BenQ W5700 / HT5550 4K 100% DCI-P3 Projector Announcement and Owner’s Thread - Page 18 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 492Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #511 of 906 Old 04-16-2019, 09:33 PM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
scottyroo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Happy Valley, Utah
Posts: 934
Mentioned: 79 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 613 Post(s)
Liked: 813
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troub View Post
I reported this to BenQ as well here is the grinding sound I am talking about also this is not as loud as it can be! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlhx...ature=youtu.be


Yeah. RMA that unit. Mine doesn’t sound anything like it.

"The Bunker" | Dedicated Theater Build Under Suspended Slab Garage
Testing: BenQ HT5550 | Epson 5050UB | 160" Dragonfly™ Fixed AT Screen
Denon X6300H | 9.4.4 (7.2.4 Discrete) | 9x Episode 900 Series LCR/Surrounds | 4x Episode 1700 Series ATMOS Heights | 4x Episode 12" Evo Subs
Sony X700 | Xbox One X | NVIDIA Shield TV
scottyroo is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #512 of 906 Old 04-16-2019, 09:41 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 134
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 89 Post(s)
Liked: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruined View Post
Yes, based on owner reports the HT9060 is dramatically better overall than the HT5550. Black levels will be similar, but the HT9060 is much brighter in full dci p3 mode, much sharper, and much quieter (no loud iris noise like ht5550) - plus it has the awesome 20,000hr light source and most experience zero RBE.
I have not seen a single person or review comparing the two. Unless you've seen them both (side-by-side) or can point us to someone who's reviewed both this is a dangerous statement to make ("dramatically better").

Yes, I understand it's LED, less RBE and much more expensive, so *should* be better, but let's wait to hear from people who've actually tested both.

Rob
PT-AE8000U | LG 55C7P | Oppo UDP-203 | Onkyo TX-NR636 | JBL 5.1
robl2 is offline  
post #513 of 906 Old 04-16-2019, 09:50 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 134
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 89 Post(s)
Liked: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troub View Post
I reported this to BenQ as well here is the grinding sound I am talking about also this is not as loud as it can be!
yeah, mine doesn't have the grinding sound, but underlying movement sound is definitely present. Not something I'd likely to hear when something's playing.

Rob
PT-AE8000U | LG 55C7P | Oppo UDP-203 | Onkyo TX-NR636 | JBL 5.1
robl2 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #514 of 906 Old 04-17-2019, 12:08 AM
Member
 
jklow888's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 45
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by robl2 View Post
I have not seen a single person or review comparing the two. Unless you've seen them both (side-by-side) or can point us to someone who's reviewed both this is a dangerous statement to make ("dramatically better").

Yes, I understand it's LED, less RBE and much more expensive, so *should* be better, but let's wait to hear from people who've actually tested both.
I’m not an expert but was able to see the X12000H/9060 and the W5700/5550 side by side today and then the W5700/5550 again elsewhere today. My general observation is that the X12000H/9060 is better overall in every aspect and notably sharper. I don’t measure or claim to have a golden eye or memory but the blacks looked slightly better perhaps due to the overall brighter contrast from the LEDs. “Dramatically better” might also depend on how well the comparison units are setup and what material is used each time. I’ve been looking at just The Martian on all my comparisons.

In Australia the cost differential is more than double but it’s not twice the improvement. Is it worth it depends on your level of being a videophile or discretionary $$$$s lying around. I am tempted though ...
Ruined likes this.
jklow888 is offline  
post #515 of 906 Old 04-17-2019, 01:51 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Frank714's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Berlin
Posts: 1,377
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 883 Post(s)
Liked: 393
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottyroo View Post
I really wish TI would release a .95” Native 4K DLP though. A projector like the HT9060 could handle the optical engine size increase and the low volume high margin headroom could soak up some of the added cost.

Be careful what you wish for...rumor mill got hot not so long ago, but I think it's irrelevant for the "Under 3,000 $" category of projectors as such a DMD would most likely be implemented in the premium range of DLP projectors, probably around 10,000 $.

"It is only about things that do not interest one that one can give a really unbiased opinion, which is no doubt the reason why an unbiased opinion is always absolutely valueless." Oscar Wilde
Frank714 is offline  
post #516 of 906 Old 04-17-2019, 05:38 AM
Member
 
diablo900t's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 108
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 27 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troub View Post
I reported this to BenQ as well here is the grinding sound I am talking about also this is not as loud as it can be! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlhx...ature=youtu.be
Mine doesn't sound anything like that either, I'll try and record a clip later today. Additionally, I watched a couple hours of TV / Movies last night and felt like SmartEco w/o DI looked way better than Normal + DI. I tested with 1080p SDR content and 4k HDR and to my eyes SmartEco just looked the best, which was odd.

I also ran into some really buggy behavior with Motion Enhancer where there was a vertical line through the middle of the image, and the left half was bright and right half was darker. In general, anytime I turn on Motion Enhancer, it seems to cause all sorts of weird behavior, going to reach out to Benq about it to see if its a known issue.
DunMunro likes this.
diablo900t is offline  
post #517 of 906 Old 04-17-2019, 05:40 AM
Senior Member
 
dbpaddler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Philly
Posts: 361
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 138 Post(s)
Liked: 81
I think I'd be happy with a better 0.66 with better optics and a premium build all around. Alas, the odds of seeing that do a sub 11' throw for a 120" is slim to none. Nobody cares about the small room above entry level these days. After poking around a bit, I was hoping Optoma would have made a 4k version of the HD90. Seemed like it would have fit the bill nicely.

Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk
Frank714 likes this.
dbpaddler is offline  
post #518 of 906 Old 04-17-2019, 06:13 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ruined's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,807
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2597 Post(s)
Liked: 1240
Quote:
Originally Posted by dbpaddler View Post
I think I'd be happy with a better 0.66 with better optics and a premium build all around. Alas, the odds of seeing that do a sub 11' throw for a 120" is slim to none. Nobody cares about the small room above entry level these days. After poking around a bit, I was hoping Optoma would have made a 4k version of the HD90. Seemed like it would have fit the bill nicely.

Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk
The Digital Projection E-Vision Laser 4K UHD HC (High Contrast) with short throw lens would fit the bill but it's gonna cost you

https://www.digitalprojection.co.uk/...pec.php?id=862

Last edited by Ruined; 04-17-2019 at 06:18 AM.
Ruined is offline  
post #519 of 906 Old 04-17-2019, 06:29 AM
Senior Member
 
dbpaddler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Philly
Posts: 361
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 138 Post(s)
Liked: 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruined View Post
The Digital Projection E-Vision Laser 4K UHD HC (High Contrast) with short throw lens would fit the bill but it's gonna cost you



https://www.digitalprojection.co.uk/...pec.php?id=862
Don't think I'd be getting that even under $5k used...

Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk
dbpaddler is offline  
post #520 of 906 Old 04-17-2019, 06:30 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ruined's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,807
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2597 Post(s)
Liked: 1240
Quote:
Originally Posted by dbpaddler View Post
Don't think I'd be getting that even under $5k used...

Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk
Hey you said you wanted above entry level!!
Ruined is offline  
post #521 of 906 Old 04-17-2019, 06:52 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Frank714's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Berlin
Posts: 1,377
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 883 Post(s)
Liked: 393
Quote:
Originally Posted by dbpaddler View Post
I was hoping Optoma would have made a 4k version of the HD90.

Unless they decide to forget about long-range front projection (IMHO too much recent emphasis on short throw projectors) there simply has to be a reaction to BenQ's latest front projectors.


I for one consider their current Optoma projector range competing in the price class of the latest BenQs to be dead and done (unless you focus on their PureMotion Frame Interpolation which AFAIK is best next to Sony's MotionFlow FI).

"It is only about things that do not interest one that one can give a really unbiased opinion, which is no doubt the reason why an unbiased opinion is always absolutely valueless." Oscar Wilde
Frank714 is offline  
post #522 of 906 Old 04-17-2019, 07:30 AM
Senior Member
 
dbpaddler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Philly
Posts: 361
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 138 Post(s)
Liked: 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruined View Post
Hey you said you wanted above entry level!!
My RS45 was under 5k...

Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk
dbpaddler is offline  
post #523 of 906 Old 04-17-2019, 07:53 AM
Senior Member
 
dbpaddler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Philly
Posts: 361
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 138 Post(s)
Liked: 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank714 View Post
Unless they decide to forget about long-range front projection (IMHO too much recent emphasis on short throw projectors) there simply has to be a reaction to BenQ's latest front projectors.


I for one consider their current Optoma projector range competing in the price class of the latest BenQs to be dead and done (unless you focus on their PureMotion Frame Interpolation which AFAIK is best next to Sony's MotionFlow FI).
I'll agree on the really short throws (that sub 8' category), but that 11' range seems to be an anomaly. All my poking around seems to see 12', give or take 6", as the norm. Acer, Epson, Optoma, and BenQ beyond the 3550 are all around that. Can't even touch anything from JVC or Sony unless you want to max out at 103 to 106". Having the 120" up now with the 2050a, I'll take the more immersive pic over the overall better image of my JVC.

But I'm still not dialed in 100%. The noise level is a bit much. The manual everything is annoying as is the limited shifting. So knowing the 3550 will put me in the same boat, I'll never upgrade to it unless it's a refurb down the road for under a grand.

If I'm willing to drop a little coin to live with a pj for 5yrs plus, I want some creature comforts and something more mid range.

And if flat panels are getting larger and cheaper, don't you need to cater to the next size range up? All these UST's touting 100" screens aren't going to be as enticing as a purchase and 120" seems like a logical jump to really transition from a flat panel to a pj.

And maybe I'm just jaded because my JVC is all that, but the scree size n itch did me in, and I just saw my option pool for my next pj drop by 90%, so I'm venting.





Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk
dbpaddler is offline  
post #524 of 906 Old 04-17-2019, 08:04 AM
Member
 
Troub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 94
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked: 30
BenQ is replacing my unit just want to say their customer support has been top notch. Love this projector so iam looking forward to my replacement unit.
diablo900t likes this.
Troub is offline  
post #525 of 906 Old 04-17-2019, 08:22 AM
LVS
Advanced Member
 
LVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 683
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 48 Post(s)
Liked: 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troub View Post
BenQ is replacing my unit just want to say their customer support has been top notch. Love this projector so iam looking forward to my replacement unit.

did they indicate when you can expect to receive the replacement?
LVS is offline  
post #526 of 906 Old 04-17-2019, 08:27 AM
Member
 
Troub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 94
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by LVS View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troub View Post
BenQ is replacing my unit just want to say their customer support has been top notch. Love this projector so iam looking forward to my replacement unit.

did they indicate when you can expect to receive the replacement?
I believe right away is what it seems I will know more in detail by tomorrow since the process just started.
LVS likes this.
Troub is offline  
post #527 of 906 Old 04-17-2019, 04:26 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 42
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottyroo View Post
Yeah. RMA that unit. Mine doesn’t sound anything like it.
Scottyroo,

Was able to get measurements and adding pictures. Having an issue getting the HT5550 to square up on the entire screen. Can do it if I set Keystone to +6 but loose image size.

Measurements:
-Ceiling to top of screen: 2 Ft 3 inches from ceiling to top white part of the screen
-Ceiling to center of lens: 1 Ft .75 inches
-Screen size/aspect ratio: 150" Diagonal/16:9
-Screen to lens: 14' 11"

Image is zoomed all the way in to make image as large as possible.

Sorry for the upside down pics. Rotated them before I attached and they rotated back.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	HT5550 Keystone 0 Right.jpg
Views:	181
Size:	83.2 KB
ID:	2554594   Click image for larger version

Name:	HT5550 Keystone 0 Left.jpg
Views:	159
Size:	102.3 KB
ID:	2554596   Click image for larger version

Name:	HT5550 Keystone +6.jpg
Views:	161
Size:	87.2 KB
ID:	2554598   Click image for larger version

Name:	HT5550 Keystone 0 Whole Screen.jpg
Views:	159
Size:	84.9 KB
ID:	2554600  

Projector: Benq HT5550 || Screen: 150" Elite Screen 16:9 || Fronts: Martin Logan Impression 11A || Center: Martin Logan 50xt || Sub: 2x Polk PSW 505 || Surrounds: Martin Logan EM IW || Atmos: 4x Martin Logan EM IC || AVR: Marantz 8012 || Consoles: Xbox One S, PS4 ||HT Enhancements: Seats from 4seating.com w/Sound Shakers and risers.
Dferguso is offline  
post #528 of 906 Old 04-18-2019, 12:55 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Frank714's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Berlin
Posts: 1,377
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 883 Post(s)
Liked: 393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dferguso View Post
Was able to get measurements and adding pictures. Having an issue getting the HT5550 to square up on the entire screen. Can do it if I set Keystone to +6 but loose image size.

Measurements:
-Ceiling to top of screen: 2 Ft 3 inches from ceiling to top white part of the screen
-Ceiling to center of lens: 1 Ft .75 inches
-Screen size/aspect ratio: 150" Diagonal/16:9
-Screen to lens: 14' 11"

Image is zoomed all the way in to make image as large as possible.

Sorry for the upside down pics. Rotated them before I attached and they rotated back.

I think you may have exceeded the HT5550's vertical lens shift range (and would be much better off with the less expensive HT3550...)

Cross-referenced it with Grégory's French YouTube review where he demonstrates lens shift ranges at 2.04 minutes:
#

Alas, he only moves the image down (table mounted) which would correspond with moving the image up (ceiling mounted).

I think we are looking at this rule of thumb:

If in your setup the projector lens is going to be opposite any screen image area, than the HT5550 (W5700) would work best.

If - as in your case - the projector lens is below or above the bottom or top edge of the screen, the HT3550 (W2700) is the better choice because of its offset (i.e. it needs to be on the same level as the screen edge or above or below).


Alternatively: Hang the screen higher or get a bigger (i.e. taller) one or hang the HT5550 lower.


Regardless of the current screen, projecting the image on the wall until the image side edges are parallel to each other would provide you with some helpful orientation.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	HT5550%20Keystone%200%20Whole%20Screen.jpg
Views:	83
Size:	84.9 KB
ID:	2554730  

"It is only about things that do not interest one that one can give a really unbiased opinion, which is no doubt the reason why an unbiased opinion is always absolutely valueless." Oscar Wilde

Last edited by Frank714; 04-18-2019 at 01:35 AM.
Frank714 is offline  
post #529 of 906 Old 04-18-2019, 06:54 AM
Member
 
diablo900t's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 108
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 27 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by RKreutzer View Post
@Diablo :

I too have the vivitek 2288 and look forward to your comparison. Looking for a lower noise level from the fan and more contrast/better black from the DI and better HDR execution/brighter picture.
I had a few minutes to take some really quick photos with my phone (so take these with a grain of salt) comparing the Vivitek HK2288 and Benq HT5550. Keep in mind my Vivitek is by no means calibrated, and I adjusted some settings based on what I read on a review. I think the obvious one here is Thor Ragnarok...the colors are just so much more lively on the Benq. I'm not really sure my Xbox is playing nice with the Benq yet, as it looks very similar to the Vivitek in this example, but a bit brighter. Image settings were the following:

SDR = D. Cinema 45 brightness / 55 contrast
HDR = Wide Color Gamut on

In both cases, I've got Sharpness and Pixel Enhancement 4k set to 8. I did some brief input lag testing, and it feels like there is more latency on the Benq vs. the Vivitek. I took some slow motion videos, but need to look at them a bit closer. I remember the Vivitek being around 60-65ms so if indeed the Benq is slower, than the 79ms numbers being reported may on the mark.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	01_Benq_Thor.jpg
Views:	286
Size:	398.3 KB
ID:	2554758   Click image for larger version

Name:	02_Vivitek_Thor.jpg
Views:	265
Size:	403.7 KB
ID:	2554760   Click image for larger version

Name:	03_Benq_XboxDashboard.jpg
Views:	234
Size:	366.9 KB
ID:	2554762   Click image for larger version

Name:	04_Vivitek_XboxDashboard.jpg
Views:	231
Size:	366.3 KB
ID:	2554764   Click image for larger version

Name:	05_Benq_XboxHDRGame.jpg
Views:	268
Size:	403.1 KB
ID:	2554766  

Click image for larger version

Name:	06_Vivitek_XboxHDRGame.jpg
Views:	254
Size:	397.4 KB
ID:	2554768  
DivineMoshka likes this.
diablo900t is offline  
post #530 of 906 Old 04-18-2019, 07:53 AM
Newbie
 
fbottone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 13
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 3
Diablo,

That screenshot of the HDR gaming REALLY shows off the strength of the Benq - it looks leaps better than the Vivitek. I'm guessing this is the proprietary tone mapping Benq is doing here...

Thanks for these!
diablo900t likes this.
fbottone is offline  
post #531 of 906 Old 04-18-2019, 08:30 AM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 2
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 1
The BenQ looks so much better in the Thor screenshots, but I actually prefer the Vivitek image of the Xbox game... I think the BenQ image looks less sharp and a bit washed out, but that is likely down to settings rather than capability.
russellhk likes this.
Stu C is offline  
post #532 of 906 Old 04-18-2019, 08:39 AM
Member
 
diablo900t's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 108
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 27 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stu C View Post
The BenQ looks so much better in the Thor screenshots, but I actually prefer the Vivitek image of the Xbox game... I think the BenQ image looks less sharp and a bit washed out, but that is likely down to settings rather than capability.
I did have issues with the Xbox looking washed out. Looking at it now, it's possible that it was in that state when I took the picture, because I recall the intro video looking a bit too bright.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
diablo900t is offline  
post #533 of 906 Old 04-18-2019, 09:42 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 42
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank714 View Post
I think you may have exceeded the HT5550's vertical lens shift range (and would be much better off with the less expensive HT3550...)

Cross-referenced it with Grégory's French YouTube review where he demonstrates lens shift ranges at 2.04 minutes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1EEgXhCqnw&app=desktop#

Alas, he only moves the image down (table mounted) which would correspond with moving the image up (ceiling mounted).

I think we are looking at this rule of thumb:

If in your setup the projector lens is going to be opposite any screen image area, than the HT5550 (W5700) would work best.

If - as in your case - the projector lens is below or above the bottom or top edge of the screen, the HT3550 (W2700) is the better choice because of its offset (i.e. it needs to be on the same level as the screen edge or above or below).


Alternatively: Hang the screen higher or get a bigger (i.e. taller) one or hang the HT5550 lower.


Regardless of the current screen, projecting the image on the wall until the image side edges are parallel to each other would provide you with some helpful orientation.
Thanks for the suggestions. The projector mount pole can be lowered. There is about 3 Ft that the projector could be lowered before it would be on top of someones head. I will lower it and see what it does to the image.

Projector: Benq HT5550 || Screen: 150" Elite Screen 16:9 || Fronts: Martin Logan Impression 11A || Center: Martin Logan 50xt || Sub: 2x Polk PSW 505 || Surrounds: Martin Logan EM IW || Atmos: 4x Martin Logan EM IC || AVR: Marantz 8012 || Consoles: Xbox One S, PS4 ||HT Enhancements: Seats from 4seating.com w/Sound Shakers and risers.
Dferguso is offline  
post #534 of 906 Old 04-18-2019, 04:54 PM
Member
 
Troub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 94
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troub View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LVS View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troub View Post
BenQ is replacing my unit just want to say their customer support has been top notch. Love this projector so iam looking forward to my replacement unit.

did they indicate when you can expect to receive the replacement?
I believe right away is what it seems I will know more in detail by tomorrow since the process just started.
BenQ just shipped my replacement unit and will be here tomorrow!
LVS, m0j0 and diablo900t like this.
Troub is offline  
post #535 of 906 Old 04-18-2019, 10:52 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 42
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dferguso View Post
Thanks for the suggestions. The projector mount pole can be lowered. There is about 3 Ft that the projector could be lowered before it would be on top of someones head. I will lower it and see what it does to the image.
Lowered the projector mount as far as it will go tonight. It helped. However, the sides are parallel higher up on the wall meaning I would have to mount the screen higher up the wall. Challenge is the risers were built for the screen at its current height. I could even bring the projector down further with a different mount. Home Theatre Sudoku begins...

Projector: Benq HT5550 || Screen: 150" Elite Screen 16:9 || Fronts: Martin Logan Impression 11A || Center: Martin Logan 50xt || Sub: 2x Polk PSW 505 || Surrounds: Martin Logan EM IW || Atmos: 4x Martin Logan EM IC || AVR: Marantz 8012 || Consoles: Xbox One S, PS4 ||HT Enhancements: Seats from 4seating.com w/Sound Shakers and risers.
Dferguso is offline  
post #536 of 906 Old 04-19-2019, 05:06 AM
Senior Member
 
dbpaddler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Philly
Posts: 361
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 138 Post(s)
Liked: 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dferguso View Post
Lowered the projector mount as far as it will go tonight. It helped. However, the sides are parallel higher up on the wall meaning I would have to mount the screen higher up the wall. Challenge is the risers were built for the screen at its current height. I could even bring the projector down further with a different mount. Home Theatre Sudoku begins...
Chasing is a pain in the butt. I had to hit home depot for some pipe (bought three different lengths) when I went to the 2050a. It's now hugging the ceiling. Good luck.

Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk
dbpaddler is offline  
post #537 of 906 Old 04-19-2019, 08:12 AM
Member
 
diablo900t's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 108
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 27 Post(s)
Liked: 39
I have an old pair of Panasonic RF 3D glasses that worked with my old Epson 2040.

I'm assuming they don't work with the BenQ, what type of 3D glasses are recommended?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
diablo900t is offline  
post #538 of 906 Old 04-19-2019, 09:48 AM
Senior Member
 
Solarium's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 231
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 126 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Given the shorter throw distance of the 3550, would it be brighter overall than the 5550 at it's minimum distance from the screen to achieve a 150" display?

HT: LG OLED65B7A, Denon AVR-X7200WA, B&W CM10 S2, CMC2 S2, CM5 S2, HTR-7000 x4 (atmos), SVS SB13 Ultra x2
Desktop: KEF LS50 Wireless, KEF PSW4000 (https://pcpartpicker.com/user/Fridge...s/#view=r2V6Mp)
Portable: Chord Mojo, Shure KSE-1500
Solarium is online now  
post #539 of 906 Old 04-19-2019, 10:26 AM
Member
 
GiantBubbleGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 146
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 36 Post(s)
Liked: 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Solarium View Post
Given the shorter throw distance of the 3550, would it be brighter overall than the 5550 at it's minimum distance from the screen to achieve a 150" display?
According to the Projector Central throw calculator at maximum zoom and minimum distance the 3550 puts 15fl to a 150 inch screen while the 5550 puts 13fl.
GiantBubbleGuy is offline  
post #540 of 906 Old 04-19-2019, 03:41 PM
Senior Member
 
Solarium's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 231
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 126 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by GiantBubbleGuy View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Solarium View Post
Given the shorter throw distance of the 3550, would it be brighter overall than the 5550 at it's minimum distance from the screen to achieve a 150" display?
According to the Projector Central throw calculator at maximum zoom and minimum distance the 3550 puts 15fl to a 150 inch screen while the 5550 puts 13fl.
Which doesn’t make sense because the 5550 is rated higher lumens than the 3550. So technically if I value brightness more, and have a flexibility of placing the projector in an ideal position, the 3550 will be a better fit? I don’t care about that 100% color accuracy thing either, 90% is plenty enough 😁

HT: LG OLED65B7A, Denon AVR-X7200WA, B&W CM10 S2, CMC2 S2, CM5 S2, HTR-7000 x4 (atmos), SVS SB13 Ultra x2
Desktop: KEF LS50 Wireless, KEF PSW4000 (https://pcpartpicker.com/user/Fridge...s/#view=r2V6Mp)
Portable: Chord Mojo, Shure KSE-1500
Solarium is online now  
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