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 90

post #2671 of 8052
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombie10k View Post

Hi, thanks for the comments. The camera is Nikon D90 with a small 18-55 lens that is great for the 'behind the glasses' screenshots. The exposures are manual and adjusted to reflect a general idea of what it looks like on my HP screen which is quite bright since I keep the projectors near eye level for maximum gain.
I'm not sure when I'll get a chance to see the 3D glasses. I don't expect a major difference, the lumen output isn't going to change. The 5020 is one of the brightest i've seen so far, @ 1400 3D lumens.
The pixel structure on the 5020 doesn't bother me @ 14 feet from my 142" screen. I was mentioning it since someone with good eyes, a closer seating distance, etc might catch it in a bright scene. It's a none issue for me.

thanks zombie smile.gif
post #2672 of 8052
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpc View Post

The only difference I can find regarding the JVC RS 4810 is they call it a media room projector vs the RS48 where they don't specifically say "media room". Also there is this AVAD stuff:
Long lasting performance and added value
Specialized final QC
Available exclusively through AVAD custom installers
3 year parts & labor warranty
What is the deal with the 4810 vs the 48?

You summed it up. Same projector, but supposedly better QC and has a longer warranty. Otherwise, same machine.
post #2673 of 8052
Quote:
Originally Posted by havok2022 View Post

You summed it up. Same projector, but supposedly better QC and has a longer warranty. Otherwise, same machine.

So bizzare that they already have two different projector lines, one "consumer" and one "pro" with virtually identical projectors, and then they chose one, the RS-48 to make another virtually identical twin, the RS 4810, and...they charge another $100 for it. Just weird. So you've got the X55, the RS48 and the RS4810. Somebody has to come up with better numbering systems, especially when the numbers start overlapping. There is an RS55 and now an X55. It can be confusing. Anyways...just my observation.
post #2674 of 8052
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombie10k View Post

First viewing with the ceiling blackout. This took longer than I was expecting since I had to custom cut a number of tiles. You can see I still have some more work to do. The grid will be blacked out with either the Dalite velvet 'pro-trim' or the telescope material.
I've been waiting to do this until I found the exact 2x2 tile I wanted. I wanted it pitch black and flat, no texture. The prime-acoustic surface is covered with a very dark black fiberglass material. It's eats light up even in the brightest scenes on the HP screen.
Since my screen is so close to my ceiling (it's basically an entire wall @ 12 ft wide) the light was causing major reflections around the room. Now it looks like tunnel with the exception of grid which I'll have done soon.
Overall an amazing transformation. Between this and the buttkickers, I'm in HT nirvana tonight. biggrin.gif

I started with white walls and ceiling when I got my first projector, some 11-12 years ago. I remember holding up a dark blanket while seated to try to mask out the ceiling and part of the walls, just to see how a darker room might affect the image. biggrin.gif Soon thereafter, I redid the room. To this day, it remains the single biggest improvement I've ever made to my home theater. My room is not even close to being a bat cave. I have dark navy and gray walls and ceiling, and a dark blue carpet, but there are lighter colored accents and paintings here and there. It's still shockingly better looking than it was. A projector with better contrast is great, but IMO the advantage is largely wasted without a dark viewing environment.
post #2675 of 8052
Thread Starter 
BQ-EPSON.jpg

W7000 vs Epson 5020 - 3D Only - This is my own personal 'mini-shootout' but you're all welcome to join in for the ride. Most know I prefer to run a 2nd projector for 3D. the New JVC's this year went in a difference direction with 3D, so that's not an option for me this year. I have to expect we are looking at a full ground up refresh for JVC in 2013, the limitations of the 1st gen 120hz panels have been realized and they will have to step up in a huge way next year since i'm sure Sony, Epson and the other CEM's aren't sitting still.

The criteria are the following:

  • Flicker - highly subjective, but I am really sensitive to this. Any 3D DLP > Epson 5020 > HW50 ~ HW30 > JVC. The Epson is quite good, definitely better than the Sony and certainly vs. the JVC. I have to see how close it is to the DLP in a direct A/B.

  • Contrast - We know the W7000 is lacking here but it generally looks very good with Optoma ZD201 and Truedepth glasses. I have a number of 3D titles with dark scenes and will have to see how much a difference this makes. The Epson looks exceptionally good in dark scenes.

  • Brightness - I have to calibrate both behind the glasses for final #. Out of the box, the Epson has ~300 lumen lead on the W7000 with colors that look pretty good behind the glasses before calibration.

  • Glasses - DLP link requires the red flash signal from the screen. I've tested 1/2 dozen different DLP link glasses, some hold the sync better than others. When we have visitors with young kids, they are losing sync often (from moving around) so this is something I have to consider. The Epson RF glasses are my # 1 pick for factory glasses in regard to performance and comfort. Definitely more comfortable than the Sony glasses.

  • Frame Interpolation in 3D - Some people love or hate FI, but many agree it has major value with 3D titles. Maybe's it's because our eyes are trying to follow the 3D effect vs. staring flatly at the center of the screen in a 2D presentation. This is a sore spot on the 5020 since I was watching it last night and there were a number of times I wish this projector had it. It won't be any surprise if we see this in 10 months on the 5030 (or whatever the next model is called). It works excellent on the W7000 and creates an 'easy on the eyes' 3D presentation.
post #2676 of 8052
Not sure if this is the correct place for this question/photo, but I've moved to a loft downtown and I have the benefit of a gorgeous skyline view, however, at the expense of a ton of ambient lighting. Would it be crazy to think a 5020 or HW50 could project a decent image with this much ambient light? I watch 99% movies and an occasional sporting event. I am in the process of making curtains that will help some also.

post #2677 of 8052
OK, take this for what it's worth, but after spending 2 hours watching 3D on a 5020 I'm in puppy love at least. The 3D BLOWS AWAY the JVC 40 (but you already knew that thanks to Zombie).
Out of the box it looks pretty good in 2D too, but I barely watched it for that. The JVC has a smoother picture but I'm thinking some calibration can improve the Epson to be an acceptable all-around projector for lots of folks (I'm still planning on keeping the JVC for 2D). Again, I'm TORTURING this thing with a 23 foot throw onto a 12 foot wide 1.1 gain screen for scope (like PROMETHEUS), and I honestly think this dark film looked as good as when I saw it at the theater (and I know that's not always praise, but I saw it at a pretty decent venue).

Brightness aside, it's GHOSTING where this really shines - I really couldn't see ANY compared to the JVC. MONSTERS VS ALIENS bridge scene? OK, maybe just a hint but I had to really look for it. Now I know on a higher gain screen you might catch more, but honestly, I really couldn't notice it in normal viewing.
Zoom-in scene to the number 4 clock in the opening of HUGO? Always a HUGE ghost on my JVC on the white clock face. 5020? None.

Convergence and sharpness look good too, not quite as good as the JVC (I got a good one first time out) and I'm not doing critical testing, but standing right up next to a white screen uniformity and pixels looks pretty solid.
Would hate the lack of power zoom and shift for day to day viewing, but as a 3D only unit, no problem, the controls are easy to use on the top of the projector at least. And the range of them for placement purposes is really wide, I set it on a shelf below my JVC and had it focused and level in 5 minutes.

And yes, the glasses are lighter and USB charge fully in about a half hour, really good synch lock in my theater as I walked around and tilted my head.
I'd have to say that for the price point, and if you are a rainbow-sighter as i am, this is looking to be the clear winner of the current batch for 3D fanatics such as myself.

Thanks again Mr. Z10k! You really helped me make this decision here. I have a 30 day return policy in force, but so far so good.

S A M 33
post #2678 of 8052
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombie10k View Post

Hi, thanks for the comments. The camera is Nikon D90 with a small 18-55 lens that is great for the 'behind the glasses' screenshots. The exposures are manual and adjusted to reflect a general idea of what it looks like on my HP screen which is quite bright since I keep the projectors near eye level for maximum gain.
I'm not sure when I'll get a chance to see the 3D glasses. I don't expect a major difference, the lumen output isn't going to change. The 5020 is one of the brightest i've seen so far, @ 1400 3D lumens.
The pixel structure on the 5020 doesn't bother me @ 14 feet from my 142" screen. I was mentioning it since someone with good eyes, a closer seating distance, etc might catch it in a bright scene. It's a none issue for me.

14 feet for a 142´´ screen is not a very short distance? Visual acuity " ideal" viewing distance is 18.5 feet for 142``.Viewing too short doesnt we loose some picture quality?
http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html
http://carltonbale.com/home-theater/home-theater-calculator/
The pictures of the 5020 are awesome. Is it just me or zombie is starting to fall in love to the epson 5020?
post #2679 of 8052
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lgreis View Post

14 feet for a 142´´ screen is not a very short distance? Visual acuity " ideal" viewing distance is 18.5 feet for 142``.Viewing too short doesnt we loose some picture quality?

http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html
http://carltonbale.com/home-theater/home-theater-calculator/

I think much of it has to do with personal preference in regard to the seating distance. I like sitting close because my 2D primary projector is the RS55 with the e-shift technique which completely eliminates the appearance of the pixel grid. It's about as close as you can get to the smooth, film-like appearance of a CRT.

I do like the 5020 for 3D, but the lack of FI is something I have to figure out. It's really a shame they chose not to put this in because it would have been near perfect for my preferences.
post #2680 of 8052
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpc View Post

So bizzare that they already have two different projector lines, one "consumer" and one "pro" with virtually identical projectors, and then they chose one, the RS-48 to make another virtually identical twin, the RS 4810, and...they charge another $100 for it. Just weird. So you've got the X55, the RS48 and the RS4810. Somebody has to come up with better numbering systems, especially when the numbers start overlapping. There is an RS55 and now an X55. It can be confusing. Anyways...just my observation.
To add the the confusion, I'm pretty sure here in Canada the x55 and line come with a 3 year warranty. Same as the RS4810. It still has a silver focus ring instead of gold though.smile.gif
post #2681 of 8052
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgse3 View Post

Not sure if this is the correct place for this question/photo, but I've moved to a loft downtown and I have the benefit of a gorgeous skyline view, however, at the expense of a ton of ambient lighting. Would it be crazy to think a 5020 or HW50 could project a decent image with this much ambient light? I watch 99% movies and an occasional sporting event. I am in the process of making curtains that will help some also.

Hi, you would need a projector with some serious horsepower with that much ambient light. Covering those windows with light controlling curtains will obviously go a long way. The 5020 has a torch mode which is around ~2000 and can be used with some ambient light, depending on the screen size, projector distance to screen, etc.

For total daytime viewing in that photo, I don't think it would be reasonable since the screen is going to get washed out.
post #2682 of 8052
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombie10k View Post

BQ-EPSON.jpg
W7000 vs Epson 5020 - 3D Only - This is my own personal 'mini-shootout' but you're all welcome to join in for the ride. Most know I prefer to run a 2nd projector for 3D. the New JVC's this year went in a difference direction with 3D, so that's not an option for me this year. I have to expect we are looking at a full ground up refresh for JVC in 2013, the limitations of the 1st gen 120hz panels have been realized and they will have to step up in a huge way next year since i'm sure Sony, Epson and the other CEM's aren't sitting still.
The criteria are the following:
  • Flicker - highly subjective, but I am really sensitive to this. Any 3D DLP > Epson 5020 > HW50 ~ HW30 > JVC. The Epson is quite good, definitely better than the Sony and certainly vs. the JVC. I have to see how close it is to the DLP in a direct A/B.
  • Contrast - We know the W7000 is lacking here but it generally looks very good with Optoma ZD201 and Truedepth glasses. I have a number of 3D titles with dark scenes and will have to see how much a difference this makes. The Epson looks exceptionally good in dark scenes.
  • Brightness - I have to calibrate both behind the glasses for final #. Out of the box, the Epson has ~300 lumen lead on the W7000 with colors that look pretty good behind the glasses before calibration.
  • Glasses - DLP link requires the red flash signal from the screen. I've tested 1/2 dozen different DLP link glasses, some hold the sync better than others. When we have visitors with young kids, they are losing sync often (from moving around) so this is something I have to consider. The Epson RF glasses are my # 1 pick for factory glasses in regard to performance and comfort. Definitely more comfortable than the Sony glasses.
  • Frame Interpolation in 3D - Some people love or hate FI, but many agree it has major value with 3D titles. Maybe's it's because our eyes are trying to follow the 3D effect vs. staring flatly at the center of the screen in a 2D presentation. This is a sore spot on the 5020 since I was watching it last night and there were a number of times I wish this projector had it. It won't be any surprise if we see this in 10 months on the 5030 (or whatever the next model is called). It works excellent on the W7000 and creates an 'easy on the eyes' 3D presentation.

Zombie, thank you for this, you are indeed, "The Man." This is very helpful/useful information.
post #2683 of 8052
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpc View Post

So bizzare that they already have two different projector lines, one "consumer" and one "pro" with virtually identical projectors, and then they chose one, the RS-48 to make another virtually identical twin, the RS 4810, and...they charge another $100 for it. Just weird. So you've got the X55, the RS48 and the RS4810. Somebody has to come up with better numbering systems, especially when the numbers start overlapping. There is an RS55 and now an X55. It can be confusing. Anyways...just my observation.
The 4810 is specific to AVAD. I suspect AVAD had JVC "rename" the RS48 so they could offer the RS4810 with an additional year of warranty and an additional QA inspection.
post #2684 of 8052
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombie10k View Post

I think much of it has to do with personal preference in regard to the seating distance. I like sitting close because my 2D primary projector is the RS55 with the e-shift technique which completely eliminates the appearance of the pixel grid. It's about as close as you can get to the smooth, film-like appearance of a CRT.
I do like the 5020 for 3D, but the lack of FI is something I have to figure out. It's really a shame they chose not to put this in because it would have been near perfect for my preferences.

Can epson put FI in 3D with a firmware upgrade? That would be an inteligent move in a comercial way, if it puts it to be the best under 5000€! In 2D is under the top 3 based on the reviews online i think. The JVC rs46 at first and hw50/5020 in a close second
post #2685 of 8052
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombie10k View Post

BQ-EPSON.jpg
W7000 vs Epson 5020 - 3D Only - This is my own personal 'mini-shootout' but you're all welcome to join in for the ride. Most know I prefer to run a 2nd projector for 3D. the New JVC's this year went in a difference direction with 3D, so that's not an option for me this year. I have to expect we are looking at a full ground up refresh for JVC in 2013, the limitations of the 1st gen 120hz panels have been realized and they will have to step up in a huge way next year since i'm sure Sony, Epson and the other CEM's aren't sitting still.
The criteria are the following:
  • Flicker - highly subjective, but I am really sensitive to this. Any 3D DLP > Epson 5020 > HW50 ~ HW30 > JVC. The Epson is quite good, definitely better than the Sony and certainly vs. the JVC. I have to see how close it is to the DLP in a direct A/B.
  • Contrast - We know the W7000 is lacking here but it generally looks very good with Optoma ZD201 and Truedepth glasses. I have a number of 3D titles with dark scenes and will have to see how much a difference this makes. The Epson looks exceptionally good in dark scenes.
  • Brightness - I have to calibrate both behind the glasses for final #. Out of the box, the Epson has ~300 lumen lead on the W7000 with colors that look pretty good behind the glasses before calibration.
  • Glasses - DLP link requires the red flash signal from the screen. I've tested 1/2 dozen different DLP link glasses, some hold the sync better than others. When we have visitors with young kids, they are losing sync often (from moving around) so this is something I have to consider. The Epson RF glasses are my # 1 pick for factory glasses in regard to performance and comfort. Definitely more comfortable than the Sony glasses.
  • Frame Interpolation in 3D - Some people love or hate FI, but many agree it has major value with 3D titles. Maybe's it's because our eyes are trying to follow the 3D effect vs. staring flatly at the center of the screen in a 2D presentation. This is a sore spot on the 5020 since I was watching it last night and there were a number of times I wish this projector had it. It won't be any surprise if we see this in 10 months on the 5030 (or whatever the next model is called). It works excellent on the W7000 and creates an 'easy on the eyes' 3D presentation.

How did they compare in overall 3 d perception , I mean depth and popup ?
post #2686 of 8052
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by toni1 View Post

How did they compare in overall 3 d perception , I mean depth and popup ?

I haven't directly compared them yet, but will in the next few days.
post #2687 of 8052
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombie10k View Post

I do like the 5020 for 3D, but the lack of FI is something I have to figure out. It's really a shame they chose not to put this in because it would have been near perfect for my preferences.

Can you tell me why the Panasonic 6000/8000 is largely ignored everywhere? It has the same panels as the Epson and FI in 3D. Shouldn't that make it interesting? I am about to buy a new projector and there are two reasons that strongly seem to push me towards the Panasonic: low lag and 3D-FI. Since this here seems to be the single best thread in the whole wide web (thanks for that) in regards to comparing 3D-performance it would be great to know how the Panasonic fares against the Epson.
post #2688 of 8052
Quote:
Originally Posted by KUV1977 View Post

Can you tell me why the Panasonic 6000/8000 is largely ignored everywhere? It has the same panels as the Epson and FI in 3D. Shouldn't that make it interesting? I am about to buy a new projector and there are two reasons that strongly seem to push me towards the Panasonic: low lag and 3D-FI. Since this here seems to be the single best thread in the whole wide web (thanks for that) in regards to comparing 3D-performance it would be great to know how the Panasonic fares against the Epson.

Here's a comparison from Trusted Reviews between the Epson's 3D (new 6020) and the Panasonic's (6000) 3D.


"3D punch
This extra punch makes 3D images more engrossing and naturally coloured, and also makes watching them feel like less of a compromise versus watching in 2D.

The other clear improvement to the TW9100W’s 3D performance concerns crosstalk. We saw noticeably less of this double ghosting problem than we witnessed either on the TW9000W or, more tellingly, Panasonic’s recent AT6000E. This lets full HD 3D Blu-rays look sharper, more detailed, and more naturally full of depth.

Having made a comparison with the Panasonic AT6000E, we should also stress that the Epson’s 3D pictures look much brighter than those of the Panasonic.

Panasonic comparisons
The Panasonic’s 3D pictures have a bit more colour accuracy/finesse and arguably slightly more pleasing 3D motion reproduction. Plus Panasonic’s projector carries an AV enthusiast-friendly ‘lens memory’ for storing lens settings while the Epson does not. However, for us crosstalk and brightness are our two number one bugbears about the active 3D system. So the Epson handling both issues better is a big deal."

So now you know -- Trusted Reviews like the Epson's 3D better than the Panasonic's 3D. Don't shoot the messenger. biggrin.gif
post #2689 of 8052
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombie10k View Post

...Can you see all the sensors lit up? it's a bit dim, but does have visible light.
RC1-22.jpg

Watched a movie tonight and tested 3D for a few minutes afterwards. I can see the sensor lights. Even if I sit directly under the projector the Xpands will not stay connected. I have to face the projector for the Xpands to stay connected. Hopefully the external emitter will do the job.
post #2690 of 8052
So I'm comparing the various lumens figures zombie collected for all these projectors but I'm having a hard time translating that to actual foot-lamberts on my screen. As we all know, projectors lose lumens as you decrease zoom and move the projector farther from the screen. This effect seems to vary depending on the design of the projector. So let's say that my particular setup required running the Sony at maximum throw distance and thus maximum loss of light in order to fill my screen. But because of the greater throw ratio and zoom of the JVC, I was able to use it at mid-zoom setting from the same distance to the screen. Is it possible that the JVC would actually produce more foot lamberts on my screen despite measuring lower lumens from the shorter distance used by zombie?

In case it helps, I've got a 92x52" screen and need to place the projector as close to 17' as possible to keep it on a rear wall shelf. According to the PC calculator, the Sony can't be any farther than 16'-2" for this size screen. JVC can be placed much farther before the image becomes too large for my screen.

Thanks.
post #2691 of 8052
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wizziwig View Post

So I'm comparing the various lumens figures zombie collected for all these projectors but I'm having a hard time translating that to actual foot-lamberts on my screen. As we all know, projectors lose lumens as you decrease zoom and move the projector farther from the screen. This effect seems to vary depending on the design of the projector. So let's say that my particular setup required running the Sony at maximum throw distance and thus maximum loss of light in order to fill my screen. But because of the greater throw ratio and zoom of the JVC, I was able to use it at mid-zoom setting from the same distance to the screen. Is it possible that the JVC would actually produce more foot lamberts on my screen despite measuring lower lumens from the shorter distance used by zombie?
In case it helps, I've got a 92x52" screen and need to place the projector as close to 17' as possible to keep it on a rear wall shelf. According to the PC calculator, the Sony can't be any farther than 16'-2" for this size screen. JVC can be placed much farther before the image becomes too large for my screen.
Thanks.

Try this calculator:
http://www.eliteprojectorcalculator.com/

It doesn't have this years models yet. Look at the reviews and see how this years models are different, and you should be able to get a good idea of what you're looking at.
post #2692 of 8052
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deja Vu View Post

So now you know -- Trusted Reviews like the Epson's 3D better than the Panasonic's 3D. Don't shoot the messenger. biggrin.gif

Thanks for that!

I already read a few reviews but the real problem for me is comparability. All the 3D-stuff is usually really subjective and seems(!) like they watch stuff a couple minutes and then say 'I like that better' with no real possibility of quantification whereas here you get the nice comparison screens. I was only able to see both projectors for a very short time in a big electronics market here and both looked very close as far as ghosting goes with the Epson ever so slightly better in cross-talk (certainly not enough for me to choose it over the Panasonic but as I said super-short demo-time with limited material) but the Panasonic 'massively' better in movement fluidity. If you look at the thread in this forum one will also find people saying that there is no crosstalk at all and others that say it is so bad it's borderline useless. Some objectivity would really be great. At least one through the glasses L-R-test-pattern shot... Even the cine4home people only judge the 3D very superficially. They will write paragraphs about lumens but handle crosstalk with a single phrase like 'only rarely visible'. Plus they haven't even gotten final reviews for both Epson and Panasonic.
post #2693 of 8052
Quote:
Originally Posted by KUV1977 View Post

Thanks for that!
I already read a few reviews but the real problem for me is comparability. All the 3D-stuff is usually really subjective and seems(!) like they watch stuff a couple minutes and then say 'I like that better' with no real possibility of quantification whereas here you get the nice comparison screens. I was only able to see both projectors for a very short time in a big electronics market here and both looked very close as far as ghosting goes with the Epson ever so slightly better in cross-talk (certainly not enough for me to choose it over the Panasonic but as I said super-short demo-time with limited material) but the Panasonic 'massively' better in movement fluidity. If you look at the thread in this forum one will also find people saying that there is no crosstalk at all and others that say it is so bad it's borderline useless. Some objectivity would really be great. At least one through the glasses L-R-test-pattern shot... Even the cine4home people only judge the 3D very superficially. They will write paragraphs about lumens but handle crosstalk with a single phrase like 'only rarely visible'. Plus they haven't even gotten final reviews for both Epson and Panasonic.

Yes I agree : A side by side between those two in exactly the same conditions same parts of a movie would be great.
post #2694 of 8052
I posted my noobish 3D experience with the JVC X35 in the owners thread for those interested:

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1442525/official-jvc-dla-rs46-dla-x35-owners-thread/270#post_22764733

I did have a couple questions in that post, so if you have any answers, I'd appreciate it. Thanks.
post #2695 of 8052
Noobish?
post #2696 of 8052
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirnak View Post

Try this calculator:
http://www.eliteprojectorcalculator.com/
It doesn't have this years models yet. Look at the reviews and see how this years models are different, and you should be able to get a good idea of what you're looking at.

Yah, sorry about that, I am waiting on my job to buy a software pack so I can fix the calculator and get it up to current SPEC (slow process). It costs over $1000 so leery of spending my own money to update it. I can use free stuff, but better if I use the control pack (I'll be able to add theater clearance calculations for seating and standing for gaming as well). The main reason I need the software is because it has a JQUERY library that fixes my pixel alignment issues across different browsers (which is causing some lens shift calcs to go wrong). The lens shift calcs get it "about right", and in many cases are correct, but it's often off by a few inches. The throw distance and ZOOM calculations are exact (as far as how the math works), not that the MFR's give the very very exact throws anyhow (close enough, they usually round up slightly to give viewers an extra margin of error --- but not always).
Edited by coderguy - 12/31/12 at 8:27am
post #2697 of 8052
Dude, no worries! It's still a great calculator and an awesome tool. I really don't think it's too much to ask or people to check lumen and zoom specs from the online reviews. Enjoy the holidays and thanks or such a great tool!!!!!!!!
post #2698 of 8052
Hi, anyone know the difference between BenQ w7000 and their newest BenQ w7000+ ?
post #2699 of 8052
I believe I read in the W7000 owner's forum that the 7000+ is a 7000 with updated firmware. You'll have to read the owner's forum to see what was fixed -- I can't recall.
post #2700 of 8052
Quote:
Originally Posted by KUV1977 View Post

Thanks for that!
I already read a few reviews but the real problem for me is comparability. All the 3D-stuff is usually really subjective and seems(!) like they watch stuff a couple minutes and then say 'I like that better' with no real possibility of quantification whereas here you get the nice comparison screens. I was only able to see both projectors for a very short time in a big electronics market here and both looked very close as far as ghosting goes with the Epson ever so slightly better in cross-talk (certainly not enough for me to choose it over the Panasonic but as I said super-short demo-time with limited material) but the Panasonic 'massively' better in movement fluidity. If you look at the thread in this forum one will also find people saying that there is no crosstalk at all and others that say it is so bad it's borderline useless. Some objectivity would really be great. At least one through the glasses L-R-test-pattern shot... Even the cine4home people only judge the 3D very superficially. They will write paragraphs about lumens but handle crosstalk with a single phrase like 'only rarely visible'. Plus they haven't even gotten final reviews for both Epson and Panasonic.

Here's the problem. When someone says a projector has great 3D or poor 3D we need to know what title they watched. A tough title will destroy most non DLP projectors so if someone watched a title like this then they might say that the 3D was useless on that projector. If they watch the "good" titles and little else then they might say that 3D on a particular projector is great. I believe that Trusted Reviews uses the same titles for all 3D testing so there should be some merit in their opinion. You should buy the Panasonic and then send it to Zombie for an evaluation! biggrin.gif
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