or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Digital Projectors - Under $3,000 USD MSRP › Is the tide turning from AE100 to 75U
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Is the tide turning from AE100 to 75U  

post #1 of 65
Thread Starter 
It seems more and more are now interested in the Panny 75u over the AE100. Whats your thoughts ?
post #2 of 65
I am getting ready to buy and the biggest bonus for the ae100 is the bulb life. 5000 hrs is much better than 3000 for the 75u
post #3 of 65
Thread Starter 
It will be interesting to see if these projector lamps for the ae100 do indeed hold up for the full 5000 hours on econo mode.
post #4 of 65
Just a hunch, but the big rush of AE100 buyers may have been exhusted. Also, it's now available in in the U.S. for a higher price and that puts it in competition with other projectors, like the 75U
post #5 of 65
My manual says that the bulb is only good for 2000 hours!!! A permanent display will appear once the timer is hitting 2000 hours.
post #6 of 65
2000 hours in "normal" mode
5000 hours in "economy" mode

Everyone should be running it in econ mode.
post #7 of 65
Unless Econ mode has something you're sacrificing? I thought people were having problems with the screen flickering in econo mode?
I'm more interested in the 75u, I like the higher lumens, scaling my DVD movies on the HTPC using XGA (vs. WSVGA) for a sharper picture, and from what I understand the 75u has a 16:9 mode -- so no halos? I think it's worth the extra bucks for the bang. And I think I'm leaning in that direction for my purchase in the next few months.
post #8 of 65
Econ mode does not have sacrifices, it is better imo for ht. Some people have stated that going to high lamp mode solves some problems. In their case they obviously have a defective AE or a temperature issue (the fan is faster in high lamp mode). If it is a temp issue you can run in econ mode and turn the lamp to high.

There are two reasons why I do not like the 75u, 4:3 panels do matter. IMO You can do all the math you want, but at the end of the day your only options are to get perfect masking or a panamorph lens to get more enjoyment out of the 75u 4:3xga panel than the AE 16:9wsvga for dvd watching.

The second reason is that the 75u has even less contrast than the AE, low contrast is the number one problem I have with the AE.

The 75u is a presentation projector, sure it has less screendoor than the AE, but if screendoor bothers you LCDs are not for you.
post #9 of 65
The AE100 contrast ratio is overstated and the consensus is that it is closer to 250 to 1. HT is not a hobby for the feint of heart. HT is a passion and PQ rules. Those who think lamp hours is a deciding criteria should reexamine their priorities.

Lenny Eckian
post #10 of 65
leckian,
I believe 250 to 1 is also overstated for the AE my (highly inefficient I admit) testing brings me closer to 200 to 1 or less. The 75u is even worse.

I do not agree with your statement about bulbs, I think the AE is going to make a lot of people (including me and I am picky) very happy as is, and part of that enjoyment is going to come from a 5000hour bulb. If the AE had even the stated 500-1 cr spec'd with a 1000hour bulb it would be a waste. LCDs do not have good cr, they have other advantages like price, colors, no artifacts/rainbows and for the AE a 5000hour lamp.
post #11 of 65
Quote:
Originally posted by leckian
The AE100 contrast ratio is overstated and the consensus is that it is closer to 250 to 1. HT is not a hobby for the feint of heart. HT is a passion and PQ rules. Those who think lamp hours is a deciding criteria should reexamine their priorities.

Lenny Eckian

Well not everybody has 5k to drop on a projector. I am a college student and dont have that much money yet. Especially to drop 350 every 6 months for a damn light bulb.... But I demoed the projector at Adebars house and the PQ was stunning. I had not seen even close and I saw a Sony HT projector at a HT shop in Houston (cant remmeber the model #) but it sucked compared to the ae100, im guessing it wasnt configured properly but I am 1000% satisified and plan to order mine very soon. I have to finish wiring the room first.
post #12 of 65
I am a happy 75U owner and I have not seen the AE 100. I have seen the Sharp 9000, Sony 11ht a Yamaha DLP and a Sanyo LCD. I will say that screendoor matters to me and if I didn't get DLP headaches and could have found one bright enough and within budget (not asking too much am I?) I would have gone that way. At this price point and at this stage in the technology there are going to be compromises. I'd prefer if my pj had no screendoor and would personaly not be happy with one that had more. I'd also prefer if it where 16:9 but I chose my compromises and I have no regrets. The PQ while perhaps not a videophiles idea of perfection is pretty darn impressive. When you consider that it cost 1/3 -1/4 of the other pj's I looked at, and what you would have had to pay just a few years ago to get a picture like this it seems like quite a bargain. I traded 16:9 for less screen door and a tad more lumens. This was right for me but another choice of compromises would be just as valid for someone else. -Noam
post #13 of 65
I am a new 75U owner (Thursday) and we have been watching movies non-stop it seems for the last two days. The screen door (at least around here) is not a factor. we sit far enough away that with the tiniest, tiniest bit of defocus it is gone. I looked at damn near every projector I could find, both LCD and DLP and for the cost benefit ratio I could find no better deal that the 75U. In terms of contrast vs. the AE100. The AE I saw working was not as good as the 75U by a lot. This could have been a bad set-up, but that demo pushed me to the 75U.

Now if you will excuse me....... Private Ryan is running on the Panny...
post #14 of 65
Quote:
Originally posted by leckian
HT is not a hobby for the feint of heart. HT is a passion and PQ rules. Those who think lamp hours is a deciding criteria should reexamine their priorities.

Lenny Eckian
Wisely said, Lenny.

Mike
post #15 of 65
Quote:
Originally posted by jagouar



Well not everybody has 5k to drop on a projector. I am a college student and dont have that much money yet. Especially to drop 350 every 6 months for a damn light bulb....
Wow, you watch 16 hours of TV per day....can't be good for the grades.
post #16 of 65
Quote:
Originally posted by EdgyLyric


There are two reasons why I do not like the 75u, 4:3 panels do matter. IMO You can do all the math you want...
Correct, and the math clearly shows that a 4:3 XGA resolution pj uses more pixels than a WVGA in 16:9 mode. Sorry to say, but science far outweighs opinion, in this case.
post #17 of 65
If you project a 16:9 material using 4:3 xga panel, you are using the extra pixels to project a black bar. Where then is the advantage?

Cheers
post #18 of 65
Quote:
Originally posted by hgo
If you project a 16:9 material using 4:3 xga panel, you are using the extra pixels to project a black bar. Where then is the advantage?

Cheers
Do the math. This has been beaten to death. With a 4:3 xga panel, the 16:9 image will use 1024X576 pixles. I think that beats 848X480 in every regard.
post #19 of 65
robertmee, Greg,
I believe in math, but all of the mathematical advantage goes out the window if the user of the lcd XGA projector does not have proper masking, this is because LCDs have a very low contrast ratio and having the "dull grey" bars while watching a movie effectively negates the mathematical advantage by killing the contrast.

It is very hard to properly mask an XGA projector I have seen various attempts and have not yet been satisfied by any of them, this is the reason people are paying 2k for optical solutions to this problem.
post #20 of 65
I wouldn't buy an ae100 because I intend to watch huge amounts of movies, as in many many hours a day. You don't have to watch your projector a huge number of hours to enjoy it. I would like an ae100 just because I like having the best for watching a movie. I doubt I'd watch more than 2 hours per day. Even if I watched 4 hours per day, (which I never would, even including TV broadcasts on an ae1000), but even if I did watch 6 hours per day, thats like 1460 hours per year maximum. I wouldn't need a bulb for a few years at a time for sure.
post #21 of 65
Edgy,

I must disagree, it is not hard at all to mask a 4:3 projector when vewing 16:9. If you use a method similar to what they use in movie houses, ie: black material in the outline of the screen, I believe you would find it to more than enough. If the masking is done poorly the results will be poor. My masks are made of non-reflecting black material used in astronomy and I was very careful in their placement. I would defy you to say the contrast of my projector is weakened by this, quite the contrary, it improved the contrast in every meaningful way. And it makes the wall look nice too.......
post #22 of 65
Quote:
Originally posted by cpc
I wouldn't by an ae100 because I intend to watch huge amounts of movies, as in many many hours a day. You don't have to watch your projector a huge number of hours to enjoy it. I would like an ae100 just because I like having the best for watching a movie. I doubt I'd watch more than 2 hours per day. Even if I watched 4 hours per day, (which I never would, even including TV broadcasts on an ae1000), but even if I did watch 6 hours per day, thats like 1460 hours per year maximum. I wouldn't need a bulb for a few years at a time for sure.

The only reason I am saying that bulb life is important to me is because I am a college student. I can't be sure when I will have money and when I won't. School is expensive and knowing that I wont have to worry as much about upkeep is important to me. I will get 2 times as many hours before I have to buy a bulb and that will get me close to finishing college. Then I can afford to shell out 350 for a bulb.
post #23 of 65
I went with a 75U and did consider masking and 16:9 projectors.

BUT......How much 16:9 is out there? (I'm not an HDTV watcher - mostly DVD).

A great deal of DVD content is 2.35:1; not 1.78:1; thus even on a 16:9 projector, you will still have black (ok grey) bars.

And unless you stretch the image, 4:3 gives vertical bars on a 16:9 projector; so....

I concluded that in order to minimize bars (horiz or vertical) 4:3 was a better format if you watch more 4:3 than true 16:9.
post #24 of 65
I'm not sure what math people are referring to, but if you're in North America then 1024x576 gives no resolution improvements on DVD playback over 856x480. The only thing you'll gain is less screendoor.
post #25 of 65
Quote:
Originally posted by DavidF
My masks are made of non-reflecting black material used in astronomy and I was very careful in their placement. I would defy you to say the contrast of my projector is weakened by this, quite the contrary, it improved the contrast in every meaningful way. And it makes the wall look nice too.......
DavidF, proper masking makes all the difference when watching a 4:3 pj in 16:9 mode, but I have yet to find masking that I would be willing to live with.

If you have solved the problem of switching between 4:3(1,33) and 16:9, and you have found a way to view other aspect ratios: (1,77), 1.85, 1.66 and 2,35 on a 4:3 pj please post. No, changing the zoom is not a solution on an LCD, you would need to change the focus each time.

I am not attacking 4:3 owners, I am just explaining that for me a 4:3 screen for ht is a deal breaker.
Thank you.
post #26 of 65
"Do the math. This has been beaten to death. With a 4:3 xga panel, the 16:9 image will use 1024X576 pixles. I think that beats 848X480 in every regard"

DVD contains 720 X 480 picture info. 720 X 480 will then have to be scaled to 1024 X 576, thereby introducing unwanted scaling artifacts. Can that be an advantage? Native resolution is still king whether it is 4:3 or 16:9.
post #27 of 65
Quote:
Originally posted by EdgyLyric

DavidF, proper masking makes all the difference when watching a 4:3 pj in 16:9 mode, but I have yet to find masking that I would be willing to live with.

If you have solved the problem of switching between 4:3(1,33) and 16:9, and you have found a way to view other aspect ratios: (1,77), 1.85, 1.66 and 2,35 on a 4:3 pj please post. No, changing the zoom is not a solution on an LCD, you would need to change the focus each time.

I am not attacking 4:3 owners, I am just explaining that for me a 4:3 screen for ht is a deal breaker.
Thank you.
I can't speak for all LCD's, but this thread is concerning why the 75u is superior or inferior to the AE-100. So, I'll speak for the 75u. As has been explained many times, the 75u has a 16:9 mode that displays 1.78, 1.85, 1.66, 2.35 the same way the AE-100 does. Whatever masking you use on the AE-100, you would use the same on the 75u. For 4:3 material, the 75u has a s4:3 mode that projects a 4:3 image in the center of a 16:9 screen, with the same height as your 16:9 image, so no horizontal masking is needed. No zooming needed. I see no difference in the way the AE-100 and the 75u handle projecting the images.

If you are using a 4:3 screen, then the 75u would use the standard 4:3 mode, and you would only need to do horizontal masking, just as with the AE-100 for different ratio widescreen pictures.

As far as I can tell, there is no difference here. Except that the 16:9 mode of the 75u uses almost 75% more pixels than the AE-100's standard 16:9 mode.
post #28 of 65
Quote:
Originally posted by hgo
"Do the math. This has been beaten to death. With a 4:3 xga panel, the 16:9 image will use 1024X576 pixles. I think that beats 848X480 in every regard"

DVD contains 720 X 480 picture info. 720 X 480 will then have to be scaled to 1024 X 576, thereby introducing unwanted scaling artifacts. Can that be an advantage? Native resolution is still king whether it is 4:3 or 16:9.
True. But since most AE-100 users are using an HTPC in order to get the proper scaling, where is the advantage here? If I have to use an HTPC on the 75u or the AE-100 to get a decent picture, I don't see any advantage. However, with the 75u, I don't have to use an HTPC, because the rp56 through the vga component on the 75u doesn't suck like the component on the AE-100.
post #29 of 65
Quote:
Originally posted by robertmee


True. But since most AE-100 users are using an HTPC in order to get the proper scaling, where is the advantage here? If I have to use an HTPC on the 75u or the AE-100 to get a decent picture, I don't see any advantage. However, with the 75u, I don't have to use an HTPC, because the rp56 through the vga component on the 75u doesn't suck like the component on the AE-100.
A simple transcoder fixes that problem and your still below the pricepoint of a 75u
post #30 of 65
The 75u's additional pixels means the projector has more ability to display various gradations of half tones and subtle color differences. When these subtleties are more apparent the viewer is tricked into perceiving dimensionality in what is a flat image. The higher the resolution or the more pixels available will result in a more 3 dimensional image.

Lenny Eckian
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
This thread is locked  
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Digital Projectors - Under $3,000 USD MSRP › Is the tide turning from AE100 to 75U