Epson Debuts HDR Projectors at CE Week 2016 - Page 10 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 367Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #271 of 752 Old 06-26-2016, 07:54 AM
 
Seegs108's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 10,827
Mentioned: 48 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5167 Post(s)
Liked: 2593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulnight View Post
Hello Seegs.

It seems you misunderstood Ekki's german.

Here is what Ekki wrote about the contrast of the Sony WV520ES translated to english:



Original in german:


As you can read, 17000:1 is the on-off contrast with minimal zoom (calibrated). In fact Ekki does not give the number with manual iris closed for the Sony VW520ES. You can expect a much higher number when closing the iris additionally. (I personally measured on my test unit: 25000:1 with zoom min, iris fully closed).
I'm sorry, you are right. There's still over a 20% increase in on/off contrast with the MUCH cheaper RS400. In the US you can buy 3+ RS400s for one 665ES. I just don't see the value in the 665ES in the US. It's performance does not justify the cost.

I hope you keep the 520ES long enough (roughly 1000 hours) to see how much of a decline in on/off contrast your unit will lose due to SXRD panel degradation. If you do, please keep us informed.

Last edited by Seegs108; 06-26-2016 at 07:59 AM.
Seegs108 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #272 of 752 Old 06-26-2016, 08:18 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Soulnight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,272
Mentioned: 192 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 931 Post(s)
Liked: 1367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seegs108 View Post
It's not really a fair comparison when you factor in the price difference. If you compare the X9000 to the 520ES, which is closer in price but the JVC still being cheaper, it's 43000:1 and 320:1 ANSI vs 13500:1 and 410:1 ANSI. By most accounts the JVC looks better with HDR due to the slightly brightness, better on/off contrast, bigger color gamut and an impressive eshift implementation paired with better lens quality over the Sony.

If you check out this site and plug the numbers in (I tend to plug in a gamma of 2.2) you'll see all but the brightest images (aka the Nurse scene) will look better in terms of intra-scene contrast on the JVC.

http://res18h39.bitballoon.com/intrascene
Hello Seegs.

I knew this website already and like it very much.

However, you should be carefull how you interpret the results.

The number given for each picture after gamma correction "Projector A Luminance"-->"Average", for example for the "Nurse picture" 24,6% with a gamma of 2,2 is also called "ADL" for "Average Display Luminance".

So proposed on the calculator are following pictures (with a gamma of 2,2):

- Gladiator: 3,37% ADL
- Saruman: 2,53% ADL
- Starfield: 0,19% ADL
- Nurse: 24,6% ADL



You can read the well documented thread on ADL/brightness study of movies here on avsforum:
https://www.avsforum.com/forum/24-dig...project-6.html

The results for a study over 53 movies has shown:

90% of all movie pictures have a brightness below 20% (ADL=% of white)
80% of all movie pictures have a brightness below 13%
50% of all movie pictures have a brightness below 5%
The average brightness/ADL of all analyzed movies is 8%

It means that more than half the pictures of all movies are brighter than the pictures: Gladiator (3,37% ADL), Saruman (2,53% ADL), Starfield (0,19% ADL)

I have plotted the contrast curve behind the "online calculator" of the SONY VW520ES, JVC DLA-X5000 and JVC DLA-X9000 using the average On-OFF and ANSI contrast numbers provided by Cine4home.

I have then compared it to the repartition of picture having a certain ADL.

Here is the results in image:

Sony VPL-VW520ES vs JVC DLA-X5000:
Only for 10% of all movies pictures (the darkest) below 0,8% ADL brightness, does the JVC DLA-X5000 have a better contrast. For the other brighter 90%, the Sony VPL-VW520ES has a better contrast.



Sony VPL-VW520ES vs JVC DLA-X9000:
Only for 38% of all movies pictures (the darkest) below 3,4% ADL brightness, does the JVC DLA-X9000 have a better contrast. For the other brighter 62%, the Sony VPL-VW520ES has a better contrast.


Cheers,
Soulnight

ps: I also attached the excel sheet in the zip file so that everyone can play with it and other projectors. :-)
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Sony VW520ES vs JVC DLA-X5000.jpg
Views:	688
Size:	154.1 KB
ID:	1515962   Click image for larger version

Name:	Sony VW520ES vs JVC DLA-X9000.jpg
Views:	680
Size:	146.7 KB
ID:	1515970  
Attached Files
File Type: zip Contrast-comparison-adl-Sony-vs-JVC.zip (36.1 KB, 16 views)
d.j. and mmdd like this.

Last edited by Soulnight; 06-26-2016 at 08:25 AM.
Soulnight is online now  
post #273 of 752 Old 06-26-2016, 08:22 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Soulnight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,272
Mentioned: 192 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 931 Post(s)
Liked: 1367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seegs108 View Post
I'm sorry, you are right. There's still over a 20% increase in on/off contrast with the MUCH cheaper RS400. In the US you can buy 3+ RS400s for one 665ES. I just don't see the value in the 665ES in the US. It's performance does not justify the cost.

I hope you keep the 520ES long enough (roughly 1000 hours) to see how much of a decline in on/off contrast your unit will lose due to SXRD panel degradation. If you do, please keep us informed.
I only got a Sony VPL-VW520ES to review on my blog. I could not keep it. But I am with you. The new Sony needs to be followed to see if they loose contrast like the older one, and also to check if Gamma and color gamut do not shrink over time.

I personally currently own an Epson EH-LS10000. And I will compare it to the new Epson 5040UB when I get a unit to review.
mmdd and kohe321 like this.
Soulnight is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #274 of 752 Old 06-26-2016, 09:01 AM
 
Seegs108's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 10,827
Mentioned: 48 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5167 Post(s)
Liked: 2593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulnight View Post
You can read the well documented thread on ADL/brightness study of movies here on avsforum:
https://www.avsforum.com/forum/24-dig...project-6.html
As you're aware from that thread, many many movies have APL content that low and for a lot of frames. The trend in movies lately has been darker and darker and I believe it will continue to be that way. As your graphs point out, the JVC doesn't fall too far behind the Sony with higher APL content. That difference is most definitely negligible and only something one might be able to see if the two images were set up side by side. But the difference below 1% as you've shown is massive and is most definitely something visible one does not need to see side-by-side with the Sony to know it's much better. I've always said that a small deficit in intra-scene image contrast with higher APL content is perfectly fine as a sacrifice to gain a huge advantage in intra-scene contrast with low APL content. No one would say a current generation JVC lacks "pop" or a three dimensional look to the image with higher APL content. But people would say that the Sony is lacking when it comes to lower APL level content. That's why I and several others feel the JVC is the best all-around performer.

To get things back on topic a bit. The 5040 should be a decent step up over the 5030 in all-around performance, but it's going to need a lot to beat the RS400 which will be available for only hundreds of dollars more street price. I think it will be a tough decision for many to make and I think it will ultimately come down to how close the 5040 can get to the RS400 that will sway people one way or the other.
Seegs108 is offline  
post #275 of 752 Old 06-26-2016, 09:11 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
WynsWrld98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Puyallup, WA
Posts: 3,065
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 545 Post(s)
Liked: 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seegs108 View Post
To get things back on topic a bit. The 5040 should be a decent step up over the 5030 in all-around performance, but it's going to need a lot to beat the RS400 which will be available for only hundreds of dollars more street price. I think it will be a tough decision for many to make and I think it will ultimately come down to how close the 5040 can get to the RS400 that will sway people one way or the other.
Street prices are THAT much lower than MSRP on the RS400 (??) considering MSRP of the RS400 is $1000 higher than the 5040 plus add-in cost of 3D RF and 3D glasses for the RS400 (for people like me that use 3D) to give an apples to apples comparison plus JVC lamps costing more than Epson lamps and that widens the pricing gap.
WynsWrld98 is offline  
post #276 of 752 Old 06-26-2016, 09:30 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
darrellh44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: North Dallas
Posts: 1,532
Mentioned: 22 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1032 Post(s)
Liked: 495
Quote:
Originally Posted by WynsWrld98 View Post
Street prices are THAT much lower than MSRP on the RS400 (??) considering MSRP of the RS400 is $1000 higher than the 5040 plus add-in cost of 3D RF and 3D glasses for the RS400 (for people like me that use 3D) to give an apples to apples comparison plus JVC lamps costing more than Epson lamps and that widens the pricing gap.
WCG capability also widens the gap.
darrellh44 is offline  
post #277 of 752 Old 06-26-2016, 09:40 AM
 
Seegs108's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 10,827
Mentioned: 48 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5167 Post(s)
Liked: 2593
Quote:
Originally Posted by WynsWrld98 View Post
Street prices are THAT much lower than MSRP on the RS400 (??) considering MSRP of the RS400 is $1000 higher than the 5040 plus add-in cost of 3D RF and 3D glasses for the RS400 (for people like me that use 3D) to give an apples to apples comparison plus JVC lamps costing more than Epson lamps and that widens the pricing gap.
My guess is street price will be within $600-$700 and depending on how the 5040 actually performs the RS400 may seem like a better choice given you're already looking to invest $2500+. It's probably going to be like $2500 or $2600 street on the Epson and right now you can find RS400's for ~$3200. Like I said, it depends on where the unit measures in at. My guess is that Epson won't shoot themselves in the foot and outperform their LS10000 or it's successor if one comes and that would mean there's going to be a decent gap in contrast performance between these two units. So we'll have to see where Epson has decided to let the 5040 perform.

Last edited by Seegs108; 06-26-2016 at 09:43 AM.
Seegs108 is offline  
post #278 of 752 Old 06-26-2016, 10:06 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Soulnight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,272
Mentioned: 192 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 931 Post(s)
Liked: 1367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seegs108 View Post
As you're aware from that thread, many many movies have APL content that low and for a lot of frames. The trend in movies lately has been darker and darker and I believe it will continue to be that way. As your graphs point out, the JVC doesn't fall too far behind the Sony with higher APL content. That difference is most definitely negligible and only something one might be able to see if the two images were set up side by side. But the difference below 1% as you've shown is massive and is most definitely something visible one does not need to see side-by-side with the Sony to know it's much better. I've always said that a small deficit in intra-scene image contrast with higher APL content is perfectly fine as a sacrifice to gain a huge advantage in intra-scene contrast with low APL content. No one would say a current generation JVC lacks "pop" or a three dimensional look to the image with higher APL content. But people would say that the Sony is lacking when it comes to lower APL level content. That's why I and several others feel the JVC is the best all-around performer.
I am more than aware about the ADL Study thread:
https://www.avsforum.com/forum/24-dig...project-6.html

I participated very actively with @darinp2 .

We did then a very extensive study of the brightness ADL% of 57 movies on our blog, both old and new movies. So we know very well the brightness distribution in true content.

You should differentiate when you write from which JVC you are speaking of.

The JVC DLA-RS400 is clearly outperformed on 90% of movies pictures. And even where it has an edge on the SONY VW520ES, it's a really small one, not really visible in the everyday life.

However, I totally agree with you that the JVC DLA-X9000 outperfoms the Sony VW520ES on 38% of the content ( on the darker side) found in movies. And this will give the higher end JVC the overall better pictures since it is more difficult perceive contrast differences on brighter content.

This was just to say that if the new Epson 5040UB can hold it#s own against the SONY VW665ES, then it can definetly hold it's own against the JVC DLA-RS400 (X5000). Never said it should be compared to the higher end JVC DLA-X7000 (RS500) and X9000 (RS500).

Soulnight
darrellh44 and d.j. like this.

Last edited by Soulnight; 06-26-2016 at 10:17 AM.
Soulnight is online now  
post #279 of 752 Old 06-26-2016, 10:19 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 23,130
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4156 Post(s)
Liked: 2384
Did you ever post those test patterns Soulnight?
stanger89 is offline  
post #280 of 752 Old 06-26-2016, 10:44 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
zombie10k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 12,698
Mentioned: 158 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5225 Post(s)
Liked: 5460
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulnight View Post

This was just to say that if the new Epson 5040UB can hold it#s own against the SONY VW665ES, then it can definetly hold it's own against the JVC DLA-RS400 (X5000). Never said it should be compared to the higher end JVC DLA-X7000 (RS500) and X9000 (RS500).

Soulnight
that would be assuming they made a noticeable increase in native from their current 5K:1 on the 5030. You think they are going to approach the native of the LS10K and potentially cannibalize sales of their flagship model?
zombie10k is online now  
post #281 of 752 Old 06-26-2016, 10:54 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
darrellh44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: North Dallas
Posts: 1,532
Mentioned: 22 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1032 Post(s)
Liked: 495
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seegs108 View Post
My guess is street price will be within $600-$700 and depending on how the 5040 actually performs the RS400 may seem like a better choice given you're already looking to invest $2500+. It's probably going to be like $2500 or $2600 street on the Epson and right now you can find RS400's for ~$3200. Like I said, it depends on where the unit measures in at. My guess is that Epson won't shoot themselves in the foot and outperform their LS10000 or it's successor if one comes and that would mean there's going to be a decent gap in contrast performance between these two units. So we'll have to see where Epson has decided to let the 5040 perform.
It makes absolutely no sense for Epson to neuter the 5040/6040 performance to keep from stepping on sales of the LS10000. The LS10000 has been out for 2 years and has pretty much had its day in the sun from a sales perspective. Yes, JVC made the mistake last year of having little differentiation between models, but we're talking two years apart and other big differences in this case.

As far as the LS10000's successor (assuming it comes out this year), it will at the very least have a laser light engine and updated LCOQ panels to differentiate it from its new LCD models. The laser will have a significant impact on HDR performance over a mechanical dynamic iris. Also in terms of usage model for many, the longevity and stability of the laser light is a very big deal, unlike users such of yourself that are members of the "Projector of the Month" club. I'm sure it will also be full of other unannounced goodies that will further differentiate it from its new LCD models.

I know you guys are worried about Epson coming in and giving the JVCs a run for their money, but life will go on one way or another.
d.j. and kohe321 like this.

Last edited by darrellh44; 06-26-2016 at 11:02 AM.
darrellh44 is offline  
post #282 of 752 Old 06-26-2016, 10:59 AM
 
Seegs108's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 10,827
Mentioned: 48 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5167 Post(s)
Liked: 2593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulnight View Post
The JVC DLA-RS400 is clearly outperformed on 90% of movies pictures. And even where it has an edge on the SONY VW520ES, it's a really small one, not really visible in the everyday life.
Where you see that it "clearly" outperforms the RS400, I see that it "just barely" outperforms the RS400 according to your graph. Let's not kid ourselves here. While I agree there is definite validity to a scientific approach and that numbers definitely tell a larger story than what our eyes tell us, I also think that our eyes are far less sensitive to contrast changes that these meters will indicate and that goes doubly so for higher APL content. Our eyes aren't all that great at differentiating contrast gradients when we're given a lot of light information; ie higher APL level content. But we can sense a large amount of contrast when we're given less light information; ie lower APL level content. This is why there's a general consensus that any one of the current generation JVCs do not look anywhere near as far behind as the graph shows (and even then it really isn't that much of a difference) with higher APL level content. I have personally compared a Sony VPL-VW1100ES and a JVC DLA-X500 side-by-side in the same room. The Sony should CLEARLY have a visible advantage given it's higher ANSI contrast (~600:1) and relatively high on/off contrast performance (~13000:1) when brightness matched against an X500 (320:1 and 27000:1) but guess what? Me and several viewers had a very difficult time saying which had more contrast in higher APL level scenes but we did notice a large advantage with the JVC with lower APL level content by a very good margin. Darin would agree with me here and has done several times in the past. That's why he loves JVC projectors.
seanbryan and DavidHir like this.
Seegs108 is offline  
post #283 of 752 Old 06-26-2016, 11:02 AM
 
Seegs108's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 10,827
Mentioned: 48 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5167 Post(s)
Liked: 2593
Quote:
Originally Posted by darrellh44 View Post
It makes absolutely no sense for Epson to neuter the 5040/6040 performance to keep from stepping on sales of the LS10000. The LS10000 has been out for 2 years and has pretty much had its day in the sun from a sales perspective. Yes, JVC made the mistake last year of having little differentiation between models, but we're talking two years apart and other big differences in this case.
Sure it does. Because if they do come out with an LS10000 sucessor they're going to have raise the bar even further if they want it to sell. Considering they've had their R-LCD technology in the works for the better part of a decade now and that was all the performance they were able to squeeze out of it at a competitive price to the JVCs and Sony's I highly doubt they have a lot of room left for improvement. Obviously this is my opinion so we'll have to wait and see what happens. But again, I highly doubt they can raise the bar THAT much to warrant people buying that model over a higher-than-LS10000 performing unit costing ~$2500 street.

Quote:
Originally Posted by darrellh44 View Post
Also in terms of usage model for many, the longevity and stability of the laser light is a very big deal, unlike users such of yourself that are members of the "Projector of the Month" club. I'm sure it will also be full of other unannounced goodies that will further differentiate it from its new LCD models.
Umm, I had an X500 for two years before moving to the RS500. I plan on keeping the RS500 for two years as well. I just happen to usually have one or two other units here to play around with. Most people who post on this forum only keep units for 2 or 3 years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by darrellh44 View Post
The laser will have a significant impact on HDR performance over a mechanical dynamic iris.
Why?

Quote:
Originally Posted by darrellh44 View Post
I know you guys are worried about Epson coming in and giving the JVCs a run for their money, but life will go on one way or another.
Not at all. Because if they do, it only means they'll have to raise the bar even higher. Which they will and that means us consumers end up better in the end because of it. I've said many times if the LS10000 outperformed the JVCs I would have switched ships long ago. But it didn't from what I saw. Twice. First against an X500 and then against an RS500. It was only able to match the JVCs in a couple areas and under performed in a few other key areas. I did like the Epson's dynamic laser dimming implementation better than JVC's dynamic iris, however.

Last edited by Seegs108; 06-26-2016 at 11:35 AM.
Seegs108 is offline  
post #284 of 752 Old 06-26-2016, 11:51 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
darrellh44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: North Dallas
Posts: 1,532
Mentioned: 22 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1032 Post(s)
Liked: 495
Quote:
Originally Posted by darrellh44 View Post
The laser will have a significant impact on HDR performance over a mechanical dynamic iris.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seegs108 View Post
Why?
I have no first-hand experience with lasers and HDR, so you probably know better than me. I would guess that it has to do with a lot of the same reasons why you currently like the LS10000's dynamic iris over the JVCs. The reasons I can remember off the top of my head are 1) laser modulation is faster, and 2) it doesn't suffer from aperature edge diffraction when dailing in lower APLs. It makes sense that starting with much higher lumens for HDR that a mechanical aperature could get in the way of achieving lower APLs.
kohe321 likes this.
darrellh44 is offline  
post #285 of 752 Old 06-26-2016, 12:02 PM
 
Seegs108's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 10,827
Mentioned: 48 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5167 Post(s)
Liked: 2593
Quote:
Originally Posted by darrellh44 View Post
I have no first-hand experience with lasers and HDR, so you probably know better than me. I would guess that it has to do with a lot of the same reasons why you currently like the LS10000's dynamic iris over the JVCs. The reasons I can remember off the top of my head are 1) laser modulation is faster, and 2) it doesn't suffer from aperature edge diffraction when dailing in lower APLs. It makes sense that starting with much higher lumens for HDR that a mechanical aperature could get in the way of achieving lower APLs.
edit

Last edited by Seegs108; 01-10-2017 at 10:19 AM.
Seegs108 is offline  
post #286 of 752 Old 06-26-2016, 12:02 PM
Senior Member
 
kohe321's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Norway
Posts: 427
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 336 Post(s)
Liked: 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by darrellh44 View Post
I have no first-hand experience with lasers and HDR, so you probably know better than me. I would guess that it has to do with a lot of the same reasons why you currently like the LS10000's dynamic iris over the JVCs. The reasons I can remember off the top of my head are 1) laser modulation is faster, and 2) it doesn't suffer from aperature edge diffraction when dailing in lower APLs. It makes sense that starting with much higher lumens for HDR that a mechanical aperature could get in the way of achieving lower APLs.
I have read about mechanical iris systems that are as quick as laser modulation systems, where the mechanical opening can adjust between all its available "stops" on a frame-to-frame basis. But as far as I understand, these are very expensive to implement in a good and proper way, and you still have the issue with internal reflections or aperture edge diffraction?

So yeah, simply dimming or strengthening the lightsource itself depending on how much light each frame contains is obviously the most effective and elegant way to handle this. Besides, it's also nice to strike one more mechanical wear and tear component off the list from the projector...

Edit: Seegs108 beat me to it...
kohe321 is offline  
post #287 of 752 Old 06-26-2016, 12:05 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
darrellh44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: North Dallas
Posts: 1,532
Mentioned: 22 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1032 Post(s)
Liked: 495
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seegs108 View Post
It is faster than some dynamic irises, but not all. Delta has a mechanical dynamic iris that is just as fast. It an electromagnetic motor that's attached to a ultra low mass actuator. It's also placed before the DMD to avoid as much light diffractions as possible. The device can be programmed to use over 250 unique positions and is fast enough to go from fully open to fully closed within the time of a single frame transition, even with 60p content. So it's as fast as you'd ever need it to be. The reason I liked Epson's was due to its lower contrast multiplier compared to the JVCs implementation. It simply engaged less and therefore you saw it working less.
How much for this Delta projector?
darrellh44 is offline  
post #288 of 752 Old 06-26-2016, 12:07 PM
 
Seegs108's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 10,827
Mentioned: 48 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5167 Post(s)
Liked: 2593
Quote:
Originally Posted by darrellh44 View Post
How much for this Delta projector?
It's used in MANY Delta projectors. I'd say the cheapest one I know of is the Sharp XV-Z15000. That unit had an MSRP of $1999. That's about the starting price for most projectors that use some form of optical dynamic contrast. But it's also used in projectors that range in price from a little to a lot more. For instance you can also find it in the XV-Z17000, Runco LS-1/3/5, LS10i, LS12i, Digital Projection Highlite Cine 260HC, Sim2 Lumis units, Sim2 Nero units and a few more.

Last edited by Seegs108; 06-26-2016 at 12:14 PM.
Seegs108 is offline  
post #289 of 752 Old 06-26-2016, 12:10 PM
 
Seegs108's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 10,827
Mentioned: 48 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5167 Post(s)
Liked: 2593
Quote:
Originally Posted by kohe321 View Post
I have read about mechanical iris systems that are as quick as laser modulation systems, where the mechanical opening can adjust between all its available "stops" on a frame-to-frame basis. But as far as I understand, these are very expensive to implement in a good and proper way, and you still have the issue with internal reflections or aperture edge diffraction?

So yeah, simply dimming or strengthening the lightsource itself depending on how much light each frame contains is obviously the most effective and elegant way to handle this. Besides, it's also nice to strike one more mechanical wear and tear component off the list from the projector...

Edit: Seegs108 beat me to it...
Yes, you read it from me in another thread.

The device itself is not expensive. It's a simple electromagnetic device attached to a thin piece of aluminum. Creating a good dynamic iris algorithm might be expensive and because they're intellectual properties if any one of these manufacturers wants a good algorithm they may have to pay a team of people good money to create them so they can have their own.
kohe321 likes this.

Last edited by Seegs108; 06-26-2016 at 12:15 PM.
Seegs108 is offline  
post #290 of 752 Old 06-26-2016, 12:29 PM
Senior Member
 
LumenChip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Canada
Posts: 366
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 222 Post(s)
Liked: 123
Some interesting debates and rationals for and against the Epson floating around. The Epson makes a good impression with the new design and is a very attractive projector. Having seen the JVC X550 and Epson UB5030 demoed within a minute of each other in the same room, on the same screen using the same content, the gap in performance was so large I cannot fathom the UB5040 equaling the X550 in a single model step improvement.

There were 5 main areas where the JVC was clearly superior
1) ability to resolve details
2) color depth/punch
3) contrast
4) screen uniformity
5) lumen output in best mode

Notwithstanding the superior performance of the X550, it is premature to dismiss the new UB5040. With the inclusion of a Lens Iris, WCG filter and all glass optics; it seems that Epson is moving the UB5040 upmarket and intends to compete with the X550. I will go against the grain and proclaim the LS10000 as yesterday's news (months from being replaced) and that Epson has not allowed it to handicap the UB5040's performance. It is not unthinkable that Epson has closed the gap on items 2 and beating the JVC on item 5. With a higher transitivity LCD chip, the UB5040 can easily beat the JVC in calibrated lumens and the addition of the lens Iris makes this scenario highly likely without compromising the excellent contrast of the UB5030. However we cannot escape reality, the best LCD chip will not outperform one of the best LCOS chip on contrast ratio. The lens on the new UB5040 will also need to be the best performance per dollar on the planet to match the X950's lens that trickled down to the X550, it just won't happen.

The problem that JVC is faced with is the Epson does not need to beat the X550, it just need to be competitive. Three wildcards that will make the Epson a better buy for non-dedicated environments are higher lumen output, WCG and better HDR implementation (due to higher lumens). If the dynamic iris on the Epson is active with HDR content, this may just seal the deal for many.
nowknown likes this.

Last edited by LumenChip; 06-26-2016 at 12:59 PM.
LumenChip is offline  
post #291 of 752 Old 06-26-2016, 12:40 PM
Senior Member
 
LumenChip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Canada
Posts: 366
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 222 Post(s)
Liked: 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by darrellh44 View Post
It makes absolutely no sense for Epson to neuter the 5040/6040 performance to keep from stepping on sales of the LS10000. The LS10000 has been out for 2 years and has pretty much had its day in the sun from a sales perspective. Yes, JVC made the mistake last year of having little differentiation between models, but we're talking two years apart and other big differences in this case.
Saw this after submitting my post with the same opinion, totally agree with you.

Last edited by LumenChip; 06-26-2016 at 12:47 PM.
LumenChip is offline  
post #292 of 752 Old 06-26-2016, 12:41 PM
 
Seegs108's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 10,827
Mentioned: 48 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5167 Post(s)
Liked: 2593
Quote:
Originally Posted by LumenChip View Post
Saw this after I submitted my post with the same opinion.
I would only disagree if they intend to release a successor to the LS10000. Please see what else I had to say in my previous post that also quoted this statement.
Seegs108 is offline  
post #293 of 752 Old 06-26-2016, 12:47 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
darrellh44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: North Dallas
Posts: 1,532
Mentioned: 22 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1032 Post(s)
Liked: 495
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seegs108 View Post
It's used in MANY Delta projectors. I'd say the cheapest one I know of is the Sharp XV-Z15000. That unit had an MSRP of $1999. But it's also used in the XV-Z17000, Runco LS-1/3/5, LS10i, LS12i, Digital Projection Highlite Cine 260HC, Sim2 Lumis units, Sim2 Nero units and a few more.
So back to the original discussion of product differentiation between the new Epson LCDs with mechanical irises and their laser based cousins. Your contention is there is little to no advantage to laser based light engines for HDR? If so, why are there so many other posts around here to the contrary, and why haven't you challenged them?

Also back to your argument of raising the bar too much for the LS10000 successor. First we don't know when and what this product will be. Second their real competition is JVC, not their own future products. To not come after JVC with everything they can muster at this price point and technology would be plain stupid. They'll make a boatload more money selling as many lower cost LCD units as possible than they will catering to projected sales of what will always be a lower volume product.

Last edited by darrellh44; 06-26-2016 at 12:56 PM.
darrellh44 is offline  
post #294 of 752 Old 06-26-2016, 12:54 PM
Senior Member
 
LumenChip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Canada
Posts: 366
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 222 Post(s)
Liked: 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seegs108 View Post
I would only disagree if they intend to release a successor to the LS10000. Please see what else I had to say in my previous post that also quoted this statement.
This thread is moving too fast for my typing fingers, I updated my comments while I was being quoted, now you have made me an outlier
LumenChip is offline  
post #295 of 752 Old 06-26-2016, 12:56 PM
 
Seegs108's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 10,827
Mentioned: 48 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5167 Post(s)
Liked: 2593
Quote:
Originally Posted by darrellh44 View Post
So back to the original discussion of product differentiation between the new Epson LCDs with mechanical irises and their laser based cousins. Your contention is there is little to no advantage to laser based light engines for HDR? If so, why are there so many other posts around here to the contrary, and why haven't you challenged them?
Because you're thinking of direct laser HDR. The LS10000 differs because it's a laser/phosphor wheel based unit. At the end of the day you end up with a very similar spectrum of light when you use this combo and not a direct laser approach.

Quote:
Originally Posted by darrellh44 View Post
Also back to your argument of raising the bar too much for the LS10000 successor. First we don't know when and what this product will be. Second their real competition is JVC, not their own future products. To not come after JVC with everything they can muster at this price point and technology would be plain stupid. They'll make a boatload more money selling as many lower cost LCD units as they can than they will catering to projected sales of what will always be a lower volume product.
Sure, of course their competition is JVC, but why hurt themselves by outperforming a future product no one in their right mind would pay a premium for if it didn't perform better? They may sell a lot more 5040's but the profit margin on those units compared to the LS10000 or it's successor is a LOT less. It really depends on how many they sell and no one but Epson has that information. Let's say it would take 10 5040's to meet the same profit they'd make with one LS10000 sale. If they can make a decent step in performance on a future laser based unit they may be able to make more profit. If they can get the performance up it may sell better than a JVC or Sony unit. They stand to make a lot of money.
Seegs108 is offline  
post #296 of 752 Old 06-26-2016, 01:14 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
darrellh44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: North Dallas
Posts: 1,532
Mentioned: 22 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1032 Post(s)
Liked: 495
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seegs108 View Post
Because you're thinking of direct laser HDR. The LS10000 differs because it's a laser/phosphor wheel based unit. At the end of the day you end up with a very similar spectrum of light when you use this combo and not a direct laser approach.
Nope, I completely understand the difference between laser/phosphor and scanning RGB lasers. The posts I'm talking about are in reference to laser/phosphor and HDR.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seegs108 View Post
Sure, of course their competition is JVC, but why hurt themselves by outperforming a future product no one in their right mind would pay a premium for if it didn't perform better? They may sell a lot more 5040's but the profit margin on those units compared to the LS10000 or it's successor is a LOT less. It really depends on how many they sell and no one but Epson has that information. Let's say it would take 10 5040's to meet the same profit they'd make with one LS10000 sale. If they can make a decent step in performance on a future laser based unit they may be able to make more profit. If they can get the performance up it may sell better than a JVC or Sony unit. They stand to make a lot of money.
Whatever dude. You're just worried about Epson taking a major chunk of JVC's market share.
mmdd likes this.
darrellh44 is offline  
post #297 of 752 Old 06-26-2016, 01:20 PM
 
Seegs108's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 10,827
Mentioned: 48 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5167 Post(s)
Liked: 2593
Quote:
Originally Posted by darrellh44 View Post
Nope, I completely understand the difference between laser/phosphor and scanning RGB lasers. The posts I'm talking about are in reference to laser/phosphor and HDR.


Whatever dude. You're just worried about Epson taking a major chunk of JVC's market share.
Please point me in the direction of those posts unless you can be more specific. Great HDR is all about spectral highlights, relatively high on/off contrast (at least 20000:1) and a wide color gamut. The LS10000 specifically lacks all three of those in terms of native performance even with it's laser/phosphor light source. It can only do P3 with a filter, reach that contrast ratio only through dynamic means and does not have the brightness (along with many other projectors unfortunately) to give a "great" HDR experience even if it supported HDR. Sure they can make bright laser/phosphor wheel light engines, but bulb based units can be bright as well. The laser/phosphor combo doesn't create a large native color gamut unfortunately and the contrast ratio is highly dependent on the light engine's optical components (display device and wire grid polarizers in the case of reflective technologies). There's nothing to say that a bulb based unit can't do just as good as what's inside the LS10000 in terms of image quality performance. For that you'd need to move to direct laser. Direct laser can do a HUGE native color gamut, more than LEDs and because there's less light scatter they can do higher contrast within the light engine. They can also be extremely bright if need be. These are the three winning ingredients for "great" HDR. To be more specific, by "great" I mean what the UHD BD alliance calls for when giving out a UHD Premium certification.

Why would I care if they take away a portion of JVC's sales? Have I all of a sudden started working for JVC or own a portion of the company? As I said before, more competition is good for the consumer. It forces them to give us more for our money if they want to win a sale from us.

Last edited by Seegs108; 06-26-2016 at 02:04 PM.
Seegs108 is offline  
post #298 of 752 Old 06-26-2016, 01:27 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
zombie10k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 12,698
Mentioned: 158 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5225 Post(s)
Liked: 5460
Quote:
Originally Posted by LumenChip View Post
Some interesting debates and rationals for and against the Epson floating around. The Epson makes a good impression with the new design and is a very attractive projector. Having seen the JVC X550 and Epson UB5030 demoed within a minute of each other in the same room, on the same screen using the same content, the gap in performance was so large I cannot fathom the UB5040 equaling the X550 in a single model step improvement.

There were 5 main areas where the JVC was clearly superior
1) ability to resolve details
2) color depth/punch
3) contrast
4) screen uniformity
5) lumen output in best mode

Notwithstanding the superior performance of the X550, it is premature to dismiss the new UB5040. With the inclusion of a Lens Iris, WCG filter and all glass optics; it seems that Epson is moving the UB5040 upmarket and intends to compete with the X550. I will go against the grain and proclaim the LS10000 as yesterday's news (months from being replaced) and that Epson has not allowed it to handicap the UB5040's performance. It is not unthinkable that Epson has closed the gap on items 2 and beating the JVC on item 5. With a higher transitivity LCD chip, the UB5040 can easily beat the JVC in calibrated lumens and the addition of the lens Iris makes this scenario highly likely without compromising the excellent contrast of the UB5030. However we cannot escape reality, the best LCD chip will not outperform one of the best LCOS chip on contrast ratio. The lens on the new UB5040 will also need to be the best performance per dollar on the planet to match the X950's lens that trickled down to the X550, it just won't happen.

The problem that JVC is faced with is the Epson does not need to beat the X550, it just need to be competitive. Three wildcards that will make the Epson a better buy for non-dedicated environments are higher lumen output, WCG and better HDR implementation (due to higher lumens). If the dynamic iris on the Epson is active with HDR content, this may just seal the deal for many.
until those wildcards are measured, most of the conversation for the last few days is pure speculation.

no matter what the outcome, Epson and JVC will take over the 3-4K MSRP HT projector market, Sony's HW65 will not survive through fall without a major update.
zombie10k is online now  
post #299 of 752 Old 06-26-2016, 04:47 PM
Senior Member
 
Danonano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 256
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 111 Post(s)
Liked: 33
Digital Trends video with some close ups of the 5040.
cnorth12 likes this.
Danonano is online now  
post #300 of 752 Old 06-26-2016, 05:15 PM
Senior Member
 
kohe321's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Norway
Posts: 427
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 336 Post(s)
Liked: 296
To be honest, the LS10000 already throws such a fantastic image that if everything they do for the new version is increase its lumen output to a level comparable to the current JVCs and give it full WCG/HDR support, with contrast performance, black levels and overall picture quality remaining somewhat the same, then that would still make for one fantastic projector...

And really, I think it's very safe to think that this is not all they will do, but rather have worked on further improvements on their LCOQ panels in the two years since the LS10000's release. The new iteration will almost surely have more updates than just lumens and HDR/WCG compatability, but also improved overall picture quality, and thus differentiate itself from the 5040UB enough to warrant the difference in price and cement itself well within their product hierarchy.

I am incredibly happy with my LS10000 and likely won't upgrade this or next year, but that said I really can't wait to see what they have in store for the LS10000 successor. If they can keep the price about the same while increasing lumens, give it HDR/WCG support and also some picture quality updates, then it's going to be really hard to not take the plunge and buy one.

Edit: actually, more lumens isn't necessary for me at all since the LS10000 is already plenty bright for my 92" 0,9 gain screen in eco-mode...
Soulnight likes this.

Last edited by kohe321; 06-26-2016 at 05:29 PM.
kohe321 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP

Tags
Epson , hdr , projector , wcg

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off