AVS Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 40 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,180 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
 http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...0&pagenumber=2


In this thread, Don hints at the making of a new screen which has the qualities of the grayhawk, but a brighter overall image.


More importantly, though, are his contrast measurements for this projector. The full on/off measurements he got, to be honest, are nearly half of the spec'd ratio.


"The sometimes-significant difference between our test results and the projector manufacture specifications are primary due to completely different testing procedures.


Projector: Sharp 9000 single chip DLP, 16 by 9 native aspect ratio.

Lamp hours as tested: 86

Throw distance as tested: 2.1 x image width.

Note: All readings are at factory default settings unless stated otherwise.


Test 1.

Projector lamp setting: High.

Gamma setting: Normal

Lumens: 437

On/off CR: 553 to 1

Color Temp: 9438 Kelvin


Test 2.

Projector lamp setting: High.

Gamma setting: Gamma 1

Lumens: 531

On/off CR: 671 to 1

Color Temp: 9346 Kelvin


Test 3.

Projector lamp setting: Low.

Gamma setting: Gamma 1

Lumens: 324

On/off CR: 562.5 to 1

Color Temp: (did not test)

Note: The following test was made with adjustments as stated.


Test 4.

Projector lamp setting: High.

Gamma setting: Gamma 1, Color Temp(-2), slight increase with Red menu adjustment, slight decrease with Blue menu adjustment.

Lumens: 417

Color Temp: 6516 Kelvin


Test 5.

Maximum light output: 728 lumens,

Gamma 1, Color temp (+3),

Menu contrast (+21)"


Well, obviously there is a difference occuring here. Whose testing procedures would you trust more? I would have to go with Don.

Opinions? Anyone else have measured contrast ratios from the sharp?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
529 Posts
I really could care less what the "official" number is. Sharp will obviously use testing procedures that would result in the highest number for marketing purposes. What counts is what the final product looks like.


Don Stewart goes on to say the following:
Quote:
This single chip dlp projector is actually a little brighter than other dlp projectors we have tested. The contrast ratios are exceptional for a digital display device
Quote:
With the projector set up at 6500 degrees and contrast ratios well in excess of 600 to 1, the projected images took on a truly film like look. The first screen we evaluated was the .95 Gain GrayHawk. We were getting 13 foot lambaste of white light, or about the same as a good commercial movie theater. The color saturation was better than what I see at the local theatersÆ’.it was breathing taking. I had to constantly remind myself that I was not watching the 9-inch Barco CRT projector thatÃs bolted directly above my seat.
Sounds like whatever Sharp is doing appears to be working. I have the 9000 (bias) and couldn't agree with Mr. Stewart more. I really trust his viewing opinions as well as his testing procedures. It produces a truly exceptional image. Thankfully I do not see any "rainbows", so I guess I'm one of the lucky ones who can enjoy such a great projector.:D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,180 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
If this is one of the brighter scDLP's he has seen, than I would like to know which other ones he has seen. 728 lumens? I am almost certain there are other DLP's with higher lumen rating than that. What about the LT150? I believe it is brighter.


The Sanyo xp45 has a claimed contrast ratio of 800:1, which (barring any boost of specs, which is commoplace)would put it in line with the Sharp z9000.


Seeing as the Sharp has a spec which claimes to surpass that magical 1000:1 barrier, regardless of how it performs, it would have been nice if it actually measured that that.


The problem with specs is we dont' even know how the companies measure it.


I will bring about another (becoming more common?) of my car analogies. What is the use of a car manufacturer giving the 0-60 time of a car, but not telling use that in the obtaining this they blew the engine and the transmission? So you buy the car expecing this type of performance, which, in effect, is impossible to obtain. The car may still perform very well indeed, but not to its claim.


That is why I appreciate car magazine obtained numbers. Most reviewers do not have the means to measure contrast ratio, and just go by what the specs say. It is all subjective...but if there is a duplicable method, then this becomes objective. One person may find the contrast horrible, another amazing, yet the measurement is known, and then we can, as individuals, use this as benchmarks.


For instance, if I saw the Sharp calibrated as Don did, on the screens he used, and then heard of another projectors measurement on this setup, I would have a much better understanding of its performance, even without seeing it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
364 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by David Mendicino
If this is one of the brighter scDLP's he has seen, than I would like to know which other ones he has seen. 728 lumens? I am almost certain there are other DLP's with higher lumen rating than that. What about the LT150? I believe it is brighter.

I have compared the Sharp with LT150 twice, the LT150 is significantly darker. Even on a 1.3 gain screen, the LT150 is still dimmer than the Sharp on a GrayHawk ! (because when viewing 16x9 movie, you simply lose 1/3 of lumens on the LT150)


Cam
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
529 Posts
Hi David- I agree with all you have said. It is commonplace all over the industry. How many amplifier or receiver manufacturers rate their power ratings differently? Some use "one channel driven" or "all channels driven" or rate it into different ohms or frequencies. Speaker manufacturers list specifications that can be debated over also. Unless there is a serious consequence of a manufacturer's overstated specification, such as Sharp claiming 2000 hr bulb life and they start failing after 500 hrs, I try not to rely too much on the specifications of manufacturers, because as you stated, we have no idea on how they measure things.


Maybe the contrast ratio spec is also the work of Texas Instruments? They did their own press releases that touts the 1100:1 number also. It will be interesting to see what the Seleco, Marantz, and others will measure as they are all claiming over 1100:1 contrast ratio. Maybe TI did their own testing for their chip and "told" the manufacturers to use this number? I don't know I'm just guessing here. It is reassuring though when someone as respected as Mr. Stewart is in this industry gives such nice compliments about a projector.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
218 Posts
David,


Why in the world would you start a new thread to simply rehash what is being discussed in another thread? I, like many people I assume, are monitoring the other thread -- it is pure coincidence that I came across this one. Maybe I am missing something? At the minimum, put a post in the old thread saying you started a new one so people know to monitor this one also...Thx....


-Jon
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,180 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
What thread are you talking about? In the screen thread, from what I read, these issues have not really been raised. They were more concerned with the screen itself (ie. diff between greyhawk, non greyhawk, microperf, etc.


By the way, since I am a good sport :) I don't care to much, but would you mind being a little more polite?


"Why in the world would you start a new thread to simply rehash what is being discussed in another thread?"


Instead, say, David, there is another thread with this information already in it. Would you mind posting in there so it makes it easier for others to follow the topic.


If, by chance, you are talking about the screen thread, then I find that what I have done is reasonable. Not everyone will look in there, AND, as I have said, my topic is not the same as they are discussing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,092 Posts
The current exageration (a.k.a. lying) going on in the electronics business is inexcuseable.


If a company posts a specification for a product, that product needs to meet it.


If you buy a car and it says it has a 200 HP engine, it needs to have a 200 HP engine.


If you buy a 88-key piano, it needs to have 88 keys.


We are slowly reaching a point were the product specifications are becoming meaningless. It is simply bad science and false advertising.


I am not commenting on the Sharp per se, but the whole industry.


On/Off contrast ratio is the most favorable way for the manufacturer to specify their product. It isn't subject to interpretation nor is the measurement room dependant.


JVC specs their current G series at >350:1 contrast ratio and that is typically what they measure. NEC specs the LT150 at 800:1 and it measures over 900:1. Sharp specs their product at 1100:1 and the best it can do less than 700:1? That's not fair.


To keep things in perspective Sharp isn't the biggest offender. Panasonic who has the highest contrast plasma comes nowhere near its 3000:1 claims or its brightness claims of over 100 ft-L!


I am not of the philosophy that since everyone else is lying Sharp should too.


It's just bad science.


-Mr. Wigggles
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
218 Posts
David,


You are correct. My tone was inappropriate. Re-reading my post, it wasn't worded in the best way and didn't convey what I would have liked...My only excuse is that I am sitting here watching CNN and was distracted...Sorry.


In fact, I was probably totally out of line in this case. I have been anxiously watching the other thread for Don to reply with more info about his "secret" and came across this thread and realized that I could have missed it accidently. Being a new to high-end projector freak, this scared me. :)


It is an old pet peeve of mine and I should have thought twice before posting. Again, sorry...


-Jon
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,532 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by MrWigggles
The current exageration (a.k.a. lying) going on in the electronics business is inexcuseable.


If a company posts a specification for a product, that product needs to meet it.


If you buy a car and it says it has a 200 HP engine, it needs to have a 200 HP engine.


If you buy a 88-key piano, it needs to have 88 keys.


We are slowly reaching a point were the product specifications are becoming meaningless. It is simply bad science and false advertising.


-Mr. Wigggles
Getting bent out of shape based on some non-standardized specification is just plain silly. Even in the measurements posted by Stewart the CR varied by 20%. Clearly there are no standardized guidelines for such a specification. Furthermore, it becomes almost irrelevant with regards to the purchase decision. The car with 200HP may be slower from 0-60 that the 175HP car. The projector with a 500:1 contrast ratio may look better that the one with a 800:1 ratio. The 100 WPC amp may sound better than the 200 WPC amp. This is not a $20 dollar item that one buys sight unseen. The Sharp will be reviewed by all the major journals and web sites and can be evaluated first hand at dealers. If it looks good, renders blacks and shadows detail better than the competition, who cares what they say the contrast ratio is.


John Moschella
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,092 Posts
John,


If that is the way you feel, I have 1000 Acres* of land I would like to sell you in Florida for $1000.


-Mr. Wigggles



*Acre will be redefined as needed by Mr. Wigggles
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
529 Posts
Quote:
NEC specs the LT150 at 800:1 and it measures over 900:1. Sharp specs their product at 1100:1 and the best it can do less than 700:1? That's not fair.
Unless I missed it, I have not seen Mr. Stewart's contrast ratio measurements on the LT150. This is a meaningless comparison, because unless Mr. Stewart measures the LT150 is the same fashion as he measured the 9000, we have no idea what numbers he would arrive at on the LT150. He even states his testing method is different from what the manufacturers use, so we don't know how Sharp arrived at their number. As I stated earlier, the projector looks great, so why focus on 1100:1 or 800:1 or 500:1. If someone spends $10K on a projector based purely on specs, without seeing it, they deserve what they get.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,293 Posts
Using an Accupel set to output 720p, and measuring the full field black and full field white test patterns using a McMahan Lightspex, contrast and brightness settings normal, I got a contrast ratio of approximately 860:1 for a Sharp 9000. Not as low as Don's measurements, but still significantly lower than the claimed 1100:1.


Obtaining accurate black level readings can sometimes be a problem and might explain some of the difference.


William
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,092 Posts
Thank you William.


Your buddy Cushman down here in Houston measured the LT150 with a 910:1. He also used the Accupal and a Philips light meter.


My emphasis isn't on the Sharp more on the direction the industry is going.


-Mr. Wigggles
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
25,494 Posts
Mr. Wiggles,


"NEC specs the LT150 at 800:1 and it measures over 900:1. Sharp specs their product at 1100:1 and the best it can do less than 700:1? That's not fair."


The measurements are not comparable. I've seen the LT150 and the 9000 and thought the Sharp had significantly higher contrast. The Sharp was brighter and had much lower black levels (although still an unacceptably bright gray haze IMO).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,092 Posts
Noah,


Contrast ratio isn't the only thing to consider. Gamma and many other things come into play.


I will have the opurtunity to put the 11HT, the 9000, and the LT150 in the same room together very shortly. A 3 way shoot out


I wiil revisit this issue again with pics to illustrate my points.


-Mr. Wigggles
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,180 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
First,

mittelhauser: I posted the link to the thread you speak of right at the beginning of the thread. Don't worry about it, by the way, its no big deal :)


The crash in new york, not to get sidetracked, is rather sad, disturbing, and the whole thing is beginning to get out of hand.


Second,

Seeing as the LT150 is rated at 800 lumen, and this IS a thread about manufactures specs, it is not unbelievable that the Sharp would be brighter.


Noah: YOu have the sharp and the lt150? I thought you had contemplated the CRT route. About the black level, did you mean to say unacceptably?


Like Wigggles, I have used this Sharp as an example to speak about the industry as a whole. I did with the Seleco, and its HDTV, firmware issues, to, which some took offense to.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
25,494 Posts
Mr. Wiggles,


Sounds great, I'm anxious to see what you come up with.


Any chance you could get one of the high-contrast Sanyo's into the mix?


David,


Sorry, I was very sloppy; I left out the wors "seen" (I don't have them, just saw them), and yes, I meant "unacceptably".


Thanks
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,587 Posts
Quote:
MrWigggles

The current exageration (a.k.a. lying) going on in the electronics business is inexcuseable.


If a company posts a specification for a product, that product needs to meet it.


If you buy a car and it says it has a 200 HP engine, it needs to have a 200 HP engine.


If you buy a 88-key piano, it needs to have 88 keys.


We are slowly reaching a point were the product specifications are becoming meaningless. It is simply bad science and false advertising.
I got to fully agree with Mr Wiggles here. How the devil is Joe Average supposed to compare equipment when manufacturers fudge the figures with large and very different numbers. The numbers manufacturers give should have to be relative to protect Joe Average who can get sucked into this marketing hype.

Lets look at the situation from Joe Average's point of view. He can be hood winked into believing things are much better than they are and knowing many dealers, I bet most of them would be selling to poor Joe Average the benefits of those bigger numbers.


The Industry needs a good clean up, thats for sure.

3000:1 Plasma screens should attract alarm bells for those in the industry to hang their heads in shame.

Its pretty much fraud, if you ask me.

Please do not try to tell me about measurement differences because thats the drama, the measurements should be standard across the board to protect the innocent.

Oh sure many AVS members know this but what about those who do not know this happens. This is one of the worst industrys for this type of deception.

Its a sad and terrible situation that manufacturers play this big numbers marketing game on those who know no better.



DavidW
 
1 - 20 of 40 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top