, the VW90 is much improved over the VW85 in 2D and has the best 2D performance available from a pricepoint south of the Sim2 Lumis.

I would check out http://www.audiovideohd.fr/tests/272...90ES-3D-0.html for the most comprehensive VW90 test.

Cine4Home.de only published a preview test on the VW90 (likely on a pre-release unit). They did not update to a full test as is their usual process. (feuding with Sony Europe again?) Much like the JVC X7, the VW90 pre-release machines last year were not yet tuned and so did not score very well with most of the euro reviewers. The serial release machines were much better received.
post #270 of 574
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eternal_Sunshine View Post

The "flicker" is not caused by motionflow but by dark frame insertion. You can use motionflow with or without dark frame insertion.

That makes sense. If i remember correctly there were two modes (film1 and film2) and the way it was explained during the demo is that first had dark frame insertion (and when selected, the image was very dim) so what is the second film mode? I'm pretty sure It was on this second mode that the flicker appeaered. Is this a different method of dark frame insertion?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP › Sony vpl-vw95es : Ifa berlin 2011