Preliminary results of my mini RS1 VW60 shootout - Page 2

Of course. But, other than a fade-to-black, all other scenes will have variations in the amount of light and thus the potential for light reflection

True.

That was funny !!! I was thinking on the same lines!!!!!

good to read the comparison...as I ordered my vw60 yesterday !

Crud I need to file a patent!

I already had some guys rip off my "Magical DLPness" material

Unfortunately, your Dwin CRT, that you just bought used, right now has 0 fl rating cause it doesn't work. Which is why I ditched my HD-700 to go digital. You've got the best blacks available right now - just no nothing else!!

Congratulations and welcome to the Black Pearl club. Your going to love your projector.

In answer to your question, we began having ongoing problems with our Pearl. Convergence, focus problems, the power supply went bad for no reason after the pj had been on for 5 hours (we watched two movies back to back) and took the bulb and several chips with it. They had to also replace the video processor and when we got it back there was another problem, sent it back and when it came back again we noted a loud electrical buzzing/humming noise, reported it (sent Laredo MP3 recordings of the sound along with a written time line description) and got the usual "it's perfectly normal, working within speck" routine. Well, two weeks later, out of the blue and for no reason the pj refused to accept any commands from the remote, the pj refused to shut down and the video processor froze creating a frozen image on the screen that we could not stop! Changed the remote control batteries twice, still no go, tried to shut the pj down using the controls physically located on the pj... NOTHING WORKED! Finally, after we had shut down everything going to the pj, the bulb shut down over 45 minutes later BUT the cooling fan continued running and running and refused to shut down. Finally I had to physically pull the plug to shut the pj off. Several days later I plugged it back in again and after turning on the pj it shut down all on it's own twice within a minute and a half of being turned on! After 4 and a half months of playing pj ping pong with the repair center in Larado and having sent it back three times for numerous differing problems SONY finally agreed to replace it with a Black Pearl. It was like pulling teeth and we had to pay a fee to "upgrade" but it was worth it because I had no confidence that the pj would ever work properly. Sadly, we got a lemon, fortunately from what I have heard our experience was the exception, NOT the rule.

Before the Pearl went belly up it served us well, but as good as it was, and it was a fine projector, the Black Pearl is a definite improvement on a multitude of levels. It is sharper, the convergence was perfect right out of the box and the colors, black levels and contrast are better and the Black Pearl is brighter than it's predecessor. Lord willing, this time we will not have any more problems.

So now we have joined the ranks of the pirates and become Black Pearl owners. All I can say is "Arrr me hearties; yo ho, yo ho, a pirates life for me."

Reio! Why stab at Curt/ He is one of the few commercial CRT places keeping parts, service, etc available. He doesn't exactly live in luxory. If he goes, the sport will have suffered probaby close to a mortal blow.

Interesting re the shots Steve. Lets assume the RS1 has an on/off CR of 15,000 and the Sony $35,000. The difference is slight. Now lets try it with an RS2. Cleary the JVC should equalor win but the difference if any would be very small. Yet to the eye under goood viewing conditions and the right viewing test material, the RS2 appears much err blacker.


In any event, the most blacks I ever watch are at CRT HT meets. The cry is always look at em blacks. At home I watch sports and the blacks look absolutely fine on everything. RSsing , RS2, Sony VPL-vw60, VPL-vw2000. On my 9 inch ref CRT.

I've got a 11S2 coming.

All this stuff is very good. The ones I like the least are the RS1 and then the very good RS2, probably due to the lenses. With a color fix and a better lens, the RS2 would be great I think.The best so far are the 200 and my CRT. When watching, total overall performancebetween the two are about the same with some qualities better in each obviously. Watching normal films too, the viewing panel likes both equally and gets anoyed with my constant switching. At some point they just want to watch the porn uninterrupted. A joke.

I have no idea why people complain about the lens on the RS1/RS2. They are in the league of all good projectors. Mine does not display color fringing, can be adjusted for nearly perfect convergence at 60-70% of the screen and seems tack sharp, sharper than the Pearl lens. I have owned Sharp 12K dlp (same lens as 20K) and many other "fine" lens machines and none offered much better lens quality. As for a CRT having better lens or sharpness... give me a break

On comparing Sony's inflated 30K:1 contrast with iris trick to native RS1 contrast, again... give me a break

The way the eye works if you have bright highlights in the scene and dark background, which is the way most movies are shot to increase the perceived intra-scene contrast, then RS1 is a winner vs. VW60, 30K contrast ratio and all...

If Pearl has slightly lower absolute black, then this is due to clamping down of the iris and to me has little real world value as I don't watch a black wall, but rather a movie, which never is 0 IRE.

I have seen VW60 in excellent setup and have owned two Pearls and as nice as they are, the brightness compression from the iris is not for me. RS1 comes across as a more open, cinematic projector.

To me iris tricks are like breathing through a straw, sure you can do it, but why?

The corners look awful in the RS1. Are they generally that bad or is that just a fairly poor sample (or is it a photo artefact)?

Its not in the range of a good lens projector. Compare the image in sharpness or firmness if you will to a VPL-vw200, a Marantz 11S2, a say Sim2 HT3000 and then go back to an RS1 or RS2. I have, many many times. You want it to make no difference but it really does. Its like a camera. With an average lens a great photograpgher can make a great picture. But give the same photographer a Leica and the magnificant happens. Try it instead of saying it can't be.

Respectfully Mark, I would have to disagree that it's like a camera. Film has a resolution in the 20M+ range if we are just talking pixels, (forget the color depth),medium and large format photography is in 40M+, so yes there a great lens would and does make a difference. Our pj's are just barely at 2M, not exactly pushing the envelope.

The projectors you mentioned are ALL 2-3 times the price range. As such, as great as they are they are not a fair comparison. Nevertheless, the differences you attribute to the lens might be more of the difference in technology of DLP and LCOS. Still, I have seen Marantz flagship and RS1 in direct comparison fed the same material and I did not find the lens to be a decisive factor for me. Nor did the other AVS forum members that were present at that shootout. I found other parameters more important. However to each his own, it's why we all drive different cars right?

Wait I thought everybody drove Hondas.

I'd be more concerned if they weren't forum members. There is far far too much following a leader here. safety in numbers.

No one including me is saying the Rs1/2 are not good values for the money. But having a lens comparable to the better stuff would make it yes several thousands more expensive but would also make a world class projector (that and a CMS).

Why argue with Mark?

He has admitted that he can't identify what difference the lens makes.

I tend to agree with you . I see zero problems with the lens on my HD1. It resolves down to the subpixel level and I see no abberation , diffraction or obvious flaring issues. I'd be interested in knowing what the supposed problems are that indicate the lens is a majorly limiting factor with the RS1.

So why vw200 has a better lens than vw60 if it is going to provide any improvements?

And I'd like to know how someone can judge the MTF being sub-par and that being down to the lens without something meaningful to compare it with. I hear that the lens on the RS1 is "sub-par". I don't hear anything meaningful explaining how we arrived at that conclusion.


I fail to see how a lens that is entirely capable of resolving down to the individual pixels and gaps between those pixels can be regarded as lacking in MTF. The lens only has to resolve down to the level of the pixels on the panel across the width of the lens. Which it does. The second issue is how well the lens transmits light and this isn't something we can reliably know unless we take the lens off and analyse it on its own terms outside of the system of the projector itself....which kind of defeats the point.

All that is really being said when people reach for MTF is that a theoretical lens that transmitted more of the available light on the RS1 than the original lens would be an improvement in this regard. Improving the resolving power is moot as you only have to resolve the panel which the original lens manages already.


So all that's being said here is that a better lens on a projector would perform better than an inferior lens: which you can say about any lens and projector.

From that somewhat moot point we've now arrived at the lens on the RS1 being "sub-par".

Do I hear anyone saying the lens can't resolve the panel?
Do I hear anyone saying the lens has obvious abberation ?
Do I hear anyone saying the lens is massively "slow"?
Do I hear anyone saying the lens has objectionable flaring?

All I hear is that a lens with a better MTF would offer "improvements" which as I've said you can say for any projector or lens as there is no such thing as a lens with perfect MTF except for possibly one constructed by gravity.... be a while until we get those I think.

Matters little to me but it would seem many who have seen many different projectors and many who view/review PJs for a living feel the rs1/2 (especially the RS2) are world class projectors so I guess they are either:

a) wrong because you say so

b) simply have a different opinion than you which last time I checked is ok to have in this world. Your opinion is just that- your opinion.

It's amusing to me that a member here has said he has compared the rs1 to highly valued single chip dlps and said he didn't see much of a difference in the lens and you are basically saying he is wrong. Also amusing you earlier brought up a member here who I guess used to make lenses to back up some point you had about the lens quality in the RS2 yet that very same member thinks the RS2 is the best digital pj he has seen and has said he plans to buy one. I guess to his professional lens making self, the RS2 lens is just fine.

Whatever though...again, it isn't like I care.

A better lens would not only have better resolving power but also better contrast (ansi), better unformity or less of light fall out near the edge and corners, less aberrations and distortion. Some even have better transparency for better light transmission.

Which you can say about any lens.

My point is that criticising the lens in terms of MTF only really applies to resolution and how well the lens transmits light. MTF doesn't readily quantify things like flaring and optical distortion. Its a subjective measure of contrast vs resolution: how much detail it resolves vs how well it transmits light across the lens surface.

The original lens doesn't have significant problems with resolution or optical distortions. The only thing you can say by bringing MTF into it is that a lens with better transmissive properties would transmit more light and therefor be better IN THIS REGARD. And this is a totally moot argument as you can say this about ANY lens with regard to transmissive properties.

Improving optical distortion and resolution will not bring any particular gains with regard to the system that the lens is used in (in this case the RS1) . Why not? Because the RS1 does not exhibit problems in these area with the original lens.

Criticising the lens in terms of MTF is nebulous in the extreme. I'm just wondering what point people are trying to make by repeatedly stating " a better lens would be better" You might as well say a higher resolution panel would improve the RS1 for all the relevance it has.

It is the same kind of argument made by those shilling $2,000 speaker cable.

Sure, it is impossible to measure any difference using those expensive cables. But, if you are a true audiophile/videophile snob, you can hear/see the difference. At least that is what they tell themselves. This argument is especially appealing to those who happen to sell this kind of equipment.

Mark, is it fair to say that you feel that it is very hard to quantify how these lenses actually perform comparably via objective standards (CA, distortions, etc)?

I tend to agree that logically if two lenses dont show any significant difference in CA or distortions that they dont differ in performance. I had a near perfect HD1 in regard to the lens. I have had a near perfect 15S1 and 11S2, also, at least as far as CA and geometric distortions go.

I am sure that the "flagship" Marantz (was that an 11S1? - when was that comparison made?) that is referenced above also likely had a similar objectively performing lens.

Unlike with $2000 speaker cables, however, there are distinctively different looking images that are provided by the RS1 and the 15S1, and I dont mean just in black level and brightness.

It could be argued that its because of the differences in technology between DLP and LCoS and that would probably be a decent argument that accounts for some of the difference but what about the people who still own a Sharp 20k who have attested to the perceivable differences between just it and the Marantz 15S1?

To say that is the same argument by those shilling $2000 cables might be literally correct but I believe it is incorrect in spirit as unlike with the speaker cables there IS a difference in PQ of some of these machines (albeit I dont know how much of that is attributable just to the lens.)

No question that different projectors have different looks. I didn't mean to suggest otherwise.

Mark (and anyone else) is free to prefer one projector to another. I will not debate that preference.

But, if someone argues that it is the lens (or some other component) that is responsible for an element of picture quality, I hope that I am not alone in being sceptical of that view if it cannot be explained.

Again, I am not saying that the RS1 can't be improved by a better lens. Tom Sites suggested that ANSI contrast would improve marginally, for example.

Without pointing to any lens on any of these pj's, keep in mind that we are dealing with zoom lens. A better designed zoom and glass have wider sweet zoom range within its range for corner/edge focus/abberations/shading and resolution. Zoom lens can be extremly expensive if well made.

The only way to compare pictures like this is to also match exactly the peak lumen output on both projectors. If one is bighter than the other then pictures like this mean nothing.