Sony HW50 / BenQ W7000 / Epson 5020 / JVC RS55 / JVC RS 46 / JVC RS4810 / JVC RS56 Mini-shootout... - Page 18

No doubt. Even if we can figure out how to get that 50ms, it still is not up to par with the Sony. I wish I could make the Sony work in my setup, but it just does not have enough throw if I want to still use my HP screen and that is not going anywhere. 50ms would be a nice improvement over 80ms though which is what I am used to, so I am hoping we can figure out why there are different results. Until/if someone can prove otherwise, I have to go with the 80ms.

Zombie -- can you let us know how well the DI works on the Epson in 3D mode? Are the blacks a worthwhile improvement over the Sony's in 3D?

I'm also interested in your thoughts about the Mits, when you get it.

Mike -- as more younger people see the advantages of front projectors (nearly all male) there will be more demand for these projectors to meet their needs. I can't guarantee that, but I wouldn't
bet against it either. I was a member here in 1999 (used my actual name at that time) and I've seen some major changes in demand for front projectors and I believe that gaming and 3D (and 3D gaming) will become more and more popular with this demographic.

Thanks for your thoughts. I'm especially interested in the 5020 with Darbee combo, as I always miss the DLP sharpness with 3 panel LCD's. So the darbee does a good job sharpening the image? Also, what size (and gain) screen are you using? I'm wondering if I can fill a 140" screen in 3D with enough brightness. Thanks!

I have the Panasonic AE4000 which runs in the 30's and other displays that are 30 ms or lower so I can detect the difference and the 5020 is not something I would label as 'unplayable'.

Have honestly only seen a few 3D DLP's but they have always been smoother and caused no issues for my eyes other than twitch first person shooters which give me eye strain/headaches after 30-40 minutes. We did have the Optoma GT750 for about a week and it surpassed the 3D on the 5020 IMHO (resolution aside).

Will be calibrating an Optoma HD33 tomorrow so I'll see if I still get that smooth DLP feel while having the 5020 fresh to my eyes/mind.



Well I am honestly DLP biased as I feel that while they may not offer THE best on each category they still offer the best OVER-ALL image.

With that said they are both excellent choices and you'll simply want to decide the pro/cons of each for your own needs/wants as there are variables between the two that can help you narrow it down. Tough choices I know but decide what factors are most important to you, don't let any of us tell you what to buy.


Mike,

Sorry, I see I should have explained my point in a bit more detail...

The JVC's have been put upon a pedestal since the inception of the highly inaccurate RS1, which granted for its time threw one heck of a candy colored / vivid image, but I think people are often mislead into thinking the JVC's are the best all around projector due to all the praise they get and that simply is not the case (especially in relation to a shoot-out).

There is no doubt that each and every tech and practically each and every make/model has had its fair share of issues over the years and I was certainly not implying otherwise. However looking at the big picture it seems to me that LCD has seen the most progress over-all.

While we will obviously see the pros/cons of each unit brought to light in this thread (which makes it an amazing resource) it is stated to be a 'shoot-out' and to me this term means 'last man standing' or over-all winner. Zombie's excellent shoot-out thread last year seem to conclude the HW30 was THE best over-all projector and as such kind of became the winner of that 'shoot-out'. So unless the coming soon JVC's have improved many areas they are not likely to be taking top honor at this shoot-out for anything other than 2D movie watching (just as in years past).

Please allow me to clarify that I am not knocking the JVC, they are impressive with most 2D movies and deserve the crown there. I helped install an X30 and will be going back soon to greyscale calibrate, however even out of the box with only the basics adjusted the image was stunning.

This in no way means I am saying the 5020 is the winner over-all as I have not yet seen the other models being discussed.

Jason

thnaks for the comments there. On the 9000 I use eco & thx for 2D and 3DTHX both seem pretty natural looking close to calibration out of box. We calibrated the 2D side and was pretty close to default thx settings which is good news for those wanting good out of box settings. Hoping epson continues this with new releases definitely interesting they have bumped output for 3D ! apart from that doesnt sound like theyve really advanced things further ?. the new glasses especially being rf is probably a good step forward for most. given the ir flood issue most face with ir glasses with ir flooding the room not making possible to use ir with remotes etc. Pity sony havent moved to rf glasses as well.

Curious how out of box colour of the 50es compares with the 5020

The 5020 is already pretty sharp and the Darblet does add clarity, set in HD mode from 40 to 50 works well on the 5020 (or possibly higher if you disable SR, we didn't do much experimenting there on mixing the two).

The screen is a 133" 1.0 gain, you'll likely have no problem with 3D on a 140" 1.0+ gain screen (keep in mind the room can have an impact here).

Jason

curious what iris settings the 50es has. the epson 9000 only has iris off, normal or high speed as selections. and to be honest I just run with the iris off for pretty good 2D

What the hell was I thinking when I participated in last year's thread and based on that discussion ran out and bought the Epson 6010?

Personally I don't think there is an overall winner determined by these shootouts! What's important to you determines the winner. Some don't use a DI, but it's important to me. I don't care much for FI for most video, but some find it important. If some see any RBE or flicker or even some slight ghosting in 3D once every 10 movies they're not interested. If there was an overall winner ownership would be skewed in its favour -- just not happening.

I'll certainly be interested to see what JVC are bringing to the table in their new releases. their previous models x3 and x30 did interest me previously to getting my epson. but not having fully calibration ability, reliability issues which are real (lamp and optical block) plus unbearable 3D were real roadblocks for me. appears jvc has been working on all these factors for their new releases so be very interesting to see how zombie finds them. one other plus for the jvcs is the move to rf glasses. but have seen comment the new jvcs still dont auto detect on 3D which sounds a bit weird !

Did you spend much time watching 3D with the Darblet in the chain? There have been quite a few reports of 3D video dropouts in the Darblet thread when it is paired with a 5010/6010. Hearing some positive feedback on the 5020/Darbee combo (no 3D dropouts) would be encouraging.

Great to hear Zombie. I wasn't sure if you had put the Darbee into the mix yet. Thanks for all your hard work!

The JVC will still have cheesed out 3D motion I'm afraid and that flickering effect without 3D-FI, still the improvements in ghosting might be enough to sway some. That said, I really found myself not having that much to watch in 3D anyways so I don't regret getting the JVC. I do not like the low-end DLP's for 3D that much for movies (sub 1k DLP's), as the contrast is pretty bad, but you don't really notice it much in animated 3D stuff or really colorful stuff. The Benq w1070 might have ok contrast, but it might have slower color wheel. I'll wait on the Mits hc8000, as I'm hoping this is going to be the one to beat for smaller screens. Some people might like the low-end DLP's for 3D movies, as they are focused on the 3D effect so much as to not notice the bad contrast, but to me the contrast is putrid.

2D wise, I don't think the JVC always wins in all movies vs. DLP (and I own the RS-45), but it will usually win in cleanly filmed sources and it's pretty much an AUTO-WIN if the movie has dark scenes (and many do). The JVC will win at some TV too though, like Game of Thrones, Walking Dead, etc... It is hard to explain, but the JVC has a slightly more inconsistent image depending on filming technique as opposed to DLP, but I'd say LCD has the most inconsistent image of the three. LCD can pop more than LCOS sometimes (heck LCD can pop more than DLP at certain times due to the pixel fill), but that same pixel fill that might make the closeup of a face look like it has more POP also makes distant shots look flatter (as well as mid-range shots like panning of a forest). It's kind of hard to explain, but that's my take having owned all of these techs.

My Darbee is reset to factory settings every now & then by the 3D IR emitter (internal) on the Sony 50ES. Pretty annoying.

Def can't even use the Darbee remote while 3D is running, unless I'm like a couple feet away from the Darbee & pointing the remote directly at it.

Then again, I mostly 'set & forget' the Darbee at 40%. I just don't want it resetting every now & then when 3D comes on...

As far as Darby compatibility, it will differ based on everyone's cable length runs, HDMI switch setups, AVR's. etc...

You're saying that the increased inter-pixel spacing helps some stuff pop more? That's really weird, but maybe I could buy it if it some how helps perceived MTF for high contrast content?

Personally, I love the stellar pixel fill ratio of SXRD, given my 1.15x SW seating distance.

Yah, I noticed on both a Sanyo z4000 and an Epson 8700ub and an Epson 5010 that when I see a closeup of a face in certain angles, the image appears slightly less flat than the JVC and even than most DLP's. The problem is on distant shots the effect works backwards (LCD looks worse on scenery and distant shots IMO in general). The higher pixel fill does occasionally make the image almost seem to sparkle and come off the screen a bit more (but it also does look more digital and less film-like). I am not saying the worse pixel fill is an advantage, overall I'd say it's a slight disadvantage, but it does at times have a small net effect to POP. I think this is why some people like the 8700ub or 5010 over the JVC even for 2D, I can respect that, but I don't know it depends what you are watching. Pixel fill makes almost no difference in dark scenes, it is too hard to see, it's only in brighter scenes it really matters.

The Epson 5010 is pretty darn good in 2D, but the only thing I don't like about it is still the crazy convergence randomness (and the inconsistency of POP from POPPY to FLAT and back and forth). It is much better than the 8500ub's game of russian roulette convergence, but the 5010 still has too many units slipping through the cracks with bad convergence.
Edited by coderguy - 11/3/12 at 3:59pm

Can anyone comment on the increased contrast ratio of the 5020 as compared to the 5010 and 8700ub? Both Art's and Projector Central's reviews made no mention of the improvement.

and thats the thing, while many will go for 2 projectors, many others like myself want a nice all rounder. which the epson 9000 suits the bill well for me now for both 2D and 3D.

gaming is not something priority for me. but understand can be for others.

but a projector just being ace in 2D is just not good enough for me. and I suspect thats the case for many others too not wanting two projectors in their setup. the sony 50es is sounding like its pretty good in all rounder stakes so really interested to see how the sony 50es compares with the upcoming jvc rs56 in this regard.

A JVC with 3D ghosting performance as good as my Epson 6010 would be hard to resist. For me, that will be the single most interesting set of photos from your tests, Jason. As I've said, the native high contrast of the JVC RS40/45 made it absolutely the "deepest" and most involving 3D I've ever experienced. It was mesmerizing. Until, of course, I got to the next scene with dark ghosting. Then I got the 3D gut punch. The other thing, though, is the documented gamma drop that requires a re-calibration of the JVCs periodically. The gamma drop was responsible for bright scene flatness as my RS40/45 aged.

yeah I understand there is a quoted increase in spec, but not sure if this translates to anything in reality. I think theyre still using the same lcd panels so if getting any increases be curious to know how theyre managing that.

Watched some 3D and no dropouts.



LAG...

I pulled out the CRT and we get 62ms consistantly as long as using Eco, High Iris, FAST processing in THX, Cinema and Natural modes. When we changed to Normal lamp, Iris OFF, for some reason, the lag went to about 78ms on average.

Living Room mode came in around 80 ms.

Enabling other features like FI landed us at about 140ms.

I snapped about 100 pics and will sort through and post some later but figured the info would be helpful.

Jason

Zombie -- do agree with Art's list of improvements for the 5020 over the 5010?

"Black levels drastically improved in 3D, thanks to the Home Cinema 5020 UB's dynamic iris, which now works when in 3D (assuming you want it to). Last year's model did not allow the iris to be usable in 3D. I really wasn't happy with that, and complained to all who would listen (including Epson). As I said at the time, why deny users the choice? Considering that 3D is darker to begin with than 2D, last year, Epson wouldn't let you use the iris in 3D.
New, lighter (and brighter) glasses, which are pretty comfortable, when on the head of a large headed, glasses wearing, reviewer
Glasses are now RF (radio frequency - no line of sight required) not IR. They don't drop the sync if you look away briefly, or
Overall a rather noticeable increase in brightness, thanks to the new glasses, plus "who know's what" other technologies inside the projector.
Other dynamic features also work in 3D, including Super-Resolution for a noticeably sharper seeming image (detail enhancement)."

Maybe the Epson 5020 that PC had was on steroids.

Can you explain what you mean by this more clearly? Sorry but I'm a bit of a rookie when it comes to a lot of the terminology. I.e. "convergence"

Thanks for that. That's why dlps look so sharp. No 3 panels to align. Just didn't know the term.