BenQ W7000+ Noise and Font Sharpness

The noise is from the dynamic iris. The text looking less sharp could be because the W7000+ uses a smaller .65" DLP DMD compared to your old InFocus which used the larger .95" DMD. While the BenQ uses decent optics for the price you pay, you need an exceptional lens to resolve the same amount of detail that the .95" DMD can with just a modestly good lens. The dilemma here is that the .95" DMD costs more and is thus put in more expensive units which normally have the budget for excellent optics. The cheaper DLP units get shafted on both ends; the DMD and optics are usually compromised to keep costs down.

I owned an Infocus IN83. Text definitively looked sharper on it compared to the Mitsubishi HC7800D I owned afterwards. Like I said, it most likely due to the DMD choice and optics paired together.

Are you sure the X10 uses the .95" DMD? I thought it was the then 'new' DC1, .65". It is indeed sharp, maybe due to the rumored same optics as the rest of the IN8X line (although I found that rumor to be suspect given what nice optics cost and what I bought my X10 for).

For some reason I thought the X10 was the IN81. You could be correct as I don't know what DMD the X10 uses.

I know it is DC1... did they ever make a DC1 .95"?

No, It's definitely .95". If the X10 used the smaller chip a different chassis and lens would have been needed. The X10 is a projector made with the cheapest .95" chips from TI. InFocus probably had a lot of surplus lenses and chassis' and needed to put out something cheap to get rid of it all. Check this thread out:

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1048849/where-does-the-new-dc1-fit-in-texas-instruments-dlp-chipset-family

so anyway, how to figure out what optics are being used in lower cost PJ's ... ? I mean in price range 1.5k-3k. Is there any good one?

To be honest they are few and far between. The new Sony VPL-HW50ES streets for $4000 and it uses a plastic lens. That's not to say that every projector under $4000 uses plastic lenses but it's an indicator of how much quality glass actually costs. To put it simply, basically every projector has compromises. If you're going to put quality glass in a projector in the under $5k range expect they cheaped out someplace else. It could be build quality, not enough R&D in the processing or a clunky dynamic iris, an unrefined 3D system, or even cuts in quality control or even packaging. BenQ is generally known for having the best in class optics/sharpness. They're a brand to look at if you want a sharp image. But like I said, they have to compromise someplace. A lot of people complain about a not so stellar dynamic iris system in the BenQ W6000/W7000. Actually that's a complaint by a lot of people in MANY under $10000 projectors. While Sony may have cheaped out on the lens in the HW50ES they definitely put the money back in the R&D department. They must spend plenty of money making great algorithms for their projectors as they seem to have the best implemented dynamic irises in the business. From there you'd have to spend the big bucks and move to a Runco or Sim2 if you want quality DI algorithms.

I had the same experience when going from the X10 to the W6k. You might put up a grid pattern and see how good your focus really is on the W7k. Mine has a minor focus issue seen here:

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1127322/benq-w6000/2280#post_21980507

Although desktop text and that grid look worse than the X10, when I did a side by side comparison of the 2, I found the Benq to look every bit as good with high quality 1080p video, so unless you want to use it a lot as a monitor, it's a non-issue.

Also, I think the Benq's (W6k and W7k) have some minor focus shift when warming up, so be sure to focus after it's been on for 10 minutes or more.

Are you sure the HW50 has a plastic lens, I am pretty sure it has a glass lens. But i tried to google it but I found no info, I will check with my contact at Sony, but he was in a meeting right now.

Edit: The HW50 has a glass lens.
Edited by Andreas21 - 1/7/13 at 6:18am

If it sounds a little like an old floppy drive, then that's normal. It is audible if you are fairly close and the room is quiet. Also, I prefer setting sharpness to 2 or 3 and turning off all of the other image enhancements (it's in another menu, maybe "clarity control"). Play with them all. You might find a better config to make the text look better. It also helps of course to make sure the projector is square to the screen and try to be as close to centered as you can with the lens shift.

No, it has a plastic lens. This has been confirmed numerous times by mark haflich. Ill try and find a thread/post for you.

Edit:
http://www.avsforum.com/t/1436740/sony-vpl-hw50es-focus-nonuniformity#post_22618604

Mark has been an industry insider for a long time among owning a high end A/V Store and working for AVScience for a number years. I doubt he's lying or making this information up. He has no reason to.
Edited by Seegs108 - 1/7/13 at 7:42am

You probably got one with a bad lens element, it's not that uncommon for the Benq to have this issue.
Mine is very sharp on text, although there is a tiny tiny bit of ringing.

Ok, then Sony gave me the wrong information.

To me it is strange that they use plastic elements on this projector when the JVC X35 in the same pricerange has a very good glass lens. But it is not visible when you watch movies on the HW50 and I know that as I have one in the childrens HT.

The reason JVC can pull that off is because every model each year uses the same exact lens. For example, the very very expensive x90 uses the exact same (albeit hand picked from the pile) lens as the x30. This cuts down on production costs. That combined with the same chassis and a LOT of other parts for all their projectors being exactly the same.
Edited by Seegs108 - 1/7/13 at 11:08am

I know that, but it can also be a weakness to use the same lens in every model.

Not in the case for JVC. Like you pointed out, its amazing how good the glass lens is on their cheapest unit. Much better than the competition in that price range. In their top of the line unit you get hand picked optics which most view as an added benefit so those sell as well.

Well the quality or price of the lens is only a portion of the sharpness, the Benq w7000 has proven that, cheap lens and just as sharp as the JVC (slightly sharper for video, about the same on text, maybe tiny sharper in a way but tiny bit of microscopic ringing, so the JVC looks more "paper natural"). Focus uniformity between w7000 and JVC RS-45 almost exactly the same.

JVC isn't the master of the cheap lens, Benq is :P

I don't think the lenses are hand picked, I think that ended with the RS35. My understanding is that only the optical block was picked for maximum contrast.

@ Eijoku - you can definitely see the individual pixels? There was a firmware issue on the original W7000 that prevented 1:1 pixel mapping with HDMI. I am not sure what is different about the W7000+, maybe they are just re-branding the original model, but it's worth checking. my W7000 is quite sharp overall.

I was under the assumption lenses were hand picked as well. I could be wrong. After reading a bunch of reviews I could have sworn they said lenses were hand chosen too.

JVC doesn't make its lens. JVC's lens in made in China where I assume BenQ's is also.

JVCs lens is much more complex and has a very long zoom ratio, hard to do without compromising performance at the extremes. But BenQ's lens has a much easier job to do re back plane focus and the DLP chip is sharper to begging with, nice mirrors, entire mirror surface fully lit or off, no movement across pixel edgesThe BenQ lenses looks alot less expensive to build but because its a one chip DLP, the job of the lens is a lot easier to do and its throw ratio is much shorter than the JVC.
Edited by mark haflich - 1/8/13 at 8:13am

I know the MFR's don't make hardly anything (if anything at all), but they help spec out a part and do have some clout in the design. Everything is made in Taiwan or China (or similar near 3rd world Asian country). Well compared to all other cheap DLP's, the Benq lens is better, so not sure what to say about Benq had it easy, easier yes, but not easy. Mits had it easy too, but they couldn't get the focus uniformity as good even on a better lens than Benq. Same with the lower cost Sharp, Acer, Optoma, etc...
So to me, Benq is the master at the cheap lens, DLP or no DLP.

You need 1.03 firmware, otherwise pixel mapping issue losing that Benq sharpness
Edited by coderguy - 1/8/13 at 7:16am

I just checked with Sony Japan and they said the HW50 lens is a combination between glass and plastic so we were both right.

What difference does any of this make. X is the master of cheap Y. Fine and Y is the master of cheap X but that doesn't make any sens. plastic glass? how about ED glass maybe 1 piece of ED glass is worth more performance wise than 2 glas elements and 6 plastic ones. How about determing how many elements in each including Y, the master of X, has in their lenses. And what does convergence have to do with lens quality? CA has to do with lens quality in coatings and sweet spot area. Give me performance measurements. what's the MTF of the lens/ Who's the master of MTF? take some focus nonuniformity against high MTF over most of the screen?. what exactly are you guys trying to determine?

I think if lenses have a problem, the manufacturer should be caslled out and potential customers warned.


JVC was exposed several years ago for having a lens where only 2 of the 3 primarily colors could be put in focus at the same time. Did they admit it? Of course not. Thay just hated me for exposing it but to their ever lasting credit, they fixed the problem by going to a cheaper lens. What a company?.. They went to a Chinese lens manufacturer who made them a better lens for less money they were paying to a japanese company. Its really a nice lens now. They didn't even say thank you to me for making them more money..Their biggest a hole employee still hates me and always will.

sony went to a cheaper lens in the 30 than they used to use in similar projectors.While one could see it really couldn't focus tightly, the PQ at normal viewing distances was fine. sounds like a good engineering design choice to me. but let's keep it quiet.

The 5o, I thought uses the same lens. parhaps it now has some glass in it. What kind of glass. Where. Better for markieting not to say. Just glass and plastic putting glass where it counts. Maybe I should write the marketing stuff But they put in RC stuff to make the lens appear to perform better. And that's all anyone should care about. hoes does the mother perform?

now there appear to problems this year with focus unitformity. problems not reported last year very much. So did they make the lens better or did they make it worse. maybe its better but with wider performance variances Answer. if you have one that's uniform, let the RC do its thing and enjoy. If you have good areas and bad areas, send it back because the RC can make the bad areas better

the lens should not drive your decision between the models being compared here. What you should be aware of when you chose because one does certain things better for you that you think are determinative, no enough (here with respect to how the lens should perform, to determine that yours is not defective.

This whole thing stemmed from a small comment I made in a post earlier. I think he's upset because he owns one and found out his lens is mostly plastic. Like you said, as long as it works from normal seating distances, who cares? I just don't like how Sony wants their users to mask it's flaws with sharpening software. It's a step in the wrong direction. At least with the lower end JVCs (and basically every DLP) you can get a decently tight focus and sharp picture without having to rely on software. Software that can create artifacts when watching content.

I am not upset. I own a HW50 (have one in the kids HT) and I don´t care what the lens is made of as long as the picture is great and it is with the HW50, but I also own a VW1000 and I use this when I watch movies. The only thing I care is to try to get the info in posts to be accurate and your comment was not accurate.

And RC on the VW1000 works great and it has a very high quality lens so I don´t think it is a step in the wrong direction, but of corse a 100% glass lens in the HW50 is better than a combination of glass and plastic and still the RC would be great.