Official Sony VPL-HW50ES Owners Thread - Page 5

How HW50ES would perform 2.35:1 with Radiance Mini?

It would still be necessary to use the manual adjustment?

That does say a lot considering he had an X55 that he is reviewing now. Unless of course the HW50ES is just going to be primarily a 3D projector which everyone who's had it thus far has loved if for 3D even though a small amount of crosstalk is still present.

Exactly and I won't buy the JVC for me, but I have order the HW50

3D is nice, but 90% of movie watching is 2D. I'm coming from super sharp DLP (Benq). How sharp is the HW50ES? Does the new RC algorithm bring it to DLP sharpness?
These are questions I would like answered.
The lack of lens memory or powered lens shift/focus/zoom could be a deal breaker for me. Someone else asked about using a processor to adjust aspect ratios. That would help, if it would work well... Has anyone experimented with the Sonys and a Lumagen?
Thanks.

I can say that most people coming from the razor sharp single chip DLP camp (including me: owned Benq w5000, Infocus 8602, ect) have had no issue with going to different tech and enjoying a very sharp picture. The only thing that I heard that was not so great about the 30es was the lens and it's the same lens as the 50....

However, going by all the reviews it seems that the Sony is sharp and thus far no negative comments on sharpness..........but that could be just RC doing it's thing..........we will need someone to post single pixel patterns with RC OFF to see if the sharpness is really better without RC. If your undecided, just wait for Zombie to get his unit and he'll test it out good and proper!

Also, I can atest to what a great device the darbee is. It seems to be doing something similar to Sony RC, and it makes the image POP. The details just jump off the screen now. I've had the darbee over a week and I'm still impressed with the detail and picture I'm getting out of my Epson 5010. Everyone owes it to themselves to at least try out a darbee.

One thing that I thought about is that the Sony 30 + darbee = 50es

[quote name="conan48"
One thing that I thought about is that the Sony 30 + darbee = 50es [/quote]

I had the same thought except for the increased light output of the 50es.
Maybe a high-power screen needs to be in the equation also?

Are you saying the HW50ES is going to be a 2D projector for you as well? Are the black levels closed to the X30/RS45?

2D is the king, but I do watch a bit of animated titles and the percentage of available titles in 3D is growing. My biggest question is how much contrast will I be sacrificing going from an RS45 to a HW50ES? I really like the lens memory and I'll definitely miss it but it's not a deal breaker for me. I have read that the outer portion of the screen isn't as sharp on the 30ES but out of 2 full reviews and 1 preview the HW50ES is getting glowing reviews as far as the RC is concerned. Maybe it's a Darbee, maybe not. In any event I'll be doing one of the other after hearing all the hype.

I had the same thought except for the increased light output of the 50es.
Maybe a high-power screen needs to be in the equation also?[/quote]

Don't forget the black levels have improved as well. Putting a high power screen into the mix will assist in brightness but you'll also take a drop in black levels as well by doing this.

Lumagen VPs can do CIH without an A-lens and switch ARs with a single button push. There has even been a recent firmware update to make it easier to set up. The only downside is 16:9 is downscaled to fit the screen, so there is a loss of resolution and brightness compared to zooming. The Lumagen scaling is excellent, however, with very little quality loss.

Another option would be to use an Oppo BD player which can do the same thing (for that source only, of course).

Kind of OT so more questions should probably go to the CIH forum or take it to PMs.

That isn't entirely true. What they do is vertically stretch an image to fill the whole frame. While you could technically call that CIH you still need an anamorphic lens to stretch the image horizontally to get the correct geometry of the image. Without the anamorphic lens everything gets vertically elongated and will look odd.

No, 2.35 material is zoomed to fit the screen just like using the zoom method. Then the Lumagen shrinks (downscales) 16:9 material in both directions so the proper geometry is maintained and it fits on a 2.35:1 screen (black bars on the sides).

Of course it also does what you are saying with the addition of an A-lens.

I'm confused. If you're zoomng to fill a 2.35:1 screen doesn't the geometry stay the same? Why would the lumagen need to shrink the image?

The Lumagen shrinks the 16:9 image otherwise it would overspill off the top and bottom of your screen. It makes 16:9 content approx 1400 x 800 resolution, which is fine for menus and trailers as I found before I bought a lens myself. When you watch 2.35:1 you use a 1:1 pixel mapped setting. In both cases you are leaving unused pixels around the image, but it's an instant change by pressing the button on the Lumagen remote, much quicker than any lens memory zoom or even a cineslide.

Okay, I totally missed the part about 1.78:1 content. I was assuming the content had black bars. Whenever I see the term "CIH" I assume 2.35 or 2.40 material. My bad.

This is a pretty nifty feature if you want to fill your entire 2.35:1 screen no matter the aspect ratio.
Edited by Seegs108 - 10/14/12 at 11:18am

You don't fill you 2.35:1 screen with 16:9 content using this method as it has side bars (as it should) to maintain the correct proportions. The main thing is that all the image fits on the screen so you can see all the menus, etc.

If you have a lens then using a Lumagen (or any other device with a vertical stretch) you can watch 16:9 content filling a 2.35:1 screen, but effectively the top and bottom are cropped off. I once accidently watched 'Valkerie' like this and only found out afterwards.

VLC player has useful AR settings 16:9 to 221:1 or 2:35 or 2:39.

To do this it either has to crop and/or stretch parts of the image to achieve this, so not really an option for me, YMMV as they say.

I just got on the pre order list for the HW50. Thanks Mike. Now the waiting begins.

The 50 was really my first choice. I think Sony missed the mark with their limited lens throw however. It really narrows down the placement. 2.0 would have sealed the deal for me. Too bad.

A 2.0 lens and motorized controls would have made this a buy for me.

Thanks. I already got Radiance Mini3D, but an AR lens would mean almost $6K.

In other words, more than this puppy (HW50ES).

Can the lamp of HW50ES be used in HW30?

I know HW50's lamp has a different model name, but is its physical size different from that of HW30 lamps? Are they compatible? If yes, I suppose I can use it on HW30 to get the extra lumin

I don't think the extra lumens are from a change in lamp, rather it is from an optimization of the light/optical pathway.

A zoom ratio lens of 2.0 would have considerable light transmission loss going from short to long and one way or another would have raised the price beyond the competitive target market of the projector. Better to just say for a small segment of the market, sorry this won't fit your needs. A better bitch would be that the lens zoom ratio should have been a tad higher allowing a throw of up to 2.4 or 2.5 rather than wanting a JVC zoom ratio lens going from 1.4 to 2.8.

My case exactly. This PJ would be perfect with a lens memory function. But then I wouldnt have to buy their higher priced model when it becomes available...


Stef.

I NEED the throw range of the JVC for my setup. I also dont want to do without a motorized lens doing the zoom method on my CIH screen which means the Sony is out. Looks awesome otherwise for my needs.

I checked both manuals and the lamp called for by both the 30 and 50 is the LMP-202

How is the native contrast on the HW50? I don't use auto irises, because I always "see" them, and I'm pretty happy with my 6500ub at the moment. BUT, I did have an HW30 for a little bit, and the native black level of the Epson was actually a little bit better than the Sony HW30. Has anyone checked native black levels of the HW50, or do all pretty much use the auto iris?