or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Sony VPL-vw1000 - Page 45

post #1321 of 9684
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustMike View Post

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.

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.
post #1322 of 9684
This is how the bottom 1" or so of the image looks. When displaying a white image, it fades to yellow at the bottom.

Its sort of hard to see in the picture, but its easy to see just watching it.

post #1323 of 9684
On a sperate note, displaying 4k pictures, is phenomenal!!!



post #1324 of 9684
Quote:
Originally Posted by whitetrash66 View Post

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?

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.
post #1325 of 9684
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kris Deering View Post

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.

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.
post #1326 of 9684
That color shift is easy to see and definitely an issue. Same that red was on mine. Exchange it.
post #1327 of 9684
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

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.

+1, as far as I am concerned the image becomes unacceptably soft long before the pixels structure becomes visible with a 1080 LCoS projector, even with the best quality source.
Until we have access to significantly better video source I have no desire to sit closer and put up with a soft picture, but to each his own.


When evaluating the true performance of a projector sharpening should be disabled IMHO. Sharpening or MTF enhancement can be applied externally with any projector and probably offer better performance than RC for a lot less cash.
The 1000 needs to offer a tangible native performance advantage over competing products to be worth its asking price.
post #1328 of 9684
Quote:
Originally Posted by millerwill View Post

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.

I was surprised, actually, when sitting directly next to the 1000 at the local dealer's. I was watching that scene from the first Harry Potter movie, when the Dursleys and Harry go out to the little cabin on the rock in the ocean, and Hagrid arrives on Harry's birthday. It's in the middle of a huge thunderstorm, and once Hagrid lights the fire, there's also flickering firelight.

Sitting right next to the projector, with the sound system disabled, I could hear the iris working, and it was working hard on that scene. I couldn't see any effect on the screen (that's good!), but it was definitely very active.

Anyway, I appreciate your thoughts, and if I'm able to get another look at the dealer's, perhaps they'll let me shut off the iris and see how it looks with it clamped down and fixed.
post #1329 of 9684
Quote:
Originally Posted by millerwill View Post

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.

Any high gain screen needs all the help it can get in getting black. It will raise the black value because of the gain.
post #1330 of 9684
Quote:
Originally Posted by AV Science Sales 4 View Post

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

Only in the same proportion that it raises white. High gain from the screen is identical to having a brighter projector (CR is a property of the projector and unchanged by the screen). If it's too bright, just close the iris to the level you want it. High gain is like having more lumens in the bank, ready to be used when needed.
post #1331 of 9684
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?
post #1332 of 9684
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randall Morton View Post

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?

I have two extra pair of the Sony's if you are interested in them PM me. I'm using the Monster glasses.
post #1333 of 9684
Quote:
Originally Posted by ccool96 View Post

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




Cool96,

What is your throw distance? I'm assuming you are using the woven 14' wide screen. Can you comment on brightness? Fan noise?

Thanks,
post #1334 of 9684
Tonight's "presentation" will be The Final Destination!
post #1335 of 9684
Quote:
Originally Posted by AV Science Sales 4 View Post

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

And if your room isn't covered in black velvet, floor walls, ceiling and clothes, they can toast your ANSI contrast. Just measured one the other night on a large HP screeen, ANSI CR came out to a whopping 49. And the room was dark brown with black acoustic panels.
post #1336 of 9684
Quote:
Originally Posted by hifiaudio2 View Post

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

I saw this one's redstripe. Was definately visible. Second unit did not show same.
post #1337 of 9684
Quote:
Originally Posted by adidino View Post

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

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?
post #1338 of 9684
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randall Morton View Post

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?

Prefer the Monsters because of RF. They are also lighter and more comfortable to me. Performance wise, about the same.
post #1339 of 9684
I ordered a pair of the Monsters to see how I like them. I also like the RF since my projector is in a separate room.
post #1340 of 9684
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.
post #1341 of 9684
Quote:
Originally Posted by AV Science Sales 4 View Post

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.

So are you saying I'll see a difference from my Panasonic AE3000? Kidding...
post #1342 of 9684
Quote:
Originally Posted by mookie b View Post

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

That is my favorite post of this entire thread!
post #1343 of 9684
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randall Morton View Post

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

I agree. My only point was that the whites are also raised (i.e., the pic brighter), in the same proportion; the native CR does not change with the screen. So it's the same as simply having a brighter projector, one that produces more lumens (with the same CR).

GetGray's comments are also certainly true; a brighter pic will reflect more light back on the screen (how much depending on the covering of your walls and ceiling). But again, this is the same as if one has simply increased the lumen output of your projector (assuming the CR doesn't change).
post #1344 of 9684
Quote:
Originally Posted by AV Science Sales 4 View Post

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.

How soon before you get the one you get to hang on to?
post #1345 of 9684
As long as this device delivers,it is not taking food off the table for your children life is indeed short. It is very likely going to perform to the level or exceed some parameter of the next generation lower priced units. So unless you couldn't afford it in the first place it shouldn't result in buyers remorse IMO.

I might get buyers remorse a little if say in one year a unit that outperforms this all around and sells for say half but I bet this isn't going to happen.

Art
post #1346 of 9684
Quote:


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.

Another reason for the price of the Qualia 004 was the quality of the lens which was truly outstanding.
post #1347 of 9684
The Qualia had a choice of three lenses and a lens mount on which a user could change them. Such a lens mount costs money also, By offering three lens, the zoom ratio of each lens is much less than the zoom range of strechable propholatic one size fits all condom. Not that a one size can't be good, one has to throw a lot of money at it to make it great rather than just good. By having a dshort zoom range, the effective F stops at the extremes can be kept close at reasonable expense. Of course since there a multiple lenses, the economies of scale cahange because not as many as of one lens needs to be produced or purchased.

Given that the lens on the Sony needs to resolve 4K I would bet hat it is better than the Qualias lens even though it has such a long zoom range (2.1). But I don't really know.
post #1348 of 9684
Quote:
Originally Posted by millerwill View Post

How rapidly have SIM2's dlp prices come down?


....good point


dj
post #1349 of 9684
Quote:
Originally Posted by ccool96 View Post

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.


I agree, but there will be things, that the new, and cheaper models with half the price in 1-2 years dont have to, the same amount probely, like the very good and expensive optic ( wich normally dont get very much cheaper by time ) , the same amount off light output ( because off bulb size, heat, heating system , generel size - most people like it small - but not us ).

On the other hand the new┬┤s will probely have even better scaling /RC, motionflow and so on - but again, then you/I can waite forever

But I think that most off them who buyed or will buy this, do it with an ide about to keep it for a longer then "normal" time - I for one, is thinking off buying it most for the good and very flexible optic, ,the bigger light output, good CR at same time, good motion(flow) handling, good color accuracy, low noise and the 4K is just extra bonus, that hopfully will do that I can keep it longer / more "future proof" and if the RC works good, thats fine and I will turn it on, if not ( or the disadvantages is to big ) I just turn it off.

My 2 cent

dj
post #1350 of 9684
Quote:
Originally Posted by millerwill
How rapidly have SIM2's dlp prices come down?

....good point


dj


If this keeps up, the W1000 price might

increase!!!

Thank you very much

Fury
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home