or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Digital Projectors - Under $3,000 USD MSRP › Projector as a monitor
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Projector as a monitor

post #1 of 59
Thread Starter 
Greetings to everyone at this great forum.

I'm looking to purchase a projector which I'm planning to use primarily as a monitor. This is needed to negate two factors that, I think, are killing my deteriorating vision, namely near-work and looking directly into the light source. As it is, I'm not at all conserned about projector weight, dimensions and noise level. Refresh rate and color precision play only a minor part. Lumen output and contrast ratio are not critical as I can make a room as dark as needed. I do want the 1920x1080 resolution if possible, because I often work with large images and HD video, but I'm primarily concerned about the projector lifespan (I'd like to use it for about 8 hours a day if my eyes ever allow that) and the sharpness of the image it produces.

As far as I understand, when sticking to the 1920x1080 resolution and eliminating bulb-lit models because of their short lifespan, I only have the choise between the very dubious 3LED+3LCD based CRE X1000 from China and various not-quite-out-yet DLP based LED/Laser hybrids like Acer K750, ViewSonic PRO9000, Panasonic PT-RZ470K/W & PT-RZ370 and probably several other similar models I don't yet know about.

The choise in favor of LED/Laser DLP seems obvious as, being one chip based, they aren't going to have any misconvergence and are certainly produced with infinetely better quality control than the CRE. However, I'm alarmed by the reports about the short lifespan of DLP chips when used intensively. Here is one example. I've seen many other reports of DLP chip degradation starting after about 5000 hours of use, especially under high temperature conditions.

Can anyone confirm or disprove my suspicion or tell me about some other factors that are yet unknown to me? I'm especially interested in Bohanna's advice as he appears to have dealt with more projectors than anyone on this forum, so he probably has a better picture regarding their lifespan than most.
post #2 of 59
DLP's don't really degrade like the other two techs (LCD and LCOS), and they on average should last longer given an equal build quality. What can happen to a DLP is dust in the optics (very rare since closed optics), burnt parts, broken color wheels, electrical issues, stuff like that but it is not as common as LCD or LCOS having issues with say dust blobs or panel degradation. Projectors come with warranties anyhow, so not a huge concern, and you can always buy an extended warranty.

The main thing to worry about when using a projector as a monitor is SHARPNESS. If last year repeats itself, some of these DLP's might not have 1:1 pixel mapping, and it will be visible when using it with a PC as a monitor. I would wait until all the reviews are in on the newer 1080p LED projectors, but my thought is that you will spend too much anyhow until 2014 to get a 1080p LED cost-effectively cheap enough to cancel out the cost of buying extra lamps.

I would probably recommend the Benq w7000 because it is one of the sharpest cheaper DLP's, and then just budget for extra lamps. How long the lamps last will many times be a factor of how far the lamp dims, which becomes a factor of how bright it started out as. Some bulbs will just die, pop, or dim into oblivion suddenly. There isn't a lot of data on which bulbs last longer (LED obviously, but I mean with regular lamps). So it is a guessing game to what PJ's have the best lamps, but we kind of know what PJ's do NOT have the best lamps (JVC, Epson). If you want the absolute sharpest projectors, then you'd have to go with an older Samsung a900b (probably used still over $3500, but not sure), but these are LONG out of production, they were the sharpest PJ ever made (but the bulb cost would be a killer). There is also Runco models and a few other super sharp projectors, but for the most part these PJ's are all over $4000. In retrospect, I am not sure what the cost of the Benq lamps are. Some other projectors you could look at would be VERY bright DLP projectors (Optoma th1060p, Benq sp910), the lamps might last longer but they do have more RBE with the 3x color wheel than say a Benq w7000.

Keep in mind that you only have to worry about the Rainbow Effect (RBE) with DLPs if you are one of the ones sensitive to it, but supposedly the Benq w7000 has a 6x speed color wheel in dynamic mode to all but eliminate it.
post #3 of 59
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Projectors come with warranties anyhow, so not a huge concern, and you can always buy an extended warranty.
So, I am supposed not to worry about the possible early fault and if it happens enjoy the process of mailing the defective unit to another country and waiting for indefinite time for it to be replaced/repaired? I don't live in the US, if that's what you think.
Quote:
The main thing to worry about when using a projector as a monitor is SHARPNESS. If last year repeats itself, some of these DLP's might not have 1:1 pixel mapping, and it will be visible when using it with a PC as a monitor.
Every DLP chip with native 1920x1080 resolution is going to have square 1:1 pixels.
Quote:
I would wait until all the reviews are in on the newer 1080p LED projectors, but my thought is that you will spend too much anyhow until 2014 to get a 1080p LED cost-effectively cheap enough to cancel out the cost of buying extra lamps. I would probably recommend the Benq w7000 because it is one of the sharpest cheaper DLP's, and then just budget for extra lamps.
What on Earth are you talking about?? Not counting lamp replacement, Benq w7000 costs more than the new LED/Laser Acer K750, which needs none. Regarding Benq w7000 being "one of the sharpest cheaper DLP's", where does that info come from?
post #4 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by B-2Admirer View Post

So, I am supposed not to worry about the possible early fault and if it happens enjoy the process of mailing the defective unit to another country and waiting for indefinite time for it to be replaced/repaired? I don't live in the US, if that's what you think.
Every DLP chip with native 1920x1080 resolution is going to have square 1:1 pixels.
What on Earth are you talking about?? Not counting lamp replacement, Benq w7000 costs more than the new LED/Laser Acer K750, which needs none. Regarding Benq w7000 being "one of the sharpest cheaper DLP's", where does that info come from?

I don't even know where to start with this. First off, why worry about what you cannot control, no-one knows exact failure rates, and the Benq is at least a seasoned design with a track record (but more importantly it is known to likely be sharper). You asked for help in this forum, then you just dispute everything I say. Why are you here if you already know the answers. Fact, yes some projectors have pixel mapping issues due to a scaling bug in the firmware, this included the Benq w7000, Acer 9500bd, and the Viewsonic Pro8200. (Benq and Acer fixed it with a firmware patch, Viewsonic appears to have ignored it and has done nothing).

PROOF: http://www.avsforum.com/t/1382091/jvc-rs-45-sony-hw30-benq-w7000-epson-5010-mini-shootout/2820#post_22170151 (also read the next 15 posts which go into utter detail on the problem).

PRICING FACT: I haven't seen pricing for the Acer K750 yet, but for the UK I saw this posting (UK later this month bearing a price tag of around £1,700 (approximately $2,650)). In the US, the w7000 often sells for just under $2000. That means you could buy 2 lamps + the lamp it comes with would be 3. That could be anywhere from 15,000+ hours worth of lamps, almost as much as the LED lamp MIGHT last. By the time the 1080P BUDGET LED's get mainstream, we often see FURTHER price drops on the regular DLP's after they are a year old (case in point you can sometimes get Benq w6000's for say $1200 now), one time it was even $1000. So then if I'm wrong, get a w6000 for even less and buy 3+ bulbs. Just because it is an LED lamp does not mean it is immune to blowing or dimming, it just means if EVERYTHING is working perfectly it could last 10x longer. The MFR lamp ratings are not a guarantee and this goes for both LED and regular UHP lamps.

Actually since you probably won't need 3D, if I were you I'd probably just get a Benq w6000 used and buy an aftermarket warranty, then you'll have enough to buy 5+ extra bulbs.

FACT: It is always risky buying the first design made by the budget manufacturers (and this include ACER 1080p LED's and Viewsonic and Optoma).

FACT: So far the budget LED projectors have not been as sharp as their regular DLP competitors (even 720p vs 720p). For whatever reason, this has held true, but it might change this year with the new LED's.

There are some really high-end LED projectors like Runco if you want to spend a fortune just to save on bulbs, it's like driving 50 miles to save $1.00 on gas.

Note: If you use your projector 40 hours per week, that is only 2080 hours per year. Some REGULAR BULBS can even last 2+ years at that rate, so if you had 5 bulbs, that's like 6-10 years, what is even the point of needing more, you'll most likely replace the PJ before the 3rd lamp.
Edited by coderguy - 9/24/12 at 2:34am
post #5 of 59
Thread Starter 
Quote:
I don't even know where to start with this. First off, why worry about what you cannot control, no-one knows exact failure rates, and the Benq is at least a seasoned design with a track record
In case you haven't noticed (and it looks like you haven't), my main question was about DLP chip lifespan. I even provided a link where a user reports "Sudden Burst Of Dead Pixels" after two months of use. That's by no means the only report I encountered, although the other were not in English, so I'm not providing them here. And no, it's not something I "cannot control" as long as I am free to choose projectors based on the technologies other than DLP.
Quote:
(but more importantly it is known to likely be sharper).
Known by whom? Sharper than what?
Quote:
You asked for help in this forum, then you just dispute everything I say.
When I asked for help, I didn't know it meant I would have to agree with everything I would be told, which is apparently what you are implying by your comments.
Quote:
PRICING FACT: I haven't seen pricing for the Acer K750 yet
Then see it. €1469.75 = $1909.2052 at computeruniverse.net. Like I said, cheaper than Benq w7000.
I won't comment on the rest of your post.
post #6 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by B-2Admirer View Post

In case you haven't noticed (and it looks like you haven't), my main question was about DLP chip lifespan

Your quote... and the sharpness of the image it produces...

Well everyone in this forum knows about DLP's with pixel mapping issues, it probably wont happen to these LED's, but still something to watch out for.

Regarding your other questions, the dead pixel issue is mostly prevalent on cheaper LOW-END DLP's like certain Acer and Optomas. The problem is RARE in $1000+ DLP's, but it could re-appear in these other slightly more expensive BUDGET 1080p LED's since they may have some of the same design. I am not saying don't buy an LED, just to wait for the reviews.

The Benq w6000 and w7000 has always been the sharpness leader for under $2500 in DLP's for the past few years. This info comes from people that test it in these forums (not to mention I've seen it myself), and nearly every PRO review ever written about the sharpness of the Benq w6000/w7000 v.s. cheaper DLP's. To get it sharper, you need to go to a Runco ,95" or similar high-end DLP (For the most part). Some Optomas were also about the same as the w6000 (but mostly higher-end Optomas like the hd8600).

The w6000 is much cheaper than that, and for that matter, the w7000 actually could be had for that same price not long ago. So far the reviewers that have seen nearly everyone of these DLP LED's (like Krane) has said they all seem to be a tad less sharp than their UHP DLP counterparts. That does not mean this next batch will be the same, who knows, so wait and see. Your asking questions before they've been out and tested. I don't think the difference would be a big deal except for your specific MONITOR usage, for video not a big deal most likely.

So far the sharpness trend continues into this year, because I know Krane (a professional reviewer from France) compared the Acer 9500bd and the new Acer LED, and he noted again the Acer 9500bd had better sharpness, whereas the LED had better color and contrast.

When it comes to longevity, DLP wins, but it is still on a case-by-case basis, because bad build quality = bad build quality, no matter what technology. For longevity though, DLP easily beats LCOS and LCD overall for reasons i already mentioned (DLP is unlikely to get dust blobs, DLP does not get panel burn, stuck pixels are rare, color wheels are very reliable these days).
....
Edited by coderguy - 9/23/12 at 8:30am
post #7 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by B-2Admirer View Post

In case you haven't noticed (and it looks like you haven't), my main question was about DLP chip lifespan. I even provided a link where a user reports "Sudden Burst Of Dead Pixels" after two months of use. That's by no means the only report I encountered, although the other were not in English, so I'm not providing them here. And no, it's not something I "cannot control" as long as I am free to choose projectors based on the technologies other than DLP.

Stuck mirrors on the DMD is fairly rare. It seems to be mostly limited to projectors using older chips (like the Acer 5360).

Like coderguy said, there are failure modes for all display technologies, and I'd say for your usage pattern (many hours in a row), LCOS and 3LCD are more likely to experience their usual failure modes (polarizer failure, panel burn etc.).


I own a portable LED projector because I didn't want to deal with bulbs, but for a 1080P projector, I would get one with a bulb at this time. The price difference is high enough between some 1080P projectors (the Viewsonic Pro8200 seems like a good solution even with the pixel mapping IMO), that you can buy more bulbs and the total cost of ownership will be lower by the time you're looking to replace it.

I figure 2014, or maybe even 2015 at the rate they're rolling them out is when LED 1080P projectors will make sense from a cost/TCO perspective.
post #8 of 59
As much as I believe the Pro8200 is ok in sharpness 90% of the time even with the pixel mapping issue, I cannot recommend it for everyday hardcore monitor usage (and that said as I am typing this message on a Pro8200). So yes it can be used like a monitor occassionally, but it cannot match a Benq w6000/w7000 for sharpness in PC mode.

For video, the Pro8200's sharpness is for the most part a non-issue, and even in MOST video games I'd say the same thing. However, for long-term reading, I'd really lean towards a Benq w6000 (or similar). Before someone comes a long and posts ("but the Pro8200 has no sharpness issue"). I agree compared to other PJ's in its price range, but the Benq DLP's are sharper.
Edited by coderguy - 9/23/12 at 9:17am
post #9 of 59
Thread Starter 
Well, since all DLP chips are made by Texas Instruments, their failures can be caused by the projector manufacturer only in case some of those provide inadequate cooling or inappropriate light source. But that would still mean the chips are very sensitive to the conditions of use.

Since Benq w6000 and w7000 are recommended, I want to ask two questions about those. 1) How many hours in a row they can be used (as far as I know, it's highly not recommended to use a lamp projector for more than 5 to 6 hours)? 2) In case there are the users of those models here, how many hours did they clock and did they ever had any failures (apart from lamp death that is).

And thanks for all the answers. If I don't agree with something, it doesn't mean I don't appreciate that smile.gif
post #10 of 59
Now I am using the pro8200 as computer monitor myself. I did buy a NEW pro8200 with much later firmware than Coderguy who bought a refurb way before I got my NEW unit. For me, the picture is very sharp, top to bottom, left to right. Other model PJ's have sharp image in center of picture but at edges can be blurry.

Coderguy and I watch the pro8200 all day 8-12 hours a day , no problems. Just make sure you have room on sides of PJ for ventilation.

It could be Coderguy's refurb is not that sharp, but mine is. Also, read projectorreviews.com review of pro8200, because Art. F. seems to think, like I do, the pro8200 doesn't suffer from sharpness issue, instead, it is PRO8200's selling point. smile.gif

Now in comparision, the benq w6000 which coderguy is thinking of getting, is selling for 1,900 dollars new and I can't find any refurbs in stock. Has 1 year warranty, and doesn't give bulb hours , which is unusual , so does it get 1,000 hours on bulb, or 3, 000 hours , or 5,000 hours, it's not on benq site or any review I read. And bulb replacement is 330 dollars. So who knows how many hours on bulb. Whereas the pro8200 has 6,000 hours on eco with 200 dollars for bulb replacement with 3 year warranty for 700-799 price.

Hopefully Coderguy will get refurb w6000 for good price and will be happy with the sharpness and gets long bulb hours. Will Coderguy watch as many hours a day on the w6000 as with the pro8200, I don't think so. But I will let him answer that one. smile.gif
post #11 of 59
I had other members verify the pixel mapping issue on the Pro8200, so its not just my unit with older firmware (I haven't had someone check with the absolute latest firmware, but there is no indication that Viewsonic changed the pixel mapping). I am not getting a Benq w7000 or w6000. I didn't say the Pro8200 wasn't sharp for its price range, it's just that the Benq w7000 is sharper. The w7000 is also even sharper than my JVC. The w7000 pretty much looks close to an LCD monitor (and you can't judge sharpness unless you've owned multiple projectors). The Pro8200 is a good unit for its price, but I am just saying if he has the money then the Benq is better for his uses. I don't know why you give me blow back every time I say a projector is better at something, I do that to all projectors (not just the Pro8200).

@B2-Admirer
For reliability, we are going more by experience rather than what some document or test says. I mean I know I've beat the heck out of my DLP's, I left the Pro8200 on for 3 days straight and never had an issue. I leave it on more than 8 hours all the time. This is not an issue with a well designed DLP, it is much more an issue with an LCOS or LCD projector. It's not possible for me to give an averaged number in my head how many hours people had on DLP's specifically, but I will say this, when a DLP ages it still looks like new, and this isn't often the case with LCD's or LCOS. Again, for longevity you cannot beat a DLP.

If I had to guess on the most reliable DLP, it would be the Mitsubishi hc4000 (and this is only because I have seen very few posts about any failures in this entire forum on it). That said, I would still get the Benq over the MIts to use it as a 24/7 monitor, because the Benq is a bit sharper for text. The Benq's appear to somewhat reliable, but I wouldn't say they are the most reliable (but that is really impossible to determine). I know some people have gotten 4000+ hours on a Benq w6000 before, but I've seen some people on older Mits's get 8000 hours out of one lamp (but that lamp had to be super DIM by then).

I would also say the Pro8200 has very good build quality for the low-cost price that it is.
Edited by coderguy - 9/23/12 at 3:04pm
post #12 of 59
Coderguy, did you call viewsonic about this issue? People that had pixel mapping issue with the benq W7000 did call, and it was fixed, with version 1.03 firmware. If viewsonic is aware of the issue they can update the firmware, like benq did. Since you are the person who noticed the problem, could you call viewsonic tech and bring their attention to the issue.

I'm asking Coderguy to call viewsonic, because he can share the tests he used to show the problem to tech support. If I called I wouldn't know which tests or equipment to use to determine it. You could speak "tech" to the people at viewsonic. I like the sharpness of the pro8200, but if it can be better I'm all for it. Also, viewsonic tech could say, turn off "such and such" feature and pixel mapping will be right. I don't know, but at least call Viewsonic to investigate the problem , I don't see why they wouldn't put out a fix via firmware. Maybe they already did.
post #13 of 59
I just don't have time to mess with it right now, and I know how much trouble Forum members went through with Acer (Benq was easier), but Zombie had a contact at Benq because he went through AVS.
I do not have any contacts at Viewsonic and I am 90% sure if I call their tech support they will lend a deaf ear, and I already have 2 deaf ears on my own head smile.gif
It doesn't help that my projector is not under warranty (anyone that calls them needs the PJ to be under warranty).

It took 5 people (mainly 2-3 primary) hammering ACER on the issue for months and them posting bad reviews at sites, then they finally commented on it, then some of them waited months for their projector to come back with the new firmware. I am moving onto a 3D DLP hopefully soon, if I can figure out which one (just waiting to see what comes out this year). There are plenty of long-term owners of the Pro8200 that still are under warranty that can do the test, it's not a hard test.
post #14 of 59
I'm not saying anyone should believe me about anything. Just read the pro reviews (projectorreviews.com) , and user reviews on amazon and the dedicated forum room for the PJ you are thinking of getting. Trust me, you will find sharpness problems with the w7000 in the forum rooms and with other models. Just read them.

Coderguy is just one guy, and a good guy, but my point in most of my posts is, research it from all sides, then get the model that seems right for you. People have not complained about sharpness in our pro8200 room in the last 9 months since I have been reading in that room, except for Coderguy (maybe there is someone else, but , I don't remember if there is, it is just not something that people on the whole complain about).

Now sometimes when someone first gets the pro8200 it is very bright, and takes times to tame the bulb. So we tell new people it gets better once you put hours on the bulb. Buy whatever you want, just research it and don't go by just one person, put it all together. Now, on any subject or device there are always a few people that don't like the product or have problems with it. But if 80-90 percent like it or give 4 or 5 stars and get's good pro review and forum room on the whole is very positive, that is good sign.

Look in the benq w7000 or other rooms, and just READ.

Then go read mits hc4000 and mits hc3800 room and JUST READ.

Then make up your own mind.

Also, in this economy, if I can save 1,000 or 2,000 dollars buying something that is good for what I need to do, you better believe I will buy it over something 2,000 dollars more. smile.gif
post #15 of 59
Here we go again. I am not complaining about the sharpness, I am putting it into a perspective people can gauge.

I have seen and OWNED these projectors, I'm sorry but you continue referring to reviews to try to discredit info I provided, which DIRECTLY conflict with the OPEN TESTS which I showed in the forums, because apparently you can't handle the FACT that a $650 projector does NOT produce as good or as sharp an image as the more expensive models. Art comments on projectors based on their price range, when he says it's sharp, he was talking about for the price (go read his POST in the FORUMS when I specifically asked him why he didn't check for the pixel mapping issue, he specifically said he would but at the sub $1000 price he didn't see it as a big deal).

I have ALWAYS qualified my statement to say that the Viewsonic Pro8200 is about as sharp as any LCD projector out there, but falls short of the sharper DLP's in a slightly higher price range.

Zombie's reviews also conflicted with Art's reviews, on 3D ghosting, pixel mapping, etc... Furthermore, I am not the only that has noticed pixel mapping issues on projectors. That is complete nonsense. Several forum members PM'd me about the pixel mapping issue. These cheaper projectors are not as CRITICALLY reviewed as the more expensive ones (that's just a fact).
Edited by coderguy - 9/23/12 at 9:16pm
post #16 of 59
I am just disagreeing with you, and I am doing it in nice way.
One time I did say something about review on newegg, thinking if might have come from you. For that I was sorry. Not for other stuff bro. I am doing the opposite as you, I am not passing myself off as anyone, I am just recommending people read the pro reviews, the user reviews on amazon, and the dedicated forum room for the PJ they are thinking of buying.
You can come down on me all you want. I'm not mad at you, but I may not always agree with how you weight stuff, like on this sharpness issue. That is all. Now , if I was to have "review" site, it would gather together in one place, the pro reviews, the user reviews and issues people talk about in forum room. Your approach is different. So what? Why can't we be "rouper and elbert" , just like movie reviewers have 2 sides. That is how I feel about it. I want people to see your point of view and mine and then look at pro reviews and amazon user reviews and forum posts.
post #17 of 59
rgtaa have you done a 1:1 pixel test? If not then your points on the sharpness are not scientific but based on perception. Coderguy has run the 1:1 test and found shading going on same issue that the W7000 and H9500BD had. Watching movies it will not stick out at all. Desktop viewing it shows when up close and will see the shade on letters etc, the larger the screen the more visible it becomes. So the question is are you purely perception testing or have you ran a 1:1 pixel test image?

To the OP and DLP lamp use over 5-6 hours I did over 6 hours use routinely with my first gen Mitsubishi DLP TV, Mitsubishi HD1000U projector and now a H9500BD projector all DLP tech.
post #18 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by rgtaa View Post

Why can't we be "rouper and elbert" , just like movie reviewers have 2 sides. That is how I feel about it. I want people to see your point of view and mine and then look at pro reviews and amazon user reviews and forum posts.

It's more about are we providing accurate information in this forum. I don't mind you commenting, but it's a little frustrating to keep reading the same comment about "Just Coderguy, Only him, No One Else". Maybe reword how you respond to it, because maybe you can say you are happy with the sharpness but never compared to it to a Benq w7000.

The 1:1 pixel mapping test is easy to do. As far as sharpness on other DLP's, the w7000 does not have a sharpness issue after the new FIRMWARE, there are always going to be a few people posting about some issue they had (usually bad HDMI setup or some broken lens assembly), or some issue with a specific unit. However, there is a big difference between a QC issue that can appear on a unit and an inherent firmware issue that exists on every unit, and the misinformation here is that you are clouding them together (and it's not the same).
Edited by coderguy - 9/23/12 at 9:48pm
post #19 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by rgtaa View Post

I am doing the opposite as you, I am not passing myself off as anyone, I am just recommending people read the pro reviews,

I do not mean to get mad, but it just gets old to read every post if I recommend anything other than the Pro8200 I gotta read a post that says "Only Coderguy".

Compared to LCD's of yesteryear, I have no complaints about the Pro8200 sharpness, but for reading small text in HTPC, surely I would prefer the Benq w7000 for this one application. The Benq costs 3x as much and is known as the sharpest sub $2,500 DLP, so this isn't really a shock to anyone.
Edited by coderguy - 9/23/12 at 9:49pm
post #20 of 59
Coderguy
Here is the thread where you discuss this. I did try to look for the problem but it does screw up my eyes watching that close to screen. Like going up the hctv and looking at screen from 5 inches from screen.

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1298652/viewsonic-pro8200-it-exists/570#post_22078206

People can read a few pages that goes into it after post 570.

Funny , this issue comes up 2 x's this week in two different threads, and Coderguy and me disagreeing about how "bad" it is. Maybe bringing awareness to this is a good thing, because I don't believe in that thread people agreed or disagreed that I can remember at the time.
post #21 of 59
You have no frame of reference of other projectors in how to judge the issue and you are making adamant statements about it based on reviews that are almost never correct about sharpness anyways (because the reviewers even openly admitted they didn't actually test the sharpness, they eye-balled it quickly from memory and snapped a pic at an uneven angle and distance). They didn't even run any patterns or sharpness tests.

I am not going to re-hash this again, I'm done with this topic, it''s filed in the archives. Just do me a favor when you give your opinion and stop saying "Only Coderguy", that gets really old. It would be better if you give your opinion without questioning MY OPINION every time you do it.

If I thought the problem was so bad, then I wouldn't have put 2,500 happy hours on the Pro8200 watching it, but that does not mean when someone specifically asks to use a PROJECTOR as a MONITOR I will tell them to use a projector with a pixel mapping error.
Edited by coderguy - 9/23/12 at 10:14pm
post #22 of 59
I just re-read the 2 or 3 pages from the last link I gave. It also shows I was frustrated in trying to do the test. Maybe others can do it, because back then, you and me were going back and forth , and it didn't seem anyone else was doing the test.

As to generic threads comparing the models and saying hc4000 is better than pro8200 in these areas I don't have problem with that. Coming into dedicated pro8200 forum room and saying it, is different. I would not go into dedicated hc4000 thead and say pro8200 is step up. You did that in pro8200 thread last week and said hc4000 is step up. Our views are different, because I put more value on price, warranty length, lumens, bulb hours, bulb replacment costs, internal speakers, input/outputs and using PJ in multiple lighting environments than you do. So in some ways the hc4000 is better and in some ways not. That has always been my view.
post #23 of 59
I rarely ever said that in the Pro8200 thread (maybe one time when someone specifically asked me about if it would be a STEP UP, well they asked my opinion).

Again, the problem here is not that you give your opinions contradictory to mine about the Pro's of the Viewsonic Pro8200 (Lame Pun Intended), the problem is misquoting me, which is why I am them forced to not ignore the post or else you try to make me look like the guy that is posting invalid information. If you are going to comment on my opinion, then be sure you get my opinion right the first time and stop re-wording my quotes to benefit your "attack argument".

For christ sakes, I am the one that defended the Pro8200 to the grave after so many negative posts about it's quirky firmware (which was so overblown and showed how lazy people have become, wow cannot change one setting with 2 clicks of a remote on a powerup, amazing).

I have the same view about the Mits hc4000, and I have owned both. The hc4000 is ONLY a slight step up in PQ (black levels mainly) because it is in a slightly higher price category, and maybe BARELY in HTPC (but not really due to its focus uniformity). The hc4000's focus uniformity was almost as big of an issue in HTPC as the Pro8200's pixel mapping (depends on what text you are reading, I'd give it about a tie, maybe put the Mits at 8.0 sharpness and VS at 7.5). That is only because the MIts hc4000 has less ringing in video when applying sharpness filters (similar to the Epson 5010). The thing the hc4000 does have going for it is a bit more refined features (ability to do CIH, easier to calibrate - not that it really matters much given how good the Pro8200's default COLOR is). The Mits also has a bit more POP due to higher On/Off.

The Viewsonic is way brighter and has almost NO RBE, I will recommend the two projectors based on different user requests. They are two different projectors for two different room setups and screen sizes IMHO.
Edited by coderguy - 9/23/12 at 10:19pm
post #24 of 59
I do accept what you just wrote.
Where are we at odd's exactly?

Now in this thread, I don't know enough from the OP, what he wants exactly. Maybe he could share room size, lighting conditions. How far back from screen he will be, etc. And what degree of sharpness he needs. If the pro8200 has about the same sharpness as epson's 5010 flagship model that is considered a good PJ, many times more than pro8200. The pro8200 could work for him. If he has at home a special Dell 1,000 dollar PC monitor that has super fine resolution, than yeah, maybe he needs 3,000 dollar super duper PJ. But if he has regular hdtv at home for pc use, like I do, and is looking to use PJ as computer screen and wondering about how many hours he can leave it on, and if it is blurry or sharp. Maybe we need more feedback.
Does that make sense?
Same with the other thread, on this issue, is the pro8200 so un-sharp that the person shouldn't buy it? You saying it has this problem, he never came back, did he decide not to buy the pro8200 based on that? So I was coming from that viewpoint, make it clear, the pro8200 is not a LEMON, and holds it's own compared to other PJ's in this price point, and also good compared to models many other people think are great PJ's like the epson 5010. So, I was thinking context.
post #25 of 59
Because of like 10 misquotes, and where we are specifically at odds is that we've beat this thing to death and we keep re-beating the dead horse, so much so that both of us are covered in horse blood.
More expensive projectors produce sharper and more contrasty images, the extra money is worth it if someone has money to spend (or burn).

The Benq has enough added sharpness in HTPC over both the Mits hc4000 and the Pro8200, that it serves a more LCD-Monitor like sharpness to the image which is easier on the eyes for long-term PC usage like browsing.
post #26 of 59
People can read what I wrote in this thread and what you wrote. And come to any viewpoint they want on the issue. Whatever gets the OP to get the right PJ for him, that is what we both want. If a 799 PJ can rock his boat fine, if a 2,000 dollar PJ does it for him, fine. I don't see any problem. I was sharing my actual user experience with the pro8200 for PC use, and you shared your viewpoint. And others shared their viewpoint. The forum works. If I said something to offend you , Coderguy, it was not done on purpose. In my note to you , I didn't say I wouldn't speak my peace, just try to speak it in nicer way, if I could. And I did try to be respectful in this thread. But I guess from your response , it didn't work. Too bad you feel that way.
post #27 of 59
You keep directly bringing my results into question over and over and over again in every thread. The proper way of questioning is to ask someone for the test results, methodology they used, whatever, then to move on. Not to continually bring the same tired and unfounded arguments up over and over again after testing has already proved a result. It's just not a discussion I want to have again, it's not about offending me, it just gets tiresome defending the arguments in every single thread. You have absolutely a zero basis of testing for placing the sharpness of this projector other than what third-party reviews said. If third-party PRO reviewers were so great and accurate, then we would not need this forum. In this forum, we as much as possible try to keep it based on facts and testing, not conjecture.

You have to be careful about continually misquoting to strengthen an argument all while continually refuting someone's test results without any proof at all. This is AV-Science, not "this guy has a web site and is a pro reviewer so he must be right", it's about testing and facts. Subjectivity has a role when the testing and facts are not available, introducing subjectivity against test results is unnecessary and just creates pollution in the forum. If someone wants to step up with their own test results and show otherwise, then I welcome those debates. I don't however welcome conjecture and substructured arguments based on third parties that didn't even test it.

If we cannot even run such a simple test without having to defend such a simplistic result over 50 threads in repetition, then what is the point. You own the Pro8200 and have an obvious BIAS, and that is your right to state an opinion, but please keep owner's bias in check so those of us trying to provide NON-BIAS data from OBJECTIVE testing can at least post our results without being harassed about it.
Edited by coderguy - 9/24/12 at 2:18am
post #28 of 59
Thread Starter 
First of all, could anyone please answer the following questions:
1) How is the overall brightness regulated in lamp-based projectors? By changing the current that flows through the UHP lamp, I presume, but I'm still asking to confirm.
2) At what frequency do the micromirros of a DLP chip toggle when generating grayscales? That's a very important question.
3) What is the speed of the color wheel in BenQ W7000, ViewSonic PRO8200 and Mitsubishi HC4000?

coderguy,
Quote:
I am not saying don't buy an LED, just to wait for the reviews.
That would be sensible. Do you know people who are planning to review Acer K750 and/or ViewSonic PRO9000 and compare it with BenQ W7000 that you recommend? To my [not so experienced] eye, ViewSonic PRO9000 looks like a unit with a good optical system, so I would expect it to fare good in terms of image sharpness.
Quote:
So far the reviewers that have seen nearly everyone of these DLP LED's (like Krane) has said they all seem to be a tad less sharp than their UHP DLP counterparts.
I don't think all the LED models have worse optics, so perhaps it's because Laser/LED light is bluish compared to the light of a UHP lamp? Except for those who have perfect vision, people tend to perceive objects in reddish light as sharper (I do). Whatever the reason is, it's defenitely something to take into consideration.

rgtaa,
Regarding lighting conditions and distance from the screen, I would try to ajust them so that the viewing is most comfortable (I can more or less move the furniture as I see fit). The room size is about 4.7x3.3 meters.
post #29 of 59
Maybe I see what you are saying, I made the statement, " Funny , this issue comes up 2 x's this week in two different threads, and Coderguy and me disagreeing about how "bad" it is. Maybe bringing awareness to this is a good thing, because I don't believe in that thread people agreed or disagreed that I can remember at the time."

Your response was:
What gets annoying is you keep misquoting me saying "I think it is so bad", NO I never said that, and that is disturbing when you keep misquoting what I said.


I wasn't quoting you when I used the term "bad". Just that we disagreed how much of a problem it was from our perspectives. Obviously, we see this issue differently, and that is all I was implying. I was not quoting you or me with the "bad" word in that comment I made. OK?
Is that the example you used as "misquoting you"?

Now, if I had said, "Coderguy thinks the the problem is so bad" then yeah, I would be misquoting you. You didn't say that, in fact you take great pains in trying to present a good and balanced view of the situation. Our disagreement is purely if someone should not buy pro8200 over sharpness issue, and I think we both think, it depends on person asking and how important sharpness is, and if epson5010 sharpness is good enough or , super sharp is what they are after at higher price point.

Let's not beat dead horses, but have fun in doing the viewpoint stuff.
post #30 of 59
We don't get paid in AVS to do this, so when people make it so hard to post findings, it makes others not want to post their findings, and it just dilutes the data. This forum has already had much less activity from user reviews than it did in the past for this very reason. No matter what someone says, someone will get offended because they own the device and try to refute someone's findings without any good evidence, other than the FACT they are on a mission to get more people to buy the same projector they bought.

The purpose of this forum is not to steer people to buying the same thing you buy, it's to steer them to the best value for their requests. You will learn that eventually, I recommend all the different projectors for different scenarios, for the most part you only recommend one projector and you do it over and over again regardless of what a user's scenario or usage really is.
Edited by coderguy - 9/24/12 at 3:21am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Digital Projectors - Under $3,000 USD MSRP › Projector as a monitor