Epson 8700UB vs 5010 for large screen

That big of screen, 5010 hands down.

All my research suggests I will struggle with my 120" screen at minimum throw. Unless of course you have a super high power screen, which honestly you want to avoid.

If you end up with the 8700, you may be needing to look at a high-power or similar screen, rather than mat white. 5010 should be fine on a white screen.

I'm doing my own research on my first projector, and I have almost narrowed it down to the 8700ub. But it's really frustrating trying to decide which pj to get. I swear, for every 20 people that tell me the 8700 would be perfectly fine with a huge screen, there are another 20 people who tell me it's not bright enough.

why not call the three advertisers above that sell the PJ's and get their opinion

Yep, same happened to me. IN FACT I ended up buy my screen first, only because I had to rough stuff in....as soon as I went to order the projector, I was told I made a huge mistake. Meaning I got a 120" 1.0 gain, and I had TONS of people tell me I need some gain for this projector and size screen,i.e. 1.3 or something...I even have a perfectly controlled room.

I tried using the calculator that someone is promoting on this site, but honestly I can't trust the numbers AT ALL! To me it almost seem like a marketing tool for a mfg or two.

But oh well, I think the only way to truely know is to find someone and see with your own eyes.

My problem is I cannot get a screen first. I don't want to decide on a size until I get a pj and run it on the wall for a while at different sizes. It's hard to just look at the wall and decide what size I want without an actual image on it. So I have to buy a pj first.

I have the 6100 and run a 120" 1.0 gain screen and have lumens to burn.

Anyone telling you the 8700UB won't work at 140" and you just HAVE to get the 5010 are the same exact people who would SWEAR 5 months ago that you HAVE to get the 8700UB to do 140" because the 8350 "just isn't bright enough!!!". It's always easy to give advice to others parting with their money, and not yours.

Pull a Nike and Just Do it™

Once you open up that box and watch your first movie, you'll never look back with remorse. All of these projectors are head and shoulders above what we long-timers endured 15 and even 10 years ago. Based on your usage description, the 8700UB is in fact the *perfect* choice, give it is a bit better 2D detail and 3D is an afterthought for you. The $900 you save will go a long way toward your new LED-powered 3200 lumen projector you order for $2,000 4 years from now.

120" screen is one thing, but 140" to 150" is really really pushing it and IMO is way too big of a screen for the 8700ub without at least 1.5 gain. Do not try a 150" screen with an 8700ub unless you are very unpicky about color accuracy and don't mind burning through lamps as well. I would get at LEAST a 1.5 gain screen if going that big and mounting at CLOSEST THROW as a bare minimum (personally 2.0 to 3.0 gain is the lowest I would prefer at that size), then it will be more manageable. I would even do 1.5 gain for a 120" just because it allows me to run a calibrated image longer.

You can build your own high gain screens for cheap in the DIY screen forums using special paint. That is your best bet if you don't want to spring for the extra cash of the Epson 5010, which has better looking dynamic modes.
 

Edited by coderguy - 9/18/12 at 2:14pm

Personally I don't think this is true. I think the 'average' person would pick the brighter image. This is why TV's are all set to torch mode in the showrooms, even at the expense of colour accuracy.

A little test I've done with family and friends over the years in both our high ambient light livingroom setup and our black walls batcave theatre is telling. If you start with a high brightness, low colour accuracy mode, then switch to a low brightness well calibrated mode, everyone prefers the higher brightness. If you do the reverse, in the batcave, when you switch to high brightness low colour accuracy, most complain about the colour accuracy and the fact that the image to too bright. In the high ambient light theatre the opinion is mixed.

If you have a completely light controlled room, with dark surfaces ( floor, ceiling, walls ) completely encompassing your field of view I feel you can get away with a lower foot lambert value than what is generally recommended. I've been using a CRT projector in our bat cave theatre on a 165" 1.5 gain DIY for years, and no one has complained about image brightness. We get about 5FL off the screen. Recently I added an Epson 8350 for gaming and BluRay / Netflix sources. Close to full wide zoom ( 18 ft of throw ) in Econo lamp Cinema mode. Calibrated with HCFR I get about 8 FL off the screen and the image is plenty bright in these conditions.

In the end, you have to judge for yourself. If you can totally light control the room, and can use dark coloured surfaces near the screen, I'd say go with the 8700 and try it out on your white wall and see for yourself. The Epsons offer multiple colour profiles between Cinema and Dynamic, and you can see what works for you. If it works for you on a basic white wall, as coderguy mentions you can paint a DIY screen with formulas here in the DIY screen section, or, use a commercial screen paint ( as I did ) like ScreenGoo. If you like the size / colour profile on a basic white paint wall, you can get about 50% more FL by using a specialized screen surface.

Jonathan

The statements above are suddenly able to change all the standards to immediately proclaim "what most people prefer", completely discounting the scientific nature of the SMPTE standard of 12 fL to 14 fL and completely discounting the benefits of a calibrated image, claiming most people prefer a torch mode. I suppose that is why movie theaters pay money to have their images calibrated out of torch mode, because most people don't like it. A digital projector and CRT are not the same target for foot lamberts.

5fL is not acceptable, I will not argue with the above poster on this as that is a ridiculous target, I have owned 11 projectors and taking over 100 fL measurements, posts like the above only do a disservice to this forum and aim to add confusion on an already subjective topic. No professional installer or anyone with half a sense of getting a decent picture is going to do a new projector installation at 5fL, or even 8fL is pushing it. The image will have absolutely no POP in bright scenes, I don't care how dark your room is. Projectors can lose as much as 25% or even 50% of their brightness in some cases if you get unlucky far before 1000 hours of usage. That 5 fL is going to be 2.5 fL, that 8 fL is going to be 4 fL.
 

Edited by coderguy - 9/18/12 at 2:14pm

Coderguy, with all due respect, the idea of a forum is to share experiences, your proclamation of ..

5fL is not acceptable, I will not argue with the above poster on this, I have owned 11 projectors and taking over 100 fL measurements, posts like the above only do a disservice to this forum.

The number of projectors you have owned I don't think is relevant. The conditions in which you've used those projectors I think is more relevant. Do you have a completely blacked out theatre? Black walls, ceiling, floors? This is what I was trying to convey in my post.

If you can create this type of environment low FL may well be acceptable to you. It's all a trade off of environment vs. image. Why do you think installers state 12FL as a minimum? Well, because they have to deal with various different environments. Have you done any research on what the human eye is capable of? While the human eye is only capable of instantaneous contrast perception in the 1000's:1, the total range of the human eye is close to 1,000,000:1. This means that in a completely light controlled environment with completely dark FOV, a very low FL image (by SMPTE standards) can be completely satisfying to the viewer.

If you read my post, I said that I get about 8FL in Cinema mode on a 165" screen in low lamp. Your post said that ..

10 fL to 12 fL would be the absolute minimum someone very UNPICKY could shoot for on a new lamp, but for most of us, we should target 16 fL+. Expect that 12 fL to become 8 fL to 10 fL soon enough


Starting in low lamp, with a 25% gain switching up to normal as the lamp ages, would be about the same as what you just stated isn't it?


from you ..

Some people are happy watching a black and white TV, given that fact, should we all go out and buy 9" black and white CRT's.
This is AVS, not bingo night at grandma's nursing home.

During bingo night I did not hear even one single complaint about the 13" Color TV or the 9" Black and White TV with noise all in the image, it should be absolutely fine for everyone...

Do I even need to comment on this?

Jonathan

Gotta agree with coderguy......

I've installed several 8700s (7-8) on primarily 122" to 135" DIY Gray Screens having a minimum of 1.3 - 1.4 gain. While it performs admirably, many times out of necessity I use Dynamic or Living Room modes and then calibrate out the worst of the green push. Low Lamp mode is the primary level the PJs are set to unless I'm pushing lumens at a "verrrry" dark gray surface that is needed because of high ambient light conditions or nearby light colored or white surfaces reflecting projected light back toward the screen.

Also, the bigger the screen, the more predominant the green tint becomes, alluding to the fact that it's the drop in lumens (foot lamberts) coming off the screen that allows the green to push past the Blue & Red hues for dominance. My experience has also seen the brightness of the whites become proportionately worse as size goes up...unless gain also goes up.

The 158"ers I've done (2) using the 8700s all had a minimum of 1.4 gain. A reason I specify such a level is because I always intend to use Low Lamp (for better blacks) and still have the horses to push into a larger image.

Given the choice to make, I'd opt for a 8700 over a 8350 every day of the week and 2x on a Sunday. However.....run a 5010 across my path as a choice for a biggun screen and you won't see it make it past me to the other side of the road.

....probably true....until they ever see the difference between a brighter, more contrasty image at the same size.

When that happens....most every time you read, "I'm not satisfied with the vibrancy of my image....I want to upgrade my PJ/Screen....change my room's colors....or any combo or all of the aforementioned."

The crux of this is the room. My low FL room is completely black in the FOV. My point was that low FL can work in a dedicated room with a completely dark environment.

On the other hand, my high ambient light room gets close to 150FL of my HiPower with an Epson 400. This is acceptable for high contrast content, but terrible for movie content during daylight viewing.

I was not trying to advocate a low FL setup in a less than blackout environment. I still stand by my comments that in an optimal environment that less than 12FL is a satisfying movie experience.

Jonathan

The problem is the loss in lumens over time, not just the starting fL.

That's the point. As I described in my post I get 8FL on econo on a 165" screen. Over time the lamp output will reduce by probably 40%. Adjust up 25% by going to normal lamp mode then you're pretty much in the same ballpark. You have to remember that the minimum perceived brightness increase requires a doubling of the lumen output will make this ageing negligible.

Again, this isn't for everyone. The reason I started this post with the statement that 'bright' rules is the fact that most people ( not AVSers ) consider brightness the key factor in a purchase decision. I think you derided me for not providing proof on this, but, if you look at the empirical evidence of showroom displays, it's pretty compelling. I'm actually arguing the opposite. The majority will love a well calibrated dim picture in a blackout environment. This is my experience.

BTW, I've been involved in broadcast television and computer graphics displays for the past 35 years, so, I'm somewhat acquainted with what is a good picture.

I'm just offering my counter opinion to the norm because I believe there are alternative setups that many of the newcomers here could enjoy without worry of what the 'standards' are.

Jonathan

The lamp variations are all over the place depending on the projector model, Epsons are average at best, and that is probably giving them more credit for lamp dimming then they deserve. My JVC lost 20% at 130 hours, and the difference is visible, especially on a gain screen which amplifies that difference.

The truth is actually that you can see changes in brightness more like in the range of 15% to 25%, not 50%.
 

Edited by coderguy - 9/18/12 at 2:13pm

Hello, I bought the 8700UB before the 5010 came out. Although the 5010 has more lumens, for a dedicated home theater room, the 8700UB does a spectacular job. Nothing can touch in its price range. I painted my wall with Sherwin Williams Ultra White paint in semi gloss and I am getting up to a 205" daigonal 16:9 wide screen format. The image is perfect, I am more than happy with the quality of the image, the blacks are superb and the colors are natural and well balanced. I just watched Hugo in 1080p and you would not believe the great quality of the image. My walls and ceiling are all white and still it looks wonderful. I can not wait to paint the ceiling black and the walls in a color that does not reflect much light, it will be an improvement. I believe that the 8700UB is more than enough for any home theater aplication.

Unless you are realy crazy about 3D, the 5010 is not worth the extra money.

Good luck

I just wanted to ask how you know the 5010 isn't worth it, did you grab a 5010 and make that decision? Just asking as I came from an 8700 to the 6010 and when the wife even says it throws a better picture, well, that's saying something.

I think you're going to feel the wrath of coderguy

You'll see a dramatic improvement when you paint the ceiling / walls dark. You'll see another dramatic improvement when you re-paint the screen with one of the DIY higher gain formulas ( MissisippiMan is the king here ) or use a commercial product like ScreenGoo.

Jonathan

The real question is: Is it worth an extra $1000 for the 5010 over the 8700UB?

Don't worry about size. I run a 153" Seymour Xd acoustically transparent screen and my 8500UB easily lights it up.

edit:

I did have a green push that was corrected with the color management controls, took a bit of tinkering but all looks great now. I'm happy with the overall brightness, color and blacks. No regrets and would do it again and have no qualms with recommending a 150"+ screen.
Edited by Crabalocker - 9/1/12 at 8:38pm

8700 vs 5010 at a $1000.00 difference. 8700 is the "Go to" choice. Truly a bargain at $1600 / $1700.00

But....if one can secure a 6010 at within $1200.00, then that would be worth it. buy a substantial margin.

Little chance of that though.......at present. But it's coming, brook no mistake.

Sony HW30ES is 2150$, isnt a better option?

From where ? Thanks.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=400318854543&item=400318854543&lgeo=1&vectorid=229466

Thanks domingos38. I'm wondering if the warranty on these are the same as from authorized stores ?

i think they are authorized dealers

I run a 5010 on a Seymour AV 152" acoustically transparent screen. I run it on Living Room and ECO. On Cinema mode, it is just too dim and this is in a room that is basically a dark blue-black cave with many black fabric acoustical panels all over the front half of the room to control light spill. I am even at the closest end of the throw distance to increase the lumens.

You are getting many varied opinions, but mine is that an 8500 or an 8700 is just not bright enough for a 150 screen size unless you have significant screen gain. The 5010 is also quieter than the 8700, in my experience, and that was also important to me.