Review: Benq HT2050A - Page 6 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 78Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #151 of 281 Old 05-29-2018, 02:05 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
DaGamePimp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 16,269
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 596 Post(s)
Liked: 613
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrimeTime View Post
Jason, What happened with your 1186?

Sold it to a local friend, his son is taking it off to college.
Now that was one sharp pj (the 1186).


The sharpest projector I have seen was actually a really old high end 720p unit that I owned, the Sharp 12 mkII (of course the lens alone was several thousand dollars... Konica/Minolta).


- Jason

HT = BenQ HT3550 - Sony HW45ES @133" / Marantz SR6013 7.3.4 Atmos / B&K 5000 II amp / Boston VR2/VR12/CR67 speakers / Rythmik 12" x2 / CV 15" / Panasonic UB820 / Toshiba HD-A3
Media Room = Sony 65x930e / Denon x3300 /Klipsch speakers /Velodyne subs /Sony x700 /PS4 Pro + PSVR/WiiU/PS3/360/Wii/ 2080 TI - 9900K PC / Multi-Arcade / Virtual Pinball TRE45ON
DaGamePimp is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #152 of 281 Old 05-29-2018, 03:26 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 85
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by sage11x View Post
Yes, happiness is a function of expectations. That goes for life and projectors. 🙂
I think the HT2050A is very tough to beat— in it’s price range. Keep in mind that the IN78 was a $3500 projector in it’s day. Despite it’s age that is really a different stratosphere of price. While I know the 78 was rated from the manufacturer at 3500:1 i’m curious to see if anyone actually measured the contrast... In either case the Sony should be a clear upgrade. You’ll have to let us all know what you think of it.

Edit: Nevermind I found it. This is the 76 but from what I can see they are functionally identical.

https://www.soundandvision.com/conte...-labs-measures

And here is Eberle’s review of the HT2050A:

https://hometheaterhifi.com/reviews/...jector-review/

Looks like the IN76 can produce a full field 0 IRE black of 0.012 ft-L and S&V measured a CR of 1764:1. Eberle measured the HT2050A at .0984 nits which is equivalent to 0.029 ft-L. So the Infocus is definitely darker but not that much darker. In addition, while the HT2050A measured a CR of 1331-1355:1 native, Chris got 1988:1 with lamp dimming (not exactly fair as the Infocus lacks lamp dimming but I feel most people will run in smarteco so it’s worth mentioning). The HT2050A is also significantly brighter. But I could see in a bat cave that the Infocus’ lower black floor and higher native contrast could be an advantage.
The IN78's advantage over the IN76 was its move to DarkChip3, which brought the black level down and increased contrast. InFocus claimed 3000:1 for the IN76 vs 3500:1 for the IN78. The IN82, a 1080p model with an iris, was measured at 2766:1 with a peak brightness of 19.36 fL and black level of .007 fL with the iris engaged (static). This was on a 90" diagonal 1.3-gain screen so black level would be lower on a larger, lower gain screen like mine. InFocus claimed 4000:1 contrast for the IN82, so I think it's safe to assume the IN78 is close to 2500:1 native, beating the BenQ even with dimming.

Edit again: did an evaluation with more properly exposed pics. Got a figure of 2485:1 for high power mode and 2711:1 for regular power mode, very close to my prediction. The Lagom calculator is saying 40 nits (11.68 fL) for high power and 30 nits (8.86 fL) in regular power for full white. The Lagom calculator only reports black to the nearest hundredth of a fL, but that comes out to black levels of about .0047 fL and .0032 fL respectively (lower than the figures for the IN76 and IN82 quoted above, also as I predicted). On my .85-gain 100" screen, Chris Eberle's numbers for the HT2050A on Eco would translate to a black level of .0545 nits / .016 fL and peak brightness of 73.1 nits / 21.3 fL (it's a multiplier of .554, in case you're wondering). According to Eberle's numbers, in Normal mode, the HT2050A can put my target 109 nits / 31 fL on my screen, but with a much higher black level (.024 fL). SmartEco brings the lowest black level down to .016 fL, still well above the IN78.

It's strange that SmartEco doesn't drop the brightness below Eco on the HT2050A, because Optoma's Dynamic Black and SmartEco on other BenQ projectors do.




Edit: Attached pictures.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	INFocus IN78 bright blank.jpg
Views:	73
Size:	628.9 KB
ID:	2409306   Click image for larger version

Name:	BenQ eco blank.jpg
Views:	69
Size:	657.2 KB
ID:	2409308   Click image for larger version

Name:	BenQ HT2050A eco.jpg
Views:	94
Size:	486.6 KB
ID:	2409310   Click image for larger version

Name:	Infocus bright.jpg
Views:	81
Size:	473.2 KB
ID:	2409312   Click image for larger version

Name:	BenQ HT2050A normal.jpg
Views:	81
Size:	494.9 KB
ID:	2409314  

Click image for larger version

Name:	Benq HT 2050A smart eco.jpg
Views:	62
Size:	499.1 KB
ID:	2409316   Click image for larger version

Name:	Optoma HD29darbee eco.jpg
Views:	73
Size:	494.2 KB
ID:	2409318   Click image for larger version

Name:	White iso 100 130 s iso 100 contrast 51.jpg
Views:	66
Size:	1.08 MB
ID:	2409354   Click image for larger version

Name:	Black bright 400 iso 10s f1.7.jpg
Views:	62
Size:	858.0 KB
ID:	2409356   Click image for larger version

Name:	Black normal iso 400 10s f1.7.jpg
Views:	47
Size:	737.9 KB
ID:	2409358  

Click image for larger version

Name:	White normal iso 100 130s f1.7.jpg
Views:	49
Size:	825.5 KB
ID:	2409360  

Last edited by netwebber; 05-29-2018 at 08:33 PM.
netwebber is offline  
post #153 of 281 Old 05-29-2018, 10:11 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 85
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaGamePimp View Post
I have both the 2050a and the Sony HW45es sitting here and can tell you that the while the 45es has a superior image it's not a great 'Data' projector due to clarity/sharpness.
The 45es can be made to be fairly sharp using a combination of digital enhancements (reality creation + sharpness) but it's not natively as sharp as the 2050a (providing you get a solid unit).
The 45es is a fantastic movie/gaming projector (best all-around under $2K) but it is not the best solution for PC/Data use.


- Jason
The 2050A is extremely sharp; I'll give it that. I'll report back in the Sony HW45ES owners' thread when I'm able to test my unit.
netwebber is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #154 of 281 Old 05-30-2018, 12:34 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
PrimeTime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Lower California
Posts: 3,258
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 802 Post(s)
Liked: 499
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaGamePimp View Post
Sold it to a local friend, his son is taking it off to college.
Now that was one sharp pj (the 1186).

- Jason

Your friends are fortunate to count you among them. I remember your initial post showing the 1186 hanging next to your JVC, and doing most of the non-spaceopera duty.


Mine is still going strong into its third year (3-year warranty, so....). It is so easy to focus side-to-side that I can't understand the focus difficulty some of the other PJ owners are reporting. Best $500 I ever spent.
DaGamePimp likes this.
PrimeTime is offline  
post #155 of 281 Old 05-31-2018, 04:22 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
sage11x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Howell, MI
Posts: 6,595
Mentioned: 198 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2751 Post(s)
Liked: 2736
Quote:
Originally Posted by netwebber View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaGamePimp View Post
I have both the 2050a and the Sony HW45es sitting here and can tell you that the while the 45es has a superior image it's not a great 'Data' projector due to clarity/sharpness.
The 45es can be made to be fairly sharp using a combination of digital enhancements (reality creation + sharpness) but it's not natively as sharp as the 2050a (providing you get a solid unit).
The 45es is a fantastic movie/gaming projector (best all-around under $2K) but it is not the best solution for PC/Data use.


- Jason
The 2050A is extremely sharp; I'll give it that. I'll report back in the Sony HW45ES owners' thread when I'm able to test my unit.
Yeah I’d be curious to hear your impressions as well. When you say you want to do work on the projector what kind of work will you be doing?

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  
post #156 of 281 Old 05-31-2018, 04:14 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 85
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by sage11x View Post
Yeah I’d be curious to hear your impressions as well. When you say you want to do work on the projector what kind of work will you be doing?
Reviewing/editing documents, putting together spreadsheets, writing emails, web page updating/design work.

The uniformity hasn't been great on the HW45ES either. Out of the box the new lamp had a huge hotspot. Watched the NHL finals and the hotspot (sort of a bluish cast) was distracting. There were even wavy lines like out-of-focus floaters. Those went away after about half an hour. With ~15 hours on the lamp, the hotspot has dimmed. It's marginally better than the BenQ now, but I'm not loving the HW45 for mostly white-screen work. I don't notice any uniformity issues on content other than ice hockey and PC!

The HW45ES is not nearly as sharp with text as the HT2050A. You can't get better than single-chip DLP for sharpness and the "cinema grade lens" is the real deal. DaGamePimp is correct; the HW45ES is not the best projector for data. It's also definitely not portable and will not be coming with me on any business trips!

The contrast, however, is fantastic. I measured it at 7400:1, although for hockey and PC use I put the contrast down to a level where it's around 4000:1. I also like being able to expand the color gamut; I guess I've gotten used to oversaturated OLED displays and think rec.709/sRGB seems dull. Anyway, this is a BenQ 2050A thread; I'll continue any Sony discussion in the Sony VPL-HW45 owners' thread.
netwebber is offline  
post #157 of 281 Old 06-01-2018, 08:23 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
sage11x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Howell, MI
Posts: 6,595
Mentioned: 198 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2751 Post(s)
Liked: 2736
Quote:
Originally Posted by netwebber View Post
Reviewing/editing documents, putting together spreadsheets, writing emails, web page updating/design work.



The uniformity hasn't been great on the HW45ES either. Out of the box the new lamp had a huge hotspot. Watched the NHL finals and the hotspot (sort of a bluish cast) was distracting. There were even wavy lines like out-of-focus floaters. Those went away after about half an hour. With ~15 hours on the lamp, the hotspot has dimmed. It's marginally better than the BenQ now, but I'm not loving the HW45 for mostly white-screen work. I don't notice any uniformity issues on content other than ice hockey and PC!



The HW45ES is not nearly as sharp with text as the HT2050A. You can't get better than single-chip DLP for sharpness and the "cinema grade lens" is the real deal. DaGamePimp is correct; the HW45ES is not the best projector for data. It's also definitely not portable and will not be coming with me on any business trips!



The contrast, however, is fantastic. I measured it at 7400:1, although for hockey and PC use I put the contrast down to a level where it's around 4000:1. I also like being able to expand the color gamut; I guess I've gotten used to oversaturated OLED displays and think rec.709/sRGB seems dull. Anyway, this is a BenQ 2050A thread; I'll continue any Sony discussion in the Sony VPL-HW45 owners' thread.

Yeah, when you said ‘work’ I was about to say: you do know how large the Sony is, right? Lol! I wouldn’t really consider the Ht2050A portable but it’s small enough that moving it around is not much of a chore. The Sony is a substantial piece of equipment which is really the appeal— it’s a home THEATER projector.

But then your Infocus is pretty large itself isn’t it?

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  
post #158 of 281 Old 06-01-2018, 11:37 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 85
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by sage11x View Post
Yeah, when you said ‘work’ I was about to say: you do know how large the Sony is, right? Lol! I wouldn’t really consider the Ht2050A portable but it’s small enough that moving it around is not much of a chore. The Sony is a substantial piece of equipment which is really the appeal— it’s a home THEATER projector.

But then your Infocus is pretty large itself isn’t it?
I work from home or wherever I'm traveling at the time. The HT2050A is significantly larger than the Optoma HD29darbee. I'm not sure why the Optoma (5.1 lbs) is lighter than its siblings HD142x and HD27 (which are the same size and have basically the enclosure and are both 5.1 lbs), but I'm guessing it's probably the inferior lens. Notably, the Optoma comes with a carrying case.

I wouldn't consider packing the BenQ (785 cubic inches, 7.3 lbs) for air travel. The Optoma (390 cubic inches, 5.1 lbs) is literally half the volume and 30% lighter. The HT1070A (475 in^3, 5.6 lbs) and MH540 (429 in^3, 5.3 lbs) are much more portable, and indeed, compete more directly with the HD27/HD29/HD142x. Interestingly, the next generation models (HD27e/HD143x) are much heavier at 6.8lbs.

Yeah, the Infocus is big (950 in^3) and doesn't have feet. At 720p it's not really suitable for working on and is not bright enough for presentations anyway.
netwebber is offline  
post #159 of 281 Old 06-01-2018, 02:22 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
sage11x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Howell, MI
Posts: 6,595
Mentioned: 198 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2751 Post(s)
Liked: 2736
Review: Benq HT2050A

Quote:
Originally Posted by netwebber View Post
I work from home or wherever I'm traveling at the time. The HT2050A is significantly larger than the Optoma HD29darbee. I'm not sure why the Optoma (5.1 lbs) is lighter than its siblings HD142x and HD27 (which are the same size and have basically the enclosure and are both 5.1 lbs), but I'm guessing it's probably the inferior lens. Notably, the Optoma comes with a carrying case.



I wouldn't consider packing the BenQ (785 cubic inches, 7.3 lbs) for air travel. The Optoma (390 cubic inches, 5.1 lbs) is literally half the volume and 30% lighter. The HT1070A (475 in^3, 5.6 lbs) and MH540 (429 in^3, 5.3 lbs) are much more portable, and indeed, compete more directly with the HD27/HD29/HD142x. Interestingly, the next generation models (HD27e/HD143x) are much heavier at 6.8lbs.



Yeah, the Infocus is big (950 in^3) and doesn't have feet. At 720p it's not really suitable for working on and is not bright enough for presentations anyway.


Yeah I was definitely not suggesting that the BenQ HT2050A is portable. But it is small enough to easily move from room to room if needed. It’s certainly not designed to be portable. The Ht1070A and MH530FHD are built off the same chassis and they are small enough to be easily tucked into a bag though I’d probably stop short of calling hem portable as today’s portable projectors are barely the size of a hardcover book.

The HD143X actually uses the smaller .47 DMD versus the .65 DMD in the HD142X. So, yes, it is unusual that it weighs more as, in theory, you’d need a more substantial light path (lamp and lens) for the larger chip.

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.

Last edited by sage11x; 06-01-2018 at 03:10 PM.
sage11x is offline  
post #160 of 281 Old 07-01-2018, 05:25 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
ScottieBoysName's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,980
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1255 Post(s)
Liked: 429
Quote:
Originally Posted by dreamer View Post
The $749 (msrp) HT2050A is Benq's latest offering in the 1080P entry-level projector world. Actually, it is a step above entry-level in that it includes glass lenses, vertical lens shift, anamorphic stretch, quiet operation, and high color brightness with a fast RGBRGB color wheel. It also fits in smaller rooms than most other projectors due to its relatively short minimum throw of 1.15 and zoom lens of 1.3. That means a 100" image from as little as 8'4" or as far as 10'11".

First impression of the HT2050A tells you this is no road warrior's business projector trying to do double-duty for home use. It is three inches wider than my W1070, as well as an inch taller and and inch deeper. All that extra space has a beneficial effect on operating noise and heat output. Sitting just 12" away from the exhaust vents during testing, I was never bothered by either noise or heat when I had just the HT2050A running. During my side-by-side comparisons with both the W1070 and HT2050A running the heat became an issue.

Some nice physical features include all three feet being adjustable when table-mounting, and the vertical lens shift has a knob rather than requiring a screwdriver. There is also a dust shield covering the lens zoom lever and knurled focus ring. As light otherwise escapes this opening, you have incentive to keep it closed.


My second impression was a mixed bag -- the remote.
Although the new remote is generally an improvement, it trades some functions I prized on the W1070 for some new functions that seem less useful. Specifically, the "Test", "Freeze", and "Aspect" buttons have disappeared and "Gamma", "Keystone" and "Mode" were added. Having direct remote access to bring up the test grid to verify alignment and focus was useful, and having to navigate the menu to get the test grid less so. Being able to freeze the image on screen regardless of source was also useful, especially since some sources like Roku dim the image and clutter it with status displays while paused -- the W1070 Freeze gave a clean clutter free image. Not only is this no longer a function from the remote, but I did not find it anywhere in menu system either. Sigh. Being able to change the aspect ratio from the remote is handy for users of anamorphic lenses, and this now requires menu navigation. The new button to change Gamma settings is surprisingly useful -- brightening up a dark scene to see what is hiding in the shadows is great. The Keystone button makes those adjustments consistent with adjusting brightness or contrast -- choose what to modify, then adjust. The Mode button changes the projector display mode -- from User 1 to Cinema, Game, Vivid TV, etc.

The new remote, however, is less cluttered which is better for most everyday functions. Its backlit buttons stay lit for 30 seconds instead of the 15 seconds of yore. The circular wobble pad for adjustments is easier to use than the individual tiny buttons of the W1070 remote. Having separate buttons for volume control means fewer mistakes there. There is also a pair of button bars to control the "Play", "Fast Forward" etc. functions of an HDMI-CEC connected device.

Initial setup had the picture mode set to "Vivid TV" which looks surprisingly good -- not over saturated, not particularly green, and just a bit under saturated in red. Too bright with gamma set to 2.1, but fine out of the box for a bright room. Switching picture mode to "Cinema" cut brightness by at least a third and raised gamma to 2.2, blue and green appeared more muted than the Vivid mode. The "Bright" mode is the only one to use "native lamp" for Color Temperature as well as gamma down at 1.8, and is the only mode with a really objectionable green cast to it, as well as red being more wine than fire engine. "Game" mode is, surprisingly, almost identical to "Vivid TV" rather than "Bright" mode.

These out of the box impressions were based on about an hour of switching between Netflix (via Roku), DirecTV, and BluRay. Rewinding, pausing, and replaying the same clips in each picture mode.

Basic adjustments time:
Starting from Cinema mode, with gamma 2.2 and "Normal" lamp color temperature with Brilliant Color "On", I used the bluray disc of WOW from Disney for test patterns. I bumped Brightness to 51 and Contrast to 55. The HT2050A had no trouble at all adjusting to show only those patterns above and below ideal black and ideal white as it should. Using "Color Temperature Fine Tuning" I adjusted the R/G/B "Gains" to 114/95/120 as the most natural looking and left "Offsets" at 256. Under the "Color Management" menu, I left the settings as Cinema defaulted -- which was at their midpoints (200) except for Red Hue at 184 and Magenta Hue at 268. A range of 400 on these controls for Hue, Saturation and Gain under this menu is tough to use by eye -- large changes have barely discernible effect. I left Benq's settings as-is.

Then I watched some movies and TV. For a week. Some of that time was spent running both the HT2050A and my W1070 at the same time with precision instruments (ie, blocks of wood) hiding half the image from each projector so I could see the relative differences that five years has made. To the naked eye, those differences are obvious, although tough for my limited camera/skills to capture.

Flesh tones look good in these DirecTV shots from "Marvel: Agents of Shield", "Fox News", and the bluray of "X-Men:Apocalypse":




Black and white films stayed black and white, without any color tint.


Certainly colors pop as we expect from DLP, looking vibrant alongside natural skin tones in these shots from "X-Men:Apocalypse" and "Lucy" bluray, with colors in "Toy Story" appearing downright cartoonish:





Color accuracy on my W1070 was always a strong suit, but the HT2050A is Benq's first projector in this price class to include their CinematicColor which means the color wheel "high pure color coatings" are chosen and tested to produce 96% of the Rec 709 color gamut as well as producing the proper gray scale and white temperature close to 6500K. Previously, only their CinePro and CinePrime series projectors included this feature.

The bottom line, though, is whether colors look as they did when we saw the film in the theater or, barring that, whether they look natural. The only way to assess this without instruments is to view a variety of material as below.






Now, I have to admit that except for the ease of setting the test patterns without clipping whites or crushing blacks, I had a hard time telling the HT2050A apart from my W1070 in AB comparisons. My eyes adjusted too quickly with even a few minutes break between swapping the two projectors -- they both looked great. Then I started to run them both in a stacked configuration where I could hide half of each image and see the composite image on screen -- it is worth noting that the vertical lens shift makes this possible where it would not be with some competitors in this price class. I purchased a powered HDMI splitter to send the signal to both projectors at the same time.

In the images below, the W1070 is on the left and the HT2050A on the right. Sometimes there is a noticeable darker column running down the middle of the screen due to imprecise placement of the blocks and other times there is a double image instead.

Here is the focus test pattern, mostly for the obvious difference in brightness it shows:

I got light meter readings off this image that I frankly don't believe -- 50% brighter on the HT2050A side of the image than on the W1070 side. As far as sharpness itself goes, the glass lens vs. plastic lens does not show a dramatic improvement. Even expanding this shot to full size does not show an obvious advantage in reading the text or patterns above.

This image below is terribly out of focus but does show the improved blacks on the HT2050A. Look at the difference in the "black bar" areas above and below this opening sequence of the bluray "Passengers", and keep in mind the brightness difference in the test pattern above where the left-hand side should be dimmer overall than the right:

and here I've changed the W1070 "Projector Position" menu setting to "Rear" on the left hand side of the screen to show the mirror image of the right hand side shown by the HT2050A: Notice how much blacker space is between the stars. You can actually pick out individual stars on the right side that are missing on the left. Except where the dummy taking the picture is casting a shadow.

The white room scene in the bluray of "Lucy". The W1070 on the left looks almost a dingy white compared to the HT2050A on the right.


I was not really happy with my attempts to capture the difference in lens quality between the two projectors. There is one. And it is subtle. But I think these two images of Scarlet in "Lucy" show more detail in the skin pores and in the eye on the right-hand HT2050A side. The iris, lashes, and eyebrows are all more distinct on the HT2050A side.



While I have not used the internal speakers much in any projector I've owned, clearly Benq has put some effort into this. They call it "CinemaMaster Audio+2" and tout the clarity and "sensual sound quality" -- marketing department working overtime, I guess. What I can tell you is that the volume is sufficient to be heard without distortion from 20 feet away. There are several sound modes including Cinema, Game, Sports, Standard, Music, and User. That seems like a lot to ask of a single speaker, even if it does use magnesium and rubidium exotic materials. There are minor differences between preset modes and they cannot be changed. Only User mode allows access to the"EQ" menu where ten steps of boost or damping is available at five levels (100hz,300,1k,3k,10k). And it actually works, although nobody should expect much bass out of a small speaker driver.

Connectivity on the HT2050A includes two HDMI inputs, a powered USB port to provide power to a streaming stick like Roku or Chromecast, or in my case an HDMI splitter. There is also a PC (D-Sub) connection, component video inputs, composite video input, audio input, and an RS232 port for firmware updates. There is also an audio output and a 12V trigger to control a retractable screen.

Conclusion:
It has been a bit over five years now since Benq set a new bar for entry level projector enthusiasts with its $999(msrp) W1070. Features included a fast RGBRGB color wheel which eliminated the dreaded "rainbow effect" for all but the most sensitive viewer, the color accuracy and ISF color controls, the brightness, the excellent motion handling, and some features arguably aimed squarely at HT use like vertical lens shift and digital vertical stretch for use with an anamorphic lens. Other features were arguably aimed at more casual users, like the built-in speaker scoffed at by more serious HT users. All in all, the W1070 was a compact package that seemed to hit a happy medium for use in modest dedicated movie rooms as well as living room TV and Sports use with the occasional lawn party thrown in.

Yes, yes, but ... the question is always "What have you done for me lately ?"

This brings me to the HT2050A. What we expect in the world of consumer electronics is for new models to bring us (a) better performance than our last purchase for the same money, or preferably (b) better performance for even less money. I am happy to report that the HT2050A is solidly in the (b) category. The kicker is that the warranty is THREE YEARS compared to the ONE YEAR warranty the W1070 came with.

Some may quibble that my still capable W1070 is hardly the "direct" predecessor to the HT2050A, but I would argue that most people are like me and do not replace their equipment every year or two. A cycle of five years seems like a more common interval for the upgrade itch to strike.

The HT2050A has managed to improve serious HT use in several ways:
1) Black levels are notably better than the W1070, making dark room use more satisfying
2) Brightness is improved, allowing for larger screens
3) The case size is larger with more open airflow, making it a bit quieter
4) Glass lens improves crispness compared to the plastic lens of the W1070
5) Field uniformity is much better than my W1070, whether due to the glass lens or some other factor

There is something for everyone, though, in that non-dedicated HT rooms get these improvements:
1) Lower input lag for games, including a "Fast" mode that brings lag down to 16.67ms
2) Horizontal as well as vertical keystone correction and all three feet adjustable make temporary setups easier
3) Much better internal speaker with several sound processing modes and "EQ"

Based on my head to head comparison, those looking for an upgrade to their W1070 will be quite happy with the HT2050A. It still offers the only vertical lens shift at this price point of DLP projectors, and now it offers horizontal as well as vertical keystone correction. It has a shorter than average 1.15 throw distance for smaller rooms, and a 1.3 zoom lens making it a direct replacement for a W1070 at the same mounting place. When every aspect of image quality is as good or better, price is lower, and the warranty is tripled ... it is pretty easy to conclude that the HT2050A value proposition is even better than it was five years ago when the W1070 was released.

Correction 4/21/2018: While the "Letterbox" Display Aspect Ratio does a vertical-only stretch of the image, it is not appropriate for use with anamorphic lenses and scope 2.35 screens. Although some anamorphic lenses allow a variable horizontal expansion ratio, most do not -- it is a fixed 1.33 ratio. The "Letterbox" Aspect Ratio only performs a 1.28 vertical stretch, which is not enough to eliminate horizontal black bars on scope films viewed on a scope screen with the most common anamorphic lenses. An e-mail to Benq about this issue received no reply after ten days. Ideally, Benq would correct the vertical stretch to 1.33x in a simple firmware update to make the HT2050A fully anamorphic ready.
In your review above, what size screen is that, and how far are you throwing the image?
ScottieBoysName is offline  
post #161 of 281 Old 07-01-2018, 06:38 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
dreamer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Walnut, CA, USA
Posts: 4,065
Mentioned: 56 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1495 Post(s)
Liked: 598
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottieBoysName View Post
In your review above, what size screen is that, and how far are you throwing the image?

It is a 122" VuTec bright white screen and the Benq is 11' away.

*********************
Kirk Ellis
BenQ TK800 VuTec 122" Screen, Harmon Kardon AVR 247
Psycoustic Mark III L&R Towers, Boston Center, Energy Take 5 Surrounds
dreamer is offline  
post #162 of 281 Old 07-01-2018, 08:41 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
ScottieBoysName's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,980
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1255 Post(s)
Liked: 429
Quote:
Originally Posted by dreamer View Post
It is a 122" VuTec bright white screen and the Benq is 11' away.


Any zoom at all? I’m waiting one to get delivered to me now, and I’m a bit confused on how the zoom works in relation to brightness.

You can see my post at the end of the thread here. Any advice/comments?

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/68-di...thread-50.html
ScottieBoysName is offline  
post #163 of 281 Old 07-01-2018, 10:54 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
dreamer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Walnut, CA, USA
Posts: 4,065
Mentioned: 56 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1495 Post(s)
Liked: 598
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottieBoysName View Post
Any zoom at all? I’m waiting one to get delivered to me now, and I’m a bit confused on how the zoom works in relation to brightness.

You can see my post at the end of the thread here. Any advice/comments?

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/68-di...thread-50.html
You have it backwards. 1.0x "zoom" means that is the furthest position the projector can be and is producing the smallest image. Projectors are always brightest at their CLOSEST position, but how much brighter or dimmer varies from projector to projector. The HT2050A does not lose much brightness from closest to furthest. As long as your lens is anywhere within the range shown on Projector Central's calculator, brightness will be fine -- within 10% I think.


You should IGNORE the foot lamberts brightness numbers on ProjectorCentral, though. They have errors in their calculation for all projectors, have for years, and have never corrected them. Foot lamberts SHOULD be lumens * gain / square feet of screen. A 122" screen is 45 sqft area. To result in only 16fl on a 0.7 gain screen, the HT2050A would only need 1025 lumens, yet every review that has actually calibrated the projector puts the lumens at over 1500.

*********************
Kirk Ellis
BenQ TK800 VuTec 122" Screen, Harmon Kardon AVR 247
Psycoustic Mark III L&R Towers, Boston Center, Energy Take 5 Surrounds
dreamer is offline  
post #164 of 281 Old 07-01-2018, 11:11 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
ScottieBoysName's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,980
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1255 Post(s)
Liked: 429
Quote:
Originally Posted by dreamer View Post
You have it backwards. 1.0x "zoom" means that is the furthest position the projector can be and is producing the smallest image. Projectors are always brightest at their CLOSEST position, but how much brighter or dimmer varies from projector to projector. The HT2050A does not lose much brightness from closest to furthest. As long as your lens is anywhere within the range shown on Projector Central's calculator, brightness will be fine -- within 10% I think.


You should IGNORE the foot lamberts brightness numbers on ProjectorCentral, though. They have errors in their calculation for all projectors, have for years, and have never corrected them. Foot lamberts SHOULD be lumens * gain / square feet of screen. A 122" screen is 45 sqft area. To result in only 16fl on a 0.7 gain screen, the HT2050A would only need 1025 lumens, yet every review that has actually calibrated the projector puts the lumens at over 1500.


Got it. I thought that sounded low! Noted, I’ll ignore that. So, one thing has me confused. I thought a smaller image from the same throw distance would result in a brighter image though? Since the light is spread over a smaller distance?

13 feet 4 inches is the closest I can get the projector to the screen. With that in mind, the brightest image at that throw distance will be the smallest, right?

Is 122 inches at 11 feet viewing too big or too small?
ScottieBoysName is offline  
post #165 of 281 Old 07-02-2018, 03:57 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
dreamer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Walnut, CA, USA
Posts: 4,065
Mentioned: 56 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1495 Post(s)
Liked: 598
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottieBoysName View Post
Got it. I thought that sounded low! Noted, I’ll ignore that. So, one thing has me confused. I thought a smaller image from the same throw distance would result in a brighter image though? Since the light is spread over a smaller distance?

13 feet 4 inches is the closest I can get the projector to the screen. With that in mind, the brightest image at that throw distance will be the smallest, right?

Is 122 inches at 11 feet viewing too big or too small?
Yes, the smallest image at any given distance is brightest because the same amount of light is being spread over the smallest AREA. 122" is the smallest image you can get with the HT2050A lens 13'4" from the screen.


122" is about right for TV but too small for my tastes for scope movies. I don't game, so I can't tell you whether I would find it about right or too small for gaming. Image size is a personal preference. Some people feel like they need to look right at wherever the action is on screen and insist that too large an image forces them to move their head back and forth. Others, like me, just take in the whole image and don't move our heads like we are watching a ping pong match.

*********************
Kirk Ellis
BenQ TK800 VuTec 122" Screen, Harmon Kardon AVR 247
Psycoustic Mark III L&R Towers, Boston Center, Energy Take 5 Surrounds
dreamer is offline  
post #166 of 281 Old 07-02-2018, 04:03 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
ScottieBoysName's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,980
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1255 Post(s)
Liked: 429
Quote:
Originally Posted by dreamer View Post
Yes, the smallest image at any given distance is brightest because the same amount of light is being spread over the smallest AREA. 122" is the smallest image you can get with the HT2050A lens 13'4" from the screen.


122" is about right for TV but too small for my tastes for scope movies. I don't game, so I can't tell you whether I would find it about right or too small for gaming. Image size is a personal preference. Some people feel like they need to look right at wherever the action is on screen and insist that too large an image forces them to move their head back and forth. Others, like me, just take in the whole image and don't move our heads like we are watching a ping pong match.


Got it! I think what I’m going to do is hang it, and from there I’ll adjust the image to the size that looks right to me and go from there making the screen.

Stupid question time. At 13’4”, with the 122” image....is that with the lens at its widest setting or?

I was reading that any projector is brightest with the lens at its widest setting.
ScottieBoysName is offline  
post #167 of 281 Old 07-02-2018, 04:37 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
dreamer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Walnut, CA, USA
Posts: 4,065
Mentioned: 56 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1495 Post(s)
Liked: 598
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottieBoysName View Post
Got it! I think what I’m going to do is hang it, and from there I’ll adjust the image to the size that looks right to me and go from there making the screen.

Stupid question time. At 13’4”, with the 122” image....is that with the lens at its widest setting or?

I was reading that any projector is brightest with the lens at its widest setting.
Nope, that is at its smallest zoom setting. Largest would be 159" I think. A 122" image at the zooms widest setting would require the projector be at 10'4" away. You say you can't do that. The zoom lens cost a small amount of light when it is at its furthest distance, but of course zooming out to a larger image makes it dimmer by spreading the light over a larger area.

*********************
Kirk Ellis
BenQ TK800 VuTec 122" Screen, Harmon Kardon AVR 247
Psycoustic Mark III L&R Towers, Boston Center, Energy Take 5 Surrounds
dreamer is offline  
post #168 of 281 Old 07-02-2018, 06:30 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
ScottieBoysName's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,980
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1255 Post(s)
Liked: 429
Quote:
Originally Posted by dreamer View Post
Nope, that is at its smallest zoom setting. Largest would be 159" I think. A 122" image at the zooms widest setting would require the projector be at 10'4" away. You say you can't do that. The zoom lens cost a small amount of light when it is at its furthest distance, but of course zooming out to a larger image makes it dimmer by spreading the light over a larger area.


So, is it kinda a wash in that instance?

I know this projector has a shorter throw and smaller zoom range, so it’s probably not impacted as much as say, something else. Correct?
ScottieBoysName is offline  
post #169 of 281 Old 07-02-2018, 07:08 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Dave in Green's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 8,354
Mentioned: 152 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3787 Post(s)
Liked: 3001
One instrumented review of the HT2050 (which should also apply to the HT2050A) showed that when adjusted from widest to mid-zoom a loss of 14% lumens and at furthest zoom a 27% loss. With your 0.7 gain 122" screen the image is going to be a lot closer to commercial movie theater bright than LCD TV bright in your dark room. If you prefer a brighter image you can always go to a brighter mode and/or high lamp, though high lamp would increase fan noise.

Since a 122" image is the absolute smallest image an HT2050A can produce when the front of the lens is 13' 4" from the screen you will need to be very careful. The calculators have been known to be an inch or two off in throw predictions and if at furthest zoom the image turns out to be slightly too large for a 122" screen from 13' 4" there's nothing you can do to fix it but move the projector/screen slightly closer together. The old carpenter's advice says to measure twice and cut once. In this case I'd try filling your screen with the projector temporarily sitting upright on a table with the lens measured exactly 13' 4" from the screen before cutting any holes in the ceiling that would result in the lens being exactly 13' 4" from the screen. You may in fact need to be at 13' 3" or 13' 2".

By temporarily viewing from a table you can also determine if the HT2050A is bright enough for you or if you will need to exchange it for a brighter model. Since individual brightness preferences vary it's hard to predict what someone else may be satisfied with.
Dave in Green is offline  
post #170 of 281 Old 07-02-2018, 10:30 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
ScottieBoysName's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,980
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1255 Post(s)
Liked: 429
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave in Green View Post
One instrumented review of the HT2050 (which should also apply to the HT2050A) showed that when adjusted from widest to mid-zoom a loss of 14% lumens and at furthest zoom a 27% loss. With your 0.7 gain 122" screen the image is going to be a lot closer to commercial movie theater bright than LCD TV bright in your dark room. If you prefer a brighter image you can always go to a brighter mode and/or high lamp, though high lamp would increase fan noise.



Since a 122" image is the absolute smallest image an HT2050A can produce when the front of the lens is 13' 4" from the screen you will need to be very careful. The calculators have been known to be an inch or two off in throw predictions and if at furthest zoom the image turns out to be slightly too large for a 122" screen from 13' 4" there's nothing you can do to fix it but move the projector/screen slightly closer together. The old carpenter's advice says to measure twice and cut once. In this case I'd try filling your screen with the projector temporarily sitting upright on a table with the lens measured exactly 13' 4" from the screen before cutting any holes in the ceiling that would result in the lens being exactly 13' 4" from the screen. You may in fact need to be at 13' 3" or 13' 2".



By temporarily viewing from a table you can also determine if the HT2050A is bright enough for you or if you will need to exchange it for a brighter model. Since individual brightness preferences vary it's hard to predict what someone else may be satisfied with.


Got it! Thank you for the reply. I appreciate it!

That’s exactly what I’m going to do. I’m going to try the projector out in several different places before I “permanently” do anything at all. That includes even purchasing or making a screen.

I did see somewhere in a review for the 2050A, that the zoom lens only impacts brightness by 6%.

It was on Projector Central’s review.

“Zoom Lens Effect on Brightness. In the full telephoto setting, the 1.3x zoom drops the brightness by only 6 percent, which is not enough to notice or bother considering when positioning the projector.”
ScottieBoysName is offline  
post #171 of 281 Old 07-02-2018, 01:03 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Dave in Green's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 8,354
Mentioned: 152 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3787 Post(s)
Liked: 3001
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottieBoysName View Post
… I did see somewhere in a review for the 2050A, that the zoom lens only impacts brightness by 6%.

It was on Projector Central’s review.

“Zoom Lens Effect on Brightness. In the full telephoto setting, the 1.3x zoom drops the brightness by only 6 percent, which is not enough to notice or bother considering when positioning the projector.”
I find that number hard to believe based on a measured 27% drop in brightness for the HT2050 zoom. That would take a serious change in hardware to achieve and there's no indication BenQ made any major change to the lens system. Only a 6% lumen reduction for a 1.3x lens is something I don't ever recall seeing in any projector review. I suspect that may be an error in the projectorcentral.com HT2050A review.
Dave in Green is offline  
post #172 of 281 Old 07-02-2018, 02:01 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
sage11x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Howell, MI
Posts: 6,595
Mentioned: 198 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2751 Post(s)
Liked: 2736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave in Green View Post
I find that number hard to believe based on a measured 27% drop in brightness for the HT2050 zoom. That would take a serious change in hardware to achieve and there's no indication BenQ made any major change to the lens system. Only a 6% lumen reduction for a 1.3x lens is something I don't ever recall seeing in any projector review. I suspect that may be an error in the projectorcentral.com HT2050A review.



Hmmm... they measured only a 9% drop for the Epson 3100 and it has a 1.6x zoom lens. I wonder if the first measurement was in error?

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  
post #173 of 281 Old 07-02-2018, 03:18 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
dreamer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Walnut, CA, USA
Posts: 4,065
Mentioned: 56 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1495 Post(s)
Liked: 598
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave in Green View Post
I find that number hard to believe based on a measured 27% drop in brightness for the HT2050 zoom. That would take a serious change in hardware to achieve and there's no indication BenQ made any major change to the lens system. Only a 6% lumen reduction for a 1.3x lens is something I don't ever recall seeing in any projector review. I suspect that may be an error in the projectorcentral.com HT2050A review.
That 27% figure does seem to be an outlier -- pre-production unit or bad measurements, maybe. And that ProjectorCentral review was actually a combined review of HT3050 and comparison to HT2050. ProjectorCentral is the same outfit that claimed only 6% for the HT2050A, so go figure.



The old W1070 was measured by ProjectorReviews at 15% with the same 1.3x zoom, and it had some plastic lens elements while the HT2050A is all glass and the lens is touted as a major feature.


Still, we can all agree that if getting the brightest image is an imperative, then placing closer to the screen is important.


Maybe the OP could explore hanging the screen further away from the wall to shorten the distance. He is building a spandex AT screen, so he can build it any size he needs ... but he can also hang it further from the wall and place his center channel speaker (at least) behind it and the spandex will have minimal attenuation of his sound.

*********************
Kirk Ellis
BenQ TK800 VuTec 122" Screen, Harmon Kardon AVR 247
Psycoustic Mark III L&R Towers, Boston Center, Energy Take 5 Surrounds
dreamer is offline  
post #174 of 281 Old 07-02-2018, 05:32 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
ScottieBoysName's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,980
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1255 Post(s)
Liked: 429
Quote:
Originally Posted by dreamer View Post
That 27% figure does seem to be an outlier -- pre-production unit or bad measurements, maybe. And that ProjectorCentral review was actually a combined review of HT3050 and comparison to HT2050. ProjectorCentral is the same outfit that claimed only 6% for the HT2050A, so go figure.



The old W1070 was measured by ProjectorReviews at 15% with the same 1.3x zoom, and it had some plastic lens elements while the HT2050A is all glass and the lens is touted as a major feature.


Still, we can all agree that if getting the brightest image is an imperative, then placing closer to the screen is important.


Maybe the OP could explore hanging the screen further away from the wall to shorten the distance. He is building a spandex AT screen, so he can build it any size he needs ... but he can also hang it further from the wall and place his center channel speaker (at least) behind it and the spandex will have minimal attenuation of his sound.


This is actually a great point. I have to admit I haven’t thought of that, moving the screen closer.

That’ll reduce my viewing distance though, and that brings into account seeing the weave on an AT Screen.

I guess HT is all about compromises though.
ScottieBoysName is offline  
post #175 of 281 Old 07-02-2018, 06:04 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Dave in Green's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 8,354
Mentioned: 152 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3787 Post(s)
Liked: 3001
I thought I recalled 1.3x zoom projectors typically in the ~20% light loss area between minimum and maximum zoom. But since there seems to be conflicting data maybe 10% or less is more accurate. That would barely be perceptible as the human eye is pretty adaptable so I wouldn't worry about it, especially in a dark room where ambient light isn't an issue.
Dave in Green is offline  
post #176 of 281 Old 07-02-2018, 06:07 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
ScottieBoysName's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,980
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1255 Post(s)
Liked: 429
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave in Green View Post
I thought I recalled 1.3x zoom projectors typically in the ~20% light loss area between minimum and maximum zoom. But since there seems to be conflicting data maybe 10% or less is more accurate. That would barely be perceptible as the human eye is pretty adaptable so I wouldn't worry about it, especially in a dark room where ambient light isn't an issue.


The room is indeed light controlled, so that will help.
ScottieBoysName is offline  
post #177 of 281 Old 07-05-2018, 02:20 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
tonybradley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Where the Internet stinks
Posts: 4,379
Mentioned: 21 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 532 Post(s)
Liked: 219
So, I'm back...thinking about this PJ again. I decided to purchase the Viewsonic Pro7827HD but the fan was so loud, I had to send it back. Not just loud, but clunky. My 14 year old Panasonic PJ is much quieter, but the fan is very SMOOTH. I could have lived with the sound of the Viewsonic had it been smooth. Based on some other threads, it thought I had a bum PJ as I was measuring a very high and unacceptable dB. I sent it back and received the new one today. Same issue. The fan is not just loud, but it rattles or something and is annoying. I measured the dB at 47dB at my normal seating position and my old Panasonic was 33.5dB.

So now looking to go with the BenQ 2050a.....again. What do you folks think about the Fan Noise? When I was testing today, I noticed my old Panasonic, when turning it off and it kicks on High to cool the lamp, it measured the same dB (46.8dB) as the Viewsonic on Eco Mode.

I'm concerned I won't be able to do a 120" screen as the BenQ is deeper than the Viewsonic. Where it will mount, I have a small drop down in ceiling height, so the front of the lens may be a few inches forward from the Viewsonic. I am going to find the dimensions of the BenQ tonight and go measure.
tonybradley is offline  
post #178 of 281 Old 07-06-2018, 06:32 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
sage11x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Howell, MI
Posts: 6,595
Mentioned: 198 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2751 Post(s)
Liked: 2736
Review: Benq HT2050A

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonybradley View Post
So, I'm back...thinking about this PJ again. I decided to purchase the Viewsonic Pro7827HD but the fan was so loud, I had to send it back. Not just loud, but clunky. My 14 year old Panasonic PJ is much quieter, but the fan is very SMOOTH. I could have lived with the sound of the Viewsonic had it been smooth. Based on some other threads, it thought I had a bum PJ as I was measuring a very high and unacceptable dB. I sent it back and received the new one today. Same issue. The fan is not just loud, but it rattles or something and is annoying. I measured the dB at 47dB at my normal seating position and my old Panasonic was 33.5dB.



So now looking to go with the BenQ 2050a.....again. What do you folks think about the Fan Noise? When I was testing today, I noticed my old Panasonic, when turning it off and it kicks on High to cool the lamp, it measured the same dB (46.8dB) as the Viewsonic on Eco Mode.



I'm concerned I won't be able to do a 120" screen as the BenQ is deeper than the Viewsonic. Where it will mount, I have a small drop down in ceiling height, so the front of the lens may be a few inches forward from the Viewsonic. I am going to find the dimensions of the BenQ tonight and go measure.


The fan on the HT2050A is quieter than the Viewsonic’s fan. Fan noise on the 7827 is a common complaint.

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  
post #179 of 281 Old 07-06-2018, 02:55 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
dreamer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Walnut, CA, USA
Posts: 4,065
Mentioned: 56 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1495 Post(s)
Liked: 598
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonybradley View Post
So, I'm back...thinking about this PJ again. I decided to purchase the Viewsonic Pro7827HD but the fan was so loud, I had to send it back. Not just loud, but clunky. My 14 year old Panasonic PJ is much quieter, but the fan is very SMOOTH. I could have lived with the sound of the Viewsonic had it been smooth. Based on some other threads, it thought I had a bum PJ as I was measuring a very high and unacceptable dB. I sent it back and received the new one today. Same issue. The fan is not just loud, but it rattles or something and is annoying. I measured the dB at 47dB at my normal seating position and my old Panasonic was 33.5dB.

So now looking to go with the BenQ 2050a.....again. What do you folks think about the Fan Noise? When I was testing today, I noticed my old Panasonic, when turning it off and it kicks on High to cool the lamp, it measured the same dB (46.8dB) as the Viewsonic on Eco Mode.

I'm concerned I won't be able to do a 120" screen as the BenQ is deeper than the Viewsonic. Where it will mount, I have a small drop down in ceiling height, so the front of the lens may be a few inches forward from the Viewsonic. I am going to find the dimensions of the BenQ tonight and go measure.
You will need a full 10' from lens to screen. If it is so tight that the cables plugging into the back become a problem, there are "right angle" HDMI adapters and "right angle" power cords that might get you an extra inch compared to standard cables. Also, keep in mind that the measurement is from the "lens" and the lens is recessed into the housing by over an inch -- so subtract that from the specs measurement for depth.

*********************
Kirk Ellis
BenQ TK800 VuTec 122" Screen, Harmon Kardon AVR 247
Psycoustic Mark III L&R Towers, Boston Center, Energy Take 5 Surrounds
dreamer is offline  
post #180 of 281 Old 07-06-2018, 04:35 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
tonybradley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Where the Internet stinks
Posts: 4,379
Mentioned: 21 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 532 Post(s)
Liked: 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by dreamer View Post
You will need a full 10' from lens to screen. If it is so tight that the cables plugging into the back become a problem, there are "right angle" HDMI adapters and "right angle" power cords that might get you an extra inch compared to standard cables. Also, keep in mind that the measurement is from the "lens" and the lens is recessed into the housing by over an inch -- so subtract that from the specs measurement for depth.
I was looking at the right angle HDMI adapters for that very reason. My HDMI cable is 25' long. I was going to try one and hope it didn't add too much loss making the cable length an issue.

Regarding the Throw for a 120" screen. I need 10'1". If I painted a screen, I could probably get the 120" just fine. I'd rather not paint as I don't think my wall is as smooth as it should be for one. Not sure the depth of the Silver Ticket Screens. Will need to look. But, given that the vents are on the side, I could use a right angle HDMI connector and find one for the power cable, or new power cable and sit it a couple inches further back than I had planned, and with the recessed lens, I should be close (that was a really long run on sentence).

I know this sounds like a non issue, but given the lack of hardware stores around me, it is. I read in the 2050a online manual that the screws required to hang the PJ are M4x20 min to M4x25 Max. I recently bought a Peerless PRG-UNV Mount and it worked fine for the Viewsonic as it came with M4x10 screws. Only M4 screws it came with. I called the closest Hardware store to me (about 25 minutes away) and they had one type of M4x20 screw. I forget now what they said, but said it was a 70 pitch. I asked what it meant, and the guy said he wasn't sure, but had something to do with course or fine threading and how many threads were on the screw.... and I'd need to know which I needed. No idea as I don't know what he was talking about. I have an ACE Hardware store about 30 minutes in another location and will call them tomorrow. Found some on Amazon for several, but don't want to spend $10 when I just need three or four.
tonybradley 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