Reviews of Marantz VP4001? - Page 3

That would be the same exact rating as the Sharp Z3000 fan, probably because it is the same one. I would love to get a look at a Marantz unit because I'm a little skeptical. Every single spec is exactly the same from the throw distance to the contrast ratings, to the fan noise ratings, to the brightness, to the iris setup, to the digital image shift. Exactly the same. If the dmd in the Marantz is indeed different then why is the contrast rating precisely the same as the Z3000? Don't get me wrong, I hope that reports of improved lens quality are true but so far these reports have been from owners who did not own a Z3000 or DT500 therefore have no frame of reference. If the VP4001 is indeed a Z3000 with better optics I would buy it in a heartbeat but I have a nagging suspicion that this is just a rebadged Sharp.

Moe

I know these questions have came up more than once and I really don't know what more information there is or one can get. I spoke to 3 people at Marantz and TI who assured me that the lens were Konica-Minolta and the DMD was HD2+ DC3 and it was not a slap on sticker or re-badging (I asked directly). It was explicitly stated that the unit was engineered from the ground up by Marantz using some of the same OEM that "other" companies use. Marantz even in their marketing stated they use technology which was originally developed for their S1. I think a few others here have also received the same information. Anyway, the proof is in the pudding and I do not think anyone can argue about its tremendous PQ. Whether this is different than the Z3000, I cannot say.

I am not sure what benefit Marantz would get from misleading the public or putting their name on a piece of equipment and selling it for more than twice the price at $4000+.

Well, I suggest you email Marantz support, it sounds like a lot of us are getting similar information from them. I had a support thread with an APMM from over there, so it wasn't just some random CSR. Either that or someone needs to do a side by side test to confirm. I will have mine soon in the SF Bay Area (specifically the south bay) if anyone has a z3000 and wants to do a comparison once and for all.

I think we should start an official thread, this one is starting to sound like one

Moe, If you look over at another thread started by John Clark, you will see that it was just mentioned that the Sharp MI which has a HD2+ has the same CR as the MII which has the DC3. I don't think all the specs in the world can tell the true story, it comes down to how everything is implemented. And as I have learned, most of the time the optics are the real decider.

I hope you guys are right because if it is indeed a high quality lens and all like Marantz has been saying this would be one heck of a pj at this price. I spent considerable time with both the Sharp Z3000 and DT500 in my theater and enjoyed both of them very much but they both had a softish image focus that I just could not accept. If it is as sharp as you guys say I might have to try one out. Anybody in Massachusetts own this projector?

Moe

Those look pretty good. I'll try to take pics once I have it up and set up. It arrives on Friday, so I'll probably be good to go sometime this weekend. I'll keep looking for people in the SF Bay Area with a Z3000 who would be willing to do a side by side comparison.

I was going to fall for Mitsubishi HC3100 (if Cedia didn´t suggest otherwise), but judging for what people says, this one could be some serious alternative! Here in Spain the Marantz is like 700 US$ cheaper than the Mits.

Plain tech numbers, seems the Marantz is better than the Mits: 1200 v. 1000 ANSI; 6500 v 4500 CR. Plus it has way less vertical offset and shorter throw that the HC3100, which suits me better.

Not sure how those two compare on gamma and brightness uniformity Also, being the Marantz "similar" to the Sharp X ZV3000 also makes me doubt. I thought that the Mits was better than the Sharp (which also was dimmer than the Mits). Again, I don´t know how much difference the Konica-Minolta and other refinements could make...

So, which one do you think it would throw the better image, based on your experience? (I know this cannot be properly answered without proper examination of the pair, but, whatever)

What we need is a review with a stripped unit

Thanks to everyone!

Thanks for the clarification, Pratticus! Anyway, the mystery continues, as the PJ seems to have been discontinued on Marantz website...

If you google, it is still there:
http://us.marantz.com/Products/1908.asp

It seems they removed the S4 and VP4001 from the main projector list page and pushing the higher priced ones again. I don't get what they are doing but I am really glad I got in on this PJ. They must be loosing big time on this PJ given what they are selling for and what they paid to manufacture with the K-M lens and DC3 DMD.

This is not true the 12k is speced at 5,000:1 and measures 3,500:1 d65 calibrated. the 12kII is speced at 7,000:1, and measures 4,600:1 d65 calibrated

Whether it is true or not, I can only point you back to Lawguy's response to you. I cannot say who is correct.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...6&postcount=24

Any new owners? Info? Pics?

Still debating on getting this or spending more for the hd80.

Thanks,

bdbaba

I just took the plunge. We will see when I get it. I currently have a Mits HC3000 for reference.

Everytime I watch an hd dvd thru my htpc i am floored at the PQ, Contrast - 300 in HD is Simply Amazing You Wont Be disappointed.

Powerdvd 7.3
Hdmi output
106" Da-lite screen

Thanks Everyone--

chexi1--looking forward to hearing what you think it looks like in comparison to your Mits.

Has anyone been able to compare it to one of the Sharps yet--DT500 or XVZ3K?

bdbaba

I´m also very interested in what will chexi1 say on the marantz vs mits "battle"

Excellent news! I suspected this should work since this part of the design was not changed. Do you know if the warranty will be voided if the XV-Z3000 is used?

An HD80 vs. VP4001 comparison would be great as well.

One thing I am not looking forward to is the fact that the lens on the Marantz is not centered like on the Mits. I believe that my mount should otherwise work as placed, and I really do not want to move it. Oh well, we will see how bad it is in a few days.

Does anyone have a review on this PJ. When I use the PC calc. it shows that at 12+ feet back from the screen I can get a 106" screen. But the lumens would be 12 ftl at that distance and screen size. My sp4805 at that same distance with a 92" screen is around 19-21 ftl in eco mode.

Does anyone have the spec's as far as lumens or ftl shooting to a 106" scr from 12' at D65 calibration. I think my 4805 is around 365-385 lumes now in ECO mode.

The 4805 is a light cannon and thus a ND2 filter is usually needed when the bulb is new. ft/l also depends on the screen gain. I had a Da-lite HCCV screen with my 4805 (0.9-1.0 gain) and still needed an ND2 filter, but I now have a Wilsonart DW (1.2-1.3 gain) with my VP4001 and no ND2 filter needed.

So what you're saying is that this would not be a good choice to use for watching sports with some ambient light coming in, correct? I was looking at a Mits. HD1000u, Benq W500 or Epson Home Cinema 400 in part because there were comments from owners who previously owned a 4805 that their new projector is much brighter and better for sports than the 4805. My old 4805 was hardly what I would call a light cannon for viewing during the daytime unless I had the lights off in my basement HT room and at least one of the three basement well windows blacked out.

Thanks, but I was looking for a response that was a bit more specific to actual projectors and circumstances than "If it is, it is. If it isn't, it isn't." Also, since manufacturer's lumens ratings don't have any particular correlation with a fixed standard, saying "If x is enough, buy it" doesn't help when "x" is an unknown variable.

In particular, I was asking Tradewinds or anyone else who has experience with both the 4805 and the VP4001 for a comparison of the brightness of those two projectors with regard to a specific type of viewing, namely sports. I greatly appreciate responses and opinions from anyone who actually has the knowledge and experience to provide some relevant thoughts on the issue of which I am inquiring. Thanks.