The Official Acer H9500BD Thread - Page 6

Originally Posted by Joesyah

The review has been posted guys http://www.projectorreviews.com/acer/h9500bd/index.php . OMG it destroys the 3010 in contrast easily! Seems a few clicks a head of the Optoma hd33 as well.

Most likely you should chose a white surface with gain up to 1.5 for this Epson, or a high contrast gray surface, if your layout benefits from it.

Originally Posted by Joesyah

The review has been posted guys http://www.projectorreviews.com/acer/h9500bd/index.php . OMG it destroys the 3010 in contrast easily! Seems a few clicks a head of the Optoma hd33 as well.

Originally Posted by ack_bk

This sounds like a very solid projector for what you get:
DI, CFI (although I would never use this for movies, only sports), lens shift, blacks/shadow much stronger than the HD33 and Epson 3010, a pair of glasses. Very sharp image. Not much here not to like.

From Art's review, I have two concerns. He refers to the picture being "lively" and mentions using brilliant color several times to get more accurate colors. Not sure how I feel about this. I tend to like a more natural looking image and I tend to be a little more anal about color accuracy vs sharpness. I am just worried the PQ will look a little to "processed" to my liking.

From his review:
"Brilliant Color when on does add a lot of dynamic pop to the image, but skin tones appear oversaturated, and transitions in shades of skin are coarse by comparison."

And in terms of 3D brightness, it sounds like the Acer does not measure up to my current projector, the Epson 3010.

He also said this:

Art said this:
"For a 100" diagonal, the Acer can get by, but brighter projectors in 3D (since the glasses cost so much in brightness - about 75%), like the Epson or the Panasonic PT-AE7000, have the advantage. Overall color in 3D was good, not great, once processed through the glasses."

Which raises some concerns to me as how the Acer would handle 3D on a 125-130" diagonal screen. I think 2D brightness will be fine, but will it have enough lumens to drive a bigger screen.

I am tempted to take my 3010 back, I believe I am at the very tail in for my return period at Best Buy, and pick this one up to compare and go with the one I like better. Seems like the Acer has a number of strengths, and they may outweigh the negatives.

Glad to see a projector with lens shift that puts out a solid picture and supports 3D for under $2K.

Originally Posted by Deja Vu

I use a 2.8 HP 120" screen with the 720p 3D Acer so I'd be surprised if the 9500 doesn't work well with it. For 3D I feel a high gain screen is the only way to get satisfactory brightness, especially as the lamps age.

Originally Posted by zombie10k


I am surprised to hear about the low output in 3D mode considering how bright it is in 2D. no mention of the color wheel speed?

Originally Posted by Joesyah

With a 120hz refresh rate, wouldn't this be considered a 6X CW?
ack_bk if I were you I would try it for the sake of putting your mind at ease, as long as you can return either without a lot of hassle.
I have a good feeling the ONLY reason you'd go back to the Epson would be for its brightness. Even then I don't think you'd return when considering the overall difference in IQ.
The difference in contrast alone would have me running back to Best Buy..not walking. lol

Manual
http://www.manualowl.com/m/Acer%20Co.../Manual/223864

Originally Posted by ack_bk

This sounds like a very solid projector for what you get:
DI, CFI (although I would never use this for movies, only sports), lens shift, blacks/shadow much stronger than the HD33 and Epson 3010, a pair of glasses. Very sharp image. Not much here not to like.

From Art's review, I have two concerns. He refers to the picture being "lively" and mentions using brilliant color several times to get more accurate colors. Not sure how I feel about this. I tend to like a more natural looking image and I tend to be a little more anal about color accuracy vs sharpness. I am just worried the PQ will look a little to "processed" to my liking.

From his review:
"Brilliant Color when on does add a lot of dynamic pop to the image, but skin tones appear oversaturated, and transitions in shades of skin are coarse by comparison."

And in terms of 3D brightness, it sounds like the Acer does not measure up to my current projector, the Epson 3010.

He also said this:

Art said this:
"For a 100" diagonal, the Acer can get by, but brighter projectors in 3D (since the glasses cost so much in brightness - about 75%), like the Epson or the Panasonic PT-AE7000, have the advantage. Overall color in 3D was good, not great, once processed through the glasses."

Which raises some concerns to me as how the Acer would handle 3D on a 125-130" diagonal screen. I think 2D brightness will be fine, but will it have enough lumens to drive a bigger screen.

I am tempted to take my 3010 back, I believe I am at the very tail in for my return period at Best Buy, and pick this one up to compare and go with the one I like better. Seems like the Acer has a number of strengths, and they may outweigh the negatives.

Glad to see a projector with lens shift that puts out a solid picture and supports 3D for under $2K.

Originally Posted by ack_bk

Brightness and color accuracy and this:

"the price may be that the Acer H9500BD seems to be a little slow, occasionally exhibiting what seems to be a little overshoot and back up (yo-yo effect. We've seen this many times before. This can make it slightly noticeable especially when changing from one scene to another of different brightness."

I had a Mitsubishi projector that had the yo-yo effect iris and it used to drive my nuts.. I noticed it all the time. So far the 3010 has not exhibited this. I am hoping the Acer is pre-production model and the yo-yo effect is either fixed or minimized. Because I don't think I can put up with this again, even if the blacks are better.

To the OP or anyone else who owns this PJ, can you comment on the Iris when changing between dark/light scenes and the yo-yo effect?

Originally Posted by falafala

other than better blacks, Art's review seems to suggest that Acer is not as bright as 3010 in 3D and colors are not as vivid as HD33/3010...especially with no calibration controls....throw in the limited warranty and added expense for additional glasses, it will end up costing more than 3010 for sure....

Originally Posted by Joesyah

@Mikestwocents
Yup..those night train pics do have their purpose! lol..If nothing else, they do tell you the drastic differences in contrast. That's if your monitor at home will allow you to see it.

Originally Posted by coderguy

I wouldn't judge it by that image, better just to take Art by his word then to try to figure out how much difference there is by an image, even Art would tell you that.

Originally Posted by Joesyah

With a 120hz refresh rate, wouldn't this be considered a 6X CW?
ack_bk if I were you I would try it for the sake of putting your mind at ease, as long as you can return either without a lot of hassle.
I have a good feeling the ONLY reason you'd go back to the Epson would be for its brightness. Even then I don't think you'd return when considering the overall difference in IQ.
The difference in contrast alone would have me running back to Best Buy..not walking. lol

Manual
http://www.manualowl.com/m/Acer%20Co.../Manual/223864

Originally Posted by CHUCKCHILLOUT

I have been looking for a good 3D projector that is 1080p and reasonably priced. My viewing situation is the typical ambient lighted walls living room environment. I was thinking about the optoma HD 33/3300, but now is this a "no-brainer"? I know AVS has the HD 3300, but the contrast ratio and thrown in glasses seem like a bargain for a first time prospective buyer. Any thoughts?

Originally Posted by coderguy

You can tell the higher contrast in some comparisons if they are way ahead, but it's hard to judge from that image.

Skin tones sound pretty decent overall, but the lack of calibration controls would scare me a bit, and we don't know what controls are in the service menu (maybe someone does and they can post it). Probably not a deal-breaker for some though.

Look at the white part of the train in the Acer image compared to the Mits hc4000, the Acer image is over-exposed. The Mits hc4000 image is more likely closer to the real representation of what he sees on the screen. The Acer has darker blacks than the Mits hc4000, but the image looks better on the hc4000 because of camera exposure. The white balances and the white intensities are not the same in the different images, either due to varying brightness (calibrated 100 IRE), the gamma being off at different points, or because the camera picked each image up at different intensities. To me it looks like a combination of all these issues. Now compare the last image of Sony to the others, the Sony hw30 has triple the native contrast or more and about 9x the dynamic contrast than most of the others on that page, yet the black areas in the shrubbery barely looks darker than the Benq w1200 or Mits hc4000, it's because the colors and white balances are off, as well as the brightness of the image. In reality, the Sony would blow past these in black levels to the N'th degree.

There seems to be a pattern to those images, the brighter projectors are looking more washed out (the Benq w6000 looks washed out), and the Viewsonic looks the most washed out (the Viewsonic and the 3010 are the two brightest projectors of them all in that line-up pretty much).

Another example, the Viewsonic Pro8200 is showing better shadow detail than the Benq w1200 because the Benq w1200 is darker, but in real life the camera limitations or Gamma and white balance could not show this on most monitors and it is EXTREMELY hard to duplicate this between camera shots even if your monitor did show it correctly. Hence, the Benq would actually have the better shadow detail given the calibrations were equal, because other than noise processing or banding issue (which neither the Benq or the Viewsonic have), shadow detail is only determined by Gamma and Native Contrast. The projector with the higher Native Contrast should pretty much always have the better shadow detail given the calibrations are equal, except for the problem you get is that when a projector cannot go dark enough, it can sort of the work the opposite way to the eye in some cases. So this stuff gets pretty confusing when looking at an image. I know for instance, it would be very difficult to get the Viewsonic down to the same Lumens as say the Mits (the Viewsonic's best mode is almost 3x brighter), in order to do so, you'd pretty much have to knock the contrast and brightness way down and mess up the calibration.

I wouldn't judge it by that image, better just to take Art by his word then to try to figure out how much difference there is by an image, even Art would tell you that.

Originally Posted by falafala

Joesyah did you see both 3010 vs 9500 in action ? how about HD33 ?

Originally Posted by coderguy

It may show some difference by comparing the darkness of the black to the surroundings, but you can't judge the amount of difference between images with such different exposure levels. If the exposure levels were closer, I'd say go for it, but they are too different. There is obvious clipping in some of the images.

It might show the winners and losers to some degree in the black area, but it doesn't show the overall level of variation, and the ones that are closer in contrast (the bottom half), it is too hard to judge because the exposures are so far off. Look how much shadow detail the Benq w1200 is missing in the bottom right, that is a calibration issue or the way the camera took the shot. Simply a difference in gamma and exposure.

Originally Posted by coderguy

People can also calibrate gray scale with an HTPC.

You must have a really expensive AVR though to have a full blown video processor in it. Most people have said there are too many issues trying to calibrate with an AVR, which is why people buy the Lumagens. Worth a shot though.