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 231

post #6901 of 8551

I just bought a BenQ W1070 projector and am now looking to buy a 110" screen.  My throw distance is about 11' with NO ambient light. 

 

I found a used 110" Da-lite white screen on craigslist for only $250 (originally $1,200).  Owner says it's in like-new condition.  My other option is a High Contrast Gray Screen from Jamestown for $250.

 

Should I go for a Jamestown grey screen or the Da-lite white screen?  Cost is about the same.

post #6902 of 8551
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dego510 View Post

I just bought a BenQ W1070 projector and am now looking to buy a 110" screen.  My throw distance is about 11' with NO ambient light. 

I found a used 110" Da-lite white screen on craigslist for only $250 (originally $1,200).  Owner says it's in like-new condition.  My other option is a High Contrast Gray Screen from Jamestown for $250.

Should I go for a Jamestown grey screen or the Da-lite white screen?  Cost is about the same.

You are usually better off with a white screen because of hot spots and viewing angle with the grey screens. This is especially true since you have no ambient light problem. If the Da-Lite is nearly new I would go with it. Find out the model number and google it to be sure.
post #6903 of 8551
I second that ^
post #6904 of 8551

Hello all,

 

Can anybody tell me  if the W1070 is bright enough to give a reasonably bright 2D and 3D image at 135" diaganol onto a matte white screen in a room with hardly any ambient light?

 

I'm upgrading my PT-ax100 and am stuck between buying the W1070 or the HD131xe.

 

Thanks

 

T

post #6905 of 8551
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dego510 View Post

I just bought a BenQ W1070 projector and am now looking to buy a 110" screen.  My throw distance is about 11' with NO ambient light. 

I found a used 110" Da-lite white screen on craigslist for only $250 (originally $1,200).  Owner says it's in like-new condition.  My other option is a High Contrast Gray Screen from Jamestown for $250.

Should I go for a Jamestown grey screen or the Da-lite white screen?  Cost is about the same.

I have a Da-Lite Cinema Contour High Contrast (gray) Da-Mat screen, which I recently got and with which I'm quite happy so far. But I have mild ambient light issues as a function of reflections off white walls and ceilings that I can't paint. It sounds like you have perfect ambient light control, so a white screen seems like a no-brainer, and if you need to reduce brightness further than the projector will allow, you could always slap a filter on it as some on this forum have done. Further, you're comparing a ~$1200 screen to a $250 one. Even assuming the latter is an exceptional bargain, it's hard to imagine there aren't quality differences between the frames and fabrics. The Cinema Contour frame, which I'm guessing is what you're considering used, is hefty and nicely shaped aluminum, which looks great and doesn't have the risk of warping over time like wood. So assuming the used screen is as described, this doesn't seem like a difficult choice to me.
post #6906 of 8551
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwestley View Post

You are usually better off with a white screen because of hot spots and viewing angle with the grey screens. This is especially true since you have no ambient light problem. If the Da-Lite is nearly new I would go with it. Find out the model number and google it to be sure.

Gray screens with <1 gain should have a viewing angle and uniformity identical to neutral gain white screens. You must be referring to pricier gray screens that are coated to increase gain, like the Firehawk.
post #6907 of 8551

A big thanks to everyone who has contributed to this thread.  As a new W1070 owner, I have learned a lot from the 65 pages I've read so far and my goal is to read it all.

 

I've temporarily placed the W1070 on a shelf until my mount arrives.  Based on what I've learned, the center of the projector lens should be between the following heights:

 

minimum: [height of the top of the screen from the floor] + [actual screen height x 5%]

maximum: [height of the top of the screen from the floor] + [actual [screen height x 15%]

 

I'm using the minimum, with an EZframe Cinewhite 135" screen that is 66" in height, so I have the center of the projector lens placed 3.3" (66 x 5%) above the height of my actual screen. 

 

I'm using the built in test pattern for alignment.  The alignment looks pretty decent to me, with one exception.  The bottom row of rectangles is noticeably shorter than in every other row, by at least 20%.

 

It looks like this...

 

 

 

(my screen is actually level horizontally, the pic makes it look a little skewed).

 

Using a graphics editor, I can see that every row of rectangles is 120px in height in this pic, except the bottom row, which is under 100px.  And measuring it in real life the bottom row is noticeably shorter by about an inch.

 

I was just wondering if this is due to my amateur alignment skills?  I just want to make sure it's not an issue with the projector.

 

If it is my alignment skills, any idea which way I should be moving the projector to fix it?  I've been playing around with it, but the bottom row always seems to be shorter than the rest. 

 

The other question I had was regarding the lines in the alignment image.  Should it be my goal to make the outer lines just barely touch the black border, or make it so the lines bleed over a tiny bit onto the border?

 

Thanks for any insight that anyone can provide.

post #6908 of 8551

Hi cmyden, thats the screen size I'm hoping to run. Can you comment on brightness for 2D and 3D at that screen size please?

 

Also, AFAIK the aim is to touch the borders on all sides with the grid with no bleed. If you do this your image should be squared with the screen.

post #6909 of 8551
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmyden2 View Post
 

A big thanks to everyone who has contributed to this thread.  As a new W1070 owner, I have learned a lot from the 65 pages I've read so far and my goal is to read it all.

 

I've temporarily placed the W1070 on a shelf until my mount arrives.  Based on what I've learned, the center of the projector lens should be between the following heights:

 

minimum: [height of the top of the screen from the floor] + [actual screen height x 5%]

maximum: [height of the top of the screen from the floor] + [actual [screen height x 15%]

 

I'm using the minimum, with an EZframe Cinewhite 135" screen that is 66" in height, so I have the center of the projector lens placed 3.3" (66 x 5%) above the height of my actual screen. 

 

I'm using the built in test pattern for alignment.  The alignment looks pretty decent to me, with one exception.  The bottom row of rectangles is noticeably shorter than in every other row, by at least 20%.

 

It looks like this...

 

 

 

(my screen is actually level horizontally, the pic makes it look a little skewed).

 

Using a graphics editor, I can see that every row of rectangles is 120px in height in this pic, except the bottom row, which is under 100px.  And measuring it in real life the bottom row is noticeably shorter by about an inch.

 

I was just wondering if this is due to my amateur alignment skills?  I just want to make sure it's not an issue with the projector.

 

If it is my alignment skills, any idea which way I should be moving the projector to fix it?  I've been playing around with it, but the bottom row always seems to be shorter than the rest. 

 

The other question I had was regarding the lines in the alignment image.  Should it be my goal to make the outer lines just barely touch the black border, or make it so the lines bleed over a tiny bit onto the border?

 

Thanks for any insight that anyone can provide.

 

I would be very happy with that geometry.  The chances that you will notice any 'squashing' of that bottom row of rectangles on real life content is, I would guess, about zero.

post #6910 of 8551
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmyden2 View Post

A big thanks to everyone who has contributed to this thread.  As a new W1070 owner, I have learned a lot from the 65 pages I've read so far and my goal is to read it all.

I've temporarily placed the W1070 on a shelf until my mount arrives.  Based on what I've learned, the center of the projector lens should be between the following heights:

minimum: [height of the top of the screen from the floor] + [actual screen height x 5%]
maximum: [height of the top of the screen from the floor] + [actual [screen height x 15%]

I'm using the minimum, with an EZframe Cinewhite 135" screen that is 66" in height, so I have the center of the projector lens placed 3.3" (66 x 5%) above the height of my actual screen. 

I'm using the built in test pattern for alignment.  The alignment looks pretty decent to me, with one exception.  The bottom row of rectangles is noticeably shorter than in every other row, by at least 20%.

It looks like this...





(my screen is actually level horizontally, the pic makes it look a little skewed).

Using a graphics editor, I can see that every row of rectangles is 120px in height in this pic, except the bottom row, which is under 100px.  And measuring it in real life the bottom row is noticeably shorter by about an inch.

I was just wondering if this is due to my amateur alignment skills?  I just want to make sure it's not an issue with the projector.

If it is my alignment skills, any idea which way I should be moving the projector to fix it?  I've been playing around with it, but the bottom row always seems to be shorter than the rest. 

The other question I had was regarding the lines in the alignment image.  Should it be my goal to make the outer lines just barely touch the black border, or make it so the lines bleed over a tiny bit onto the border?

Thanks for any insight that anyone can provide.

This has nothing to do with your alignment--the test pattern includes a shorter row at the bottom. I'll confess it took a little willpower not to write something more interesting, for example suggesting that this was an artifact of using HDMI 1.3 rather than 1.4 cables. smile.gif
post #6911 of 8551
Quote:
 

Hi cmyden, thats the screen size I'm hoping to run. Can you comment on brightness for 2D and 3D at that screen size please?

 

Also, AFAIK the aim is to touch the borders on all sides with the grid with no bleed. If you do this your image should be squared with the screen.

 

 

Thanks!  I've only been playing around with it for a few days, and I don't have any 3D glasses yet, so I can't comment on 3D.  But for 2D it seems plenty bright to me.  I don't think brightness should be an issue at 135" with this projector.  I was actually initially going to get greedy and go with 150", because I wanted to get closer to the ideal 16-22 FL range, and it would have been easier to do so with my setup at 150".  But alas, 150" was getting a bit greedy, and you can see I already have less than ideal room under my screen for a center channel even at 135".

 

With a 1.1 gain Elite EZframe cinewhite 135 "screen, at 14'4" from the screen, in a room with a 7'6" ceiling, the calculator at EliteProjectorCalculator.com estimated that I would still be well over 20 fl in low lamp mode, and that it would drop to 17 fl after 500 hours of lamp usage.  I was aiming for 16 fl in low lamp mode, and this seemed to be as close as I could get to this ideal, without either a bigger screen or lower gain gray screen (which was a consideration, but couldn't find a great price on the cinegrey) as I'm about as far back as you can move the projector.

 

But as for 3D in my setup, it remains to be seen if it's bright enough.  I would *think* so as it's plenty bright in econo mode, but I mainly bought the projector for watching 2D content with 3D as more of just a bonus for me that I'll probably play around with once or twice.

 

On a side note, I saw someone from Calgary mention this projector being for sale at Costco.  I bought mine from Costco.ca for $999, and when they sent out the flyer this weekend advertising it for $899, I simply called up Costco.ca customer service and they refunded $100 to my credit card.  And this was well after this projector suddenly disappeared from Costco.ca

 

I know NCIX has (or had) it for $799 but I'd rather keep it with Costco just for the peace of mind, and fingers crossed for it coming back at $799, or at $850 with 2 free pairs of glasses again.

 

Quote:
 I would be very happy with that geometry.  The chances that you will notice any 'squashing' of that bottom row of rectangles on real life content is, I would guess, about zero.

 

Thanks!  I was thinking the same thing, but just wanted to make sure it wasn't some sort of defect with the projector masking a bigger issue.

 

Quote:
 This has nothing to do with your alignment--the test pattern includes a shorter row at the bottom. I'll confess it took a little willpower not to write something more interesting, for example suggesting that this was an artifact of using HDMI 1.3 rather than 1.4 cables.

 

Great!  I feel much better now, thanks everyone!

post #6912 of 8551
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmolinar View Post

Darn. Canadian orders only. Oh well...

For us Americans too.
http://us.ncix.com/products/?sku=77677&vpn=W1070&manufacture=BenQ&promoid=1029
post #6913 of 8551
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmyden2 View Post

A big thanks to everyone who has contributed to this thread.  As a new W1070 owner, I have learned a lot from the 65 pages I've read so far and my goal is to read it all.

I've temporarily placed the W1070 on a shelf until my mount arrives.  Based on what I've learned, the center of the projector lens should be between the following heights:

minimum: [height of the top of the screen from the floor] + [actual screen height x 5%]
maximum: [height of the top of the screen from the floor] + [actual [screen height x 15%]

I'm using the minimum, with an EZframe Cinewhite 135" screen that is 66" in height, so I have the center of the projector lens placed 3.3" (66 x 5%) above the height of my actual screen. 

I'm using the built in test pattern for alignment.  The alignment looks pretty decent to me, with one exception.  The bottom row of rectangles is noticeably shorter than in every other row, by at least 20%.

It looks like this...





(my screen is actually level horizontally, the pic makes it look a little skewed).

Using a graphics editor, I can see that every row of rectangles is 120px in height in this pic, except the bottom row, which is under 100px.  And measuring it in real life the bottom row is noticeably shorter by about an inch.

I was just wondering if this is due to my amateur alignment skills?  I just want to make sure it's not an issue with the projector.

If it is my alignment skills, any idea which way I should be moving the projector to fix it?  I've been playing around with it, but the bottom row always seems to be shorter than the rest. 

The other question I had was regarding the lines in the alignment image.  Should it be my goal to make the outer lines just barely touch the black border, or make it so the lines bleed over a tiny bit onto the border?

Thanks for any insight that anyone can provide.

It looks the lie bottom box is truncated. With only that cell being effected. Looks like bad math from the firmware team. If they had made boxes that alternated between 67 pixels and 68 pixels high, the difference would not be noticeable. The attached file has several calibration images that I've used over the years for calibration from a PC/Mac, it may help.

mappingTestPatterns.zip 53k .zip file
Edited by vidkidd - 12/2/13 at 9:47pm
post #6914 of 8551
Random question--why is the lens surround on our Benqs, and many other projectors, including black ones, metallic silver? This would seem to be the absolute worst color, and it does cause our projector to spill a lot of light onto the ceiling when ceiling mounted. Why wouldn't it be black, like a photo lens hood? Please tell me this isn't a function follows form decision?
post #6915 of 8551
Got a question guys: I have a european Benq w1070 and plan to upgrade the firmware to get the best 3D support (which is now supported in xbmc alpha too). Anyway, will the firmware links that are posted a few pages back work on my european unit? Are there any different firmwares for US/EU models? Just asking before I break my projector smile.gif Thanks in advance.

Also, any idea if the firmware would fix my brightness uniformity? I suppose not, but who knows.
post #6916 of 8551
Quote:
Originally Posted by lapino View Post

Got a question guys: I have a european Benq w1070 and plan to upgrade the firmware to get the best 3D support (which is now supported in xbmc alpha too). Anyway, will the firmware links that are posted a few pages back work on my european unit? Are there any different firmwares for US/EU models? Just asking before I break my projector smile.gif Thanks in advance.

Also, any idea if the firmware would fix my brightness uniformity? I suppose not, but who knows.

Yes, the firmware works in all areas. No, the firmware will not fix any issue with brightness or uniformity?
post #6917 of 8551
Does everyone put their dust cap back on after every use? I use mine almost every day. 500 hrs in 3 months without any issue. But I have been leaving my dust cap off because it knocks my focus out and I herd these projectors are sealed
post #6918 of 8551
White vs grey
I had a grey wall which I projected on briefly before I got the white screen (from Jamestown) ... I was going to go for a grey screen, and James from jamestown talked me out of it - good thing he did.

Grey screen has a few problems - hot spotting like someone else mentioned, and while the projector is bright enough for 2D, you really want the last bit of juice you can get out of it for 3D because of the active glasses. This is espcially the case when you've put some mileage on the lamp and it's lost its some of its brightness.

Focus
I, too, notice a slight out of focus problem at the corners ... but somehow I noticed this problem when watching out of my cable box, not my BD player or other sources, so initially I thought it was the source video ... I'll go back and double check again. What's the best way to check? Is the projector's test pattern good enough? Or should I use the 3x3 or 4x4 test images from a computer?

I am at maximum zoom (placing the projector as far from the screen as I can) ... and that's supposed to be a bad thing for uniform focus across the screen? I initially planned to have a 92" image so that's how I planned the placement of my projector. Only after I installed it I realized 92" is too small, so I went for maximum lens zoom making it 100". Is there anything I can do to help uniform focus?

It doesn't bother me that much though, since I don't use it for computer ... for movies and other videos you can't really notice unless you're specifically looking for it.

$799
I bought it on sale at $899 in the summer and that was the best deal I could find... this is a great projector so if you're looking for a PJ you can't go wrong at $799. This is the lowest price I've ever seen.
post #6919 of 8551
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidkidd View Post


The only way I could achieve a consistent full field focus was to set the project at it's maximum Optical Zoom, adjusting the projector's distance from the screen to increase/decrease the size of the image.

To be clear: Using the manual ZOOM, turn the ring until the image is at the MAXIMUM PROJECTED SIZE. Then move the projector closer/farther from the screen to find the optimal placement location. There is no other way the 1070 / 1080ST can achieve a clear focus with the quality of optics that are used.

For you perhaps, but not me. I have uniform sharpness, corner to corner. And that's even with keystone at -2 :-)
post #6920 of 8551
Might have hit some bad news with my Projector. I've discovered a white circle that's visible in black scenes/black screen near the middle. I've confirmed it's not my screen and is coming from the projector. I cleaned the lens and there is no dust or anything causing this. With a low gamma it goes away but when I adjust the gamma to the range I need it's visible. Darker I make the image the more obvious the spot is.

What's it called? Do I need to start thinking about an RMA? My PJ is close to 800 hours. It has developed the rattling fan issue, has always had a dodgy top right corner that is blurrier than the rest, and your typical CD issues. I know some of these are to be expected but throwing in this white dot is tipping me towards wanting a replacement.
post #6921 of 8551
Now that we know BenQ is onboard with NVidia G-Sync, perhaps 2015 will get us a 4K-Gsync capable projector?

http://www.engadget.com/2013/10/18/nvidia-g-sync/

As a 3D programmer who makes videogames, this is the best tech since sliced bread. Allows us to pump up the quality for those critical scenes without being distracted by studder, or an over-zealous avoidance of anything that could dip below 60 FPS. I totally agree with Carmack's assessment that 60 FPS target always on only matters due to the penalty for framerate drops. If you didn't see the framerate dropping so obviously, you could more seamlessly create games without being a slave to the lowest common denominator that will guarantee 60 FPS all the time, which is simply not realistic or even possible, given the variable workloads placed on the GPU and all sorts of other issues in game engines.
post #6922 of 8551
I just upgraded my projector from 1.05 to 1.06 and this seems to have worked. I can play top/bottom 3D from XBMC without a problem. Too bad I used the 'wrong' firmware, I thought I was upgrading to 1.07 but got the wrong file uploaded. Is there an important difference between 1.06 and 1.07, worth redoing the upgrade? Also, it seems my projector is not picking up the 3D signal by itself, I need to set it manually to 3D mode (at least using xbmc with 1080p top/bottom 3D rips).

I also forgot to note my settings (tbh, didn't bother because I then would need to re-attach the projector to note them down). Any recommended settings for +300h lamp use?
post #6923 of 8551
Quote:
Originally Posted by number17 View Post

White vs grey
I had a grey wall which I projected on briefly before I got the white screen (from Jamestown) ... I was going to go for a grey screen, and James from jamestown talked me out of it - good thing he did.

Grey screen has a few problems - hot spotting like someone else mentioned, and while the projector is bright enough for 2D, you really want the last bit of juice you can get out of it for 3D because of the active glasses. This is espcially the case when you've put some mileage on the lamp and it's lost its some of its brightness.

Why would an uncoated gray screen have hot spotting? Am I missing something here?

If you've got perfect light control, as a function of dark walls and ceiling with perfect control over external light, a gray screen clearly makes less sense these days. But if that's not the case, as in my case where I have a white ceiling and walls, the gray screen seems to be an excellent addition, whites still appear perfectly white but contrast appears improved.
Edited by niccolo - 12/4/13 at 3:37pm
post #6924 of 8551
post #6925 of 8551
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidK442 View Post

There is a general thought that Forums such as this cast a bad light on products because people who have problems are more apt to log on to report than those who are happily enjoying a functional piece of gear.
After watching post after post from people who really want to love this projector for its picture quality but have become disillusioned with its multitude of engineering flaws, I can't help but smile.
I have the fan noise, I have experienced the fuzzy corner, and since October I have also had a barely perceptable white blob on dark scenes (which I assume is dust), just like you.

My first post to this thread was biggrin.gif, then smile.gif, followed by rolleyes.gif and now mad.gif.

I know a few have had great luck. The rest of us...well, start saving your cash for a real projector.

I'm not unsympathetic, but this does raise the question of what a real projector is. For example, would Benq's higher-priced models qualify? A modest step up to the W1500? A more significant step up in the line? Or is the implication that other brands represent steps up? Plenty of other brands seem to have no shortage of complaints--for example, Epson in general has quite a good reputation, but the 2030 has gotten pretty mixed reviews, and the 3020 seems to have some non-trivial issues also. Before we dismiss the W1070 as a cheap piece of crap, which seems to be the subtext here, it might be worth asking whether the competition fares meaningfully better, and at what price points that seems to be the case.
post #6926 of 8551
What is the perfect height to install this from the floor? I have a 100" screen plus how do you access the position section on e display menu? Mine seems to be off center trend in high right

Thank you
post #6927 of 8551

Sure, I believe everything I read. But you made it sound like in your post that I quoted that the BenQ W1070 is incapable of being uniform sharp, corner to corner, unless you go the max "zoom" and then physically move the projector in to where you need it placed. This is just not true.
post #6928 of 8551
I changed laptop, before I use intel 4000 for projecting 3d movies. Now I got a lenovo with sli nvidia gt 750 and I couldn't see 3d with power DVD. After I discovered I should enable stereoscopic 3d from the control panel of the nvidia. Anybody know how I enable 3d gaming with this card?
post #6929 of 8551
Quote:
Originally Posted by bryanmccarty View Post

What is the perfect height to install this from the floor? I have a 100" screen plus how do you access the position section on e display menu? Mine seems to be off center trend in high right

Thank you

Lens shift gives you a range of placement options relative to screen position, but it's fairly constrained. The calculators on the Benq or Projector Central sites will give you a sense of your options. I suppose the "perfect" height is the one that use the most minimal amount of lens shift, though in practice I don't find lens shift degrading the image meaningfully. Note that lens shift is mechanical, not digital--you employ it by turning a screw, which drives a worm gear, located behind the lens. It sounds like reading the manual might be a good first step for you, and no doubt you'll have some follow-up questions with which folks here can help you.
post #6930 of 8551
Quote:
Originally Posted by andyxoxo View Post

Sure, I believe everything I read. But you made it sound like in your post that I quoted that the BenQ W1070 is incapable of being uniform sharp, corner to corner, unless you go the max "zoom" and then physically move the projector in to where you need it placed. This is just not true.

Vidkidd is comparing apples to oranges. There's no question keystone will, by definition, degrade the image somewhat (if you understand how it works, you'll see that that has to be true by definition). But you can still either focus or not crisply focus that somewhat degraded image. Kudos for having gotten lucky and being able to focus across the full image space--lots of us who cannot do that with our projectors are jealous!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Digital Projectors - Under $3,000 USD MSRP › BenQ W1070 : DLP Full HD, 3D Ready with lens-shift for 1000$