or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP › Projector Mini-Shootout Thread 2013-2014
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Projector Mini-Shootout Thread 2013-2014 - Page 88

post #2611 of 8074
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post

Don't say that, I just ordered the Benq. I hope the FI was worth losing the contrast.

Visual Apex has some great prices on Epsons right now, they have new 5010's on a major sale. The 5020 is improved, but my take from what I read was it was just very minor improvments (IRIS in 3D is like not a big deal).

I've been meaning to have a better W7000 / 5020 showdown which I'll do soon, likely around new year's break so I can make a decision. I would definitely go for the 5020 (vs. 5010) since the 3D is brighter and I can't say enough about these RF glasses, nearly perfect overall imo (weight, comfort, no chance of sync loss, good neutral color, etc).

When I have guests over with kids, the DLP link glasses do loss sync once in a while and I seem to fuss with them more than I'd like. No chance with the Epson RF. I have to look closely at the FI on the W7000 and see how it looks compared to the Epson 5020 in fast paced scenes.

One of my favorite 3D demo disks (with real people) is Step up 3D. I don't know what camera they used to film this, but the 3D is crystal clear in this movie. There's a number of 'battle' scenes I used now as a reference since the 3D director was very creative overall. It's also a good disk for testing flesh tones after a 3D calibration behind the glasses.

Some through the glasses shots of the 5020, post 3D calibration.

radiance8.jpg

radiance9.jpg
post #2612 of 8074
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackdevil77 View Post

The lag time difference from what I just read up on is about a 12 milli-second difference. The Epson 5020 according to Zombie's testing was 62ms at it's best and the BenQ's fastest was 50ms. Does the 12ms make that much of a difference? I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place again lol. How does the 3020 compare to the W7000? The Epson's more attractive price and nice RF 3D glasses are appealing but the perfect 3D and sharpness of the DLP is also very appealing. Then again, the 5020 can be had for close to the same price as the W7000. Hmmmm......
If you are coming from a projector already, I would factor that in as far as type of display. Is it dlp, lcd, or lcos. Is convergence important or pixel fill. What is the main use. I will say for me coming from dlp, I ended up going with a lcos base (Sony HW50). I found it to best all around for mixed content (although gaming was not a factor for me). I haven't demoed a Benq W7000, but did demo an Epson 5020. Unfortunately the panel convergence on the sample I viewed was so god awefull I was immediately turned off especially coming from single chip dlp. The Sony I demoed and the one I purchased both had spot on convergence so for me it was one of many deciding factors. I will say from what I've read the Benq is very attractive for gaming and 3d where blacks are perhalps not as important when all things considered. Best thing is to demo all possible models for yourself and bring your own content to each. Cheers.
post #2613 of 8074
I've read the W7000 is more like in the mid 30's-40. I don't notice much difference between my old Epson 8350 and my BenQ. http://www.projectorreviews.com/game-projector-blog/review-benq-w7000-projector.html
post #2614 of 8074
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crabalocker View Post

Three is always better than two.....weirdly, even after watching the new Total Recall wink.gif

I just watched that last night. It was better than I thought. It looked crystal clear on the JVC.
post #2615 of 8074
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crabalocker View Post

I've read the W7000 is more like in the mid 30's-40. I don't notice much difference between my old Epson 8350 and my BenQ. http://www.projectorreviews.com/game-projector-blog/review-benq-w7000-projector.html

it's not that fast. I don't know how they do their tests, but my numbers are dead on for all the projectors in the shootout.
post #2616 of 8074
The 5010 and 5020 brightness is equal for me, because I can buy extra lamps for the price difference. Meaning after 500 hours, get a new lamp quicker. I also only have a 106" HP screen, so brightness is not an issue for me. Even the JVC was plenty bright enough in 3D on my screen. The Benq is going to be uncomfortably bright even in 3D, which is why I'll mount it higher at first then as the lamp ages swap it back.

142" screen is about half as bright as a 106" screen (roughly speaking), a 70" screen is twice as bright as a 100" screen, etc... So imagine your projectors all being twice as bright, and that's my setup.
Edited by coderguy - 12/29/12 at 9:55am
post #2617 of 8074
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crabalocker View Post

I've read the W7000 is more like in the mid 30's-40. I don't notice much difference between my old Epson 8350 and my BenQ. http://www.projectorreviews.com/game-projector-blog/review-benq-w7000-projector.html

How does the contrast/blacks compare between the 7000 and 8350? I have yet to demo the 7000, but have spent time with the Epson 8350 &3010
post #2618 of 8074
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post

The 5010 and 5020 brightness is equal for me, because I can buy extra lamps for the price difference. Meaning after 500 hours, get a new lamp quicker. I also only have a 106" HP screen, so brightness is not an issue for me. Even the JVC was plenty bright enough in 3D on my screen. The Benq is going to be uncomfortably bright even in 3D, which is why I'll mount it higher at first then as the lamp ages swap it back.
142" screen is about half as bright as a 106" screen (roughly speaking), a 70" screen is twice as bright as a 100" screen, etc... So imagine your projectors all being twice as bright, and that's my setup.

I know this is all subjective as far as what I am about to say, but I do not find the 7000 anywhere close to uncomfortably bright throwing a ~96" image getting about 2.4 real world gain off my HP as far as 3d goes. 2d IS uncomfortably bright, but not 3d IMO. If I was to muster up a few complaints about the 7000, or any of the projectors discussed here it would be that NONE of them are bright enough yet for 3d. I think for me and my happy 3d brightness level with my HP screen, I will need to see ~2000 usable 3d lumens and until then, NONE of these projectors are as bright as I would like for 3d.

Having said the above, I am still relatively happy with the 3d brightness of the 7000 and the thought of getting ~1/2 the light output with the 4810 in it's "best" CT mode sounds terrible in comparison!
post #2619 of 8074
@TSGE
It's about the same, the 8350 probably has better blacks if you turn both IRIS's off. It's not worth deciding over IMO between the three projectors you mentioned.

It'll be interesting next weekend once I take on/off measurements for the w7000, to see if I get different results than some others got. I can easily take on/off readings with my equipment on any DLP that is sub 5000:1 on/off native, I won't even need to use the lens technique. I'll take 3 readings from 2 different devices and post the average on/off in each different mode. I don't need high-end equipment to do this measurement on this projector, blacks are too high and the PJ is too bright. JVC I have trouble with even if I put it near the screen or take reading from the lens, although subjectively I got 35,000:1 to 40,000:1 on my RS-45 at max throw / no zoom. The first readings I got on the JVC were higher (more like mid40's), but I adjusted the way I took the readings since then. I debated on buying a higher-end light meter, but not really worth it.

So far my on/off readings are about like this:
JVC RS-45 IRIS -15 at farthest throw: Somewhere between 35,000:1 and 40,000:1
Viewsonic Pro8200 = 1,500:1 to 2,000:1 (although in unwatchable modes you can approach 2,500:1+)
Mits hc4000 = 3,000:1 to 3,800:1 (depends on mode)
hd33 = 2,400:1 (though I only had time to take 1 measurement, so I cant actually trust this)
Benq = I'm hoping for 1,500:1, but we'll see...
Panny 4000 = 2,700:1 to 3,200:1 native on/off in a decent calibrated mode

I have more numbers on other projectors (including several 720p's), but I'd rather not post them.
post #2620 of 8074
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post

I know this is all subjective as far as what I am about to say, but I do not find the 7000 anywhere close to uncomfortably bright throwing a ~96" image getting about 2.4 real world gain off my HP as far as 3d goes. 2d IS uncomfortably bright, but not 3d IMO. If I was to muster up a few complaints about the 7000, or any of the projectors discussed here it would be that NONE of them are bright enough yet for 3d. I think for me and my happy 3d brightness level with my HP screen, I will need to see ~2000 usable 3d lumens and until then, NONE of these projectors are as bright as I would like for 3d.

Yep, and obviously it gets much worse as the lamps age. 3D on the Epson/HP is as bright as I've ever seen, but I still want more. That's why I have high hopes for the Red laser. A light source that doesn't dim much with age and whose color remains accurate - that's home theater nirvana!
post #2621 of 8074
Heck guys, The benq is going to be at least 60 fL to 70 fL in 3d Mode for me before the glasses if I mounted it near center point. That's 16fL+ to possibly 20fL in 3D even after the glasses, how bright do you guys want it. I thought I was a brigthness freak. I assume the Epson would be pushing into the mid 20's.

I have what most would consider a bat-cave, but I don't have the latest and greatest ultra black absorbing materials (I have cheap black materials with some nice black curtains).
Edited by coderguy - 12/29/12 at 10:24am
post #2622 of 8074
Thread Starter 
squinting behind the glasses = optimum 3D. cool.gif
post #2623 of 8074
Zombie, still happy with your mini 3D ? Have you try to do a 125pt calibration on the Sony HW50 ?

Also, I someone here have a used mini 3D for sale or a B-Stock one, just PM me I am interested to buy now !
post #2624 of 8074
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombie10k View Post

squinting behind the glasses = optimum 3D. cool.gif

Be careful, you'll shoot your eyes out Ralphie!!! eek.gifwink.gif
post #2625 of 8074
My 2000 lumen post was with my 2.35 image in mind. I have to throw a 126" 1.78 image to fill my 9' wide CIH screen and in this scenario I would like to see about 2000 3d lumens with a new lamp. It should happen......one day. biggrin.gif
post #2626 of 8074
I have been without a projector for quite a few years now. At the moment, my "home theatre" consists of a Panasonic 60ST30 and while it's nice, it is not without it's own problems, and I think I need a projector again because I want to watch films that call for a larger screen. I find it hard to pull out Apocalypse Now and Blade Runner and watch on my effectively 55" diagonal 2.35:1 plasma image when I know I could get a pj, vertical stretch and lens and have a 130" diagonal 2.35:1 image.

I read this whole thread within the last day and my head has exploded. I am trying to put it all back together again. I haven't been a fan of DLP and 3D isn't my priority, and I would prefer lower black levels than DLP provides. As far as 3D goes, I would like to be able to use it and really enjoy it. I don't want a feature that works so poorly I don't bother with it.

Could we sum up the differences between most of these projectors? I wish we could have a relative scale that we pin everything to, that would be helpful. Instead I will research from scratch and make a list as usual.

One of my biggest concerns is, and always will be, sharpness. And by sharpness, I don't mean detail and artificial enhancement. Instead of sharp, think of it as "not blurry" or "not soft". How does the Sony HW50 compare to the others? I am getting a feeling it is softer than the others. Are the Epson and JVC both sharper native if the convergence is ok? How many people are reporting un-even focus across the Sony?

So let me see if I have this right:

1) Sony is softer than others unless RC is used no more than 20-30 which brings more detail and sharper look
2) Epson is sharper native than Sony but SR doesn't quite match RC for detail enhancement and Epson has no FI in 3D. Is the Epson sharp enough native that if I prefer a sharp image I should chose the Epson over the Sony?
3) Newest JVC's have the best 3D they have ever produced, but still some ghosting and motion for 2D and 3D still falls behind Epson and Sony. Lower black floor than Sony and Epson. JVC are above average sharpness. Are the JVC sharp enough native that I would prefer over the Sony? I honestly don't have the new JVC line figured out yet. I hate how they have two lines and now this year the 4810. How do they all compare?

My concern is the softness of the Sony HW50 because all other things being equal it sounds like a good unit. Also wonder about the black levels and contrast compared to the last projector I used, the Epson 1080 UB Pro.

How does the sharpness of the HW50 compare to the other projectors here? How close are they compared to the old Mitsubishi HC7000?
How do the black levels compare to the older Epson 1080 UB Pro, Mitsubishi HC7000, and the JVC RS40?
Edited by cpc - 12/29/12 at 11:08am
post #2627 of 8074
Thread Starter 
Hi, I remember you from the old Mitsubishi threads, I've had a number of the older LCD's (5500, 6800, etc).

imo, the HW50 is in another league from the older mits LCD's.. much brighter, better contrast, etc. The contrast and black level will be comparable to the older 1080UB.

On my 142" screen with all 'enhancement' features turned off (JVC e-shift, reality creation, Darbee, etc) the projectors in this thread all generally look the same to me which is a bit soft, even my single panel DLP projectors. At this size (and close seating distance), I appreciate all of the enhancement technologies when used in moderation.

I wouldn't be turned off by the reality creation, e-shift, or the Darbee. When tuned correctly, these enhancements looks excellent imo and i'm glad we have them. You may have seen some of the settings overdone (which is easy to do) but I think it looks great when done correctly.

The HW50 3D imo is better than the new JVC's.
post #2628 of 8074
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpc View Post

Are the Epson and JVC both sharper native if the convergence is ok? How many people are reporting un-even focus across the Sony?
So let me see if I have this right:
1) Sony is softer than others unless RC is used no more than 20-30 which brings more detail and sharper look
2) Epson is sharper native than Sony but SR doesn't quite match RC for detail enhancement and Epson has no FI in 3D. Is the Epson sharp enough native that if I prefer a sharp image I should chose the Epson over the Sony?
3) Newest JVC's have the best 3D they have ever produced, but still some ghosting and motion for 2D and 3D still falls behind Epson and Sony. Lower black floor than Sony and Epson. JVC are above average sharpness. Are the JVC sharp enough native that I would prefer over the Sony? I honestly don't have the new JVC line figured out yet. I hate how they have two lines and now this year the 4810. How do they all compare?
My concern is the softness of the Sony HW50 because all other things being equal it sounds like a good unit. Also wonder about the black levels and contrast compared to the last projector I used, the Epson 1080 UB Pro.
How does the sharpness of the HW50 compare to the other projectors here? How close are they compared to the old Mitsubishi HC7000?
How do the black levels compare to the older Epson 1080 UB Pro, Mitsubishi HC7000, and the JVC RS40?

Let me see if I can add a different perspective:

It also depends how close you sit to the screen and how big you prefer the image, the only way I'd really let sharpness be a major decision factor is if you love super giant screens and love sitting really close and using your HTPC a lot. If you are just watching video, even at my seating distance (1.0x sw), sharpness doesn't make that much difference between the most recent projectors I've owned.

One scene to check HOW the maximum amount sharpness might affect your video viewing is in the movie "Tree of Life", where the clouds billow smoke up in an almost "h-bomb" type look. The clouds here have very fine details and projectors with a sharpness issue will tend to blur it a bit. Another scene to check is using 2D but from the "3D Ultimate Wave Tahiti" at about 1 minute in or so when the camera does a quick but nice pan horizontally forward over the ocean, this is a reference level shot of the ocean (probably best I've ever seen). This shot only lasts 5 seconds or so, so I'd have to go look at the exact time mark of where the scene is, but my point being is that less sharp projectors lose dimensionality in this scene. It's too bad this movie only caught (1) reference level scene in the entire movie. The most reference level scenes in any movie I've ever seen is still "Tree of Life", not only does it have some reference level skin tone shots, but it also has some incredibly sharp shots in the digital part of the film (the little CG + space scenes cut).

Since most of the content we watch on Blurays (90%) is not even close to reference level (cameras don't focus perfectly, lighting blurs fine details, mastering not great, cinematagraphy bland), then sharpness matters more for those FAR and FEW between WOW and AHH moments on like documentary scenery and stuff like that. Even though newer films are mostly filmed with all digital cameras, I still don't find that they are usually that sharp, hence one of the problems I find in movies is the way they focus the cameras, the camera man often picks a bad focal point for the scene.

Keep in mind that even watching documentaries, these WOW moments where they hit near-reference level camera work isn't always that often, but there tend to be more I suppose in documentaries than normal movie viewing for sure.

A JVC with extra-lucky convergence is about as sharp as it gets for any NON-DLP projector, arguably the Mits hc9000d was slightly sharper, but then again it depends on convergence luck. The Epson is more luck-of-the draw, I would say you have greater than 50% chance to get very excellent convergence on a JVC, and probably only a 25% chance to get excellent convergence on an Epson, though expect good to really good convergence at least about half the time on the Epson.

My friend's second Epson 5010 has really good convergence, but not as good as my JVC. His first was off too much regardless of the fine pixel adjustment features. It seems most picky people end up returning the Epson 1-2 times before settling.
post #2629 of 8074
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombie10k View Post

it's not that fast. I don't know how they do their tests, but my numbers are dead on for all the projectors in the shootout.

And I was present and signed the test certifications. His numbers are dead on.
post #2630 of 8074
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombie10k View Post

Hi, I remember you from the old Mitsubishi threads, I've had a number of the older LCD's (5500, 6800, etc).
imo, the HW50 is in another league from the older mits LCD's.. much brighter, better contrast, etc. The contrast and black level will be comparable to the older 1080UB.
On my 142" screen with all 'enhancement' features turned off (JVC e-shift, reality creation, Darbee, etc) the projectors in this thread all generally look the same to me which is a bit soft, even my single panel DLP projectors. At this size (and close seating distance), I appreciate all of the enhancement technologies when used in moderation.
I wouldn't be turned off by the reality creation, e-shift, or the Darbee. When tuned correctly, these enhancements looks excellent imo and i'm glad we have them. You may have seen some of the settings overdone (which is easy to do) but I think it looks great when done correctly.
The HW50 3D imo is better than the new JVC's.

Yep. I was chasing the Mits HC7000 but went with a JVC RS40 and never even took it out of the box. My financial situation fell apart and I had to move. I am better off now. Funny thing is, the HC7000 are available used with low hours, and in actual fact, I may get one to start my theatre back up with and move it to the bedroom later. The last two projectors I used were the Hitachi TX200 which I had for a year and watched many movies with that one. The very last projector I had for a short time in my Home Theatre was the 1080 UB Pro. It was great for contrast and black levels, no doubt. I found it slightly soft looking compared to my Hitachi TX200. Upon close inspection, I saw the pixels were very bizarre. Rainbow text etc...anyways...all ancient history...

My setup will essentially be a living room with a window I will have to block out and two doorways to block out. I won't be living in this place indefinitely, so I won't be darkening the room a whole lot. I will save that for the next place I move to where I have a dedicated room. My screen will start out as a blackout material 52" high CIH setup with a 132" diagonal 2.35:1 screen area. In future I may move up to a similar screen in a Carada 1.4 BW setup.

I suppose like everything else, I would have to see the Sony in action. It would be nice to use the Sony if the black levels and contrast are like the 1080 UB and the 3D works well. I guess I am trying to differentiate these projectors more.

Why would somebody chose the Epson over the Sony? Is it's sharpness at all noticably better than the Sony? I guess to you these all look the same.
post #2631 of 8074
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post


A JVC with extra-lucky convergence is about as sharp as it gets for any NON-DLP projector

This RS46 I have is one of the best 3 chip samples i've ever seen, basically perfect. On my sized screen, it's still screaming for the Darbee. CPC is talking about 135+ inch screen which could definitely benefit from RC.

I realize people are hung up on the darbee, RC and e-shift, but folks just have to see in person when tuned correctly, it looks great. The RS55 + eshift MPC @ 2 + Darbee @ 30% is about as good as it gets at this price point.

@ Mark H -you would be proud, today is black ceiling day... 50+ titles + a number of custom cuts. These jet black tiles from Prime-acoustic are amazing. Now I am either go to use the telescope material or my black 'pro-trim' velvet to black out the grid. then the walls and floor are next..
post #2632 of 8074
Since I'll now own the w7000 and the JVC RS-45 and the Pro8200, I'll check some reference level content between the three to see how much difference I see in sharpness between the three, whereas the Benq being the sharpest, JVC second, and Viewsonic being average (Viewsonic is more like an LCD in sharpness), then I'll see what I find. Although I expect to find the same thing I've already found, it can make a little difference, but not nearly as much as people are thinking. The Viewsonic would be pretty close to the Sony in sharpness (although I expect the VS to be sharper with no enhancements, the Sony has better processing for video), and the Epson would be about halfway between the Sony and JVC if you get good convergence, and the Benq should be even 1/2 notch sharper than my JVC (theoretically, but we shall see).

Sorry to go on and on, but one last point is that what people need to understand is that these newer projectors are much sharper than what we used to have in the old days. In the old days, sharpness was more important because 720p it was so utterly noticeable when a pixel was out of alignment, because the pixels were so much bigger. Sharpness still matters some, but it's not like one of the top 10 factors for most people like it used to be, in 2005 I think sharpness was the #1 factor for buying a projector because it was so hard to get an LCOS or LCD that even appeared relatively sharp, but not so anymore.
post #2633 of 8074
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpc View Post

Yep. I was chasing the Mits HC7000 but went with a JVC RS40 and never even took it out of the box. My financial situation fell apart and I had to move. I am better off now. Funny thing is, the HC7000 are available used with low hours, and in actual fact, I may get one to start my theatre back up with and move it to the bedroom later. The last two projectors I used were the Hitachi TX200 which I had for a year and watched many movies with that one. The very last projector I had for a short time in my Home Theatre was the 1080 UB Pro. It was great for contrast and black levels, no doubt. I found it slightly soft looking compared to my Hitachi TX200. Upon close inspection, I saw the pixels were very bizarre. Rainbow text etc...anyways...all ancient history...

My setup will essentially be a living room with a window I will have to block out and two doorways to block out. I won't be living in this place indefinitely, so I won't be darkening the room a whole lot. I will save that for the next place I move to where I have a dedicated room. My screen will start out as a blackout material 52" high CIH setup with a 132" diagonal 2.35:1 screen area. In future I may move up to a similar screen in a Carada 1.4 BW setup.

I suppose like everything else, I would have to see the Sony in action. It would be nice to use the Sony if the black levels and contrast are like the 1080 UB and the 3D works well. I guess I am trying to differentiate these projectors more.
Why would somebody chose the Epson over the Sony? Is it's sharpness at all noticably better than the Sony? I guess to you these all look the same.

The HW50 are 5020 are my favorite 'all around' 2D/3D projectors this year even though they are quite different. The Epson has wide pixel spacing, so there is a small chance of catching the pixel structure with a large screen at a close seating distance. I am @ 14 feet from my 142" and it doesn't bother me, but I've seen it once in a while in very bright BD's like the Art of the Flight.

To answer the Q, why the Epson vs the Sony, the Epson has some very bright 'torch' modes for ambient light viewing. This could be a requirement depending on the setup. The Epson also has great RF glasses that are bit more comfortable that a Sony. Much of this come down to personal preference. The Sony also has FI in 3D which is a welcome addition. the Epson is brighter than the Sony in 3D.

If your used to the older Mits and Epson LCD's, the 5020 or the HW50 would be a great upgrade.
post #2634 of 8074
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post

Let me see if I can add a different perspective:
It also depends how close you sit to the screen and how big you prefer the image, the only way I'd really let sharpness be a major decision factor is if you love super giant screens and love sitting really close and using your HTPC a lot. If you are just watching video, even at my seating distance (1.0x sw), sharpness doesn't make that much difference between the most recent projectors I've owned.
One scene to check HOW the maximum amount sharpness might affect your video viewing is in the movie "Tree of Life", where the clouds billow smoke up in an almost "h-bomb" type look. The clouds here have very fine details and projectors with a sharpness issue will tend to blur it a bit. Another scene to check is using 2D but from the "3D Ultimate Wave Tahiti" at about 1 minute in or so when the camera does a quick but nice pan horizontally forward over the ocean, this is a reference level shot of the ocean (probably best I've ever seen). This shot only lasts 5 seconds or so, so I'd have to go look at the exact time mark of where the scene is, but my point being is that less sharp projectors lose dimensionality in this scene. It's too bad this movie only caught (1) reference level scene in the entire movie. The most reference level scenes in any movie I've ever seen is still "Tree of Life", not only does it have some reference level skin tone shots, but it also has some incredibly sharp shots in the digital part of the film (the little CG + space scenes cut).
Since most of the content we watch on Blurays (90%) is not even close to reference level (cameras don't focus perfectly, lighting blurs fine details, mastering not great, cinematagraphy bland), then sharpness matters more for those FAR and FEW between WOW and AHH moments on like documentary scenery and stuff like that. Even though newer films are mostly filmed with all digital cameras, I still don't find that they are usually that sharp, hence one of the problems I find in movies is the way they focus the cameras, the camera man often picks a bad focal point for the scene.
Keep in mind that even watching documentaries, these WOW moments where they hit near-reference level camera work isn't always that often, but there tend to be more I suppose in documentaries than normal movie viewing for sure.
A JVC with extra-lucky convergence is about as sharp as it gets for any NON-DLP projector, arguably the Mits hc9000d was slightly sharper, but then again it depends on convergence luck. The Epson is more luck-of-the draw, I would say you have greater than 50% chance to get very excellent convergence on a JVC, and probably only a 25% chance to get excellent convergence on an Epson, though expect good to really good convergence at least about half the time on the Epson.
My friend's second Epson 5010 has really good convergence, but not as good as my JVC. His first was off too much regardless of the fine pixel adjustment features. It seems most picky people end up returning the Epson 1-2 times before settling.

Screen will be a 132" diagonal 2.35:1 screen and I will sit fairly close but I'd have to measure. I wear glasses and have 20/20 with them on. For comparison, when I liked the Hitachi TX200 and it's Eye of Zoron lens, it showed when I saw small text on the screen, eyelashes, individual hairs, facial pores, close ups when the camera was sharp. I haven't seen that since.

As long as the Sony HW50 isn't garanteed to look significantly soft, I will give it a try, perhaps try and see one in action in my area, Southern Ontario. I live in Pickering, so the GTA and surrounding area is how far I'd go to see a projector in action. The convergence correction stuff sounds weird and I'd have to see it in action. I truly believe that in this day and age, I can't see why they haven't come up with a way to re-produce 3 chip light engines with tighter convergence. Get tight convergence and a good lens and the best camera work in movies comes together to produce real picture depth.

Anyhow, I guess I need to have a look around and see where I can take a look at these projectors. I don't game, so if the 3D is improved on the JVC, then perhaps the RS46 is an option? What's the deal with the RS 46 and then the RS 48 and 4810? What are the differences?
post #2635 of 8074
In my current setup, I probably would be sitting not much farther than 1.0x. If pixel structure bothered me, I would hope I could try the old slight defocus trick. That worked for me on my old lcd projectors and they still looked sharp. Unless the Epson was sharper, I don't know if I would prefer it. I don't need a projector to be especially bright. I have a TV for daytime viewing and my ST30 plasma is bright enough for me. Even still, I am fine to draw some shades and block off light to view a projector. I never care to watch a pj in bright broad daylight and in fact I usually reduce light when watching my TV.

Thanks for the feedback folks. I am seriously going to have to say that it would be between the JVC RS46, Sony HW50 and the Epson 5020. I suppose I will make a real effort to view these models in person and bring a pad and paper to write down setup and thoughts/impressions especially where I am only able to view one projector model at a time.
post #2636 of 8074
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpc View Post

Screen will be a 132" diagonal 2.35:1 screen and I will sit fairly close but I'd have to measure. I wear glasses and have 20/20 with them on. For comparison, when I liked the Hitachi TX200 and it's Eye of Zoron lens, it showed when I saw small text on the screen, eyelashes, individual hairs, facial pores, close ups when the camera was sharp. I haven't seen that since.

As long as the Sony HW50 isn't garanteed to look significantly soft, I will give it a try, perhaps try and see one in action in my area, Southern Ontario. I live in Pickering, so the GTA and surrounding area is how far I'd go to see a projector in action. The convergence correction stuff sounds weird and I'd have to see it in action. I truly believe that in this day and age, I can't see why they haven't come up with a way to re-produce 3 chip light engines with tighter convergence. Get tight convergence and a good lens and the best camera work in movies comes together to produce real picture depth.

Anyhow, I guess I need to have a look around and see where I can take a look at these projectors. I don't game, so if the 3D is improved on the JVC, then perhaps the RS46 is an option? What's the deal with the RS 46 and then the RS 48 and 4810? What are the differences?

The HW50 is not going to look soft. If you get it, turn the Reality controls down to either 10 or minimum depending on your preferences. The 4810 has e-shift which is a similar enhancement tech to compete with reality creation.

With 3D, you need as much initial brightness as possible because the 3D glasses use up nearly 80% of the light. The HW50 is brighter than the RS46 and nearly 2x brighter than the 4810.

HW50, 3D left eye on my 142" screen

HW50-3DCAL-0-.jpg

HW50-3DCAL-1-.jpg

HW50-3DCAL-8-.jpg

2D - Reality creation @ minimum setting


HW50-3DCAL-9-.jpg

HW50-3DCAL-10-.jpg

HW50-3DCAL-14-.jpg
post #2637 of 8074
If you're not a gamer and are mostly into movies and not documentaries, I seriously would not even worry about the sharpness. I would bet money that your Hitachi appeared extra sharp not just because of natural sharpness, but it probably had a good enhancement going on in the background.

You need what is called a Darby ($350) + RC on the Sony, then you will see all the fine details just like any projector. On a projector, the images are blown up so much, those fine details become more visible anyhow. In the average VIDEO scene, I've A/B'd several projectors in split-screening to look for sharpness, and it's just hard to see a difference unless it's near reference level content. HTPC is another story, but still not as much difference as you might think.
post #2638 of 8074
The TX200 used Hitachi's Super ED lens system that comprised 4 Extra-Low Dispersion lenses in combination with aspherical lenses. Marketing talk maybe, but still, if the unit had good convergence (I had to swap my first), the resulting image was very sharp. The old projector had lousy contrast and black levels by todays standard. I sold it within a year for that reason alone. The Epson 1080 UB I got to replace it was not as sharp period. I never owned a Mitsubishi projector, but will probably pick up a lightly used HC7000 if I can for the bedroom and/or for reference comparison.

Thanks for the pictures. What are the differences between the RS48 and 4810?
Edited by cpc - 12/29/12 at 1:06pm
post #2639 of 8074
Zombie, you are the master of screen shots.....
post #2640 of 8074
On a different note, I dislike the fact that most Bluray players don't allow you to force 3D mode when it is not detected. On my Samsung player + HDMI switch, no issues with going into 3D mode. On my Sony bdp-s590, well it's more finicky with this HDMI switch I have, sometimes I can get it into 3D mode, sometimes nope. The dumb thing is once I get into 3D mode, it works perfectly, there is no HDMI issue on viewing, it's only on the handshake. I use short good cables, so it's not my run length, it's just the HDMI switch (again switch was perfect with Samsung player). The Sony player overall is much better than my other players, but minor annoyance is that it 3D handshakes a bit more finicky.

Just goes to show you that whether or not a semi-cheap HDMI switch (even ones rated for 3D) will actually work in 3D, depends on a combo of luck between the projector, player, and HDMI switch. Changing any one of those or all will make it work eventually.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP › Projector Mini-Shootout Thread 2013-2014