Originally Posted by Nightingale
Is this a substantial argument against the W1080ST (which would work a lot better for me)?
It is very possible the w1080st does not have as high native on/off contrast and is not quite as sharp, but without an A/B it is all guessing. If it were me, I'd go with the 1070 just to feel safer, but if I had to I'd consider the 1080st if the 1070 absolutely would not fit in my room. If you are even considering the 1070, then it sounds like it does fit, so I don't know why you bother considering the other.
For a static IRIS to improve contrast, it has to be MFR'd on a certain part to reduce light scatter, hence not all static apertures increase contrast. There are static apertures that only affect brightness, and there are dual apertures that affect brightness and contrast. For instance, on the Benq w7000 it should not really increase contrast if I close the IRIS because this IRIS is after the light path point and is only clamping brightness, hence not reducing light scatter in the lens itself. I am going to do some further IRIS testing today on the Benq just to see.
The lens definitely makes a difference on contrast, but so do throw ratios and a lot of other factors, and even the way they designed lens shift. The reason the Benq w7000 for instance is one of a VERY few DLP's that has center-based lens shift is because Benq violated some TI best practice design rules for getting maximum native on/off contrast from a DLP, which is that the lens shift should not be center based, and the light path should be configured a certain way. That is why other MFR's do not do what Benq did, and the Benq w6000/w7000 has taken a hit in Native On/off due to this.
As far as sharpness goes, well it is mentioned in TI DLP whitepapers that the DEFAULT minimum throw ratio a projector can do does affect it, generally shorter throw projectors are not as sharp (according to TI whitepaper best DLP design practices), but then again the MFR's have come a ways in their trickery and learned new methods of design in the budget segment, so this is one reason I would love to test the sharpness of the w1070 vs. the w7000 (just to see if there is any inkling of a difference). I have no idea if there is or not, but on the other hand, the 1080st might take a sharpness hit for sure being that short of a throw. Perhaps Benq was able to design the throw on the w1070 just long enough at the minimum range to preserve 99.9% of the sharpness (again no idea), but from what most of you have said is that the Benq is really very sharp, so I tend to believe it is close or the same as the w7000 (at least for the 1070 until we find otherwise, for the w1080st sounds a bit "iffy" if it as sharp, but it is possible for sure).
The issue is this, the manufacturers have not been putting R&D into high-end DLP's since TI stopped helping and essentially shut-off their DLP R&D, but the manufacturers are still doing some R&D on the budget segment and related to 3D and what not on how to squeeze out trickery in the budget DLP's to make them better. That is why the largest improvement on DLP's is coming in the sub-$1000 to $2500 segment at the moment, the MFR's are trying to take advantage that it does better 3D than LCOS and LCD and also considering ways of improving 2D in the budget segments. Perhaps the w1070 is one of many that will come in the future that is doing this, improved 2D + great 3D at a ridiculously cheap price.Edited by coderguy - 1/24/13 at 2:48pm