Official Sony VPL-HW50ES Owners Thread - Page 6

Cine4home measured the native and it was around 6,800:1 IIRC. This is what put me off (and the manual zoom/focus) over getting another JVC (sorry )

Cine4Home 50ES Review 50ES - Optical System Redesign

Google translate
The outer appearance of the technical standstill deceptive, because inside the HW50 has changed a lot: To allow more light output (1700 lumens compared to 1300 lumens at HW30), the entire light engine was revised and paid all optical elements better. The goal was to make the picture with adequate color reproduction noticeably brighter and the unit next to an elevated living space flexibility to also give a brighter 3D performance. If this project is successful, we learn in the image of this reference tests.

Bing translate
The outer appearance of technical standstill is deceptive, because a lot has changed in the HW50 inside: to allow more light output (1700 lumens over 1300 lumens at the HW30), the entire Lightengine has been redesigned and all optical elements are better remunerated. It aimed to make the picture with the appropriate color reproduction noticeably brighter and to give also a brighter 3D performance the device in addition to increased living space flexibility. If this project is successful, we learn in the image part of the reference test.

---

Sony reworked the 30ES entire optical system for the 50ES.

Cine4Home 50ES Review - 50ES vs 1000ES Reality Creation

"The Reality Creation
Behind Sony's marketing term refers to a Sony proprietary technology. Two processors are responsible for the intelligent detail adjustment:

The X-Reality processor handles artifact locking algorithms such as an intelligent noise reduction, while the "XCA7" processor (XCA stands for "Extreme Architecture Creation") the detail of using "Super Resolution" technology improves.

Also this system has inherited the VPL HW50 from a big brother, and by none other than the Sony VPL-VW1000. In the latter, the reality of creation, but still in a third processor is utilized further increased the resolution to full 4k. But the "reality creation light" of HW50 leads to impressive results: mast rings, providing sufficient reason sharpness and detailed picture scenes, the algorithm is actually able to highlight the details more clearly without the image looks artificially alienated. However one should dose they also sparingly in the image menu, because otherwise it tends to emphasize image of mast ring. The factory setting of "20" offers a good compromise."
---
The Reality Creation firmware/hardware/chips in the 50ES are identical to the 1000ES. The 1000ES adds a third chip to scale to 4K.
Sony has stated these chips were leveraged from the flat panel market, so don't think projectors are something special (Sony motionflow there is up to 960Hz!).

Note: Just a fine point. Ekkehart has apparently been worn-down from too many JVC models, and states here "increased the resolution to full 4K".
As Ekkehart well knows scaling and interpolation (from 2K to 4K) do not increase actual resolution as the new data is all "made-up".

Cine4Home 50ES Review - 50ES Brightness and Contrast Improvement over 30ES

Sony advertises a 30% increase compared to the HW30 light, so to say, on the HW50 and write 1700 lumens get maximum light output. And that's not all: Distinctly marked by the manufacturer that this 1700 lumens will not completely impractical achieved in the typical "green tint", but at a still acceptable, believable color. The course we have checked:

In fact has happened here over the HW30 by optimizing the light path a lot: While the predecessor in native color temperature still had a noticeable green tint, this is the HW50 despite the light increase considerably more moderate, the UHP typical lack of red only amounts to about 20%. This results in a more calibrated once increased luminous efficiency (compared to the HW30).

You calibrate the projector on a correct color representation (see section above), 1350Lumen remain about what makes the HW50 much brighter than most of its competitors (in this respect, he is beaten only by the coming Epson EH-TW9100).

Another unique feature is the volume: Since no stronger lamp installed, but the path has been optimized and there is less light is absorbed, the HW50 is even 1dB quieter than its predecessor and in high lamp mode almost as quiet as most of the competitors in Eco mode. In this respect the high lamp mode with the corresponding light output is also really practical.

Become larger, however, is the loss of light quieter Eco Mode: To about 38% to darken the image on the screen when you activate it. Given the high output power remain so but still left about 800 lumens, which is also above-average brightness.

Projectors with high light output often show deficits in contrast, the HW50 has actually risen over the HW30 in this respect, have been used without the "cheap tricks Iris"? To our surprise, the answer is "yes": Objective clue here is the native contrast, meaning the dynamic range of the projector without adaptive iris reached.

Depending on the zoom, the VPL-HW50 reached at native color temperature of a native contrast ratio of 8400:1. Calibrated and equitable practice configuration of which remain between 4000:1 and 6500:1. Compared to the VPL-HW30 also representing an average increase of 30% contrast. This means that the increased light output of the HW50 actually expanded the dynamic range "up" back at approximately the same black level compared to its predecessor."

---
The 30ES, like many projectors has a strong green bias making the advertised brightness another useless figure. But not so with the 50ES, as its way brighter with great color, yet still keeps the same black level. The same black level implies the nasty light scattering in the light engine has been greatly reduced. This accounts for the increased pixel resolution. From another perspective it shows just how inefficient the 95ES optical path is with the same lamp (why Kraine is upgrading to the 50ES).

The ECO mode is 38% dimmer which is great for those with Da-Lite High Power screens. Then pump-it-up to High for 3D.

Lastly I need to make an apology to Ekkehart from last year when Sony falsely claimed the 30ES lamp modulation scheme was 3X brighter. He repeatably posted Sony was wrong. I resisted because i wanted to hold Sony responsible for their corporate arrogance. However Ekkehart got pretty exasperated with this strategy, and has not posted much here since. Sorry. You are sorely missed!

Well, obviously a scaled 4K resolution does not equal a native 4K source-resolution, that is common sense ;-)

However, the Sony XCA8-4K processor does give better upscaling results than most other pixel based interpolation algorithms, as it uses a smart database to identify typical 4K->2K scaling & compression losses and partly restores them (where possible). So it is not entirely "made up".


Regards,
Ekki

You new Sony owners are going to have to figure out what to do with all those lumens, that's too much power for most of you even with the IRIS to curtail it :P

You can be like me and wait until 1000 hours for some DIMMING (actually I forgot Sony doesn't DIM much, hah), your eyes will melt a cave hole to your ear every time you turn on the projector, but at least 3D will be bright enough... (ok I'm exaggerating about the brightness slightly, but 1300 lumens in D65 is ridiculously bright).

This Sony is tempting to see if I can get a B-stock one next year (and get lucky on convergence). I will go look for one in a showroom somewhere to see if I can get a preview after they ship.
Edited by coderguy - 10/15/12 at 4:00pm

If I was to purchase the unit and want to switch between 2.35:1 content and 16x9, is there an automatic setting or do I have to manually change the zoom on the lens?

It doesn't have CIH scaling or lens memory. The best you can do is use a scaler like a Lumagen or an HTPC software to do it.

Can Lumagen work as motorized lens memory? i.e. Lumagen does zoom/shift?

I doubt that too many lumens will ever be an 'issue'. I, for one, plan on using the HW50ES w/ a HP (119") screen.

Run Eco mode for lower lumens. If that's still too much, just place a multi-coated ND filter in the path. As lamp ages, remove if needed.

Or enable Dark Frame Insertion.

I'd much rather have more lumens than less.

If after all the potential remedies for lumens you still feel you have too much: go for a bigger screen.
Edited by sarangiman - 10/16/12 at 11:55am

Thanks. I own mini 3d and know how to set up CIH.
But my question is if Lumagen can work as a motorized lens when used with HW50 since I don't want to manually dial zoom/shift/focus. If Lumagen can do that, HW50 would be perfect. but I'm afraid it's not.

I too just got on the pre order list for the HW50. A special thanks to Mike.

I'm excited as it has been over 6 years since my last projector upgrade. My current model is a DLP Toshiba TDP-MT8 and it is still working great. But I saw a demo of a HW30 in a showroom a few months back and decided it was time to upgrade.

I want to thank all the AVS forum members for their expertise on helping me decide on which projector would suit my needs the best. It has been fun reading and learning. I have a lot more to learn.

Unfortunately I don't own a lumagen unit and are disappointed that the HW50 does not allow for this out of the box. I guess I am stuck looking at the VPL-VW95ES which has a motorized lens or going with another manufacturer.

A Lumagen doesn't 'act as a motorised lens' as such, though I suppose you could say it does in a 'virtual' manner: The image size changes, but the you use less of the pixels to 'draw' the image. It still can look good though, personally I only used it for trailers and menus, but some watch whole 16:9 films this way (at approx 1400 x 800 resolution).

You can never have " too many lumens ". Even my Lumis isn't as bright as I'd like it. You get used to 20 - 25 foot lamberts really quick. I did anyway. And the numbers I see lumens wise are looking really good for those of us that like a bright picture -

Lumen Output and Color Temp at 100 IRE (mid zoom):

Reference= 1044 @ 7369
TV= 1054 @ 7356
Cinema Film 1= 1047 @ 7360
Cinema Film 2= 773 @ 6112

http://www.projectorreviews.com/sony/hw50es/calibration.php

That's encouraging after years of so many dim projectors !! But trust me - you won't go blind. You will be ruined for dim projectors though ( thanks Alan ) !!

I was being partly sarcastic, you're preaching to the choir.
I had a projector that couldn't go below 900 lumens on a 106" screen getting about 1.3 gain, but there is a point where you can have too many lumens.
I lived through it but it did hurt my eyes the first 500 hours, I should have bought an ND filter but I never bothered.

Or get rid of that HP and buy a reference quality screen. The only reason for going to a HP is the need for screen gain because of lumens available and screen size. You really should see how the picture quality improves with a screen material like JKP Affinity 1.1 or Snowmatt 100. I am not joking around here. The ideal screen should disappear. That never happens with an HP. Never. You can make a HP look like a superbright flat panel. But those suckers don't disappear eihjer. Never will you experiece of the reality of a view through an open window. Many won't like this post attacking a screen which many consider a diety. But my post speaks the truth..

One can like ft lamberts way above the standards just as one can prefer speakers that are louder than better speakers that won't play as loud.Those that say the HP does close to everthing right are simply blinded by the light. Let me hear an amen brother.

I keep an open mind and am willing to look for a better screen like Mark says over an HP. The problem is it is hard to tell in showrooms than compared to my own room (because there is too much mental stuff going on with all the furniture differences and everything, and it is usually a different projector). I never was able to determine if I thought any of the screens I saw looked better than an HP (I think one did, but not absolute certain), I'd almost have to buy it first just to know for sure (or trust the posters). I see mixed results of people buying HP and comparing to other more expensive screens, but I don't know that many have compared it to the two above materials mentioned since those are expensive screens (maybe worth it, I don't know). Then we have 3D lumens, but I can keep my HP pulldown for that.

You do need to be in the higher budgets before dumping $2k+ on a screen though. I mean it is senseless to buy a $1000 projector and a $3000 screen. I'd say the very minimum projector you should own if buying such an expensive screen would be a JVC RS-45 / Sony vw50 type price-range, and even then it's hard for us to consider that much to the screen versus just dumping into a higher-end model and keeping the HP. That's the dilemma.

Mark, I bet that Snowmatt 100 looks killer with a 25K true 4K projector. unfortunately ~1000 3D lumens isn't going to light up a 142" to my satisfaction if it were a low gain screen.

I saw a fellow who thought the HW50 lumen output meant it was OK to order a 160" 1.0 gain screen. What is 3D going to look like after the glasses have their way with the light?

There has to be some reasonable decision between lumen output, screen size and expectations of how 3D is going to appear behind the glasses. The HP surface is much less offensive than some of the other high gain screens I've seen where it's obvious as soon as a bright scene is displayed. The 2.8 material imo is smoother than the 2.4.

ps. Mark was secretly mesmerized by the big, bright 142" 2.8HP or maybe it's because I showed him this 3D video....

pps. AVS can start placing their HW50 orders with Sony on October 22. With any luck, we might see them before the ghosts and goblins show up.

I cant even imagine downgrading to a 1.0 screen with my setup. A different projector might change my mind, but the JVC/HP combo is a stunner in my HT that a 1.0 screen flat out could not hang with. We just got done watching Madagascar 3 which is one of the finest and most detailed blus to date and my jaw was on the floor. Max throw, iris clamped all the way down to -15 (which I could NEVER do with a 1.0 screen and be happy with brightness wise, lol) so I was maxing out contrast on my 45, yet brightness was still fantastic due to the HP gain. Throw in the Darbee doing its thing and I kept thinking....."why am I even on the 4810 preorder list"?

Having said all that, the HP is only a great screen in the right setup, just like any other screen. There is no one size fits all "reference" screen since every setup/room/situation is different.

While the discussion above quotes Sony as saying the entire optics have been revised I still believe there were no changes to the lens. Does anyone know differently?

I do believe ther HP is a good choice for large screens and low lumens out machines. Particularly for those who watch a lot of 3D. Even on my small screen and my relatively high output projector, I do find my 3D a tad dim compared to my 1.3 gain Studeotech 130. But mostly I watch 2D. When I construct a new theater in Florida I will install a HP pulldown for my limited 3D viewing to go in front of my fixed Snowmatt 100.

Zombie. If you want to see a dramatic improvement in PQ in your theater, black paint and some black ceiling tile. Cheap. And you will posting Mark told me so and he was right (as usual).

Sometimes 2 screens can be the best option ( even better than 2 projectors ) !

Two screens and two projectors are even better:D

I have HP 2.8 and Stewart Studiotek 130. That's why I need motorized lens & memories to adjust PJ for both screens. Manual lens is painful with my setup.

This is one area we can agree on! Painting my ceiling flat black and covering my side walls/back wall, couch and floor in black velvet was one of the best PQ upgrades I have experienced. It is amazing doing the flashlight test on various surfaces in your room that are near the screen to see just how much light reflects off of them and gets back to the screen. I always thought my dark carpet was good enough until I did this test and was surprised how much light was actually bouncing off it and making its way back up to the screen. Black velvet on the floor/couch is a bit extreme (well maybe not for an AVS regular ) and wont work for many do to WAF or other issues, but this made a significant difference in my small room. Even my bass traps and first reflection panels on the side walls which are covered in flat black were fairly reflective and covering these with black velvet helped out as well.

One last comment about the HP screen. I originally moved from my ST130 to the HP 2.8 with 3d in mind looking for a nice brightness boost. What I did not expect was that I was actually MORE impressed with the 2d upgrade all things considered (which I have already gone over) vs the 3d. Yeah, the 3d got a nice brightness bump, but being able to fully clamp down my iris and all the other little advantages that I have mentioned I was not expecting and I am more impressed with this screen in my room/setup vs the mighty ST130 overall for 2d vs 3d (the HP of course is a better screen for 3d as well even if not quite as dramatic as the 2d advantage). I will say if my seating was ANY wider, had seating off to the sides OR multiple rows, the HP 2.8 would be taken down and the ST130 would be back up due to its MUCH better viewing angles. I only have one little 3 seater couch to worry about though so the HP works in my room.
Edited by Toe - 10/17/12 at 5:46am

Amen!