[ABrasic]

I've been researching on this board for about 3 months now, and finally registered when I felt that I had enough background knowledge on the subjects in question to be able to discuss them at above a troglodyte level.

That being said, why is so much attention being paid to the new HD2 chips when the D-ILAs have been out for much longer, with a much higher resolution, black levels that are at the least comparable, and a dot pitch that virtually eliminates screen door? For the same price as the new Marantz or the new Toshiba, one can pick up a JVC SX-21. In fact, one can pick up an "older" D-ILA projector for around $6.5-7.5k. With this being the case, is there some glaring deficiency that I'm missing here?


Stats for those unfamiliar with the SX-21:

Resolution: 1400 x 1050

Weight: 13lbs

Brightness: 1500 ANSI Lumens

Contrast: 800:1


(Older D-ILA projectors had resolutions of 1365 x 1024.

Flagship D-ILA projector (QX1G) has resolution of 2048 x 1536)



I plan on making a projector purchase by the end of the summer (i.e. before September), and while that is a long way off, I can't help but waste countless hours researching this stuff. The worms have truly eaten into my brain. Anyway, if someone could clue me in to why the JVC's are for the most part ignored on this board, I would appreciate it. From my neophyte perspective, it seems that HD2 is getting so much press just because so much press (i.e. advertising) has been given to it.



Adam

 

[Scott B]

Adam,


The popularity of the HD2 projectors is due to their wider availability, higher contrast, and ease of use. The G series DILAs are noisy, hot, use very expensive bulbs, require professional calibration ($$$), and are native 4:3 (unless one adds an anamorphic lens and an outboard scaler). Their internal scalers are dated which means that many spent additional dollars for an outboard scaler. Having said all of that, a used calibrated G series DILA is an excellent choice, particularly for those who are bothered by rainbows and eyestrain from DLPs. The SX21 overcomes the disadvantages of heat, noise, and bulb expense, however, it is more expensive than a used G series DILA and does not have quite the colour purity.

 

[noah katz]

"black levels that are at the least comparable,"


HD2's have two or three times the CR of DILA.

 

[Art Lloyd]

The forum usually gets very busy with some new subject, usually a new or newly available machine or technology and then the threads taper off as the new thing becomes a not so new thing. For a while there was a great fuss over the Lt150, not because of new technology, but because the thing became cheap all of a sudden. No one has forgotten D-ILA. It will be on the front burner again when one of the companies comes up with a new twist or a new toy. The SX21 was disappointing because its introduction was a bit anticlimactic with long delays, etc. Art

 

[PeterAM]

Adam,


Welcome to the forum. After your 3 months here, you probably know this thread could cause a battle between the forces of DLP and DILA/LCOS (and I should know better than to get pulled into it!).


Anyway, full disclosure first - I own a JVC G150 DILA PJ, now William Phelps calibrated, and an ISCO II anamorphic lens. I drive my G150 with an HTPC. The best DLP PJ I’ve seen was anthonymoody’s Marantz S1 at the NYC PJ shoot out (haven’t seen the S2 he now has). My comments based on seeing these two:


S1 - better absolute black level, smaller box, cheaper bulb (my assumption - don’t know the actual $s), native 16:9, the “package†is cheaper than what I have.


G150 - brighter (which, of course, elevates the absolute black level in any digital PJ), more pixels, less screen door, better shadow detail, better colors, no rainbows or dithering issues. It is quieter than the G15 series and bulb life/cost is less of a factor since lamp power (and brightness) can be reduced.


Now, to answer your question - DLP is easier and cheaper. The fixation on CR (a measure only of no output and full output and nothing in between) helps DLP. And let’s not forget that JVC is often their own worse enemy. TI is certainly better at marketing. My impression is it’s much harder to see a well set-up DILA PJ (I bought mine from AVS sight unseen).


A lot of digital PJs are so good in many areas (but not yet in all areas) that it comes down to personal preference. See as many of them as you can (not always easy) and get one YOU’ll be happy with.


Good luck!


Peter

 

[thebland]

Ditto, though not perfect, I think DILA gives the best digital I've seen.


Besides, DLP hurts my eyes.

 

[ABrasic]

Thanks for the replies, guys. I just wanted to hear the veterans' takes on the subject. I probably should have entitled the thread differently, as I have no particular loyalty to D-ILA- its just that it seems to me that the technology was superior (as far as resolution was concerned- I'll leave black levels alone ;-), yet was being shunted to the side ala BetaMax. I'd say the most telling aspect of this was PeterAM's line:

Quote:

My impression is it’s much harder to see a well set-up DILA PJ

I also probably should have put forth some of my motivation for being so pixel-oriented- I plan on running everything via an HTPC, and in fact the main factor that is leading me to this sort of setup (front projector) is not, in fact, movie or sports watching, but rather the end-all-be-all rig for playing Doom III when it comes out

With that, I've probably alienated half of the posters on this board, but for the one or two people who appreciate my aspirations, I know that I'll be thought of more highly. Video-game decadence is great ;-)

 

[Rob Tomlin]

For me, the fact that D-ILA is 4:3 based is a fairly big drawback compared to the HD2 DLP's. This also negatively impacts your numbers for the D-ILA resolution.

 

[CCLAY]

ABrasic,


I think the title of your thread was pretty much correct.


The DILAs were pretty much the hero of the moment. Back in the day, 8 of every 10 posts it seemed were about the G DILAs. They were the hot thing and everyone was buying them. In my book, they're still the hero.


There's a ton of new machines out now and the emerging technologies are promising, so it only makes sense that many forum members and new buyers are looking at and talking about these things here. So many, many of the folks that I remember who posted hundreds, even thousand of times long ago are rarely present here anymore. Kinda sad in a way. I loved those days.


On the other hand, I believe the reason you don't see as much on the DILAs anymore is that it has run its course, come full circle so to speak. That and the fact that we're all satisfied and loving still the image produced by our digital dinosaurs.


Hot and loud? Sure, but with a proper hushbox, as many even with quieter machines will do, it's not an issue. If you plan on having your Pj sitting on a coffee table next to you, you may want to look elsewhere.


Expensive bulbs? Depends on your usage IMO. I'll be at 3 years come July, and at $500 for my replacement bulb, which I still have yet to put in, I can't call that expensive at all. Very affordable in fact(for me). The reason the bulb is pricey is because it being of Xenon type, which many, myself included, say it produces excellent colors, which it does.


I sit 8 Ft away from a 9 Ft wide screen, and pixels just aren't an issue. There aren't many digital machines that can do this, at least not in the sub 8K range, which is what I paid for my G11 new.


"in fact the main factor that is leading me to this sort of setup (front projector) is not, in fact, movie or sports watching, but rather the end-all-be-all rig for playing Doom III when it comes out.


With that, I've probably alienated half of the posters on this board"


Not at all, I think that's a hot idea. The arcade of all arcades. Who says it has to be having your friends over for movie night?


It could be a night of DOOM.


Chris

 

[madclammer]

I bought my G10 DILA to do exactly what you want to do! except i think Doom3 is gonna be a huge dissapointment. SOF2 is the game. Ounce the Doom3 engine makes its way into some other games( SOF3 i hope) we will be stoked. I had the doom3 demo 3 months ago and i wasnt impressed. As far as first person shooters on DILAs it could be greatly improved if the game could run in the pj's native resolution but this will probably never happen. I wish someone would post some advice on getting the best game performance out of a dila! I have found that svga with track and phaze adjusted and refresh rate at max gets pretty close to my pc monitor. Ther is still something not right about it though. Im contemplating a crt with orbiter purchase to replace the dila for fps games. refresh rates are higher with crts and i think this may be what is missing. I dont know though. can anyone help us?

 

[sheggsl]

Can one of the G150 owners please answer this question. Which Lens should I get if I want to shorten the throw distance of the G150.


I am not sure whether it is the ISCO or the Panamorph which reduces the throw distance. I will like to bring my projector closer to the screen

 

[Wireless]

The ISCO is the anamorphic lens that shortens throw.

 

[MartyJ]

I own a DIla G11. I bought mine new 2 years ago, sight unseen from a AVS Powerbuy. I love the picture and so does everyone who has ever seen.


No matter what PJ you buy you will always have an upgrade path. I solved all the Dila noise and heat problems by placing it in its own closet on the other side of the wall. We can hear it slightly but not objectionable when watching most movies.


I could have bought a less expensive PJ and kept upgrading like a PC to the latest and greatest. I chose to have something that would give me a great picture and keep it around awhile. Someday when something tremendous comes out it will be time to swap the PJ.


For now its just sit back and enjoy the show!

 

[rogo]

I seriously find the D-ILA picture much more satisfying.


But the effort to get there is much more painful.


And with $8000-10,000 DLP projectors that are almost entirely plug and play, it's hard to justify the pain for the vast majority of people.


That's why whatever is coming from Sony excites many of us: It may give D-ILA picture quality, with DLP ease of use and contrast.


Mark

 

[bosng]

my dila is about 10ft awy from the couch and i can honestly say that i haven't heard fans at all. maybe i'm just not listening for it. the heat issue is also a non issue since the room has high ceilings, in fact sometimes i wish it would heat the room since it tends to get a bit chilly! the upgrades for the dila was a fun thing to do every once in a while(as long as you got the dough) heck if you do one thing a year it's like getting a new projector every year(i realize that that may sound bad to some but it is enough to make me dance around the room with glee)! still have yet to buy a proper screen for it(projecting onto a wall--haha) and the picture still stuns me. last night i watched a hong kong movie called "infernal affairs"(yeah i know) and at times i couldn't help but stare at the creamy smooth colors and the deep blacks in the picture (1100 hours on the 400w bulb). i am so happy with the dila(g11) i smile from ear to ear when i think of it.

hail to the un(oft)-sung hero!

 

[PeterAM]

Quote:

Originally posted by Wireless The ISCO is the anamorphic lens that shortens throw.

But a caveat - AFAIK, all anamorphic lenses introduce some degree of bowing or "pincushion" distortion. The distortion is usually worse as the beam going through the lens gets closer to the edges of the lens. To minimize this problem, you want to try to run the PJ's zoom lens so it is at or near the full "tele" (narrowest beam) position. This is how I'm set up with my G150 and ISCO II. So you can't get too carried away using an anamorphic to fix layout issues.


Peter

 

[bosng]

the isco "distortion" can also be corrected with a bit of masking which also

improves on the picture.

 

[Morbius]

Quote:

Originally posted by PeterAM But a caveat - AFAIK, all anamorphic lenses introduce some degree of bowing or "pincushion" distortion. The distortion is usually worse as the beam going through the lens gets closer to the edges of the lens. To minimize this problem, you want to try to run the PJ's zoom lens so it is at or near the full "tele" (narrowest beam) position. This is how I'm set up with my G150 and ISCO II. So you can't get too carried away using an anamorphic to fix layout issues.

Actually - there are two discrete issues here.


Because the ISCO expands horizontally, in order to maintain a constant width image - one would move the projector closer

at a constant zoom setting.


The other issue is what zoom setting to use. Because the pincushion is more severe at the short throw limit of the

lens, [ because one is using more of the area of the lens as Peter points out above ], one should be at the long throw,

or "tele" end of the zoom range.


If you can put the projector zoom on full "tele" and not force the projector position out the back wall - then that's

what you should do.


However, if your room is so small that you have to use a the short throw end of the zoom - either opt for a smaller screen,

or get a Panamorph.

 

[raoul]

Quote:

Originally posted by Rob Tomlin For me, the fact that D-ILA is 4:3 based is a fairly big drawback compared to the HD2 DLP's. This also negatively impacts your numbers for the D-ILA resolution.

HOWZAT? Being a CRT guy my internal pixel calculator may not be 100% but if a DILA panel is 1400 pixels wide and 1080 high at 4:3 aspect then you have the native capability to fit, in its entirity, a 1365x720 pixel image which is what the HD2 does. So surely DILA wins on resolution on both 16:9 w/o the anamorphic lens AND 4:3. You may leave a chunk of your pixels dark but on the resolution front you still win.

 

[Morbius]

Quote:

Originally posted by raoul HOWZAT? Being a CRT guy my internal pixel calculator may not be 100% but if a DILA panel is 1400 pixels wide and 1080 high at 4:3 aspect then you have the native capability to fit, in its entirity, a 1365x720 pixel image which is what the HD2 does. So surely DILA wins on resolution on both 16:9 w/o the anamorphic lens AND 4:3. You may leave a chunk of your pixels dark but on the resolution front you still win.

Raoul,


Yes - you are correct here.


The resolution advantage of the D-ILA is such that even after you take the hit from having to "throw out" pixels

because it is native 4:3 - you still have more resolution than the native 16:9 DLPs.