or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP › Sony VPL-VW50 (Pearl) Screenshots
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Sony VPL-VW50 (Pearl) Screenshots - Page 3

post #61 of 296

Time to get that great camera out again and put up some baseball and football baby!
post #62 of 296
Originally Posted by repdetect2 View Post

I just picked up a 46inch XBR2, and given the price of that TV, I am wondering if I should replace it with the Pearl. Any thoughts??

If what you want is a front projector, most definitely. If what you want is a great TV, for watching with room lights on or windows open during the day, then probably not.
post #63 of 296
Those screen shots look good. While it's very tough to really know what it looks like in person, as screenshots are always just a sample, I like the overall look of it.

I'm not about to switch from my 9500LC, no way, but it does look like I could enjoy
watching it....as long as the bulb holds out.

The best digitals today are starting to get to the point that it's hard to criticize the picture,
but I'm still concerned about the product lifespan and ageing effects and how they affect
the projector as it ages.

I can reasonably expect 20 years out of a good CRT chassis, retubing once every several
years if it's used with regularity. I have yet to see a one-chip or LCD based digital that is capable of coming close to meeting its original specs at its third birthday in service. The heat from the lamp is destructive of the optical core components.

When the service life issues are solved, I'll be more favorably inclined to look at actually
buying a digital. But why would the companies try to make them last longer when it means
they won't sell as many?

Oh well, I've got at least another ten years of good service to get out of my 9500LC before
I need to even think about replacing it. (Actually, with my viewing habits, it'll be more
than 20 years before the tubes are well worn.)

post #64 of 296
I have owned 3 LCD projectors over the last 7 1/2 years. The first only briefly and the last two a Sony 400Q 4 years and a Sony HS-10 3 1/2 years. Image degradation has never came into play as a reason for me to upgrade.

But increases in quality and options have always driven me to the newer model. Could not imagine anything in this game satisfying me for 20 years to come.Glad to hear that the image is to your liking.

I am looking forward to seeing a Pearl in a good setting. I have seen CRT's at different home theater outlets. Everyone can pick there own flavors and that is what makes it all good. Johnathan
post #65 of 296
There are two factors that matter most to me: Picture, and reliability for the long term.

The first, well, I have that in spades now. My machine resolves the SMPTE bar test
patterns at 2048x1536 anamorphic, equivalent to 2048x2048 in 16x9. That's the future
of digitals, but it doesn't matter as it's well above 1080p, the best that you can get
viewable material in right now short of stealing the digital 2K playback system from a
DLP-equipped theater.

I can see no reason why picture quality would be a driving force in me wanting to change
projectors, as I've got it all NOW. If the next generation super-HD format comes out and
pushes resolution demands beyond what my PJ can deliver, that's a reason to upgrade,
but my PJ was 1080P capable in 1995, it fully resolves everything HD can throw at it,
it's as bright as an SMPTE standard movie screen is, and then some. So what's my
motivation to upgrade? None...because of yet, it ISN'T an upgrade. I could only spend
more money and get a picture that is comparable, but not necessarily better.

CRT continues to be right for me, for now, but the latest digitals like the Pearl would
satisfy me if I woke up tomorrow and found that my PJ had melted into a pile of slag and
insurance bought me a new one. I'm just glad that digitals have achieved this level of performance. It took a while.


The newest (and most expensive) digitals have reached the point where I have no
objections to them that matter. And I'm a picky sort!

The second is because when I buy something, I expect it to last a VERY long time.

I believe I will have quite a few years to go before the condition of my PJ degrades to the
point that I will be looking for a replacement. I'm pleased to note that when the time comes
that such replacement is desirable to me, I won't have to give up picture quality.

Only recently has this happened.

I just hope that when I end up getting a digital, it will last like I want it to.

My car is 14 years old and other than 14 years of chips and sand scratches in the paint,
it works, runs, and drives like new. This is typical of what I expect out of something that
I spend much money on. I want a long, reliable lifespan out of it.

I would hope to get at least ten years out of any projector I chose to install in my theater, if I wanted to.
post #66 of 296
Here are some screenshots from U-571, Vertical Limit, Phantom of the Opera, and Seabiscuit that are meant to convey some sense of the black levels, shadow detail, and perhaps depth one might get with the Pearl, depending on setup of course. Some of the POTO shots and the last screenshot from Seabiscuit are included to show off fleshtones. All the sources, except Vertical Limit which is from an Oppo 741 upconverted to 1080i, are HD DVD / HDMI without external video processing. What I really like about the Pearl are its color rendition and the distinct clearing of the haze effect in low APL (generally dark) scenes. I have no complaint about sharpness; detail is unmistakeably improved from 720p sitting at 1.5 screen widths from the screen. I find the image this pj puts out noticeably non-fatiguing - it's been easy to stay up until early hours of the morning watching film after film.

FWIW, looking at my monitor setup and generally comparing what I see in person, I'd say that among other things the Canon (PowerShot A620) digital camera processing ends up crushing blacks a little or gives a higher gamma, say 2.4 vs. 2.2. Intrascene CR looks a bit enhanced in the photos. My monitor is calibrated for 2.2 gamma. I did not edit the screenshots except for size. A low ISO setting was kept to keep noise low. The noise in the Vertical Limit shots is there in the source.

These were taken with colorspace set on normal and default settings otherwise with autoiris1. I use a Da-Lite High Power (images about 110" wide) with the pj installed about 1 foot above viewing level and immediately behind the center viewer, 14 ft away from the screen. The bulb was 12 hours old when these shots were taken. This projector is not calibrated yet although I have made three "user" settings changing gamma and colorspace that I'll toggle depending on the source material.

post #67 of 296
Some nice lookin shots drapp. Curious if you could take a few more with some bright scenes. Also what size screen?
post #68 of 296
Originally Posted by drapp1952 View Post

Here are some screenshots from U-571, Vertical Limit, Phantom of the Opera, and Seabiscuit...

Beautiful screenshots. Right now, I have my pearl mounted near min throw, which cuts the contrast by a third, and I'm running on "low bulb" mode most of the time, which is plenty bright and gives good blacks. When I finally get to mount my Pearl in my dedicated HT, it will be at max throw, which, according to the Cine4Home reviews, will boost contrast nicely. Then I can move up to "high bulb" mode and I expect to be able to get highlights/blacks comparable to what you have in these photos.

In the meantime, despite all my OCD grouching about its imperfections, this projector truly is amazing. I watched the Cardinals game on Fox tonight. It was better than being there -- thankfully my local Fox affiliate eased up on the bandwidth compression for tonight's game.

And then I switched over and watched a bit of Doom (goofy movie, I know) on one of the HD premium channels. In low bulb mode, the blacks were damn near inky. Just beautiful.

Without a Dynamic Iris, I still don't think the new JVC will be able to compete with the pearl on Low APL scenes with no bright highlights -- in scenes like those that permeate movies like Alien, Doom, Pitch Black, and many others, black level rules the day, and the Pearl's excellent with these scenes.
post #69 of 296
He said 110" wide which is 126" diag.
post #70 of 296
Nice camera work Drapp. It really does show the pj at its best. How about some typical HD stuff and sports?

I love my Toshiba HD-DVD too and Seabiscuit is a terrific transfer. Phantom I know is a favorite for quality but not my cup of tea.

How about some baseball and football?
post #71 of 296
Fun thread!
post #72 of 296
Gremmy no screenshots? Here's a tip, turn off all the lights, turn off the flash on your digital camera, thats the key, and you should have no problem taking screenshots like above.
post #73 of 296
Thanks for posting the pics, makes me think twice about the claims that the Pearl is still too dim. Any chance you post a few pics from upcoming Monday Night Football game?
post #74 of 296
Drapp...Are you using high or low lamp in those screenshots? beautifull shots by the way!

If my ftL calculations are correct, you are getting the same ftL as someone would get with a 1.3 gain white screen at 92" diag which is an interesting point of ref.
post #75 of 296
drapp: Boy, it's impressive to see how good black detail one gets with a HighPower! This certainly removes my hesitancy about whether the HP would convey the good CR, black level, etc., of the Pearl. It looks like the Pearl + HP combo is an excellent match.

Are the walls in your room dark colored, etc., i.e., the ideal HT, or are they lighter colored? (I.e., any significant amount of reflected light?)
post #76 of 296
Well, it's 1:00 am and I've got work tomorrow. I just emerged from downstairs where I was taking more screenshots and doing some experimentation with exposures, etc.

I hope to be doing a shootout with Kevin Anderson who just installed his HD81 tomorrow. I'll see about doing some shots there of other stuff and the Optoma.

The lamp is on high on the Pearl.

post #77 of 296
Drapp - Those shots look great - but the black levels look actually black - is this the case while watching? I thought the Pearl couldn't manage absolute black, especially doubled by the hipower. Is this a camera thing?
post #78 of 296
Originally Posted by drapp1952 View Post

I hope to be doing a shootout with Kevin Anderson who just installed his HD81 tomorrow. I'll see about doing some shots there of other stuff and the Optoma.

Ooooh - Pearl vs. HD81. Can't wait to see and hear the results!

post #79 of 296
Thread Starter 
Great shots drapp!

I will try to get some sports up tomorrow. Could not find my camera this weekend. I cleaned up for the football watching party and then forgot where I put it.
post #80 of 296
Originally Posted by tryingtimes View Post

Drapp - Those shots look great - but the black levels look actually black - is this the case while watching? I thought the Pearl couldn't manage absolute black, especially doubled by the hipower. Is this a camera thing?

Glad you asked. It is a camera thing. Blacks get crushed with most digital captures, but I am experimenting trying to more accurately catch very low light levels. Long ago Mr. Wigggles did a special technique of bracketing exposures and then overlapping to more accurately portray this. There's a related or the same technique in Photoshop 7 (and recently highlighted in the New York Times) that allows this - I've forgotten the specific name for the technique.

Absolutely, the High Power will give 3 gain for all light sent its direction back toward the source. So, I see the lightspill, and what at times look like blue-black blacks and a little color disuniformity with blue in the lower left and upper right corners at black. On the bright side, all this will get better as the bulb dims (sorry); now it's only 17 hours old. To keep things in perspective, it's not something you generally see. Bulb dimming, calibration, and if I get real obsessive maybe gamma 3D adjustments, will help this.

I am using high lamp setting because I was fooling around with the manual iris setting, putting it at minimum aperature and comparing that with autoiris1 and autoiris 2. Also, with high lamp setting I found the fan noise to be less obstrusive insofar as it does not "cycle" as it does for me with low lamp. I sit about a foot away from the pj and can hear this subtle cycling but the vast majority of viewers won't hear it in a more typical setup.

My HT is very dark. This makes a big difference in simultaneous CR and that might be reflected in my screenshots. I've emulated darinp, simply looked around at cinemas, and fortunately am able to do this. With black on the ceilings, black rugs/carpet, black fabric thumbtacked into the ceiling, and black velvet draped all over around the pj end of the room, no living room should look like my basement HT. I'll post a photo or two of it later.

Kevin Anderson, HiHoSteve, and I will offer our opinions of the HD81 vs. Pearl in Kevin's setup. I'll include screenshots if any differences can be seen that way.

post #81 of 296
Thanks Dan for the clarification. Look forward to more shots from you and Chako
post #82 of 296
Thread Starter 
Time for some Monday Night Football!!!! Courtesy of ESPN HD

I took these first few shots showing what it looks like with a lot of ambient light. I had ALL my lights on for these. I know the foreground looks dark but it is very bright in person. You could easily read a book or do anything else that needs a good amount of light.

As you can see still very watchable but a little washed out.

I prefer to watch in a completely dark environment. Also these shots are a little hazy. This is not caused by the projector, the game was rainy last night hence the slight haze. Still looked great though.

post #83 of 296
Thread Starter 
Just for fun a lights on lights off split.

post #84 of 296
Great pics. Thanks again.

post #85 of 296
Now that's what I'm talking. Really awesome. And the additional comparison with lighting was a very nice plus. Even with the high power screen, it does appear that light is the devil.
post #86 of 296
Those pics look washed out to me.
post #87 of 296
Originally Posted by romanesq View Post

...the additional comparison with lighting was a very nice plus. Even with the high power screen, it does appear that light is the devil.

IIRC Chako does not have a High Power scrren, it is a no name from EBAY. The HP would be up to 3 times brighter!
post #88 of 296
Holy cow! I must have confused him with another owner. That's really interesting being it's on a no name. So the light was eating up this screen that had no retroeflective power.

Thanks HoustonHoyaFan.
post #89 of 296
Thread Starter 
Yes it is not High Power just a matte white screen with 1.0 gain
post #90 of 296
Chako - it looks like you have light colors in that room (walls and ceiling), but based on the pictures, there doesn't seem to be too much light spill when you control the lighting. Is this correct?

The reason I am asking is that the room I intend for my eventual Pearl will have great light control but the walls and ceiling are beige.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP › Sony VPL-VW50 (Pearl) Screenshots