Sony VPL-HW50ES Focus Nonuniformity

when you show it like that, it's very noticeable. I'm guessing since you had this problem with more then one unit, that this must be a common problem with this model.

I have a VW95, and that amount of variation you show from best to worst doesn't look that unusual. It could be chromatic aberration as much as lack of focus. Can you see it from a normal viewing distance? If you cannot, forget about it.
Even the best $3000 cameras and $2000 lenses have some variation in sharpness from center to edge.

The nonuniformity is odd.
I have to say, I enjoyed both of my projectors more after I put away the test disks, as it seems that every brand and projector has some weaknesses that get exposed by these patterns & tests. But if something is still noticeable and bothersome in real world viewing, that's a different matter. My experience is that buying 2nd and 3rd generation iterations of technology is the safest bet. The Sony 50 seems to be a bit first generation, with some clear improvements, but some problems

At least the lens should be xth generation (since HW10 or so?).

Ok, one pixel text is a very hard challenge. I'd say the secon unit is OK.

I think in real movie scenes you wouldn't see these issues that much, even when switching directly between the first and the second unit.
These are no data projectors...

The first time Sony used this lens which is manufactured in China and is entirely made out of plastic lens elements was in the HW30. The same lens isuysed in the 50. Sony's better projetors have glass element lenses made in Japan.

This lens simply can't compete. It is sharp enough for viewing at normal viewing distances by people with normal vision but ill always look unsharp when viewed with one's nose two inches from the screen. It just won't sharpen up like a more expensive glass lens. Sony has made the lens appear to perform better in the 50 than it did in the 30 through electronic trickery (RC) . In relevant part, the RC enhances the contrast transitions in the picture and makes the lens capable of resolving them because they are enhanced. So it looks like the lens is better but it really isn't. Use of a plastic lens was a necessary design compromise to meet target price points, pure and simple. Every projector at a given price point has design compromises. It ALWAYs could be made much better and higher performing and more reliable yada yada yada, but not for the given price point. Improve one lower another.

Instead of spending your moneyo shipping trying to get a lens that somehow works and performs like an expensive glass lens, giove up if the lens performance bothers you. All your lenses are within spec I suspect.

They are.

And yes its plastic and yes it was a design compromise to meet the price points of the 30 and 50. Just accept what I say because it is factually accurate. Many things were done to meet the competition including using the same chasis on the 30 and 50 as the predecessor to the 30. It was also a considerable challenge to provide the increased cooling necessary for the 30. There are many elements to projector design and manufacture that are just unknown to the masses here.

Why would a plastic lens be used if not to save money in the manufacturing costs of a projector?

I fully concur in Sony's decision here as much as I am a proponent of fine glass being used in any projector I own. Myself would and did spend more and if I didn't own the 1000ES would be a customer for the 95 replacement. But if my budget were in the $3K region, I could accept the 50 because at my viewing distance of 1.5 screen widths, the unsharpness of the lens does not affect the ultimate PQ delivered. Use the RC of the 50 and add a Darblet. The end result is the only thing that is important and Sony achieved it with its electronic lets call it sharpness enhancement and improved optical efficiently allowing more light out without anew chasis to provide motre colling if wattage output were increased.to provided more light.

The consumer has choices. If lens sharpness is a high criterion for whatever reason, the Sony 50 should not be a choice. If ultimate PQ is the deciding factor, than it should be seriously considered.

The JVCs have better lenses. But they don't handle motion as well or do 3D as well. You ain't going to get perfection at the sub $5K price points. You ain't going to get it at the $25K price point either but you will get a lot closer.

We bitch and bitch about the end result of design compromises here and think the blame lies with the manufacturer. How could they. Why didn't they make it better and yet sell it cheaper. What were they thinking.

Sony projectors are made in japan. That means better quality and higher labor costs. Sony projectors come with a 3 year warraty and a no bitch replacement policy for ES products. But the lens performance you are complaining about is not a defect.

I don't pretend to be of right mind, just like anyone with zillions of AV Science posts, definately severly warped.

I will concede that your first lens could have been so bad as to fall out of the err specs for the Sony lens. I really didn't study the pictures posted. I just know in general about the lens and my utter failure to obtain sharp focus with that lens unassisted by electronic adjustments to the image projected through the lens. This is an interesting concept and I think could be akin to feedback correction in an audio circuit. The lens distorts, you measureand map the distortion and then adjust the image to inject a reverse didtortion. Now RC and the Darblet don't do that of course, they adjust the image electronically with out knowing the precise distortions and locations. IIts also interesting that optical distortion (not geometric but focus) and the the limitation a lens has to resove contrast measured by its MTF which of course is a measure of the contrast it can resolve, are so related. I have seen the fix brought by RC and then couples with a Darblet. This really makes it a non issue for what a normal viewer will see.

I just received my HW50 on Monday. Since my HT isn’t ready SOWK invited me over to test out the projector. The first thing we checked was the focus uniformity. All I can say is my unit does not have this issue. The focus was crisp and very uniform throughout the image only going slightly out at the corners. I’m not thrilled with the plastic lens, I would have preferred a glass lens but as long as it does not distort over time, I am very happy with the picture this projector throws.

I used the test patterns above on my sony 50. I also have a slight focus problem with the text. I only notice it if i am very close to the screen, i do not detect it at normal seating distance ( 1.4 ) I wish i had not used the test pattern to point out the flaws in the projector, however i have no problem living with them as long as i dont spend all my time looking at test patterns. I have owned more than a dozen projectors and this sony 50 is by far the best i have owned. I hope it keeps me happy until 4k becomes affordable.

these slight variances are not going to be visible with video content at seating distance. If we put other projector's lens under the same microscope, we'll find other anomalies like noticeable CA. I've seen lens from different manufacturers where the CA was obvious even at seating distance.

That's exactly what I have been saying. Regarding CA, a lens with the proper optical coating will have very very little at the sweet spot in the center of the lens. The smaller the lens diameter and the more one employs lens shift away from center, the more CA will become visable because the coatings would have to vary by the curvature of the lens.
For best optical performance with these type machines, one wants to be at long throw where the size of the exit image is the smallest and the use of lens shift can be minimized.

Now Zombie. I do find it somehow amusing how you can easily throw out focus nonuniformityand tell others not to worry about (and I completely agree with you here) but you can not throw out 3D ghosting. You have trained yourself to see it and are perverse in pointing it out so that we all will know no where to look and subsequently always look for it. You know exactly what I mean. Joe Consumer could watch any movie on any of your 3D projectors and probably not notice any ghosting even on that tree in the grand canyon and certainly not a chance in hell of the lamp posts in Despicable Me. I can sit through 3D on many of the ghosting projectors and be blissfully unaware of any ghosting. Just food for thought.
Edited by mark haflich - 11/24/12 at 12:49pm

A slight imperfection in uniformity at close up range is different to my eyes than visible ghosting from seating distance.

I think this will become a non-issue this year (at least for 3D frame packed bluray) with the early feedback on the new JVC models. 3D Bluray is already quite good on the Epson and Sony.

However, the gamers have already raised concerns with SBS and 720P 60hz content on the HW50. This was quite noticeable on the HW30 last year and does not appear to have been improved. SBS and 720P 3D on the Epson is very good in comparison. There is still some progress that needs to improve in these areas.

Of course ghosting is quite visable compared to focus non uniformity at normal seating distances with normal eyes. My point once again is that ghosting usually occupies only a small portion of the total frame and the director or whoever is careful not to present images likely to ghost in screen center. Most ghosting appears peripherally and even if severe will not present a problem until one trains himself to spot it. Unfortunately, it is easy to train yourself and then become a permanent member of the bitcher's club.
Edited by mark haflich - 11/24/12 at 1:03pm

Now people will start bitching about the Sony lens being plastic and not focusing so well when it really shouldn't bother them at all.
Edited by mark haflich - 11/24/12 at 1:03pm

Not everyone is watching 3D blurays. Ghosting with SBS and 720P 60hz content is much more noticeable than the occasion it's seen in regular frame packed bluray content.

The HT projector market at this price point has drawn the interest of video gamers. Some of the manufacturers responded by bettering their lag times.

This is a valid talking point for those who are interested in 3D gaming and non framed packed 3D playback. From the feedback so far, the 5010/5020 can handle SBS / 720P 60hz content better than the HW30/HW50. This includes the 1 / 2 gen 3D JVC's which also had issues with SBS content.

The 3D DLP's have no issues with crosstalk regardless of the 3D format.

We used the exact same NEC Display pattern.

I did not spend a lot of time looking for imperfections in focus but I could see the pixel structure all the way from left to right of the screen with no area in between blurry enough to not see pixel structure. I would not replace your 2nd unit, and I say just enjoy it. I did the same thing with my Sony 95es. (Replaced because I felt chromatic aberration was to much for my liking.) in the end I was going a little crazy over stuff I could only see at screen level. And should have just enjoyed it and kept a few more good nights sleep instead.