AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP › Official Sony VPL-HW50ES Owners Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Official Sony VPL-HW50ES Owners Thread - Page 42

post #1231 of 1865
1/31/13 at 5:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveR1952 View Post

I have been keeping up with this and the other various threads on this PJ as well as several others.

A question for you guys that have seen both of these PJs: Sony 50ES and JVC RS48 or RS4810

Which one would work out best in the following conditions?

Media room with dark walls and carpet but light ceiling...no windows...dedicated room (more or less).
Room size is 16X18X10 feet.
Screen will be a white 1.0-1.4 gain 2.40 aspect. (Still debating this one)
Throw about 15-16 feet.

Seating distance 10-12 feet

Mostly movies...we will have a decent LCD TV in the Great Room so TV is not a priority on this one.
3D will be only a novelty...I find it makes me get motion sick and gives me a headache very quickly so it will be a very low priority.
Sports...only very infrequently. TV only for very special stuff or maybe Dish movies on HD.

No anamorphic lens.

My priority is a great movie experience.

Thanks

That's going to be a tough call. I'll give my opinion but it's probably nothing that anyone else hasn't stated already. It sound like 2D movie watching is your priority.

The JVCs are going to have the better black levels and contrast. I have the RS45 (haven't tried selling it yet but plan on it very soon) and the HW50 and despite what reviewers say the difference is noticeable. I have a 119" screen with a 17.5' throw onto a Dalite HP screen. I am also only about 9' from the screen.

On the flip side the question is will you use frame interpolation? If so you'll find that with FI motion is a bit smoother on the Sony and this really makes a difference. Also, the RC on the Sony make the image a bit sharper than what I am seeing on my JVC. My assumption is that this will be true of the RS48 as well. Reviewers noted that e-shift gives similar sharpness on the RS4810 to Sony's RC and if true that might make the difference with the RS4810 worth the upgrade. I wouldn't have said that several months ago before I received my HW50. The image is also cleaner on my HW50 than it was on my RS45.

So if I were only concerned about 2D picture quality and if I didn't use FI, then I would likely choose the RS48 or RS4810 over the HW50 merely because contrast will be better. However, being one that uses FI the smoothness of motion in combination with RC makes a nice improvement over the JVCs (but the assumption is the RS4810 will display similar sharpness to the Sony). The Sony is also brighter which might be a consideration if you have a larger screen.

Lastly, if your only viewing of 3D is in the theater you might find 3D in home projection different. I've had friends who were turned off to 3D only to like it much better even when viewing on my RS45 with all the issues it displayed with 3D and the Sony is MUCH better in comparison.

Good luck in whatever you choose!
Reply
Reply

Gear mentioned in this thread:

post #1232 of 1865
1/31/13 at 6:33pm
xb1032,
Thank you for taking the time to do the full response to my question. I am not sold any either yet...still evaluating my options so all data is good data at this point.
Reply
Reply
post #1233 of 1865
1/31/13 at 7:12pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by xb1032 View Post

That's going to be a tough call. I'll give my opinion but it's probably nothing that anyone else hasn't stated already. It sound like 2D movie watching is your priority.

The JVCs are going to have the better black levels and contrast. I have the RS45 (haven't tried selling it yet but plan on it very soon) and the HW50 and despite what reviewers say the difference is noticeable. I have a 119" screen with a 17.5' throw onto a Dalite HP screen. I am also only about 9' from the screen.

On the flip side the question is will you use frame interpolation? If so you'll find that with FI motion is a bit smoother on the Sony and this really makes a difference. Also, the RC on the Sony make the image a bit sharper than what I am seeing on my JVC. My assumption is that this will be true of the RS48 as well. Reviewers noted that e-shift gives similar sharpness on the RS4810 to Sony's RC and if true that might make the difference with the RS4810 worth the upgrade. I wouldn't have said that several months ago before I received my HW50. The image is also cleaner on my HW50 than it was on my RS45.

So if I were only concerned about 2D picture quality and if I didn't use FI, then I would likely choose the RS48 or RS4810 over the HW50 merely because contrast will be better. However, being one that uses FI the smoothness of motion in combination with RC makes a nice improvement over the JVCs (but the assumption is the RS4810 will display similar sharpness to the Sony). The Sony is also brighter which might be a consideration if you have a larger screen.

Lastly, if your only viewing of 3D is in the theater you might find 3D in home projection different. I've had friends who were turned off to 3D only to like it much better even when viewing on my RS45 with all the issues it displayed with 3D and the Sony is MUCH better in comparison.

Good luck in whatever you choose!

The JVC will have a better black level, but I don't know about on/off contrast. Considering the Sony is a lot brighter (100+ lumens calibrated) I would say they are probably very close to each other depending on the settings you use on either.
Reply
Reply
post #1234 of 1865
1/31/13 at 7:25pm
Well the JVC will have the higher intrascene contrast in darker scenes, regardless of absolute black level in an on/off reading. The on/off reading only tells us white to black rather than the intrascene ramp in actual viewing. Even on my Benq w7000, the intrascene ramp beats my Viewsonic, but the VS measures slightly higher or depending on calibration about the same on/off. I'm really starting to think some of these projectors intrascene's ramp does not match either the on/off or ANSI reading or any combination thereof, though suspiciously could be calibration and gamma variances, but it sure seemed to be more uppity than normal on the Benq as more stars came visible in a starfield, given how low the on/off reading is.

That said, you also have to consider how much more accurate the Sony color is across the sat tracking (at least compared to the RS-45),and the gamut errors on the Sony have less visible effect to the image than the JVC so I hear.

I think given the Sony has better color, better 3D, better brightness, better FI, better motion, and RC sharpening, I'd pick the Sony even after losing some black levels. It sounds like the more exciting projector this year.
Reply
Reply
post #1235 of 1865
1/31/13 at 7:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveR1952 View Post

I have been keeping up with this and the other various threads on this PJ as well as several others.

A question for you guys that have seen both of these PJs: Sony 50ES and JVC RS48 or RS4810

Which one would work out best in the following conditions?

Media room with dark walls and carpet but light ceiling...no windows...dedicated room (more or less).
Room size is 16X18X10 feet.
Screen will be a white 1.0-1.4 gain 2.40 aspect. (Still debating this one)
Throw about 15-16 feet.

Seating distance 10-12 feet

Mostly movies...we will have a decent LCD TV in the Great Room so TV is not a priority on this one.
3D will be only a novelty...I find it makes me get motion sick and gives me a headache very quickly so it will be a very low priority.
Sports...only very infrequently. TV only for very special stuff or maybe Dish movies on HD.

No anamorphic lens.

My priority is a great movie experience.

Thanks

I've had both these projectors side by side. If your sitting this close, the RS4810 should be a consideration. Mainly due to the e-shift vs. the reality creation.

The e-shift is a more subtle way of enhancing the PQ at a close seating distance vs. the reality creation process. The JVC has an analog 'film-like' appearance with the e-shift whereas the HW50 is a bit more digital. It still looks very good, I just have a preference for the e-shift process. A good BD transfer like the Dark Knight Rises looks great on both projectors.
Reply
Reply
post #1236 of 1865
1/31/13 at 10:16pm
Thank you all for sharing your experience and opinions. I does help those of us that are new to the "sport" and have no hands on experience with any of these models (or any projector in my case).

One aspect (no pun intended) of these projectors is the remote lens adjustment feature and lens memory in the JVC. I am not sure how much I will need to use it so it is hard to determine how important lens memory is or is not. My perception is that if you go 2.35 or so wide and want to fill the screen with other aspect ratios you would have to zoom the lens to make the image fit on the screen. Getting up on a ladder each time seems like a real pain.

Am I missing something here?
Reply
Reply
post #1237 of 1865
2/1/13 at 12:20am
You are generally correct. However, note that the only issue is really scaling 16:9 content on the 2.35 screen, hence if you always watched 2.35 movies it wouldn't matter which projector you purchased (but most of us do watch mixed ratios). The lens memory method does it without re-scaling, you are essentially just zooming down to a smaller 16:9 image, but you will be left with bars on the left and right when watching 16:9 content even with a projector that has lens memory like the JVC. When in 2.35 mode without an a-lens, you will still overshoot the top and bottom of the outside of the screen with black bars (because the lens is NATIVE 16:9), so some prefer outer-masking or if you have a black wall you are fine. The JVC is probably the best projector for 2.35 without an a-lens, because it has the darkest black bars on the overshoot.

You can also do a 16:9 re-scale with a lumagen or an HTPC on any projector that does not have the capability.

You can also buy a motorized screen and watch 2.35 and 16:9 natively with no bars ever (but it still requires motorized controls OR a Y pixel move solution), and this is because the screen aspect changes as you lower/raise it.
Edited by coderguy - 2/1/13 at 12:30am
Reply
Reply
post #1238 of 1865
2/1/13 at 12:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveR1952 View Post

Thank you all for sharing your experience and opinions. I does help those of us that are new to the "sport" and have no hands on experience with any of these models (or any projector in my case).

One aspect (no pun intended) of these projectors is the remote lens adjustment feature and lens memory in the JVC. I am not sure how much I will need to use it so it is hard to determine how important lens memory is or is not. My perception is that if you go 2.35 or so wide and want to fill the screen with other aspect ratios you would have to zoom the lens to make the image fit on the screen. Getting up on a ladder each time seems like a real pain.

Am I missing something here?

First decision needs to be what size screen will fit in your room. Most of the 2.35 / 16:9 screen comparisons (including the one on the front page of AVS right now) imply that you can get a bigger image from a 2.35 than a 16:9 screen. That is only true if you run out of height before you run out of width on your screen wall. In many/most rooms the wall has enough height to accommodate 2.35 and 16:9 screens of the same width resulting in the same size 2.35 image on both while limiting the the size of 16:9 or 4:3 content. There are also a small number of multiple aspect ratio films (like the last 2 Dark Knight films) where you cut off the top and bottom of the 16:9 content with a 2.35 screen.

If your room can fit both 2.35 and 16:9 screens of the same width, then going 2.35 is an aesthetic/personal choice. In that case you either want a projector with a lens that will rezoom/refocus between aspect ratios or an external scaler solution. The 'HTPC' solution will only work if all of your content goes through the HDTV to scale it down. I use a 16:9 screen with my ES50/HTPC and use the HTPC software to shift 2.35 content down to the bottom of the screen (no or very small black bar below it, large black bar above) to move it further away from ceiling reflections and more centered on eye level.
Reply
Reply
post #1239 of 1865
2/1/13 at 3:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BartMan01 View Post

First decision needs to be what size screen will fit in your room. Most of the 2.35 / 16:9 screen comparisons (including the one on the front page of AVS right now) imply that you can get a bigger image from a 2.35 than a 16:9 screen. That is only true if you run out of height before you run out of width on your screen wall. In many/most rooms the wall has enough height to accommodate 2.35 and 16:9 screens of the same width resulting in the same size 2.35 image on both while limiting the the size of 16:9 or 4:3 content. There are also a small number of multiple aspect ratio films (like the last 2 Dark Knight films) where you cut off the top and bottom of the 16:9 content with a 2.35 screen.

If your room can fit both 2.35 and 16:9 screens of the same width, then going 2.35 is an aesthetic/personal choice. In that case you either want a projector with a lens that will rezoom/refocus between aspect ratios or an external scaler solution. The 'HTPC' solution will only work if all of your content goes through the HDTV to scale it down. I use a 16:9 screen with my ES50/HTPC and use the HTPC software to shift 2.35 content down to the bottom of the screen (no or very small black bar below it, large black bar above) to move it further away from ceiling reflections and more centered on eye level.


My screen wall will be 16 feet wide and 10 feet tall. I plan on placing my tower speakers on the right and left of the screen along with a sub and a center channel under the screen. That would result in an effective total screen size of around 10-11 feet wide. Since I have no experience with HTPC or other scalers or projectors for that matter, I am just looking for the biggest bang for the buck that will allow me to do CIH with different aspect ratios on one screen. I am torn between a 16X9 or a 2.40 screen. My guess is I will need to have the PJ mounted and projecting on a wall to see the different aspect sizes to make a final decision. Also, I plan on mounting dark acoustc panels on the ceiling and on the adjacent walls near the screen, the screen wall is planned to be near black with the walls a dark (not black) grey but with an off white ceiling.
Reply
Reply
post #1240 of 1865
2/2/13 at 6:15am
^^^^Please post some pics of your room when done. I'm curious to see how the panels on the walls and ceiling near the screen look. Thanks!
Reply
Reply
post #1241 of 1865
2/2/13 at 8:06am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveR1952 View Post

My screen wall will be 16 feet wide and 10 feet tall.

Play around with sizes to see what suits you best. You will likely find that you reach your 'too big' point on 16:9/4:3 content and still have room on the sides to fit a 2.4 screen of the same height. If I had 16 feet of width with, I would consider an anamorphic lens solution like the Panamorph featured on the front page right now + my ES50 to maximize brightness and increase quality as opposed to a zoom lens. In your case, the need to put the speakers beside (as opposed to under or behind) the screen might limit you though.
Reply
Reply
post #1242 of 1865
2/2/13 at 8:39am
Has anyone experienced IR interference from the emitter. Last night while playing the Avengers 3D, my BDP 103 wouldn't respond to my remote unless I pointed it directly at the player. I use an sensor up front next to my Da-Lite screen. This is connected to an IR blaster in my rack via CAT 5. Everything works fine unless I'm playing a 3D disc. At first I thought the IR blaster was bad but it is fine.

I haven't tried adjusting the emitter which is mounted on top of the HW50. Thanks.
Reply
Reply
post #1243 of 1865
2/2/13 at 12:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by satfam View Post

Has anyone experienced IR interference from the emitter. Last night while playing the Avengers 3D, my BDP 103 wouldn't respond to my remote unless I pointed it directly at the player. I use an sensor up front next to my Da-Lite screen. This is connected to an IR blaster in my rack via CAT 5. Everything works fine unless I'm playing a 3D disc. At first I thought the IR blaster was bad but it is fine.

I haven't tried adjusting the emitter which is mounted on top of the HW50. Thanks.

Can your IR equipment do individual outputs? If so, the 103 has IR in plug in the back so you can just use a mini-to-mini cable and take the blaster out of the equation.
Reply
Reply
post #1244 of 1865
2/2/13 at 2:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by havok2022 View Post

Can your IR equipment do individual outputs? If so, the 103 has IR in plug in the back so you can just use a mini-to-mini cable and take the blaster out of the equation.

Yes, my IR hub has multiple outputs for up to 4 blasters. It is powered by a 12 volt power supply. I wasn't sure if I could use a mini to mini plug from the hub to the IR in without damaging the 103. The manual isn't clear on this but it does give a warning. Have you used this? Thanks.
Reply
Reply
post #1245 of 1865
2/2/13 at 3:14pm
Hey, I just bought an HW50, took some box opening shots but looks like there's plenty already. I do have one question about my unit. When I engage 3D mode, the projector emits a quiet yet noticeable squeal, like a high pitched noise. The noise is consistent while 3D is active, whether you manually turn it on, or start up a 3D movie/game and have the auto mode do it.
Is this normal for 3D or is my unit defective? It's a frequency that tends to blend in with the sound system after a few minutes and you don't notice it anymore, but the noise is still there.

Anyone else experience this?
Thanks!
Reply
Reply
post #1246 of 1865
2/2/13 at 3:25pm

Sorry, I know this is your first post, but did you try searching this thread for "3D buzz"?  The internal IR sensor emits a buzz when 3D mode is activated.  Depending on your serial number, Sony might send you an external emitter; otherwise, you'll have to buy it yourself or get another set of glasses that bypasses the internal emitter.

Reply
Reply
post #1247 of 1865
2/2/13 at 3:59pm
Thanks, I tried searching it for noise and squeal lol, should have tried 3D.
I'll check my serial number, I assume Sony then acknowledges this problem? I'll check the manual for some number I can phone to see if they will send me one.

Thanks!
Reply
Reply
post #1248 of 1865
2/2/13 at 8:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by satfam View Post

Has anyone experienced IR interference from the emitter. Last night while playing the Avengers 3D, my BDP 103 wouldn't respond to my remote unless I pointed it directly at the player. I use an sensor up front next to my Da-Lite screen. This is connected to an IR blaster in my rack via CAT 5. Everything works fine unless I'm playing a 3D disc. At first I thought the IR blaster was bad but it is fine.

I haven't tried adjusting the emitter which is mounted on top of the HW50. Thanks.
Sometimes while watching a 3D movie the IR bumps my Darbee up to max.
Reply
Reply
post #1249 of 1865
2/3/13 at 1:00am
Alignment option on HW50 have 20 steps up and down, what number is for one full pixel shift if anyone knows ?

TNX
Reply
Reply
post #1250 of 1865
2/3/13 at 1:09am
Does the convergence panel alignment affect picture quality in any bad way?
Reply
Reply
post #1251 of 1865
2/3/13 at 8:32am
Yes. Unless done in full one pixel steps, it costs you sharpness and resolution. Professional reviewers think that it may be next beneficial up to say a 1/4 pixel but more damaing than beneficial if used more than that. Many many users are not that critical, have screens that aren't that sharp, but they think they are, and doet willy nilly use the convergence to hide the problem of misconvergence from their eyes. Everyone can see misconvergence when putting up a white grid and standing close to the screen and everyone can hode it making the grid test pattern perfect but being oblivious to the problems that causes. If you can't see misconvergence from where you sit. Leave the convergence controls alone. If you need to use global, not zonal and try to adjust by full pixels and if absolutely necessary by a few subpixel clicks. No more,i
Reply
Reply
post #1252 of 1865
2/3/13 at 9:04am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjugen View Post

Alignment option on HW50 have 20 steps up and down, what number is for one full pixel shift if anyone knows ?

TNX



IFAIR

The Sony shift is 1/10 , meaning 10 clicks up/down is one full pixel


dj
Reply
Reply
post #1253 of 1865
2/3/13 at 9:23am
Been playing around with Sonys 2d to 3d conversion. I find it surprisingly good. I've tried several movies and all of them worked well with it. It pretty much just added depth to the picture but no pop-out. I find this true for most projectors with this feature. Does anyone know why it never adds pop-out?
Reply
Reply
post #1254 of 1865
2/3/13 at 11:29am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

Yes. Unless done in full one pixel steps, it costs you sharpness and resolution. Professional reviewers think that it may be next beneficial up to say a 1/4 pixel but more damaing than beneficial if used more than that. Many many users are not that critical, have screens that aren't that sharp, but they think they are, and doet willy nilly use the convergence to hide the problem of misconvergence from their eyes. Everyone can see misconvergence when putting up a white grid and standing close to the screen and everyone can hode it making the grid test pattern perfect but being oblivious to the problems that causes. If you can't see misconvergence from where you sit. Leave the convergence controls alone. If you need to use global, not zonal and try to adjust by full pixels and if absolutely necessary by a few subpixel clicks. No more,i

I belive this to be untrue. Professional reviewers work on the veiwing side of things. I work on the other side. I have over 30 yrs experience adjusting convergence and it is always sharper with better convergence.
You can test for your self. Go ahead and converge using the test grid. globly if that works and indapendent zone as well if you like. Now take a seat. watch the picture. go to the menu and you can turn it off and on to see the difference back to back. If it is convegered properly then it will be sharper with it on. The idea that they use no electronic convergence from the factory is absurd. They most certinaly do. Those pannels are not perfect and are never alined perfectely,
They just dont let you to that service menu. Now they have brought it out so the user can fine tune it to perfection.
if my memoy serves me right when you go into the zone adjusments with the 5020 there are already corrections there. Most of the time (like with the sony) they hide the factory corrections so u start at a 0. Most manfactuers do it that way.
Edited by KDH - 2/3/13 at 11:37am
Reply
Reply
post #1255 of 1865
2/3/13 at 12:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by satfam View Post

Yes, my IR hub has multiple outputs for up to 4 blasters. It is powered by a 12 volt power supply. I wasn't sure if I could use a mini to mini plug from the hub to the IR in without damaging the 103. The manual isn't clear on this but it does give a warning. Have you used this? Thanks.

I have a Xantech connecting block. I used a 3.5mm (1/8") mono plug to connect one of its IR outputs to the back of my Oppo BDP-93 and it works fine. I suspect it would be the same for the BDP-103. This wasn't true for the BDP-83.
Reply
Reply
post #1256 of 1865
2/4/13 at 12:40am
If I'm correct there is IrisOpenReg and IrisCloseReg functions in service menu, which affects the auto iris full and limited modes. What I'm asking is that, is there any option to even more close the manual iris? Is it fully closed if adjusted to "min" in the normal menu? Or does that function also have some room to work like some other functions that has been set in the assembly line and just hidden from the normal menu?
Reply
Reply
post #1257 of 1865
2/4/13 at 8:41am
Quote:
Originally Posted by randman View Post

I have a Xantech connecting block. I used a 3.5mm (1/8") mono plug to connect one of its IR outputs to the back of my Oppo BDP-93 and it works fine. I suspect it would be the same for the BDP-103. This wasn't true for the BDP-83.

Don't have a BD103 yet but I think that is why this is in place. I use mini to mini mono on my Pioneer Elite receiver in the same manner and it works perfectly.
Reply
Reply
post #1258 of 1865
2/4/13 at 9:33am
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDH View Post

... The idea that they use no electronic convergence from the factory is absurd. They most certinaly do. Those pannels are not perfect and are never alined perfectely,
They just dont let you to that service menu. ....

I noticed that a NEC test pattern (widely available) that has 3 different repeating bands of text (very busy) shows color shifting even with a minor adjustment to the sub pixel panel alignement. It does not show this when I have the panel alignement adjustment off. I have no inside knowledge other than what I have seen but it would not appear to me that Sony uses any electronic adjustment from the factory that I can tell. If they did I would not expect to see a difference in the color shift when the panel alignment is on vs. off. At least with my Sony the defaults for the adjustments are set to zero in the panel alignement avaialble via the menu. Both these observations make me think they are not using any electronic sub pixel adjustments from the factory.
Reply
Reply
post #1259 of 1865
2/4/13 at 11:05am
I connected my hw50es to dune d1.
8bit color work fine, but there are problems with 10bit and 12bit color.
I get error "Frequency out of range".
Why ?
Reply
Reply
post #1260 of 1865
2/4/13 at 12:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

Yes. Unless done in full one pixel steps, it costs you sharpness and resolution. Professional reviewers think that it may be next beneficial up to say a 1/4 pixel but more damaing than beneficial if used more than that. Many many users are not that critical, have screens that aren't that sharp, but they think they are, and doet willy nilly use the convergence to hide the problem of misconvergence from their eyes. Everyone can see misconvergence when putting up a white grid and standing close to the screen and everyone can hode it making the grid test pattern perfect but being oblivious to the problems that causes. If you can't see misconvergence from where you sit. Leave the convergence controls alone. If you need to use global, not zonal and try to adjust by full pixels and if absolutely necessary by a few subpixel clicks. No more,i
I keep seeing you say this over and over again -- lots of claims but no proof. Show me -- how is using the fine convergence more damaging than beneficial? What are the problems that it causes that I'm oblivious to? There is no loss of resolution on one-pixel test patterns using the fine adjustment. Sure, there's some color shift, but that's only visible in test patterns, whereas color fringing is visibile in real material. Besides, you've already devalued test patterns by pooh-poohing the use of the convergence grid -- so test patterns aren't a useful way of judging the fine convergence adjustment's upsides and downsides. If the projector's scaling algorithms suck, then maybe there's a visible downside to using the convergence adjustments, but most of what I've read you post implies that people who use fine convergence are silly simple souls who just don't know any better. Where are these professional reviewers who say not to use it? And why not? Where's the evidence that it degrades the picture more than it improves it? Concrete evidence this time -- not just "believe me, I've seen bazillions, I know better than you."wink.gif

If there's a real downside, it should be easy to point out and/or document because the fine convergence adjustments can be turned on and off with one simple menu setting. In other words, before and after assessments are trivial! That's what I've used to decide whether the fine convergence adjustments are worth it. And trust me, I'm a critical viewer -- even though I disagree with you on this particular issue!
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home

Gear mentioned in this thread:

AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP › Official Sony VPL-HW50ES Owners Thread