The Official Acer H9500BD Thread - Page 8

I am with coderguy....Art's photos are low resolution which tells me that he does not use a good camera setup....I could be wrong.....

Again, his HD33 and 3010 Images look nowhere close to what I saw....so dont base your decisions on these....

Infact i went back and did side by side comparison of many of he 3010 vs 9500 photos and I swear I cannot see any difference that stands out in accordance of each PJ's strengths

Mike2Cents I will bet that you wont buy this PJ either...just like you did not buy HD33, 3010 after coming so close to pull the trigger on them you are a good cheer leader for all those on the fence who may have a preference to any of these PJs ! If there is a god-of-PJ's be assured that you are being blessed for your great comments in each form that only help in others jumping onboard !

Resolution isn't really too much the issue here as we only need to see contrast, problem is these types of images are extremely tricky to take with a camera no matter how good your camera is. You need to use special techniques to do it, and more than likely also a special lens and/or lens filter. Low-level lighting has always been an issue for cameras, but it is especially problematic when a low-light level image is taken when surrounded by darkness and the lighting is centered at the source (in this case the screen).

He actually has a really good camera, a professional Canon DSLR one, a very expensive camera. It's very high resolution, but he downsizes the image quality for bandwidth/page-load-time concerns using JPEG or similar compression.

How much lol? I am going to buy a 3d PJ here soon. I just need to clear up a few things, and make a decision. I see Amazon has the 9500 listed as coming soon. If the 33 or 9500 was in the store here at BB there would have already been one here. Now I am not sure if I will wait on the Benq or not. I think the Mits is out for me because of price and lack of DLP link glasses support.

What bothers me is how the Epsons look fuzzy or out of focus, not as sharp in the pics. Both of them. Looks out of focus somehow. I doubt this has to do with brightness, gamma or whatever. It appears in focus or it does not. That is what I see and if that is a because of some other anamoly then so be it.

Happy Thanksgiving all and I am going to go over to the in-laws, eat turkey and watch football on a seriously too small screen. At least until I cannot take it anymore.

Even Art will tell you not to take these pictures as gospel and he clearly states the images will look much better in person.

I think Art's narrative is more insightful than the pictures.

A professional photographer with the right equipment could do it very accurately, but for everyone else it's extremely hard.

I don't know about any one else, but IMHO, all the pictures in Art's review look like same as every picture in all of his projector reviews. These image still/pictures are pretty much indistinguishable from one review to the other. Gandalf. The Fifth Element. James Bond. Arwin. I think he should start using new pics with each review.

I don't know what monitor you are using, but I can clearly see differences on my 27" calibrated monitor. For instance when I compare the same pics for the 3010 and the 9500, I can see more fine details and the black levels are noticeably darker.

agree...all i am saying is that the fact that even resoultion is so low makes me discount anything else I see there such as PQ....

regarding uploading hires images, he already has the thumbnails to address that....given that he is in a unique position to attract such wide following who tend to look at everything he says or posts with such high regard, it seems it will only help if he can do something to make his setup accurate....

I can tell you this much, guitarmans' photos of HD33 are very close to what I saw on my screen...so I think there are ways to improve photos without going all out on the setup

Same here, using a 25 inch LED all in one computer. I have 7 other computers and monitors in the place. This one allows me to see much more than the others, besides the one hooked to a plasma.

Without the proper monitor, it is difficult to see the differences in these images or anyone's images.

I can tell the camera was bumped on a few of those photos, so sharpness isn't something I would judge by them. Contrast is a different story though.
The 9500 is very close to the Epson 5010 in terms of contrast! It and the w6000 are easily on par in that area! Less than two years ago, a DLP with that contrast would cost you $2500 plus.

I am using a D65 calibrated monitor with a colorimeter.
We'll agree to disagree, but I am sure you cannot see an accurate representation of contrast differences when their is white clipping and different color balances and ranges in the image. We can see something.

I totally agree.

Yup we will have to my friend. Let me know when you get the new pj and the images taken. You'll have to eat some of your words.
Hopefully you're using something better than a basic back lit LCD monitor? If not, I wouldn't expect you to see much with it any way. They all have sh!t for contrast and wash all of the images out, regardless of color calibration.

OK, I did not post those pics to start a manhood comparison of any kind lol. But if those pictures are of no use then why does he even use them if not to compare with the others which he puts right there for us to look at? If he took a substandard pic he should reshoot because surely he can see the differences I see. I suppose this is enough talk about pictures though as we are getting nowhere with the 9500, which despite all the pic talk looks pretty darn good in said pics.

Long time lurker here and looking to buy the Acer but I thought I would chime in.

I agree with you Coderguy. Projector screen-shots are on the borderline of worthless for comparison's sake.

A camera interprets an image based on a grey-scale that is different from the calibrated projector, the resolution will not match the actual image thus losing 1:1 pixel sharpness on a monitor when in fact it has 1:1 in reality, then the image is compressed to .jpg (well Art's are anyway) which is a lossy format, that image finally makes it to everyone's "superior" monitors which is superiorly (is that a word) showing an inferior image of an otherwise flawless if not almost perfect image in reality by judgment of the human retina.

All this talk of basing judgment simply from seeing "haze" and other anomalies in the picture, yet who has not seen the actual image in person is almost laughable and a pity to the buyers who are taking this misinformation seriously.

Projector screen-shots are fun, but take them with a grain of salt guys. It's like trying to look at a da Vinci through a front-door peep-hole.

It' s a pity that people don't try it for themselves and see if they can capture the haze for themselves. I'm not saying posted images are the bread and butter of judging projectors..they are not. I don't use them for color or sharpness.

Try and compare yourself. Some of you fellows can't see the difference between a projector with contrast of 2000:1 verses another with 10,000:1.
Now that's a pity.

Having owned or experienced several of these projectors Art has taken photos of. The haze in his photos is darn accurate of what I see at home with those projectors compared to others that show less to no haze on the same scenes.. IME the more haze the lower the contrast. Of course, if you're using a garbage lcd monitor you wouldn't know what I was referring too any way.

How are you are so willing to dismiss a front-projector's screen-shot for color and sharpness, yet stand by it for contrast? Please explain the logic behind that.


I have, and I don't pity those who can't see a difference, I envy them.


I have owned six different projectors which he has reviewed now, and with every one of them, the calibrated picture at my home looked multitudes better than the screen-shots.

Are you actually calibrating your projectors? What equipment/programs do you use to do so?


I have a very popular monitor commonly used for CAD 3D and game design throughout the industry, calibrated, and actually cost more than this projector new.... I wouldn't call it "garbage".

My point was, seeing "haze" in a front-projector screen-shot is very subjective and basing contrast performance on said screen-shot is very shortsighted. Art, at one time, put a disclaimer for his pics on the old reviews, and PC won't even bother with them to this day for the same reasons.

Art still has the disclaimer. And I owned the 3010 and I am not seeing "haze". In fact, several people have owned both the Optoma 3300 (DLP)
the Epson 3010, and preferred the Epson.

That said, the 3010 is a budget 3D 1080p projector. Just like the H9500 and the Optoma 33/3300. All of them have trade-offs. It is about figuring out which trade-offs work better for you based on your needs. And if you are a videophile, well, I doubt you would be happy with any of the budget models.

You still don't get it. I'm not saying your image at home won't look better than the pics. It should look better.

After taking hundreds of pics with different cameras and projectors and comparing them at home with different exposures. Has led me to my conclusions.

If you used the same camera with the same exposure times, screen, room , basically the same parameters.You'd understand what I'm talking about. A 1 or 2 second exposure along with similar ISO should wash the image a bit, depending on the brightness of the particular scene. That exposure makes it easier for those that can't see the differences, able to see the differences in contrast.

I'm not referring to colors or anything of that nature.

Now, if those projectors have near identical contrast, the differences will be difficult to see. Get two different level of projectors, an entry level unit and a mid tier projector. Chances are the exposure will give you an indication of the contrast differences between those two projectors.

Once you've seen what an image looks like with those indications. It is easier to discern them. Arts night train images seem consistent with what I've seen taking my own pics and comparing.

Now I can look at his shots in that area and easily tell where these projectors fall as far as contrast. Just contrast OK.

Here are two pics I've taken from to different projectors, using identical parameters. This is the last time I'll post about this. I don't won't to derail this thread. I did a basic cal on both of these projectors for black levels using the AVS709 downloads.

Can you tell me from looking at your monitor, top or bottom. Which of these is the higher contrast projector? I have a non videophile girlfriend that picked the correct pair within seconds of looking at a monitor. The differences are more drastic in person..as always.







Now if your monitor is decent, you should see haze in one pair compared to the other. That's the haze I'm referring too. It is similar to walking in a smoke filled room in comparison to one with no smoke. And trying to identify a person on the other side of that room.

if you see the two low contrast alone, you may possibly never notice just how low the contrast is. if you put them next to a higher contrast image. They stick out like a sore thumb.

To clarify, I do see the haze in the different pictures, so I was never saying that I cannot see it at all.
I am just saying even though you can see some represented difference, it's not the exact right amount.

The 5010 image sticks out as not fitting in the right place, and the Benq w6000's native contrast is not higher than the Mits hc4000, and you cannot see "IRIS contrast" in a single picture, only intrascene contrast, "DI contrast" will just make the overall picture darker but it doesn't increase the white/black range of the actual intrascene contrast on these projectors. The projectors are not fitting in their places correctly for Native contrast by the intrascene contrast ranges in the images. Some high-end projectors (mostly LCOS) have higher Native contrast with the IRIS acting in manual mode and closed down, but the same effect isn't usually applicable to the DI especially on lower-end projectors, as the gamma boost does mitigate the white level compression, but it is still there.

I can even load some of these images inside paint programs and tell you the intrascene contrast range which would probably show my point. I may do this in a bit.

OK..I'm not referring to just native contrast. I'm referring to the overall contrast of the image. Whether it uses an Iris or not.
Do you see white level compression in the DI projector verses the one with no DI?

I am speaking of intrascene contrast, this is the only type of contrast that exists in a single image. This is the difference in brightness between the brightest color and darkest color on the same image. You could see which images have the largest range in a paint program.

You are not totally incorrect or anything, the images do show some difference for certain, and it does at least partially represent the better projectors, but there is too much variance on some of the images to judge it. Those images you took are very good, so if you were to take your own pics of the right scene, you might be able to more accurately show the difference a lot better than what Art showed. My point earlier was only that image seemed to give Art trouble due to the white level variations. The problem isn't just that we cannot see different contrast ranges, the problem is if the pictures are accurately done. Of course there are still some other factors that can mess up the comparison, but a really good specific type of picture could potentially give us a pretty good general idea of the differences if done correctly, but that is always a really big IF. I just don't trust pictures in general because white level variation introduces contrast range bias to the entire image unevenly since cameras are not perfect in maintaining the contrast ranges at different lighting levels. That is why a professional photographer could probably pull it off with some degree of accuracy, but he'd have to somehow check the output levels of the digital photographs in some method, or the photographer could judge it by eye I suppose for just a general idea if the differences were large enough to be easily judged and he confirmed the represented differences were fairly accurate compared to what he saw in person.

As you know, Native Contrast and ANSI are only testing methods or in the case of ANSI a test pattern, but in darker scenes the projector with the higher Native Contrast will have the higher Intrascene Contrast.

amen !

Want to say that "haze" is the best description I have read for a lack of contrast in an image. Also, whenever I upgrade, I suddenly see quality differences I had not noted before. Main moral here is never upgrade, it only starts something you"ll never finish.

Your photos look awesome and Art's looks that much more low quality

If Art was doing something remotely close to your setup, his HD33/3010 images would look stunning....not pale and indistinguishable from others

So we already know the 9500 smokes the Epson 3010 in black level, and is much better than the Optoma 3300 thanks to a DI. It has perfect motion resolution, no ghosting in 3D. A DI that actually works in 3D mode, so a huge difference in contrast and blacks. Not sure why one would buy a 3010 unless you had major issues with RBE.

I would be interested to see some Native Contrast measurements as well, a DI is limited in its ability if the native contrast is too low. Not saying the Acer has low native contrast, I would just be interested in seeing the numbers, but may never get that chance.

I personally find IRIS's to be a mixed bag, other than maybe on all but a few projectors. The pumping can definitely be distracting to some people. I prefer having an IRIS for sure, because you can always turn it off for some content where it might become overly distracting. It would also be interesting to know if the IRIS an be tweaked in the service menu.

Kraine, who posts here often will surely get this unit to test, and he always posts numbers. A good iris is pretty much invisible, and the only owner of this unit says that in the Medium setting the Iris is undetectable. The DI on my Sony A3000 Sxrd TV is great, and I leave it on all the time.

What we have to go on so far is that Art setup the 3010 and 9500 side by side and he said the Acer smoked it in terms of black levels. For the rest, pick your poison, LCD vs DLP. Personally I'll pick DLP in ever category.

I guess the best thing I can do here is try to go find the Casino Royale BD used at Hastings or one of our other used stores, or rent it. That way I can pause that particular image on my 8350 and put this to rest, at least for my own eyes. Why does this bother me so much? Well since this picture war rages on today I decided to look at the same images from the 8350, 8700UB, as well as review the 3010 and 5010 ones. My conclusion is that they all look the same whether you call it haze, fuzzy, out of focus or whatever. So I will look at it in person with my own eyes on my 8350 and tell you what I see.

I find it hard to believe the same photography mistake was made on 4 different occasions when they all look so similar. Yet, I am sure someone will find something wrong with that thinking. As a comparison I will also have the picture displayed on my DLP TV, not ideal but the best I can do. How far into that movie is that train scene?

Back to the 9500, I am a bit concerned about the 3D brightness. Yesterday I watched a youtube review of the 5360 which is a 2,400 lumen PJ. They measured something like 160 lumens(IIRC) behind the glasses. If the 9500 is similar I would definitely have to go bat cave mode for that to work. Now reading the review of the 9500 they say it is about 1,200 lumens in 3d mode. So we assume a loss of 75% behind the glasses and get 300 lumes? Do I have that right? That does not sound like a lot.

oh....if you add in 2 year 3rd party warranty and additional pair of glasses (to equalize the 2 major items between the two) you are looking at $300-400 cost difference at the very least....Art is 100% right in his advice to look out for a good warranty, so for me thats very important metric....HD3300 has better warranty for this extra cost

also 3D brightness on 3010 will more than compensate for lower contrast....in 3D its more important to have as many lumens as you can get as perceived contrast will be better as glasses are darker and more lumens will allow for improvement in perceived contrast via high contrast gray screen. More lumens will also mean you have watchable 3D for longer time as lamps inevitably dim.

ofcourse, one can always find pros-and-cons for each of these budget 3D PJs...and I am not here to sell 3010

The 9500 is weak in 3d brightness out of the box. Can the user make adjustments to brighten it up and save the setting? Is there any realistic hope of getting this projector bright in 3d?