BenQ W2700 / HT3550 Announcement and Owner’s Thread - Page 118 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 2699Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #3511 of 4735 Old 06-03-2019, 04:29 PM
Newbie
 
htaddicted's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 9
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Not sure if others have experienced this but I've noticed that sometimes the projector will output partially blacked out screen. This happens when I turn on the projector but then don't feed anything to it for a while and then turn on the source (in my case fire tv stick). What happens is that bottom left or bottom right of the screen would be completely black as if something was blocking the lens in that area. Is something to be worried about? I only have few days to return this back to Amazon. It only happens sometimes but I've noticed at least 3 times now this happening. I just turn off the projector and turn it back on to resolve it. Just seems quirky.
htaddicted is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #3512 of 4735 Old 06-03-2019, 04:55 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
tonybradley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Where the Internet stinks
Posts: 4,381
Mentioned: 21 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 532 Post(s)
Liked: 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by rontalley View Post
My WCG must be broke because when I turn it on, the screen is darker, dull, greenish washed out image and just looks like poo poo. I don’t have anything to compare to though. Just can’t see how this is usable.

Watched some native 1080p material from my PC and this was the first time I “Saw” the DI really working. I could clearly see the aperture doing its thing. I could also here the clicking. Now that I knew what I was looking for, I switched back to the Fire Stick 4K and did notice a little movement in the DI but hardly see any change in black levels...

Also, for some reason HDR make people too red in majority of content. Settings is stock (Cinema) Color (Normal). I played around with trying (Cool) but picture wasn’t...pleasing...

I’ve concluded that 1080p source looks BEAUTIFUL! 4K sources not as good...

Updated Firmware 1.0.1
Seems like many can't stand the WCG. Others who do like it, seem to have NOT liked it at first, then after watching a while, determined it to be more life like. To each their own I guess. When I look outside, I know lifelike and don't have to get used to it to know what is better or not to my eyes. I like having people over for movies, so if WCG is an acquired taste, then that's bad for company who doesn't get to watch it for hours each day and get used to it. But again, everyone is different. Some have said they cannot watch a movie any longer with WCG off because of how much more realistic it looks. Again, if it looks that much more realistic, I don't know why people are saying to watch it a while with it on and you'll learn to see it's better.
tonybradley is offline  
post #3513 of 4735 Old 06-03-2019, 05:41 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
subacabra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Hillsborough, New Jersey
Posts: 2,560
Mentioned: 51 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1689 Post(s)
Liked: 4913
So far, the only movie I thought looked better with the wcg on was BR2049.
Idk, it just looks dull and weird.
This coming from someone who hates vivid/torch mode on regular tv's.
I had my 900e calibrated by D-Nice and it's my reference for pq and the wcg, to me, doesn't look anything like it.
Doesn't mean I still won't try it out more and give it a chance though.
subacabra is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #3514 of 4735 Old 06-03-2019, 05:55 PM
Senior Member
 
oztheatre's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 247
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 135 Post(s)
Liked: 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by sage11x View Post
So you’re saying that a projector that costs $1000 more (BenQ W5700/HT5550), a projector that costs twice as much (the Epson 6050) and a projector that costs more than 5 times as much (BenQ LK990) all have better optics and look better than this $1500 BenQ HT3550.... you don’t say.

I’m sorry but I’m not seeing your point. Is your point that people should just spend more? You agree with me in your first sentence and then go on to list projectors WAY outside the Ht3550’s price point as supposed competition. Those models are not competitors for the Ht3550. I would expect projectors costing thousands more to have better performance. If someone is the means to purchase a more expensive projector they should expect higher levels of picture quality. But, not everyone has the money or the desire to spend more.

Also, what exactly is the “realm of reality” and when did we wander out of it?
You are the one claiming it has 'sophisticated glass optics'.. it doesn't. For the price it's an ok projector, but that's it, it can be stretched any further to best more expensive machines. Now if this machine had the excellent and sophisticated optics you're touting, there'd be no need to buy a more expensive projector. Using the words sophisticated and excellent on a $1500 projector is misleading imho. As is their marketing material. And that's proven to be the case in all the complaints and purple glowing imagery that this machine exhibits. No I wouldn't get one, for $1500 you can't get a good 4K projector, period. You can however get a projector that exhibits horrendous chromatic aberrations due to the cheap optics. And if you sit back far enough, you might not see it, win win. Not my cup of tea though. You could also just buy a big 4K (real 4K) TV and sit closer too.

It's just the marketing and how they're talked up.. I mean how does one then rate the optics on a 40 grand sony? Better than excellent? turbo charged excellent +2? The BS marketing leaves no wiggle room as they're already so perfect.. when that's completely untrue

Anyway we could chat about this forever, the pros and cons of a budget projector.
oztheatre is offline  
post #3515 of 4735 Old 06-03-2019, 06:23 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
coderguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,083
Mentioned: 63 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2455 Post(s)
Liked: 1324
Quote:
Originally Posted by oztheatre View Post
You are the one claiming it has 'sophisticated glass optics'.. it doesn't. For the price it's an ok projector, but that's it, it can be stretched any further to best more expensive machines. Now if this machine had the excellent and sophisticated optics you're touting, there'd be no need to buy a more expensive projector. Using the words sophisticated and excellent on a $1500 projector is misleading imho. As is their marketing material. And that's proven to be the case in all the complaints and purple glowing imagery that this machine exhibits. No I wouldn't get one, for $1500 you can't get a good 4K projector, period. You can however get a projector that exhibits horrendous chromatic aberrations due to the cheap optics. And if you sit back far enough, you might not see it, win win. Not my cup of tea though. You could also just buy a big 4K (real 4K) TV and sit closer too.

It's just the marketing and how they're talked up.. I mean how does one then rate the optics on a 40 grand sony? Better than excellent? turbo charged excellent +2? The BS marketing leaves no wiggle room as they're already so perfect.. when that's completely untrue
CA and sharpness are interdependent but they are not exclusively connected. Sharpness comes from several different attributes, including focus uniformity and convergence and CA and other things. CA does not necessarily degrade a colorful image, it depends on the CA type. As a rough example, if you had a red error and you see an image with mostly dark red and a darker gray, you will see no error. That is just for convergence error. With CA, it becomes much much more complicated as the CA changes based on the size of the pixel clusters. The reason it changes is because the CA is actually the light interfering and mixing inside the lens, and if you get a big enough cluster of pixels, it can fall off to nothing, as in NO visible CA even when the projector has CA.

I'll take your word for it that the Epson was sharper (but you were also comparing the Epson 6050, not the 5050, and the 6050 now touts a 'hand picked' lens supposedly).

However, IME, the SDE of LCD is degrading to the image, if it weren't a lot more of us would own Epsons instead of a JVC or Sony.
Remember, the Epson is a Native 1080p LCD panel with a 1080p grid, yes it has e-shift which helps reduce the issue but it's still got a wider gap than LCOS or DLP (especially 4k DLP).

There is even an improvement between a 1080p JVC and a Native 4k JVC with the pixel grid, so to say it's not an issue with the Epson (as in has zero affect to the image) is misleading at best. The Epson certainly will easily hands down beat this Benq projector up in black levels, but IMO, it's likely a trade-off. Black levels vs. SDE.

For those claiming that SDE is not an issue, well to some of us it is absolutely is as I've had Epsons in my room before. With the Epson e-shift engaged, it's mostly a Non-issue at that point, but then there are limitations to that as well, and the Epson e-shift is said to be the weakest looking of all the 3 types (DLP E-Shift > LCOS E-Shift > Epson - LCD E-Shift).
sage11x likes this.

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

Last edited by coderguy; 06-03-2019 at 06:39 PM.
coderguy is offline  
post #3516 of 4735 Old 06-03-2019, 06:35 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
coderguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,083
Mentioned: 63 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2455 Post(s)
Liked: 1324
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonybradley View Post
Seems like many can't stand the WCG. Others who do like it, seem to have NOT liked it at first, then after watching a while, determined it to be more life like. To each their own I guess. When I look outside, I know lifelike and don't have to get used to it to know what is better or not to my eyes. I like having people over for movies, so if WCG is an acquired taste, then that's bad for company who doesn't get to watch it for hours each day and get used to it. But again, everyone is different. Some have said they cannot watch a movie any longer with WCG off because of how much more realistic it looks. Again, if it looks that much more realistic, I don't know why people are saying to watch it a while with it on and you'll learn to see it's better.
It sounds more like calibration or tone mapping issues I'm guessing, as I've never seen this occur too much in threads where the projectors have near perfect HDR + WCG + Tone Mapping (newer JVC's). I read this projector was only able to do 60% or so of the actual wider gamut, not even close to the 100% claimed.

However, that was an early firmware, so I don't know.

**Updated Projector Calculator Released NOV 2017**
-- www.webprojectorcalculator.com --
coderguy is offline  
post #3517 of 4735 Old 06-03-2019, 07:26 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
tonybradley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Where the Internet stinks
Posts: 4,381
Mentioned: 21 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 532 Post(s)
Liked: 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post
It sounds more like calibration or tone mapping issues I'm guessing, as I've never seen this occur too much in threads where the projectors have near perfect HDR + WCG + Tone Mapping (newer JVC's). I read this projector was only able to do 60% or so of the actual wider gamut, not even close to the 100% claimed.

However, that was an early firmware, so I don't know.
The good news is those that like WCG Off are still reporting a fantastic picture.
tonybradley is offline  
post #3518 of 4735 Old 06-03-2019, 08:41 PM
Senior Member
 
home4sale2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 219
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 103 Post(s)
Liked: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonybradley View Post
Seems like many can't stand the WCG. Others who do like it, seem to have NOT liked it at first, then after watching a while, determined it to be more life like. To each their own I guess. When I look outside, I know lifelike and don't have to get used to it to know what is better or not to my eyes. I like having people over for movies, so if WCG is an acquired taste, then that's bad for company who doesn't get to watch it for hours each day and get used to it. But again, everyone is different. Some have said they cannot watch a movie any longer with WCG off because of how much more realistic it looks. Again, if it looks that much more realistic, I don't know why people are saying to watch it a while with it on and you'll learn to see it's better.


A projector no matter how good, how sophisticated, cheap or expensive is a reproduction thus open to interpretation and subject to change of viewpoints. Life like and what you see outside comparison therefore doesn’t make sense. Rarely when I have company, I have friends that ask me whether I have WCG on or off. Let’s face it, majority of our friends don’t visit these forums or care enough about how a projector is set up. My wife could care less and my kids are perfectly happy watching a crappy resolution video on Snapchat. So, let’s give our friends some credit, they’re less anal than the rest of us who sit and debate WCG and plastic or glass lenses.

Do what makes you happy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
home4sale2 is offline  
post #3519 of 4735 Old 06-03-2019, 08:59 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 63
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by oztheatre View Post
You are the one claiming it has 'sophisticated glass optics'.. it doesn't. For the price it's an ok projector, but that's it, it can be stretched any further to best more expensive machines. Now if this machine had the excellent and sophisticated optics you're touting, there'd be no need to buy a more expensive projector. Using the words sophisticated and excellent on a $1500 projector is misleading imho. As is their marketing material. And that's proven to be the case in all the complaints and purple glowing imagery that this machine exhibits. No I wouldn't get one, for $1500 you can't get a good 4K projector, period. You can however get a projector that exhibits horrendous chromatic aberrations due to the cheap optics. And if you sit back far enough, you might not see it, win win. Not my cup of tea though. You could also just buy a big 4K (real 4K) TV and sit closer too.

It's just the marketing and how they're talked up.. I mean how does one then rate the optics on a 40 grand sony? Better than excellent? turbo charged excellent +2? The BS marketing leaves no wiggle room as they're already so perfect.. when that's completely untrue

Anyway we could chat about this forever, the pros and cons of a budget projector.
If you hate this projector so much why keep posting about it in the owners thread? You're clearly happier with your projector of choice. Time to move on.
sparky7, Samfield, sage11x and 1 others like this.
wk11793 is online now  
post #3520 of 4735 Old 06-03-2019, 09:19 PM
Senior Member
 
oztheatre's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 247
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 135 Post(s)
Liked: 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post
CA and sharpness are interdependent but they are not exclusively connected. Sharpness comes from several different attributes, including focus uniformity and convergence and CA and other things. CA does not necessarily degrade a colorful image, it depends on the CA type. As a rough example, if you had a red error and you see an image with mostly dark red and a darker gray, you will see no error. That is just for convergence error. With CA, it becomes much much more complicated as the CA changes based on the size of the pixel clusters. The reason it changes is because the CA is actually the light interfering and mixing inside the lens, and if you get a big enough cluster of pixels, it can fall off to nothing, as in NO visible CA even when the projector has CA.

I'll take your word for it that the Epson was sharper (but you were also comparing the Epson 6050, not the 5050, and the 6050 now touts a 'hand picked' lens supposedly).

However, IME, the SDE of LCD is degrading to the image, if it weren't a lot more of us would own Epsons instead of a JVC or Sony.
Remember, the Epson is a Native 1080p LCD panel with a 1080p grid, yes it has e-shift which helps reduce the issue but it's still got a wider gap than LCOS or DLP (especially 4k DLP).

There is even an improvement between a 1080p JVC and a Native 4k JVC with the pixel grid, so to say it's not an issue with the Epson (as in has zero affect to the image) is misleading at best. The Epson certainly will easily hands down beat this Benq projector up in black levels, but IMO, it's likely a trade-off. Black levels vs. SDE.

For those claiming that SDE is not an issue, well to some of us it is absolutely is as I've had Epsons in my room before. With the Epson e-shift engaged, it's mostly a Non-issue at that point, but then there are limitations to that as well, and the Epson e-shift is said to be the weakest looking of all the 3 types (DLP E-Shift > LCOS E-Shift > Epson - LCD E-Shift).
If you can see pixels on the Epson, you're sitting too close. I sit 4 metres from a 4 metre wide zoomed scope screen image and can 'just' make out the pixels if there's a snow field or similar. Move back another half a metre and it's not an issue at all. Poor black levels will always be noticeable regardless of screen size.. So SDE should not even be a topic of conversation unless you want to sit with your nose up to the screen.

dlp is the cheapest of the projector tech to manufacture and it's inferior to all the others hence the el cheapo pricing.

Turn the 'silence' off on your benq and take another look, the pixel gap is woeful. Anyhoo I don't meant to argue with anyone, I'm too crook this week to care really.

Someone on the aussie forum posted this, thought it was quite refreshing to read:

If price is of prime importance the Benq DLP probably has merit, but DLP has always been the bottom of the projector technology heap, especially single chip DLP, which is used because its the cheapest projection system to make NOT because its the best.

Any comparison to cinema DLP projectors is silly, the cinema units use 3 BIG DMD chips (as apposed to 1 small one) and therefore they can project all colours simultaneously like other 3 chip systems (LCD, LCoS, D-ILA) so no chance of viewer fatigue or distress.

3 chip DLP is very light efficient and gives the highest light output per unit light input, which for commercial cinema applications is critical. This is because there is no need to use a colour wheel and time share a single imaging chip to display the 3 primary colours. The large imaging chip size used in commercial cinema projectors also adds significant light output efficiency but adds a LOT of cost.


The BIG problem with DLP, at any price, is poor contrast. Its a fundamental limitation of DLP technology that no projector manufactures can address. The sad thing is that the native contrast performance of the new so called "4K" single chip DLP light engines is significantly worse than quality 1080 DLP projectors of 10 years ago, and they where uncompetitive against LCoS and D-ILA tech even back then. The situation has not improved since.

Native contrast is THE most important factor in images "quality", significantly more so then "resolution, in the opinion of most people, especially me. To put the contrast thing into perspective, a 8 year old base model JVC projector has at least 10 times better native contrast than this DLP and others like it.

To describe these DLP projector as "True" 4K is telling fibs. Its a 1080 pixel shift system that does not conform to any DCI 4K standard and certainly not the 4K domestic video standard of 4096 x 2160. I'm not saying "resolution" is an issue given that "4K" movies are less than 3K at best, just pointing out that these DLP projectors are NOT "true" or "native" 4K and cannot be legitimately be marketed as such even though resolution is plenty good enough. Cant say the same about contrast though.

It should also be noted that if the P3 colour space is used light output will drop by 30 to 50% which is significantly more loss than is typical with non DLP lamp based projectors and makes "wide gamut" mode effectively useless on anything other than small screens. Time sharing a single imaging chip to display 3 primary colours has its limitations.

I have posted this as a reality check to counter the marketing hype I see presented here.
oztheatre is offline  
post #3521 of 4735 Old 06-03-2019, 09:23 PM
Senior Member
 
NxNW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 410
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 102 Post(s)
Liked: 122
PSA... don't feed the trolls..
NxNW is offline  
post #3522 of 4735 Old 06-03-2019, 09:23 PM
Senior Member
 
home4sale2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 219
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 103 Post(s)
Liked: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by oztheatre View Post
If you can see pixels on the Epson, you're sitting too close. I sit 4 metres from a 4 metre wide zoomed scope screen image and can 'just' make out the pixels if there's a snow field or similar. Move back another half a metre and it's not an issue at all. Poor black levels will always be noticeable regardless of screen size.. So SDE should not even be a topic of conversation unless you want to sit with your nose up to the screen.



dlp is the cheapest of the projector tech to manufacture and it's inferior to all the others hence the el cheapo pricing.



Turn the 'silence' off on your benq and take another look, the pixel gap is woeful. Anyhoo I don't meant to argue with anyone, I'm too crook this week to care really.



Someone on the aussie forum posted this, thought it was quite refreshing to read:



If price is of prime importance the Benq DLP probably has merit, but DLP has always been the bottom of the projector technology heap, especially single chip DLP, which is used because its the cheapest projection system to make NOT because its the best.



Any comparison to cinema DLP projectors is silly, the cinema units use 3 BIG DMD chips (as apposed to 1 small one) and therefore they can project all colours simultaneously like other 3 chip systems (LCD, LCoS, D-ILA) so no chance of viewer fatigue or distress.



3 chip DLP is very light efficient and gives the highest light output per unit light input, which for commercial cinema applications is critical. This is because there is no need to use a colour wheel and time share a single imaging chip to display the 3 primary colours. The large imaging chip size used in commercial cinema projectors also adds significant light output efficiency but adds a LOT of cost.





The BIG problem with DLP, at any price, is poor contrast. Its a fundamental limitation of DLP technology that no projector manufactures can address. The sad thing is that the native contrast performance of the new so called "4K" single chip DLP light engines is significantly worse than quality 1080 DLP projectors of 10 years ago, and they where uncompetitive against LCoS and D-ILA tech even back then. The situation has not improved since.



Native contrast is THE most important factor in images "quality", significantly more so then "resolution, in the opinion of most people, especially me. To put the contrast thing into perspective, a 8 year old base model JVC projector has at least 10 times better native contrast than this DLP and others like it.



To describe these DLP projector as "True" 4K is telling fibs. Its a 1080 pixel shift system that does not conform to any DCI 4K standard and certainly not the 4K domestic video standard of 4096 x 2160. I'm not saying "resolution" is an issue given that "4K" movies are less than 3K at best, just pointing out that these DLP projectors are NOT "true" or "native" 4K and cannot be legitimately be marketed as such even though resolution is plenty good enough. Cant say the same about contrast though.



It should also be noted that if the P3 colour space is used light output will drop by 30 to 50% which is significantly more loss than is typical with non DLP lamp based projectors and makes "wide gamut" mode effectively useless on anything other than small screens. Time sharing a single imaging chip to display 3 primary colours has its limitations.



I have posted this as a reality check to counter the marketing hype I see presented here.


Yawn, sorry I dozed off.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
sage11x and wk11793 like this.
home4sale2 is offline  
post #3523 of 4735 Old 06-03-2019, 09:35 PM
Senior Member
 
oztheatre's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 247
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 135 Post(s)
Liked: 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by wk11793 View Post
If you hate this projector so much why keep posting about it in the owners thread? You're clearly happier with your projector of choice. Time to move on.
Who said I hated it? We're just talking about it and hopefully in a way that doesn't mislead people into thinking they're getting something better than it really is....
oztheatre is offline  
post #3524 of 4735 Old 06-03-2019, 09:38 PM
Senior Member
 
oztheatre's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 247
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 135 Post(s)
Liked: 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by home4sale2 View Post
Yawn, sorry I dozed off.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
haahaha cuz you know it's all true. buyers remorse perhaps?
oztheatre is offline  
post #3525 of 4735 Old 06-03-2019, 09:56 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
coderguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,083
Mentioned: 63 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2455 Post(s)
Liked: 1324
Quote:
Originally Posted by oztheatre View Post
Its a 1080 pixel shift system that does not conform to any DCI 4K standard and certainly not the 4K domestic video standard of 4096 x 2160. I'm not saying "resolution" is an issue given that "4K" movies are less than 3K at best, just pointing out that these DLP projectors are NOT "true" or "native" 4K and cannot be legitimately be marketed as such even though resolution is plenty good enough. Cant say the same about contrast though.

It should also be noted that if the P3 colour space is used light output will drop by 30 to 50% which is significantly more loss than is typical with non DLP lamp based projectors and makes "wide gamut" mode effectively useless on anything other than small screens. Time sharing a single imaging chip to display 3 primary colours has its limitations.

I have posted this as a reality check to counter the marketing hype I see presented here.[/I]

I know, I own a JVC, no-one is expecting JVC black levels. I love LCOS but it is very expensive, however LCD is a very mixed bag.
I have owned a Sanyo Z4000 and an Epson 1080 and the Epson 5020ub more briefly. They all had pixel grid issues.

Most of us sit about 10' from 120 to 130" Scope screen, and having to zoom for scope makes it even worse with an LCD's pixel grid.
It's not the snowfields that bothers me, it's the roughness and sometimes flat look of LCD that is a direct cause from the pixel grid.

LCOS looks 90% as pop as most DLP's, whereas LCD one scene may look fabulous, than the next looks flat.
DLP is more film-like, sorry but it's true...

**Updated Projector Calculator Released NOV 2017**
-- www.webprojectorcalculator.com --
coderguy is offline  
post #3526 of 4735 Old 06-03-2019, 09:56 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 63
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by oztheatre View Post
Who said I hated it? We're just talking about it and hopefully in a way that doesn't mislead people into thinking they're getting something better than it really is....
You literally said "for $1500 you can't get a good 4K projector, period. You can however get a projector that exhibits horrendous chromatic aberrations due to the cheap optics." I would assume opposite of good is bad no? Maybe you don't hate it but you clearly don't like it.

Anyway you keep comparing this to projectors that are much more expensive and catered towards a different demographic and in an entirely different class so I just don't see the point in all of your posts. I would assume if the people reading this thread wanted a pro level projector they wouldn't be here. And I think most people here are smart enough to figure out they can get a better projector generally speaking by spending more money.

As far as the optics are concerned - of course they are marketing it to make it sound sophisticated. It's what all companies do. Do you think they're going to flat outright state the optics are subpar?
wk11793 is online now  
post #3527 of 4735 Old 06-03-2019, 09:59 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
coderguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,083
Mentioned: 63 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2455 Post(s)
Liked: 1324
The Epson is nothing special compared to a JVC or Sony IMO, but if someone wants the best black levels, then yah go for the Epson 5040 refurb or the 5050. I don't think that is even in question. However, you can also get a used JVC RS-4810/56/66/4910 and it will blow the pants off the Epson for about the same price or less, if you want the risk of buying used. What does this have to do with this projector however, nothing...

I will be using this as a backup and occasional 3D projector, not for dark movie content.
Robert Clark likes this.

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

Last edited by coderguy; 06-03-2019 at 10:02 PM.
coderguy is offline  
post #3528 of 4735 Old 06-03-2019, 10:50 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
coderguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,083
Mentioned: 63 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2455 Post(s)
Liked: 1324
Quote:
Originally Posted by oztheatre View Post
If you can see pixels on the Epson, you're sitting too close.
Here ya go, https://www.avsforum.com/forum/68-di...l#post58111376

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

Last edited by coderguy; 06-04-2019 at 01:26 AM.
coderguy is offline  
post #3529 of 4735 Old 06-04-2019, 12:35 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Cornwall UK
Posts: 70
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26 Post(s)
Liked: 63
Had to post after some of the comments - This is in the sub $3000 section therefore most of those looking are looking at a tighter budget … it's also the HT3550 thread so most of us will be looking to see how good/ bad it is compared to projectors in a SIMILAR price range!

Marketing hype is a given for ANY projector hence why we read reviews/ haunt forums etc. and the whole 'it's not real 4K' has been covered in many articles and forum discussions - please give some of us credit for making our choices based on a decent amount of research.

For some of us spending $1500 on a Projector is a big deal and that sometimes means buying a cheap 4K projector or NO 4K projector if $1500 is the max you can afford / are willing to spend.
I happily admit to being in this group and having done the research paid my money and am pleased with the result as it is a step up from my last 1080p projector as I get 4K, WCG and dynamic iris - is it the best projector? Hell no, but it's the best for what I was willing (and able) to spend.

Expectations for this projector were high and perhaps some people expected too much, but it's a decent enough bit of kit at the price although I can't help feel that the first batch were rushed out the door hence those having genuine issues with the early units.

Mine is in no way perfect but it seems the new firmware will sort the split screen issue and the fan noise is there but only a pain in the quiet moments - but you do get what you pay for!
DLPdisciple is offline  
post #3530 of 4735 Old 06-04-2019, 01:53 AM
Senior Member
 
oztheatre's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 247
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 135 Post(s)
Liked: 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post
Of course the JVC's have better fill factor, nobody is questioning that. I've had every JVC since the HD1. And if you know the trick to focusing an Epson properly, screen door is even less of an issue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post
The Epson is nothing special compared to a JVC or Sony IMO, but if someone wants the best black levels, then yah go for the Epson 5040 refurb or the 5050. I don't think that is even in question. However, you can also get a used JVC RS-4810/56/66/4910 and it will blow the pants off the Epson for about the same price or less, if you want the risk of buying used. What does this have to do with this projector however, nothing...

I will be using this as a backup and occasional 3D projector, not for dark movie content.
If you're talking the 5050 (and the 5040 from 3 years ago) and NOT the 6050 which I have here, then perhaps if you get a working JVC and a Sony that focuses properly.. Though the sonys are lightweight when it comes to image punch as they don't have the lumens. But the 6050 is nothing short of spectacular. I've had both the Sony laser 4K, the 570es, (2 of each, 1 of each had a crap lens) the JVC N7 (rs2000), 4 BenQs (3550, 5550, LK970, LK990) and the Epson punches them in the face aside from the LK BenQ's having better optics and higher brightness (but milky grey blacks), but gee there's not much in it. Blow the pants off? Not even close. Unless you've had them all side by side including the 6050 with the better optics. The epson is the better performer all round. Native 4K has been nothing but a thorn in the side for PJ makers worldwide. Epson have continued with a design that works. Smart move by Epson.

I could do a blind test and you wouldn't know what was native 4K and what was pixel shifting at normal seating distance, period.

HDR implemented really well with 10 pre set curves.
High brightness
Good black levels (way better than any dlp)
Good optics (better than projectors costing 5 times the price)
Everything works - no locked out colour gamuts - responsive remote - SDR to HDR on the fly etc
Excellent image processing
No banding, no posterization
oztheatre is offline  
post #3531 of 4735 Old 06-04-2019, 02:42 AM
Member
 
bobyvee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 17
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by oztheatre View Post
Of course the JVC's have better fill factor, nobody is questioning that. I've had every JVC since the HD1. And if you know the trick to focusing an Epson properly, screen door is even less of an issue.








I could do a blind test and you wouldn't know what was native 4K and what was pixel shifting at normal seating distance, period.

HDR implemented really well with 10 pre set curves.
High brightness
Good black levels (way better than any dlp)
Good optics (better than projectors costing 5 times the price)
Everything works - no locked out colour gamuts - responsive remote - SDR to HDR on the fly etc
Excellent image processing
No banding, no posterization

How about motion artifacts compared to DLP?
bobyvee is online now  
post #3532 of 4735 Old 06-04-2019, 03:12 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
coderguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,083
Mentioned: 63 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2455 Post(s)
Liked: 1324
Quote:
Originally Posted by oztheatre View Post
If you're talking the 5050 (and the 5040 from 3 years ago) and NOT the 6050 which I have here, then perhaps if you get a working JVC and a Sony that focuses properly.. Though the sonys are lightweight when it comes to image punch as they don't have the lumens. But the 6050 is nothing short of spectacular. I've had both the Sony laser 4K, the 570es, (2 of each, 1 of each had a crap lens) the JVC N7 (rs2000), 4 BenQs (3550, 5550, LK970, LK990) and the Epson punches them in the face aside from the LK BenQ's having better optics and higher brightness (but milky grey blacks), but gee there's not much in it. Blow the pants off? Not even close. Unless you've had them all side by side including the 6050 with the better optics. The epson is the better performer all round. Native 4K has been nothing but a thorn in the side for PJ makers worldwide. Epson have continued with a design that works. Smart move by Epson.

I could do a blind test and you wouldn't know what was native 4K and what was pixel shifting at normal seating distance, period.

HDR implemented really well with 10 pre set curves.
High brightness
Good black levels (way better than any dlp)
Good optics (better than projectors costing 5 times the price)
Everything works - no locked out colour gamuts - responsive remote - SDR to HDR on the fly etc
Excellent image processing
No banding, no posterization
The Epson is pretty good, but I immediately notice the fill factor as do many others.
I can definitely see the difference between 4k on an Epson vs. a DLP...

I'm sorry but I've never heard anyone claim the Epson is superior to a JVC nx7, you are the first.
The only thing the Epson has over the JVC is the brightness.

If you really want good blacks then none of these projectors are really 'there' for me, it's why I didn't buy into the Native 4k JVC's.
Instead, the Jvc x790 (rs-540 or rs-640) blows everything else away for black levels, especially when accounting for iris position and throw distance. Most people's setups on the Epson are only getting 4000:1 native with 20k:1 dynamic or less, unless you set it up perfectly at the optimal throw and all.

You can easily get 100k:1 native and over 400k:1 dynamic with those JVC's, nothing else comes close...
Too bad the NX series took a major hit to contrast, especially for the price. The RS-3000 has good contrast, but it's so ridiculously expensive...

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

Last edited by coderguy; 06-04-2019 at 03:17 AM.
coderguy is offline  
post #3533 of 4735 Old 06-04-2019, 03:14 AM
Senior Member
 
oztheatre's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 247
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 135 Post(s)
Liked: 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobyvee View Post
How about motion artifacts compared to DLP?
Not that I've noticed. If it's something you need to go looking for..
oztheatre is offline  
post #3534 of 4735 Old 06-04-2019, 03:24 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
coderguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,083
Mentioned: 63 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2455 Post(s)
Liked: 1324
Quote:
Originally Posted by oztheatre View Post
I've had both the Sony laser 4K, the 570es, (2 of each, 1 of each had a crap lens) the JVC N7 (rs2000), 4 BenQs (3550, 5550, LK970, LK990) and the Epson punches them in the face aside from the LK BenQ's having better optics and higher brightness (but milky grey blacks), but gee there's not much in it. Blow the pants off?
How did you get all these projectors, heck the 5550 is low stock and only a few people even have one.
Why would you buy the Benq lk990 after the lk970 and then go for an Epson.

**Updated Projector Calculator Released NOV 2017**
-- www.webprojectorcalculator.com --
coderguy is offline  
post #3535 of 4735 Old 06-04-2019, 03:25 AM
Senior Member
 
oztheatre's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 247
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 135 Post(s)
Liked: 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post
The Epson is pretty good, but I immediately notice the fill factor as do many others.
I can definitely see the difference between Native 4k on an Epson vs. a DLP...

I'm sorry but I've never heard anyone claim the Epson is superior to an nx7, you are the first.
You're right, the NX7 is a step up, but right now, worldwide problems, they're not really in the game at present.
It will take 2 more years I think for them to perfect native 4K. Until then Sony holds the crown and the Epson is chewing their ankles to bits. A new LS series native 4K epson will be a welcome addition.

here's the HD5550 and the 6050. To my eyes the Epson is a sharper clearer image. And it's a pixel shifter.. so is the BenQ..

Ignore the colour, just the detail. The epson is the LHS image, benq RHS. In fact the photo doesn't show enough difference, it's hard to capture with a phone camera.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	6060_5550.jpg
Views:	62
Size:	284.1 KB
ID:	2575632  
oztheatre is offline  
post #3536 of 4735 Old 06-04-2019, 03:31 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
coderguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,083
Mentioned: 63 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2455 Post(s)
Liked: 1324
Do you work for Epson?

I've never seen someone argue so adamantly that the pixel fill has no effect to the image, to me it is the complete and total opposite, especially with scope screens and having to use Lens Memory + Zoom.
sage11x likes this.

**Updated Projector Calculator Released NOV 2017**
-- www.webprojectorcalculator.com --
coderguy is offline  
post #3537 of 4735 Old 06-04-2019, 03:31 AM
Member
 
bobyvee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 17
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by oztheatre View Post
Not that I've noticed. If it's something you need to go looking for..

Just weighing up options to replace 1080p DLP projector that has double ( at least) the native contrast of the Benq with a higher contrast 4k projector-W5700 or 8400, but other wise like the DLP look and motion
Up in NQ long way from you in SEQ so can not easily check it out
bobyvee is online now  
post #3538 of 4735 Old 06-04-2019, 03:32 AM
Senior Member
 
oztheatre's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 247
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 135 Post(s)
Liked: 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post
How did you get all these projectors, heck the 5550 is low stock and only a few people even have one.
Why would you buy the Benq lk990 after the lk970 and then go for an Epson.
I'm a dealer, but a cinema screen manufacturer first and foremost. I've had the 5550 for 2 months or more. The other BenQ's same. The sony's and jvc's I've had here since December, then had a few swapped out and exchanged, sold off etc.

The Lk's had too many issues from laser dimming not knowing what it's doing to locked out colour gamuts. My previous fave projector was the JVC X7500 (the series before last years X or RS series). The Epson is as close or slightly better in some ways to that JVC model, mainly brightness and HDR implementation. We really do need high brightness for that so it ticks a lot of boxes. Just comes across like a complete home cinema projector without the issues, it just works.

Oh and RBE on the 990 was pretty ordinary.. combined with the milky greys.. Otherwise it's like a lambo doing 200mph down the straight.

Last edited by oztheatre; 06-04-2019 at 03:37 AM.
oztheatre is offline  
post #3539 of 4735 Old 06-04-2019, 03:33 AM
Member
 
bobyvee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 17
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post
Do you work for Epson?

I've never seen someone argue so adamantly that the pixel fill has no effect to the image, to me it is the complete and total opposite, especially with scope screens and having to use Lens Memory + Zoom.

He sells them and many other brands IE Epson, Jvc, Benq, Sony etc
bobyvee is online now  
post #3540 of 4735 Old 06-04-2019, 03:33 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
coderguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,083
Mentioned: 63 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2455 Post(s)
Liked: 1324
Quote:
Originally Posted by oztheatre View Post
I'm a dealer, but a cinema screen manufacturer first and foremost. I've had the 5550 for 2 months or more. The other BenQ's same. The sony's and jvc's I've had here since December, then had a few swapped out and exchanged, sold off etc.

The Lk's had too many issues from laser dimming not knowing what it's doing to locked out colour gamuts. My previous fave projector was the JVC X7500 (the series before last years X or RS series). The Epson is as close or slightly better in some ways to that JVC model, mainly brightness and HDR implementation. We really do need high brightness for that so it ticks a lot of boxes. Just comes across like a complete home cinema projector without the issues, it just works.
I don't need the Epsons brightness for my 120" scope screen, the JVC's are plenty bright and probably even slightly brighter for a purist calibration, and I personally think that 80% of HDR content looks worse than SDR no matter how perfect your devices are at handling it, and that is me watching it on an oLED TV. People kept telling me how much better HDR looks, so I bought some stuff and compared it and it does nothing for me. Sure some scenes are torchier looking, and a few have higher contrast, but overall most stuff looks worse. People keep excusing it saying it will get better, well it's been a while now and much of it looks horrible.

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