Sony VPL-vw1000 - Page 45

Originally Posted by JustMike

Let's say I did that, though, and the setting I end up with is not the minimum iris. If the iris is fixed at that value, I lose the lower black floor that the iris could give in low APL scenes. Conceptually, it seems like there should be a benefit to a "variable but do not exceed this brightness" mode.

Originally Posted by whitetrash66

So how long do you guys figure it will take for this tech to trickle down to more "mainstream" prices (10K or less)? I would love one of these things, but 25K is way to much for me. Think sony will release a cheaper version with a less expensive lens/less lumens in the next year or so?

Originally Posted by Kris Deering

Probably sooner than any of these early adopters are hoping for. Personally this is a gamble I wouldn't take unless I was looking at this for satisying my needs for quite a long time, otherwise I think resale is going to drop like a brick and we'll have a lot of unhappy campers come upgrade time.

Originally Posted by R Harkness

I find it interesting all this talk of the 4k machines letting everyone sit so much closer.
As I've mentioned, with my JVC RS20 I had to have the image really, really big to even start getting hints of seeing pixels (not sure I ever did!). Now I have the RS55 with E-shift, effectively no pixel visibility, and I do not necessarily find myself wanting to sit closer. That's because pixel visibility is only one part of the equation: there's obviously still the limitations of the source, which vary wildly even in Blu-Ray, let alone broadcast HD.

One of the reasons I went with a variable screen size is due to the variability of source material. Some sources, particularly good Blu-Ray transfers, can hold up at huge sizes (although even then I can start sensing 1080p res limitations). But just as often softness, or edge enhancement, or any number of compression or other artifacts can simply become more visible on the larger image, so I back off image size until the image looks smoother and sharp again.

Given this issue, I find it interesting that a lot of people find the idea of sitting super close to 1080p sources always desirable, as if your projector's pixel visibility were the only problem.

Originally Posted by millerwill

True. But my observation of the DI is that it really doesn't cut down the iris very much until there is almost no light in the image, e.g., in a fade to black. It may be nice to see the screen get really dark in this situation, but it doesn't strike me as THAT important. With any light on the screen the DI is opened up, pretty much indistinguishable (to my non-expert eye) as having the iris at some fixed value.

However there are many people on the forum more knowledgeable about all this than I, and their opinion on this would probably be more worthwhile than mine.

Originally Posted by millerwill

True. But my observation of the DI is that it really doesn't cut down the iris very much until there is almost no light in the image, e.g., in a fade to black. It may be nice to see the screen get really dark in this situation, but it doesn't strike me as THAT important. With any light on the screen the DI is opened up, pretty much indistinguishable (to my non-expert eye) as having the iris at some fixed value.

However there are many people on the forum more knowledgeable about all this than I, and their opinion on this would probably be more worthwhile than mine.

Originally Posted by AV Science Sales 4

Any high gain screen needs all the help it can get in getting black. It will raise the black value because of the gain.

Originally Posted by Randall Morton

A high gain screen will raise the black floor. On dark scenes your blacks will look a bit grayer.

Anyone have any idea about which 3d glasses are best with this projector. I need a couple more pair and wonder if I should just get two more like the ones that came with the projector?

Originally Posted by ccool96

On a sperate note, displaying 4k pictures, is phenomenal!!!

Originally Posted by AV Science Sales 4

Any high gain screen needs all the help it can get in getting black. It will raise the black value because of the gain.

Originally Posted by hifiaudio2

That color shift is easy to see and definitely an issue. Same that red was on mine. Exchange it.

Originally Posted by adidino

I have two extra pair of the Sony's if you are interested in them PM me. I'm using the Monster glasses.

Originally Posted by Randall Morton

If I decide on the Sony I will PM you. I am hoping there is something I would like a bit better. How are the Monster's compared the the Sony?

Originally Posted by AV Science Sales 4

I set my second demo ES1000 up tonight. It goes to a lucky owner the end of next week. Took all of five minutes to set . I set it on ref, 2.2 gamma, d 65, iris at 23, contrast at 90, brightness at 51, bt709, RC at 20/20, low , aspect at normal. I watched the second half of the Kentocky, Miss St game.

What did I think?

It was a clear, bright window on the game. The imprvement is so much over any and all my other projectors, I can no longer watch them. Its that much better.

I am certainthat we will see cheaper 4K machines next year but its just not the increased display resolution at 3940 x 2160. That's only part of the magic. Its the lens, the lumens level, the uniformity accross the screen. A cheaper 4K machine just won't have the lens and the lumens out this beast has. There are many times in life you experience something that you want but can't afford. Certain houses by the great John Lautner, certain very expensive sports cars, lots of things.

But this beast while expensive is a luxory that people in the upper middle class can obtain. If you prsently have a projector say in the $6K or above class, you will be simply amazed by what this baby can do. Its just that much better. The improvement is not small. Its worth every penny that this thing is streeting for. RE RC. I switched it one and off just set at 20/20, the Sony default. The improvement wasn't dramatic but it just took whatever high quality optical cass in the window one is looking through out of the window. Its hard to explain. If Ht is an oimportant part of your life, in my opinion, if you casn afford it, it will bring you great joy. Are there other great projectors out there, there certainly are. But for the money there is absolutely nothing that approachesthis beast. 4K I think is a big plus and when 4K sources become abvailable it will be a bigger plus. But 4K is not the reason to buy it. Its the performance of this beast, the absolute PQ that it would bring to 1080p performance. I am impressed and impressed enough to buy it.

One of the reasons the Qualia 004 was so expensive was its Xenon lamp. That probably accounted for $5K of its cost considering the cooling system such a lamp requires.

What will a cheaper 4K machine in say the $15K MSRP give up? Since this baby uses a UHP lamp, the bulb type can't lead to savings. A lower lumens lamp must vbe used say cutting the max lumens from 2000 to 1000 and then the power supply and cooling system costs will be cheaper. A cheaper lens will undoubtedly be substitued. The lens on this one is superb. How well will a cheaper lens resolve 34096 x 2160 pixels. A true 4K anamorphic as an anology costs about 4 times the cost of a 2K anamorphic. Can you use a 2K anamorphic on a 4K machine the slight aspect ratio difference not withstanding. Sure you can but do you think it would be anywhere as good. Thisbeast is a statement piece. The mythical Sony Diamond. A $15K MSRP 4K machine will be good undoubtedltly but it will be a synthetic diamongd in the rough as little sense that might be. Perhaps a better analogy will be a diamond without as many facets and without the same degree of polishing.

Enough of this babble. I am drooling too much. I going to watch some more. Goodnight and happy dreams. I am living one now.

Originally Posted by mookie b

So are you saying I'll see a difference from my Panasonic AE3000? Kidding...

Originally Posted by Randall Morton

A high gain screen will raise the black floor. On dark scenes your blacks will look a bit grayer.

Originally Posted by AV Science Sales 4

I set my second demo ES1000 up tonight. It goes to a lucky owner the end of next week. Took all of five minutes to set . I set it on ref, 2.2 gamma, d 65, iris at 23, contrast at 90, brightness at 51, bt709, RC at 20/20, low , aspect at normal. I watched the second half of the Kentocky, Miss St game.

What did I think?

It was a clear, bright window on the game. The imprvement is so much over any and all my other projectors, I can no longer watch them. Its that much better.

I am certainthat we will see cheaper 4K machines next year but its just not the increased display resolution at 3940 x 2160. That's only part of the magic. Its the lens, the lumens level, the uniformity accross the screen. A cheaper 4K machine just won't have the lens and the lumens out this beast has. There are many times in life you experience something that you want but can't afford. Certain houses by the great John Lautner, certain very expensive sports cars, lots of things.

But this beast while expensive is a luxory that people in the upper middle class can obtain. If you prsently have a projector say in the $6K or above class, you will be simply amazed by what this baby can do. Its just that much better. The improvement is not small. Its worth every penny that this thing is streeting for. RE RC. I switched it one and off just set at 20/20, the Sony default. The improvement wasn't dramatic but it just took whatever high quality optical cass in the window one is looking through out of the window. Its hard to explain. If Ht is an oimportant part of your life, in my opinion, if you casn afford it, it will bring you great joy. Are there other great projectors out there, there certainly are. But for the money there is absolutely nothing that approachesthis beast. 4K I think is a big plus and when 4K sources become abvailable it will be a bigger plus. But 4K is not the reason to buy it. Its the performance of this beast, the absolute PQ that it would bring to 1080p performance. I am impressed and impressed enough to buy it.

One of the reasons the Qualia 004 was so expensive was its Xenon lamp. That probably accounted for $5K of its cost considering the cooling system such a lamp requires.

What will a cheaper 4K machine in say the $15K MSRP give up? Since this baby uses a UHP lamp, the bulb type can't lead to savings. A lower lumens lamp must vbe used say cutting the max lumens from 2000 to 1000 and then the power supply and cooling system costs will be cheaper. A cheaper lens will undoubtedly be substitued. The lens on this one is superb. How well will a cheaper lens resolve 34096 x 2160 pixels. A true 4K anamorphic as an anology costs about 4 times the cost of a 2K anamorphic. Can you use a 2K anamorphic on a 4K machine the slight aspect ratio difference not withstanding. Sure you can but do you think it would be anywhere as good. Thisbeast is a statement piece. The mythical Sony Diamond. A $15K MSRP 4K machine will be good undoubtedltly but it will be a synthetic diamongd in the rough as little sense that might be. Perhaps a better analogy will be a diamond without as many facets and without the same degree of polishing.

Enough of this babble. I am drooling too much. I going to watch some more. Goodnight and happy dreams. I am living one now.

One of the reasons the Qualia 004 was so expensive was its Xenon lamp. That probably accounted for $5K of its cost considering the cooling system such a lamp requires.

Originally Posted by millerwill

How rapidly have SIM2's dlp prices come down?

Originally Posted by ccool96

I doubt it will be long. The Sony VW100 at $10K wasn't far behind the Qualia which was $25K+ just a year or 2 before.

I suspect it will move quickly, unfortunately. Being an early adopter for just about everything, I have learned that lesson many times.