Sony HW50 / BenQ W7000 / Epson 5020 / JVC RS55 / JVC RS 46 / JVC RS4810 / JVC RS56 Mini-shootout... - Page 101

How is the brightness of the RS56 compared to the 55? Quite a bit better? I understand the 55 is relatively low so getting any decent size screen is difficult to push.

Ah, that makes sense. Thanks for the info.

I measure with my whitebalance calibrated too, but my comments previously were just that there are variables as to how different people do the peak measurement:

Clipping at 235, 245 or 255
Whether the 100% whitebalance is calibrated or not.

These factors alone could give a number of different results even using the same projector, let alone different users and different meters. Comparative measurements like Zombie does are at least a good guide as to which one is brightest, but comparing Zombie's readings against others could skew the results.

I was planning on doing that tomorrow.
Nice to see your possitivity on that.
I can hardly wait.

High lamp and Iris limited, was my intention, but after seeing I could get 18.60fL on my 120" screen in Low-Mode, I thought maybe this way I can enjoy 800 hours extra with the this same lamp.
Well, I don't have an 142" screen of course. (Read Jealous)

Just a quick note that I originally posted having issues with my internal 3D emitter that seemed to be a hardware issue. AVS had Sony send me an external emitter free of charge and this seems to have resolved my issues. I don't think the issue was a room or setup issue as placing the projector in such a way that the internal emitter was at the same height as my JVC emitter was did not resolve my issue. The Xpand glasses would not even attempt to sync unless I looked directly at the internal emitter. Once I installed the external emitter in the same location that the JVC emitter was (perhaps slightly higher) the sync problems have seemed to have gone away. Only watched one 3D movie so far and a slight bit of testing but both the Sony and Xpands seem to work fine now.

Does anyone in here know how the RS35 would compare to the RS46?

it's going to crush it in contrast performance and it should look noticeably sharper due to better convergence and better optics/optical block. The RS35 was built with hand picked parts and put together with a lot more quality control. It doesn't do 3D though, that's one drawback and it won't be quite as bright.

So going from an RS2 to an RS35 would be a noticeable upgrade in your opinion?

Yes, it should be a noticeable improvement over the RS2. It should be quite a bit brighter, sharper, have better color when calibrated, and have some new software features like CFI for example.

Yes, I use the Benq IRIS like a manual IRIS, but I change the position for 3D to a brighter fixed position.

I was lucky in that my DI is not loud. Sitting 7 feet from the projector, I can hear it a tiny bit in a very quiet scene, but usually I don't hear it. I have the DI turned off right now though, only because to get the manual IRIS mode working in the SM, you have to. Otherwise I would have left it on. If I were sitting 4 feet or closer (especially 2 feet), it would be slightly bothersome and more annoying.

That said, I do have one issue I have now noticed with my refurb, and that is that I have some MILD lamp pulsing. I may have to send in for a lamp exchange, but I'm not 100% sure if I'm seeing the color wheel pulse or the lamp (not RBE though, it's just a non-colored pulse that looks like lamp but there is a shade to it). It's not bad and isn't really noticeable in viewing, but I can notice it at certain rare times. If I knew it wasn't going to get any worse, I would leave it as-is, but I would like to try a lamp exchange depending on how hard/easy Benq CS is to deal with. I have tried the running it on high trick, but didn't seem to make much difference, my biggest fear is that it might be the Color Wheel and not the lamp.
Edited by coderguy - 1/14/13 at 11:41pm

I remember asking this before, I think on this thread, so I figure I'd answer it here (though it'll probably get drowned in all the other discussion!):

I always wondered why contrast ratios appear to increase as the iris is stopped down. I believe it's as simple as: when stopping down, you're using less of the outer portions of the lens surfaces. That means you're using more of its center, which is usually optically best. That center of the lens is not just better in resolution than the outer edges, but also better in contrast (the two are inherently related, but I digress).

So for the same reason I see focus uniformity increase as I clamp the iris on my HW50, I'd expect the contrast ratio to increase. In photography, we see this as increase in MTF when stopping down.
Edited by sarangiman - 1/15/13 at 11:30am

My Sony50es should be here today. i want to leave my sony90es up to see the 2d comparison between the two. what is a good recommended height for the 50es if i place on a stand, screen is 100", projector will be on a stand about 15' back from screen, ceiling height is 8' - the stand will be temporary for now to do the comparison.

Sarangiman, look up discussions of lens sharpness varying with aperture. An iris in a projector is similar to the aperture of a camera lens. Photgraphers know very well that sharpness varies as aperture changes in a lens. "Wide open", (similar to iris off) is almost always less sharp than a moderately closed aperture in a camera lens. (google search "lens sharpness and aperture" for more) I think that's what you see when you close the iris some. Photographers also know that the center of the lens is sharper than corners. It should work the same for projectors. Sharpness and perceived contrast should correlate. Zoom lenses are also sharper at certain portions of their zoom range than others. Where that is varies by design - there's no general rule. Some lenses are sharper at extremes, some in the middle.

Photgrapher pixel-peepers can be even worse than projector pixel-peepers. Projectors have a lot of optical compromizes to make them easier to use. For the ultimate image sharpness, you would use a lens without zoom (a prime), without image shift, and moderately stopped down aperture (iris). But that would require a very expensive custom install product whose lens would also reduce light potential.

Everything is a tradeoff. Brightness and sharpness, mounting flexibility vs brightness and sharpness. There is no perfect lens. If a real life image looks good at your seating distance, thank the designers of these brilliant and now shockingly affordable products, and stop looking at test patterns and dark screens.

I don't think i can do it in detail but i can give you my thoughts after viewing the 2 projectors, I've read every thread on this forum and I'm amazed at the knowledge yourself and others have.
If i like the 90es better in 2d , i might get the benq7000 for a second 3d projector. i know the 90es has the better lens with shift and memory settings.Although i'm thinking the 50es with the RC & the extra Lumens will make me happy all around.
I actually bought a new bulb for the 90es just to compare with the 50es,my 90 has 1800 hr's on it so i thought it would not be a fair comparison and also if i try to sell it i should have a new bulb with it.
If anyone has any input or experience with the 2 projectors i would appreciate it.

Right; everything you said is what I said in my post. I'm a photographer, & projector owner, so admittedly quite possibly the worst kind of pixel peeper

Just was surprised that no one else had mentioned the reason for the increased contrast when stopping down, just like increased MTF when stopping down a lens in photography. I didn't know it'd have that much of an effect on a projector (figured they wouldn't behave like poorly designed wide-aperture primes), but seeing how much stopping down the iris even 2/3 of a stop sharpens up my HW50 (mainly increases focus uniformity), it all makes sense now.

Thanks for the confirmation.

So what does this mean to the layman in terms of settings on the projector (in my case the HW50)? How does one determine the "optimal" setting for his/her environment?

Contrast increases due to a narrower iris cuts down stray light bouncing about in the light path more than the projected light.

DLP additionally improves in contrast because the distance between the on-state pupil and the off-state pupil increases, reducing the amount of off-state scatter entering the lens.

edit: DLP tech docs (lots of interesting info and system design trades):

http://focus.ti.com/pdfs/dlpdmd/Discoverydlpa002.pdf

http://www.ti.com/lit/an/dlpa022/dlpa022.pdf
Edited by dougri - 1/15/13 at 3:27pm

Ok, if elements within the lens aren't multicoated properly to avoid internal reflections, then I can buy this argument. I'm guessing it's a combination of that & of selectively using more of the center of the lens. The latter likely has a good deal of impact, given how out of focus a good portion of my image becomes when I open up the iris (i.e. lens performance is quite poor).

I know. But setting focus is actually not as easy as the method you suggested (albeit, it's a theoretically sound method!).

The thing is, some of the softness is due to:

1. Different areas of the image having different effective focal planes, possibly due to patches of the lens having different effective focal lengths or due to the chip not being perfectly flat or due to the lens being decentered (latter is not the case for me, since random patches go out of focus, not one side compared to the other)
2. Optical aberrations in the lens that lead to sides/corners being soft

Those two are affected differently by stopping down the lens. The latter responds very well to stopping down the iris, even just 1/3 to 2/3 stop (I measure with a meter). The former, for my unit, does not... probably b/c the effective focal planes/focal length of different patches of the lens are so off that stopping down the iris doesn't do enough. This is not surprising, b/c I have to turn the focus ring on the lens quite a bit from where it's set for maximal center sharpness to get the right side of the image in perfect focus.

If, however, I focus such that the center is *almost* in focus & the right side is also *almost* in focus (but the left side of the image is rather soft), and then activate 'Auto Limited', which stops down the iris ~2/3 of a stop for my Iris Open Reg setting, then suddenly the entire frame comes into such good focus that you cannot tell any regions is less sharp from my 1.25x screen-width seating distance.

If, instead, I'd just gone with the method of opening up the iris & selecting the focus such that *most* of the screen is in focus, I would've settled on the center/left being in focus, and the right being out of focus. But this would've been suboptimal, b/c in this scenario, stopping down the lens really doesn't help the right side much at all. But getting the right side more in focus, then stopping down the lens, leads to a relatively perfectly focused image.

Of course, switching to 3D, all this goes out the window since the iris opens all the way up.

Also, I think this discussion is relevant to this thread, since focus definitely appears to be an issue with a lot of HW50 units... but less so for JVC/Epson, since they likely use much better lenses.

All fair points. But my knowing some of these things, one can can pump the last bit of performance out of their machines. For example, knowing all that I know about my HW50ES that I posted above, I know I can get a good deal of sharpness just by going with a high gain screen & limiting my Iris Open Reg. That's pretty cool.

As for Nikon/Canon 2k+ lenses... you spend that much money on a lens, and if you're a professional, you need a lens that'll perform. So it's absolutely valid to test your copy for focus/decentering issues. As for back/front-focus... yeah, good luck. But that's also why AF microadjustment was invented AFMA allows me to shoot at f/1.2-f/1.8 & still get an 80% or so hit rate. Game changing.

Sometimes it's about ignoring issues, sure. But other times it's about working around them

Long time lurker on many of these shoot out threads. Still undecided on what I will purchase once my theater is done in a few months.

One major item for me is 2.4 or 1.78. The Epson and Sony are at the top of my list but doing multiple aspect ratios without an anomorphic lens seems like a real pain with a ceiling mounted unit (which I will have due to room constraints).

Do you folks with the Sony or Epson projectors just stay with one aspect or the other rather than getting out the ladder to change?
I realize the Panasonic 8000 and most of the JVC models have remote control of the lens and lens memory functions but the Panny is too flaky from what I have read so far. So that leaves the JVCs but I may someday want 3D and it appears the JVC models in my price range would not be all that great for 3D.

Anyway, just wondering what you all in relation to aspects if you are ceiling mounted.

Thanks and I continue to learn from the Masters here on this thread.

Haha, Zombie, word.

The Da-Lite HCHP is going back & I'm getting a Draper Contrast Radiant ('Onyx' fixed frame) 110". I still believe in the grey screen b/c they amplify reflections from scattered light less than white screens.

If the Draper is also dirty or has a texture, I'll probably just go for the Draper Radiant (Draper's version of the HP). I'm fairly certain I'll prefer Draper's method of tensioning the screen anyway compared to Da-Lite's snaps. The snaps led to ripples on two of my corners; the Draper uses a tension rod that spans the entire width of the screen.

The Draper material looks suspiciously similar to the Da-Lite material (close up texture of sample patches look the same), so I don't know if I should expect anything different with the Contrast Radiant vs. the HCHP.

I did do a bunch of gain measurements at different angles between the HP, HCHP, Draper CR & Draper Radiant. Need to post those graphs. Though, those graphs/numbers were a bit messed up due to the dirtiness of the HCHP screen; in other words, if I quantitate the gain of a HCHP sample patch taped on top of my 110" HCHP screen, the numbers come out different b/c the sample patch is clean but my NEW 110" HCHP screen is dirty as all heck (makes it dimmer). *Sigh*

I hear of texture/dirtiness of HP screens as well... which is why I'm giving Draper a chance. Will keep one or more of my/related threads updated on this.

Thanks for your input!

Let me know how the Draper material works out. My Da-Lite dealer has sent me screen material samples for me to choose a new screen from. Da-Lite has already given me a green light on replacement. I just need to choose which material I want.