or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP › Is the Sony Pearl Really Soft , Why ?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Is the Sony Pearl Really Soft , Why ? - Page 2

post #31 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by William View Post

Not knowing LCD from LCoS cast doubt right off the bat.

Thanks for pointing out the typo. Amir does know the difference. But we should go a little easy on the insiders as they have been under a bit of duress lately. (Another good reason to never post using real identification information).
post #32 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by gremmy View Post

A light controlled room with dark colored surfaces will benefit any projector.

My point was that the Pearl is not soft. My Pearl has never been soft, not even when I had overscan turned on, not even at min. throw, not even with light colored floors and ceiling.

I don't know what all these people complaining of a soft picture are looking at, but it's sure not my projector, that's for sure.

I could give you guys a laundry list of legitimate complaints regarding this projector, and softness just isn't one of them. Sorry.

The entire industry will be taking a giant step forward when they release the 1080i HD test discs. As it is now, only a few reviewers get to use it. What a day that will (soon) be!
post #33 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by William View Post

Not knowing LCD from LCoS cast doubt right off the bat.

The Qualia line did release a backlit 1080p LCD flat panel the 46" Q005.
post #34 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Gouger View Post

...DLP in fact is a pure digital technology where Lcos or SXRD is not.

Me thinking that color wheels are analog devices. Some can argue that mirrors are too.
post #35 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaspianM View Post

Me thinking that color wheels are analog devices....

...but rainbows are digital artifacts.
post #36 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by William View Post

...but rainbows are digital artifacts.

Color wheel motion is modulated digitally but color production is purely analoge.
post #37 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by reincarnate View Post

The entire industry will be taking a giant step forward when they release the 1080i HD test discs. As it is now, only a few reviewers get to use it. What a day that will (soon) be!

I hope the test disk has a new younger cast and a new plot. The same old story line on these test disks is getting boring.

My favorite test of my projector is watching these new fangled movies. They have sound and talking people and some have different stories. BTW they look better than the test disks IMHO.

Oh yeah they appear to me to be like the "real thing" on the Pearl. Some of the directors and photographers could learn a few things and make all these films "sharp". Maybe they are trying to do things like have an "artistic vision" and present the world as they see it and not how you want it.... Nah, that would never sell at Best Buy.
post #38 of 121
Projectors can be used to view a wide variety of source material. While soft may be OK for some movies, it is not good while viewing text. I am using my projector right now to view this webpage. How does the Pearl's sharpness stack up when viewing a desktop on Windows or reading text? I know this is not a concern to many, but it is to me.
post #39 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by DonnerHead View Post

Fair enough, but from the reviews I have read the Panny comes close to the sharpness of the 5000, but falls just short (Art's review at projectorreviews.com for example). No doubt in my mind this is the dreaded SS at work. There is no way I would put my hard earned cash toward a 1080p with SS. My personal opinion is that this was a HUGE mistake on the part of Panasonic. There is also no way I could put my money toward a projector with such a pathetic native CR when projectors like the Pearl are on the market, and of course the amazing soon to be released JVC.

The Sony is the softest of the 4 units reveiwed...I will take the word of Projector Central over the word of a Sony owner any day of the week. I would never put my money into a projector that has the least light output and the softest picture. The Panny even "with" SS is sharper than the Pearl...You need to just accept that because it is not opinion, it is fact.
post #40 of 121
Do Mits 5000 owners have problems with the screen door effect? If not, then why put the smooth screen technology into the Panny 1080P projector?
post #41 of 121
There may indeed be issues with the MTF capability of the Pearl, either due to optics or processing. But IMO it's not inherantly an issue w/ LCoS.

When I look at a high-quality continuous tome photograph, it approixmates life more so than any projector tech I know of.

When I view a DLP, it seems to deviate from it on the "sharper end" more so than LCoS seems to deviate from it on the "softer end". I think the DMD hard edge transitions add an artificial high-frequency look ot the picture that's not natural.

That's not to say many people don't find it pleasing, it's just that it significantly differs from reality.

I personally feel that LCoS is not particularly soft compared to "reality", but that these discussions instead come up from comparing it to DLP which deviates the other directoin significantly farther, and that, IMO, is where the flaw of these arguments is.
post #42 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by chuckken View Post

The Sony is the softest of the 4 units reveiwed...I will take the word of Projector Central over the word of a Sony owner any day of the week. I would never put my money into a projector that has the least light output and the softest picture. The Panny even "with" SS is sharper than the Pearl...You need to just accept that because it is not opinion, it is fact.

You do realize that of all the major reviews of the Pearl, that the PJC review measured the lowest light output by a long shot. The Cine4Home Review, Jason's Review, and the WSR Review all measured in the area of 700-800 lumens calibrated, which makes the Pearl one of the brighter 1080p offerings in its price class, and substantially brighter than the Mits.

As far as the "softness" issue discussed in the PJC review, it may very well be that the Pearl was the softest projector in the review. (I'm willing to allow for this possibility despite verbiage in the review which suggests that the reviewer confuses pixel structure with MTF). But if you're ever in my area, drop by and take a look at my set-up. I promise you will not leave thinking of the Pearl as having a soft picture.
post #43 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by scaesare View Post

There may indeed be issues with the MTF capability of the Pearl, either due to optics or processing. But IMO it's not inherantly an issue w/ LCoS.

When I look at a high-quality continuous tome photograph, it approixmates life more so than any projector tech I know of.

When I view a DLP, it seems to deviate from it on the "sharper end" more so than LCoS seems to deviate from it on the "softer end". I think the DMD hard edge transitions add an artificial high-frequency look ot the picture that's not natural.

That's not to say many people don't find it pleasing, it's just that it significantly differs from reality.

I personally feel that LCoS is not particularly soft compared to "reality", but that these discussions instead come up from comparing it to DLP which deviates the other directoin significantly farther, and that, IMO, is where the flaw of these arguments is.

Agreed. Anyone who wants DLP-style sharpness should stop looking for it elsewhere and just buy a DLP.
post #44 of 121
Its a good thing we do not get caught up in the fact we all use different screens. We would never get along
post #45 of 121
From Projector Central...

The most noteworthy flaw in the VW50's image quality is that it is softer than the competition. We noticed this in the demos at CEDIA, and were discouraged to find the same problem in our production unit. In our view, the primary rationale for investing premium dollars for 1080p resolution is to get the sharpest picture possible. If you don't care about maximum clarity and detail, one of the new 720p projectors for 1/3 the price will deliver most HD source images with close to the same high resolution quality as the VW50. We do not know the source of the softness in the image--it could be the lens, something inherent in the SXRD chips, something in the video processing, or some combination thereof. > >But the fact is that other 1080p products in this same price range are able to deliver noticeably sharper images, both with SD and HD material< <.
post #46 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by chuckken View Post

The Sony is the softest of the 4 units reveiwed...I will take the word of Projector Central over the word of a Sony owner any day of the week. I would never put my money into a projector that has the least light output and the softest picture. The Panny even "with" SS is sharper than the Pearl...You need to just accept that because it is not opinion, it is fact.


The fact that you would take the word of PC over Jason Turk, cine4home, and Greg at WSR speaks volumes to your ignorance and lack of knowledge in the field of FP By the way, these people/sights review all types of projectors so there is no bias, just straight hard facts and impressions. Many feel PC is a very biased sight and after the Z4/H79 remarks last year, I tend to agree.

The fact is the Pearl IS brighter than the 1000. Go read the reviews and you will see all have clocked the Pearl lumens (after calibration) at 7-800 lumens making it considerably brighter than the 1000.

As for the softness issue, I have made my point previously about that, which I interpret as smoothness and there is a difference. You dont agree, that is fine. Where opinions clash, freedom rings

I am glad you enjoy your 1000, but there is no way me or many others would own a SS projector at the 1080p level as it is completely useless and can only degrade the PQ to some degree. If you could take out that SS, your projector would look even better, no doubt about it.

What is the native CR of the 1000 by the way?
post #47 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by DonnerHead View Post

The fact that you would take the word of PC over Jason Turk, cine4home, and Greg at WSR speaks volumes to your ignorance and lack of knowledge in the field of FP By the way, these people/sights review all types of projectors so there is no bias, just straight hard facts and impressions. Many feel PC is a very biased sight and after the Z4/H79 remarks last year, I tend to agree.

The fact is the Pearl IS brighter than the 1000. Go read the reviews and you will see all have clocked the Pearl lumens (after calibration) at 7-800 lumens making it considerably brighter than the 1000.

As for the softness issue, I have made my point previously about that, which I interpret as smoothness and there is a difference. You dont agree, that is fine. Where opinions clash, freedom rings

I am glad you enjoy your 1000, but there is no way me or many others would own a SS projector at the 1080p level as it is completely useless and can only degrade the PQ to some degree. If you could take out that SS, your projector would look even better, no doubt about it.

What is the native CR of the 1000 by the way?

Good grief!...

From Projector Central...

The most noteworthy flaw in the VW50's image quality is that it is softer than the competition. We noticed this in the demos at CEDIA, and were discouraged to find the same problem in our production unit. In our view, the primary rationale for investing premium dollars for 1080p resolution is to get the sharpest picture possible. If you don't care about maximum clarity and detail, one of the new 720p projectors for 1/3 the price will deliver most HD source images with close to the same high resolution quality as the VW50. We do not know the source of the softness in the image--it could be the lens, something inherent in the SXRD chips, something in the video processing, or some combination thereof. > >But the fact is that other 1080p products in this same price range are able to deliver noticeably sharper images, both with SD and HD material< <.

End of story...
post #48 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by chuckken View Post

Good grief!...

From Projector Central...

The most noteworthy flaw in the VW50's image quality is that it is softer than the competition. We noticed this in the demos at CEDIA, and were discouraged to find the same problem in our production unit. In our view, the primary rationale for investing premium dollars for 1080p resolution is to get the sharpest picture possible. If you don't care about maximum clarity and detail, one of the new 720p projectors for 1/3 the price will deliver most HD source images with close to the same high resolution quality as the VW50. We do not know the source of the softness in the image--it could be the lens, something inherent in the SXRD chips, something in the video processing, or some combination thereof. > >But the fact is that other 1080p products in this same price range are able to deliver noticeably sharper images, both with SD and HD material< <.

End of story...


The mistake you are making, and a common rookie mistake, is taking PC word as gospell. It is not In fact, out of the major review sights/people, I would put PC at the bottom of the list as far as credibility from everything I have read compared to what I have experienced first hand.

My advice is to go read some other Pearl reviews from much more credible sources (Jason Turk, Greg's WSR review of the Pearl, cine4home).

I have seen the Mits 5000 as well, so I know what sharpness level the 1000 is almost at (not quite as sharp as the 5000, but close) and can say what difference there is between this and the Pearl was small enough to my eyes to be a non factor in a purchase decision. However I did notice a BIG contrast, and black level difference, not to mention the Sony iris is the best in this class as well. Throw in the added brightness of the Pearl over the 1000/5000 and it is an easy decision

Of course with the RS1 about to land, I dont see why we are talking about any of these units


But in the end it does not matter what I think (or dont think in this case) of the 1000. If you are truly happy with your projector that is all that matters
post #49 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by chuckken View Post

End of story...

Sharpness or edginess?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ProjectorCentral View Post

It is noteworthy that the two projectors with the softest images were also those with the least well defined pixel structure

How can 3 chip LCDs with ~50% fill factor be sharper than a 1 chip DLP with 89% fill factor?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ProjectorCentral View Post

Sharpness/Clarity of High Definition 1080p Images

1. Mitsubishi, Panasonic
2. Optoma
3. Sony

The Panasonic and Mitsubishi projectors deliver the sharpest images of the four when the source is 1080p from HD DVD or Blu-ray, and they are tied for first place. The Optoma ranks a very close second and has quite a sharp image as well, being just slightly less sharp than the first two

Sharpness or pixel grid perception?
post #50 of 121
I think any of these projectors are great projectors and each has their pros and cons. I will always favor a projector that has excellent lense shift and cannot for the life of me understand why the manufacturers don't give the people what they want. From reading AVS the short time I have been around, it seems apparant that most of us want more lumens, deeper blacks, and lense shift...If they build it, WE WILL COME!...
post #51 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by chuckken View Post

Good grief!...

From Projector Central...

The most noteworthy flaw in the VW50's image quality is that it is softer than the competition. We noticed this in the demos at CEDIA, and were discouraged to find the same problem in our production unit. In our view, the primary rationale for investing premium dollars for 1080p resolution is to get the sharpest picture possible. If you don't care about maximum clarity and detail, one of the new 720p projectors for 1/3 the price will deliver most HD source images with close to the same high resolution quality as the VW50. We do not know the source of the softness in the image--it could be the lens, something inherent in the SXRD chips, something in the video processing, or some combination thereof. > >But the fact is that other 1080p products in this same price range are able to deliver noticeably sharper images, both with SD and HD material< <.

End of story...

Hey, I think you are missing the picture. Let me add some assistance. Folks are saying that PC is not the end all and they are pointing out the preference or desire that they foster of LCD closing the quality gap, first with DLP, and now LCOS.

This is part of the business and LCD has made some strides the last couple of years. However, on objective areas like fill rate, contrast, the gap nevertheless remains.

No matter what any one writer says, those measurements do lead to a different picture. If you are happy with your Panny great. I owned one before and it was a great intro to front projection.

But to constantly refer to PC as if it is some holy grail or infallible institution in the face of other reviewers is somewhat silly.
post #52 of 121
Did a search and it seems like the Mits 5000 does NOT suffer from the typical SDE. So why would Panasonic include SS, when it is just something else to increase their manufacturing costs. Even if SS did not harm sharpness, it would increase cost. Maybe I am being anal, but even if the Panny is just as sharp as the Mits, I won't buy it because of SS. I know its silly but what can I say....
post #53 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Gouger View Post

I own the Ruby and lived with a Pearl for a week. SXRD/Lcos has a different look then DLP. Many feel DLP is sharper but SXRD/Lcos has a smoother film like look to it. Chose your poison. If movies will be your primary source you will love the Sony. If you plan on surfing the net and want razor sharp graphic then DLP may have the advantage.
I love my Ruby and do not think you will be disappointed with the Pearl.
Plenty of Pearl owners on this forum for all your support questions.

Happy New Years!

Edited: I forgot to mention couple this to a Blue Ray player and theres no turning back


Well said Alan.
post #54 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonHoyaFan View Post

Sharpness or edginess?

How can 3 chip LCDs with ~50% fill factor be sharper than a 1 chip DLP with 89% fill factor?

Sharpness or pixel grid perception?

Then lower than 1080 resolution lens is smearing out the pixels and the less than perfect alignment produces wider pixels. The projector resolution is less than 1080.

The MTF is the equivalent of a spatial frequency spectrum. The spatial spectrum shows the rate of variation of the image over an increment of distance. A audio spectrum shows the rate variation of audio over a period of time. MTF multiplies by a constant to normalize the spatial spectrum amplitude.

The projector is reducing the spatial bandwidth of the projector. The smoother image is the result of reducing the spatial by passing the image through the equivalent of a spatial low pass filter that is narrower than the spatial spectrum.

This is the same as passing an audio signal through a low pass filter that is narrower than the bandwidth of the audio

(Sorry, I don't think I answered your real question, but answered the softer image question instead)
post #55 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackmay View Post

Then lower than 1080 resolution lens is smearing out the pixels and the less than perfect alignmen produces wider pixels. The projector resolution is less than 1080.

The MTF is the equivalent of a spatial frequency spectrum. The spatial spectrum shows the rate of variation of the image over an increment of distance. A audio spectrum shows the rate variation of audio over a period of time. MTF multiplies by a constant to normalize the spatial spectrum amplitude.

The projector is reducing the spatial bandwidth of the projector. The smoother image is the result of reducing the spatial by passing the image through the equivalent of a spatial low pass filter that is narrower than the spatial spectrum.

This is the same as passing an audio signal through a low pass filter that is narrower than the bandwidth of the audio

I'm pretty sure that Greg Rogers confirmed that the Pearl could fully resolve 1080i test patterns. And in real world content, I have seen 1 pixel wide detail on the King Kong HD DVD.

There was one review in particular that claimed that the Pearl was rolling off high frequencies, and then there was another review that suggested that overscan may have been the cause. And all of this is assuming that I've been paying close enough attention to get the facts straight, which may or may not be the case, since I've been a little distracted by the Holidays lately.
post #56 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by gremmy View Post

I'm pretty sure that Greg Rogers confirmed that the Pearl could fully resolve 1080i test patterns. And in real world content, I have seen 1 pixel wide detail on the King Kong HD DVD.

There was one review in particular that claimed that the Pearl was rolling off high frequencies, and then there was another review that suggested that overscan may have been the cause. And all of this is assuming that I've been paying close enough attention to get the facts straight, which may or may not be the case, since I've been a little distracted by the Holidays lately.

I don't see how over scan would produce a softer image. Less than ideal alignment of the three panels and a lens with less than sufficient resolution will produce a softer image.
post #57 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randall Morton View Post

Projectors can be used to view a wide variety of source material. While soft may be OK for some movies, it is not good while viewing text. I am using my projector right now to view this webpage. How does the Pearl's sharpness stack up when viewing a desktop on Windows or reading text? I know this is not a concern to many, but it is to me.

The Pearl has an extremely readable 1920x1080 display from a PC (at least using hdmi). One the best I've ever seen.

I really would like some folks to try and define what they mean by sharpness. If they really mean limiting resolution based on frequency charts that's one thing. If they mean edge sharpening as applied to image processing techniques that's completely different. Are people speaking the same language when they use the term "Sharpness"? I think not.
post #58 of 121
Thanks for the answer Tom. I have an RS1 on preorder and was am somewhat concerned about a soft picture from a similar technology. I have never seen the Pearl or an RS1 so I really don't know if it is sharp or not. Seems like a lot of different opinions.
post #59 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by rto View Post

The Pearl had by far, the most natural presentation to my eyes......great blacks and shadow detail, with more than enough apparent resolution; buttery smooth images with a minimum of visible artifacts. Then again, up until very recently, I tended to prefer CRTs over any of the newer digital technologies, so what do I know?

You sure did hit that nail right on the head...

I swore I would never go to a digital projector until someone came out with one that looked as good as my Barcographics 808s. Well guess what... the Pearl does just that.

Now do you want to hear the real kicker? Not only does it do that... but with a Panamorph lense and a new 130" 2.35:1 curved screen with Studiotek 130 material (the same material I was using with the Barco) I get to watch block-buster movies in HD with detail, brightness and yes, just as much sharpness as with the Barco.

I will also add that I work in the A/V field and I fine tune and fix many hi-end theaters per week, I have been to the Runco plant for training and I have seen just about every projector out there from the cheapest of cheap to the most expensive ones. When I look at them all and then come back home and fire up my setup with the Pearl, I can tell you that I am glad I purchased this projector.

Yes, DLP does have a different look, some call it sharper.. I feel it is more digital looking then anything. I am a film fanatic and I that is what I watch on my 130" screen, I do not surf the web in my theater (I use a 19" 16x9 LCD for that), I watch movies and that is why I have a Pearl in mine.

As always... YMMV
post #60 of 121
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tpfarr View Post

The Pearl has an extremely readable 1920x1080 display from a PC (at least using hdmi). One the best I've ever seen.

I really would like some folks to try and define what they mean by sharpness.

Maybe a simple way to look at this...

When a 1920x1080 60Hz PC digital signal is displayed by the Pearl, is it resolving each single pixel, as a LCD PC monitor would with a 1:1 mapping and no overlap or blur seen?

At the panel level it must be, but after convergence does the lens resolve the full image 1080p PC image?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP › Is the Sony Pearl Really Soft , Why ?