motion judder/motion blur with highly rated LCD & LCos projectors - Page 2

I would bet you any amount of money that if I were to place the image of the Marantz (or Planar PD8150, or the NuVision P2) next to the Vivitek H5085's and asked someone which they thought had the larger DMD the results would probably be unanimous. A simple image would be a page like this that has text on it. NO COMPARISON. Every single one of the .95" DMD DLP machines I've owned has had a sharper image by a decent amount and not all of them were crazy expensive units. The BenQ W5000 for example looked amazingly sharp considering it's price. I'm telling you that it's really no comparison.

You contradict yourself. How can you make a claim like that and have never seen the larger chip before? Please take it from me (and many others who have seen both sides) and know that there is typically a very noticeable difference. I know I may come off a little snobby and I don't mean to. It's just after seeing the difference between the two its very hard to look at these cheaper projectors and be impressed.


You act like I was personally trying to offend anyone who owns a projector with the smaller DMD. You also didn't read what I wrote entirely. I said that I hadn't seen Sharp 30k and that I still had hope for it. From what Art has said, he thought as far as sharpness goes it looked a little less sharp than the Mitsubishi HC7800D. I've owed that unit and it wasn't particularly sharp. The JVC DLA-X3 I had was actually sharper. I'd say the Mitsubishi is just a tad better than the Vivitek H5080 that I have now. You have to look at price point. It seems, with the exception of BenQ, no manufacturer puts in a decent lens and that's the reason behind why these .65" DLP's look so much different compared to their larger brothers. Good lenses cost money. When you build a .65" DLP machine you typically have low MSRP in mind. The catch here is that you need an exceptional lens to resolve the same amount of detail the larger chip can with something less exceptional. The smaller surface area and the same amount of mirrors requires this. But at the price point of most .65" DLP machines you simple can't do that. So what you end up with is the .65" DMD getting shafted on contrast and sharpness and the larger DMD getting better native contrast and much better lenses and that results in a much sharper picture.

The reason I've owned so many is complicated. At one point (after only owning 4 or 5 units) I had gone up in PQ each time I bought a new unit. Then I had problems with my Planar PD8150 and it needed to go in for service. Unfortunately they had for almost 2 months. In the mean time I bought a couple cheap models (Optoma HD20 and then Epson 8100, the Epson was much nicer btw) to hold me over till I got the Planar back. I bought the Mitsubishi HC7800D because I wanted to try out 3D and now I have this Vivitek as a loaner unit I get the NuVision P2 back.

The best unit's I've ever owned in regards to sharpness and motion are the Planar PD8150 and the Marantz VP-11S1. Sure the Marantz doesn't have the best contrast in the world but like I said before, it's still better than the Vivitek H5085 with it's iris closed all way down and the dynamic iris in use. The Mitsubishi HC7800D only had a dynamic iris. It was a very bad implantation that was way too noticeable to use. Without it turned on the Marantz also had much better contrast and a much lower black level.

Let's concentrate on motion properties of projectors in this topic, okay? Seegs, have you tried testing your other projectors with that test? (test2.mp4)

Regarding this motion judder you experienced with the Sony. I'm wondering if you were seeing this while the Motion Enhance function was set to "High". My experience with this on the VW95ES is that motion is extremely smooth and realistic for slow to mildly moving objects and people. However, when you have a sudden fast-moving object (like when someone turns their face in a quick motion), the Sony logic that creates this interpolated frames in-between the real frames applies some sort of weird motion accelaration to the object and the end-effect can be jarring and not natural at all. The same goes for scenarios where you have a "shaky camera" (like a director would do during a fight scene). The inherit motion of the scene is unnaturally jarring and hard to see. This could come across as "motion judder". When you turn off the Motion Enhance function, this weird accelaration judder goes way (at least in my case it does).

Regarding "Motion Blur". On my VW95ES (and I suspect this could be happening on the HW50 as well) I can see blur and loss of edge detail on medium motion objects (like people's faces) on the screen if I feed the projector a 4:2:2 signal. This is due to the missing/reduced chroma information in 422 format. Sony is just outputting exactly what you put into it, so that means that the edge detail of an item on the screen is constanctly flickering as it moves across the screen, since the chroma values for that edge detail are constantly fluctuating depending if it's on an "odd" pixel or "even" pixel and what other pixel it's sharing the chroma values with. Feeding the sony with processed 4:4:4 (even though it's only 8-bit) will resolve this blur issue and edge detail will track much better as it moves across the screen.

DLP is the only choice if you are viewing sports most of the time. especially if you aren't going to be using CFI. Both of the units you mentioned are fantastic with motion in general. No judder or other motion artifacts. All of the DLP units I've owned fair very well with motion. There is a link my signature if you're curious about which models I've owned.

No, but I will when I get the NuVision back, but I would imagine at least 720 lines. It is the same as my Planar PD8150 (same light path, optics and processing). They basically just replaced the color wheel and lamp with the LED module.

For a long time black level/contrast on projectors was terrible, it was by far the biggest issue, so a lot of people/us got used to just evaluating projectors almost solely on their black level/contrast. I think a lot of that mindset remains. On top of that, I'd say "most" people "serious" into projectors are for the purpose of movie watching, so that also tends to be the focus.

I don't think that's fair, if you're curious, go over to the $20k+ forum and read about the Lumis vs JVCs, it's interesting. That aside, I think a lot of reviewers, especially "internet" reviewers are enamored by low price and they tend to overstate the "issues" of high end machines in an (unconscious?) attempt to justify complaining about the high price. To be sure the cost/value goes down with higher end machines, but to say they don't provide greater performance I think is naive. I might have gone along with that line of thought for my first few projectors, up until I got my Planar 8150. It replaced a BenQ W5000. By the "internet wisdom", they're very similar and the Planar would be overpriced. Same sized DMD (0.95") similar brightness, etc. Only "significant" difference is the DC3 in the Planar vs the DC2 in the W5000, so "internet wisdom" would say the Planar is overpriced vs the BenQ and not worth it. But the Planar was just in a different league. Colors, sharpness, contrast and just overall refinement are much better on the Planar (though admittedly, at this level/these days it's not a knock your socks off obvious difference).

I have no doubt a Lumis, Vango, Mico, etc would be a significant improvement too. A Sim2 may be my next projector (not soon) for all the reasons discussed here, confusingly/paradoxically/disappointingly (yet somehow happily) unless you're looking for 3D or Frame Interpolation or other "features", there's just nothing compelling out there to upgrade from one of the "older" top DLPs, other than an even better, more expensive ultra high-end DLP.

FWIW, the 0.95" chip is "older" or should I say came out first. The first 1080p HT DLP chips were 0.95" and every 1080p DLP had them. There have been about 4 revisions from the original to DC2, DC3, DC4 (DC4 is found in projectors like the Sim2 Mico, the Vango, and other high end ones). For a long time the price differentiation in DLPs was the DCx chip (eg the 8150 had a DC3, the 8130 had a DC2).

My understanding is the 0.65" DMD was made only for cost considerations. The smaller chip allows building projectors good placement flexibility more cheaply. That was a common complaint with the large DMD DLPs, they were generally restrictive in placement because things like lens shift/zoom with large chips require large expensive optics. AFAIK there's no reason to use a 0.65" DMD over a 0.95" one other than to reduce cost (at the price of performance).