or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Digital Projectors - Under $3,000 USD MSRP › Comparison of 4 Projectors (Viewsonic Pro8200 vs. Benq w7000 vs. JVC RS-45 vs. Mits hc4000)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Comparison of 4 Projectors (Viewsonic Pro8200 vs. Benq w7000 vs. JVC RS-45 vs. Mits hc4000)

post #1 of 92
Thread Starter 
This is a bit of an oddball comparison, but since I have owned all these projectors, I figured I would compare them... So let's get this started, this is just a quick and simple summary. I just used a simple numbering system as a comparison indicator, because it was easy to write up fast. I could throw a bunch of others in the roundup, but figured this is enough.

Sharpness:
JVC RS-45 = 9.0 video, 9.0 text (The benq only appears a tiny bit sharper in video, JVC seems smoother on text, it could go either way)
---Keep in mind the JVC partially depends on convergence, but most newer JVC's are very sharp
Benq w7000 = 9.2 video, 9.0 text (very very slight "over-edginess" to text due to Pixel fill and 1x SW seating distance, though Benq looks sharper than JVC on certain colors over others)
Mitsubishi hc4000 = 8.0 for text, 8.5 for movies and overall viewing
Viewsonic Pro8200 = 7.5 for text, 8.0 for movies and overall viewing

Black Levels (this may surprise some)
JVC RS-45 (of course this wasn't the surprise) = 9.5
Mitsubishi hc4000 = 6 Only Native
Benq w7000 = 5 / 6.5 with DI enabled (I changed this rating because on the Benq you can control brightness by using a DI as a fixed IRIS)
Viewsonic Pro8200 = 4 Only Native

Color after calibration (by what the meter tells us, overall accuracy)
Benq w7000 = 9.8 (after a second calibration, I now think the Benq has the best color I've ever seen on any projector)
Viewsonic Pro8200 = 9.5 (excellent color)
Mitsubishi hc4000 = 9.0 (great color, but not nearly as bright and harder to maintain brightness while calibrating)
JVC RS-45 = 7.0 (some gamut issues that you cannot calibrate out causing yellow cast in some scenes, colors do look richer in dark scenes than others)

Color before calibration (going by eye + considering meter readings before calibration a little)
Viewsonic Pro8200 = 8.0 (a bit cool before calibration, though depends on each unit, also a bit of a RED tint)
Mitsubishi hc4000 = 7.5 (good color, but some green and red tint across the board prior to calibration)
Benq w7000 = 7.5 (mainly gray-scale issues but also a couple gamut issues, most modes too cool or too greenish blue)
JVC RS-45 = 5.5 (some issues with gray-scale and gamut, too much green and yellow + gamma crush)

Cleanliness of Image (only noticed in certain sources, equal much of the time)
Mitsubishi hc4000 = 8.5
JVC RS-45 = 8.0
Benq w7000 = 7.5
Viewsonic Pro8200 = 7.0

Overall Brightness:
Viewsonic Pro8200 and Benq w7000 = 9.0
JVC RS-45 = 7.5
Mitsubishi hc4000 = 6.0

Fan Noise and other noise levels in ECO MODE:
JVC RS-45 = 9.0 (quietest)
Mitsubishi hc4000 = 8.5
Viewsonic Pro8200 = 8.0
Benq w7000 = 7.5

Overall Features:
JVC RS-45 = 9.0 (lens memory and 2.35 support, most flexible placement, motorized, grayscale and gamma but NO FULL CMS - the higher end JVC's do though)
Benq w7000 = 7.5 (a decent amount of lens shift, no 2.35 resize ability for 16:9 on 2.35 screen, FULL CMS)
Mitsubishi hc4000 = 7.0 (no LENS SHIFT, full CMS, 2.35 resize ability for 16:9 on 2.35 screens)
Viewsonic Pro8200 = 6.5 (no LENS SHIFT, full CMS but does lack some gamma calibration abilities, default gamma presets are usually fine though)

That is about it for now.
Edited by coderguy - 9/29/13 at 11:08am
post #2 of 92
I'll do the math!

W7000: 60.5
Pro8200: 61.5
HC4000: 62
RS-45: 64
post #3 of 92
I am not surprised that the DLP projectors are sharper. I have spoken to on of the best calibrators in the business and one of the founders of ISF and he has always favored DLP for sharpness. I have the RS45 and I was also lucky getting a unit with great convergence and excellent Sharpness.

It would also be interesting to add the new Benq 1070 to the mix since some reviews have said that it is even brighter than the 7000. Kraine, on page one of the 1070 thread in the under $3000 section has taken some pictures comparing a JVC to the Benq 1070 and the sharpness difference is startling even with e-shift on.
post #4 of 92
I'll do the dirty job.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kraine View Post

And here one funny sharpness comparaison between the E-Shift 1 (JVC X70), The E-Shift 2 (JVC X55) and a new budget DLP full hd projector the BenQ W1070 wink.gif
JVC X70 E-SHIFT 1 :
14420-4.jpg
BenQ W1070 :
benqpiqueetlettre.jpg
JVC X55 E-Shift 2 :
jvcpiqu.jpg
BenQ W1070 :
benqw1070piqu.jpg
post #5 of 92
Thread Starter 
I just compared my JVC and Benq in HTPC text, and my JVC looks a SMIDGE better on HTPC text if you like a more natural paper look to it from 1x seating distance, in video the DLP looks a tiny teeny sharper due to pixel fill. Those pictures are totally bunk, a well-converged JVC does not look anything like that in sharpness. I sort of get tired of reviewers posting such poor comparison images. I should know I have both the w7000 and RS-45 here right now... If I swapped the Benq w7000 with my RS-45, if anything the JVC appears slightly sharper on text. After using the Benq in HTPC for 2 hours this morning, and then the JVC, I prefer the JVC in HTPC text (surprised me as well). I also am noticing the CA on the Benq is varying with temperature or something, because my text got worse after an hour or so... The problem is the Benq has more CA than the JVC has convergence error, although there is less in the menu than on my HTPC text, so part of it is being caused by something else maybe (clear text filters). Still, after using both the JVC and Benq this morning, I had to lower the Benq's sharpness rating to 9.0 instead of 9.5.

The pictures above of the JVC are out of focus and are absolutely awful looking, I don't usually call people out, but honestly I've seen a few of last year's RS40's and RS45's, and I've never seen one look that bad, it looks like the person intentionally mis-focused the image.

The sharpness setting on the Benq is also not useful for text so it means you have no sharpness enhancer in HTPC for the Benq.

I could take a pic of an overlapped image of my Benq and JVC and Viewsonic.
Edited by coderguy - 1/28/13 at 2:16pm
post #6 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post

I just compared my JVC and Benq in HTPC text, and my JVC looks better on HTPC text, in video the DLP looks a tiny teeny sharper due to pixel fill. Those pictures are totally bunk, a well-converged JVC does not look anything like that in sharpness. I sort of get tired of reviewers posting such poor comparison images. I should know I have both the w7000 and RS-45 here right now... If I swapped the Benq w7000 with my RS-45, if anything the JVC appears slightly sharper on text. After using the Benq in HTPC for 2 hours this morning, and then the JVC, I prefer the JVC in HTPC text (surprised me as well). I also am noticing the CA on the Benq is varying with temperature or something, because my text got worse after an hour or so... The problem is the Benq has more CA than the JVC has convergence error, although there is less in the menu than on my HTPC text, so part of it is being caused by something else maybe (clear text filters). Still, after using both the JVC and Benq this morning, I had to lower the Benq's sharpness rating to 9.0 instead of 9.5, and at best it ties the JVC overall (but for text the Benq loses).
The pictures above of the JVC are out of focus and are absolutely awful looking, I don't usually call people out, but honestly I've seen a few of last year's RS40's and RS45's, and I've never seen one look that bad, it looks like the person intentionally mis-focused the image.
The sharpness setting on the Benq is also not useful for text so it means you have no sharpness enhancer in HTPC for the Benq.
I could take a pic of an overlapped image of my Benq and JVC and Viewsonic.

Did you put up a white grid to see if the W7k has well defined pixels when focused? My W6k has some focus drift when warming up, may be typical. It's only obvious when either displaying a grid or using the HTPC. Also, where do you have he sharpness set on the W7k??
post #7 of 92
Thread Starter 
I am not saying the JVC is sharper than the Benq overall, it isn't, but it definitely gives text a smoother look and more "paper natural" than edgy looking digital text. The downside to the Benq's HTPC text is the tad bit of ringing.
Edited by coderguy - 1/30/13 at 7:11pm
post #8 of 92
Yes, the overlapping sharpness comparison would be very interesting.
post #9 of 92
Thread Starter 
ok, I will once the camera battery charges, can't do Viewsonic in the mix though (well I could but don't feel like hooking it back up). I'll post pics of JVC vs. Benq sharpness that are more representing the real difference.
post #10 of 92
It would be nice to see some pics of PQ and sharpness comparisons. smile.gif
post #11 of 92
Thanks for the Reviews!!!!
post #12 of 92
Thread Starter 
Here are the comparison photos (This is better than text)...

The Benq and JVC are virtually identical in sharpness IF the JVC is exceptionally well converged. These pics are showing beyond what the eye can even discern. Viewing these images assumes you are viewing them on an average sized LCD desktop monitor of about 22" or so. Those details in the eagle's wing tip are only 1-2 pixels wide!

Sometimes the Benq looks a tiny bit sharper than the JVC, but the JVC sometimes has an edge in text due to its better sharpening filters and a higher pixel fill making it slightly cleaner. Although, it really doesn't matter, they both look almost the same if you AVERAGE it out.

Just to be clear, this is not a 3D image even though I took a picture of the NVIDIA VISION icon, so the JVC and Benq are overlapped in 2D and that is why you see a double image. I use this icon because it superbly represents in a photo the maximum difference you can usually see in real world viewing.

RS-45 is LEFT WING, Benq is RIGHT
Look closely at tip of wing, that is about all that matters in these shots.

Let's start with black and white to make it fair:

As it would look about about as close as anyone would sit to a SCREEN


**The next image shows why pixel fill causes an image to look sharper in a photo, it's a cheat though as your eye does not see it that extremely**
**The TIP of the WING is all that matters to evaluate what the eye really sees, do not look at the pixel fill inside objects, as it is not visible from seating distance**

As it would appear standing less than 1 foot from the screen



NOW WITH SOME COLOR

Difference from AVERAGE seating distance:


Difference if less than 6 inches from the screen (about)

Edited by coderguy - 1/6/13 at 12:14am
post #13 of 92
Thanks for the reviews.
if you ever have time,It would be nice if you can do screen shots of those projectors...

I am looking at my first purchase of a projector and really leaning to the viewsonic pro82oo.
It is funny how this $700-$800 projector is still compared and seem to hold is own against projectors $300 or more in price.
post #14 of 92
Thread Starter 
That's how you compare sharpness in photos, not by showing 1 lousy disorienting pattern that means nothing to the eye.
post #15 of 92
Coderguy, thanks for you post and pictures. I have also compared the JVC RS 45 and a Benq 1070. It seems to me that as long as the convergence is good there is no reason why the perceived sharpness should look any better on the Benq projectors. If one were to argue about ghosting the Benq or other DLP projectors will win in most cases. That being said the JVC has in my opinion the best blacks and detail of any projector I have seen under $10,000. I am not saying that the Benq is bad, in fact the 7000 and now the 1070 are excellent values especially for 3D and casual use. Just compare picture a 2D picture on the JVC and on a Benq and the difference will be clear to most and I don't believe it has anything to do with sharpness.
post #16 of 92
I agree that mid/high end 3 panel projectors have been measured with better black levels over DLP but room color and treatment also affect black level.

This explains why black levels are perceived differently by people who own the same projector with almost identical calibration.
http://www.avsforum.com/t/1436767/the-truth-about-black-levels
post #17 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elix View Post

I'll do the dirty job.

sorry but that is a ridiculous comparison... why would we compare patterns (not even taken at the same distance / zoom) with e-shift ON for 2 different JVC projectors..?? turn it OFF.. then do the comparison photos.

until e-shift is seen person at seating distance, it will be continue to be misconstrued with poor quality pattern photos taken out of context.

RS55 + eshift over any of the projectors I've reviewed this year, certainly better than the HC8000. (JVC lens was better with less CA and better focus uniformity).


142" 16:9

darbee-16.jpg

JVC-mini3D1.jpg

JVC-mini3D4.jpg

JVC-mini3D6.jpg

JVC-mini3D7.jpg

JVC-mini3D10.jpg

JVC-mini3D16.jpg

JVC-mini3D17.jpg

JVC-mini3D18.jpg
post #18 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombie10k View Post

sorry but that is a ridiculous comparison... why would we compare patterns (not even taken at the same distance / zoom) with e-shift ON for 2 different JVC projectors..?? turn it OFF.. then do the comparison photos.
until e-shift is seen person at seating distance, it will be continue to be misconstrued with poor quality pattern photos taken out of context.
RS55 + eshift over any of the projectors I've reviewed this year, certainly better than the HC8000. (JVC lens was better with less CA and better focus uniformity).

I was thinking the same thing... that pattern does not even test the resolving power of the system... about the only things that pattern is good for are convergence (and even then only for a small area of the image) and evaluating SDE. And while I appreciate coder's efforts in this comparison, these are such different projectors that I have trouble imagining the ratings playing into anyone's decision... these projectors do not really compete against one-another for the most part.
post #19 of 92
Thread Starter 
I do not understand your statement about these projectors do not compete, except for the JVC they definitely do compete. Benq w6000/w7000 vs. Mits hc4000 vs. Viewsonic Pro8200, all the time people are wondering is it worth it to pay more for the 2D only aspects. Numerous people have bought both the w6000 and Mits hc4000 and returned whichever one they did not fancy. Benq w6000's are sold for $1200 to $1500 these days, about the same as the Mits hc4000, some even picked them up for $999 from Fry's. The Viewsonic is a bit cheaper, but people still wonder about if they should pay more, many people do not actually know how much they want to spend.

Yes of course the JVC is in another class and more expensive, but it's interesting to see how they match up. Point being though, trade-offs with everything, even higher-end projectors.

There is lots of misinformation floating around the forums about low-cost DLP sharpness being far superior vs. a well converged JVC's, I think my pics debunk that misinformation. Are the best 0.65" DLP's sharper than a VERY ell-converged JVC, yes but not by that much on average. If you do not have a "reference" projector in the line-up, then the comparison is boring, as should be done is to compare it to a reference.
Edited by coderguy - 1/6/13 at 12:15am
post #20 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombie10k View Post

sorry but that is a ridiculous comparison...
No need to apologize, those comparisons aren't mine.
post #21 of 92
Great comparison Coder. Personally I feel there is a bigger difference in sharpness between the 7000 and RS45 (mine is also well converged) compared to your findings. The 45 puts out a nice sharp pic, but my 7000 is definitely a noticeable step up which is another thing that really helps out the 3d IMO. The 7000 is quite a bit brighter vs the JVC as well for those that need the extra lumens. Black levels/contrast is not even close.........JVC absolutely SMOKES the 7000 here and just has a much richer (subjective, I know) picture in light of this for movies.
post #22 of 92
Thread Starter 
It will vary on every JVC projector. The convergence between two units isn't the same. You can see with your own eyes by the pics the difference. That said I've seen a few JVC's and many do have exceptionally incredible convergence, but there are all levels between. The way I took the images, the camera doesn't lie here. I can't speak for everyone's convergence on the JVC however.

The Benq does sometimes still appear a tiny bit sharper in video, but as many DLP's as I've owned and seen, that is really partly about the pixel fill, cause even MUCH less sharp DLP projectors can appear sharper in video from pixel fill at times. You have to distinguish between pixel fill sharpness and real sharpness. The lesser pixel fill will fool the eye into making an image appear more in focus even when it is not, but this is not translated to all content. For instance in film, like Tree of Life, the JVC looks sharper than the Benq, but in some stuff the Benq looks sharper (try it).
Edited by coderguy - 1/6/13 at 12:04am
post #23 of 92
thank you, great comparison ... If only there were more PJ's. What about mits 7800 in comparison with hc4000.
post #24 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post

I do not understand your statement about these projectors do not compete, except for the JVC they definitely do compete. Benq w6000/w7000 vs. Mits hc4000 vs. Viewsonic Pro8200, all the time people are wondering is it worth it to pay more for the 2D only aspects. Numerous people have bought both the w6000 and Mits hc4000 and returned whichever one they did not fancy. Benq w6000's are sold for $1200 to $1500 these days, about the same as the Mits hc4000, some even picked them up for $999 from Fry's. The Viewsonic is a bit cheaper, but people still wonder about if they should pay more, many people do not actually know how much they want to spend.
.


I went over and over on what to buy. I had a budget of 1500.00 and came across a deal on a 8200..so only thing I came up with is for 550.00 brand new with shipping,what can we say will blow it out the water for double or triple the price?
and if so in what area? bulbs ,blackness, throw...ect...ect...
so now I wonder like the last line in you post ..THE WHAT IF.
what if I spent the extra 500 bucks? or pick the mits
Or spend the full budget and get a Benq7000 hmmmmm
Edited by KingRenz - 1/6/13 at 5:44am
post #25 of 92
Did you buy it for $550 recently? If so, where did you get it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingRenz View Post

I went over and over on what to buy. I had a budget of 1500.00 and came across a deal on a 8200..so only thing I came up with is for 550.00 brand new with shipping,what can we say will blow it out the water for double or triple the price?
and if so in what area? bulbs ,blackness, throw...ect...ect...
so now I wonder like the last line in you post ..THE WHAT IF.
what if I spent the extra 500 bucks? or pick the mits
Or spend the full budget and get a Benq7000 hmmmmm
post #26 of 92
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingRenz View Post

I went over and over on what to buy. I had a budget of 1500.00 and came across a deal on a 8200..so only thing I came up with is for 550.00 brand new with shipping,what can we say will blow it out the water for double or triple the price?
and if so in what area? bulbs ,blackness, throw...ect...ect...
so now I wonder like the last line in you post ..THE WHAT IF.
what if I spent the extra 500 bucks? or pick the mits
Or spend the full budget and get a Benq7000 hmmmmm

A refurb, used, or B-stock JVC HD-250 or similar JVC would be the lowest cost projector that I would say would blow all these DLP's out of the water. A refurb Epson 8700ub in some ways might, depending if you like LCD or not, and if you get good convergence.

The Mits hc4000 upgrade might be worth it for 2d if you watch SCI FI or want a 2.35 screen (but then again the Mits isn't very bright), but I might try to find a B-stock or refurb JVC HD-250 for even a bit more if you can for a little more money to get the best blacks in this price range. I do not think the Benq is really a big upgrade over the Viewsonic in most cases just for 2D movies, but the Benq is more feature rich (placement flexibility, 3D, etc..). I would probably buy a Benq w6000 refurb or used if wanting a Benq for 2D, the w7000 if wanting 3D.

The Benq is a little sharper in video as well over the VS, so some may see it differently, but to me this is only noticed in very specific scenes (I'd say less than 10% to 20% of content), of course it depends what you watch. If you watch scenery Blurays all day, then yah Benq will have some lead on the Viewsonic. Actually this is the Benq's strength, with scenery videos it will jump ahead most all of these projectors by a tiny bit.

For $650 to $800 the Viewsonic is a great deal, but the Benq w1070 at $899 is such a better deal that I would get that instead if it fits in your room.
Edited by coderguy - 1/30/13 at 4:36am
post #27 of 92
From what I've read so far, the VS 8200 seems like a no-brainer for under $1k, without 3D of course.

The only thing that's limiting it for most folks are very strict placement requirements. Most with a dedicated room has ceiling that's well under 8ft (more like 7ft in most cases).
post #28 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by RankAmateur View Post

Did you buy it for $550 recently? If so, where did you get it?

I got a pm from another forum member on another sight because I was asking questions about a darbee
I was mentioning couple of projectors and what will work out for my room
,. Said he got it as a Christmas gift but already had a jvc ---something--
..he wanted 600 for it.
ask if he take 550 now
he said its brand new in a sealed box(un open)eek.gif

said he would get more on ebay...
advise why wait for a auction and pay fees on what you sell wink.gif
and there it is...550.00
575 with shipping brand new sealed box...
biggrin.gif
also he has sold a lot of stuff so should be o.k...
so he better send it
mad.gif

just have to see when it arrives...
Edited by KingRenz - 1/6/13 at 5:11pm
post #29 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post

In order for the color on the Benq to look comparable to the Viewsonic, the Benq needs calibrated. If you are not planning on calibrating, I think the Viewsonic is the better deal. Overall I would almost put them at a tie, the VS color is better and the native on/off higher, but the Benq is sharper. Well the Benq has EVEN less RBE in dynamic mode cause wheel is going at 6x mode, but personally dynamic mode on the BENQ is too noisy for me to even use (color wheel makes lots of noise in this mode). They both have about the same RBE (since Benq has one less segment on CW, but also has lower on/off, this balances it out).
There are two things though you have to consider, in some scenes the Benq's IRIS will match or slightly beat the Viewsonic's blacks, but I find in most scenes it won't because the BENQ is a "very dark reactive" IRIS. For Native blacks, the Viewsonic beats the BENQ in richness with its Dark Chip 3 vs. Benq's dark chip 2.
The Benq is a little sharper in video as well over the VS, so some may see it differently, but to me this is only noticed in very specific scenes (I'd say less than 10% to 20% of content), of course it depends what you watch. If you watch scenery Blurays all day, then yah Benq will have some lead on the Viewsonic. Actually this is the Benq's strength, with scenery videos it will jump ahead most all of these projectors by a tiny bit.
For $550 the Viewsonic is a great deal, and I personally would skip the Benq for 2D only, if you want 3D, then yah the Benq is great I'm sure (I'll try 3D tomorrow).

THANKS,
I figure if I get a darbee with this then I should be doing great.
So now I need to figure how I will do the 2.35 or 2.40...screen...with out a lens..
looking into a avr or a dvdo green so it can give me a cinema no matter what I watch.
I saw a lumagen video on youtube where everything that was 16.9 was all changed to 2.35 and NO BARS...

Thanks for the advise... I figure if the pro8200 is even compared to the others then it must be good. and a darbee was not used so it should get even better, with the warranty and bulb life
no brainer for me

my room
is 14 feet by 22 feet and the good part is I have cathedral ceilings so i wont have to worry about height.its over 24ft. but i will have to use the projector shooting the short way and that's the 14ft throw ..i can't rotate my living room for couple reasons. its painted fall / rustic colors and i do get some ambient light.
so it should work.

This is one of the best reviews i have gotten to help me out
THANKS
Edited by KingRenz - 1/6/13 at 5:08pm
post #30 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post

I do not understand your statement about these projectors do not compete, except for the JVC they definitely do compete. Benq w6000/w7000 vs. Mits hc4000 vs. Viewsonic Pro8200, all the time people are wondering is it worth it to pay more for the 2D only aspects. Numerous people have bought both the w6000 and Mits hc4000 and returned whichever one they did not fancy. Benq w6000's are sold for $1200 to $1500 these days, about the same as the Mits hc4000, some even picked them up for $999 from Fry's. The Viewsonic is a bit cheaper, but people still wonder about if they should pay more, many people do not actually know how much they want to spend.
Yes of course the JVC is in another class and more expensive, but it's interesting to see how they match up. Point being though, trade-offs with everything, even higher-end projectors.
There is lots of misinformation floating around the forums about low-cost DLP sharpness being far superior vs. a well converged JVC's, I think my pics debunk that misinformation. Are the best 0.65" DLP's sharper than a VERY ell-converged JVC, yes but not by that much on average. If you do not have a "reference" projector in the line-up, then the comparison is boring, as should be done is to compare it to a reference.

Sorry... should have explained my statement better... these are not very similar projectors in price or capabilities IMHO... each is separated in price by roughly 50%, and a casual reader of these forums and various reviews can very quickly determine what it is extra that you are getting for your incremental increase in outlay. Put another way, the HC4000 is about 50% more expensive than the Pro8200, the W7000 50% more expensive than the HC4000, and the RS45 50% more expensive than W7000. From a capabilities standpoint, the 8200 is a very good budget 1080p projector with brightness as its primary strength... the HC4000 costs more, but trades that brightness for very good (for a DLP) contrast ratio... the W7000 again chooses the brightness trade, but adds excellent 3D... the RS45 clearly is the best 2D projector if you are willing to pay for it, and should probably only be considered on its 2D merits. Thus, I don't think they really compute against one another... if you need viewable 3D, the W7000 is your only choice among these 4. If you do not need 3D, not sure why anyone would pay twice as much as the Pro8200, so those two do not really compete against one another for the 'need brightness' crowd. If someone is looking between the HC4000 and the Pro8200, I'm not sure on what merits??? One makes a good living room projector, the other a good HT projector... if you've got a light controlled theater, probably worth the ~40% price diff, otherwise, no way, not bright enough, and the contrast improvement will be largely wasted. Same for the HC4000 vs the W7000... can't imagine anyone deciding between these two projectors... one is exceedingly bright and has 3D, the other is not and doesn't (but has good contrast for a HT). As far as the W6000? that was not among the four you initially mentioned and I did not consider the W6000 in my statement. Which of the original 4 PJs do you think people would be selecting between, assuming that one is purchasing a projector for a specific use case and not just evaluating the value of the PJ in the general sense?

edit... on sharpness... agreed, much of the 'DLP Sharpness' belief stems from the early, very high quality DLPs that used first-rate optics and the 0.95" DMDs... these (and the current crop of premium DLPs) are fantastically sharp. Not that the .65" DLPs are not sharp, but they do not have an inherent advantage over a well-converged three panel PJ... a buyer does have a better chance of getting a sharp budget DLP than a sharp budget 3LCD I think, though. I'd like to see a sharpness comparison between say... the Runco LS-5 and a well-converged RS55/56. Both would be great, but I suspect the Runco would still have a noticeable edge.
Edited by dougri - 1/6/13 at 9:34pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Digital Projectors - Under $3,000 USD MSRP › Comparison of 4 Projectors (Viewsonic Pro8200 vs. Benq w7000 vs. JVC RS-45 vs. Mits hc4000)