Sony VPL-vw1000 - Page 6

A really expensive production grade Terranex would be something to use on it as well. At this point in time, a 4K Lumagen is just vapor ware.

To evaluate a 4K scaler, one needs a reference level 4K projector. That projector will in all likilihood have an external scaler built in just like the Sony. After the capabilities of the projector itself are evaluated, then to the extent they are available external 4K scallers can be evuated against the built in one. A year from now, how many such scalers will be available. A the consumer level and at the professional level. Right now there is exactly one consumer level 4K projector entering the market, the Sony 1000. At a MSRP of say $25K, how many will buy it and then how many will have enough pesos left to buy a top quality 4K scaler? We are talking a pretty small market segment and one which some contributors here including myself are just not going to be in. It just bugs me that some just participate to make others not want it. Its not worth it, only a fool would buy it, be like me and buy a $3K projector instead of saying it might be very nice, I really couldnlt tell nor could anyone else based on Sony's short show demo, but really if it turns out to be real nice or great, I just can't afford it. Wish I could.But all I can afford is a $3K projector, and to me I liked the new Panny the best (not me, I prefer others at that price level). Once again reaching a conclusion about the Sony's PQ using 1080p scaled can not be made based on the show demo. But one can see the quality that is built in and the marvelous specs and specs from a company not known to exaggerate specs. I am sure Sony is bringing to market a $25K projector that will only look a tad better than some $3 or $6K projector. Yea right.

Justmike. Motion handling is used by many for viewing video, particularly sports. There are arguments against using motion handling for films because it changes the look of the film as intended by the film producers. My feelings, if you want to use it and like it fine. But like gamma, its a personal preference type of thing.

For 1), do you need the lumen? Assuming RS55/65 does not have any bulb issue, are you happy? I don't know about you, but I do think there is a "too bright" image, especially you have a dedicated light-controlled room.

2) good DI will benefit... but again, I do not know how much better it is, visually..

assuming #1 and #2 is important and useful to me, I think I am willing to pay 3-4K more. Resale value is also important to me though.. and also how long I plan to keep this...

To me, personally, I am debating a 30ES vs RS45, or 95ES vs RS55....

Fair point, Mike; I've heard that motion handing in the JVC's has improved since the RS20, though most reports are that the Sonys are better.

PS: Where I have really noticed motion has been watching the US Open; on the fast serves the tennis ball is quite blurry, whereas on a plasma it is smooth as silk. Haven't seen this on a Sony pj, though.

I would expect that a flat panel manufacturer such as Sony would devote a substantial amount of money in developing motion handling for its digital flat panel displays and then transfer its results to the much lesser size projector sector. Companies just selling projectors or mostly projectors might not be able to devote as many bucks to motion handling and might not attain the same performance level.

I have an RS-40 and used to have an RS-1. The main difference I see is that the 40 no longer has the "MIC" issue -- motion induced contouring i believe is what it was called in one of the threads..

I'm not sure what caused it, but to ME it appeared that the red pixels lit up faster than green or blue, so when there's a slow pan, you would see blurriness with red outlining... Other examples, on the PS3, scrolling white text would look blurry because of this... Some called it "motion blur", but i think MIC is the official name... I dunno.

Now, aside from this fix, motion mostly looks the same... at least to me... I think there's room for improvement, but I've never seen any of the Sonys so i coudlnt compare.

It's good to hear that's gone, i find that REALLY annoying on some material (on other you never notice it)

I'm planning on upgrading my RS1 to an RS45, but i'm not entirely sure yet.
So, if that's what you noticed the most, just how dramatic do you consider the contrast ratio difference is?

millerwill,
One of the many features of my VW200 that is so nice is the way the processor handles motion. Watching golf in HD is like being there. The golf ball in flight is well defined, no blur at all.
Although the Xenon bulb is so expensive to replace, the colors are right on, and not over saturated.
So I guess that I will just stick with the VW200 until the 2nd or 3rd generation 4K projectors are out and all of the support is in place such as some sort of DVD player and software to support the projector.
I remember when the first 40" CRT TV came out. It was on display at Circuit City. I think is was a Sony, but not sure. The price at that time was around $20k. Then as the other manufacturers started coming out with their version of the big screen, prices dropped like a rock.
Remember when CDR's cost $1 each and blank DVD'Rs were $5 a disk? As soon as the market is flooded with the product, prices drop.
So will just wait until the novelty wears off, the product is refined, all the bugs are worked out and the prices come down.

This theory makes a lot of sense. It's no coincidence that the FI implementations from Sony and Panasonic are the best.

Except maybe for Epson. They have a good FI system.

I'll toss in my 2 cents for exactly the 2 cents it is worth. To me the advantage of the VW1000 is the 2000 lumens and 1M:1 CR, not the 4K because from the descriptions I imagine that the JVC 4K-lite is not too far from the same result on 2K material and the real advantage of 4K or 4K-lite is bigger without visible pixel structure. I don't think you will see 2000 lumens and 1M:1 CR on sub 10K projectors for several years at least. There hasn't been anything like that level of lumen increase over the past 4 years for the typical HT projectors.

On a straight up cost perspective the question becomes "Are you willing to pay around $5K to $7K per year rental fee (at least for the first 2-3 years) to have a projector this good?" I figure that this projector next year will cost less and improvements march onward so in two years you might be able to sell it for $15K and 3 years $10K. I view these losses as a rental fee and that is how I think about whether it is worth it.

Another way to look at it is "Is this an effective use of money over time?". You could take that $25K and use $10K to buy a JVC or Sony 95ES, both less bright and not nearly as deep black but they put up a great image, just not as great. In 3 years you could sell the projector for $3K-$4K and buy whatever new projector there was for around $18K. My guess is that $18K projector 3 years from now will be superior to the VW1000. So looking over 5 years you would "suffer" for the first 3 years and be better off in the following 2+ years for the same $25K. When the money is fixed over time say $25K for the next 5 years, typically you are better off buying the cheaper models today and using that savings to allow an upgrade to better than today's top models in a few years.

For me personally when I buy something much more expensive on the top end where I am paying a huge premium for those improvements and I don't have to have those improvements, I want it to last for many years so I use the scenario 2 evaluation. Do I feel that I could get a much better device in a few years for the money I saved buying the lower end model now, assuming I am sufficiently satisfied with the lower end model's results? In this case I would say yes. It doesn't matter that the $5K-$7K rental fee is something I could easily afford and don't really care about it, I just prefer to use the money I have more effectively regardless of how trivial I think the incremental cost is.

Although this sounds like a terrific piece of kit, I cannot imagine Sony expects to sell all that many of them at $25K a pop, particularly as a 1st generation product without a supporting technoligcal infrastructure (i.e. no external scaler, no native source material, etc.). Sure, there will be a small, wealthy segment of the population that has to have the latest and greatest who will buy this, but the vast majority will wait until the prices inevitably come down. I bought the VW200/Radiance combo a few years ago, and, frankly, have no desire to get on the upgrade wagon again for a few more. For me, and I suspect eventually for the market, 3D is a non-starter; and while 4K is appealing, until there is some kind of native source material I'm happy to let others help Sony amortize their R&D efforts

BTW, if anyone happens to know, do the current generation of anamorphic lenses handle 4k resolution? Isco, Panamorph? I know Meridian use a lens on their monster, but perhaps it is a purpose built peice, dunno.

I think the lease (Its not rent) fee over a 3 year period would be about $3K per yer. For those few getting a pre buy, the lease fee for three years might be about $1.85 K per year. Lease fees must be based on streets. Getting something close to stat of the art in one's hobby for a relatively affordable price is certainly a valid consideration for the depreciation costs involved and the reduction in available capital over the 3 year period. The problem is having the available capital.

Millerwill

I can tell you that the Motionflow in my 90ES was superb. In the low setting it was very smooth with film ( look natural, not the "jutter" kind of stuff, we see in normal 24P ) but didnt make it look like video ( NO soap opera effect ) - now I cant see a movie without it - even in movie theaters now, I cant see movies now without getting real anoied over the "jutter" in the film.

In high settingen it looks very video kind - more like the soap opera effect and I personelly dont use it, but many likes it for sports, animated and 3D film. I quite happy with the low setting for allmost all types ( movies, animated, 3D, tv, video etc. ).

I keep an big eye at this too ( if I can afford it / it holds up what Sony promise ) and if it dont deliever, I will go with the 95ES - wich allmost sure will deliever, what I want at a "cheaper" price ( but a real high quality lens with 2.1 zoom, 5 x memory settings, a 1200-1500lumens at D65, silent runing and pixels so small that I cant see them (4K)....is ...well...interesting

Im looking forward to hear more from Kris, Art, Mark and Ekki once they get their lucky hands on this one to test.

regards

dj

Reading most of the comments here one would think that it is illegal to sell a projector for more than the current top end consumer JVC. Lock Sony up!

The reality is that the VW1000 at $25K will compete with the single chip SIM2 Nero and Mico lines and the 3 chip Runco, DPI, and PD models all of which are $20k to $30K. The SIM2 Lumis 3D is $50K! The advantages the VW1000 has in on/off contrast and resolution may make it the bargain in that segment!

While some are downplaying the benefits of the VW1000’s 4K resolution, we should not forget that prior to HD DVD/Blu Ray we were all watching 720x480 DVDs upscaled to our 720P or 1080p projectors. Guess what, 720x480 upscaled looked better than 720x480 displayed on a 480P device. 1080P upscaled to a 4K device will also look better than 1080P displayed on a 1080P device.

Heck, if I follow the logic used by some on this thread, JVC might as well cancel the RS65. Who is going to buy a JVC for 3x the cost of the RS45?

Is this what caused the ref's shirt (esp seen in basketball games, where they are fairly close) to have the white streaks flash red and white when they move? This is still present on my RS20, though not quite as bad as on my earlier RS1, but still VERY noticeable.

Wow, so many good comments and info re the 1000--thanks to all above! I agree with Chuck that there is really nothing close to 2000 lumens and 1M:1 CR (DI aided) and that may indeed be the thing that makes the most obvious difference in the pic; as HHF notes, this performance alone puts it in competition with the $30-50K pj's. Also good to hear from 90 and 95 owners about the good motion handling; this is what I've read for quite a while on the forum. Chuck's financial analysis was also very insightful, esp with Mark's recalibration based on actual street or pre-buy numbers. If the 1000 really performs as advertised, I'm think I'm ready for it! (At 70, though I'm in very good health at present, it's not realistic to expect that I'm going to be around to go through too many more cycles of upgrades.)

millerwill,
You are a couple years older than my dad and my advice to him if he were looking and could easily afford it is this: Buy the Sony VW1000, get whatever screen you like to go with it and enjoy using it until you no longer feel like watching movies and stop coming to this forum looking for the latest and greatest projectors. Unless you have tons of money to burn each year constantly upgrading to the latest and greatest or you just flat out enjoy doing it, buying the Sony should keep you ahead of the normal HT projectors for a good 5 years and you won't be that far behind in the next 5. Unfortunately health can change very rapidly, even just eyesight, so I would be focused more on getting the best I can in the period I know I can enjoy it versus worrying about what I might be giving up in the period I should be able to enjoy it. Besides, after 10 years and you are still going strong, get yourself a better projector after another financial analysis.

Still more good advice, Chuck! One problem is that I DO enjoy coming to the forum, and have learned so much from it. There are many here that know so much more about all this than I, and they're pretty nice guys to boot!

Indeed! And he has a much neater set up than I, the pj behind the wall (in an unfinished basement area) of their room, shooting through a porthole, etc. But he's an engineer/MBA and really knows how to do all this (and a very handy consultant for me!). He's already planning how to take advantage of the RS20's asymmetric lens position.

It would be nice if Sony comes out with some type of 4K blu-ray\\dvd player. It would be funny if 4K D-VHS players come out early one for source

dj

i think in the past always that you have to sit in 1 times the picture wide to see the
4k resolution and benefit from it compare to 2k.

thats also what the 20/20 vision say more or less.

i was very surprised to see in reality that the picture quality are even better at larger
distances like 1.3 or even 1.5 times the distance to the wide of the picture!

the max distance where i can see a difference between nativ 4k and nativ 2K was
around 1.8 times the screen wide in distance.

true was the more you sit close the more you see the difference.

thats why i build a new first row to sit at around 0,75 times the screen wide
at least for my 4k 3d stills.

the whole talking in the net about this pr. remembers my to the time when
full hd and bd are coming.
than also many people say that the cant see any difference between a good
bd and dvd.
and yes if you made this compare with a 40" 1280x720 tv at 5 meter distance yes you cant see any difference.
but also a 50" full hd dont show any impovment at 5 meter distance beween
bd and dvd.

if you get used to nativ 4k no way back to 2k.
its a jump like going from dvd to bd but it will take time that people realize
that.
everybody know that early adopors pay a premium to be one of the first and
everybody have to desicde if they like to do it or not if they can.

there is a saying in germany:

"THE LAST SHIRT HAVE NO POCKET"

and you cant take anything with you.

One question: does all your discussion refer to SW of a 2.35 pic? E.g., I can sit very comfortably at 1 SW for 2.35, but 1 SW for 16x9 is a bit too overwhelming for me.

Is it the height of the 1.78 that bothers you?

I would have big concerns regarding the input of this projector.
I doubt they will have HDMI output for the consumer 4K machines when the arrive. Will HDMI even carry 2D/3D at 4K?
I did hear the new Integra 80.3 preamp has a 4K scaler built in.

here it is

http://www.gspr.com/integra/integra-cedia2011.html

Only 4k-lite as it seems. The Sony has a higher resolution. As far as HDMI goes, why not? They've used it at the demo and if their goal is to bring 4k to the home, I can't see why it would not happen via HDMI. I'm no fan of HDMI, but it's around now and it probably will be for a while.

Yes. It seems that height is more of the determining factor for how large a pic I can take in. Digesting width is much easier (i.e., peripheral vision exists horizontally but not vertically). I guess this is why sometimes it is more useful to talk in terms of 'picture height' (PH) rather than width.

1 SW for 2.35 is 2.35 PH, while for 16x9 (=1.78) it is 1.78 PH. Thus it looks like my size limit is ~ 2.0 PH, which is 0.85 SW (2/2.35) for 2.35 pics, and 1.12 SW (2/1.78) SW for 16x9 pics.

Sony's brochure on the 1000 states that HDMI 1.4a transmits 4K, and my Onkyo 3008 (this year's model) has HDMI 1.4a.