or Connect
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 7

post #181 of 3345
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

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.

Several years ago I evaluated the JKP Affinity, HP 2.8, and HP 2.4 against my then current matte white. I ended up upgrading to the HP 2.4 based on not only the gain but also the lack on artifacts. The old 2.8 formulation had a bit of a paisley sheen, but the 2.4 has no sheen, no sparklies, no grain, no artifacts of any sort that I can see. Just a nice, bright image that'll make a matte white or Affinity look drab in comparison. Granted, the HP is not as linear as a matte white (red is slightly emphasized), but a calibration resolves that issue. I'm curious to understand why you believe the HP is not a good choice for someone buying an HW50 (<- On topic!).
post #182 of 3345
Quote:
Originally Posted by chomperoni View Post

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.

I can see that there are a lot of people (including me) wishing for powered lens controls or lens memory...
Has anyone heard if Sony is going to update the VPL-VW95ES ? If so, when?
post #183 of 3345
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post

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.

This is what gets me worried a bit, about the pj being a bit in the 'too bright' side. I'll be on a 3m throw and pretty much max zoom, so a lot of lumens there I would say. cool.gif
post #184 of 3345
You could use the manual control of the iris, but this would mean you'd lose the dynamic iris control I think? Unless you can go into the service menu and limit the opening of the iris maximum position. If you do try an ND2 filter, be aware that it's best to use coated glass ones such as the Hoya HMC type as cheap plastic ones will work as a proof of the idea, but cause major ANSI contrast loss due to reflections back into the projector.

Your other choice of course is a grey/lower gain screen if it's a smaller size (I'm guessing from 3 metres it can't be too big?).

It's a shame they don't fit a second manual iris in front of the lamp (like the dearer models of JVCs) then you could control the peak brightness and open it as the lamp ages.
post #185 of 3345
Quote:
Originally Posted by AV Science Sales 5 View Post

I have told people for years, the cheapest improvement they can do for their image is to paint the room black. You would be surprised at how much, that would even improve a lower contrast projector. My room is not much to look at with the lights on, since I have black floor, walls and ceiling, but turn the lights off and it is a different story. smile.gif

Same here Mike. My room is a bit crazy looking with the lights on, but lights out is a whole new world. smile.gif
post #186 of 3345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post

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"? biggrin.gif
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.

The HP needs the right placement of the projector with respect to the viewer vertically in order to deliver its stated gain. That's about it.

Going to a 1.0 is not a DOWNGRADE. And the HP is Never a Great screen It has great gain. Its white .Its a good screen but you know what? Most screens are good screens! There are some bad screens with the bad coming mostly from incorrect set up or application. The only thing reference quality about HP is its gain and then it will raise your reference black level by the same gain factor. No professional reviewer would use it as a reference screen. A studeotech 100 is a reference. A HP is measured against that. Picture quality is determined on a reference screen. If brightness is not sufficient, the screen size is lowered for the evaluation.

To many, brightness is all that counts. It swamps everything else. Panting, they exclaim the screen is great. The only thing they see is the brightness. Minir less than greats don't matter to them. They are simply not aware of a screens negatives. Pant, pant. Its bright.

I ask them all "Does the screen disappear?" Do you think you are looking out on a scene?

Toe. I could never ever imagine downgrading to a screen where I would be constantly aware of the screen unless I had no choice because the picture would be too dim. Unless you have seen what I am talking about with respect to realism with a 4HD picture (your coming 4810) you simply are operating in the dark.


To all. Toe, Zombie and I are friends and we are having a friendly argument. The HP isn't bad but it isn't great and it isn't reference except as to gain. But its good with respect to many characteristics. But good isn't reference. Great is.
Edited by mark haflich - 10/17/12 at 8:27am
post #187 of 3345
Quote:
Originally Posted by soupdragon View Post

That may have been my post on avforums perhaps?

Using coderguys excellent calculator, I'll have no issues lighting it up in 2d and for 3d, I'll get somewhere around 8-10fl for 3D depending on my screen material as I've 1.0 and 1.1 samples coming. But, it's going to have 4 way masking so it will become the most flexible and adjustable I've had to date so I can trim back to smaller screen size for that if I feel the need.
As had already been mentioned, with 2d and 3d brightness variance, getting the perfect balance between screen size and gain is difficult so I've decided to go my way as I like the idea of wide viewing angles and my room lends itself towards low gain due to batcave environment.

I have several low gain screens that I use sometimes for comparisons. There is the calculator, and then the reality of what we are seeing with our eyes behind the glasses. The lamp pulsing technique sounds impressive, but I can tell you the HW30 and VW95 didn't really look any brighter through the glasses than any of the other 3D projectors with similar lumen output.

With the current 3D projectors, ~1000 lumens in 3D is a hair under 3000 lumens with my 142" 2.8HP. Once the glasses have their way with the light, this is 'just right' for me to enjoy the 3D presentation. Any less and I wouldn't be interested in 3D.

We all have different expectations of the 3D brightness, but even with the extra lumens on the HW50, I don't see how it's going to light up a 160" 1.0 gain screen in 3D with great results. The lamps will dim over time, so the out of the box experience is the best case scenario and then will start to drop from there.
Edited by zombie10k - 10/17/12 at 8:22am
post #188 of 3345
Quote:
Originally Posted by henrich3 View Post

Several years ago I evaluated the JKP Affinity, HP 2.8, and HP 2.4 against my then current matte white. I ended up upgrading to the HP 2.4 based on not only the gain but also the lack on artifacts. The old 2.8 formulation had a bit of a paisley sheen, but the 2.4 has no sheen, no sparklies, no grain, no artifacts of any sort that I can see. Just a nice, bright image that'll make a matte white or Affinity look drab in comparison. Granted, the HP is not as linear as a matte white (red is slightly emphasized), but a calibration resolves that issue. I'm curious to understand why you believe the HP is not a good choice for someone buying an HW50 (<- On topic!).

I never said it wasn't a good choice. It could be a good choice depending on the screen size and set up.Kudos on recognizing how Da-lite uograded the HP with the 2.4 material. Many unknowing wish for the old 2.8? Why? All they care about and all they are aware about is gain and brightness.They are blinded by the light. smile.gif

Please understand, the HP isn't really bad in any of its parameters, it just isn't' reference in any except gain. When one adds in screen characteristics that most people don't see, its amazing how these characteristics add up and how they influence PQ.
post #189 of 3345
I have several low gain screens that I use sometimes for comparisons. There is the calculator, and then the reality of what we are seeing with our eyes behind the glasses. The lamp pulsing technique sounds impressive, but I can tell you the HW30 and VW95 didn't really look any brighter through the glasses than any of the other 3D projectors with similar lumen output.

With the current 3D projectors, ~1000 lumens in 3D is a hair under 3000 lumens with my 142" 2.8HP. Once the glasses have their way with the light, this is 'just right' for me to enjoy the 3D presentation. Any less and I wouldn't be interested in 3D.

We all have different expectations of the 3D brightness, but even with the extra lumens on the HW50, I don't see how it's going to light up a 160" 1.0 gain screen in 3D with great results.


Quote button isn't working for some reason but yes, I know its not possible to get high lumens from 3D but hopefully it will be enough. In a bat cave environment though, its easier to get away with a lower fl as the brightness will be relative to the surrounding blackness. 8-10fl isn't ideal for 3D but will be sufficient for me I expect. My room will be undergoing much work and in reality, it will be a 4k ready room. I'll have 4 way masking to help me have mutliple aspect ratio's and it will be approaching true batcave status.
I feel this suits me overall as not only will 160" be a bit too big for poor quality source material, it will be too big for high lumen 3D (hopefully the lower fl will still be plenty good though) But in my case, I will be able to reduce screensize if I feel its necessary. I'm making trade offs here, but I feel its my best solution. The screen will be the entire width of the room and so will my seating so high power isn't completely suitable for me and when I go 4k, I know my neutral screen material will help get the full benefit. I'm salivating at the prospect of watching good quality blu-rays on this new Sony with reality creation at 160" and once 4k comes it will be even better.

So there we have it, my perfectly logical approach and even though it conflicts with your own approach, we will both be running set-ups that suit us just fine smile.gif
post #190 of 3345
There's no right or wrong answer here, certainly not trying to convince everyone that they need an HP screen with the HW50.

the problem I have is that the high gain in 3D is intoxicating and can't get enough brightness in 3D mode. When I have to squint through the glasses at bright scenes, that's 'just right' for me. I don't see 3D anymore in the local Imax, it's just too dim for my preferences. Ideally, 3D through the glasses should be as bright as watching regular 2D mode.

btw, I am such a brightness fanatic that I'll watch a projector @ 1000+ lumens, shortest throw on the HP. We're talking nearly 3000 lumens in a cave. Yes my eyes are fine,i just like bright. cool.gif
post #191 of 3345
Tbh I don't like the idea of buying it then having to go to the hassle of sticking ND filters etc. to get it to my liking. Maybe RickAVmaniac can tell me if it'll work in my situation? Can the lumens be tamed to a good degree without affecting the image quality too much? Or maybe it's a wiser choice for me to go for the HW30 with it's lesser lumens? Thx!
post #192 of 3345
If you want 3D brightness similar to 2D, there is only one solution, Sony head mounted display, HMZ-T1 or the latest version T2. I had been using Acer H5360BD and recently change to Optoma HD8300, but nothing beat the HMD for natural 3D as it doesn't have to switch the L/R view. Only con is in 720p only so HD8300 beat it in sharpness but lose out on brightness. I prefer HMD for 3D gaming as 3DTV Play only support 720p so no disadvantage in this case.
post #193 of 3345
If we don't start getting the 50s in our hands soon, this thread my morph into a discussion of viewing while intoxicated. smile.gif Not recommended unless seated. I recommend a designated viewer under such situations.
post #194 of 3345
I thought the release date was supposed to be today, October 17th. Amazon website now says the release date for this projector is October 23rd! Sony website says the projectors are out of stock!rolleyes.gif
post #195 of 3345
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

The HP needs the right placement of the projector with respect to the viewer vertically in order to deliver its stated gain. That's about it.
Going to a 1.0 is not a DOWNGRADE. And the HP is Never a Great screen It has great gain. Its white .Its a good screen but you know what? Most screens are good screens! There are some bad screens with the bad coming mostly from incorrect set up or application. The only thing reference quality about HP is its gain and then it will raise your reference black level by the same gain factor. No professional reviewer would use it as a reference screen. A studeotech 100 is a reference. A HP is measured against that. Picture quality is determined on a reference screen. If brightness is not sufficient, the screen size is lowered for the evaluation.
To many, brightness is all that counts. It swamps everything else. Panting, they exclaim the screen is great. The only thing they see is the brightness. Minir less than greats don't matter to them. They are simply not aware of a screens negatives. Pant, pant. Its bright.
I ask them all "Does the screen disappear?" Do you think you are looking out on a scene?
Toe. I could never ever imagine downgrading to a screen where I would be constantly aware of the screen unless I had no choice because the picture would be too dim. Unless you have seen what I am talking about with respect to realism with a 4HD picture (your coming 4810) you simply are operating in the dark.
To all. Toe, Zombie and I are friends and we are having a friendly argument. The HP isn't bad but it isn't great and it isn't reference except as to gain. But its good with respect to many characteristics. But good isn't reference. Great is.

I would first like to thank AVS Forum for hosting this debate. Second, I would like to thank my friend and rival Mark Haflich for his participation. biggrin.gif

In all seriousness, I understand what you are saying Mark and agree with it to a certain degree. The problem is you are not considering all the variables from one room, viewer, projector, setup, projector mounting situation, viewing preferances, etc......at which point an industry designated reference screen like the Stewart 100 might not be a reference screen anymore vs a competing screen once all these many variables are taken into consideration. A reference screen is only as reference as the variables allow vs other competing screens.

In light of the previous paragraph and for all the reasons I have given in previous posts about my particular set of variables, a Stewart 100 would not be a reference screen for me, same with our friend Zombie. If me or Jason moved to a 1.0 gain screen at this point it would not just be a downgrade, it would be a major downgrade.

If we cant agree on everything I just said, we are just going to have to agree to disagree. Either way we are of course still friends. smile.gif
Edited by Toe - 10/17/12 at 11:58am
post #196 of 3345
So what everyone is saying ultimately is... If "you" have enough brightness with a 1.0 gain, stay with that, if not get a Higher Gain Screen... smile.gif
post #197 of 3345
Reply
Reply
post #198 of 3345
Quote:
Originally Posted by SOWK View Post

So what everyone is saying ultimately is... If "you" have enough brightness with a 1.0 gain, stay with that, if not get a Higher Gain Screen... smile.gif

My starting brightness target is as bright as you can stand it without the eyes melting, but that is only me. That is because I look at an extra $300 lamp as another 10 troy ounces of silver I can buy (or some other precious metal). Too bad I didn't buy all silver when it was at $15, I actually was but I chickened out. Wouldn't touch it actually at its current price.

I have a bunch of silver coins stacked in the HT room that would have normally been new lamps :P
This is a good reminder of how much money really is, and how in HT we often go crazy and spend our retirements (but its fun anyways). BTW, I am starting a new job/contract soon and so I'll be calling Mike up soon enough once I get settled in and dropping more cash on new equipment, so I am not able to follow my own discretionary advice.
Edited by coderguy - 10/17/12 at 12:59pm
post #199 of 3345
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

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. smile.gif

Haha. I understand what you're saying,

But for some of us I believe HP is really the only sensible option due to its narrow viewing cone & thus its light rejection capability. In a darkened theater with dark walls, ceilings, floors, sure I'd go looking for something other than a HP screen. But for those of us who even think we have light control b/c we watch at night with all the lights out... and yet have light colored low ceilings right above the projector... HP makes a dramatic difference. That & the black velvet I installed around the screen that extends ~2ft out.
post #200 of 3345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelvin1965S View Post

You could use the manual control of the iris, but this would mean you'd lose the dynamic iris control I think? Unless you can go into the service menu and limit the opening of the iris maximum position. If you do try an ND2 filter, be aware that it's best to use coated glass ones such as the Hoya HMC type as cheap plastic ones will work as a proof of the idea, but cause major ANSI contrast loss due to reflections back into the projector.
Your other choice of course is a grey/lower gain screen if it's a smaller size (I'm guessing from 3 metres it can't be too big?).
It's a shame they don't fit a second manual iris in front of the lamp (like the dearer models of JVCs) then you could control the peak brightness and open it as the lamp ages.


The HW50 ( and the 1000ES ) has a "Limited auto iris" wich do excatly what he/others want - limit/ lower the max output, but still keep the good auto iris working.


dj
post #201 of 3345
[quote name="AV Science Sales 5" url="/t/1432654/official-sony-vpl-hw50es-owners-thread/180#post_22502241"]Mark's HP theme song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlBifX0H3yg[/quote]


biggrin.gif that was VERY funy

dj
post #202 of 3345
A funny little thing about brightness. smile.gif

I had the 92" ST130 ( gain about 1.1 because off microperf ) screen with my old Marquee 8000 ( a CRT projector ....you know !? biggrin.gif ) and I belive I was looking at about 1-3 Ft L and did find it okay redface.gif ( I have a "true" batcave ) - and when I had the 1000ES home for test - I had about 40 -50 Ft L on the same screen - yes it was bright biggrin.gif........did I find it too bright ? hell NO , it was very beautyful and extreme addictive tongue.gif

I think Mark has found a perfect solution - a superb 2D screen ( Snomatte 100 ) with a projector with loots off light calibrated and then for the 3D - down come the HP hero and save the (day) light wink.gif

For my own part, I will go for the CP2 screen ( and a HP screen for the 3D ) and sadly downgrade the picture ( and windows effect ) a little, because I need a AT screen in my setup and find the CP2 ( 0.95 gain) to be the best compromise ( the famous and very fine En4K has to low a gain for my taste/ size etc. .....begining to like it bright wink.gif )

JustMike, are you still happy with yours ?

dj


BTW. My ST130 never "disappeared" 100%, because off the microperf and a little shiny effect in big white areas
post #203 of 3345
I've sometimes pondered about getting a HP, but I remember when I first got my Beamax 1.5 gain screen after owning a Greywolf II screen. Suddenly the image just 'appeared' in mid air rather than being viewed as if through some kind of sand blasted glass. I know that a HP isn't supposed to be textured, but I would really struggle to give up that 'invisible' effect. I gather than I may in reality only be 1.3 gain, so I probably typically watch (2D only) at 12-13fL, but when I first got my lux meter I calculated that I had been watching at about 5fL (with the iris clamped far down). It's surprising what you get used to and when I first reset the iris to give 12-13fL I found it a bit too much at first, but I'm used to it now. I do like having the control of an iris though...
post #204 of 3345
Quote:
Originally Posted by d.j. View Post

A funny little thing about brightness. smile.gif
I had the 92" ST130 ( gain about 1.1 because off microperf ) screen with my old Marquee 8000 ( a CRT projector ....you know !? biggrin.gif ) and I belive I was looking at about 1-3 Ft L and did find it okay redface.gif ( I have a "true" batcave ) - and when I had the 1000ES home for test - I had about 40 -50 Ft L on the same screen - yes it was bright biggrin.gif........did I find it too bright ? hell NO , it was very beautyful and extreme addictive tongue.gif
I think Mark has found a perfect solution - a superb 2D screen ( Snomatte 100 ) with a projector with loots off light calibrated and then for the 3D - down come the HP hero and save the (day) light wink.gif
For my own part, I will go for the CP2 screen ( and a HP screen for the 3D ) and sadly downgrade the picture ( and windows effect ) a little, because I need a AT screen in my setup and find the CP2 ( 0.95 gain) to be the best compromise ( the famous and very fine En4K has to low a gain for my taste/ size etc. .....begining to like it bright wink.gif )
JustMike, are you still happy with yours ?
dj
BTW. My ST130 never "disappeared" 100%, because off the microperf and a little shiny effect in big white areas

There is no window effect with 3D, the glasses eliminate any possibility of that.
post #205 of 3345
It's pretty amazing to think how great this new Sony projector is for the money, compared to my first real home theater projector 10 years ago ( where did the time go ? ) - the NEC HT1000. It cost more than the HW50, and had 480p resolution and - wow - 3000:1 contrast ( excellent at the time ). Ah, memories - http://www.projectorcentral.com/nec_ht1000_2.htm

Things really have gotten much better and less expensive over the years projector wise. For any of you getting an HW50 as your first projector, you're in for a treat!
post #206 of 3345
I sold plenty of those NECs. I remember when it was furst introduced at a Cedea in Indy but I don't remember what year. That mother had a huge required offset and it caused me to think and develop the tilting the projector up and tilting the top of the screen forward to maintain correct lens to screen geometry.
post #207 of 3345
Quote:
Originally Posted by AV Science Sales 5 View Post

I have told people for years, the cheapest improvement they can do for their image is to paint the room black. You would be surprised at how much, that would even improve a lower contrast projector. My room is not much to look at with the lights on, since I have black floor, walls and ceiling, but turn the lights off and it is a different story. smile.gif


Yup. I was talking to Mike on the phone one night and he mentioned his room was totally black. Hs comment got me thinking and I decided I'd paint just the front wall flat black. I also replaced the white ceiling with black Armstrong 1728ABL tiles. It made a huge difference. Also the black speakers kind of blend in. I'll probably do the rest of the room soon. Thanks Mike!

Jeff
post #208 of 3345
I'm all for black velvet curtains behind the screen on the front wall, and dark(er) decor and paint ( flat paint ). But if i painted the entire theater flat black from ceiling to floor, I might experience not only a better picture, I'd experience a 3rd divorce.........eek.gifcool.gif
post #209 of 3345
Marriage is over-rated! smile.gif
post #210 of 3345
My wife did encourage building the theater and buying a Lumis - I'm not complaining !! wink.gif
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP › Official Sony VPL-HW50ES Owners Thread