AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Digital Projectors - Under $3,000 USD MSRP › The Three 1280x800 LED Clones
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Three 1280x800 LED Clones - Page 6

post #151 of 421
8/20/11 at 7:26am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MCaugusto View Post

Well, disappointed after scanning through owner's manual and finding out the Optoma ML500 does not have any controls for CMS or grey-scale adjustment, unlike my "crappy" LG HX300G, so warmly mentioned above...
The ML500 has the standard controls for color saturation, hue, contrast, brightness and sharpness; Under "Advanced" there are controls for gamma, BrilliantColor, color temperature, color mode and, most unusual of all, wall color !
Now wait to find out if either the Viewsonic W500 or the Acer K330 offer such controls...
LeonZA >>> All these upcoming pjs use the same TI HD Pico chipset that is used by the Vivitek Qumi, so, yeah, diamond-shaped pixels.

That's a bummer, but what I kind of figured. Looks like next year's update might be the same resolution but newer chip running 1280x800 in a square-pixel setup. LAWL. That would be perfect for milking the cash-cow.
Reply
Reply

Gear mentioned in this thread:

post #152 of 421
8/20/11 at 7:51am
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoisonWolf View Post

That would be perfect for milking the cash-cow.

nah, they have 3D for that, it works wonders, especially with flatscreens. Active/ passive fistfight, good music & stuff what else you'd want???
Reply
Reply
post #153 of 421
8/24/11 at 10:49am
just an update for those who are interested

Optoma ml500 is available now for sell

http://www.adorama.com/OUML500.html?...m_source=gbase

and here for 639$
http://www.focusedtechnology.com/opt...projector.html

B and H getting new shipment next week (they soldout current shipment)

I'm personally waiting for the Acer K330 but if that one didn't get released soon (like end of the month 30august~I'll properly get the optoma ml500

Btw the optoma only does 3D in 1024x768 resolution, there is no 1280x720p option so 3D will suck on it if you plan to use the 3D function
Reply
Reply
post #154 of 421
8/24/11 at 5:32pm
Thread Starter 
Once i realized the Chinese site Zol.com has posted online tests of many different pjs i decided to do an "apples to oranges" so-to-speak comparison.
After all, if the site uses the same screen and test instruments i thought it would be fair to find out how much more would i get from, say, a top of the line LCOS pj from Sony/JVC or from a highly regarded LCD unit from Epson, or DLP from Sharp, etc.
So, comparing the ACER K330, which i would prefer owning over the Viewsonic W500, i was pleasantly surprised by some of the test results.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Max Brightness ~ ACER K330 : 383 lumens
Sony VW90ES : 644 lumens
JVC HD990 : 765 lumens
Sharp XVZ1700 : 1.502 lumens
Epson TW3300 : 1.698 lumen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
ANSI Brightness ~ ACER : 294 lumens
Sony : 595 lumens
JVC : 244 lumens
Sharp : 866 lumens
Epson : 1.089 lumens
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ANSI Contrast ~ ACER : 276:1
Sony : 175:1
JVC : 129:1
Sharp : 259:1
Epson : 198:1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
FULL-ON/FULL-OFF
Contrast ~ ACER : 2.291:1
Sony : could not measure accurately ( HT Magazine : 11.219:1, no dynamic iris at work)
JVC : could not measure accurately (HT Magazine : 23.725:1)
Sharp : 7.307:1 (iris fully closed, no dynamic iris at work)
Epson : 4.042:1 (iris fully closed, no dynamic iris at work)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Color Saturation ~ ACER : 99.4%
Sony : 92.9%
JVC : 68.9%
Sharp : 74.7%
Epson : 75.7%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for color and brightness uniformity in center/corners of screen, all these pjs tested very close to each other which is great to know considering the pricing differential.
Also, keep in mind that the figures for all standard bulb pjs depend on how many hours of use these bulbs had already been through, so that Epson brightness of 1.700 lumens would drop to half or less that amount within 6~9 months of use, and on, and on...Which would not happen to the ACER K330 for years to come !
Since ZOL.com would not specify readings for FO/FO contrast for Sony and JVC pjs due to unreadable minimum black level below 0.001% i figure i would use the readings from HT Magazine for Sony VW90ES and JVC DLA-X7.
I guess what i am trying to point out here is that for $650 we're not getting exactly "toy pjs", as some posters are so fond of referring to these inexpensive LED pjs...
Reply
Reply
post #155 of 421
8/24/11 at 5:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MCaugusto View Post

Once i realized the Chinese site Zol.com has posted online tests of many different pjs i decided to do an "apples to oranges" so-to-speak comparison.
After all, if the site uses the same screen and test instruments i thought it would be fair to find out how much more would i get from, say, a top of the line LCOS pj from Sony/JVC or from a highly regarded LCD unit from Epson, or DLP from Sharp, etc.
So, comparing the ACER K330, which i would prefer owning over the Viewsonic W500, i was pleasantly surprised by some of the test results.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Max Brightness ~ ACER K330 : 383 lumens
Sony VW90ES : 644 lumens
JVC HD990 : 765 lumens
Sharp XVZ1700 : 1.502 lumens
Epson TW3300 : 1.698 lumen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
ANSI Brightness ~ ACER : 294 lumens
Sony : 595 lumens
JVC : 244 lumens
Sharp : 866 lumens
Epson : 1.089 lumens
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ANSI Contrast ~ ACER : 276:1
Sony : 175:1
JVC : 129:1
Sharp : 259:1
Epson : 198:1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
FULL-ON/FULL-OFF
Contrast ~ ACER : 2.291:1
Sony : could not measure accurately ( HT Magazine : 11.219:1, no dynamic iris at work)
JVC : could not measure accurately (HT Magazine : 23.725:1)
Sharp : 7.307:1 (iris fully closed, no dynamic iris at work)
Epson : 4.042:1 (iris fully closed, no dynamic iris at work)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Color Saturation ~ ACER : 99.4%
Sony : 92.9%
JVC : 68.9%
Sharp : 74.7%
Epson : 75.7%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for color and brightness uniformity in center/corners of screen, all these pjs tested very close to each other which is great to know considering the pricing differential.
Also, keep in mind that the figures for all standard bulb pjs depend on how many hours of use these bulbs had already been through, so that Epson brightness of 1.700 lumens would drop to half or less that amount within 6~9 months of use, and on, and on...Which would not happen to the ACER K330 for years to come !
Since ZOL.com would not specify readings for FO/FO contrast for Sony and JVC pjs due to unreadable minimum black level below 0.001% i figure i would use the readings from HT Magazine for Sony VW90ES and JVC DLA-X7.
I guess what i am trying to point out here is that for $650 we're not getting exactly "toy pjs", as some posters are so fond of referring to these inexpensive LED pjs...

I will get the Acer or Optoma, which one comes out first. It will not be a toy pj for me. It will get many hours of use. On my 119in HP screen, I'm looking to get at least 350 lumens for 16-20fL
Reply
Reply
post #156 of 421
8/24/11 at 7:21pm
Hopefully my long long wait would be nicely justified.

And fingers crossed there isn't any/much surprises in the faults department.
Reply
Reply
post #157 of 421
8/24/11 at 7:51pm
Just wondering, would it be safe to assume that the throw distance of the Acer would be identical to the Optoma?
Reply
Reply
post #158 of 421
8/24/11 at 8:11pm
I been looking for a user manual, but the ML500 is perfect for my setup
Reply
Reply
post #159 of 421
8/25/11 at 5:42am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raine0 View Post

Just wondering, would it be safe to assume that the throw distance of the Acer would be identical to the Optoma?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I guess that would be a safe assumption considering all three pjs look so much alike that i doubt there would be any differences in lens, optical path and focus range.
However, to quote Benny Hill : "never ASS~U~ME because when you do you could make an ASS out of U and ME" !....
Reply
Reply
post #160 of 421
8/25/11 at 8:58am
Reply
Reply
post #161 of 421
8/25/11 at 11:08am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MCaugusto View Post

I guess what i am trying to point out here is that for $650 we're not getting exactly "toy pjs", as some posters are so fond of referring to these inexpensive LED pjs...

At 500$ or 650$ you are right, but here in Europe these little units are considerably more expensive*. Believe the Qumi is 599,-. If that would bring the ACER/Optoma to 799,- it is darn close to the going price of the Epson TW3200 (that is the same as the 3600 but at a lower price point, but with the same two year warranty and 1700 or 2000 hour bulb warranty, I assume this one is the same as the 3300 mentioned here), that MSRPs for 899,-, but has much wider distribution and therefor is selling for a little over 800.

Of course the 3200 offers 1080P and upto 1600 lumens in power mode.

*Currently the Euro to USD rate is 1:1,45, so the qumi is $868,- this includes VAt at 19% but even when I exclude that the Qumi would be $730,-.
Reply
Reply
post #162 of 421
8/25/11 at 4:39pm
At least the Acer K-330 does not have the droopy one look of the lens as does the LH HX-300 lens.
Macgo ? this may be a difficult question to ask, but, in your brain's eye, what would be expected from the Acer-K330 than from the LG HX-300 ? .
The most obvious one would be the brightness compared to the HX-300.
A more sharper look of the picture ? maybe better colors ? better performance ?.
I know these are difficult questions to ask since you don't have the projector in front of you to do any kind of review, but, from the specs posted, what would be what most of us would be expecting ? will this wow us ? would it justify upgrading from the LG HX-300 ?
Reply
Reply
post #163 of 421
8/25/11 at 6:50pm
Thread Starter 
Well, let's see : the HX300G is native 1024x768 or 786.000 pixels but whenever displaying 16:9 content it uses only 1024x576 or 589.000 pixels, so that's quite a drop.
The ACER K330 uses a 1280x800 chip in a 16:10 ratio, so when displaying native 16:9 content it uses 921.000 pixels which should afford the viewer a picture considerably sharper, especially when sitting as close to the screen as recommended. Those 1280x800 pixels turn to 960x800 pixels whenever displaying native 4:3 content with black bars on left/side of image, unfortunately; That would be 768.000 pixels which is almost the same number of pixels (786.000) that the HX300G uses at full capacity on 4:3 content ! Calculations, calculations, calculations....
As for colors, i would expect them to look very/very similar considering both pjs use LED chipsets from Luminus Devices, although ZOL.com found the "color saturation" of the HX300G to reach 122% NTSC whereas the ACER K330 reached "only" 99.4% NTSC, so i guess colors from the LG unit would seem to look "deeper/richer/even more oversaturated" compared to colors from the ACER unit.
Onscreen brightness from the ACER K330 should be much higher considering the same site's measurements of 294 ANSI lumens versus only 110 ANSI lumens for the HX300G; Insofar as contrast figures the ACER K330 has 2.291:1 versus only 209:1 for the HX300G FULL-ON/FULL-OFF and higher ANSI contrast of 276:1 versus 93:1, so the ACER K330 should have noticeably deeper blacks + better low-level black detail.
The manual of the Optoma ML500, clone of the ACER K330, shows the pj as having two air exhaust ports, one located on the left side of pj and the other on the front right next to the lens, an arrangement i am concerned about and hoping that the front exhaust port acts more like a secondary port that exhausts less hot air than the other port located on the side and far from the lens.
The manual for the new HW300T shows the pj as having a single air exhaust port located on the right side and the air intake port located on the left side of unit, which is the opposite of the HX300G, and thankfully NO air exhaust vent located right next to the lens. However, after seeing the picture posted showing the inside of the HW300T as being completely/totally "stuffed" with tightly packed electronic components, i am wondering how much cooler it runs compared to my HX300G, hmm....
And let's not forget those "diamond-shaped" pixels that seem to be causing quite an amount of consternation on the Qumi thread, specifically when using the Qumi as computer monitor and fonts/lines not appearing as sharp and as easily readable as standard square pixels, also apparently not even being capable of doing 1:1 pixel mapping, hmm...
As far as i am concerned, one thing is for sure : i will place my order for one of these clone pjs as soon as i read some reviews/comments specifically related to start-up focus issues, etc, AND the seller will be a dealer that offers full return/refund, no restocking fee, no arguing, no headaches.
Reply
Reply
post #164 of 421
8/25/11 at 7:09pm
DLPProjectorfan

MCaugusto may not be able to answer this question, but I might.

I am currently using the HS 201 (as I type), I never made the jump to the HX (not enough bang for the buck), I am in my 20th month of 201 owner ship and am dying for the next step (I had the QUMI for 3 days, my focus issue was an extreme problem).

For almost 2 years I've been @ 800X600 (reminds me of the Infocus X1 days) and I was waiting the "True" 720 P projector. I was disappointed by the Qumi , but have high hopes for the next generation of LED projectors.

My expectations are (ether it be the 330 or the LG HW) is to no longer see the pixels (on a good day my eye sight can spot them), I have a room that has great light control (so lumen out put is not a factor for me) with a HP screen so ether would be bright enough.

I was WOWed when I went from an Infocus (X1 then IN26) to this HS201 and didn't get the feeling I would get as much of a WOW going to the HX (I actually posted "I'll wait for a 720P projector before I upgrade")

What I expect to see, no pixels, good color management, quit fan, good remote, and a picture that gives me the same "WOW" factor I had when I got the 201 (2-8 page of the 201 thread will give you my first impression).

I do not expect the same magnitude of WOW (going from mentioned projectors to the 201), but image quality I expect to have a WOW factor.


Those are my expectations, MCaugusto may not agree/disagree, but these are my expectations/beliefs.

AFM
Reply
Reply
post #165 of 421
8/25/11 at 7:11pm
AS usual

I post a reply, and I'm late, MCaugusto has already responded

DOH

AFM
Reply
Reply
post #166 of 421
8/25/11 at 7:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MCaugusto View Post

also apparently not even being capable of doing 1:1 pixel mapping, hmm...

Vivitek has said that the qumi is doing 1:1 mapping without scaling
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?ui...6819#topic_top
Aster
but is it mapping 1:1 without scaling?
last Friday
Vivitek
Correct Aster - without scaling.
Reply
Reply
post #167 of 421
8/25/11 at 10:03pm
Thread Starter 
afineman >>> Nice to hear from you again and please don't be so coy ! Like you i was wowed by the HS201 the minute i set it up to the moment i sold it to get the HX300G.
I don't expect to be wowed the same way (we've been spoiled, i'm afraid) going from the HX300G to the ACER K330 but i do expect to be able to sit even closer to my screen than i presently do without seeing any pixels, and since the largest screen size i can fit in my HT room is "only" about 96" diagonal i figure any increase in perceived size would be a welcome addition.
BTW, i don't know if you guys noticed it but there is a link on the LG HW300T for the owner's manual and indeed it has similar CMS and grey-scale tracking as used on the HX300G, PLUS what appear to be some extra calibration "goodies".
PS : afineman, please tell us more about your experience with the Qumi; Appart from the start-up focus issue (did it happen only during start-up and then did it stabilize completely?), was it about as bright as the HS-201, were you able to sit much closer to screen without noticing pixels, did you notice those darned "diamond-shaped" pixels, how noisy was it, etc,etc ?
Reply
Reply
post #168 of 421
8/26/11 at 8:05am
I would wish that the manufacturers use a little bigger units and minimize the fan noise. I once tested a hs 201 and was happy with the picture, but the fan noise was a problem so i sent it back and returned my money.

The LEDs advantage is, if i am right, that they do not need such excessive cooling like bulbs need it. So maybe a normal projector size with less hearable fan noise would be a choice? I would love that, because the weight would not increase and the size ist really not the major problem of portable projectors in my opinion. People carry ipads, they will also carry non pico-size orientated projectors.

And the prices are a bit too high too. For less money you get already Flatscreens with 32-42 inch screens, and these offer great picture quality without any fan noise.

I really do not need the highest contrast and brightest picture, as long as it not worse than what the hs 201 managed to show. My "dream" would be the hs 201 in double-size with fan noise reduced to the half for a price below 300.
Reply
Reply
post #169 of 421
8/26/11 at 8:28am
Quote:
Originally Posted by colafan View Post

And the prices are a bit too high too. For less money you get already Flatscreens with 32-42 inch screens, and these offer great picture quality without any fan noise.

Why would someone chose a 32-42in tv over a led projector that can give you 92-120in screen size? The price seems fair for me
Reply
Reply
post #170 of 421
8/26/11 at 9:06am
Quote:
Originally Posted by blee0120 View Post

Why would someone chose a 32-42in tv over a led projector that can give you 92-120in screen size? The price seems fair for me

Like i said, when just talking about the screen size, i would love to use a led projector. But i had issues with the fan noise and admitted, a 120inch screen size with the aviable led projectors does not offer the same picture quality like a tv of the lowest price category.

I think thats why most people choose a smaller tv screen over a home cinema projector. And really not everyone has that much large rooms that it is still fun to watch a 120inch screen. I guess most people are very happy with a maximum screen size of 60-80 inch. Everything beyond is a bit too much for the average users home. Thats why most people in cinemas prefer seats farer away from the screen, because there is a point where it is simply too big and you cannot see the full picture anymore and get stressed with moving your head from one to the other corner.

Thats the failure the manufacturers do, they try to push home projectors on a level same as projectors for audiences up to hundreds of people. But how many people have such big living rooms, not to speak about the hot air from the cooling and the more and more increasing power costs. The advantage of LED was the less power usage, but they get closer and closer to bulb projectors power consumption.

LED would be perfect for smaller dimensions, with acceptable power consumption and tolerable fan noises. But cinema projector in a hamburger box, that is just the worst of both worlds in a home users room. A bit less with more quality would hit the market, because big screen is an argument. But thats the only argument so far, as resolution and picture quality of TVs is way higher for less money.
Reply
Reply
post #171 of 421
8/26/11 at 10:24am
Quote:
Originally Posted by colafan View Post


Like i said, when just talking about the screen size, i would love to use a led projector. But i had issues with the fan noise and admitted, a 120inch screen size with the aviable led projectors does not offer the same picture quality like a tv of the lowest price category.

I think thats why most people choose a smaller tv screen over a home cinema projector. And really not everyone has that much large rooms that it is still fun to watch a 120inch screen. I guess most people are very happy with a maximum screen size of 60-80 inch. Everything beyond is a bit too much for the average users home. Thats why most people in cinemas prefer seats farer away from the screen, because there is a point where it is simply too big and you cannot see the full picture anymore and get stressed with moving your head from one to the other corner.

Thats the failure the manufacturers do, they try to push home projectors on a level same as projectors for audiences up to hundreds of people. But how many people have such big living rooms, not to speak about the hot air from the cooling and the more and more increasing power costs. The advantage of LED was the less power usage, but they get closer and closer to bulb projectors power consumption.

LED would be perfect for smaller dimensions, with acceptable power consumption and tolerable fan noises. But cinema projector in a hamburger box, that is just the worst of both worlds in a home users room. A bit less with more quality would hit the market, because big screen is an argument. But thats the only argument so far, as resolution and picture quality of TVs is way higher for less money.

That's true, but I think most people looking at one of the led projectors most likely have room for it. I know 4 people who have then in their apartment living room and place the projector behind their couches. But thats not ideal for everyone, as you mention. Hopefully the fan noise isn't a big issue for me, because I never once been distracted by my 10 projectors that I had
Reply
Reply
post #172 of 421
8/26/11 at 11:23am
I was tempted to grab the Optoma, but the Acer appears more HT oriented based on the Chinese review site we saw earlier.

If the Acer hits the US in the next few weeks, i'll wait.
Reply
Reply
post #173 of 421
8/26/11 at 11:43am
havent lower priced rebrands allways had the same specs?A calibrator has said not to make much of discrepancies in readings for now
Reply
Reply
post #174 of 421
8/26/11 at 12:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by eat meat View Post

havent lower priced rebrands allways had the same specs?A calibrator has said not to make much of discrepancies in readings for now

that review of the Optoma and Acer seemed like there was a fair amount of differences in IQ (for HT use) in comparison to one another. It looks like Acer and Optoma are cooking the firmware / calibration different than one another.

The Acer seemed to stand out as the projector that was more oriented for HT use. Is there different information available since that review?
Reply
Reply
post #175 of 421
8/26/11 at 12:28pm
Quote:


Those 1280x800 pixels turn to 960x800 pixels whenever displaying native 4:3 content with black bars on left/side of image, unfortunately; That would be 768.000 pixels which is almost the same number of pixels (786.000) that the HX300G uses at full capacity on 4:3 content ! Calculations, calculations, calculations....

1024x768 should be able to fit inside 1280x800. Black bars will be at the top,bottom,left and right sides. Or am I wrong?

To test if the Qumi is doing 1:1 mapping we should maybe create a test pattern where we alternate black and white pixels for all 1280x800 pixels and check if every one of the displays correctly.
Reply
Reply
post #176 of 421
8/26/11 at 12:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeonZA View Post

1024x768 should be able to fit inside 1280x800. Black bars will be at the top,bottom,left and right sides. Or am I wrong?

To test if the Qumi is doing 1:1 mapping we should maybe create a test pattern where we alternate black and white pixels for all 1280x800 pixels and check if every one of the displays correctly.

the argument has been that 1:1 is impossible due to the diamond vs. square pixels. I can definitely see a difference between native resolution video vs. feeding it 1080P. The 1080P is sharper, more clear every time.

This doesn't bother me since all of my source is primarily 1080P anyway.
Reply
Reply
post #177 of 421
8/26/11 at 12:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombie10k View Post


that review of the Optoma and Acer seemed like there was a fair amount of differences in IQ (for HT use) in comparison to one another. It looks like Acer and Optoma are cooking the firmware / calibration different than one another.

The Acer seemed to stand out as the projector that was more oriented for HT use. Is there different information available since that review?

Can you send me that link? I remember a comparison between the acer and viewsonic
Reply
Reply
post #178 of 421
8/26/11 at 1:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by blee0120 View Post

Can you send me that link? I remember a comparison between the acer and viewsonic

I'll have to look around, I can't recall what thread it was in, but the guys reviewing seemed like knowledgeable and were able to point out obvious differences between the Acer and Optoma, to the point where I wanted to hold off for the Acer.
Reply
Reply
post #179 of 421
8/26/11 at 2:04pm
You're comparing apples to oranges. It is indeed true, that you get more resolution for less money with televisions, and they are indeed more practical.

However, coming from a television, I can tell you right now that there is something weird about watching movies on a projector relative to a television. It's just better, simply put. This is my experience thus far after having used the HX350t for two or so months now. And really, it's not about the size. Put a 55-inch LED HDTV and a 55-inch pj image, watching a movie on a 55-inch PJ would still look better. With HDTV, you got to put up with all the crap like artifical smoothness, and if you disable that "feature", you have to deal with ghosting, etc. After all, remember that all "LED HDTVs" are still essentially LCD HDTVs with LED backlighting.

My two cents.

About noise (you might have mentioned it in the previous post), what other devices are connected to the PJ? In my setup, I can't even hear the PJ running because the PS3 is like a horse with a soar throat moaning constantly.

Lastly, it's true that televisions offer a better "picture quality". But I personally consider "picture experience" to be more important.

Quote:
Originally Posted by colafan View Post

Like i said, when just talking about the screen size, i would love to use a led projector. But i had issues with the fan noise and admitted, a 120inch screen size with the aviable led projectors does not offer the same picture quality like a tv of the lowest price category.

I think thats why most people choose a smaller tv screen over a home cinema projector. And really not everyone has that much large rooms that it is still fun to watch a 120inch screen. I guess most people are very happy with a maximum screen size of 60-80 inch. Everything beyond is a bit too much for the average users home. Thats why most people in cinemas prefer seats farer away from the screen, because there is a point where it is simply too big and you cannot see the full picture anymore and get stressed with moving your head from one to the other corner.

Thats the failure the manufacturers do, they try to push home projectors on a level same as projectors for audiences up to hundreds of people. But how many people have such big living rooms, not to speak about the hot air from the cooling and the more and more increasing power costs. The advantage of LED was the less power usage, but they get closer and closer to bulb projectors power consumption.

LED would be perfect for smaller dimensions, with acceptable power consumption and tolerable fan noises. But cinema projector in a hamburger box, that is just the worst of both worlds in a home users room. A bit less with more quality would hit the market, because big screen is an argument. But thats the only argument so far, as resolution and picture quality of TVs is way higher for less money.
Reply
Reply
post #180 of 421
8/26/11 at 2:12pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombie10k View Post

that review of the Optoma and Acer seemed like there was a fair amount of differences in IQ (for HT use) in comparison to one another. It looks like Acer and Optoma are cooking the firmware / calibration different than one another.

The Acer seemed to stand out as the projector that was more oriented for HT use. Is there different information available since that review?

I doubt that any of the three 500$ dollar DATA PJ,s are going to be tuned to bring out nuances for the HT crowd...It more probably just what it appears (Occam's razor), a bid to sell more pjs to brand haters/brand loyal .I cant think of any data pj that was rebadged that has done this.you also have to ask yourself why would they. I could be wrong.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home

Gear mentioned in this thread:

AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Digital Projectors - Under $3,000 USD MSRP › The Three 1280x800 LED Clones