AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP › Sony HW50 / BenQ W7000 / Epson 5020 / JVC RS55 / JVC RS 46 / JVC RS4810 / JVC RS56 Mini-shootout 2012-2013
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Sony HW50 / BenQ W7000 / Epson 5020 / JVC RS55 / JVC RS 46 / JVC RS4810 / JVC RS56 Mini-shootout... - Page 89

post #2641 of 4168
12/29/12 at 10:57am
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
Reply
Reply

Gear mentioned in this thread:

post #2642 of 4168
12/29/12 at 11:15am
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.
Reply
Reply
post #2643 of 4168
12/29/12 at 11:39am
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.
Reply
Reply
post #2644 of 4168
12/29/12 at 11:43am
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.
Reply
Reply
post #2645 of 4168
12/29/12 at 11:47am
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.
Reply
Reply
post #2646 of 4168
12/29/12 at 11:50am
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..
Reply
Reply
post #2647 of 4168
12/29/12 at 11:51am
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.
Reply
Reply
post #2648 of 4168
12/29/12 at 11:55am
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.
Reply
Reply
post #2649 of 4168
12/29/12 at 11:56am
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?
Reply
Reply
post #2650 of 4168
12/29/12 at 12:04pm
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.
Reply
Reply
post #2651 of 4168
12/29/12 at 12:06pm
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
Reply
Reply
post #2652 of 4168
12/29/12 at 12:09pm
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.
Reply
Reply
post #2653 of 4168
12/29/12 at 12:19pm
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
Reply
Reply
post #2654 of 4168
12/29/12 at 12:50pm
Zombie, you are the master of screen shots.....
Reply
Reply
post #2655 of 4168
12/29/12 at 1:17pm
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.
Reply
Reply
post #2656 of 4168
12/29/12 at 1:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post

You need what is called a Darby ($350) + RC on the Sony, then you will see all the fine details just like any projector.

so do you mean if we dont use darbee and turn of RC, All projectors have better sharpness than sony?

confused.gif
Reply
Reply
post #2657 of 4168
12/29/12 at 1:34pm
No, what I mean is when you blow up images so big to show them that big as we do on projectors, well you need some enhancements to maximize sharpness, as per a TV the image is much smaller and will appear sharper even without enhancements. From seating distance, Zombie has noted the projectors appear to be about the same in sharpness for movies and general viewing.

I have not seen the hw50, but have seen other PJ's with similar lens issues. If you are obsessing on sharpness, the only way to know if it will be good enough for you is to go see it in a showroom, we can't really tell you that for sure. For video though, in A/B it's hard to tell, only when you get close to the screen you can tell some projectors are not as sharp (unless a projector has bad convergence or just such bad focus it's very noticeable). I literally mean you can stare in A/B for 30 seconds from a good bit back and sharpness is hard to see in most movies, a few you can tell more than others, but very very slight. I can see it a little more in the background images like of mountains or oceans or scenery shot on IMAX cameras, but that's about it.
Reply
Reply
post #2658 of 4168
12/29/12 at 1:38pm
Setting RC to a lower setting such as 20 the HW50 looks sharper than my RS45 to my eye. My wife even commented on it. I've only watched very good material on it thus far and I've not noticed any more noise in the picture than my RS45 but this isn't an area that I am extremely picky with either.

On a side note, I ordered an ND2 filter for 10 bucks to see how much black levels improve and if it's worth using in 2D. We'll see.
Reply
Reply
post #2659 of 4168
12/29/12 at 1:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombie10k View Post

I still use my little LED DLP for watching a quick HDTV show. Centered on the HP, it's watchable for TV. One time I left it on all night.. oh well.. smile.gif
JVC-RS46-3.jpg

I been debating on another LED projector, but I just can't pull the trigger on one for a 3rd, everyday projector. After having one, I don't think its worth it. I just might grab one of the Acers or Benq with the extra long eco bulb that is 6000-7000hrs, they are much brighter, 1080p, and a much better picture. With a 2nd lamp, it should last me 10hrs, if I don't get rid of it. I figure I will only use it 5 days a week for an average of 3-5 hours a day.
Reply
Reply
post #2660 of 4168
12/29/12 at 1:40pm
@xb1032
Even in HTPC, does RC help the text appear sharper in HTPC, just curious?
I meant it's hard to tell between projectors when the post-processing is equalized. If you are adding processing, then they need to be exhibiting the same level of smoothness and lack of ringing, or not fair. (it's still a valid comparison, but I can stack sharpness filters and make one PJ appear much sharper than another)... The RC might be a great sharpness algorithm, better than what the RS-45 has, but there are other options to stack sharpness enhancements on the JVC in addition to the Darby as well. Totally depends on convergence luck partly, I can add more sharpening to better converged projectors before I see too much side-effects.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blee0120 View Post

I just might grab one of the Acers or Benq with the extra long eco bulb that is 6000-7000hrs, they are much brighter, 1080p, and a much better picture. With a 2nd lamp, it should last me 10hrs, if I don't get rid of it. I figure I will only use it 5 days a week for an average of 3-5 hours a day.

I would look at more than just lamp ratings if wanting to maximize lamp life. First look at starting lumens and then look at projector wattage. In general (beyond lamp quality), the projector producing the most lumens at the lowest wattage will have the longest lasting lamps. I have 3000 hours on my Pro8200 and it can still do 14-18 fL on my HP 2.4 screen in LAMP LOW. I could easily go another 500-1000 hours before even turning it to lamp high unless the lamp starts dying soon. So I am pretty sure I could get 5000-8000 hours out of it on one $225 lamp. That said, I probably will never find out as I've got the Benq on the way so Viewsonic isn't going to get much love now.
Edited by coderguy - 12/29/12 at 1:55pm
Reply
Reply
post #2661 of 4168
12/29/12 at 2:03pm
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?
Reply
Reply
post #2662 of 4168
12/29/12 at 2:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post

I would look at more than just lamp ratings if wanting to maximize lamp life. First look at starting lumens and then look at projector wattage. In general the projector producing the most lumens at the lowest wattage will have the longest lasting lamps (in general).
I have 3000 hours on my Pro8200 and it can still do 14-18 fL on my HP 2.4 screen in LAMP LOW. I could easily go another 500-1000 hours before even turning it to lamp high unless the lamp starts dying soon. So I am pretty sure I could get 5000-8000 hours out of it on one $225 lamp. That said, I probably will never find out as I've got the Benq on the way so Viewsonic isn't going to get much love now.

I should be looking at one of the Viewsonics than. Its just getting it to work in my setup with the throw distance on my 120in HP screen. With the JVC, i'm at close to max zoom with the iris completely closed, to maximize all the contrast. After having both a neutral size screen that was 100in and a 120in HP screen, I much prefer this setup now. I had to have the iris at -11 on high lamp for 14ftL, and the HP screen on low lamp at -15 gave me 16ftL. The HP screen just looked better to me, so I sold the SI screen.

So, I'm leaning toward the W1070, I read Kraine's review on it, and its over 1000 lumens in the smart eco mode, that is 6000 hours, supposedly. I hope the bulbs are as cheap as the Sony and Viewsonics, I saw a W7000 replacement bulb was $260, so its cheap enough. Also, it has some lens shift, but I will have to ceiling mount it or find some way to shelve mount it upside down. The throw is good in my setup with the JVC, and that's the reason I had to sell the W7000. I will be able to still get 1.4-1.6 gain, with room for a new 3D projector on my shelf. Still trying to figure it out
Reply
Reply
post #2663 of 4168
12/29/12 at 2:26pm
You need to let us know how the two projectors compare, w1070 vs w7000. Almost no-one in the forums has compared these yet, and I don't trust reviewers (I'm done with reviewers).

I would do the Benq w1070 as well in your position assuming it fits from the throw ratio and what not. I wasn't recommending the VS, just giving an example.
VS is good for a cheap backup 2D projector, but given the price of the w1070 and some others these days, I would pay more and get the Benq with 3D for sure. I only paid $500 for the Viewsonic (should have paid $450 but like a dummy I paid $50 for a warranty I never used, maybe it was buying refurb that made me nervous).
Reply
Reply
post #2664 of 4168
12/29/12 at 2:28pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpc View Post


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.
I too live in Southern Ontario just west of the GTA. I called every authorized Sony dealer on their website in the area and only found 1 to demo the Sony HW50 at. In the end, I feel like I wasted my time as the setup was absolute crap for a projector. There is a decent place to view the JVC's in Hamilton. And it isn't too hard to find the Epsons. I found one locally in KW area. I ended up going with the Sony HW50 and after only 30 hours of mixed content I'm very pleased. If you would like any more details feel free to PM me. Cheers.
Reply
Reply
post #2665 of 4168
12/29/12 at 2:35pm
If I were buying a PJ today, I would even buy the Sony hw50 over the JVC RS-45 from what I've read thus far, although I cannot say as compared to higher-end JVC's (RS48 e-shift, etc...), but I am just saying it would be nice to have a PJ that does great 2D and 3D with decent blacks.

Black levels are great, but once you get to Epson 5010 and Sony hw50 levels, even being a SCI FI fan I don't have ALL THAT many movies I watch where that 20% extra black helps much. There are a few, I mean the Harry Potter movies were great to watch when I first got the JVC.
ck
I could have sold my JVC and bought the Sony instead of JVC + Benq, but the last two times I tried to sell a projector the buyer backed out (too much second guessing in this forum).
Edited by coderguy - 12/29/12 at 3:15pm
Reply
Reply
post #2666 of 4168
12/29/12 at 2:41pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjsbuyer View Post

I too live in Southern Ontario just west of the GTA. I called every authorized Sony dealer on their website in the area and only found 1 to demo the Sony HW50 at. In the end, I feel like I wasted my time as the setup was absolute crap for a projector. There is a decent place to view the JVC's in Hamilton. And it isn't too hard to find the Epsons. I found one locally in KW area. I ended up going with the Sony HW50 and after only 30 hours of mixed content I'm very pleased. If you would like any more details feel free to PM me. Cheers.

Its hard to find dealers which have a good setup. Boutique dealers are usually your best bet. Thanks for the heads up. I suppose I will PM you and ask a few questions regarding your setup. I should have a look at a JVC RS 46 or 48 just to understand what is involved, but I do think the Sony could be all I need.
Edited by cpc - 12/29/12 at 3:23pm
Reply
Reply
post #2667 of 4168
12/29/12 at 2:42pm
Tell me about it, I've driven to many showrooms and been lots of places only to find broken projectors, broken 3D glasses, horrible calibrations, places that don't let you have the remote (or don't know where it is), bad lighting, etc... There are some really good showrooms in some cities, the department stores aren't one of them though :P
Reply
Reply
post #2668 of 4168
12/29/12 at 2:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Clark View Post

So you got the 3D Bee. How do you like it?

Not yet, but I'm really close. I've just got to convince myself that 2D BDs will look as good or nearly as good as the converted stuff like Avengers and Men in Black III. I'll probably order one in the next day or two after I check my bank account and review the Christmas carnage. biggrin.gif
Reply
Reply
post #2669 of 4168
12/29/12 at 3:54pm
The problem with dealers is that they can not afford to offer projector demoes other than HT concept demonstations.. They know that the vast majority of customers will simply waste their time and buy from some online whore (their word, nbot mine) who drops their panties and doesn't have to collect sales tax.When I had a store we simply refused to do demoes for those who were not long established customers and who we knew would pay a little more because of they got a demo. Its called customer qualification, those not qualified are simply not customers but leechers. The market has changed and the model is to buy close to the cheapest possible and get your demo via forums, reviewers where many are not qualified and the like.Thankfully this forum is populated by a few whose judgements are good and who spend a lot of their time doing comparisons with little if any renumeration.
Reply
Reply
post #2670 of 4168
12/29/12 at 3:57pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post

@xb1032
Even in HTPC, does RC help the text appear sharper in HTPC, just curious?
I meant it's hard to tell between projectors when the post-processing is equalized. If you are adding processing, then they need to be exhibiting the same level of smoothness and lack of ringing, or not fair. (it's still a valid comparison, but I can stack sharpness filters and make one PJ appear much sharper than another)... The RC might be a great sharpness algorithm, better than what the RS-45 has, but there are other options to stack sharpness enhancements on the JVC in addition to the Darby as well. Totally depends on convergence luck partly, I can add more sharpening to better converged projectors before I see too much side-effects.
I would look at more than just lamp ratings if wanting to maximize lamp life. First look at starting lumens and then look at projector wattage. In general (beyond lamp quality), the projector producing the most lumens at the lowest wattage will have the longest lasting lamps. I have 3000 hours on my Pro8200 and it can still do 14-18 fL on my HP 2.4 screen in LAMP LOW. I could easily go another 500-1000 hours before even turning it to lamp high unless the lamp starts dying soon. So I am pretty sure I could get 5000-8000 hours out of it on one $225 lamp. That said, I probably will never find out as I've got the Benq on the way so Viewsonic isn't going to get much love now.

I only use my projector for movies and don't have an HTPC connected to it. The HTPC went out of the mix when I got my RS45 because my Denon 3808CI doesn't support 3D so I purchased the Panasonic BDT310 and output video straight to the projector and bypass the AVR. That was fine for me as I use my Samsung LCD for HTPC usage. I don't need to sit in the dark all the time anyway. smile.gif I'll try to remember to check the text off of the Panasonic Blu-Ray menu when I bring it up next. The HW50 has an option to demo which cycles between On/Off and without RC the picture looks a bit softer. I don't think I'd want to use this projector without it. I don't have a Darbee for comparison and for now I plan on being content with what I have so as not to get pulled into the endless array of upgrades we'll all desire if we look at them too much. smile.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post

If I were buying a PJ today, I would even buy the Sony hw50 over the JVC RS-45 from what I've read thus far, although I cannot say as compared to higher-end JVC's (RS48 e-shift, etc...), but I am just saying it would be nice to have a PJ that does great 2D and 3D with decent blacks.
Black levels are great, but once you get to Epson 5010 and Sony hw50 levels, even being a SCI FI fan I don't have ALL THAT many movies I watch where that 20% extra black helps much. There are a few, I mean the Harry Potter movies were great to watch when I first got the JVC.
ck
I could have sold my JVC and bought the Sony instead of JVC + Benq, but the last two times I tried to sell a projector the buyer backed out (too much second guessing in this forum).

I think cost wise you made a good decision. I figure I'll be selling my RS45 soon and I'll probably sell it for around $1800 with the 3D emitter as my in-laws may want it. For that price + the BenQ your in the ballpark of the HW50. I'm sensitive to flicker as well and I can see it on my HW50 along with mild ghosting but I still think this is a great 3D projector. Much better than the JVC IMO. Hopefully you won't find the contrast lacking. On dark scenes the HW50 could use a contrast boost and the BenQ isn't as good from what I've read.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home

Gear mentioned in this thread:

AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP › Sony HW50 / BenQ W7000 / Epson 5020 / JVC RS55 / JVC RS 46 / JVC RS4810 / JVC RS56 Mini-shootout 2012-2013