JVC RS 45 / Sony HW30 / BenQ W7000 / Epson 5010 mini-shootout - Page 34

I'm fairly certain Lightboost relies on LED backlighting being pulsed in sync with open shutters so it's unlikely to be found in Acer's projector.

Here is what Art said about the blacks of the JVC HD250 vs. the Optoma hd8300:
In terms of blacks, on really dark scenes, the two seem about comparable. On mixed brightness scenes, the JVC (as expected) which doesn't use a dynamic iris, will show blacker blacks. Of course you appreciate great blacks most on those overall very dark scenes without any bright areas. (That folks is why we use this night train scene, as one of our most critical test images.)

Later on he side-by-sided the hd8300 and said he was surprised to see that it beat the blacks of the Panny 7000. You have to remember people are reviewing black levels in relation to price, for this price the hd8300 isn't great at blacks compared to some projectors, and note that the few DLP's that were good at this are no longer in the running as none of them had 3D. The Optoma hd8300 puts out respectable brightness, I don't see why it wouldn't be as bright in 3D as the Sony?

Also, Art had a pre-production hd8300 I believe and the other reviewer may have as well, other reviewer numbers I saw were even brighter than Art's, and the best modes are a little brighter than the Sony hw30 from the numbers I have so far, although somewhat incomplete on this PJ.

From ProjectorCentral.com brightness measurements
http://www.projectorcentral.com/opto...ge=Performance
Its Cinema mode (Optoma hd8300), which has the best color and contrast performance of all of the projector's preset modes, measures 832 lumens in standard (low) lamp mode with the lens at its widest angle setting. Bright lamp mode increases lumen output by about 20%, bringing Cinema to 996 lumens. Brightest mode was 1200 lumens.

Now how the IRIS works is another story, never seen it, it could be too intrusive.

I don't trust on/off readings at all anymore unless they come from specific places, too many people still don't take them right, even respected reviewers. Some people measured an RS-45 at 70,000:1, others measured it at 25,000:1. It's the technique some are using is invalid because their meters aren't accurate enough to get the floor, and they aren't compensating correctly or estimating. It's easier to trust lower Native readings than higher, but I still don't trust them. Really the RS-45 is 50,000:1 just like JVC says, I measured it at 48,000:1, Tom Huffman measured it at 52,000:1.

Coder, the HD8300 looks like a fantastic DLP projector in 2D. Unfortunately, as you mentioned, it is too dim in 3D mode.

Maybe if it was mated with a 100" or smaller HP screen, it should be nice and bright in 3D mode. I beleive this PJ has good amount of lens shift.

It can do 1200 lumens in 3D mode on a PRE-Production model, that is not too dim in many setups, that is brighter than the Sony's, and as bright or slightly brighter than the JVC. I am waiting for post-production numbers, but I expect it to hit 1350 lumens in brightest mode. It is rated at 1500 lumens, they are complaining about it not doing the stated amount, but Optoma's typically are a lot lower lumens in pre-production models, so are Epsons. Even at 1.5 gain, it should be fine for many unless the glasses really are taking the brightness down that much, now that I do not know. The Benq w7000 only did 900 lumens in 3d mode...

More importantly, the LOW lamp calibrated mode is brighter than almost all the other projectors as it only lost 15% to 20%. Low Lamp on this PJ is as bright as the Epson's high lamp calibrated. In Low Lamp calibrated mode, it is brighter than the JVC, Sony, and Epson by a significant amount.

Sorry to go on and on, but just to clarify, I just re-read that Sound and Vision article of the Optoma hd8300 review, he obviously had either a defective lamp or his brightness measurements are a misprint.

Look at this statement:
"The brightest image was achieved in the projector’s Image AI lamp mode, which produced 13.08 ftL on a 1.0-gain, 102-inch 16:9 screen"

13 fL on a 1.0 gain 102 inch screen for the BRIGHTEST IMAGE?
That would mean the projector rated at 1500 lumens is doing 405 lumens, I don't think so. That is 1/3rd the brightness of PJC's review.
Also the guy states 1400:1 Native On/Off in one mode and one place, then later 1900:1 Native on/off and entire time doesn't even tell us his Zoom positions on the lens or what method he took the measurements. If he was only getting 405 lumens, he had a bad lamp which likely meant he had to use a screwy calibration to get the numbers accurate and it very likely also affected his Native on/off measurements, which were still higher than I expect the Benq w7000 to come out as. This projector also has Dark Chip 3, rather than DC 2.

It's hard to trust what some reviewers state about black levels. Projector Central says the Panasonic's black levels are better than the Sony and as good as the Epson yet Projector Reviews says the Sony does black levels better than the Panasonic. I'm more inclined to trust Projector Reviews because they seem to be more concerned with black levels more than Projector Central.

Projector Central also stated that they couldn't tell the RS45 was turned on until the white logo appeared on screen and those black levels are not that good even though I really wish they were.

I agree, that's why someone needs to test it from here. I am so busy at work and doing the projector calculator I just haven't had time to do any real reviews yet. I also agree about projectorreviews.com's black level tests, they are generally good. I'm sure Evan is a nice guy, but man he has let his Panny BIAS go on. Maybe Zombie or Mark H. can get an Optoma hd8300 for testing...

From what I know, Art thinks the blacks are typical for a DLP in this price range, but we also know that Art said the w7000's blacks are basically bugged in an even lower price range, so that tells us something right there.

The only issue that I have about Art's reviews is that I believe he's going off of memory when doing comparisons in many cases. Is that correct?

I really wish there was a way to measure the lowest light output on a very dark scene (and by that I don't mean the darkest black a projector can get by closing the iris (or should I say irish ) down momentarily. In my mind when I think of black levels I think of the darkest black levels a projector can get when very little content is on screen.

He side-by-sided A/B the Optoma hd8300 and Panny 7000 and said he was surprised the Optoma has darker blacks as he was expecting the Panny to win. I can find where Art said that and will post back, it was in one of his comparison reports.

Actually though, even that Sound and Vision review (with the bugged Lumens numbers) showed 10,800:1 Dynamic On/Off, which is higher than the Panny's Rec709 On/Off at 7,800:1, so even that review also supports the conclusion for calibrated black levels.

Yeah, I think the price is what really hurt the HD8300. With the JVC RS45's thousand dollar price cut (or there abouts), and competition from Sony and Epson, I think they missed their opportunity a bit. I would like the see the price come down a bit.

Coder, I checked out the PJ Calculator last night, great work! I will definately be using it when/if I upgrade my PJ.

Lets talk 3D, DLP vs LCD tech. What does everyone feel about 48hz per eye (LCD) vs 60hz per eye(DLP). Does flicker, or a refresh rate that is under the threshold of the eye perception become a factor?

I've viewed the 96hz in 3D mode on the Panasonic VT plasma, and the Sony NX929, and it was slightly noticable and bothersome to me, but I'm quite sensative to it. The 120hz refresh rate of DLP creates a rock solid, stable and flicker free image, and I think that is an advantage.

Just food for thought, and I know LCD can do 120hz as well, but the ghosting starts to become much more noticable, so I'm talking about the best modes for each tech.

I would be willing to pay more for the hd8300 over the w7000 if it came down to a huge difference in contrast.
The Acer 9500bd might be good, but it's got a few bugs, that Acer over HDMI sharpness bug sounds bad as well as tearing, but who knows.

Art at Projector Reviews says that sharpness isn't a factor. In fact in his review he says the Acer 9500 is really sharp. I would assume he was using HDMI, so what gives? He also has some shots that compare the 9500's sharpness to other projectors.

The next two projectors that Projector Central will be reviewing will be the Acer 9500 and the Benq W7000. This will be interesting.

Never seen the Acer so cannot comment on its sharpness for that specific model, but I am going by the posts from the Acer 9500bd thread experienced with the HDMI bug which exhibited clear pixel smearing with text in HTPC over HDMI, they had to use the VGA port.

I don't know if it was fixed or ended up being something else or what, I lost track of the thread somewhat and just started reading it again.

Projector reviews are like a bunch of semi drunk guys at a bar watching some women. Some in the group will look at an above averge looking one and will acclaim her to be hot. Some with a slightly lower alcohol blood level will say Hot?, you are out of your mind. A low nine comes and most will say wow, she'shot. A true connossieur of fine cigars, bourbon amd women might say pretty good but some portion or her anatomy is clearly less than ideal. When a high 9 comes in, should the group be so lucky and be in a bar where that might actually happen but where they really can't afford the drinks, all will proclaim She's Hot.

Now for actually me buying or arranging the loan of a Panny. Not a chance. I saw enough of the old model it replaced and the new one at Cedia to conclude it wasn't my cup of tea. There are better projectors out there for the same, less, or slightly more.

I'm not interested in the Panny either but was saying that the Optoma hd8300 might best the Benq w7000 in several areas. The Panny 7000 was used in the comparison he did, so that was the reference, but we know the Panny's blacks are better than the Benq as it stands, so if the Optoma's blacks are better than the Panny, then there is hope for the hd8300?...

If PR are like semi-drunk guys, PJC are totally wasted on Panny-Clear 190 proof.

At any moment I'm expecting someone to come in and proclaim a great idea of getting a 1024x768 LED projector instead over all these projectors (happens in almost every thread)...

Well we have sold plenty of Optomas and maybe somone out there will let me borrow one for testing. Tom and I could give it a free calibration in return. Test next time AV Science sells one we will make an offer to calibrate it for free in return for letting me, Tom, Zombie etc test it. I do noy believe Tom or I have calibrated or tested one yet.

And you're intoxicated on Everclear for DLP and JVC. Nothing is sharper than these in your mind.

I evaluated the 7800 and its 3D is an unfinished work. I was able to confirm Kraine's findings.
For 2D, the sharpness control on the latest AMD 1.4 video driver had to be set to +20 for the JVC RS1, +10 for the Mitsubishi 4000 and zero for the 7800. That glass ED lens is very naturally sharp.

With the Optoma 8300, two major sites gave it poor marks in contrast, shadow detail and black levels. Now Sound&Vision. Should be off the radar map here?
http://www.trustedreviews.com/optoma...verdict_Page-3
http://www.projectorcentral.com/opto...ge=Limitations

For the Acer 9500 the contrast and black level were rated higher than other DLP's. It was pretty darn good with the iris disabled and left Kraine wondering why. With recent price drops I've declared it a Best-Buy and will wait for Consumer Reports to test and confirm. Its only a few hundred more than the Mitsubishi 4000 - last years Best-Buy. Acer appears to be selling the added 3D capability for what it costs to manufacture, not for its novelty. Who wants to pay three times for less performance?

Very productive/helpful. See the smiley? Jmalto, any word on the H9500BD?

Judging by the photos and specs posted on Optoma USA's website the HD8300 looks pretty much the same as the European HD83. I've had my grubby hands on the HD83 and came out quite disappointed. The HD33 offers better performance for less money: it has higher on/off contrast, higher ANSI contrast, pumps out more lumens and has better black than the HD83. The advantages of HD83 are limited to lens shift and a semi-broken CMS which craps the bed when some adjustments are moved from zero further than 10% of their max values.

I drink but haven't been intoxicated since I graduated law school in 1971. One drink or one beer limit except for my trips to Lexington, KY for Keeneland where my daily bourbon limit is raised to 5 spread out over 10 or 11 hours. So don't blame any of my posts on that. Mistakes on my part are mainly central processing errors or data corruption.

Frankly coderguy I hope you stay uninterested in the Acer 9500 rather than a repeat spamming performance of the Mitsubishi 4000. It was laborious task correcting your errors, then painful seeing complete rewrites of what others responded too. Rewriting history. Today, you add qualifiers to most everything you state. Why not take the high-road and investigate, then post accurate facts?

For those with a htpc, the Acers lack of CMS is an advantage. First many of built-in projector CMS are defective: Sony HW30, high-end Panasonic, Optoma... The list goes on.
This indicates that implementing accurate color theory is complex and best left to the PHD mathematicians. In the 9500 Acer and TI went for colors that pop. The average consumer likes colors that pop. So do I. The current HD color standard is lacking what we see in real-life. So its frequently "season to taste".

The professionals agree that for darn near perfect color and grey scale accuracy, the x-Rite i1 Display Pro 3 measurement meter is the cats meow.
With the latest x-Rite update to the included automated retail software, it measures 478 test patterns in 10 minutes, performs the complex mathematical calculations, generates an ICC profile (color lookup table) then verifies it work. All without human or projector error being introduced. Another Best-Buy at $250 as it will calibrate every display today and tomorrow.
Do you use a pc?

Frankly HifiFun, get a clue, everyone knows in the hc4000 thread who was posting inaccurate info, and it surely wasn't me. Fleaman and the other knowledgeable folks in there had to keep correcting you, it wasn't me that was being corrected. You like to change the facts.

Here we go again...

I am not stating facts, I was saying people are writing the hd8300 off because of a few reviews that aren't even conclusive. I have no idea how good or bad it is, but it looks ok from Art's review and PJC.

Apparently you know nothing about calibrating and don't realize that you cannot use an external CMS and external controls to fix a gamut and the other stuff that is too far off or too narrow, it has to be a certain way before you can fix it externally. I do not know how far off the Acer is, but most people don't want to calibrate on an HTPC. It is very difficult and time consuming, and the amount of software you have to install and configure can be a real pain. There is no such thing as an advantage to a missing CMS even if it is broken, at worst it is just not useful and is an even trade, but even partly broken CMS's can have some use to get the gamut prep'd for an external calibration.

Even if you like colors that POP with a different luminance and saturation, that is not a reason to start from a calibration off REC709, there is no other standard for HD that I know of that is accepted. If you like higher saturation then you just adjust that after the calibration, starting from the baseline of Rec709, what you are saying makes no sense (it's like saying my torch mode that is heavy on green is better than your Rec709 mode that can be post-adjusted later, yah right). The fact it is missing gray scale and CMS controls are at least a partial issue for people without VP's, doesn't matter how you spin it. I don't know how the Acer's default OOTB modes look so I can't say how difficult it would be to fix externally, but even if fixable a good video processor is pretty expensive (although a very useful device) and HTPC calibrations are a pain and limit you to do everything through the HTPC. Also the cable or sat signal cannot be fixed with this method, and you'd have to play blurays through the HTPC as well, hardly an advantage.

The Acer is a good deal, but it is a low-cost DLP with some missing controls and just like all projectors there are trade-offs.

The truth is that the reviewers were just expecting higher contrast from the hd8300, but AFIK it is the only 3D-DLP with decent contrast other than the Acer according to some reviews. No idea on the Acer's IRIS functionality or how visible it is, but the Acer has a few issues still AFIK, hopefully they will release some firmware updates.

Thanks for the input it seems I need to make a decision rapidly since I just pulled down my 40 because bulb 2 blew 20 minutes ago!

Ouch on the blown bulb, hope I don't end up right there with you on the RS-45. I use a secondary projector and load the hours on that one most of the time. There is not enough evidence in the RS-45 bulb study yet to point either way really, I am hopeful though.

The Epson 5010 does some VIVID 3D for sure.

Thanks for the info. Did you measure on/off CR and lumens? I am curious what the on/off measures once you set the iris to a realistic position where you still have enough brightness.

The eshift sounds great. Although since I sit 2x away from only a 106" screen I don't think it would do much in my case, and I'd have the lower ANSI CR from the extra glass (presumably the reason why ANSI CR is measuring lower on this year's model). Would be cool if they could physically move the glass out of the way when not in use, but that's probably more engineering than its worth.

There is an On/Off chart made by Manni I believe in the Rs-55 thread if that helps at all, I think Zombie ran out of time to do all those measurements.

The e-shift does sound great, I was even able to appreciate the difference of the RS-45 from a DLP slightly as far as the added film-look and slightly higher pixel fill, more noticeable in more advanced camera work though. I may be convinced in about 9 months to sell the RS-45 and go for the next JVC model with e-shift (not 55, but next one coming), we'll see but I am scared of getting worse convergence as my convergence is so spot on the current JVC I have.

If the e-shift can take that last added bit of digital look and get rid of it, I can see how it can help, I can understand it now more than before now that I've spent enough time with the RS-45 without e-shift. I wouldn't mind even a slightly more ANALOG look if that makes any sense. BTW, lovingDVD I wish more people would use the thread you made about On/Off measurements a few years ago, instead of just randomly doing the measurements at the screen, nice thread if only more people followed it to take the measurements correctly.

Hi Zombie and others, is the hw30 still your pick for the best all around performer this year now that you've seen the epsons. Reason I ask is I'm so wanting to upgrade from my 5 year old ae700. The sony is on sale this week locally at a whopping $850 off.
Can the Sony do 2.45:1 aspect ratio.....manually of course since it doesn't have any motorized controls or memory. Is this manual way a real pain to do. Also how does this constant image hight zoom trick differ from a projector paired with an anamorphic lens, do they both project the actual true 2.45 information onto the screen. Like if you are viewing a scene with 3 cars side by side in 16/9 but switching to 2.45 you now see 4 cars because no info is cropped out.

The epsons game lag and unsealed optics are worrisome to me, as is the jvc's poor 3d performance and questionable bulb life. I wanted so much to get the jvc this time around to experience the legendary black levels (my tv is a pioneer elite) but alas I just can't seem to do it with the way things stand at this time. I hear the optics on the sony aren't the greatest compared to the fujinon of the epsons or the jvc's. If you could get the sony for the same price as the 5010 would you do it?

I also can't stand a heavily digitized look to an image, my friend just bought a 60 inch sharp quattron that feels so strange to look at, its like watching something live .... soap opera look that some refer to... playing around with the settings I can knock it down somewhat but it's still there to some extent. I'm hopping the sony has a softer look like the jvc because of lycos, am i wrong to expect this?

Anyways if any of you can comment on this thank you. I'm tired of my old projector and really want to upgrade this year.

AFIK it cannot do it easily unless you want to give up watching 16:9 content entirely on the 2.35 screen. You could use a motorized screen to solve this if the Sony allows moving the image digitally in the 16:9 frame. No idea if the Sony has this, if it does then you can use it with a motorized screen to watch both 2.35 and 16:9 without lens memory. So without the help of a video processor or an HTPC re-scaling the 16:9 content or a motorized screen (if the Sony even allows moving the image digitally), you'd be stuck only watching CIH movies and the 16:9 would overflow the screen.

I'm sure Zombie will be happy to comment, but he has commented on exactly this earlier in the thread just in case your in a hurry (don't lose that deal on the Sony IMO!)...

The Epson 5010 doesn't look heavily digitized or anything, it's still more film-like than an LCD TV a little, but it is more pixel-based than the LCOS projector options. I think the only way you can know for sure is to go see an LCD, even if it isn't the 5010 it should look somewhat similar in bright scenes. I personally would most likely pick the Sony hw30 over the Epson 5010 due to the cleaner less pixelated look of the Sony, but there is no way we can tell you what you'd like better for sure unless you saw it yourself. In 3D the Epson's brightness advantage is quite noticeable, but with an HP screen many don't need that much brightness in 3D.

Zombie prefers the Sony over the JVC in mixed contrast shots and in all scenes other than the darker scenes that the JVC does so well in. I cannot see any issues in mixed contrast shots on the JVC when A/B'n it to a DLP projector, but I also run the JVC's gamma a bit hotter than I do on the DLP, that helps even it out a bit, I change the gamma for dark movies to 2.3, but run it at 2.1 for brighter stuff.