Official BenQ HT2050/W1110 Owner/Settings Thread - Page 60 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 1098Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1771 of 1799 Old 12-10-2019, 04:22 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,760
Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 944 Post(s)
Liked: 267
Is Brilliant Color just a way to get more lumens from the color wheel or does it necessitate more lumens from the lamp?
When tested with a watt meter the BC did not increase the consumption in any lamp mode, including SmartEco.
noob00224 is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #1772 of 1799 Old 12-10-2019, 05:25 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
coderguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,755
Mentioned: 79 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2860 Post(s)
Liked: 1505
It depends on the specific projector to how well BC works and how much it affects lumens, but if you are calibrating the image, then BC is usually left off if you have enough brightness already.
It causes gamma bumps and some RGB color issues sometimes, but if you need a little extra oomph to the image, it can be useful.

I used it some on my Benq w7000. Not sure about this Benq.

I have never seen BC affect the lamp, it's just using the color wheel differently.
sage11x and noob00224 like this.

**Updated Projector Calculator Released NOV 2017**
-- www.webprojectorcalculator.com --

Last edited by coderguy; 12-10-2019 at 05:52 AM.
coderguy is online now  
post #1773 of 1799 Old 12-10-2019, 08:28 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
sage11x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Howell, MI
Posts: 6,927
Mentioned: 217 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2946 Post(s)
Liked: 3017
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post
It depends on the specific projector to how well BC works and how much it affects lumens, but if you are calibrating the image, then BC is usually left off if you have enough brightness already.

It causes gamma bumps and some RGB color issues sometimes, but if you need a little extra oomph to the image, it can be useful.



I used it some on my Benq w7000. Not sure about this Benq.



I have never seen BC affect the lamp, it's just using the color wheel differently.


What coder said.

BC is more efficient (brighter) because it uses more of the color wheel during each frame. However, this is incredibly model specific. Even in BenQ’s own range, brilliant color has a different effect on the image from model to model. So you really need to consider it on a case by case basis.

What to do if you find yourself stuck with no hope of rescue:
Consider yourself lucky that life has been good to you so far. Alternatively, if life hasn't been good to you so far, which given your present circumstances seems to be more likely, consider yourself lucky that it won't be troubling you much longer...

-- Excerpt from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
sage11x is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #1774 of 1799 Old 12-10-2019, 11:13 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,760
Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 944 Post(s)
Liked: 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post
It's not very easy to measure light with any calibration meter.

Here is the cheapest that is somewhat decent (sometimes), but I'm sure the variance is high and it may not be accurate.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/LX-1010B-Di...4AAOSwQqJbm10w

Generally, the above one is within 10% to 15%, but QC could vary and error could be higher.
Used Extechs on Ebay are usually accurate within 5% to 10%.

A Sekonic with a cert is accurate within 5%, a Minolta T10 within about 2% to 4%.
Why would it be difficult to measure light with a calibration meter? I was hoping to not have to get a lux meter and a calibration meter.

What about a TROTEC BF06?

LE: someone suggested a 3D LUT with madvr and ICM profile for improved shadow details. Is this a good option for my setup?

Last edited by noob00224; 12-10-2019 at 11:21 AM.
noob00224 is online now  
post #1775 of 1799 Old 12-10-2019, 11:57 AM
Senior Member
 
NxNW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 445
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 122 Post(s)
Liked: 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by noob00224 View Post

Why would it be difficult to measure light with a calibration meter? I was hoping to not have to get a lux meter and a calibration meter.

What about a TROTEC BF06?

LE: someone suggested a 3D LUT with madvr and ICM profile for improved shadow details. Is this a good option for my setup?
You will find all these topics covered in great depth in the display calibration section of this forum. In particular, using MadVR to implement a 3D LUT opens up a huge can of worms. It's fascinating, and you can occasionally see some improvements that are worth the effort, but be forewarned that is truly going down the rabbit hole.
NxNW is offline  
post #1776 of 1799 Old 12-11-2019, 03:53 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 152
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 126 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Regarding 'Brilliant Color' in my experience (i use a BenQ HT2050 right now), it just boosts the contrast a bit.
I do not know how it exactly does this but the end result has never been to my liking.
It can help in giving an artificial 'pop' to the image but becomes a bit tiring in my opinion.

I only found it usable in some of my 'ancient' DLP units like the Optoma HD80 and Themscene HD73i.
These were not exactly powerful in terms of brightness and contrast, so the boost was helpful sometimes.

I suppose Texas Instrument employed it as an enhancement (or a gimmick), that's been standard feature for DMD chips since the old days.
Probably in an attempt to ameliorate the lower contrast associated with some DLP models.

However, in modern models with adequate native brightness, I find the feature pretty pointless.
Unless one is targeting maximum brightness and contrast above all else, It just isn't needed.
I find the 'traditional' contrast adjustment to do a better job in units capable of over 1000 lumens at bright mode.

Last edited by evonimos; 12-11-2019 at 04:11 AM.
evonimos is offline  
post #1777 of 1799 Old 12-14-2019, 07:10 PM
Senior Member
 
NxNW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 445
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 122 Post(s)
Liked: 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by noob00224 View Post
Don't lamps loose a significant amount of light in the first ~5 hours or so?
Some do maybe. But I'm not seeing any drop off so far on this one. In fact at the actual 5 hour mark the brightness was clearly *higher* than my first couple days of measurements right out of the box.



What *is* definitely changing is color balance. When the lamp was first replaced, the new one had pretty much the same white point as the old one. By 5 hours it had gotten a little redder and now at 20 hours it's significantly warmer to the point I'll have to recalibrate. The amount of the change is around 10 dE right now.


By the way, just for fun I measured it in "Bright" mode (keeping all default picture settings for that mode including "lamp native" color temperature) and yep, I got about 2000 peak lumens in the center of the screen. Not that anyone would watch it in that mode, but there it is.
NxNW is offline  
post #1778 of 1799 Old 12-17-2019, 05:26 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 7
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 0
So.......my 6500hr change bulb light came on. Now I have to do stuff with my hands, picture still looks good, hope this is worth me getting off my butt.

Sent from my LG-G710 using Tapatalk
zedbimmer is offline  
post #1779 of 1799 Old 12-18-2019, 05:52 PM
Senior Member
 
NxNW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 445
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 122 Post(s)
Liked: 135
I went back and measured some 3D things in more detail.

You'll recall I looked into how much light you get in 3D mode previously



https://www.avsforum.com/forum/68-di...l#post58610734


My conclusion was you lose a lot of light. Whatever your normal 2D light levels are, you lose almost 80% of it when watching in 3D. For example if 14 FtL is a typical home theater luminance level for a white image, then you will get less than 3 FtL once you turn on 3D. Assuming a 1.0 gain screen.


I re did the tests after changing bulbs and got similar numbers this time.


But this time I was not just looking at white patterns, I finally did a full grayscale and gamut calibration.


The color errors in the default 3D settings are appalling. Previously I mentioned the dE was over 20 (3 is noticeable). I got similar results this time.



But most interesting was the difference with Brilliant Color on and Brilliant Color off.


Flipping between the two on my unit, they were both totally inaccurate, but in different directions. The white point with BC on was too yellow by dE~26, while BC off was too cyan by dE~10


Interestingly, unlike in 2D, neither setting seemed to improve brightness more than the other.


I tried calibrating to D65 both ways and naturally got very different results. But I ended up deciding to keep BC off and use that as my starting point for calibration.



I got great results just doing "Color Temp fine tuning" , ie 2 point W/B controls. The gamut (CMS) didnt need much tweaking, maybe just moving one of the sceondaries (magenta) a bit.



To get 100% white to behave, I had to - wait for it - reduce contrast even more. Sigh. That made a dark experience even darker. But when you do this that last step in the grayscale is perfect and the gamma works great, ie a setting of 2.2 in fact gives a gamma curve of 2.2 . When I left contrast at 50, my box couldn't quite reach the necessary absolute light levels for 100%. It also produced banding and discoloration. If you can live with these issues, by all means, go for it, just don't post on AVS about it when those issues crop up in certain scenes later down the road


Anyway if you're serious about using this projector for 3D, have somebody put some instrumentation on it and get the colors right. I had no idea how far off I was until I actually calibrated it and rewatched some movies (try something with a lot of white, like one of the Ice Age movies if you have kids) and realized it was truly a noticeable improvement.


I know it's really bad form to post actual settings, but if you want to experiment with this, first, get 3D going, then turn off BC, then make some (fairly extreme) adjustments like reducing green gain by 20 or 25, blue gain by 10 or 15. You might also reduce green offset a few clicks and blue half as many. These are very rough hacks you might consider if your unit behaves anything like mine. Without a proper meter it's impossible to know of course, so I only mention this with the usual disclaimer, proceed at your own risk, etc.


Also one last warning if you turn BC back ON in 3D at any point, all these adjustments would serve to make it *far worse* than out of the box. BC ON requires totally different adjustments. Specifically, for BC ON in 3D, you would reduce the WB controls for red and green and leave blue alone. Again, ymmv. At least if you mess with it and hate the results you can always reset back to defaults for just the 3D picture mode and pretend it never happened.
noob00224 likes this.
NxNW is offline  
post #1780 of 1799 Old 12-19-2019, 10:36 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,760
Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 944 Post(s)
Liked: 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post
It's not very easy to measure light with any calibration meter.

Here is the cheapest that is somewhat decent (sometimes), but I'm sure the variance is high and it may not be accurate.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/LX-1010B-Di...4AAOSwQqJbm10w

Generally, the above one is within 10% to 15%, but QC could vary and error could be higher.
Used Extechs on Ebay are usually accurate within 5% to 10%.

A Sekonic with a cert is accurate within 5%, a Minolta T10 within about 2% to 4%.
Which brand of LX 1010B is ok?
Searching around there seems to be a lot of variants.

This post advises a Mastech, but the two ones that claim to be Mastech are from different brands:
https://www.avsforum.com/forum/24-di...l#post21278378

This one is Dr. Meter:
https://www.amazon.in/Mastech-Light-.../dp/B004KP8RE2

And this one Tondaj:
https://www.amazon.com/Digital-Luxme.../dp/B00992B29I
noob00224 is online now  
post #1781 of 1799 Old 12-25-2019, 11:41 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
unretarded's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Ventura Ca
Posts: 4,079
Mentioned: 70 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1690 Post(s)
Liked: 2083
Quote:
Originally Posted by noob00224 View Post
The x1.3 is zoom factor. From x1.0 (no zoom) to x1.3 (30%) zoom (larger image).
The value ALR screens manufacturers quote as to how far away the projector needs to be relative to the screen is throw range, not zoom factor.

In the PC calculator set screen size at 120" (if this is the desired size) and click the lock next to it to keep it fixed at 120".

If the projector sits as close as possible, it's using maximum zoom (x1.3). Throw range at this distance x1.15.
If the projector sits as far as possible it's using no zoom (x1.0). Throw range at this distance is x1.5.

Where it says Zoom Range, setting it to Telephoto means less zoom, Wide angle means more zoom.

For an 120" screen minimum distance (with max zoom (x1.3) and throw range x 1.15) is 10 ft. But this is too close for the ALR screen. The maximum distance is 13ft 1 inch with no zoom (x1.0), which is x1.5 throw range. For ALR screens it's specified they must be at least x1.5 throw range from the screen.


The pictures above with the Cinegrey 3D are at throw range x1.5.

Elite's Director Cut 3D and 5D come in 135" 16:9 format, Carl's ALR can be ordered in larger sizes:
https://www.carlofet.com/shop/projec...22+%2845x80%29




Nice.
My first bulb blew up at 3500h, with untreatable flickering on Eco,SmartEco and Full lamp in 3D from 2500h.
It's recommended that the lamp is kept on Full every once in a while to avoid this issue.

Are you keeping it on SmartEco all the time?

Smart eco 95%...…..I think 3d and certain modes default to full while watching, then back to smart eco.
noob00224 likes this.

Link to Stereo Integrity SI HT 18 sub build......https://www.avsforum.com/forum/155-di...-pedestal.html
Speakers and subs for sale...https://www.avsforum.com/forum/209-au...kers-subs.html
unretarded is offline  
post #1782 of 1799 Old 01-10-2020, 12:04 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,760
Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 944 Post(s)
Liked: 267
@NxNW
Did some measurements with two light meters. One registered 15% higher than the other (URCERI MT-912>LX1010B(big sensor)).

Waited about one hour after projector startup. Cinema, BC off, 1.5x, SmartEco, gamma Benq, Full RGB but contrast/brightness is set to 16-235. 327h total, 100h Full, 227 SmartEco. Lights off, no other light sources, night time. Projected a white field.
Measured 5+1 points, center, each corner, and lower left from the center. Also tried the meters around the screen to check for brightness variance, but these were enough.
Placed the meter with the back on the screen.

The difference (with the projector in the same place) between no zoom and 100% zoom (focused) is 30% (less). Model is W2000. It supports the claim that the W2000/HT3050 looses ~30% of light when zooming out.

Brightness was not uniform with the edges around 30% less bright than the center.
There is an area to the lower left of the center that measures 20% higher than the center.

When I took some pictures I originally thought it was because the fabric was not smooth:
https://www.avsforum.com/forum/23-sc...l#post58659830

LX1010B average 160lux
90 000 lux at lens

MT-912 average 180lux
92 000 lux at lens

lumens = (lux / 10.76) * square feet of screen
106" screen = 33.37 ft²

496 lumens or
558 lumens

Something isn't right, it's too low, should be double.

LE:
Changed the gamma to 2.2. and lamp to Full but same results.
BC increased the output by 25%.

LE2:
Measure the monitor (Dell 2209WAf) rated at 300 nits.
Averaged 264 lux, square surface is 1.52 ft².
Results in 37fL, or 126 nits.

Am I doing something wrong?

I also did some measurements with the ALR, if you have any suggestions please comment:
https://www.avsforum.com/forum/139-d...l#post59077918

Last edited by noob00224; 01-10-2020 at 12:40 PM.
noob00224 is online now  
post #1783 of 1799 Old 01-10-2020, 12:07 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 7
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 0
My bulb popped, cant find the link to the non Benq bulb that folks where legitimizing, can anyone point the way?

Sent from my LG-G710 using Tapatalk
zedbimmer is offline  
post #1784 of 1799 Old 01-10-2020, 12:25 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,760
Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 944 Post(s)
Liked: 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by zedbimmer View Post
My bulb popped, cant find the link to the non Benq bulb that folks where legitimizing, can anyone point the way?

Sent from my LG-G710 using Tapatalk
Someone posted this a while back, claimed it worked, but can't guarantee:
https://www.amazon.com/EWOS-5J-JEE05.../dp/B06XT3NDHG
noob00224 is online now  
post #1785 of 1799 Old 01-11-2020, 12:08 AM
Senior Member
 
NxNW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 445
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 122 Post(s)
Liked: 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by noob00224 View Post
@NxNW
Did some measurements with two light meters. ...

496 lumens or
558 lumens

Something isn't right, it's too low, should be double.

LE:
Changed the gamma to 2.2. and lamp to Full but same results.
BC increased the output by 25%.


Am I doing something wrong?
This is great, thank you for sharing new data. I'll consider the entirety of your report more carefully when I have a spare moment. For now, no, 500 lumens is not shocking. You said something about levels ("16-235") but you didn't mention your actual contrast setting. I assume 50? Or close to it? Any other adjustments to picture settings made in the name of 'calibration'? Or just Cinema defaults? The other burning question that jumps out at me is what is a "white field", ie, how exactly are you generating this pattern? Thank you again for continuing this conversation. For any of you experts watching us all fumble around I realize this night be a little comical, but we are not professional calibrators, and comparing notes is really helpful as we try to get to a place of real understanding...
NxNW is offline  
post #1786 of 1799 Old 01-11-2020, 12:29 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,760
Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 944 Post(s)
Liked: 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by NxNW View Post
This is great, thank you for sharing new data. I'll consider the entirety of your report more carefully when I have a spare moment. For now, no, 500 lumens is not shocking. You said something about levels ("16-235") but you didn't mention your actual contrast setting. I assume 50? Or close to it? Any other adjustments to picture settings made in the name of 'calibration'? Or just Cinema defaults? The other burning question that jumps out at me is what is a "white field", ie, how exactly are you generating this pattern? Thank you again for continuing this conversation. For any of you experts watching us all fumble around I realize this night be a little comical, but we are not professional calibrators, and comparing notes is really helpful as we try to get to a place of real understanding...
From NVCP RGB Full, projector HDMI set to PC.
Used the 16-235 patterns and got 50 Brightness and 48 Contrast.
Used 0-255 patterns and got 51 Brightness and 48 Contrast.

The wallpaper is a solid color. For the pattern I used white as the background color in windows.
Also created a white image in paint in case there was something wrong with the windows color.
The results were the same in both cases.

Did all the tests with 50B and 48C.
The tests should really have been done with 51B and 48C since windows works in 0-255.
Increased Brightness to 51 and got a 4% increase in lux.

Cinema, with no changes to CMS or color settings. BC was off. Tried the lamp in Full, although in SmartEco on a white screen it should be the same as Full mode, and it was.

I don't understand how the lumens are around 500 on a lamp with 327 hours.
All the other measurements from the reviews have higher lumens.
The lamp was replaced recently, but it was by Benq themselves, when it was sent in for service. The entire lamp assembly was replaced, not just the bulb. It's their lamp.
noob00224 is online now  
post #1787 of 1799 Old 01-11-2020, 06:21 AM
Senior Member
 
NxNW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 445
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 122 Post(s)
Liked: 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by noob00224 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by NxNW View Post
This is great, thank you for sharing new data. I'll consider the entirety of your report more carefully when I have a spare moment. For now, no, 500 lumens is not shocking. You said something about levels ("16-235") but you didn't mention your actual contrast setting. I assume 50? Or close to it? Any other adjustments to picture settings made in the name of 'calibration'? Or just Cinema defaults? The other burning question that jumps out at me is what is a "white field", ie, how exactly are you generating this pattern? Thank you again for continuing this conversation. For any of you experts watching us all fumble around I realize this night be a little comical, but we are not professional calibrators, and comparing notes is really helpful as we try to get to a place of real understanding...
From NVCP RGB Full, projector HDMI set to PC.
Used the 16-235 patterns and got 50 Brightness and 48 Contrast.
Used 0-255 patterns and got 51 Brightness and 48 Contrast.

The wallpaper is a solid color. For the pattern I used white as the background color in windows.
Also created a white image in paint in case there was something wrong with the windows color.
The results were the same in both cases.

Did all the tests with 50B and 48C.
The tests should really have been done with 51B and 48C since windows works in 0-255.
Increased Brightness to 51 and got a 4% increase in lux.

Cinema, with no changes to CMS or color settings. BC was off. Tried the lamp in Full, although in SmartEco on a white screen it should be the same as Full mode, and it was.

I don't understand how the lumens are around 500 on a lamp with 327 hours.
All the other measurements from the reviews have higher lumens.
The lamp was replaced recently, but it was by Benq themselves, when it was sent in for service. The entire lamp assembly was replaced, not just the bulb. It's their lamp.
At first glance I don't see anything too crazy. If the W2000 is 11.5' away from the nearest edge of the screen you should get a peak of over 300 lux at the brightest region of the image. Maybe even 350. Try the technique coderguy mentioned, do not just hold the meter oriented with the enclosure pressed flat against the screen, try angling it to face the lens itself, and continue adjusting the orientation until you get the highest possible reading at that location.

Oh and when I saw the remark about using a lux meter on a Dell monitor, I realized there may be some misunderstandings about the difference between luminance and illuminance. I replied over in that other (ALR) thread you linked to. Short answer: for our purposes, a lux meter is only ever pointed at the lens of the projector, never the screen.
NxNW is offline  
post #1788 of 1799 Old 01-14-2020, 11:05 AM
Senior Member
 
xplorar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 259
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 68 Post(s)
Liked: 27
Hey fellow 2050 owners! Made any plans for 4k/HDR upgrade? When and what?
xplorar is offline  
post #1789 of 1799 Old 01-14-2020, 02:29 PM
Senior Member
 
NxNW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 445
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 122 Post(s)
Liked: 135
Not intending to upgrade for quite a while longer. I auditioned a much more expensive 4K "HDR" projector and it seemed to be a step back in most ways I care about. So I sent it back. This projector (HT2050) is still state-of-the-art at the $500 price point. There's going to be a lot of regular HD content for years to come so a minimum requirement for me to upgrade it would be 1080pHD SDR performance that is in no way worse than what I already have. I haven't found any 4K projectors that can do this for less than 5 grand.


Any 4K projector path for me

  • Must not have higher blacks
  • Must not be louder
  • Must not give less than 120 nits on a 1.0 gain 100" screen from 10 feet
  • Must not have lower Rec 709 gamut coverage
  • Must not take away 3D
when displaying regular 1080p SDR content.



Show me such a projector that belongs in the sub-3K section of the forum. Before we can talk about going forward with new technology we must establish we're not going backward in the old technology. It simply can't fail the 6 tests above or it's not an upgrade.
NxNW is offline  
post #1790 of 1799 Old 01-14-2020, 10:28 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,760
Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 944 Post(s)
Liked: 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by xplorar View Post
Hey fellow 2050 owners! Made any plans for 4k/HDR upgrade? When and what?

The 2050 and variants are usually a first time projector purchase. The aspect "most" people want to upgrade is black level, even if it's in 1080p.
To do that, the room has to be treated for reflections, which many people are unwilling or unable to do.
A projector with good black level in an untreated room is still an upgrade, but will be hampered by the wall reflections.


Regarding the other upgrades that a 4K HDR projector would bring:

Resolution:
The seating distance and/or screen have to be adequate in order for the viewer to see the increase.
Some faux 4K projectors only have ~4m pixels vs the ~8m that 4K should have.
The newer 4K DLP's have decreased contrast from the 1080p models (generally speaking), only two models exist that have a dynamic iris.
Some models have an pixel enhancer feature to increase sharpness/detail.
Even though the DMD chip or other component can produce a 4K image, the lenses also matter. For instance the HT3550 does not have great lenses, while the Epson 4/5/6xxx series have (better lenses). This reduces the difference between the faux 4K in 4m vs. 8m. Lenses for the same 4K DLP chip product can make a difference in sharpness, even variance in the same model.
Native 4K projectors are still expensive.

Just because a projector is 4K does not mean that the image will automatically be sharper, even with the caveats just mentioned. The source is also important.
In order of quality: video shot in 4K or higher (in 4K resolution)/video games (although there are some issues here with internal resolution), video shot in 2K (in 4K resolution), 1080p upscaled to 4K. In some models the 1080p version is sharper in 1080p resolution than when the projector upscales the 1080p (source).


HDR tone mapping:
Projectors can't reach the nits level that TV's can to display some of the brighter parts of the image.
There is no agreed standard between manufacturers, so everyone has their own interpretation of how HDR is supposed to look like.
If the HDR tone mapper is proficient, a HDR signal can look better than an SDR signal of the same resolution, even without WCG.

Expanded color gamut:
A filter is used to achieve higher color gamut. The filter can reduce light output by 50%, 40%, etc., depending on the model. Some people prefer the brightness over the WCG.
This feature is present is some older generation 4K projectors, which can exceed REC.709 without a filter. For instance the Epson 4xxx and 5xxx can achieve 85-89% of DCI P3 without the filter. REC.709 is ~70% of DCI P3.

Access to higher bandwidth content for streaming, 4K HDR of different types.
This can also be done with some players/boxes on an 1080p projector. HDR tone mapping can also be achieved via an external box like the Panasonic UB420/820/9000 (the last two support Dolby Vision, which I don't believe any projector supports), or madvr is using an HTPC with an 1080p projector.

Some models 4K models can achieve 120Hz in 1080p.


Quote:
Originally Posted by NxNW View Post
Not intending to upgrade for quite a while longer. I auditioned a much more expensive 4K "HDR" projector and it seemed to be a step back in most ways I care about. So I sent it back. This projector (HT2050) is still state-of-the-art at the $500 price point. There's going to be a lot of regular HD content for years to come so a minimum requirement for me to upgrade it would be 1080pHD SDR performance that is in no way worse than what I already have. I haven't found any 4K projectors that can do this for less than 5 grand.


Any 4K projector path for me

  • Must not have higher blacks
  • Must not be louder
  • Must not give less than 120 nits on a 1.0 gain 100" screen from 10 feet
  • Must not have lower Rec 709 gamut coverage
  • Must not take away 3D
when displaying regular 1080p SDR content.



Show me such a projector that belongs in the sub-3K section of the forum. Before we can talk about going forward with new technology we must establish we're not going backward in the old technology. It simply can't fail the 6 tests above or it's not an upgrade.

You mean must have higher blacks?

Projectors like that already exist, the Benq HT3550/5550 and Epson 5040UB(refurb or not) and 5050UB, Epson HC3800. The Optoma 4K lineup will have similar black levels to the HT2050, and the HT3550 and HC3800 slightly better.
Or used JVC.

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/199-f...-151-00-a.html


3D is susceptible to ghosting on the Epsons, but there are plenty of users that claim it does not manifest.

LE: haven't done the number on the 120 nits part, but the HT3550/5550 are less bright than the HT2050.
xplorar and NxNW like this.

Last edited by noob00224; 01-17-2020 at 07:10 PM.
noob00224 is online now  
post #1791 of 1799 Old 01-15-2020, 12:40 AM
Senior Member
 
NxNW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 445
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 122 Post(s)
Liked: 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by noob00224 View Post
The 2050 and variants are usually a first time projector purchase.

...
Regarding the other upgrades that a 4K HDR projector would bring:
...
Resolution...
HDR tone mapping...
Expanded color gamut...
Access to higher bandwidth content for streaming, 4K HDR of different types...
Some models 4K models can achieve 120Hz in 1080p...
This is a really good summary, thank you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by noob00224 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by NxNW View Post
Must not have higher blacks
You mean must have higher blacks?
Well, no, I just mean it can't be "worse". When I say high or low regarding blacks I'm talking about light measurements. I want my blacks to measure as low as possible. So "must not be higher" means "must not be worse".
Quote:
Projectors like that already exist, the Benq HT3550/5550 ...
Here I must object. The HT3550 *requires* you to turn on things like dynamic iris to get close to the blacks the HT2050 can do natively. And it isn't very bright to begin with let alone if you want to turn on a color filter to get to a bigger gamut which *decimates* the nits you get at the screen. And you'll have to turn off the 4K XPR feature altogether to get as quiet as an HT2050. So, um, no. Fails the first three tests badly.

Quote:
...and Epson 5040UB(refurb or not) and 5050UB, Epson HC3800. The Optoma 4K lineup will have similar black levels to the HT2050, and the HT3550 and HC3800 slightly better. Or used JVC.
Ok there may be some avenues in there worth exploring. The non-JVC ones were less than 3K at their original MSRP, and if we're talking about used, then yes certainly comparable to say a new HT3550, so they aren't out of bounds price wise. Might be worth a sniff. Hate to leave the BenQ family but hey, I'm adamant: you've got to walk before you can run.


When 4WD cars were new, people who just had to have that feature didn't care too much about the drawbacks. But the reality was most of the early 4WD cars were *worse* at the things 2WD-only cars were optimized for. Nowadays all-wheel-drive cars don't have too many compromises. Hopefully we get to that place in projectors.
noob00224 likes this.
NxNW is offline  
post #1792 of 1799 Old 01-15-2020, 07:46 PM
Senior Member
 
NxNW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 445
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 122 Post(s)
Liked: 135
Hi. I wanted to know how much does one click of the contrast control affect the total light output of the machine.

In the middle of the range, I got about a 2% difference between adjacent values.

Example: if a setting of 53 gives you 100 nits, then the next higher value of 54 will give you 102 nits, ie 2% more.

Your set up may vary obviously. For my peculiar set up, the gross differential between adjacent settings was almost exactly 1 nit per click. You might get 1.6 or 2.3 or who knows what depending on your screen gain, distance, zoom etc. But I bet the response will be pretty linear no matter what.

At least I found it was linear right up to the max light output of the machine, where it clearly hit a limit beyond which further increases of the contrast setting did not increase light output at all.

My setup:

10'2" away
widest angle
121" diagonal 16:9
0.65 gain screen
lamp normal
brightness 50
bc off
color temp controls adjusted for D65
otherwise cinema defaults
"100% white" generated by a Lumagen Radiance video processor
10% window
i1 display pro colorimeter with ColorHCFR

nit readings for contrast values from 40 to 60

contrast nits

41 40.1
42 41.1
43 42.2
44 43.3
45 44.0
46 45.2
47 46.2
48 47.2
49 48.3
50 49.3
51 50.5
52 51.5
53 52.2
54 52.9
55 53.8
56 54.6
57 54.7
58 54.8
59 54.8
60 54.8

upshot, when I shared a guess for lumens based on my setup which uses a contrast setting of 47, my result was 6% lower than it would have been if I had used the default contrast setting of 50.

Final disclaimer: this table of data is not transferable to *your* set up. It is included only to show just how linear the response was in *my* setup.
noob00224 likes this.

Last edited by NxNW; 01-18-2020 at 02:09 PM.
NxNW is offline  
post #1793 of 1799 Old 01-18-2020, 12:22 PM
Senior Member
 
NxNW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 445
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 122 Post(s)
Liked: 135
To answer the obvious question (not that anyone asked it) , 'if you get more lumens with each click, why not increase contrast as high as it will go', it's a basic calibration thing. Even before the raw light *quantity* reaches its peak, you see specific problems with the light *quality*. Specifically you see errors in color or the ability to smoothly track changes of the luminance signal towards the high end of the range.

This is most often seen in clouds. You might say 'I don't watch movies so I can admire the clouds.' Fair enough. But every once in awhile there will be an error that will draw attention to itself whether you wanted to see it or not. Setting contrast correctly involves staying at levels where you can be assured these errors will not occur.

I can try to show this with screen shots from a random scene in a random Pirates movie. [ The usual "cell phone pic" disclaimers apply. Certainly ignore the cyan/magenta/yellow stripey artifacts. DLP technology doesn't get along with my phone apparently. ]

First picture is contrast 48.

Second picture is contrast 54

Second picture shows a region of blown out highlights. Sort of a yellow blotch instead of orangey gradient. The effect looks subtle in a still photo but is extremely distracting if you are trying to watch a movie.


Bottom line: set contrast as high as your concern for this sort of thing allows you to go. (If you're not concerned, great! Go to 60! For everyone else you need a calibration disc with patterns.)
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	cloud1.jpg
Views:	6
Size:	711.7 KB
ID:	2671880   Click image for larger version

Name:	cloud2.jpg
Views:	7
Size:	958.0 KB
ID:	2671882  
NxNW is offline  
post #1794 of 1799 Old 01-18-2020, 01:25 PM
Senior Member
 
NxNW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 445
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 122 Post(s)
Liked: 135
I know, 'cool story bro.' The previous post is just basic Calibration for Dummies. So why am I bringing this up?

Because the errors you see when contrast is set too high are exactly the kind of errors you see with SmartEco enabled.

Why don't reviewers ever talk about this? Ok , maybe reviewers don't notice or care while viewing real world test material. But surely if it were a real problem they would detect it while measuring the projector during calibration, right?

No.

The artifacts introduced by SmartEco are transient and cannot be detected watching still images.

SmartEco behaves a lot like a Dynamic Iris. Key word, 'dynamic'. It changes based not just on APL but on how *long* the APL has been different from than the previous scene.

As far as I can tell, the SmartEco feature is not just dynamically managing lamp power based on APL but also doing some kind of magic adjustment to picture settings all the time to make changes in lamp power less noticeable. During dark scenes it seems to be able to preserve highlights: it behaves like it's using a temporarily higher contrast setting to counteract the decreased lamp power. (Total conjecture of course; I don't profess to know the details of how it *actually* works, I'm just saying how it *appears* to behave..) But when you go from a dark scene to a bright scene, it doesn't *instantly* switch back to normal contrast, instead it slowly/stealthily ramps down the contrast back to normal over a period of seconds while bright scene is being displayed.

This is fine, and it serves to unobtrusively expand total dynamic range, and usually every one is happy. But during the first few instants a suddenly-bright scene is displayed, contrast is way too high. And until it ramps down, you get all the artifacts associated with too-high-contrast.

Because the effects are transient, you will never see the problem if you blithely follow your usual calibration workflow and use static test patterns to set contrast.

Once again, two screen shots.

Same scene.

Nominal contrast was "48" in both cases, but in the first one (same baseline shot as in the previous post) SmartEco is off.

In the second one Smart Eco was on. Importantly, THE PICTURE WAS TAKEN IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE SCENE CHANGE. You have to be quick with your trigger finger and capture the behavior *while the movie is playing*, you can't pause at that frame and then take the picture after it's been on the screen for a few seconds, because during that amount of time the SmartEco feature normalizes contrast and the artifact goes away by itself. You have to 'catch it in the act..'
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	cloud1.jpg
Views:	7
Size:	711.7 KB
ID:	2671926   Click image for larger version

Name:	cloud3.jpg
Views:	7
Size:	1.10 MB
ID:	2671928  

Last edited by NxNW; 01-18-2020 at 04:05 PM.
NxNW is offline  
post #1795 of 1799 Old 01-18-2020, 01:41 PM
Senior Member
 
NxNW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 445
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 122 Post(s)
Liked: 135
Having demonstrated a much-loved picture mode introduces errors, you can probably guess which feature I tested next...

Yep. Brilliant Color.

Brilliant Color is not a dynamic effect, any errors it introduces are 'systemic'. And we've all commented previously on the tradeoff between more light vs less accurate gamut and white point so I won't bother with that. It's just that I had a little science experiment going, changing only one thing at a time, and I figured I'd do it for BC while I was at it.

As you might expect, BC does introduce some issues with very high levels, but they look sort of different from generic contrast-too-high errors. As far as I can tell, there are blow outs, but the blown out areas don't show *color* posterization (banding / blotchiness / etc). They seem pretty neutral white (at least neutral relative to whatever white point you get with BC in the first place).

So, one last time, screen shots.

Contrast was 48 in both shots.

Once again I'll just put up that first shot again for reference, same one as the previous two posts. BC was off.

The second one was with BC on.

There's a white patch. Maybe just a general loss of detail in the light areas. That's about it.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	cloud1.jpg
Views:	7
Size:	711.7 KB
ID:	2671932   Click image for larger version

Name:	cloud4.jpg
Views:	7
Size:	1.10 MB
ID:	2671934  

Last edited by NxNW; 01-18-2020 at 03:01 PM.
NxNW is offline  
post #1796 of 1799 Old Yesterday, 12:53 PM
Senior Member
 
NxNW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 445
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 122 Post(s)
Liked: 135
Ok. Still exploring this projector. Now let’s talk about dust blobs.

What is the one thing people say never to do if they suspect they may have a dust blob?

Compressed air.

Fine. Don’t squirt compressed air at a fully assembled projector.

And what is one thing people have recommended is *ok* to do to dislodge a hair that may be visible in the light path?

High Altitude Mode.

Sounds harmless, right?

Well I had a tiny glowing spot barely visible in pure black scenes, a dust mote, not a hair, but I thought maybe I would try High Altitude mode anyway to see if I could improve things.

Because the projector gods have a sense of humor, this action immediately dislodged a hair from somewhere else inside the projector just enough for it to get stuck in the light path. It wasn’t just obvious discoloration, it was in a state of constant wiggling motion, inescapably calling attention to itself, rendering the projector pretty much worthless.

So I learned my lesson right? Don’t mess with things, right?

Then I got out my can of compressed air.

At this point the projector gods got serious.

Because I wasn’t just disregarding the experience of others, I had even failed to learn from my *own experience.” This exact thing happened to me earlier and I even posted about it here a year and a half ago. see post 1462 That time, I had a hair. Then I used air and got hair *plus* dust blobs. #FML

So this was serious deja vu. Actually even lamer since this time I started with *no hair*, then I had hair, and now…

...this
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	before-white.jpg
Views:	19
Size:	357.3 KB
ID:	2672310   Click image for larger version

Name:	before-black.jpg
Views:	18
Size:	449.1 KB
ID:	2672312  
NxNW is offline  
post #1797 of 1799 Old Yesterday, 01:12 PM
Senior Member
 
NxNW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 445
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 122 Post(s)
Liked: 135
Last time this happened I sent it in to BenQ and they did a nice job but it cost $85 and I didn’t have a projector for a couple weeks.

Since that time however @envonimos; posted here some amazing photos of an HT2050 teardown and I started thinking.. just maybe ..

I mean the projector is fully depreciated by this point? Right? As they say in chess, 'Win, Draw, or Learn.' If I take it apart myself it will be either a) fixed totally, b) successfully reassembled well enough to at least turn on but still with blobs, in which case I could admit defeat and forward it along to BenQ anyway, or c) totally ruined in which case I chalk it up to experience (because, you know, I learn so well from experience) and just start over with a new projector. Maybe upgrade.

So armed with nothing but envonimos' photos from post 1709 (and also, just for reference, a tear down video of a W1070 that someone put on youtube), a pouch of generic computer repair tools, and courage, I tore that sucker open to see what I could do.

And sure enough, I was able to get it apart, clean things up, and put it back together. And it even booted up and projected images! The gods were propitiated.

Interestingly, the one thing you don’t do to an assembled projector, the very thing that started this whole mess in the first place, is perfectly fine once you have the sensitive bits out in the open. Compressed air was the only thing I used to remove dust from anything, including the various sub components of the light engine.

And since we’re sharing info here about the insides of these things, I noticed my plastic screw posts were in even worse shape than envonimos’ Specifically, two of the three had crumbled away and could not hold a screw at all and the third surely would have as well but appeared to have been repaired by BenQ when I sent it in to them the *last* time this happened. If you look at the photo you can see which one was obviously built up with newly melted/molded plastic made of some different, more heat-resistant composition I presume.

So I guess I would leave you all with one related piece of *new* advice (you've heard all the old advice about compressed air etc) arising from this: if you take apart an HT2050 yourself after five years of service and you *don’t* have a story for how you are going to rebuild those screw posts, then during reassembly you may find yourself having to settle for re-attaching the entire lens assembly *only* to the printed circuit board. Which is sort of stable but definitely not what the original design had in mind.

In general it makes me think all these old HT2050’s in service right now could not withstand much shaking or jarring without producing a debris field of white plastic bits (and possibly screws - I know I discovered one of the mounting screws just rolling around loose inside since it no longer had anything to screw in *to*).

And no my final result wasn’t *perfect* but it was more than good enough to put it back in service (photo attached- remember, when defocused, these specks become basically invisible, not like the galaxy of full moons from the 'before' photo).
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	disassembled.jpg
Views:	17
Size:	718.6 KB
ID:	2672314   Click image for larger version

Name:	lenses-mirrors.jpg
Views:	16
Size:	395.7 KB
ID:	2672316   Click image for larger version

Name:	screw-posts.jpg
Views:	17
Size:	339.1 KB
ID:	2672318   Click image for larger version

Name:	after.jpg
Views:	17
Size:	406.0 KB
ID:	2672320  

Last edited by NxNW; Yesterday at 07:50 PM.
NxNW is offline  
post #1798 of 1799 Old Yesterday, 01:17 PM
Senior Member
 
NxNW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 445
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 122 Post(s)
Liked: 135
So if you have an entire Saturday to kill and you want to learn something about a projector you can afford to lose, go for it, Tear it up. Then you, too, can hold aloft THE BEATING HEART OF THE DLP ...


...the Digital Micromirror Device MWAHAHAHAHAH
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	dmd.jpg
Views:	20
Size:	103.0 KB
ID:	2672326   Click image for larger version

Name:	temple-of-doom.JPG
Views:	20
Size:	31.3 KB
ID:	2672328  

Last edited by NxNW; Yesterday at 05:24 PM.
NxNW is offline  
post #1799 of 1799 Old Yesterday, 02:34 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
tonybradley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Where the Internet stinks
Posts: 4,399
Mentioned: 21 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 541 Post(s)
Liked: 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by NxNW View Post
So if you have an entire Saturday to kill and you want to lean something about a projector you can afford to lose, go for it, Tear it up. Then you, too, can hold aloft THE BEATING HEART OF THE DLP …


...the Digital Micromirror Device MWAHAHAHAHAH
I just prefer to watch movies and enjoy my PJ
NxNW likes this.
tonybradley is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Digital Projectors - Under $3,000 USD MSRP

Tags
HT2050/W1110

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