or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Digital Projectors - Under $3,000 USD MSRP › BenQ W1070 : DLP Full HD, 3D Ready with lens-shift for 1000$
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

BenQ W1070 : DLP Full HD, 3D Ready with lens-shift for 1000$ - Page 124

post #3691 of 8551
Quote:
Originally Posted by RLBURNSIDE View Post

They don't keep their charge forever, that's why. And also, some of the better glasses take only the external batteries. I can't be bothered to do anything but USB charge mine, even if the other glasses will last me 20 years instead of 5, I'd rather buy new ones than change batteries like a clown with pudgy, sausage fingers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rwestley View Post

You ask good questions. The big problem that I have had with rechargeable glasses is that the batteries do not last that long. Eventually they will not even recharge. With the 2030 battery all I have to do is change them and they last a long time. I have both rechargeable and non rechargeable glasses and both have their virtues. I also always keep 2030's around for the non-rechargeable one. They are really cheap.

Thanks for the replies.

I guess the thing I'm struggling with is coming to terms with the fact that 3D glasses lithium batteries are not as good as other rechargeable batteries that I deal with.

I have many products that have rechargeable batteries and they last years and years before they are no longer able to hold a charge. Still have my original dual shock 3 controllers since they first introduced them about 5 or 6yrs ago and it still holds a charge fine. Do they last as long as they did when I first got them or compared to the other new controller I bought a few years after? No, they last probably half as long, but they still work. I could say the same for my remote, my cordless phone, etc, etc. I've charged them hundreds of times over the years.

Don't want to derail the thread. Bottom line is that I guess you are saying that the rechargeable batteries in these glasses don't come anywhere close to that, and that they last like a few months instead of a few years, and then they are useless. Is that right?

If that is the case, then yeah, I totally get why people prefer the CR2032 variety. Like I said, not trolling, I've just never had any experience with a rechargeable battery that cheap, so it was really hard for me to get my head around why someone wouldn't want rechargeable.
post #3692 of 8551
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuntman_Mike View Post


Thanks for the replies.

I guess the thing I'm struggling with is coming to terms with the fact that 3D glasses lithium batteries are not as good as other rechargeable batteries that I deal with.

I have many products that have rechargeable batteries and they last years and years before they are no longer able to hold a charge. Still have my original dual shock 3 controllers since they first introduced them about 5 or 6yrs ago and it still holds a charge fine. Do they last as long as they did when I first got them or compared to the other new controller I bought a few years after? No, they last probably half as long, but they still work. I could say the same for my remote, my cordless phone, etc, etc. I've charged them hundreds of times over the years.

Don't want to derail the thread. Bottom line is that I guess you are saying that the rechargeable batteries in these glasses don't come anywhere close to that, and that they last like a few months instead of a few years, and then they are useless. Is that right?

If that is the case, then yeah, I totally get why people prefer the CR2032 variety. Like I said, not trolling, I've just never had any experience with a rechargeable battery that cheap, so it was really hard for me to get my head around why someone wouldn't want rechargeable.

One last view before we move on. I have both types and if the rechargeable batteries were replaceable I would go for the those in a minute. It is really a matter of preference. I just find it easer to replace the cheap 2032 battery while I pause the movie. I could not do this with rechargeable ones.
The quality of the glasses is the most important thing.
post #3693 of 8551
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwestley View Post

One last view before we move on. I have both types and if the rechargeable batteries were replaceable I would go for the those in a minute. It is really a matter of preference. I just find it easer to replace the cheap 2032 battery while I pause the movie. I could not do this with rechargeable ones.
The quality of the glasses is the most important thing.

I got you, and again, thanks for the reply.

Do the 3DTV Corp glasses you bought from Amazon look like the ones pictured on Amazon, or like these?



I ask because the ones pictured above are claimed to be the 2013 version that works with 144hz projectors on 3DTV Corp's site, while the ones pictured on Amazon, aren't according to 3DTV Corp's site.
post #3694 of 8551
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Chaves View Post

I think the response to the bulb question makes sense seeing how they base their usage results off a base line at a certain intensity change the intensity would alter that base curve so they compensate for that so it still reports according to their expected replacement window.

Sorry but I am going to have to disagree, time is what it is and them altering the counter to suit their marketing specification is complete nonsense.

The end-user has every right to know actual use and anyone that is not aware of BenQ's response is going to simply assume the counter is accurate even if they are thinking 'dang did I really use it that much confused.gif'.

Jason
post #3695 of 8551
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaGamePimp View Post

Sorry but I am going to have to disagree, time is what it is and them altering the counter to suit their marketing specification is complete nonsense.

The end-user has every right to know actual use and anyone that is not aware of BenQ's response is going to simply assume the counter is accurate even if they are thinking 'dang did I really use it that much confused.gif'.

Jason

But it is reporting actual use, okay think of it as a propane tank, you have so much fuel in that tank, now that same tank could last for 20 BBQ at low but only 10 BBQ at High, but say they had a visual timer for the gas and said that you have to change out the tank at such and such hour well then they would have to up the hours used when your using a higher burn rate because if they didnt and you ran out before the stated time you would be pissed right even though you burned up that fuel because you used more of it. Thats whats going on here. I know not the best of examples but I hope that sorta helps what Im getting at, the system cant measure the actual wear of the bulb unless maybe they installed something that monitored the current going through it so they go off of hours as a way to give you a heads up when to replace it, its not exact but it gives you an idea of what to expect.
post #3696 of 8551
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaGamePimp View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Chaves View Post

I think the response to the bulb question makes sense seeing how they base their usage results off a base line at a certain intensity change the intensity would alter that base curve so they compensate for that so it still reports according to their expected replacement window.

Sorry but I am going to have to disagree, time is what it is and them altering the counter to suit their marketing specification is complete nonsense.

The end-user has every right to know actual use and anyone that is not aware of BenQ's response is going to simply assume the counter is accurate even if they are thinking 'dang did I really use it that much confused.gif'.

Jason

Jason, this timer is based on how much wear and tear this bulb has experienced over a certain amount of time. Take this example:

Bulb 1 - 3000 hours running on Normal
Bulb 2 - 3000 hours running on ECO

If the timer was counting at a 1:1 ratio, which bulb you think would have more wear at the 3000 hour mark?


Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
post #3697 of 8551
Update, Chaves beat me to the punch. LOL Though he used a different analogy, he got the point across. You can't simply show total hours as a real time, 1:1 timer when the PJ has multiple power settings such as Normal, ECO and Smart ECO, all consuming lamp life at different rates.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
post #3698 of 8551
Another one would be fuel mileage indicators on vehicle. As you step on the gas, you will get lower MPG readings but as soon as you let go of the pedal, your MPG reading skyrockets. If you use ECO, you will get more hours out of your lamp and viceversa when using Normal.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
post #3699 of 8551
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Chaves View Post

But it is reporting actual use, okay think of it as a propane tank, you have so much fuel in that tank, now that same tank could last for 20 BBQ at low but only 10 BBQ at High, but say they had a visual timer for the gas and said that you have to change out the tank at such and such hour well then they would have to up the hours used when your using a higher burn rate because if they didnt and you ran out before the stated time you would be pissed right even though you burned up that fuel because you used more of it. Thats whats going on here. I know not the best of examples but I hope that sorta helps what Im getting at, the system cant measure the actual wear of the bulb unless maybe they installed something that monitored the current going through it so they go off of hours as a way to give you a heads up when to replace it, its not exact but it gives you an idea of what to expect.

But it's not reporting actual use, they are basing it on their Smart-Eco mode (marketing) and even that is not going to be an accurate measure since viewing habits vary (and as such so does the power sent to the lamp).

You are looking at it from their point of view and not the end user that pays for the product with certain expectations, lamp life being one of those even if it is not achieved.

The first person that gets 501+ hours, according to the counter, on a failed lamp and BenQ says sorry the warranty is only for 500 hours we'll see the $4l7 hitting the fan because actual 'real time' use is less for anyone running eco or especially normal where the gap is far more.

I purchased the unit and can make the choice to run in any lamp mode that I desire, if I use Normal and understand that it is rated for 3500 hours yet the counter shows 1.7 hours for every actual hour the REAL TIME use is much less than what the counter shows.

This is all just simple logic, they are toying with the consumer based on their smart-eco marketing specification, plain and simple.


*Sorry ERuiz but your analogy does not apply here either. Every other projector that I have ever owned has shown REAL TIME use regardless of lamp mode just as it should. It's not too difficult to understand that the higher lamp mode will mean less hours of use but that does not mean they should play games with the lamp counter.

You guys are simply not seeing the big picture here (no pun intended wink.gif).

Quote:
Originally Posted by ERuiz View Post

Jason, this timer is based on how much wear and tear this bulb has experienced over a certain amount of time. Take this example:

Bulb 1 - 3000 hours running on Normal
Bulb 2 - 3000 hours running on ECO

If the timer was counting at a 1:1 ratio, which bulb you think would have more wear at the 3000 hour mark?


Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2



Hehe, that's really simple, you leave the counter alone to count in real time so the consumer knows how many hours he actually has on the lamp with the understanding that lamp life will be less using Normal versus Eco.

Obviously the Normal mode lamp would have more wear (less life left) and that has been understood by projector buying consumers for decades. We obviously don't expect to see the counter reach 5000 in Normal unless the specification is such.

I am sorry here guys but I think both of you are over analyzing and somewhat misunderstanding the point. I have owned projectors for the last 12+ years and this is the first projector that I have seen mess with the lamp counter in such a manner and I see no logical reason for BenQ to change what should be a real time lamp counter other than for their own marketing reasons, the consumer does not benefit here and this will only lend itself to more confusion for the average user.

I am not arguing with you guys by the way, just hoping to clarify enough that you see my point. smile.gif


* One other quick point... think of how happy someone is going to be when their lamp burns up at (according to the counter) 3500 hours while running in Normal mode even though REAL TIME use was actually much less (3500 is the rated spec for Normal). They are adding almost 43 minutes to the lamp counter for every actual hour used in Normal mode. wink.gif


Jason
Edited by DaGamePimp - 3/26/13 at 11:03pm
post #3700 of 8551
This is the picture I am looking at: Even if I were to use this PJ for 4 hours EVERYDAY, it will take me 2 years to reach the end life of the lamp. By then, I will probably either just buy another lamp or maybe get me another PJ. Who knows what I will do in 2 years from now. And honestly, seeing how bright this PJ is for my bat cave, where I leave it at it's most economical setting (Smart ECO) everytime I use it, I will probably get more than 2 years out of this lamp because I certainly won't be using it everyday for 4 hours.

With this being said, I'm definitely not going to worry about what the clock says and just enjoy the PJ as I've been doing and I plan on doing. Life is too short to be busting my head over such details. wink.gif

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
post #3701 of 8551
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERuiz View Post

This is the picture I am looking at: Even if I were to use this PJ for 4 hours EVERYDAY, it will take me 2 years to reach the end life of the lamp. By then, I will probably either just buy another lamp or maybe get me another PJ. Who knows what I will do in 2 years from now. And honestly, seeing how bright this PJ is for my bat cave, where I leave it at it's most economical setting (Smart ECO) everytime I use it, I will probably get more than 2 years out of this lamp because I certainly won't be using it everyday for 4 hours.

With this being said, I'm definitely not going to worry about what the clock says and just enjoy the PJ as I've been doing and I plan on doing. Life is too short to be busting my head over such details. wink.gif

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

You and Daniel are right from the standpoint of giving the consumer an accurate representation of what his usage is.

In other words, I do see SOME merit in adjusting the lamp hours if someone is changing lamp modes.

If the lamp mode stays the same ALL the time, then yes it's a very simple thing to say I've been using Normal all this time, so i should get 4000hrs, or I've been using SmartEco the whole time, so I should get 6000, or what ever the case may be. When you are switching lamp modes constantly though for what ever reason, it can get a little hard to know exactly how much time you have left. Have you been using Normal more or SmartEco more? Is my bulb gonna die in 5000hrs or 4200? I get that.

The main point I think Jason is trying to make, and if that's the case, I agree with him, is that you are screwed by their inflation of actual hours when it comes to warranty. They warranty the bulb for a certain amount of hours irrespective of what lamp mode you use. If their algorithm is unnaturally inflating your lamp hours, then it is also making you that much closer to being out of warranty for a bulb, when you really shouldn't be.

If they want to use fake hours to display your usage, then they can't use real hours for the warranty.
post #3702 of 8551
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERuiz View Post

This is the picture I am looking at: Even if I were to use this PJ for 4 hours EVERYDAY, it will take me 2 years to reach the end life of the lamp. By then, I will probably either just buy another lamp or maybe get me another PJ. Who knows what I will do in 2 years from now. And honestly, seeing how bright this PJ is for my bat cave, where I leave it at it's most economical setting (Smart ECO) everytime I use it, I will probably get more than 2 years out of this lamp because I certainly won't be using it everyday for 4 hours.

With this being said, I'm definitely not going to worry about what the clock says and just enjoy the PJ as I've been doing and I plan on doing. Life is too short to be busting my head over such details. wink.gif

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2


Based upon that response you hopefully now see my point. wink.gif

This issue is nothing to do with the merits of the image, which I have stated has set a new price/performance benchmark (remember that I own one as well and would have returned it had it not impressed).

There is no point in downplaying a negative aspect of the projector for purchase justification sake, we pick all these units apart as that is an aspect of what AVS is here for (we all help others make informed buying choices).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuntman_Mike View Post

You and Daniel are right from the standpoint of giving the consumer an accurate representation of what his usage is.

In other words, I do see SOME merit in adjusting the lamp hours if someone is changing lamp modes.

If the lamp mode stays the same ALL the time, then yes it's a very simple thing to say I've been using Normal all this time, so i should get 4000hrs, or I've been using SmartEco the whole time, so I should get 6000, or what ever the case may be. When you are switching lamp modes constantly though for what ever reason, it can get a little hard to know exactly how much time you have left. Have you been using Normal more or SmartEco more? Is my bulb gonna die in 5000hrs or 4200? I get that.

The main point I think Jason is trying to make, and if that's the case, I agree with him, is that you are screwed by their inflation of actual hours when it comes to warranty. They warranty the bulb for a certain amount of hours irrespective of what lamp mode you use. If their algorithm is unnaturally inflating your lamp hours, than it is also making you that much closer to being out of warranty for a bulb, when you really shouldn't be.

If they want to use fake hours to display your usage, then they can't use real hours for the warranty.
Quote:

Bingo !!!

Jason

Edited by DaGamePimp - 3/26/13 at 11:41pm
post #3703 of 8551
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuntman_Mike View Post

The main point I think Jason is trying to make, and if that's the case, I agree with him, is that you are screwed by their inflation of actual hours when it comes to warranty. They warranty the bulb for a certain amount of hours irrespective of what lamp mode you use. If their algorithm is unnaturally inflating your lamp hours, then it is also making you that much closer to being out of warranty for a bulb, when you really shouldn't be.

If they want to use fake hours to display your usage, then they can't use real hours for the warranty.

Okay this I get lol sorry Pimp =p

So what they need to do is have two counters, a live counter for what mode you are in and a fixed counter for hours sat in front of the screen as it was for warranty and personal how long have I been here use. smile.gif
post #3704 of 8551
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuntman_Mike View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by ERuiz View Post

This is the picture I am looking at: Even if I were to use this PJ for 4 hours EVERYDAY, it will take me 2 years to reach the end life of the lamp. By then, I will probably either just buy another lamp or maybe get me another PJ. Who knows what I will do in 2 years from now. And honestly, seeing how bright this PJ is for my bat cave, where I leave it at it's most economical setting (Smart ECO) everytime I use it, I will probably get more than 2 years out of this lamp because I certainly won't be using it everyday for 4 hours.

With this being said, I'm definitely not going to worry about what the clock says and just enjoy the PJ as I've been doing and I plan on doing. Life is too short to be busting my head over such details. wink.gif

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

You and Daniel are right from the standpoint of giving the consumer an accurate representation of what his usage is.

In other words, I do see SOME merit in adjusting the lamp hours if someone is changing lamp modes.

If the lamp mode stays the same ALL the time, then yes it's a very simple thing to say I've been using Normal all this time, so i should get 4000hrs, or I've been using SmartEco the whole time, so I should get 6000, or what ever the case may be. When you are switching lamp modes constantly though for what ever reason, it can get a little hard to know exactly how much time you have left. Have you been using Normal more or SmartEco more? Is my bulb gonna die in 5000hrs or 4200? I get that.

The main point I think Jason is trying to make, and if that's the case, I agree with him, is that you are screwed by their inflation of actual hours when it comes to warranty. They warranty the bulb for a certain amount of hours irrespective of what lamp mode you use. If their algorithm is unnaturally inflating your lamp hours, then it is also making you that much closer to being out of warranty for a bulb, when you really shouldn't be.

If they want to use fake hours to display your usage, then they can't use real hours for the warranty.

Yup, and I agree! Hahaha For warranty purposes, they shouldn't be using these fluctuating calculations.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
post #3705 of 8551
Honda motors lost a class action lawsuit a few years ago when their speedometer was off and showed inflated millage usage. Honda had to extend the warranty. If anyone has a lamp issue I suggest that they point this out to Benq.
Having said the above, Benq has a good reputation for service and support and I think this will probably be unnecessary. The other good thing is that this lamp cost is much less expensive than many others.
post #3706 of 8551
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuntman_Mike View Post

I got you, and again, thanks for the reply.

Do the 3DTV Corp glasses you bought from Amazon look like the ones pictured on Amazon, or like these?



I ask because the ones pictured above are claimed to be the 2013 version that works with 144hz projectors on 3DTV Corp's site, while the ones pictured on Amazon, aren't according to 3DTV Corp's site.

I have the Black versions which do not look anything like this picture. This picture looks like red versions of the OKBA ones and do not block the red flash that well. The black ones that Amazon is selling 2 for $58 dollars are the ones I am talking about. On the box the Model is DLP2 Pro and it clearly states that
the glasses support 144kz. They are larger, fit over glasses and block the red flash.

See link below: Even though they don't state 144Kz these are the new ones. I have 4 pairs and they work great. I have compared them to the Benq which sell for much more and these are just as good. They are not rechargeable.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004G2VJM6/ref=oh_details_o00_s00_i00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
Edited by rwestley - 3/27/13 at 4:55am
post #3707 of 8551
They were out of "Red" 3DTV glasses - - so this is what I received. They work great! Also rechargeable - -as you can see in the picture. I got them from Amazon.



post #3708 of 8551
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricoflashback View Post

They were out of "Red" 3DTV glasses - - so this is what I received. They work great! Also rechargeable - -as you can see in the picture. I got them from Amazon.




I have tried the black version of these glasses. They are the same ones as sold under the OKBA name on Amazon. They do work fine but if you compare them to the Benq, 3DTV, or 3DActive glasses they do not block the red flash as well. I have done A/B tests with these brands and with the Sansonic. I would compare these to the quality of the SanSonic. They are very light which is good but the frame seems too small to fully block the red flash. If you compare the ones I mentioned to these you will see the difference.
On 3D the blacks do not look as good because of the red flash not being blocked. I often use these for guests and use the others for myself.
post #3709 of 8551
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwestley View Post

I have tried the black version of these glasses. They are the same ones as sold under the OKBA name on Amazon. They do work fine but if you compare them to the Benq, 3DTV, or 3DActive glasses they do not block the red flash as well. I have done A/B tests with these brands and with the Sansonic. I would compare these to the quality of the SanSonic. They are very light which is good but the frame seems too small to fully block the red flash. If you compare the ones I mentioned to these you will see the difference.
On 3D the blacks do not look as good because of the red flash not being blocked. I often use these for guests and use the others for myself.

I didn't see any "red flash" with these glasses - - so I guess I'm a little confused at the comment. Maybe it's the difference in the W1080ST BenQ that I have or the location? (My PJ is in front of me - ceiling mount - short throw (66" from 100" Diagonal 16 X 9 screen)
post #3710 of 8551
Quote:
Originally Posted by gatd View Post

OK here is the reply I got from BenQ re bulb timer

Dear Mr ..........

Thank you for contacting BenQ;

Firstly, we want to apologize for the long delay of our reply. You question needed an investigation and the support of our engineers in Taiwan.

The projector you own have three different settings for the lamp: Normal, ECO and Smart ECO.

The setting that have the exact correspondence between the effective used lamp time and the lamp hours counter is the Smart ECO (the most energy efficient setting), while, when used in normal mode, the correspondence between the lamp hour and the counter is 1 : 1,71 (1 hour lamp used is 1,71 lamp hours on the timer) and in ECO is 1: 1,2 (1 hour lamp used is 1,2 lamp hours on the timer).

We hope this will answer your question, but we remain available if you need any further information.

Kind Regards,

Ugo Turcio

BenQ Europe
Sorry to throw more fuel on the fire, from BenQ's web site; Specifications; "Lamp (Normal/Economic Mode)* 3500/5000/6000 hours". From Ugo's response above, 1.71 (eco mode) x 3500 hours = 6000 "hours". Regardless of the projector's performance, isn't this nothing short of false advertising? BenQ is inflating hours by 2500 hours when you run in Eco mode, when actual hours should read 3500.

Cj
post #3711 of 8551
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricoflashback View Post

They were out of "Red" 3DTV glasses - - so this is what I received. They work great! Also rechargeable - -as you can see in the picture. I got them from Amazon.




You say "they" were out of 3DTV red glasses. Who is they? Where did you order these?
post #3712 of 8551
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricoflashback View Post

I didn't see any "red flash" with these glasses - - so I guess I'm a little confused at the comment. Maybe it's the difference in the W1080ST BenQ that I have or the location? (My PJ is in front of me - ceiling mount - short throw (66" from 100" Diagonal 16 X 9 screen)

If you compare them you will see the difference. Some people will notice the red flash more than others. I do find that blacks look better on the Benq and others I recommended since that flash seem to make the blacks turn gray if it is not blocked fully. I have 4 pairs of the ones you mentioned and I use them for children and guests. See the section on 3d glasses in the 3D display thread on the forum.
post #3713 of 8551
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwestley View Post

I have the Black versions which do not look anything like this picture. This picture looks like red versions of the OKBA ones and do not block the red flash that well. The black ones that Amazon is selling 2 for $58 dollars are the ones I am talking about. On the box the Model is DLP2 Pro and it clearly states that
the glasses support 144kz. They are larger, fit over glasses and block the red flash.

See link below: Even though they don't state 144Kz these are the new ones. I have 4 pairs and they work great. I have compared them to the Benq which sell for much more and these are just as good. They are not rechargeable.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004G2VJM6/ref=oh_details_o00_s00_i00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

OK. I figured they were still the ones pictured on Amazon, but wanted to make sure.

I will probably go with these, though they don't look as comfortable as the Red ones.

The annoying/convenient thing about these DLP Link glasses in general, is that there only seems to be a handful of different kinds, but dozens of resellers take them and brand them differently, but have no hand in actually making them.

Convenient because you can just look at the style of the glasses and know how it will perform, regardless of what the name is on them. Annoying because you can't really get a pair of glasses that comes with all the features you want (block red flash and comfortable and rechargeable) because there are only a couple of glasses types, and none of them really do everything well.
post #3714 of 8551
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuntman_Mike View Post

You say "they" were out of 3DTV red glasses. Who is they? Where did you order these?

From Amazon - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00BJAQBGC/ref=oh_details_o00_s00_i00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

Also - - I can understand wanting glasses with bigger side frames to block light or the "red flash" - - but I just don't see any flash, whatsoever, with my setup - - so if this is an issue for you - - you can also look at other options. I found these glasses to be very lightweight and cost effective. Lots of options out there.
post #3715 of 8551
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricoflashback View Post

Also - - I can understand wanting glasses with bigger side frames to block light or the "red flash" - - but I just don't see any flash, whatsoever, with my setup - - so if this is an issue for you - - you can also look at other options. I found these glasses to be very lightweight and cost effective. Lots of options out there.

It doesn't look like a flash -- it just looks red. Take the glasses off in 3D mode. You will see that the whole image is tinted very RED. The glasses are supposed to remove the RED tint and leave the image with normal color. Some glasses do that better than others.

The reason it's called red flash is that the projector is actually only adding the red tint when it's cycling between the left and right image, but because it happens so fast (144hz), your eyes can't actually make out the flashing. It just looks RED all the time.
Edited by dzenc - 3/27/13 at 10:02am
post #3716 of 8551
Ok guys my unit was on 1.04 and I upgraded to 1.05.
Yes I know I was told that I did not need to upgrade but I was on my 30 day in store return policy and I wanted to make sure that I was able to upgrade simple like everyone else.
All went well and it completed in 2:49 minutes.
Thanks to RWESTLEY steps.
Thanks a million.
post #3717 of 8551
Quote:
Originally Posted by themagic View Post

Ok guys my unit was on 1.04 and I upgraded to 1.05.
Yes I know I was told that I did not need to upgrade but I was on my 30 day in store return policy and I wanted to make sure that I was able to upgrade simple like everyone else.
All went well and it completed in 2:49 minutes.
Thanks to RWESTLEY steps.
Thanks a million.

Is that 2hrs 49mins?
post #3718 of 8551
No, 2 minutes and 49 seconds
post #3719 of 8551
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuntman_Mike View Post

OK. I figured they were still the ones pictured on Amazon, but wanted to make sure.

I will probably go with these, though they don't look as comfortable as the Red ones.

The annoying/convenient thing about these DLP Link glasses in general, is that there only seems to be a handful of different kinds, but dozens of resellers take them and brand them differently, but have no hand in actually making them.

Convenient because you can just look at the style of the glasses and know how it will perform, regardless of what the name is on them. Annoying because you can't really get a pair of glasses that comes with all the features you want (block red flash and comfortable and rechargeable) because there are only a couple of glasses types, and none of them really do everything well.

Both pairs are comfortable compared to some others. I like the black ones with the large rims the best. There is also an issue with the OKBA ones also being sold with various names. There is a l/R switch on the top and I have found that I had to reset it a few times. These light ones also feel cheap.
post #3720 of 8551
Quote:
Originally Posted by dzenc View Post

It doesn't look like a flash -- it just looks red. Take the glasses off in 3D mode. You will see that the whole image is tinted very RED. The glasses are supposed to remove the RED tint and leave the image with normal color. Some glasses do that better than others.

The reason it's called red flash is that the projector is actually only adding the red tint when it's cycling between the left and right image, but because it happens so fast (144hz), your eyes can't actually make out the flashing. It just looks RED all the time.

Got it - - I still do not see any - - but I do see the "red screen' when it changes to 3D - - but no flash thereafter. My entire screen is a "red hue" - - then the picture is in 3D with no perceptible flashing.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Digital Projectors - Under $3,000 USD MSRP › BenQ W1070 : DLP Full HD, 3D Ready with lens-shift for 1000$