AVS Forum banner

21 - 40 of 1918 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
29 Posts
Upgraded from VW760ES.
I have full light controlled room, and 120” gain 1 reference white screen with masking.
Panasonic UB900 player. Comparison is made with the reference picture mode.

VW 870ES first impressions:
The optics and DFO makes a big difference even my wife and kids noticed that picture is sharper and there is more definition.
Lens shift motor is changed and its operation is quieter.
The black level is little bit lower. It’s easy to see and test with very dark or almost black scene.
In settings menu: dynamic control
• off - no iris and no laser dimming,
• limited - laser dimming is turned on and the black level is “probably” the same as with vw760.
• full - laser dimming is on and iris is working. Iris movement is visible but it’s moves very little. Iris closes around 30%. They definitely should make it more aggressive.
I hoped that the lack level would be better, but there is change so now with normal viewing it doesn’t bother me anymore like it bothered with the VW760.
Black details visibility with HDR is not improved. it’s still cannot resolve lower than 0.100 in test table that comes with Sony UHD 4K disks. With UHD disk I need to rise brightness to 56.
Fan noise it’s different with vw760es full laser it had constant fan speed. Now with vw870 the speed will vary and change probably by projectors temperature. But this fan speed change and noise variation is more noticeable compared to constant noise. (in quiet room with no audio playing)
It’s brighter but not much I cannot measure it right now. 760es already had enough brightness for me around 73 FL on screen.
Now I need more time to test it and watch movies then I will get better picture how small or big are the improvements.

Are you sure about 70+ FL? 120” screen is around 60 sq ft right? 120” diagonal is probably closer to 50 sq ft but calibrated lumens should be around 1600-1800 I would think. These are just ballpark numbers but wouldn’t your FL be closer to 30-35 FL maxed out on this projector?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
24,063 Posts
Discussion Starter · #22 · (Edited)
Would NOT recommend this projector for screens much bigger than 10' wide, unless they are of the higher gain variety. Light output is very much on par with the previous 885. Plenty of light for screens if SDR is desired (easily over 10 ft wide) but not so much for HDR targets (around 30 fL).
I do NOT want to turn this Owner’s thread into a debate but this is the complete opposite of what we are seeing. Everyone has been amazed and there is plenty of brightness. HDR looks terrific. Close to 11 foot screen and as many as said it looks “OLED” like.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,987 Posts
I look at AVS forum as a place that people go to try to make a more informed decision than just subjective commentary when deciding to buy or not buy a $35K projector. While "it looks good" may be good enough for your circle, I actually measure. I have a 144" diagonal scope screen (ST100) that is slightly more than 10' wide. The highest light output I can measure on this projector so far is about 25 fL with anything remotely approaching an accurate white point. So saying things like: "995 is more than enough to light up a 12 to 14 foot screen" is patently false for those looking to spec this projector for a screen size that big with light output for HDR. I realize completely this comment was not specific to you, but you essentially backed up this finding with your follow on post. I think if Ken came out and did some actual measurements in your room, he'd find the same thing. And my measurements are with the projector about 14-15 ft from the screen, so no where near the longest throw. Again, plenty of light output for SDR, no questions about it. But if you are trying to spec for HDR and are trying to hit numbers like "30 fL", you really need to be careful.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,001 Posts
I have an 885ES and from 14.5' I have it throw between 90 and 97 nits on a 128" diagonal 16x9 screen which I take to be between 26 and 29 fL max. (Hopefully my nits to fL is correct!) White balance is actually better for the top 70%. If I do the service menu trick I get up to about 120 nits but the white balance is way, way off so I have left it where it is. This is all built on a custom HDR curve in Bright TV measured with a K10a through Light Space. So I would expect the 995ES projector to do a little better and the more light the better. OOTB Sony in-built HDR curves don't give me anywhere near these levels so I can easily see why someone would get a lot less light.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
24,063 Posts
Discussion Starter · #25 ·
I look at AVS forum as a place that people go to try to make a more informed decision than just subjective commentary when deciding to buy or not buy a $35K projector. While "it looks good" may be good enough for your circle, I actually measure. I have a 144" diagonal scope screen (ST100) that is slightly more than 10' wide. The highest light output I can measure on this projector so far is about 25 fL with anything remotely approaching an accurate white point. So saying things like: "995 is more than enough to light up a 12 to 14 foot screen" is patently false for those looking to spec this projector for a screen size that big with light output for HDR. I realize completely this comment was not specific to you, but you essentially backed up this finding with your follow on post. I think if Ken came out and did some actual measurements in your room, he'd find the same thing. And my measurements are with the projector about 14-15 ft from the screen, so no where near the longest throw. Again, plenty of light output for SDR, no questions about it. But if you are trying to spec for HDR and are trying to hit numbers like "30 fL", you really need to be careful.
Measure all you want but to our eyes it is plenty bright. I could have predicted you would “measure” that anyway. I also could have predicted you would slam this projector. I am also using a ST100 screen. Different folks different strokes. If we want to call them that.

And thanks for reading my Review. :)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,987 Posts
Curves don't change how bright the projector is, they change the gamma which effects the brightness of the first 100 nits of the HDR signal and the perception of brightness in the image itself. Again, NOTHING to do with actual peak white output. Your screen is also just over 9 feet wide and you are already under 30 fL, so going more than 10' would again back up my claim. The 995ES may claim to be 10% brighter than the 885ES, but I am not seeing that in my measurements. The light engine is identical, the difference is in the f Stop of the lens.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,987 Posts
Measure all you want but to our eyes it is plenty bright. I could have predicted you would “measure” that anyway. I also could have predicted you would slam this projector. I am also using a ST100 screen. Different folks different strokes. If we want to call them that.

And thanks for reading my Review. :)
First, I never read your "Review". And I'm not sure where you saw my "slam" as I don't remember saying anything bad about the projector. I simply stated that those looking to use this with a larger screen may want to know exactly how much light it actually puts out, not what you and your guests thought was bright. Subjective comments only apply to the usage case they were seen in.

But then again I would expect a glowing subjective review from someone who literally had a link to Sony's projector page in their signature just days ago. But you'll probably say I'm biased because I actually measure things or something along those lines. :rolleyes:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
24,063 Posts
Discussion Starter · #28 ·
You brought up the word biased not me. Cracks me up how you couldn’t wait to stop by in the owner’s thread to try and rain on the parade. I like Sony projectors. No secret there. I also plan to Review the NX9 when it finally shows up next year sometime.

And others who have seen it have been very positive about it. Even Craig Peer said it and the NX9 were best of show.

Either way the 995ES deserves a glowing review and I stand behind my comments.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,001 Posts
Curves don't change how bright the projector is, they change the gamma which effects the brightness of the first 100 nits of the HDR signal and the perception of brightness in the image itself. Again, NOTHING to do with actual peak white output. Your screen is also just over 9 feet wide and you are already under 30 fL, so going more than 10' would again back up my claim. The 995ES may claim to be 10% brighter than the 885ES, but I am not seeing that in my measurements. The light engine is identical, the difference is in the f Stop of the lens.

If you are addressing this to me me I don't disagree with anything you are saying...while brighter is better, I will also defer to you that the actual brightness of the 995ES over the 885ES may be marginal. To me the value for choosing the 995ES would be in lens, different dimming /iris system, etc. and lumens probably last on the list over the 885ES. Given how they have implemented the major feature step-ups I can see why it may or may not be worth it to people who are first time buyers vs those that are thinking of trading up. Joe says it looks great and I think that is probably absolutely true as well.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,987 Posts
You brought up the word biased not me. Cracks me up how you couldn’t wait to stop by in the owner’s thread to try and rain on the parade. I like Sony projectors. No secret there. I also plan to Review the NX9 when it finally shows up next year sometime.

And others who have seen it have been very positive about it. Even Craig Peer said it and the NX9 were best of show.

Either way the 995ES deserves a glowing review and I stand behind my comments.
WTF Joe. Do you even read the stuff you write? For one, you're not any more of an "owner" of this projector than I am. You're reviewing it, or did you decide to sell your 5000ES for it?

I also didn't come on this thread to rain on anyone's parade, I have not said a single bad thing about the projector. I just merely stated that this projector may not provide the amount of light needed for HDR playback on screens over 10 feet wide. That isn't a slam, it certainly doesn't say anything about the quality of the image either. It just helps inform prospective owners that may want the light output that most talk about for HDR (30 fL) that they may not want to spec a screen over 10 ft wide. I can say the same thing about A LOT of other projectors including most of the JVC lineup and the Sony lineup. Feel free to disagree with my commentary on the projector's actual performance when I actually publish it, but I haven't said anything about it yet.

If you are addressing this to me me I don't disagree with anything you are saying...while brighter is better, I will also defer to you that the actual brightness of the 995ES over the 885ES may be marginal. To me the value for choosing the 995ES would be in lens, different dimming /iris system, etc. and lumens probably last on the list over the 885ES. Given how they have implemented the major feature step-ups I can see why it may or may not be worth it to people who are first time buyers vs those that are thinking of trading up. Joe says it looks great and I think that is probably absolutely true as well.
I agree that the difference in light between the two is marginal, I have both of them in my room right now. I am also well aware of their differences. I just wanted to make sure that others readers understood that just because the image looks "brighter" with a custom HDR curve rather than the factory ones, it is not actually "brighter" in the same way that measuring the peak output of the projector reports brightness. It is simply subjectively because of the difference in the tone map. Just like a 2.0 gamma can look "brighter" than a 2.4 gamma. The last thing I want those that don't understand these things to think is that they can somehow make this projector measurably brighter by using a custom HDR tone map vs the stock tone maps.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
24,063 Posts
Discussion Starter · #31 ·
Kris, give me a break. Last anyone knew you never owned a 5000ES. So for the many people who have been here to view the 5000 and then the 995 say the difference to their eyes is neglible. And it is over a 10 foot screen size so that makes your statement above not accurate. Having all three on the same screen qualifies more than just a comment. And yes I read what I write. I quit reading your stuff a long time ago like many others I know.

Again, thanks for stopping by and Merry Christmas. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,001 Posts
I am also well aware of their differences. I just wanted to make sure that others readers understood that just because the image looks "brighter" with a custom HDR curve rather than the factory ones, it is not actually "brighter" in the same way that measuring the peak output of the projector reports brightness. It is simply subjectively because of the difference in the tone map. Just like a 2.0 gamma can look "brighter" than a 2.4 gamma. The last thing I want those that don't understand these things to think is that they can somehow make this projector measurably brighter by using a custom HDR tone map vs the stock tone maps.

Ha, yes I almost wrote that. I agree completely and apologize for not being clearer... the actual performance of one unit to the other, tone map to like tone map, and brightness matched is probably virtually indistinguishable for HDR and other gamma based content. That makes perfect sense.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,881 Posts
Hi guys.
Any chance an owner, or someone who has one of these things for review, could take some snaps of the lens shift mechanism behind the lens on this projector please?
It is supposed to be improved as of this years new cohort and I would life to see if it is physically different to the previous iteration. The 295 looks very similar so it will be interesting to see if this uber expensive unit is any different.
Many thanks in advance. :)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
24,063 Posts
Discussion Starter · #34 ·
Hi guys.
Any chance an owner, or someone who has one of these things for review, could take some snaps of the lens shift mechanism behind the lens on this projector please?
It is supposed to be improved as of this years new cohort and I would life to see if it is physically different to the previous iteration. The 295 doesn't looks very similar so it will be interesting to see if this uber expensive unit is any different.
Many thanks in advance. 🙂
If no one else does by the time I get back into town I promise I will. Good idea. :)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,987 Posts
Kris, give me a break. Last anyone knew you never owned a 5000ES. So for the many people who have been here to view the 5000 and then the 995 say the difference to their eyes is neglible. And it is over a 10 foot screen size so that makes your statement above not accurate. Having all three on the same screen qualifies more than just a comment. And yes I read what I write. I quit reading your stuff a long time ago like many others I know.

Again, thanks for stopping by and Merry Christmas. :)
I am not commenting on the 5000ES am I? And I would expect the difference between the 5000 and the 995 to be negligible because they are the same chips, lens and processing board. One is just brighter than the other, so what differences were you really expecting??

My comment still stands, that people that are thinking about buying a 995 with a screen that is over 10' wide that is not high gain may want to be sure they have enough light output. My screen is 11 feet wide and I am getting a PEAK white at mid throw or less of about 24 fL. Does HDR look good? Yes, because I have a tone map that compensates. But what does a guy that is buying a 12' or wider perf screen have?? High to mid teens?? So again, my comment is VERY valid and not a bash on the projector at all.

I could really care less about you reading my reviews, or if others don't like them, that is your prerogative. My entire point in this thread was to inform buyers and owners so they don't make a bad choice in screen size with this projector. Had absolutely ZERO to do with the quality of the image. I've read too many times your over bloated sense of generalities of "it's great!" "it's awesome" "try this picture mode that looks fantastic though I have absolutely no idea why but that's okay because I think it looks great and so do my friends!!!!". Some people obviously appreciate that. I would rather make sure that instead of random subjective superlatives that if I see someone post something that may be misleading in implementation, I make sure that some FACTS get out there. "more than enough light output for a 12-14 ft wide screen" is misleading. This projector has more than enough for that size screen for SDR playback, but HDR would be capped off in the mid to low teens for fLs unless you are talking about a high gain screen (which most don't have at that size, most use perf or weave designs with less than a 1 gain).

I could honestly care less for your opinions on anything Joe, especially projectors. And I could honestly care less about how you feel about my subjective comments on anything. But you're also someone that does ZERO objective analysis of ANYTHING. You don't even have the first inkling on how to do an objective review or measurement. So until you can actually measure something, don't start throwing stones at me for trying to HELP prospective buyers/owners of this projector with measured information. If you actually knew anything about this stuff, you'd have understood immediately that I wasn't trying to slam this projector at all. But here we are, par for the course again.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
24,063 Posts
Discussion Starter · #36 ·
Obviously you care enough to write a book of a response back. You obviously didn’t read my review. It was in comparison to all three laser projectors from Sony. You came here claiming “NOT” good enough for over 10 feet. That’s a pretty strong statement from someone who has only “measured” and not compared it to a projector that specs out at 5000 lumens. Just saying, you obviously have nothing better to do this evening...

:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31,229 Posts
Are you sure about 70+ FL? 120” screen is around 60 sq ft right? 120” diagonal is probably closer to 50 sq ft but calibrated lumens should be around 1600-1800 I would think. These are just ballpark numbers but wouldn’t your FL be closer to 30-35 FL maxed out on this projector?
Correct. Even if you got the full 2,200 lumens out of the projector, you would only get 51FL on a 120" diagonal 1.0 gain screen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
264 Posts
I am not commenting on the 5000ES am I? And I would expect the difference between the 5000 and the 995 to be negligible because they are the same chips, lens and processing board. One is just brighter than the other, so what differences were you really expecting??

My comment still stands, that people that are thinking about buying a 995 with a screen that is over 10' wide that is not high gain may want to be sure they have enough light output. My screen is 11 feet wide and I am getting a PEAK white at mid throw or less of about 24 fL. Does HDR look good? Yes, because I have a tone map that compensates. But what does a guy that is buying a 12' or wider perf screen have?? High to mid teens?? So again, my comment is VERY valid and not a bash on the projector at all.

I could really care less about you reading my reviews, or if others don't like them, that is your prerogative. My entire point in this thread was to inform buyers and owners so they don't make a bad choice in screen size with this projector. Had absolutely ZERO to do with the quality of the image. I've read too many times your over bloated sense of generalities of "it's great!" "it's awesome" "try this picture mode that looks fantastic though I have absolutely no idea why but that's okay because I think it looks great and so do my friends!!!!". Some people obviously appreciate that. I would rather make sure that instead of random subjective superlatives that if I see someone post something that may be misleading in implementation, I make sure that some FACTS get out there. "more than enough light output for a 12-14 ft wide screen" is misleading. This projector has more than enough for that size screen for SDR playback, but HDR would be capped off in the mid to low teens for fLs unless you are talking about a high gain screen (which most don't have at that size, most use perf or weave designs with less than a 1 gain).

I could honestly care less for your opinions on anything Joe, especially projectors. And I could honestly care less about how you feel about my subjective comments on anything. But you're also someone that does ZERO objective analysis of ANYTHING. You don't even have the first inkling on how to do an objective review or measurement. So until you can actually measure something, don't start throwing stones at me for trying to HELP prospective buyers/owners of this projector with measured information. If you actually knew anything about this stuff, you'd have understood immediately that I wasn't trying to slam this projector at all. But here we are, par for the course again.

Two quick and dirty solutions for the problems you state (using the 995 with a low gain 12 foot screen) could be:

1- Use a Panasonic 4K player (to get decent HDR tone mapping)
2- Add an anamorph lens (to get extra light output)

Okay, nr 2 is not exactly cheap, but stil...

These solutions will probably not be enough to get perfect HDR, but it's a step in the right direction. Anyway, this is the path that I am about to take:

- 2.40:1 screen 128" (327 cm/about 11 foot) width (diameter 139"/354 cm)
- gain about 0.9 (AT)
- Sony 995
- Anamorph lens
- Panny 4K player
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,881 Posts
I am not commenting on the 5000ES am I? And I would expect the difference between the 5000 and the 995 to be negligible because they are the same chips, lens and processing board.
Am I not correct in thinking the processing board in a 5000 is utterly different to the lower models? I mean the sockets are in different places for a start..... ;)

Also, what chip is in the 5000? Did it have the X1 all along?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,987 Posts
Two quick and dirty solutions for the problems you state (using the 995 with a low gain 12 foot screen) could be:

1- Use a Panasonic 4K player (to get decent HDR tone mapping)
2- Add an anamorph lens (to get extra light output)

Okay, nr 2 is not exactly cheap, but stil...

These solutions will probably not be enough to get perfect HDR, but it's a step in the right direction. Anyway, this is the path that I am about to take:

- 2.40:1 screen 128" (327 cm/about 11 foot) width (diameter 139"/354 cm)
- gain about 0.9 (AT)
- Sony 995
- Anamorph lens
- Panny 4K player
The Lumagen will not add any light to the 995, again, it is only the perception of brightness due to the tone map used that helps, similar to the Panasonic. An Anamorphic lens will help quite a bit (I tested the 995ES with the Panamorph Palladin DCR lens for the review).

Am I not correct in thinking the processing board in a 5000 is utterly different to the lower models? I mean the sockets are in different places for a start..... ;)

Also, what chip is in the 5000? Did it have the X1 all along?
According to the Sony information I have from the event they did at CEDIA all models from the 295ES and up use the same X1 processing engine (I'm sure board layout is slightly different). To answer your previous question, the lens shift mechanism is a completely new design, not a firmware update. I have a CAD image of both that Sony provided and they are clearly different than each other.
 
21 - 40 of 1918 Posts
Top