Epson Homecinema 8350 vs Benq W1300 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 2Likes
  • 1 Post By morgs640
  • 1 Post By Kilgore
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 13 Old 10-01-2014, 06:45 AM - Thread Starter
Newbie
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 8
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 1
Epson Homecinema 8350 vs Benq W1300

I am looking at purchasing my 3rd home theatre projector, I currently have a Benq PE7700. Im looking for the best projector for under $1000 and have narrowed it down to these two (still open to suggestions) as a lot of projectors dont fit my throw ratio . Can anyone shed any light on the BENQ W1300 as i haven't been able to find much on it, and which would be the better purchase? Thanks guys
morgs640 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 13 Old 10-01-2014, 03:10 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
AV_Integrated's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Northern, VA - Washington, DC
Posts: 6,560
Mentioned: 100 Post(s)
Tagged: 2 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1611 Post(s)
Liked: 1184
If you liked the look of the PE7700, then the W1300 will give you a look very similar to that. The 8350 is nice, but won't really be as bright as the W1300, and won't really measure up.

I haven't looked at reviews, or a thread on the W1300, but you should look for more reviews. I expect the W1300 would compare similarly to the W1070, but a bit more money, different throw distance, and much different lens offset/lens shift. Be sure the lens shift will work with your setup as the range appears to be between 120% and 148% of image height. So, 10" to 24" above a 50" tall screen if I'm reading things correctly. That's way above the screen. Good for some, lousy for others. The 8350 has way more lens shift range. Like -40% to +40% (anywhere from 20" above the top of the image to 20" below the bottom of the image on a 50" tall image!).

So, just measure several times on this to be sure things will work for you.

AV Integrated - Theater, whole house audio, and technology installation in the Washington DC metro area.
AV_Integrated is offline  
post #3 of 13 Old 10-01-2014, 07:31 PM - Thread Starter
Newbie
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 8
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by AV_Integrated View Post
If you liked the look of the PE7700, then the W1300 will give you a look very similar to that. The 8350 is nice, but won't really be as bright as the W1300, and won't really measure up.

I haven't looked at reviews, or a thread on the W1300, but you should look for more reviews. I expect the W1300 would compare similarly to the W1070, but a bit more money, different throw distance, and much different lens offset/lens shift. Be sure the lens shift will work with your setup as the range appears to be between 120% and 148% of image height. So, 10" to 24" above a 50" tall screen if I'm reading things correctly. That's way above the screen. Good for some, lousy for others. The 8350 has way more lens shift range. Like -40% to +40% (anywhere from 20" above the top of the image to 20" below the bottom of the image on a 50" tall image!).

So, just measure several times on this to be sure things will work for you.
Cheers for the reply, yeah both of these will fit where i want them i have already checked, from what ive read the w1300 is almost identical to the w1070 aside from zoom and lens shift if this is the case are you saying that the 1070 is much better than the 8350? also at the moment i have found the 8350 for $AUD 910 and the Benq is $AUD1199 so a bit of a difference.
morgs640 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of 13 Old 10-01-2014, 09:39 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ftoast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 6,576
Mentioned: 102 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2688 Post(s)
Liked: 877
The big bonus of the 8350 is its fantastic placement range which allows it to fit just about any screen from any position..a bonus that doesn't mean much if your room and screen easily fit another good projector.
While manufacturer specs would have you believe otherwise, they are very false because they aren't policed or controlled..real-world measurement shows the w1070 (and any of its twins) to have nearly 2X higher contrast, slightly more accurate out-of-the-box colors, and a brighter accurate image that stays bright longer than the 8350/8345. It also is 3D compatible and has natural advantages for panel-alignment, motion clarity and low input-lag.

These differences aren't a huge 2:1 landslide, but they certainly add up and they do make a visible difference.

Easy $25 DIY black (or any color) ALR paint +$40-$50sprayer screen mix smooth/clean and very easy to learn spraying with little/no mess.
Simple $25-40 DIY black/dark-grey ambient-light rejecting screen, grab two things from a local store..mix..roll..done.
Quick <$250 dedicated black-fabric theater room "A store that sells blinds can help your picture more than a store that sells projectors many times." -bud16415
Ftoast is offline  
post #5 of 13 Old 10-01-2014, 10:40 PM - Thread Starter
Newbie
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 8
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ftoast View Post
The big bonus of the 8350 is its fantastic placement range which allows it to fit just about any screen from any position..a bonus that doesn't mean much if your room and screen easily fit another good projector.
While manufacturer specs would have you believe otherwise, they are very false because they aren't policed or controlled..real-world measurement shows the w1070 (and any of its twins) to have nearly 2X higher contrast, slightly more accurate out-of-the-box colors, and a brighter accurate image that stays bright longer than the 8350/8345. It also is 3D compatible and has natural advantages for panel-alignment, motion clarity and low input-lag.

These differences aren't a huge 2:1 landslide, but they certainly add up and they do make a visible difference.
Cheers, according to the reviews i read on the 8350 the input lag was 18ms and the benq 20-30ms. Would love to hear from someone who has seen them both and has an idea or which has the nicer picture Ftoast you may have? i dont know cheers.
Ftoast likes this.
morgs640 is offline  
post #6 of 13 Old 10-01-2014, 11:41 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ftoast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 6,576
Mentioned: 102 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2688 Post(s)
Liked: 877
The input-lag is quite good for both the w1070 and the 8345/8350. Then again, that's all only important if you will be gaming on it..and I've heard the longer lag-times can still be just fine depending on the game (single-player RPG? lag won't really matter).
The brightness advantage of the BenQ won't really matter much unless you want to fight a bit of ambient-light or use a fairly large screen while the contrast advantage will make little difference in a higher ambient-light situation..I guess that means either way the benq has somewhat of an advantage.

The 3D only matters if you want to try it ($15 glasses..easy to try). The fast-motion clarity is nice if you're a gamer, sports-fan or action-film enthusiast. The lack of alignment issues doesn't mean much in the face of a well-aligned 8345/8350.
The BenQ does have the advantage of its lamps being both slightly cheaper and lasting MUCH longer on average, but that won't matter as much if you only use it a couple times per week.

Both projectors put out a bright, accurate and nicely high-contrast image..the BenQ just does it a bit better in several ways.
Whether or not it's worth the extra money is somewhat dependent on what you'll be using it for.

In general, the 8350 has lifespan problems (it chews through lamps much faster than it should) and you should be looking at the 8345 instead (same exact real-world measured specs EXCEPT the dynamic iris is under better control on the 8345 and it seems to have fixed the lamp eating problem).

Easy $25 DIY black (or any color) ALR paint +$40-$50sprayer screen mix smooth/clean and very easy to learn spraying with little/no mess.
Simple $25-40 DIY black/dark-grey ambient-light rejecting screen, grab two things from a local store..mix..roll..done.
Quick <$250 dedicated black-fabric theater room "A store that sells blinds can help your picture more than a store that sells projectors many times." -bud16415

Last edited by Ftoast; 10-02-2014 at 06:45 PM.
Ftoast is offline  
post #7 of 13 Old 10-02-2014, 12:05 AM - Thread Starter
Newbie
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 8
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ftoast View Post
The input-lag is quite good on the 8350/8345 in its gaming/fast mode, but using that mode dumbs-down the LCD panels which results in an image that appears noticeably lower resolution and lower bit-depth..its cinema/fine modes introduce a noticeable amount of input-lag. Then again, that's all only important if you will be gaming on it..and I've heard the longer lag-times can still be just fine depending on the game (single-player RPG? lag won't really matter).
The brightness advantage of the BenQ won't really matter much unless you want to fight a bit of ambient-light or use a fairly large screen while the contrast advantage will make little difference in a higher ambient-light situation..I guess that means either way the benq has somewhat of an advantage.

The 3D only matters if you want to try it ($15 glasses..easy to try). The fast-motion clarity is nice if you're a gamer, sports-fan or action-film enthusiast. The lack of alignment issues doesn't mean much in the face of a well-aligned 8345/8350.
The BenQ does have the advantage of its lamps being both slightly cheaper and lasting MUCH longer on average, but that won't matter as much if you only use it a couple times per week.

Both projectors put out a bright, accurate and nicely high-contrast image..the BenQ just does it a bit better in several ways.
Whether or not it's worth the extra money is somewhat dependent on what you'll be using it for.

In general, the 8350 has lifespan problems (it chews through lamps much faster than it should) and you should be looking at the 8345 instead (same exact real-world measured specs EXCEPT the dynamic iris is under better control on the 8345 and it seems to have fixed the lamp eating problem).
Cheers for your help, i think i will go for the Benq will just have to wait a little longer till i can afford it i was pretty keen on the Epson as i sometimes get sore eyes with my 7700 but i have never seen rainbows on it and i think it is just because it is quite dark now, my bulb has been going about 4000 hours despite only being rated at 3000. It seems as though most people agree that in the under 1k price range that dlps are better than the competing lcds.
morgs640 is offline  
post #8 of 13 Old 10-02-2014, 02:09 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ftoast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 6,576
Mentioned: 102 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2688 Post(s)
Liked: 877
The main reason for the DLP dominance (in basically the entire under $2000 range) is the lack of a <$2000LCoS and because the entire <$2000LCD crowd offers half or even a quarter or less of the real-measured contrast of even the cheapest DLPs. To that end however, the Epson 8350/8345 IS a much higher than average contrast LCD and it measures nearly 1000:1 where most others are closer to 400:1-500:1 and even all the way down to 200:1. The good/RGBRGB DLPs are capable of nearly 2000:1 (the same contrast that a professional cinema projector generates) and even the poorest performing DLPs still measure nearly 1000:1.

The 1080p DLPs also tend to be a good deal cheaper than most of the 1080p LCDs to boot..though the 8350/8345 is probably getting cleared out for the new 3000series and all rules are off during a clearance.

I know these numbers look low compared to what you're probably used to hearing, but even that 1million:1 contrast claiming flatscreen TV you saw at the store the other day is only really hitting about 1500:1. ..unless it was a good plasma or oled, they actually measure pretty impressive results.

Manufacturer contrast specs ARE allowed to be completely false and you better believe that the manufacturer will take great advantage of that fact.

Easy $25 DIY black (or any color) ALR paint +$40-$50sprayer screen mix smooth/clean and very easy to learn spraying with little/no mess.
Simple $25-40 DIY black/dark-grey ambient-light rejecting screen, grab two things from a local store..mix..roll..done.
Quick <$250 dedicated black-fabric theater room "A store that sells blinds can help your picture more than a store that sells projectors many times." -bud16415
Ftoast is offline  
post #9 of 13 Old 10-02-2014, 03:44 AM - Thread Starter
Newbie
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 8
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ftoast View Post
The main reason for the DLP dominance (in basically the entire under $2000 range) is the lack of a <$2000LCoS and because the entire <$2000LCD crowd offers half or even a quarter or less of the real-measured contrast of even the cheapest DLPs. To that end however, the Epson 8350/8345 IS a much higher than average contrast LCD and it measures nearly 1000:1 where most others are closer to 400:1-500:1 and even all the way down to 200:1. The good/RGBRGB DLPs are capable of nearly 2000:1 (the same contrast that a professional cinema projector generates) and even the poorest performing DLPs still measure nearly 1000:1.

The 1080p DLPs also tend to be a good deal cheaper than most of the 1080p LCDs to boot..though the 8350/8345 is probably getting cleared out for the new 3000series and all rules are off during a clearance.

I know these numbers look low compared to what you're probably used to hearing, but even that 1million:1 contrast claiming flatscreen TV you saw at the store the other day is only really hitting about 1500:1. ..unless it was a good plasma or oled, they actually measure pretty impressive results.

Manufacturer contrast specs ARE allowed to be completely false and you better believe that the manufacturer will take great advantage of that fact.
cheers Thanks for the help
morgs640 is offline  
post #10 of 13 Old 10-02-2014, 12:30 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
slyderulz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: The Armpit of Civilization
Posts: 1,146
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 214 Post(s)
Liked: 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ftoast View Post
The input-lag is quite good on the 8350/8345 in its gaming/fast mode, but using that mode dumbs-down the LCD panels which results in an image that appears noticeably lower resolution and lower bit-depth..its cinema/fine modes introduce a noticeable amount of input-lag. Then again, that's all only important if you will be gaming on it..and I've heard the longer lag-times can still be just fine depending on the game (single-player RPG? lag won't really matter).
The brightness advantage of the BenQ won't really matter much unless you want to fight a bit of ambient-light or use a fairly large screen while the contrast advantage will make little difference in a higher ambient-light situation..I guess that means either way the benq has somewhat of an advantage.

The 3D only matters if you want to try it ($15 glasses..easy to try). The fast-motion clarity is nice if you're a gamer, sports-fan or action-film enthusiast. The lack of alignment issues doesn't mean much in the face of a well-aligned 8345/8350.
The BenQ does have the advantage of its lamps being both slightly cheaper and lasting MUCH longer on average, but that won't matter as much if you only use it a couple times per week.

Both projectors put out a bright, accurate and nicely high-contrast image..the BenQ just does it a bit better in several ways.
Whether or not it's worth the extra money is somewhat dependent on what you'll be using it for.

In general, the 8350 has lifespan problems (it chews through lamps much faster than it should) and you should be looking at the 8345 instead (same exact real-world measured specs EXCEPT the dynamic iris is under better control on the 8345 and it seems to have fixed the lamp eating problem).
This is something I am interested in, except in regards to the new 3000 series epsons. Is this just turning off additional video post-processing enhancements? You say it 'appears lower resolution & bit depth'. Is it actually lowering the resolution and bit depth or does it just 'appear' that way do to the lack of image processing? Finally, do you know if the new 3000 series still has this feature because I have not seen it advertised.

I'm asking because I'm currently looking at either an Epson 3000/3500 or Sony HW40es. I'm leaning towards the Sony because of the claimed 24ms lag in game mode. However, if I can get reasonably close to that (say at least under 45 ms) with the Epson and make the picture look the best I can with extensive calibration, I'll go that route because I like some of the other Epson 3000 series features like MHL and PiP.

XBOX LIVE ID: JeepR kReapR
PSN ID: JeepR_kReapR

 

Originally Posted by emartins

Instead of the usual 2 minutes, give her 5 minutes of nothing but that Jeep ecstasy. She will be exhausted and fall right to sleep. You are now free to play.


Thats what I do.

slyderulz is online now  
post #11 of 13 Old 10-02-2014, 12:37 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Kilgore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Huntsville Ontario
Posts: 3,842
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 729 Post(s)
Liked: 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ftoast View Post
The input-lag is quite good on the 8350/8345 in its gaming/fast mode, but using that mode dumbs-down the LCD panels which results in an image that appears noticeably lower resolution and lower bit-depth..its cinema/fine modes introduce a noticeable amount of input-lag. Then again, that's all only important if you will be gaming on it..and I've heard the longer lag-times can still be just fine depending on the game (single-player RPG? lag won't really matter).

You've been misinformed.


The 8350/8345 doesn't have a gaming/fast mode at all. The input lag is quite good, as you mentioned, but this is in its natural state. There's no gaming mode to turn on, and there doesn't need to be. Later models have this issue, but not the 8350/8345.
Ftoast likes this.
Kilgore is offline  
post #12 of 13 Old 10-02-2014, 02:46 PM
Senior Member
 
techtre2003's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: midstate Illinois
Posts: 382
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 160 Post(s)
Liked: 92
I had an 8350 and always had it in Cinema or Living Room mode. I never noticed any lag whatsoever when gaming; even in FPSs.
techtre2003 is offline  
post #13 of 13 Old 10-02-2014, 06:24 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ftoast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 6,576
Mentioned: 102 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2688 Post(s)
Liked: 877
Interesting news then. I wonder what its input lag measures at.

Edit: looks like I was way off on my lag assumptions, the 8350 (and I'd have to then also assume the 8345) have been measured as having very little input-lag by projectorcentral.
I'll have to edit my earlier posts.

I don't think I was so much misinformed as all-out mistaken. Thanks for the benefit of the doubt though.

Easy $25 DIY black (or any color) ALR paint +$40-$50sprayer screen mix smooth/clean and very easy to learn spraying with little/no mess.
Simple $25-40 DIY black/dark-grey ambient-light rejecting screen, grab two things from a local store..mix..roll..done.
Quick <$250 dedicated black-fabric theater room "A store that sells blinds can help your picture more than a store that sells projectors many times." -bud16415

Last edited by Ftoast; 10-02-2014 at 06:42 PM.
Ftoast is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Digital Projectors - Under $3,000 USD MSRP

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