Should I buy Sony VPL-VW95ES

If 3D is very important to you I would consider a Dalite HP 2.4 gain screen if it's at all possible to shelf mount your screen. It
s brightest at eye level but you can have it higher. I have my projector behind my 2nd row seating about 14" over the back row seating (but very close the the seats) and the screen gives a very nice gain which is much appreciated for 3D.

Personally I would consider the HW50 as well. From all I've read the VW95 has better blacks (some say slight, others say noticeable but it's hard to make a judgement call as many people's opinion differs) and it should be optically sharper as well. However, the HW50 has Reality Creation which sharpens the picture but could give a more digital look tot the pic but the projector is much brighter and should have slightly less ghosting over the VW95. If you don't have a set expectation on black levels I might go for the HW50. I have a 119" Dalite HP screen and I presently have an RS45 and I'm considering an upgrade between the HW50 and the RS46 (not out yet). I had considered the VW95 but I like a bright pic and what I've read was it has to be in high lamp mode to reach the brightness of the HW30 (last years HW50) which it's brightness is on par with the JVC RS45 that I have now.

Good luck!!!

I saw the VPL-VW95 and the VPL-VW50 side by side, but none were calibrated. What I would say is that the differences were subtle, and on some aspects like brightness I may have liked the VPL-VW50 better... which may entirely be due to different lamp hours on both projectors.
They are some rumors on this forum that the successor of the VPL-VW95 may arrive in April 2013.
In the meantime, the VPL-VW50 has a much better quality/price ratio (VPL-VW95 is 1 year older than VPL-VW50).

how important is 3D? The HW50 has better / brighter 3D than the VW95.

regarding the 2.4HP screen - do you like the 'bright plasma on the wall' look? That's the overall effect. For some, brightness is addicting even in a light controlled room. (especially in 3D).

The caveat of the HP is that the projector needs to be mounted as close to eye level as possible for the brightest image. A rear shelf or table mount is usually the setup. If you can only mount the projector above the top of the screen, the gain will be much less and not worth going with the HP.

A quick joke about the HP. A neighbor came over and saw my screen, but didn't see the projector. He said 'I didn't know they made TV's this big? (he was quite serious). It was hard not to laugh since my screen is over 11 FEET wide and dwarfs even 80" LCD's. I had to show him the projector for it to make sense what he was seeing.

I get this all the time

LOL. I watch my bright plasma on the wall (a 64 or 65 inch Panasonic) and complain that it doesn't look real. I am always aware that I am watching a TV. There is no reality. It really sucks. Sort of like background radio. I am spoiled.


My screen and projector don't look like a bright plasma on the wall. Thank god. I would ditch the sport if that was my end result. Abject failure. But no, I have an image that looks like reality. I am fooled into thinking I am there. My screen is invisable. It just disappears (both when the projector is off and the room is dark, just like you HP boys can do, at least you have part of it right, but ta da, it disappears when the projector is on).

What did I do to get tha?. A very nice 4K projector with great optics and a screen with a gain of 1.0, very very important if you want make the screen disappear andto make your viewing area on the screen transform into a window with no glass.

Is not that the ultimate objective of what we are trying to accomplish?

Unfortunately, this is no longer the objective for most. That's OK. Go for making your HT end result the same as a large plasma on the wall. Yep. The goal is having a really big plasma TV and you know what, a HP will get you there. Congratulations. You have met your goal. And that is what your guests will judge you by. They know TV. They know what a goof plasma looks like. TV. By George, you have made it really big. A big big plasma.
Edited by mark haflich - 11/21/12 at 10:37am

He is using an expensive screen with a VERY expensive $25,000 projector...

let's come back down to earth since we're discussing $3k projectors here.

also, some VW1000 owners admit that they could use an HP screen for 3D since it only puts out ~1000 lumens in 3D, the same amount as the typical 3K projector today.

every screen choice has their limitation. A high quality 1.0 screen that looks excellent in 2D isn't necessarily the best choice for 3D. You have to strike a balance between size and screen gain.

~1000 lumens in 3D on a 130" low gain screen is not my idea of 3D, it's far too dim for my preferences.

This is a sample of the HP material (the older 2.8 vs. current 2.4) on a 1.0 gain screen. If you search the HP thread in the screen forum, you'll find it's one of the preferred screens for 3D. Mine is the 2.8HP @ 142" 16:9 and 3D looks excellent with ~ 1000 lumens in 3D.

Thats why sometimes 2 screens makes sense. You can use a lower gain / unity gain screen for movies, and a pull down High Power screen for 3D. Heck, Mark, you might even go for that !

The sample was the 2.8 on the 1.0 screen. If you have to go with a ceiling mount, the advantages of the gain on the HP are greatly reduced and picking a difference screen makes more sense.

Your original post stated a 130" screen. This is a relatively large sized screen, especially for 3D. I've calibrated VW95's and HW50's and would prefer the HW50's 3D brightness in this scenario. IMO, it's still too dim for a 1.0 gain screen @ 130" but that is subjective and some might be OK with it. The 1.5 might work well, you'll have to find others in the screen forum using that screen material.

The HW50 measures ~1064 lumens in 3D mode before I corrected the colors behind the glasses. Nearly 80% of the light is lost with the 3D glasses which is why the HP is such a good match for today's ~1000 lumen 3D projectors.

I have a piece of HP 2.4. And you know what. When I stick it on my 1.0 gain screen, that square of HP really looks much brighter than the rest of the image which looks very non bright in comparison. Take a camera shot and to expose that bright square correctly the picture of the rest will darken further. Also you eyes will when presented with that bright square also darken up the rest. The picture is so biased though I kmow not intemtionally. m. A gain of 2.8 compared to a 1.0 fabric will be 2.8 times brighter, but to your eyes won't even look twice as bright. the gain would have to be 4 to look twice as bright. Moreover, if you want the brightest sample, just go with th2 2.4 and don't even bother looking at other lower gains, duh, they won't be as bright and just like speaker loundness, duh I like the one that is playing the loudest, choose the brightest fabric. Nothing else matters. And truthfully, the rest isn't bad with the HP it just will never ever look real .

The problem is the people want large screens, they want to light them with relatively inexpensive projectors, and they also want 3D to be bright. This can not be done without very very serious t o PQ compromises. When I move to Florida, I will employ a two screen solution using a HP for 3D presentations only. And i will only do that if more 3D films etc are released that I want to watch. I have seen multiple times the 3Ds that I want to see.

Everything else I will watch on my 1.0 limiting the screen size to something my projector can adequately light.

Re the thread originator, with the screen size wanted, I think the HW50 is the best choice right now. I suspect the replacement for the 95 that will be shown at CES would be a greater choice, even better and just as bright I suspect.

A screen gain of 1.0 just won't work, the screen is just too big. I would probably go with the Studeotech 150 but remember you need a minimum throw of 1.5 for that to acoid hotspotting.
.
Edited by mark haflich - 11/21/12 at 1:42pm

that sounds like a good plan. The HW50 is a nice all around 2D / 3D projector.

If you want to calibrate yourself, your looking at ~ $570 for a calibrated meter + software.

http://www.curtpalme.com/ChromaPure_EyeOneDisplay3.shtm

This is what I use. it's a Display 3 meter (Calibrated by Tom Huffman who is considered one of the best color experts around) and includes a license for Chromapure which is easy to learn after some practice.

The VW95 does have a full CMS and it's possible to achieve an excellent calibration with the built in controls and the right meter/software.

Do you recommend the standard Chomapure or the standard version plus auto-calibrate


Thanks

You need an external processor to auto calibrate with the Sony. Something like a Lumagen mini which are on big time sale this weekend. Call Mike Garret at AV Science. he will fix you you up with an entire package, screen, prijector, calibration stuff, processor, mount etc etc.t
Edited by mark haflich - 11/22/12 at 10:28am

Standard is recommended for the manual calibration. You can always add the auto-cal license on if you decide to go with an external VP like the mini-3D in the future.

That link includes everything you need to get started.

Those #'s are only relevant to that specific projector. Each projector requires it's own unique calibration due to a number of factors, but the lamp is the main reason. Lamps can change quickly over time and a calibration at 100 hours could look quite different at 400 hours.

Having the meter and equipment allows you to refresh the calibration every so often for maximum PQ.

I calibrate my projector every 75hrs on average

I hope that means every 75 hours of viewing rather thanevery three days.

calibration is required more often in the early stages of bulb life. I would not even bother to calibrate a projector new out of the box. i would wait at least 100 hours. Then I would doit again at 200 and then again at 400.

These aren't absolute. But if you buy a meter and a calibration program it becomes very easy after a short learning curve. of course I am spoiled, having a Lumagen and auto cal.