AVS Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 75 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,124 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Guys

As you know I'm a CRTer. I am however keeping a close watch on the whole digital thing and when the time is right I will be changing forums so to speak.

I recently saw a demo of the Infocus 7200 and was quite impressed. I felt it was APPROACHING the quality of good 8" CRTs since I am not sensitive to rainbow (yet)

I have noticed one hell of a lot of fanfare re the HT1000 and was wondering how the 7200 compares to the HT1000 since the 7200 is my point of reference.


Thanks

Steve
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,756 Posts
After spending literally hours yesterday evening getting set up for my projector shootout tonight, I would have to say that both projectors do an excellent job, each having strengths and weaknesses. In case you are wondering, I am doing a shootout between the 7200, the 5700, and the HT-1000.


Preliminary findings:


7200 - Most detailed, excellent color, bright and punchy. Looks best with DVI - component input looks softer, less punchy with DVD.


HT-1000 - best blacks, smoothest image (which seems slightly soft compared to the two Infocus models), displays an excellent image with any input, greens and reds not as deep or as accurate as the two Infocus models


5700 - VERY bright, intense, accurate colors, lots of WOW factor, looks great with component or DVI. Blacks were not as deep as the other two projectors - I would recommend the 5700 with a larger or lower gain screen than my '92 Da-Lite Cinema Vision.


Overall impressions - the 7200, when using DVI, had the most impressive picture overall. Very bright and sharp with very good blacks. The 5700 had the picture that would probably appeal to the most people at first glance - like I said, very bright and punchy with vivid colors. The HT-1000 has a softer, smoother image that is appreciated more after taking the time to study it. The HT-1000 is definitely less bright than either Infocus, so I'd suggest a high gain or smaller screen.


Remember, these are MY preliminary impressions, and I will have a bunch of people in over the weekend to assess their own opinions. I will put up a complete report after that!


JOHN
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,102 Posts
Energeezer, what size screen are you planning on?

The screen size will also determine how the 2(or 3, if you include the 5700) compare to each other.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
111 Posts
John...The one thing I'm a bit curious about is the talk about the pincushion effect on the 7200. Can you give me your opinion on this?...Is it a distraction? I realize you said these are preliminary observations, but these are the projectors I'm considering also.

Thanks alot.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,124 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Paul

I do not own a 7200 or any other digital for that matter.

My PJ is an NEC XG135LC CRT projecting on an 8' wide screen @ resolution 1440/960 or 1280/720 @ 72 depending on the source.

I still feel that the one chip DLP (I have not seen a 3 chipper) have a ways to go to catch the best 8" or 9" CRTs.

I have noticed that the gap is considerably lower than even the previous model year so my interest is peaked. To me the 7200 is the only one I've seen that approached my XG at all. When I see people calling the HT1000 the best and being cheaper than the 7200 I had to ask.

Looks like the 7200 is all of the HT1000 and maybe more so It's still not time to change over.

I'll never rule digital out like some of the more hard core CRTers so I keep looking.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,735 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by Energeezer
Looks like the 7200 is all of the HT1000 and maybe more so It's still not time to change over.
Actually, it seems that the HT1000 does hold some advantages over the 7200. With the variable iris the HT1000 CR is most likely higher. I think a better comparison for most CRT owners would be the Sharp 10k, Marantz S2 or just about any other of the HD2s. I say this because they have gone the CR route where InFocus has gone the brightness route. I really wish InFocus had added a variable iris to the 7205.


Also, the HD2+s are even another step in contrast ratio and I believe shadow detail (due to the dark segment on the wheel) over the HD2s.


I get about 1750:1 CR with my 10k, but I'm guessing the 12k will be more like 3000:1 (real performance, not specs). However, that wouldn't be with a lot of lumens coming out.


--Darin
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,481 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by Energeezer
Guys

As you know I'm a CRTer. I am however keeping a close watch on the whole digital thing and when the time is right I will be changing forums so to speak.

I recently saw a demo of the Infocus 7200 and was quite impressed. I felt it was APPROACHING the quality of good 8" CRTs since I am not sensitive to rainbow (yet)

I have noticed one hell of a lot of fanfare re the HT1000 and was wondering how the 7200 compares to the HT1000 since the 7200 is my point of reference.


Thanks

Steve


Steve,

I'm a CRTer too... ;) But HD2 performance are far better than what you got only one year ago, and today comparing them to a 8" is not a sacrilege, IMHO.


I made a shoot out with 6 DLPs (DreamVision CinemaTen Pro, InFocus 7200, Marantz VP-12S2, NEC HT1000, SIM2 HT300 Plus, Yamaha DPX-1000), all DVI connections, Stewart Studiotek 1.3 96" wide split in 2 half-screens each around 52".


As you can see from this graph, I'm very surprised that you were so impressed by the 7200: its black level performance (I enphasize that I'm referring to DVI connection) was, to be generous, at least poor.

http://space.virgilio.it/andreamanut...20fL%20rid.jpg


This is reflected by actual images too (NEC left above , InFocus right below):

http://space.virgilio.it/andreamanut...DSC08548_b.JPG


Maybe you saw some hi-def material with bright scenes, where the black level is less critical... ;) (still, NEC left above , InFocus right below):

http://space.virgilio.it/andreamanut...DSC08577_b.JPG


The 7200 has an enormous (too much for me) light output, as from here:

http://space.virgilio.it/andreamanut...MS%20cal_b.jpg


Although their spectral response is somewhat similar and very good for both, maybe even richer and wider for the InFocus, as from here (40 IRE, both in calibrated conditions):


InFocus
http://space.virgilio.it/andreamanut...ral%20Scan.jpg


NEC
http://space.virgilio.it/andreamanut...ral%20Scan.jpg


I think you can clearly see from images like this one (NEC left above , InFocus right below),

http://space.virgilio.it/andreamanut...DSC08559_b.JPG


that the excessive amount of light that reaches the screen tends to wash out the 7200's rendering.


For what I saw, the HT1000 is a great contender until a 80" wide, since you can't see the DMD structure from a standard seating position. For bigger images or closer distance, I guess there are other units that, price apart, are far better than the 7200 for a real film-like image!


I hope this can help... ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
339 Posts
Andrea,


I own the 7200 (actually the Toshiba MT8 running the latest InFocus firmware). I certainly cannot match the kind of measurements you have taken in your very thorough work, but I can say categorically that my images do not share the same overedriven washed out look that I see in your screen shots in this thread and in another one (Moulin Rouge I think).


I can't explain the difference, but if my projector looked like that I would be unhappy with it as well. It doesn't. My screen is lower gain (1.1) which may explain some of this, but by no means all of it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
339 Posts
Andrea,


I took another look at the description of you test set-up. Am I correct in understanding that the projectors filled just half the screen width? If so, the InFocus with all of its brightness is lighting up a screen about 1/4 the area of mine, and with a higher gain as well. Is this correct and was anything done in your tests to compensate for this?


When I first got my projector, I was using a 1.5 gain video spectra material. The black level was poorer and the image did not look anywhere near as rich as it does now with the new screen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,481 Posts
Kerry,

as I explained thoroughly in the shoot out rules, screen shots have pros and cons.

I had to emphasize differences, in order to make them visible on the shots, so I spent a lot of time trying to find the exposition that better matched the actual differences I saw.

What I can assure is that the two images appeared (more or less, I guess we all agree that a shot has too many variables to control that is nearly impossible a correct judgment based only upon that) with the relative distance you can see from the shots.

If you use one unit alone (and as you can see from similar images, like the DreamVision and InFocus ones), the "effect" you see on the shot will be different, and maybe the image will be better.

Believe me, such a confrontation makes you aware of a lot of nuances that even a good switching could never reveal!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,481 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by kthacher
Andrea,


I took another look at the description of you test set-up. Am I correct in understanding that the projectors filled just half the screen width? If so, the InFocus with all of its brightness is lighting up a screen about 1/4 the area of mine, and with a higher gain as well. Is this correct and was anything done in your tests to compensate for this?


When I first got my projector, I was using a 1.5 gain video spectra material. The black level was poorer and the image did not look anywhere near as rich as it does now with the new screen.
Kerry,

you are right.

Actual dimensions were not exactly 1/4, but in the proximity (a bit more than half of the width, as you can see from the shots).


Every single unit was used with same conditions, and the Stewart was the only screen I have (that is worth to be called "screen"). I saw the FireHawk material and I know that digital pjs can be really improved, but at this time this is the only chance I have... but I'm planning to change some things, though!


Anyhow, every pj was tested under exactly the same conditions: HTPC, cables, DVI hub, cable length. So I guess fundamental rules were respected...:p
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
339 Posts
Andrea,


By my calculations, its really late where you are. Thanks for the fast responses.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,102 Posts
the IF is a much better PJ when matched with a lower gain screen and projected onto a larger area. This is the tradeoff that everybody speaks about between dim and bright PJ's.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
424 Posts
is the sp5700 just as bright as the sp7200 on the same size screen say 100" 16:9 ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
424 Posts
So in comparison to the ht1000 , would you say that the brightness and punch made the ht1000 look dull even colour wise to the sp5700

The reason I ask is I once saw a direct side by side comparison between the 2 and next to each other the sp5700 , made the ht1000 look highly inferior in all aspects because the picture lacked so much punch that the infocus had.

Initially i thought the bulb was worn out on te ht1000 , and i still havent made a choice which one I will be purchasing



if possible i would be grateful if you could provide some detailed comparisons between the 2 once you have had more time with them
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,481 Posts
Kerry, crumpet,

after some sleep, I would like to add this, just to explain how the direct match was shoot out purpose.

Here we have InFocus top right, DreamVision bottom left (same connections, same HD material):

http://space.virgilio.it/andreamanut...DSC08583_b.JPG


Same positions here:

http://space.virgilio.it/andreamanut...DSC08584_b.JPG



Would you tell you're watching same units? Obviously not! But this is what I tried to make available: an actual shot with the feeling of what you are really seeing.


I've learned a lot making this shoot out, starting from the fact that every single statement like "X is stat than Y", where stat can be "better", "brighter", "dimmer", "has better colors", "has a gamma of...", is a practical nonsense if we don't have the total control of the situation.

We have to know what we see, and this means: I must know the connections, I have the right to know if the unit has been calibrated with instruments or by hand (or it wasn't at all), I have the right to make direct comparisons... and I could go on for a while!


Every other situation appears to me like, as we say here, a sports bar discussion: we are all coaches, but very few could really do the job... ;)

This is why I tried this effort and try every time to report measures, graphs and shots: I don't think that someone should believe me of I say "X is far better than Y".


It's trivial to say that if a great deal of people reports similar impressions this might be true, at least somehow: but I can tell that, should I want to sell a unit, I know exactly what to show and what to hide, which images are more suitable to produce an "OOOOhhh! :eek:" when watched, and so on.

More, making comparisons in different setups is practically impossible, IMHO.


So what I suggest, when having to spend money, is find an honest dealer where you have time to dedicate in using the unit at your own comfort (supposed one knows what he's doing!) and try to find what I like, not what other people tell is beautiful...

I hope I'll have a 5700 available soon!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,763 Posts
Andrea, thanks for taking so much time to review those pj's and for posting those great screen pics. Of course you're correct about the need to see a unit under reasonably well controlled conditions (your home, or a dealer's well appointed demo room. Unfortunately it can be a difficult thing to accomplish. The forum helps a great deal with expanding a videophile's awareness of factors that affect the assessment of a pj. That includes helpful generalizations. For instance, I know from reading at AVS that the IF 7200 is probably the brightest HD2 DLP, that the NEC HT1000 is the price/performance champ, and should I ever want to view it, I'd know what to look for. That's one of the ways to get around a sale situation where only the demo material showing a particular pj's strengths is being shown. Of course that makes sense, everyone wants to see a pj at it's best as a reference, bringing a variety of different material to view would then help to see a pj at it's worst. I'm probably stating the obvious here, but sometime's that helps the discussion
 
1 - 20 of 75 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top