I've only seen the Sharp no one around here has a Hitachi on display. On paper they both seem to have the same resolution but the Sharp has about half the brightness and about twice the contrast. Has anyone seen both and can offer a comparison?
Hitachi 5500 vs Sharp z9000
- Status
1 - 20 of 33 Posts
Seems to me that Sharp has 1,280x720 whereas the Hitachi has 1,365x1,024 resolution or almost 52% more pixel density. However, at 16:9 format, the Hitachi drops to 1,365x768 so still has almost 14% more pixels. But if you typically watch in 4:3 format, like use, the Sharp drops to 960x720, so in this case, the 5500 at 1,365x1,024 has over twice the pixel density.
That being said, when I view the DLPs I see a more a distinct separation between the pixels than I see on the LCOS. This may be due (in part) to the fact that DLPs have about 90% "window" and 10% "frame" whereas the LCOS has 92-93% "window." Typical LCDs have about 65% "window."
Ultimately, you need to decide what's right for you. I know it's tough when you can't see the unit in action. I bought my 5500 without ever seeing one in action, but have no regrets. If you are in the So. Cal. area, you may view my 5500 on a 78" Firehawk.
That being said, when I view the DLPs I see a more a distinct separation between the pixels than I see on the LCOS. This may be due (in part) to the fact that DLPs have about 90% "window" and 10% "frame" whereas the LCOS has 92-93% "window." Typical LCDs have about 65% "window."
Ultimately, you need to decide what's right for you. I know it's tough when you can't see the unit in action. I bought my 5500 without ever seeing one in action, but have no regrets. If you are in the So. Cal. area, you may view my 5500 on a 78" Firehawk.
I now have the HITACHI 55500,and it replaced the SHARP 9000 DLP. First let me say the SHARP, is a superb unit,and had i not got the HITACHI, i would still be enjoying it.My main complaint with it(sharp)is i am very sensitive to rainbows(color fringing problems,that most single chip DLP;S have),and even though the SHARP,was much less of a problem in this area,than a previous dlp(DWIN)it still has this problem.The HITACHI 5500 has no such problem (no non dlp i have seen has this problem)and the HITACHI has a smoother, more film like image, with very clean images, and no "digital look", that most digital pj's seem to have.Overall color saturation is excellent,and while the SHARP,had some what better BLACKS and CONTRAST,it was really quite close. When i look at the HITACHI, i dont perceive any real weaknes in any area, and that probably is the best thing i can say about it,,,,,,it really has no real (major) weakness,,,,,perfect? ,,obviously not, but it has excellent color saturation, contrast,(very vibrant, punchy picture with lots of depth and dimensionality to it).Many on this forum have reported problem with a purple push to the picture, i have not seen this in the 3 units i have owned(one went back due to some dust/dead pixels, and i currently own the other two), and even most of the people who have posted this problem(purple push)seem to really like this unit,even with this flaw, and many have been able to work around it with filters, and ,or fine tuning the pj.I personally feel this is the best bang for the buck,currently going in higher end projectors, digital, or other wise.
Joined
·
1,532 Posts
I have seen the Sharp 900 and had both the Hitachi and Marantz in my house for a demo. 3 days for the Hitachi.
First if you feed the Sharp a good progressive player its real close to the Marantz. So I will give you a capsule of my findings. I viewed the same sequences from 4 DVDs that I thought were a good test of shadow detail and black level, high contrast scenes, and slow pans. Just my opinions of course.
While the contrast and black levels were better on the Marantz, it wasn't night a day. My old PJ was a Sony LCD so both were a big improvement. I give a slight edge to the DLP.
As far as resolving details on DVDs the Marantz was very superior. I was using the Hitachi in 16:9 mode. Specific scenes in Dark City and Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil I could see details on the Marantz that were smeared out on the Hitachi. The best example was in Dark City during a scene with a hanging incandescent lamp. On the Hitachi the lamp was a blob of light, on the Marantz I could see the bulb and the fixture around it, very impressive. Also film grain looks more like film grain on the Marantz, something that I also really liked. So big edge to the DLP.
As far a color accuracy goes the Marantz was far better out of the box. The Hitachi is just not calibrated for HT. This is something that I'm sure could be better on the Hitachi with a calibration, but I didn't see it calibrated and I don't know if it can beat the Marantz. So here is another advantage for the Marantz.
You have to consider cost and I feel the Hitachi is a darn good PJ for the money, but I really don't think its in the same league as the HD1 DLPs. I know the Mr. Jazz choose the Hitachi and I respect his views on this, I think it comes down to the rainbow issue. If your not super sensitive to rainbows and don't have a bias against a single chip machine, DLP is the way to go. BTW what is often overlooked is that a single chip machine is always perfectly converged.
John Moschella
First if you feed the Sharp a good progressive player its real close to the Marantz. So I will give you a capsule of my findings. I viewed the same sequences from 4 DVDs that I thought were a good test of shadow detail and black level, high contrast scenes, and slow pans. Just my opinions of course.
While the contrast and black levels were better on the Marantz, it wasn't night a day. My old PJ was a Sony LCD so both were a big improvement. I give a slight edge to the DLP.
As far as resolving details on DVDs the Marantz was very superior. I was using the Hitachi in 16:9 mode. Specific scenes in Dark City and Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil I could see details on the Marantz that were smeared out on the Hitachi. The best example was in Dark City during a scene with a hanging incandescent lamp. On the Hitachi the lamp was a blob of light, on the Marantz I could see the bulb and the fixture around it, very impressive. Also film grain looks more like film grain on the Marantz, something that I also really liked. So big edge to the DLP.
As far a color accuracy goes the Marantz was far better out of the box. The Hitachi is just not calibrated for HT. This is something that I'm sure could be better on the Hitachi with a calibration, but I didn't see it calibrated and I don't know if it can beat the Marantz. So here is another advantage for the Marantz.
You have to consider cost and I feel the Hitachi is a darn good PJ for the money, but I really don't think its in the same league as the HD1 DLPs. I know the Mr. Jazz choose the Hitachi and I respect his views on this, I think it comes down to the rainbow issue. If your not super sensitive to rainbows and don't have a bias against a single chip machine, DLP is the way to go. BTW what is often overlooked is that a single chip machine is always perfectly converged.
John Moschella
I dont think the HITACHI is just a good by "for the money", but a good by period.I am financially able to just about afford any reasonably priced pj i want(one of my previous projectors included the ZENITH 1200 PRO,a crt pj,MSPR=30K)and i feel the HITACHI need not appologise for its relatively low cost,,,,,,as one of the above posters seems to be saying that the HITACHI should only be considered if money is a consideration.I prefer the HITACHI,to not only the SHARP, but to the above mentioned ZENITH 1200 PR0,,,,,,YES i know hard to believe some one would choose a 9k digital pj,over a state of the art,30k,crt,but i did, and i have no regrets.The bottom line is that this projector provides constant enjoyment in my dedicated home theater, and everyone, and i mean everyone who comes by, both novice and experienced video person, is "bowled over" by the quality of the presentation.
Saw the Sharp 9000, very respectable performer. Nice contrast and black level, good colours. There are ditherings (most DLPs have them). Saw rainbows (but not frequent) and Scaling artifacts, An external scaler is a must for the Sharp. It's also a little dim for my taste.
I settled on the Hitachi 5500, not a perfect PJ yet, but I'm quite satisfy with it. Smooth picture. See no pixels on an 8 feet wide image until one is about 3 feet away from it. Vibrant colours, black level and contrast not quite as good as the Sharp, but the difference was little. Very good scaler, external scaler not necessary. Most important to me was it is relatively free of artifacts (noisy background, crawlies, ditherings and rainbows) that commonly plague the DLPs, maybe that's the reason Hitachi is not in the same league.
And after decided on the Hitachi, I did not bother to check out the Marantz.
I settled on the Hitachi 5500, not a perfect PJ yet, but I'm quite satisfy with it. Smooth picture. See no pixels on an 8 feet wide image until one is about 3 feet away from it. Vibrant colours, black level and contrast not quite as good as the Sharp, but the difference was little. Very good scaler, external scaler not necessary. Most important to me was it is relatively free of artifacts (noisy background, crawlies, ditherings and rainbows) that commonly plague the DLPs, maybe that's the reason Hitachi is not in the same league.
And after decided on the Hitachi, I did not bother to check out the Marantz.
John,
The sort of detail you refer to that the Marantz could reveal and the Hitachi couldn't is very dependent on gamma setting, contrast level and type of input connections. My experience with the SX5500W is that RGB provides the best detail (haven't tried DVI) but not necessarily the most satisfying overall result. However, although I haven't seen the Sharp or Marantz, I would still tend to assume that a significantly higher CR must count for something. There would have to be some aspect of picture quality that would be better.
The Sharp of course doesn't have a DVI input and if this is the input that can provide the best picture quality on the SX5500W, then this is the input that should be used for comparison purposes.
The sort of detail you refer to that the Marantz could reveal and the Hitachi couldn't is very dependent on gamma setting, contrast level and type of input connections. My experience with the SX5500W is that RGB provides the best detail (haven't tried DVI) but not necessarily the most satisfying overall result. However, although I haven't seen the Sharp or Marantz, I would still tend to assume that a significantly higher CR must count for something. There would have to be some aspect of picture quality that would be better.
The Sharp of course doesn't have a DVI input and if this is the input that can provide the best picture quality on the SX5500W, then this is the input that should be used for comparison purposes.
I have seen both, and was seriously considering purchasing the Sharp until last November when I started reading about the Hitachi 5500 on this forum. Yes, Sharp does have better contrast, BUT the Hitachi has a brighter picture. Both are excellent projectors, and if I were rich I would buy them both - one for the home theator room another for the bedroom 
. Ulitimately the deciding factor for me was the $2K difference in price when I bought the Hitachi. I used the extra $2K to buy a decent motorized tensioned Dalite screen.
Vas
. Ulitimately the deciding factor for me was the $2K difference in price when I bought the Hitachi. I used the extra $2K to buy a decent motorized tensioned Dalite screen.Vas
Joined
·
1,532 Posts
Quote:
Barry,
I don't know what was the cause of my observations, but I'm fairly sure it was not a gamma issue. As you know changes to the gamma curve are most easily observed at low IRE levels and things like near black shadow detail are greatly affected. The details I was seeing were in the high IRE range, so that wasn't it. I had ND filters on the Hitachi so the overall light level on the two projectors was about the same, so it wasn't a screen/PJ issue either. My guess is a scaler/deinterlacer related issue, but I'm not sure.
John Moschella
| Originally posted by barryz John, The sort of detail you refer to that the Marantz could reveal and the Hitachi couldn't is very dependent on gamma setting, contrast level and type of input connections. My experience with the SX5500W is that RGB provides the best detail (haven't tried DVI) but not necessarily the most satisfying overall result. However, although I haven't seen the Sharp or Marantz, I would still tend to assume that a significantly higher CR must count for something. There would have to be some aspect of picture quality that would be better. |
I don't know what was the cause of my observations, but I'm fairly sure it was not a gamma issue. As you know changes to the gamma curve are most easily observed at low IRE levels and things like near black shadow detail are greatly affected. The details I was seeing were in the high IRE range, so that wasn't it. I had ND filters on the Hitachi so the overall light level on the two projectors was about the same, so it wasn't a screen/PJ issue either. My guess is a scaler/deinterlacer related issue, but I'm not sure.
John Moschella
Joined
·
1,532 Posts
Quote:
Simba,
I think you can get a demo of the Hitachi just about anywhere. It is exactly the same as the Dukane 9115 and there are lots of Dukane dealers. Most of these dealers are presentation type places and many are willing to let you take one home. That is what I did.
John Moschella
| Originally posted by Simba I've only seen the Sharp no one around here has a Hitachi on display. On paper they both seem to have the same resolution but the Sharp has about half the brightness and about twice the contrast. Has anyone seen both and can offer a comparison? |
I think you can get a demo of the Hitachi just about anywhere. It is exactly the same as the Dukane 9115 and there are lots of Dukane dealers. Most of these dealers are presentation type places and many are willing to let you take one home. That is what I did.
John Moschella
Joined
·
1,532 Posts
Quote:
Right now I can describe it. I think its chapter 5 or the end of chapter 4. Bumstead (William Hurt) is investigating the crime scene and he tells Hasslebeck something like " what kind of killer stops to save a fish " In that scene there is a hanging lamp which is a bare incandescent type with a half sphere fixture. On the Marantz I could see the light bulb clearly delineated inside the fixture.
John Moschella
| Originally posted by Jim Story John, I don't suppose that you remember which scene that lamp was in? "The best example was in Dark City during a scene with a hanging incandescent lamp." Thanks. |
John Moschella
Joined
·
4,649 Posts
The 5500 driven by a HT-PC with Radeon 7500 card via DVI interfacing will knock your socks off with its high quality image.
Let me tell 'ya...I haven't been quite as happy with my own set up (Dukane 9015 D-ILA sans DVI input, NVidia card-equipped PC also sans DVI) even since I sampled the 5500/7500 combo borrowed from my friend 35mm Man!
Spite of its lower cost the 5500 has a lot of potential, and if it wansn't that am still making payments on the 9015, I would get a 5500 coupled to a 7500 card-based HT-PC in a heart's beat (yet am still salivating at the mere thought of seeing a 1900x1080 D-ILA in action, though )...
-THTS
Let me tell 'ya...I haven't been quite as happy with my own set up (Dukane 9015 D-ILA sans DVI input, NVidia card-equipped PC also sans DVI) even since I sampled the 5500/7500 combo borrowed from my friend 35mm Man!
Spite of its lower cost the 5500 has a lot of potential, and if it wansn't that am still making payments on the 9015, I would get a 5500 coupled to a 7500 card-based HT-PC in a heart's beat (yet am still salivating at the mere thought of seeing a 1900x1080 D-ILA in action, though
)...-THTS
1 - 20 of 33 Posts
- Status
Join the discussion
