Originally Posted by Manni01
7000 (25%) *more* than the NX5, not less.
If you have a large screen, you probably have to use high lamp, in which case using the filter only loses 10% of brightness. I think it would be mad to not want to trade 10% of brightness against better contrast and wider gamut, but that's just me.
The NX5 is a great pj and it's absolutely fine to be happy with it, but I don't think that using actual or estimated numbers from various sources and negating, ignoring or misunderstanding advantages of the higher models is a clever way to justify your decision.
Whether each model is worth the difference in price over the next one is up to each individual, what their priorities are, and where they come from as well as in which room they are using their PJ.
Coming from an excellent rs500 (X7000) in a bat cave, I knew that there was no way I'd be happy with an rs1000. I didn't want to lose the filter and get less than half the native contrast, because I want to watch a picture as close to reference as possible, with the best possible native black floor (especially in HDR as I don't use the DI) and my screen is small, so I'm not starving for brightness.
But had I come from a lower model, or if my room was a non dedicated living room, or if I had such a large screen that I couldn't afford to lose 10% brightness, or if I didn't care about displaying a reference picture, I sure I would have been very happy with an rs1000.
What I'm saying is that unless the same competent individual measures (not with an i1d3) different units for each model in an optimized environment, and shares them without having an agenda or a clear bias, you don't really have a case. There is unit to unit variation, but overall given the data that I have measured myself, the specs and other reliable sources around, the numbers you have used to state that there was only 3K difference (10% better) between the NX5 and the NX7 simply don't tally. Aztar35 reports 7000K (25% better), my measurements 10K (50%) better. Believe whoever you want to, but in any case your initial statement was way off.
There is a significant contrast difference between the RS1000/NX5 and the higher models, even with the iris fully open, and in the right environment that difference will show, even with the iris fully open, Of course it will become even larger as you close the iris. Whether that's important or significant enough is up to each individual. This contrast difference is only one of the differences between the lower model and it's bigger brothers. It's not because you don't care about reaching full DCI-P3 that no one else does. I've seen your native gamut with a significantly undersaturated green, and I know that I would never be able to live with that picture, even if for most users it will be absolutely fine if properly calibrated.
Just to clarify, I'm not saying that the NX5/RS1000 isn't a great projector that will meet the needs of many. I just don't appreciate the misinformation posted regarding the differences between the models, just to justify a personal choice, that's all.
I am not trying to misrepresent anything and I am not going off my own measurement with the i1d3...
I am just looking for reliable measurements and people can make whatever judgements they personally want from them.
I am going off this for NX5:
Measured with a K10A
Reading from screen:
Low Lamp, Iris 0: 20,000:1
Low Lamp, Iris -8: 26,000:1
Low Lamp, Iris -15: 37,000:1
High Lamp, Iris 0: 21,000:1
High Lamp, Iris -8: 27,000:1
High Lamp, Iris -15: 36,000:1
Reading from lens with diffuser:
Low Lamp, Iris 0, 24,000:1
Low Lamp, Iris -7, 29,000:1
Low Lamp, Iris -15, 38,000:1
High Lamp, Iris 0, 21,100:1
High Lamp, Iris -7, 26,000:1
High Lamp, Iris -15, 35,000:1
Also said: "In calibrated I used image mode with iris position of -13 (to reach the desired 17FL) it ended with native contrast measured at 41000:1 This with the lamp set to Low, measured against the canvas."
For added data point, from screen with my I1D3:
Low Lamp, Iris 0, 19,800:1
For NX7, posted by Mike:
Minolta CL-200 meter, (assume measured off lens):
Lamp High, Iris 0, 23,450:1
Lamp High, Iris -15, 62,100:1
For NX9, by Kris D:
Minolta T-10, 1 meter from lens:
I assume this is High Lamp.
High Lamp, Iris 0, 28,600:1
High Lamp, Iris -15, 52,400:1
With the data I had, if you are just using Iris 0, High Lamp, no filter:
That's just the data I had at that point, anyone can make their own opinions based on the data, the meters used and by the people who did the readings.
If we add more data points, that's great.
I am not trying to tell anyone else what to do or what to think, just what I did and what other friends of mine did.