JVC RS 45 / Sony HW30 / BenQ W7000 / Epson 5010 mini-shootout - Page 95

Greetings Coderguy! Always a pleasure.
I probably should have quoted your whole response, but that would be too long.

First a question re 1:1 (remember, I'm just a hobbyist, not an engineer: the last time I studied electronics, was for my amateur radio license, back when I was building tube gear (because they were still figuring out ICs). That's over 40 years ago. (No wonder I still own a tube pre-amp).

OK, 1:1. How would you like to see that tested? And do you see it necessary in under $1000 projectors (or what I call home entertainment projectors, that really aren't designed for precision PQ and near perfect rooms. I realize that some hard core enthusiasts will buy them, but they make up maybe a couple % of all those entry level projectors sold.

BTW, your point about ringing, etc, is valid... But, from a subjective standpoint, doesn't something like saying: "If you use a lot of the (dynamic sharpening - Brilliant Color, etc.), the image quality becomes far less natural looking, rather quickly". We can talk about dining, and defining it, etc. But, don't most people just want to know that if you crank up controls to a point, PQ will suffer?

I understand that the projector with perfect 1:1 will hold out better, but what if their Brilliant Color implementation sucks, or some other flaw, so that, even with less ringing, what if the picture still becomes more "over the top", than another projector... with more ringing. I still vote, for "this one looks really good, under xyz circumstances..."

Next, getting back to the contrast...

First I need a clarification. Which is better? by your numbers - in terms of overall black level performance (when watching): The Acer, or the PT-AE7000. By the numbers, we have a split.
So, which one will do better, on the night train scene, how about the Red Oct. sub... It's not just the range of the iris 3 or 5... but what it reacts to. I have no doubt that in the old Optoma's they had some irises that probably were in the 3 range, but were terrible, while others pushing to 5, had better algorithms, and appear smoother (and probably blacker blacks)...

That brings us to the BenQ W7000. First, since there have apparently been 3 firmware versions with different iris and related firmware... Do we know which firmware that was done with? I'm simply asking, as I have no idea what the numbers of either BenQ I had, have measured. By your numbers: The acer should do better than the BenQ, and one really can't tell if the Panasonic is better or worse than either, since it has the lowest "dynamic contrast" spec, but the highest native.
One interesting thing, subjective and numbers match completely with the Epson as it has both the best numbers, and, of course, by my take, the best blacks of any iris driven projector I've seen under $5,000. But, when one number is better on one projector, and the other number is better on the other, such as Acer or BenQ vs. Panasonic, how can we use the numbers to make a call? I haven't worried about the different contrast methods. Thoughts (perhaps PM, so as not to clutter this thread any more)?

Finally, re the contrast, so after all of this, discussion, why do we at projector reviews need to do contrast. Even if I reported contrast,( or measured 3D brightness through glasses at their different settings), I'm not going to be utilizing them except perhaps to give me some further clarity, but I'm not going to be discussing how 2500 /10000 makes this projector better or worse than that projector with 3000/8000, etc. I'm going to talk about how different types of scenes look.

BTW, re the W6000 part you mention at the beginning. 1. perhaps a misspoken line, perhaps likely I was trying to explain that (not knowing where I wrote the objectionable statement - recently or a year ago), the W6000 is an ultra high contrast projector, like the 8700UB... I'm absolutely sure I've never said it was as good as the 8700UB, or 5010 (in terms of blacks), nothing iris based near the price comes very close to those Epsons. As I have stated, those projectors I call ultra high contrast, have pretty darn good blacks. Basically when you have one of those (H9500, W6/7000, PT-AE7000) , having better blacks still is definitely desirable, but you have achieved a point where other factors become more important in terms of an overall improvement.

yak with ya soon. -a

Get back to me on the 1:1 test, and also I'll again entertain discussion about measuring contrast, but, it's not like others aren't publishing the data, as both you and Hififun point out. Just means more money I have to shell out to Mike, for each projector's measurement/calibration. Mike is not an employee, he just calibrates about 25-30 projectors a year for me, and writes a handful of education projector reviews a year. He probably devotes well less than 4 hours a week for us. He has other gigs (and is a "retired engineer.") But Mike would probably describe himself as a laid back guy that just likes good wine. -art

Hi Zombie! Glad to here I'm not subjectively crazy, regarding the W7000.
Re the 1:1... I'm not saying that 1:1 isn't important, or useful... My point was that I find it less an issue on lower cost projectors. They have enough compromises, that how good the 1:1 is, isn't likely to make very many people change their purchase decision... (Oh, it will a few!) I really haven't found 1:1 to be much of an issue in the $2500+ projector range (including the BenQ). I really don't expect an issue on the better projectors, but where should the cut off be. I know for some purists, perfect 1:1 compared to "almost", might be more important than 50% more lumens, or a color management system that allows for more accurate color. I think that's great. As you know my screen size is decent - my primary is a 124" 2.35, so for widescreen movies I've got almost 10 feet of width. I never sit as far back as 10 feet.

I like close and immersion. -a

When it comes to the Pansonic vs. Acer vs. Benq which are all very close, well I would generally give the projector with the highest Native On/Off the winning hand most likely (so the Panny wins barely. When they are that close, I agree that the best thing to do is to go by what your eyes suggest for the tie breaker. I will concede that if you did contrast measurements that you have to be very careful and there are some good and bad things about doing it. If done correctly it can more precisely put projectors in their place (at least I think so). It only takes a couple minutes to setup a proper Native On/Off reading, so the labor shouldn't add that much cost .

1:1 Test
You can use many standard pixel or convergence testing patterns for the 1:1 mapping test, or you can just draw a straight black line in a paint program on an HTPC (although this method you have to be careful the Video Driver isn't causing an error). What are you looking for is how cleanly the line looks, a pixel mapping error looks a little bit like Chromatic Abberation or convergence, except generally the pixel mapping border is going to show up as a dimmer outline of same color as the pixel itself, whereas CA and Convergence often show up as a different color around the pixel. It's not always easy to differentiate, but the pixel mapping issue is consistent across the screen (if looking at a pattern anyhow), whereas CA and convergence will vary a bit. Obviously you must turn off ALL enhancements before doing the test (sharpness, detail, Frame Interpolation, etc...).

Here is one potential side effect of the 1:1 mapping error (since the border is drawn gray and not black, the error is not nearly as visible as it could be).
A worse side effect would be if 2 pure black pixels were drawn instead of just an edge enhancement. This edge error will only be visible where colors meet borders, so it will not affect the entire resolution of the image as some think it does (it will reduce it some though.


Here are the potential effects in video, but keep in mind this eagle is blown up 10x or more, so although the difference in person can be seen on this eagle from 1.2x seating distance, but it's a very small difference compared to the exaggerated difference blown up in the photo. Look at the tips of the feathers on the eagle (the black part of those feathers are only 2 pixels wide). On the top left is a DLP with a 1:1 pixel mapping error, on the bottom right is an abnormally perfectly converged LCOS projector. Now the LCOS projector does have smaller pixels due to pixel fill, so that's part of what you are seeing, but the lack of contrast in the pixels themselves is due to the DLP having an edge error. When comparing the eagle's body, face, or feet then the error could not be seen even when the image is this blown up (this is because different colors show the error easier than others, generally black on white or the highest contrast pixels).



1:1 mapping is important, but the level of importance is going to depend on multiple factors (how good the lens is in the first place). Overall, in most video, at least on my VS Pro8200 (my backup projector) it is really not an issue, but in HTPC it could make the text look 10% to 20% clearer for those really picky, as well I have to be more conservative on sharpness controls with the VS than my other projectors because of ringing.

Consider the final below image, to where the projector with the pixel mapping error (on right) actually looks sharper than the one without the error (on left), this is just because whether or not you can see the error depends on what type of contrast and colors are on the borders of the pixels. So generally things like sharp clouds, noisy images, as well as extra sharp reference level video, and HTPC text are the main places it is likely to show up.


Edited by coderguy - 6/28/12 at 6:06pm

It seems the error is partly someone elses fault other than just the MFR's. Someone has been goofing up the kits or VP's (or one of the co-existing parts) delivered to the MFR's.

So I have to say that although the pixel mapping thing is an issue, when talking about cheaper projectors, it does not automatically mean the projector with the pixel mapping error will appear less sharp than the one without.
Edited by coderguy - 6/28/12 at 6:07pm

From judging the image, it looks about the same, but I will double check.
Edited by coderguy - 6/27/12 at 3:05am

Here is the same pattern on the Viewsonic Pro8200:

The pictures didn't come out that good, but they get the point across (people don't assume the pixels on the VS look like this, they don't). I was holding the camera in my hand and my hands were shaking a bit. The color error around the pixels is how it looked in real life, but the white pixels themselves were perfectly sharp and defined looking in person (I need to get my Tripod out and need a better camera).

Note on the first image, you can barely see the mapping error (it looks like Chromatic Abberation that's why it ALMOST fooled me), but a simple adjustment to a brighter Gamma shown in the second image reveals the underlying issue (pixel mapping). You can see why the Pro reviewers missed it on the VS by looking at the first image (they all assumed it was CA).

I know it's not pure CA because the error is exactly even across the entire screen, the error is more cleanly visible on an HTPC when drawing a colored line (third image), and the menu text does not show the error on the VS at all. I might suggest that using normal gamma, the error might not be as visible on the VS as some projectors, but I would also note that there is no way of knowing unless we A/B'd them. Also, you would not see any purple outlining on the Pro8200 with most colors (see third image), but it would instead outline it with the same color as the pixel. This pattern tends to make the error look worse than it really is. Unlike some of the other projectors with the issue, the Viewsonic does not look better in VGA mode than HDMI (unless I just have a bad VGA cable, perhaps since all my VGA cables are really old).

1) First image with Normal Gamma (2.2), problem hiding itself and appearing to be Chromatic Abberation


2) Second image with Brighter Gamma (1.8?), now the real culprit behind the purple outlining is shown, there are pixels that were too dark to be cleanly seen at a gamma of 2.2


3) And for anyone that still has doubts, look what happens when I draw a single colored line in a paint program, you end up with an additional 2 extra dimmer pixels as a border (3 total pixels) based on a lighter version of the original color. I physically edited the image in a paint program just to add the actual outlining of where the pixel ERROR borders. Here we can see NO signs of Purple aberration and this was also a REAL picture of the Viewsonic taken from my camera but with the outer line added to highlight the error.


4) Below is how clean black on light gray looks (opposite of white on black which shows purple), again we see no signs of purple outlining simply because the error is less intrusive on this particular color range. This image might not be easy to see what I am talking about on your monitor, so refer to next image.


5) Finally, here is a digital representation of the above in case the above does not show up on your monitor.


In real world viewing, I again say on the VS the issue reduces the sharpness of text only by 20% even at worst case with the most contrasty looking text colors, and in most video you cannot tell when using 2.2 gamma (it takes an eagle eye quite literally other than a few very specific scenes). I would not consider the VS's pixel mapping error a deal-breaker for MOST people given the above-average focus uniformity balances the problem out in this price range. For instance, the Viewsonic even with this error is still sharper than the average LCD in the same price range (unless you get an LCD in this price range with super good convergence). At the $1,500+ price range deal-breaker status gets more likely.

Wow that was intense, now that concludes my lesson on how to tell the difference between pixel mapping and chromatic abberation ... (or pixel mapping vs. convergence, same rules apply)
Edited by coderguy - 6/27/12 at 6:29pm

Thanks! I couldn't have done it without your thorough research.
I bought the Disney calibration bluray and I'm going to use that soon.

Coderguy, did you make up your mind on which dlp projector you are buying?

Pretty much, just trying to find a good deal.

I've had the Epson 6101 for awhile now. I've only been using it for 3D and I have to say I'm very happy with it. The brightness in Dynamic 3D mode with only a few slight tweaks is addicting -- I run the 3D glasses setting at high and use the Sony PS3 3D glasses most of the time because they seem brighter than the Epson ones and they're rechargeable. Ghosting is pretty much non-existent, for me at least, and I occasionally look for not when I remember to -- that's how noninvasive ghosting is. I can see keeping this for a few years (came with two lamps) unless something really exceptional comes along and its cheap.

My next purchase may be a 2D to 3D converter by Blackmagic Design -- definitely on my mind.

Here's a review of the Optoma HD8300. For $1,900.00 at seems like an exceptional deal. Yes, that's a refurbished unit.


http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/projectors/projectors-reviews/optoma-hd8300-3d-dlp-projector.html

Actually was considering doing 3d with two CHINESE LED projectors that cost $25 each. I heard ALI-BABA is where all the real HT guys shop.

Dang, now there's spammers getting posts into this forum... Delete! DELETE!






Lol.

It was sold out and the price on the last one jumped $200 anyways, even though their cart says otherwise. I should have kept quiet on the projector until I had it in my hands. As soon as I posted in that comparison thread it was better and could do > 1000 lumens in 3D, poof sold out.

Do they work with a projector?

They are probably more comfortable than the Sony ones



(The Sony ones aren't that bad...)

A couple of random thoughts...

1) I wonder if AVSForum postings have gone down in volume with the new forum? The nicest thing I can say is the new forum isn't any better.

2) I purchased some 3D blurays at Frys (they had a $16.99 sale)

3) Hubble 3D was recommended elsewhere. While it's fine, it's certainly nothing special (in terms of 3D, ignoring the content). No need to purchase this one, IMHO

4) I got the Owls of Ga'hool 3D one... that's pretty impressive.

5) Avatar 3D, Hugo, and Under the Sea are my top 3D picks so far. I don't see how anyone could be unimpressed with any of them

While the advertisers want to build a dossier of every site you visit and tabulate every post, your anonymity here is your most valuable asset.
Otherwise you are advertising to the world "come get my new $25K projector".
So the nicest thing I can say is "stupid is as stupid does".

Kris Deerring reviews the BenQ 7000 in the latest Home Theater Magazine and gives it 3.5 stars for 2D and 5 stars for 3D.

And just to be clear, this isn't a tapatalk problem as far as I know. Rather, it's the AVSForum's implementation of the tapatalk interface. Tapatalk works great for me on every other forum I use it.

What did they give the Sony 1000 for 3D?

They gave two ratings for 3D. Four stars out of five when using a 92 inch high gain screen and 3.5 out of five when using a 118 inch standard screen. They also gave the 2D performance five out of five by the way.