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

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 = 7.3 Only Native
Benq w7000 = 6.5 / 7.5 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 = 6.5 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 - 2/5/13 at 2:44pm

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

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

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.

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

That's how you compare sharpness in photos, not by showing 1 lousy disorienting pattern that means nothing to the eye.

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

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

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