AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP › JVC RS 45 / Sony HW30 / BenQ W7000 / Epson 5010 mini-shootout
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

JVC RS 45 / Sony HW30 / BenQ W7000 / Epson 5010 mini-shootout - Page 85

post #2521 of 3271
5/3/12 at 7:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Sorel View Post

Does the Micca support 4TB drives? If I am going to drop a single drive into the machine itself, it might as well be the largest available for the moment...

My findings with the HiMedia 900A:

1. Plays 3D ISOs from a directly attached HD with no issues whatsoever...no stuttering and no frame dropping that I can detect.

2. Playing 3D ISOs with a USB attached drive is a hit or miss situation....plays some of them fine and stutters badly on others. I think it is a bitrate issue.

3. Playing either 2D MKV or 3D ISO over a gigabit network results in stuttering. Playing the same 2D files over the same network using J. River Media Center 17, Media Player Classic, or Zoomplayer or using the SageTV HD300 box results in flawless playback, so I am convinced that the problem is not in my network, but rather in HiMedia's poorly written Linux code.

4. Networking to the 900A is not the best...writing files to the directly attached hard drive is very slow, and when I delete a file, the free space is not recovered. I have to disconnect the drive from the 900A and attach it to a Windows machine to recover the space...very strange.

So, as long as I limit the HiMedia device to playing back 3D ISO files on the single drive I have directly attached, it works fine and I am happy enough. Even if the hardware is identical, if Micca's firmware can sort out some of the issues that HiMedia is not resolving, then it will be more than worth the price...

Network writes or multitasking are a major weakness for all these little boxes. For superior critical performance, a HTPC with Intel i3, i5 or i7 will provide for smooth playback.
For networking my Asus 56 wireless router with twin USB ports performs writes at 100mbits/sec. I attach a 1TB 2.5 drive ($90 Costco) and use to stream for my 32K FLAC based audio tracks.
http://usa.asus.com/Networks/
Here many masterpieces were only $2 disc last week:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Decca-Soun.../dp/B005D51II0
Reply
Reply

Gear mentioned in this thread:

post #2522 of 3271
5/4/12 at 12:40pm
Thread Starter 
I finally had a chance to read the projectorreviews 'Best in Class' summary and it left me scratching my head on a number of topics. I've owned or demo'd a number of these projectors and directly compared them for months.

BenQ W7000 - 1500 lumens @ D65? I want that projector, it must be a golden sample. 1000-1100 is more like it at shortest throw. There was no mention of the HDMI 1:1 issue. This should have been obvious, especially for folks that see projectors all the time. A simple pattern test or the single pixel test from the AVS HD disk would have shown the problem immediately. The issue is now fixed (you can all thank me personally.. ) and I can finally recommend this projector for it's killer 3D capabilities. Also, black levels did not change from 1 firmware to the other as stated. I've had the original 1.0, 1.20 and the current beta which is becoming the production firmware on May 8th.

Acer 9500 - no mention of the HDMI issue.

RS45 - The review raised controversy over the blue tint that was reported in the review. There must be something wrong with their particular sample since this hasn't been mentioned by current owners and didn't see this on my RS40,RS50,RS55 or the RS45 I reviewed for this thread.

Sony VW95 / RS55 - I finally had a chance to see this in person next to the RS55. I calibrated one for a coworker and had them side by side for several days. They freely admit that it was months apart from seeing the 2 projectors, yet still wrote about the black level performance in a single report. IMO, this is impossible to do without a direct A/B with the 2 projectors calibrated in the same environment. The Sony is very good, but it's not the same as the RS55 in primarily dark movies (read: Underworld movies). I like Sony (I love my HW30) but we can't take everything away from them just because of the lamp issues and so-so 3D. The RS55 is the king of black level performance in the under 10K MSRP price range.

JVC RS55 E-shift - IMO, they missed the mark on this. Cine4home and Doug @ WSR nailed it. The benefits aren't going to be obvious on a 96" 16:9 screen. This setup is screaming for a larger screen and a close seating distance. In my particular setup (142" 16:9 @ 1.25 SW) the advantages of the e-shift are obvious to my eyes with MPC @ 2-3 and would choose the RS55 over the 95 for 2D IQ.

Epson 5010/6010 - at least most people agree on the positive value of the Epson, a nice overall projectors for 2D and 3D.

Sony HW30 - it's a shame they left this out entirely. This is a nice 2D and 3D projector. I prefer the 2D on the HW30 over the 5010, it reminds me more of the JVC. The 3D is very good and the FI is the best of all the current models. Sports and F1 racing looking great on the HW30. Lamps are dirt cheap by comparison to the other projectors.

Sample Variance - This is a pet peeve of mine and rarely, if ever mentioned in the reviews. I've seen a wide set of variances from each of these projector companies - no two projectors from the same line are truly identical and some are a mile off from one another. A good review should gauge the quality of the sample they have in front of them and judge it accordingly. If a projector has poor convergence and focus, that's going to heavily weight on the overall IQ. My first RS55 had issues with both and was a mediocre showing. The replacement is golden-sample territory and the IQ looks fantastic in comparison.

The moral of the story for readers is this - if you can't see the projector first-hand and relying on the review for a decision, get into the owners threads and read read read.. ask questions from regular members. Now that the honeymoon phase of the 2012 models is over, folks for the most part are now brutally honest about their experience (positive or negative).

None of the projectors are perfect, some are just less perfect than others.
Reply
Reply
post #2523 of 3271
5/4/12 at 1:27pm
Jason you have become a STUD in the land of owner reviews for those of us that always rely on them sight unseen for projector purchases.

Major props......untold hours clearly put into all of this. Where is my Lakers forum bow down icon when I need to put 2 of them.
Reply
Reply
post #2524 of 3271
5/4/12 at 2:11pm
I think the reason that the RS-45 didn't get an award was the 3D and from what I've read here it misses the mark for 3D and therefore can't be recommended as a good 2D/3D projector. It may be a great 2D projector and is probably the best for 2D, but it is a 2D/3D projector and the 3D performance drops it out of the running. I think that this is fair. It puts the impetus directly at JVC's feet to fix this and this is something JVC needs to do!

The 6010 is a light cannon and if you want 3D as bright as you normally view 2D then it is possible and with reasonably balanced colour in dynamic mode (with a few changes). Bright 3D is a different animal from dull 3D and this is where the Epson separates itself from the pack.

The W7000 is now "fixed" and as a DLP it should have the best 3D out there and reasonably good 2D. It is comparatively cheap -- this may be an extremely important consideration for some.

This is a great thread because these projectors can not hide here. Disclosure and transparency is what this thread is all about.
Reply
Reply
post #2525 of 3271
5/4/12 at 3:36pm
I agree with Zombie, the Benq w7000 is about 950-1050 lumens at mid-throw, and maybe 1100-1200 at closest (Benq's don't measure that different at various throws like many PJ's do). I am basing this not only off his measurements, but off others I have seen. It is only marginally brighter than the Benq w6000. I do not know why Art measured the Benq brighter than many, but we have to assume some unit variance and measurement (+ calibration) error.

The main thing on the RS-45 would be lamp issues and lack of calibration controls combining over time to frustrate us non-lumagen owners.

As far as black levels, I currently own projectors (and have owned) with good blacks (8500ub, Sanyo z4000), great blacks (RS-45 I have), and very mediocre (Viewsonic Pro8200) black levels. Other than SCI FI and space scenes and some evening time darkness, you won't miss it too much. Surely it will be missed in some movies (Green Lantern, LOTR, Harry Potter, Star Wars, Thor, etc..), but many movies just don't shoot dark scenes correctly so that even if they have dark scenes it might not be that missed in some stuff.

I can appreciate darker blacks for sure, but I can also get used to mediocre "almost-good" blacks like a Benq w7000 does. Darker blacks is sort of like visiting the beach or a mountain resort, it's really awesome the first 3-5 times (maybe even the first 20 times), but after a while you get used to it, and then could probably live without just based on the memory of what it once looked like
Reply
Reply
post #2526 of 3271
5/4/12 at 6:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post

I agree with Zombie, the Benq w7000 is about 950-1050 lumens at mid-throw, and maybe 1100-1200 at closest (Benq's don't measure that different at various throws like many PJ's do). I am basing this not only off his measurements, but off others I have seen. It is only marginally brighter than the Benq w6000. I do not know why Art measured the Benq brighter than many, but we have to assume some unit variance and measurement (+ calibration) error.

The main thing on the RS-45 would be lamp issues and lack of calibration controls combining over time to frustrate us non-lumagen owners.

As far as black levels, I currently own projectors (and have owned) with good blacks (8500ub, Sanyo z4000), great blacks (RS-45 I have), and very mediocre (Viewsonic Pro8200) black levels. Other than SCI FI and space scenes and some evening time darkness, you won't miss it too much. Surely it will be missed in some movies (Green Lantern, LOTR, Harry Potter, Star Wars, Thor, etc..), but many movies just don't shoot dark scenes correctly so that even if they have dark scenes it might not be that missed in some stuff. Like many movies I watch I think, wow another blown contrast shot in a dark scene. Sure the scene will look darker, but might not look that much better unless a movie has "RICH" dark scene contrast.

I can appreciate darker blacks for sure, but I can also get used to mediocre "almost-good" blacks like a Benq w7000 does. Darker blacks is sort of like visiting the beach or a mountain resort, it's really awesome the first 3-5 times (maybe even the first 20 times), but after a while you get used to it, and then could probably live without just based on the memory of what it once looked like

I wish I could agree with you my friend. I have a huge collection of movies here. After living with the JVC black levels..there's no way I could go back to w7000 contrast for 2D. My Infocus 8602 smokes the crap out of the w7000 in contrast. I couldn't return to it either. lol
Reply
Reply
post #2527 of 3271
5/4/12 at 6:46pm
The guns have come out blazing!
Reply
Reply
post #2528 of 3271
5/4/12 at 6:47pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RonF View Post

Jason you have become a STUD in the land of owner reviews for those of us that always rely on them sight unseen for projector purchases.

Major props......untold hours clearly put into all of this. Where is my Lakers forum bow down icon when I need to put 2 of them.

hehe, thanks Ron. There has to be some checks and balances. It was frustrating watching pro review sites give kudos to the W7000 and 9500 without looking at the most basic calibration to verify the projectors were behaving correctly. That deserves a big... WTF..

These sites could have called out these issues very early on and gotten the attention of the manufacturers faster than a single individual.

Coder - besides sci-fi, i've been watching a lot of concerts lately. There are a few that look fantastic on the RS55 and just don't hold up as well on the other projectors with the dark stage and the intense bright lights cutting through the blacks.

Some recommended concerts to exercise the JVC's native contrast:

Shakira Live In Paris - don't laugh, she is awesome even though I can't understand spanish or french.

Adele Live At The Royal Albert Hall - this young brit has some pipes!

The Cure: Trilogy - Live In Berlin - So dark and grungy.. only the 55 can really pull this off right.

Eric Clapton: Crossroads Guitar Festival 2010 - 2nd disk, I shot the sheriff.. turn it up.

Chicago and Earth, Wind & Fire: Live at the Greek Theatre - This is a fantastic concert for those who like these groups. EWF never sounded better.

Roy Orbison: Black & White Night - 5 Stars on Amazon by hundreds of people. Shot on gritty film 1 year before he passed away, this is an excellent BD transfer and the B&W looks excellent on the JVC. This man had one of the most incredible voices and the energy of this small stage concert is intense. Last chapter - 'Pretty Woman' and the dueling guitars.. turn it wayyy up till the walls start shaking.

Iron Maiden Flight 666 - ... What's else is there to say -Bruce Dickinson flies the entire group in a 747 to a dozen different venues around the world.. lands the plane and sings 'Fear of the Dark'... too cool.
Reply
Reply
post #2529 of 3271
5/4/12 at 7:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joesyah View Post

I wish I could agree with you my friend. I have a huge collection of movies here. After living with the JVC black levels..there's no way I could go back to w7000 contrast for 2D. My Infocus 8602 smokes the crap out of the w7000 in contrast. I couldn't return to it either. lol

I didn't say I could live with it forever, maybe 6 months, but we'll see
PJ buys are temporary to me. If the RS-45 lamp didn't start looking like yellow puke (being a tad over-dramatic here), then I might be less inclined to get a new lamp and sell it.

We shall see, I am sure I will find something to complain about on the w7000. I'll give it a shot anyhow. I'm just rotating the old projectors every few months. Figured I'd keep the Viewsonic and rotate the others since it's the dirt cheap sub $500 refurb. The RS-45 is yesterday's news. The Benq w7000 with fixed SHARPNESS is today's news, but tomorrow will be yesterday's news...

The Viewsonic is the PJ I've had the fewest problems ever on, and it only cost $450... It can still hit near 1000 lumens at D65 and I'm approaching 2000 hours on the lamp, lets see a JVC do that.
Reply
Reply
post #2530 of 3271
5/4/12 at 10:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post

I didn't say I could live with it forever, maybe 6 months, but we'll see
PJ buys are temporary to me. If the RS-45 lamp didn't start looking like yellow puke (being a tad over-dramatic here), then I might be less inclined to get a new lamp and sell it.

We shall see, I am sure I will find something to complain about on the w7000. I'll give it a shot anyhow. I'm just rotating the old projectors every few months. Figured I'd keep the Viewsonic and rotate the others since it's the dirt cheap sub $500 refurb. The RS-45 is yesterday's news. The Benq w7000 with fixed SHARPNESS is today's news, but tomorrow will be yesterday's news...

The Viewsonic is the PJ I've had the fewest problems ever on, and it only cost $450... It can still hit near 1000 lumens at D65 and I'm approaching 2000 hours on the lamp, lets see a JVC do that.

Yeah I hear ya brother..I think I'm going to stay with yesterday's news for the next few years until I see something better for 2D. I honestly haven't seen it as yet in this price range.
Reply
Reply
post #2531 of 3271
5/4/12 at 10:02pm
I narrowed my search to Epson 5010 and Sony HW30. My projector is in the walk-out basement with poor light control. Should I just get Epson for its extra lumens and live with it for the next couple of years?
Noise and gaming lag - those are the 2 Sony's advantages, in addition to the name, better warranty, arguably better 3D with less ghosting - all for extra 400$. Should I really be concerned about lack of brightness of Sony in my less than perfect lightning environment? I am also concerned about that weird IR transmiter that I need to somehow install next to the screen. From what I understood I can just go with Monster Glasses and use their transmitter with better quality and much less installation headache?
Can someone make that decision for me, please ))
Reply
Reply
post #2532 of 3271
5/4/12 at 10:26pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ajbolit View Post

I narrowed my search to Epson 5010 and Sony HW30. My projector is in the walk-out basement with poor light control. Should I just get Epson for its extra lumens and live with it for the next couple of years?
Noise and gaming lag - those are the 2 Sony's advantages, in addition to the name, better warranty, arguably better 3D with less ghosting - all for extra 400$. Should I really be concerned about lack of brightness of Sony in my less than perfect lightning environment? I am also concerned about that weird IR transmiter that I need to somehow install next to the screen. From what I understood I can just go with Monster Glasses and use their transmitter with better quality and much less installation headache?
Can someone make that decision for me, please ))

if your concerned about ambient light, the 5010 is the right choice.. the torch modes can crank out 2000 lumens (uncorrect colors, but ok for TV) and ~ 1400 @ D65. The IR is built in and the factory Epson glasses are more comfortable than the Sony glasses.
Reply
Reply
post #2533 of 3271
5/5/12 at 1:44am
The w7000 isn't bad for ambient light either (1400 lumen semi-accurate mode - not D65 but not terribly off, and 1600+ lumen green torch mode?), the Benq will work especially paired with a POSITIVE high-gain GRAY or an HP screen.

I still have to favor DLP over the Epson except for black levels, especially at close seating distances. I owned an 8500ub, have spent countless hours watching an 8700ub, and now friend has a 5010. So I am experienced with Epsons, to me the pixel fill is still a minor issue, but I guess we all see it differently. The Epson lamps do not have the best track record, they are very much like JVC lamps, although Epson does replace them probably even a tad easier than JVC replaces them. Point being, I doubt the torch mode will last that long on an Epson, but who knows for sure.
Reply
Reply
post #2534 of 3271
5/5/12 at 3:50am
.
Reply
Reply
post #2535 of 3271
5/5/12 at 6:43am
Quote:
Originally Posted by nirvy111 View Post

.

Well, that pretty much sums up my feelings too!
Reply
Reply
post #2536 of 3271
5/5/12 at 7:48am
I have been going back and forth on the 5010 and the w7000 and have decided the 5010 would be my next projector. I want better black's and the 5010 is better than the w7000. Warranty is better on the 5010. Lamp life is better on the 5010. I just hope 5010's 2d has a sharp image like my Mitsubishi HC6500, or at least close.
Reply
Reply
post #2537 of 3271
5/5/12 at 9:02am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jwv651 View Post

Lamp life is better on the 5010.

Lamp ratings mean next to nothing, they are like lottery tickets. I would put my lottery bets on the Benq lamp over the Epson (but don't have much data on 5010 lamps yet).
Reply
Reply
post #2538 of 3271
5/5/12 at 9:04am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jwv651 View Post

I have been going back and forth on the 5010 and the w7000 and have decided the 5010 would be my next projector. I want better black's and the 5010 is better than the w7000. Warranty is better on the 5010. Lamp life is better on the 5010. I just hope 5010's 2d has a sharp image like my Mitsubishi HC6500, or at least close.

I went from an Optoma HD20 DLP projector, which had a very sharp 2D image (but no 3D) to the 5010... after performing the 104 firmware upgrade, going through the convergeance adjustments in the menu, and setting Super Resolution to 2 or 3, I get a fairly equivalent image sharpness-wise, and way better blacks... plus awesomely bright 3D with no visible crosstalk. I'm very pleased with my new projector!
Reply
Reply
post #2539 of 3271
5/5/12 at 9:12am
Yes, the Epson 5010's do appear to be sharper than the 8700ub's, but there is still quite a bit of variance on a unit-to-unit basis. As always, check that convergence before living with a projector! I would not personally rely on the convergence correction function, I would exchange the projector if the convergence is significantly farther off than 1 to 1.5 pixels total. Of course that applies to any LCD or LCOS, not just Epsons. I can also confirm that the Epson's black levels are close to the JVC (which I own the RS-45), they are close enough you can't even tell a difference in some scenes. In other scenes the JVC has brighter whites though while maintaining the dark blacks, but the Epson is still close.

Some people may think I'm bashing Epson, nah, I just recommended an 8700ub to a guy in another thread (refurb), because it's the only projector under $1800 that can actually do great black levels. I just am giving personal opinions, the pixel fill still bothers me, I got used to LCOS and DLP.
Reply
Reply
post #2540 of 3271
5/5/12 at 9:19am
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post

Lamp ratings mean next to nothing, they are like lottery tickets. I would put my lottery bets on the Benq lamp over the Epson (but don't have much data on 5010 lamps yet).

Lamp ratings really don't mean much to me either, but for a different reason - because I use my projector mainly for movies in a dedicated theater room, and not as a daily Televison viewer in my living room, I use it maybe 10 hours a week (400 to 500 hours a year) at the very most - so a typical 4000 hour bulb in my case would last me around 8-10 years, as long as it doesn't die prematurely. With the rate of technological advances in home electronics and my habitual case of Upgrade-itis, I'll never own any projector for more than 3-4 years before I replace it with something better... I owned my HD20 for 3 1/2 years, and put only 1250 hours on it. At that rate, I would've had to keep it 11.2 years to use up 4000 hours on that bulb...
Reply
Reply
post #2541 of 3271
5/5/12 at 9:32am
I put almost 2000 hours on my Viewsonic Pro8200 in less than 1 year, but I leave it on all the time just for the heck of it...

I have almost 400 hours on the RS-45 now, and the dimming is getting bad even with a 106" 2.4 gain screen. Main problem is yellows are way too strong and I can't calibrate it out anymore that much, unless I use the HTPC instead or buy a VP. The annoyance is that my cheap Viewsonic has so much more accurate color than the JVC (which I paid 7x more for).
Reply
Reply
post #2542 of 3271
5/5/12 at 10:07am
Thread Starter 
The pixel fill on the 5010 is a little surprising when I first saw it. The gaps between the pixels is wider than any of the other projectors i've seen this year.

I sit only 1.25SW from the 142" but it's still far enough back to avoid potential SDE. The appearance of the 2D IQ on the Epson is different than the JVC and Sony (which are similar) and different again compared to the W7000. It's interesting to be able to see all these projector technologies side by side with the same exact content. It's easy to see why there are so many different opinions given individual preferences towards a certain technology.

The Epson's have been out for a while now, there's plenty of new owners. I don't recall hearing about any premature lamp failures yet. it's such a bright projector, it's hard to believe that lamp isn't taking a beating, but no news is good news.

The Epson is a sharp projector, it should easily match the HC6500, that was the primary strength of my HC5500, excellent sharpness. The black levels on that projector were average at best though. It lives on through a coworker who uses it to watch nothing but ice hockey. perfect projector for the job.
Reply
Reply
post #2543 of 3271
5/5/12 at 1:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombie10k View Post

The pixel fill on the 5010 is a little surprising when I first saw it. The gaps between the pixels is wider than any of the other projectors i've seen this year.

I sit only 1.25SW from the 142" but it's still far enough back to avoid potential SDE.

Wow, my HD20 had way more pronounced SDE than the 5010 I have now... I have to get less than 4 feet away from the screen to see the pixels on the 5010 - looks like a nice improvement to me! I sit at a 1:1 distance - 9 feet from a 120" screen - and it's invisible at that distance.
Reply
Reply
post #2544 of 3271
5/5/12 at 11:46pm
?
Reply
Reply
post #2545 of 3271
5/6/12 at 1:04am
For LCD Pixel Fill:
According to spec sheets when the D7 came out, it went from 43% with the D6 to 52% fill with the D7. Then with the current D9 panels it takes it to 60% - 65% pixel fill.

I do not intend to start anything or mean anything negative by this, but I just do not understand how an HD20 (1920x1080 DLP, 80%+ pixel fill) can be said to have worse pixel fill than an Epson 5010 (LCD, 65% pixel fill). My conclusion would be that you are seeing a convergence smoothing effect (or CA from lens shift) on the Epson that is hiding the pixel fill. Noticing the effects that pixel fill has on an image is not the same as seeing SDE, seeing SDE is seeing the extreme effect of pixel fill, but the effects of pixel fill are there before you can see the SDE.

Just to clarify to some folks, I never said LCD pixel fill was a deal breaker or made the image look terrible, it just makes it look a tad more inconsistent which seems to only bother a few of us. I actually studied an LCD and DLP image side-by-side for 500 hours (I know that sounds intense, but I did it for several weeks).

I won't go into every single difference, but will just summarize and say there are some bright scenes that an LCD will not look as good as DLP (not contrast wise so much as a SLIGHT flatness caused by the pixel fill creating a loss in depth perception in only certain scenes), and there are also some bright scenes that the pixel fill can do the opposite and actually make the LCD POP more than a DLP (I've seen it cause both results depending on the dimensionality of the scene). The key though is consistency, and that is the main difference. Not that LCD is inconsistent, but let's just say it is NOT as consistent as the other two techs across varying content. The TECH choice is a personal preference however, and since the word "consistency" doesn't mean anything to new projector buyers, I use the word "edgy" as it is the closest short description I can come up with for LCD.

Sticking with this idea of consistency, I would rate it in this order.... DLP > LCOS > LCD...
That doesn't mean I prefer DLP over LCOS (they each have their strengths), but it just means DLP is the most consistent.

In evening time or darker scenes, an LCD gets pretty close to as much of the film look as LCOS or DLP as pixel fill is harder to notice in dark scenes, and I think they are pretty equal in that case (except the Epson LCD goes darker than DLP for the price).
Reply
Reply
post #2546 of 3271
5/6/12 at 2:53am
For some like me pixel fill is a deal breaker, I didn't like the SDE I saw on the Epson 3010 that I had, among other things, so I upgraded to the Panasonic ae7000 instead of the Epson 5010. My screen is big and high gain which I think tends to make SDE more visible. I would have liked the JVC45 but at the time didn't want to spend the extra money, plus I was still interested in 3D and was under the impression that the Pana did very good 3D based on reviews but it doesn't. The 2D on the Panasonic is very good though and has been a nice upgrade but in hind sight regret not getting the JVC, maybe next time.
Reply
Reply
post #2547 of 3271
5/6/12 at 5:54am
The only time SDE ever bothered me was a number of years ago when I sat in the front row of a friend's HT watching material on his 720p very expensive Lummis projector. I've owned 9" CRTs, DLPs and LCD projectors and 1080p on a 120" high gain screen has never been an issue for me. It is interesting just how annal many of us are about certain issues. As I get older I care less and less about things that I used to think were important -- probably has something to do with decreasing testosterone levels.

Just as a side note: I moved my 6010 and it is now table mounted and closer to the screen. This would decrease CR a little -- nothing that I noticed; however, the slight ghosting I was seeing in some scenes disappeared. Duh! Did the slightly lower CR help with "ghosting" or did the angle of the projector to the screen make the difference or both? Maybe I'm just losing it.
Reply
Reply
post #2548 of 3271
5/6/12 at 7:40am
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post

[b]I do not intend to start anything or mean anything negative by this, but I just do not understand how an HD20 (1920x1080 DLP, 80%+ pixel fill) can be said to have worse pixel fill than an Epson 5010 (LCD, 65% pixel fill). My conclusion would be that you are seeing a convergence smoothing effect (or CA from lens shift) on the Epson that is hiding the pixel fill. Noticing the effects that pixel fill has on an image is not the same as seeing SDE, seeing SDE is seeing the extreme effect of pixel fill, but the effects of pixel fill are there before you can see the SDE.

Coderguy is corect in his assumption in my case - What I meant was that the SDE was more noticeable with my HD20 because the image was so sharp with a single chip DLP that the black spaces between pixels were more pronounced that those produced by the 5010, where there is some haze around the pixels from both convergeance and lens shift - the individual pixels are certainly not as crisp on a 3-panel LCD as a DLP. So I'm just saying I could see the individual pixels much more clearly on the DLP, from futher away from the screen than the 5010. In either case though, even at the close 8-9 ft viewing distance I have setup in my theater, I can not see any visible SDE from that distance from either unit on a 120" screen.

Sorry, didn't mean to get everyone in a tizzy!
Reply
Reply
post #2549 of 3271
5/6/12 at 10:00am
LCD has gotten better, I mean the Epson used to be 52% pixel fill and now it is 65%, that is a bit better. I think DLP is actually 90% or so pixel fill and LCOS 95% (don't remember exactly).

Quote:
Originally Posted by nirvy111 View Post

For some like me pixel fill is a deal breaker, I didn't like the SDE I saw on the Epson 3010 that I had, among other things, so I upgraded to the Panasonic ae7000 instead of the Epson 5010. My screen is big and high gain which I think tends to make SDE more visible. I would have liked the JVC45 but at the time didn't want to spend the extra money, plus I was still interested in 3D and was under the impression that the Pana did very good 3D based on reviews but it doesn't. The 2D on the Panasonic is very good though and has been a nice upgrade but in hind sight regret not getting the JVC, maybe next time.

Yah, the Panny 7000 3D isn't really any better than the JVC 3D most likely, different strengths maybe but not better. There was a lot of uproar and false info about the Panny's 3D, but we didn't have an expert reviewer like Zombie look at it that has seen all the different projectors.

The JVC has its own issues, after the lamp starts to dim it becomes very hard to calibrate correctly.
Reply
Reply
post #2550 of 3271
5/6/12 at 10:18am
Visible pixel structure and sde are perhaps different issues. It is easier to see indvidual pixels on single chip dlp from the same viewing distance despite it having less sde and that can make the picture look more digital than lcd.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home

Gear mentioned in this thread:

AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP › JVC RS 45 / Sony HW30 / BenQ W7000 / Epson 5010 mini-shootout