or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Digital Projectors - Under $3,000 USD MSRP › LG PF80G First world mini-projector full led 1080p
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

LG PF80G First world mini-projector full led 1080p - Page 20

post #571 of 586
To me the better comparison would be to the HD91. I mean come on they just did a review of the HD91. I would be interested to know how close the LG is to the Optoma.
post #572 of 586
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ftoast View Post

Wait, the 85 doesn't do dlp-link 3D? I thought it was the 80 that lacked 3D (and coaxial) and the 85 added those two features for a few hundred more.
It isn't mentioned at all on the specifications sheet.

http://www.projectorcentral.com/pdf/projector_spec_8157.pdf
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bsims2719 View Post

To me the better comparison would be to the HD91. I mean come on they just did a review of the HD91. I would be interested to know how close the LG is to the Optoma.
Why? Because it is also LED? The HD91 is expected to be several thousand dollars. The problem is that LED should NOT be compared with LED - it should be compared to projectors that are in the same price class on somewhat equal footing. If you are looking at the HD91, then you should be looking at the Sony & JVC LCoS projectors, or the Epson 5030. Those are the models to compare to the HD91.

But, at the price point of the PF85, you won't be dishing out $2,000 more for the HD91, but you may consider the lamp based models in the same price class and the pros and cons. The writeup doesn't list any of those pros or cons in relation to other models, and frankly it bugs me a bit because those are the real competitors.

I think LG hit a home run with what they are doing, but for consumers, they may just jump because it says LED and 1080p, instead of looking at the huge jump in brightness that goes with the others, the zoom, a bit of lens shift with the W1070, and other features that may, or may not, be there with traditional models. Someone set on LED is going to buy LED. But, it seems the vast majority are looking for the best value for their money, and this one leaves a lot of room for comparison.
post #573 of 586
Quote:
Originally Posted by AV_Integrated View Post

The review from Projector Central really paints a pretty picture for this model, but makes absolutely no comparison of this model to the venerable W1070 or HD25/HD131x models which is what the real comparison is. People on the 'cheap' aren't buying a $1,300 projector, they are buying $500 models. At the $1,300 price point the HD131/W1070 offers a 1080p model with zoom and perhaps even a couple of replacement lamps for the 'same' price.

But, points about input lag were real and stood on their own. This isn't exactly a gamers projector, and may even be so laggy as to need audio delay compensation in an A/V receiver.

The brightness discussion seemed to be equally off-point.
That's a completely worthless size for most viewers who can go out an buy a 70" LED for not a lot more cash and a 60" TV for a fair bit less cash. So, when talking front projection we should be at least in the 100" range, more often the 110" to 120" range. If all this projector can manage is a decent 80" image, then it should go in the 'Do not buy!' pile right now.

I don't think that's the case, but Bill didn't touch on it during the review, and it was one thing he really should have. He certainly should not have mentioned the terrible Black Diamond screen which sparkles it's way to a lousy on screen image as an option for larger sizes. No.

The features certainly seem appropriately rated with 5 stars as this model certainly does offer more internal features than most others. But, no lens shift and no zoom, make me question a 4-star ease of use rating. I always think that features and ease of use somewhat cross, and need to be separated. This projector is not easy to setup compared to most others, it is extremely limited in fact and the one adjustment it has (focus) tends to bump the projector. Only models like the 5030 from Epson or JVC RS46 with extensive zoom range and lens shift should be 5-star ease of use products. The limited zoom lens shift of the W1070 may make it 4 stars. The average models like the HD131 or 3020 should be closer to 3 stars, and this model doesn't even offer that level of setup ease. So, 2-stars? But, it gets 4 stars. Inappropriate IMO.

Features, such as wi-fi DLNA, Smart support, and internal tuner frankly put it ahead of almost everyone else in terms of features. In fact, it seems to redefine what features a projector can, and perhaps should, have. But, other manufacturers will only be able to go down that road if they include Roku or a similar produce embedded. In fact, I would likely trust Roku embedded more than I would trust features delivered by LG. But, that's just me. 5-stars? Sure! But still, a lack of 3D is kind of weird to not have these days.

Performance of 4.5 stars? Based on what? Brightness? Color quality? Motion handling? Black levels? Shadow detail? Sharpness? Image uniformity? Noise level? Some of these items aren't even discussed, and some are known to be bad. I don't see this as anywhere near a 4.5 star projector in terms of overall performance. But it's not that way for other projectors as well IMO. There are very few 4.5+ star projectors out there in terms of actual image performance.

Value - 5 stars? Yeah, I'll go down that road. I won't argue it. The use of a LED engine with a projector bright enough to handle a 110" diagonal (it better!) for $1,300 with a lifetime light engine? Maybe 4.5 stars, but I will give it 5 stars. I think value always relates to the overall quality, features, and performance that you get for the money spent, and this one does seem to exceed in many areas. But, dollars for lumens to video quality, which seem to be the big comparisons, it doesn't match up to the HD131x or the W1070. Not even close. Add in total cost of ownership, and it gets a lot closer because there are no lamps to replace. But, expecting a LG product to actually last 20,000+ hours is not what I would consider a realistic basis. Instead, I would expect about 10,000 hours of use. Perhaps 2 replacement lamps on a traditional lamp projector. Suddenly things get much closer in terms of price and TCO and... value. Still, it's a lot less than Optoma's HD81 projector, and is a unique model for sure.

I was hoping that Evan could have gotten me a sample to put up head-to-head with my W1070 and on a 1.3 gain screen in a more typical 'lights out, but not properly light controlled' basement situation. A 'after dark' family room setup would be similar. It would have been fun to see what an actual acceptable size was, how it really compared to the venerable W1070, and what noise levels and image quality, and the rest was like. I may reach out to him again to see if that may be possible.

Your writing gave me a go to place in the future when comparing features...

And a well written critiqued response
wink.gif
post #574 of 586

I can see one specific application where the dimmer LED projector with no zoom or lens shift might work pretty well.  Pair it up with a high-gain retroreflective screen like Da-Lite High Power or Draper Radiant and put it on a table that's easily adjusted for the correct height and distance from the screen.  I currently use a table-mounted projector with both zoom and lens shift that I could easily get along without, and am already looking at adding a retroreflective screen.  So I could see something like the PF80G working for me and others with similar setups. 

post #575 of 586
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave in Green View Post

I can see one specific application where the dimmer LED projector with no zoom or lens shift might work pretty well.  Pair it up with a high-gain retroreflective screen like Da-Lite High Power or Draper Radiant and put it on a table that's easily adjusted for the correct height and distance from the screen.  I currently use a table-mounted projector with both zoom and lens shift that I could easily get along without, and am already looking at adding a retroreflective screen.  So I could see something like the PF80G working for me and others with similar setups. 
I would never recommend a high gain retroreflective screen if quality viewing is desired. Black screens also do horrendous things to what is being projected.

In a 'white room' with lights out, 420 real lumens will deliver a stunning 100"-110" diagonal image on a typical 1.3-1.4 gain screen. It won't be 'lights on' quality, but lights out will be no problem.

Consider though that a standard white screen with the HD131x or W1070 will deliver a better image, for less money on the same screen, and you get more quality for the money.

It remains the fact that there are limited reasons to get a projector like this, but they are valid reasons:
1. The LED engine won't need to be replaced. No service, no worry, when it comes to the light source other than major critical issues typical of all electronics.
2. The size is highly portable with a projector that is true 1080p.
3. The light output is decent enough for a lights out viewing experience at any point
4. The built in features could be excellent for any number of viewing situations.
5. There should be some significant energy savings overall with this model compared to traditional models which really is important to some people.

I don't see this replacing my W1070, but a model like this which the kids can hook up to their game systems (tough with the input lag issue), or to take on travel to watch movies wherever, or to a friends home to do some quick viewing... It's highly portable and the built in features are stronger than other models.

But, the goal for a lot of people in these forums in the W1070/HD131x comparison. The value vs. quality of this model vs. those guys. I think for some people, it is there, but the comparison needs to be made. There needs to be that head-to-head duel and once the line is drawn in the sand, the results really need to be laid out so that consumers understand what choice they are making, what they are gaining, and what they are giving up.

LG has, IMO, hit a home run with this product because if someone is considering a low-profile 92" setup, and they don't care about 3D, and have installation flexibility, then they can do something really cool with it.

I have some thoughts about a multiple display gaming setup in my home, and this may be the type of option I'm looking for.

But, that input lag was really a huge mistake on this model considering a target audience that should include gaming for certain. Ah well.
post #576 of 586
I have the LG PA75U and other than that it's 720P resolution and stated at 700 lumens I play games with it and don't even noticed the imput or output lag.
To be honest ? those diehards who play games and spend thousands of thousands of dollars on gaming systems or computers have to much time on their hands.
I am at the point where I am starting to lose my interest in games.
To me ? all first person shooter games are all basically the same, same goal.
Yeah, 3D would be great but it's not the be all end all the whole world priory of life.
Perhaps ? I have not really experience a good 3D experience.
Those who are sticklers on imput lag or out put lag obsessed over to much and are not really putting their true priories in life in order.
It's the same with those who spend $ 10,000 $ 20,000 for just a high priced audio system.
I am happy with just a good sounding $ 500 audio system.
There are more important things in life, take a look and look around.
I rather take $ 10,000, $ 20,000 $ 30,000 and buy a piece of property somewhere.
For most people ? it's all about keeping up with the Joneses.
People are not happy or satisfied with what they have.
Then again ? that's part of marketing, they do have to make their money and make a living.
However ? there comes a point where other things in life take priority.
I can understand that there is no happiness and honor of being in poverty either.
I don't think no one loves living in a hell hole of a house.
post #577 of 586
The strangest thing is that having a "gaming" setting on a DLP that disables features and cuts lag to 17-34 is both dead simple and absolutely free, as is DLP-link 3D..it's a simple software add-on that they already have on hand and the unit is more than capable of using.

If it followed in the pa70-75's pricing pattern it'd be nearly unbeatable for anyone that can darken their room and get around the placement inflexibility. With brilliantcolor OFF on both machines (for less explosive highlights) the 131xe will actually be DIMMER by half-life, but that becomes a non-issue when the price difference allows you to drop in a fresh lamp every two years and still come out ahead.
post #578 of 586
Quote:
Originally Posted by AV_Integrated View Post

It isn't mentioned at all on the specifications sheet.

http://www.projectorcentral.com/pdf/projector_spec_8157.pdf
Why? Because it is also LED? The HD91 is expected to be several thousand dollars. The problem is that LED should NOT be compared with LED - it should be compared to projectors that are in the same price class on somewhat equal footing. If you are looking at the HD91, then you should be looking at the Sony & JVC LCoS projectors, or the Epson 5030. Those are the models to compare to the HD91.

But, at the price point of the PF85, you won't be dishing out $2,000 more for the HD91, but you may consider the lamp based models in the same price class and the pros and cons. The writeup doesn't list any of those pros or cons in relation to other models, and frankly it bugs me a bit because those are the real competitors.

I think LG hit a home run with what they are doing, but for consumers, they may just jump because it says LED and 1080p, instead of looking at the huge jump in brightness that goes with the others, the zoom, a bit of lens shift with the W1070, and other features that may, or may not, be there with traditional models. Someone set on LED is going to buy LED. But, it seems the vast majority are looking for the best value for their money, and this one leaves a lot of room for comparison.

Because the only real difference in the Optoma and the LG is the lens of the Optoma. They both use a DLP chip and an LED light source. There is no technical reason why the LG shouldn't deliver an image as close to the Optoma except for perfect sharpness. I mean a DLP chip, 3 leds and a glass lens are relativity cheap. There is no reason why the Optoma should cost 4K!!! If manufactures wanted to they could make a projector for under 1k that could trump the Optoma.
post #579 of 586
Quote:
Originally Posted by DLPProjectorfan View Post

I have the LG PA75U and other than that it's 720P resolution and stated at 700 lumens I play games with it and don't even noticed the imput or output lag.
To be honest ? those diehards who play games and spend thousands of thousands of dollars on gaming systems or computers have to much time on their hands.
I am at the point where I am starting to lose my interest in games.
To me ? all first person shooter games are all basically the same, same goal.
Yeah, 3D would be great but it's not the be all end all the whole world priory of life.
Perhaps ? I have not really experience a good 3D experience.
Those who are sticklers on imput lag or out put lag obsessed over to much and are not really putting their true priories in life in order.
It's the same with those who spend $ 10,000 $ 20,000 for just a high priced audio system.
I am happy with just a good sounding $ 500 audio system.
There are more important things in life, take a look and look around.
I rather take $ 10,000, $ 20,000 $ 30,000 and buy a piece of property somewhere.
For most people ? it's all about keeping up with the Joneses.
People are not happy or satisfied with what they have.
Then again ? that's part of marketing, they do have to make their money and make a living.
However ? there comes a point where other things in life take priority.
I can understand that there is no happiness and honor of being in poverty either.
I don't think no one loves living in a hell hole of a house.

This essay seems an awful lot like something I might write after a few too many imbibes.
post #580 of 586
Quote:
Originally Posted by AV_Integrated View Post


I would never recommend a high gain retroreflective screen if quality viewing is desired. Black screens also do horrendous things to what is being projected.

In a 'white room' with lights out, 420 real lumens will deliver a stunning 100"-110" diagonal image on a typical 1.3-1.4 gain screen. It won't be 'lights on' quality, but lights out will be no problem. ...

 

The compromises of a high-gain retroflective screen are well understood.  I wasn't clear that the specific case I was addressing was one where some ambient light was present.  In that case, a high-gain retroflective screen could make an LED projector usable at a more reasonable cost than the black screens.  The reduction in image quality would be an acceptable alternative to not being able to use an LED projector at all with ambient light present.  The reality for me is that LED projectors are not yet viable alternatives under most circumstances, just as the earliest LED home lighting wasn't.  Future generations of LED projectors will be much more viable, just as LED home lighting has evolved into better all-around performance.  Several years ago I purchased a single LED home light, and the performance was unacceptable so I passed on buying more.  In the last few weeks, I've converted my home to 100% LED lighting with the latest generation lamps, and everyone comments how bright and pleasant the lighting appears.

post #581 of 586
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bsims2719 View Post

Because the only real difference in the Optoma and the LG is the lens of the Optoma. They both use a DLP chip and an LED light source. There is no technical reason why the LG shouldn't deliver an image as close to the Optoma except for perfect sharpness. I mean a DLP chip, 3 leds and a glass lens are relativity cheap. There is no reason why the Optoma should cost 4K!!! If manufactures wanted to they could make a projector for under 1k that could trump the Optoma.
Are you aware of what separates the $1,000 projectors from the $3,000 models?

A good glass lens from the better manufacturers cost $2,500 (cost) on average, with many glass lenses running over $3,500-$4,000. You also have larger fans, better light control, better power circuitry, better noise control, better image processing, better electronics boards, more R&D time, etc., etc., etc. There is far more than just 3 LEDs and a 'relatively cheap' lens (which may not be 'relatively cheap' at all).

I do agree the two CAN be compared, heck, they SHOULD be compared, and perhaps some people will have $3,000 and wonder if they should just get the LG instead, but my expectation is that these are in extremely different monetary classes and that people aren't looking just to compare LED to LED. People typically start with a budget, and the budget to the LG is the W1070 and the HD131x. At the most basic level, how does it compare to the similarly priced alternatives? How about the Epson 2030 which clearly has a price advantage over 10,000 hours? The real comparison to the HD81 from Optoma is the JVC RS46, the Sony HW50, the Epson 5030. If it doesn't stack up to those models, then why even bother looking at it at all?
post #582 of 586
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave in Green View Post

The compromises of a high-gain retroflective screen are well understood.
I will say that from what I keep hearing from people over the years, the compromises of any high gain screen, of retroreflective screens, of grey screens, of minimal gain screens, etc. are not understood by the vast majority. They see black screens as the 'perfect' solution to everything, yet have no idea that the severe sparkling and non-uninform image will devastate the on screen image.

But, it's good that you do understand it. smile.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave in Green View Post

I wasn't clear that the specific case I was addressing was one where some ambient light was present.  In that case, a high-gain retroflective screen could make an LED projector usable at a more reasonable cost than the black screens.
Very true. And a low gain white screen with a lamp based projector that delivers 3-4x the light output natively and costs $300+ less... How would that do?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave in Green View Post

The reduction in image quality would be an acceptable alternative to not being able to use an LED projector at all with ambient light present.
If people have ambient light present, then why are they looking at low-lumen output projectors as the 'right' solution for their 'bad' setup? I mean, with a poor room (white walls/ceiling), the LG will do fine on about a 100" diagonal if there is no other ambient light. Heck, with controlled directional light at the back of the room, it will do fine. But, if there is more ambient light that is non-controlled then there are better solutions, by far, right now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave in Green View Post

The reality for me is that LED projectors are not yet viable alternatives under most circumstances, just as the earliest LED home lighting wasn't.  Future generations of LED projectors will be much more viable, just as LED home lighting has evolved into better all-around performance.
I agree, this technology is the future, and this LG model offers up something which should be considered for sure. But, people will go in saying "I want LED" instead of "I want the right projector for my setup." This is the nature of the newbie projector buyer, a lack of knowledge and a conviction that what they know nothing about must conform to their magical wishes. It's hard for some (not all, and not you!) to understand the severe constraints that are currently out there with LED based projection lamp sources, and even worse, the failure of many manufacturers to put in place some revolutionary options.

The Epson 2030 has a pretty evolutionary option. It's not a LED light source, but the lamps are $100 each and rated to 5,000 hours. That's $300 for lamps + $800 for the projector = 20,000 hour lifespan projector for $1,100. Imagine if other manufacturers followed suit on that?
post #583 of 586
I have the LGPA75U and some ambient light is a disaster.
For example the over head 4 tube florescent 40 watts a tube lights.
You turn them on ? there goes the picture.
However I do have a CFL lamp bulb back in the room when I turn it on I still have a watchable picture on the screen.
I do notice that a LED lamp based light doesn't effect the picture as a regular light bulb or a over head florescent light fixture.
As far as ambient light goes and watching a movie in the dark ? isn't that what watching a movie is all about ? turning off the lights and enjoying the show ?
I do understand there should be some lighting for safety.
Even at movie theaters all of us can remember right before the main show that they turn the lights down.
They have low powered lights to show you where the aisles are.
With the LGPA75U even with some daylight sunlight coming on the window I can still have a decent picture so long as it's not direct sunlight.
So ? those of us who are waiting for this darn thing ? should we take a back seat and wait ? or see what comes out in September ?
Perhaps a better LED 1080P projector with more features and higher Lumens ?
We waited this long so I don't see how another 5 months would make a difference.
So what are the possibilities ? a projector at 1200 Lumens ? 1500 Lumens ?
post #584 of 586
I guess I'm confused as to why people are so hung up about LED projectors to begin with. If there is a significant cost savings, or serious improvement in many areas, then it makes sense, but considering that it offers no image improvement (quite the contrary), less brightness, less placement flexibility, and really zero cost savings, I just wonder why people are so ga-ga over them.

Now, with what is described above - uncontrolled fluorescent lights - an image will go to Hell all the time. It's the way things work. But, this photo shows a 106" grey screen with a projector putting around 400 lumens on screen, with about 200 watts of lighting in the room. I think it emphasizes how that even in a room with lighting, you should expect a very usable picture for TV of sports viewing, but you have to control the lights with directional lighting, on a dimmer, away from the screen.

post #585 of 586
Yes there are pros and cons with both technologies bulb based and LED.
As for the LEDS the technology is improving but not at the pace we would like.
FYI ? I still do have a old bulb based projector that puts out 2,000 Lumens ? but guess what ? it has not been used in over 5 years it just just in it's box and collects dust.
The forgotten problem with the old bulb based projectors other than the bulbs burning out is the color wheel with it's own set of problem from bearings to shattering.
That's the forgotten cost of bulb based projectors other than paying for a new bulb, what happens when the color wheel takes a crap on you ?
That's the advantage of the LED projector, no color wheel.
Also ? in today's world people are more concerned about power usage and electric cost in their homes.
A LED projector beats bulb based projectors in that category.
post #586 of 586
Quote:
Originally Posted by DLPProjectorfan View Post

Yes there are pros and cons with both technologies bulb based and LED.
As for the LEDS the technology is improving but not at the pace we would like.
FYI ? I still do have a old bulb based projector that puts out 2,000 Lumens ? but guess what ? it has not been used in over 5 years it just just in it's box and collects dust.
The forgotten problem with the old bulb based projectors other than the bulbs burning out is the color wheel with it's own set of problem from bearings to shattering.
That's the forgotten cost of bulb based projectors other than paying for a new bulb, what happens when the color wheel takes a crap on you ?
That's the advantage of the LED projector, no color wheel.
Also ? in today's world people are more concerned about power usage and electric cost in their homes.
A LED projector beats bulb based projectors in that category.
True, at about 5 hours of use per day, 365 days a year, that's about $30 a year in savings. At half that, it's $15 more to run a projector that is over twice as bright. That's just a basis of the W1070 being a 350 watt system vs. the LG rated at 175 watts.

The reality remains that a decently built projector will last 7-10 years. LCD projectors have no color wheels and are a good option. LEDs should have refresh rates that run well over what a 6x color wheel should deliver, so RBE should be eliminated for all but the most sensitive people.

There's a lot of good there coming from LED, and this model certainly could be a good option on the right screen size to the right viewers in the right space. It just has some serious competition.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Digital Projectors - Under $3,000 USD MSRP › LG PF80G First world mini-projector full led 1080p