AVS Forum banner

621 - 640 of 688 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,385 Posts
Well the HD33 has only 1800 lumens. Isn’t this much brighter?
I can assure you it does not have 1800 lumens. Real lumens is probably around 1000 on High lamp mode, when the lamp is new.

If you were to compare what the manufacturer claims, the UHD50x has "3400" and your unit 1800.

To see what the actual brightness of a particular unit is, looks at reviews that measure it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1 Posts
Hi All, My first post on any forum, and going to be purchasing a projector for the first time. Need purchase advice.

I had locked down on my decision to purchase the UHD50X however i can see many people are facing issues with it.

My purpose -
50 % games 50 % movies. (Only console games sine i have a seperate gaming rig for serious gaming)
I wanted something that will give me a good 4k movie viewing experience and also run the PS4 pro/ PS5 when it comes @ 4k 60 hertz with decent input lag.

My room -
The projector will be 10.9 feet away from the screen (ceiling/wall mounted).
I am setting up a 108" fixed frame screen - I dont know the gain etc. It just whats easily available.
Room walls are tiled in grey tiles. One adjacent wall is a dark blue.
I can control the light completely and will be watching in pitch dark.
I will be connecting a laptop directly to the HDMI 2.0 port on the projector or a 4k Amazon Firestick for my content.

My options -
Optoma - UHD50X
Epson - HC3800/ TW7100 (I read that it has better colors and black levels and decent input lag comparable to the Optoma at 4k)

I was sold on the Optoma till i started reading this thread and seeing some mixed reviews.

Any advise will be appreciated. Thank you to anyone that helps in advance and looking forward for your advice.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
51 Posts
I was sold on the Optoma till i started reading this thread and seeing some mixed reviews.

Any advise will be appreciated. Thank you to anyone that helps in advance and looking forward for your advice.
Here's my personal impressions so make of it what u will. This is my 1st projector so i dun really have any other to compare it to, but, unless ur ok with 50ms input lag at 4K (not 25ms as they say), gaming on this projector is meant to be done at [email protected] At [email protected] pc output and Enhanced Gaming enabled in the projector, i do think it does do a good job, there's no tearing even if the game playing can't go up to 240fps. If the source can't do 240Hz, input lag increases and image tearing can occur even with EG enabled.

For movies, if playing at [email protected] with EG enabled, then the image is kinda "smooth" since it is a multiple of 24fps. If not, at 4K the projector only shoots out image at 60Hz, so the source, like a pc media player, must be able to do proper 24fps to 60fps conversion or there will be crazy stuttering.
Movies at 4K HDR is not the best fer sure, but with some fiddling with image settings i have come to reach a, for me, pleasant viewing experience, while ofc keeping in mind its shortcomings (like colors and contrast) and its price range.
For 3D movies, even tho it does a good job compared to my tv for example, the lack of brightness is apparent.

Like i have said in previous posts, this feels like a rushed out prototype projector or something (so rushed out that there's even unused buttons on the remote control looooool never saw anything like that even in way cheaper products), with false specs advertising on top and optoma ignoring their customers, i wouldn't recommend this projector unless anybody is on a tight budget, and fer sure this is the 1st n last optoma projector i'll ever buy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
65 Posts
Here's my personal impressions so make of it what u will. This is my 1st projector so i dun really have any other to compare it to, but, unless ur ok with 50ms input lag at 4K (not 25ms as they say), gaming on this projector is meant to be done at [email protected] At [email protected] pc output and Enhanced Gaming enabled in the projector, i do think it does do a good job, there's no tearing even if the game playing can't go up to 240fps. If the source can't do 240Hz, input lag increases and image tearing can occur even with EG enabled.

For movies, if playing at [email protected] with EG enabled, then the image is kinda "smooth" since it is a multiple of 24fps. If not, at 4K the projector only shoots out image at 60Hz, so the source, like a pc media player, must be able to do proper 24fps to 60fps conversion or there will be crazy stuttering.
Movies at 4K HDR is not the best fer sure, but with some fiddling with image settings i have come to reach a, for me, pleasant viewing experience, while ofc keeping in mind its shortcomings (like colors and contrast) and its price range.
For 3D movies, even tho it does a good job compared to my tv for example, the lack of brightness is apparent.

Like i have said in previous posts, this feels like a rushed out prototype projector or something (so rushed out that there's even unused buttons on the remote control looooool never saw anything like that even in way cheaper products), with false specs advertising on top and optoma ignoring their customers, i wouldn't recommend this projector unless anybody is on a tight budget, and fer sure this is the 1st n last optoma projector i'll ever buy.
I am not pleased with the input lag and we need to get a fix or response ASAP.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,206 Posts
From everything I know about the Epson 4K technology (including that on the 3800 and 5050UB), they look every bit as good if not better than the DLP pixel shifting projectors. They just get there a bit differently. For one they have an incredible lense which helps alot and there is another technology it uses internally to help as well, though the name slips me. The 5050UB is a $3000 projector and uses the same 4K technology as the 3800, and most knowledgeable reviewers say the 5050 might as well be a high end projector right along side the really good laser projectors.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

They look very good— but there are substantial differences.

First of all the Epsons aren’t 4K. That statement somehow draws a lot of controversy around here and I’m not entirely sure why— it’s OK to not be 4K and the Epsons have plenty going for them but I digress. Epson takes a native 1080p resolution panel (or panels in their case) and effectively doubles that resolution through pixel shifting. There is no crazy proprietary technology that only Epson has access to, every manufacturer with the exception of Sony has used pixel shifting at one point or another. With the aid of image persistence and some very sophisticated scaling and sharpening algorithms Epson takes a 2 million pixel image and turns it into a 4 million pixel image that is meant to ‘simulate’ an 8 million pixel image. But it’s still 4 million tiny bits of information shy from being actual 4K.

When DLP pixel shifters first debuted they were the source of a lot of controversy over a single word: True. DLP called their pixel shifting models True 4K because, jn their solution, every single pixel of a 4K source image is represented on screen. Since the individual mirrors on a DLP DMD imaging chip can change position hundreds of times per second— much faster than a typical LCD pixel can twist itself from one position to another— TI and their manufacturing partners just upped the amount of shifts. The vast majority of 4K DLPs are quad shifters. They take a native 1080p resolution imaging chip and then shift that image 4 times to effectively quadruple those 2 million pixels into 8 million pixels. No pixel is left behind.

So, no, the ‘4K’ Epsons are not in the same resolution discussion as the 4K DLPs. They have half the available pixels to work with. But the story doesn’t end there. Enter into the room an elephant... contrast!

While 4K DLPs took a major leap forward in their efforts to democratize 4K for the masses they took a step back in one other crucial aspect of image quality: contrast. A step back that many critics would argue they didn’t have the space to take. Meanwhile, the Epson move to ‘faux’K resulted in no such penalties. This is important as contrast is a major contributor to how our eyes perceive sharpness.

Now to be clear, below the Epson UB range, contrast figures for DLP and 3LCD projectors are all fairly modest. In terms of native contrast (that is FOFO contrast measurements made without the aid of a dynamic iris or lamp dimming) DLP and 3LCD in this price range are all, more or less, under 2000:1. Now that’s not a knock— a Barco Balder Cinemascope has a “sequential’ contrast rating of 1800:1 and it costs more than my last two cars combined... maybe my last three! :) But just as an example: Sound and Vision measured the Epson ‘4K’ 3800 at 1,372:1 native while their spec for the BenQ HT3550 came in at 775:1. Meanwhile, cnet measured the comparably dirt cheap 1080p only BenQ Ht2050A DLP at 2094:1! So a lot of the vitriol is not just about 4K DLP contrast being low comparable to their ‘faux’K 3LCD competition but also that it took a discernible step back from their 1080p offerings. Something I don’t necessarily disagree with and something, I think, DLP manufacturers have clued onto as well considering the sudden resurgence of the ‘old’ .65” DMD in new product announcements.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,385 Posts
They look very good— but there are substantial differences.

First of all the Epsons aren’t 4K. That statement somehow draws a lot of controversy around here and I’m not entirely sure why— it’s OK to not be 4K and the Epsons have plenty going for them but I digress. Epson takes a native 1080p resolution panel (or panels in their case) and effectively doubles that resolution through pixel shifting. There is no crazy proprietary technology that only Epson has access to, every manufacturer with the exception of Sony has used pixel shifting at one point or another. With the aid of image persistence and some very sophisticated scaling and sharpening algorithms Epson takes a 2 million pixel image and turns it into a 4 million pixel image that is meant to ‘simulate’ an 8 million pixel image. But it’s still 4 million tiny bits of information shy from being actual 4K.

When DLP pixel shifters first debuted they were the source of a lot of controversy over a single word: True. DLP called their pixel shifting models True 4K because, jn their solution, every single pixel of a 4K source image is represented on screen. Since the individual mirrors on a DLP DMD imaging chip can change position hundreds of times per second— much faster than a typical LCD pixel can twist itself from one position to another— TI and their manufacturing partners just upped the amount of shifts. The vast majority of 4K DLPs are quad shifters. They take a native 1080p resolution imaging chip and then shift that image 4 times to effectively quadruple those 2 million pixels into 8 million pixels. No pixel is left behind.

So, no, the ‘4K’ Epsons are not in the same resolution discussion as the 4K DLPs. They have half the available pixels to work with. But the story doesn’t end there. Enter into the room an elephant... contrast!

While 4K DLPs took a major leap forward in their efforts to democratize 4K for the masses they took a step back in one other crucial aspect of image quality: contrast. A step back that many critics would argue they didn’t have the space to take. Meanwhile, the Epson move to ‘faux’K resulted in no such penalties. This is important as contrast is a major contributor to how our eyes perceive sharpness.

Now to be clear, below the Epson UB range, contrast figures for DLP and 3LCD projectors are all fairly modest. In terms of native contrast (that is FOFO contrast measurements made without the aid of a dynamic iris or lamp dimming) DLP and 3LCD in this price range are all, more or less, under 2000:1. Now that’s not a knock— a Barco Balder Cinemascope has a “sequential’ contrast rating of 1800:1 and it costs more than my last two cars combined... maybe my last three! :) But just as an example: Sound and Vision measured the Epson ‘4K’ 3800 at 1,372:1 native while their spec for the BenQ HT3550 came in at 775:1. Meanwhile, cnet measured the comparably dirt cheap 1080p only BenQ Ht2050A DLP at 2094:1! So a lot of the vitriol is not just about 4K DLP contrast being low comparable to their ‘faux’K 3LCD competition but also that it took a discernible step back from their 1080p offerings. Something I don’t necessarily disagree with and something, I think, DLP manufacturers have clued onto as well considering the sudden resurgence of the ‘old’ .65” DMD in new product announcements.
The 4K quad DLP vs. 4K 3LCD is a mute point IMO.
Sharpness perception is also influenced by quality of lenses, contrast, seating distance, screen size, screen fabric, quality of source (many 4K movies are shot in 2K), quality of the stream, etc.
From normal distances there is no discernible screen door effect on Epsons.




Testimonials confirm this and some even claim it looks sharper than 4K DLP:

There is a difference. I Just upgraded from a BenQ HT3550 pixel-shifting (with 8.3 million distinctive pixels) to Epson 5050UB (with half that, at 4.15 million pixels). I was worried I'd have to compromise on that 4K sharpness, but I actually find Epson sharper at 'normal' viewing distances when 4K enhancement is engaged. When you're just 3-4ft away from the screen, you can make out SDE/pixel structure on the Epson, but at actual viewing distances (in my case 14.5ft from a 150" 16x9 screen), the perceived sharpness is better. Add Epson's far better brightness, contrast and blacks, then your 4K HDR has that pop BenQ can't quite achieve. BenQ is no slouch, but in comparison, it appears more flat and lacking on that pop I mentioned, and better HDR experience.


Regarding brightness comparisons are done with new lamps. After ~500h lamps loose ~25% brightness, which does not bode well for something like the HT3550/5000. For a larger screen and or HDR, extra brightness is needed.
Positive gain screens are hard to find, or expensive. Silver TIcket has an actual 1.3 gain white screen, but I don't know if they sell it as an already assembled screen, not just fabric.

Some will say that they are fine with how a RGBRGB DLP looks like on a large screen, but this is also what others say when the lamp has dimmed over time.
What is their reaction when they get a new lamp? Often surprised how dim it was, and how good the image looks now. Same with low power DLP and brighter Epsons.

Another advantage of Epsons is longer throw ratio, which is needed for many ALR screens, that require 1.8x at the minimum, if not 2.0 to avoid artifacts.

Epson also have better screen uniformity which helps with ALRs and shother throws.
HC3800 has 87%, 5050UB ~84%, HT3550 ~67% and ~84% for the HT5550.

Epsons are also much brighter, which means they can be used with negative gain screens, to attenuate light pollution. Considering a lot of these entry level units will go in untreated living rooms, Epsons are very good in combination with ALRs and shorter throws or grey screens.

Can you find the hotspot in this setup with the TW6700 (HC3700), Cinegrey 5D at 1.35x throw ratio?




Epsons have lower lag, under 30ms, while 4K DLPs can do 40ms, they generally go for 50 - 80ms, if the model has interpolation.

Some Epsons also have lens shift, motorized in some cases. I mean the HC3200 has quite a bit of vertical and horizontal lens shift, how much is that?

RGBRGB models are not that bright, which is necessary for HDR, and non RGBRGB models have color accuracy issues in brighter presets, not to mention even poorer black level and higher lag.
Being brighter Epsons with WCG filter is more usable than the two Benqs that also have it.

Being brighter also means they can be used in Eco mode, for silent running. Optoma UHD51A and other on this chassis is quiet, but HT3550 is not.

When measuring brightness, depending on preset and BC setting, color lumens are often not the same as white lumens, which the reviews measure, for DLP and color wheels.
3LCD white lumens = color lumens.

For 3D, at least for the 5050UB commenters have said it's overall better than lower brightness DLP.

I don't believe the lamp life claims of 10 000 or 15 000 when used in Dynamic/SmartEco for some newer models. Sounds like RAM 99 years warranty.

Pricing. While in the US prices are competitive, especially with the 5050UB (not good pricing), in the EU at least Epson has much better pricing. The TW9400 which is the same the 6050UB without the extras is priced at ~$2600 MSRP, and has been on a permanent sale at lower than that. In the US the 5050UB is $3000 and $4000 MSRP for 6050UB.

WCG:
~84% for the HT3550, 100% with the filter on (minus 30-40% brightness).
~71-75% for the HC3800, no filter.
~80% for the UHD51A
~84-87% for the HC4010/5050UB and previous generation, 100% with the filter on (minus 50% brightness)


Contrast.
Not going to post the 5050UB values, they are well known.


HC3800
Eco 1717:1 native
32 461:1 with iris on fast
Natural mode and High lamp 36 655:1


HT3550
Normal lamp 608:1 native
Nornal lamp with iris on high 1743:1
Eco lamp with iris on high 1720:3
Normal lamp with SmartEco 2094.9:1


The HT3550 is amongst the best out of the 4K DLP pack when it comes it contrast, other do worse.

UHD51A
Eco 470:1
Bright lamp 471:1
Bright lamp with Dynamic Black 1021:1
Bright lamp with Dynamic Black in HDR mode 1711:1


HT2050
Eco calibrated 1355:1
Normal lamp 1331:1
Normal lamp with SmartEco 1937:1




While irises may not be perfect, they are usable. Dynamic dimming, at least on my W2000 (HT3050), takes 5 seconds to adjust. And I can't see any difference visually vs. Normal lamp, with black level.
They help with low ADL scenes.

The test done by ProjectionDream of 57 movies, shows that ONE THIRD of all scenes are under 3% ADL.
ADL: ANSI contrast in particular with JVC projectors

While some low ADL scenes may be broken up with brighter objects in between which causes the perception of improved black, it's minor. With my W2000 which has been measured at over 500:1 ANSI (in a perfect room), with an ALR screen and some furniture, does not do the trick. I had an Optoma before it, and even though it's black floor was only slightly lower, it was very clear to my eyes. A unit with dynamic iris would make a big impact.

Regardless of the percentage of low ADL scenes, they play a large role in perception because they look bad, take the viewer out of the experience. To my perception, they are often and bothersome.


Performance in dark scenes, since they represent a large proportion of scenes is very important. It's not as someone recently said, something that only 5% of people notice. Many people notice, but they many not have the knowledge, time or money to do anything about it.

Anecdotally, I recommended a W2000 a few months ago because the user had found a deal or something, Epson was too expensive for him. The first thing he complained about was the milky grey blacks.

Especially since they end up on this forum, it can be assumed they are more picky.

DLP has a few advantages which for most people are not worth it:
Motion.
Reliability.
Not to say 3LCD as not reliable, or are not ok with motion.

More resistance to dust blobs.
CFI in 4K.
Some models with lower throw ratio.
Sharper if screen is too big and or seating is too close. But if screen is too big it's likely that the projector is not bright enough. And if it's the bright type, for sports it does not matter. For gaming only a few have low 40ms lag, which is still higher than Epson. And picture quality is not good with these, even for gaming.



I see over and over 4K DLP recommended.
I was also recommended DLP when I was supposed to have been recommended an HC2150 or HC3700. They both have native under 2000:1, but dynamic on the 3700 is similar to the 3800, and on the 2150 it's between 8 and 10 000:1.


Don't take this personally, but I am very upset that I spent almost 5000h with DLPs, ruining many titles that I can't revisit. I switch between my monitor which is VA, and the projector, and I can clearly see the difference in dark scenes. In the last year I've put ~700h, when in the start it was over 2000.
I don't know what your situation is, but I've seen users like Scooty make claims that are false. When comparing the HT5550 and 5050UB. Can't say 100% if they were made knowingly, but it looks like it to me.

A user wanted a recommendation for a replacement for a HW45 in a room covered entierly in dark fabric, and Dun Munro recommended the UHD51A. It has a native contrast of 470:1 !!!!!! The sony has a native CR of ~5000:1. User said he wanted for movies. Is anyone going to argue that a user like that won't notice?
In another case with a room with dark grey walls and an 150" spandex screen he also recommended the UHD51. An Epson would have been brighter and with better contrast.
They both came from 1080p, so sharpness would have been at least as good, so seating position/screen size was not an issue for SDE/sharpness.
I don't want to accuse people of being promoters, but how can someone who supposedly knows all the facts do that with a straight face? To the detriment of potential buyers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
578 Posts
Discussion Starter #629
3041090
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
87 Posts
Hello,

I do have Optoma UHD51A projector at home. It is great, but very annoying for fast paste games.
It's 50-70ms lag is just too much.

I was planning to do the upgrade and I am thinking of this projector.
Is there any new version coming which would be better?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9 Posts
Hello,

I do have Optoma UHD51A projector at home. It is great, but very annoying for fast paste games.
It's 50-70ms lag is just too much.

I was planning to do the upgrade and I am thinking of this projector.
Is there any new version coming which would be better?
I was exactly in your shoes, and just did the upgrade.
Here is my take.
If gaming is not high on your list, then dont waste your money
The quatlity, i mean build quality of this projector is **** compared to the 51
No Ethernet port or wifi
No Os
This projector feels ancient. No lie, you are going backwards with this projector. Its a downgrade just to get low input lag.

To be honest, Im kinda regretting my decision. The benefit of low input lag, is not worth the extra money plus the missing features.

My take on this is get a gaming 1080 projector for around 700 - 800 . that would be a better investment.
Keep the 2 get one of those double mounts.

Infact here is something that most people dont mention. This projector was outdated before it even launched. No hdmi 2.1 ?????? For a smart person, that is a none starter.

I did not make a smart decision. Save your money. this cheap ass thing costing over 1600. Not worth it as an upgrade.

I got more to rant about, but i will hold off.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
87 Posts
I was exactly in your shoes, and just did the upgrade.
Here is my take.
If gaming is not high on your list, then dont waste your money
The quatlity, i mean build quality of this projector is **** compared to the 51
No Ethernet port or wifi
No Os
This projector feels ancient. No lie, you are going backwards with this projector. Its a downgrade just to get low input lag.

To be honest, Im kinda regretting my decision. The benefit of low input lag, is not worth the extra money plus the missing features.

My take on this is get a gaming 1080 projector for around 700 - 800 . that would be a better investment.
Keep the 2 get one of those double mounts.

Infact here is something that most people dont mention. This projector was outdated before it even launched. No hdmi 2.1 ?????? For a smart person, that is a none starter.

I did not make a smart decision. Save your money. this cheap ass thing costing over 1600. Not worth it as an upgrade.

I got more to rant about, but i will hold off.
wow thanks for honest opinion. I only bothers me tbh in QT events games and fighting games.
In slower paste games it's fine

However 51A has slight dimm hdr, I would prefer something brighter.

If the jump is not as good as you say I don't think I will bother with an upgrade.

Maybe I will wait untill 51B or something with this color wheel from X and low input lag.

50X has lower input lag then 51A also in 4k right ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9 Posts
wow thanks for honest opinion. I only bothers me tbh in QT events games and fighting games.
In slower paste games it's fine

However 51A has slight dimm hdr, I would prefer something brighter.

If the jump is not as good as you say I don't think I will bother with an upgrade.

Maybe I will wait untill 51B or something with this color wheel from X and low input lag.

50X has lower input lag then 51A also in 4k right ?
As of right now it does, but its broken, i.e you have to switch to enhanced gaming mode, and that does not work all the time, and its not a smooth operation.

Let me give you an analogy, I think it will paint the picture well.

Think of the 51A as last years bmw 5 series with 35mpg, and now think of the 50x as this years toyota corolla with 40mpg. its like buying the toyota corolla for the 40 mpg, and call the whole thing an upgrade.

That is the trickery that these greedy bastards pulled. the uhd50x is not in the same class as the 51a, it is a toyota corolla pretending to be a bmw because of a name switch and just better mpg.

If your expecting the 50x to be a 51a with newer/ same/ similar features with improved input lag, then you will be very disappointed.

Dont get me wrong though, if your primary goal, and i mean if gaming is more important, and i mean more, by a big margin to just watching movies and the additional features that the 51a brings, Then do go ahead and get the 50x
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,206 Posts
The 4K quad DLP vs. 4K 3LCD is a mute point IMO.
Sharpness perception is also influenced by quality of lenses, contrast, seating distance, screen size, screen fabric, quality of source (many 4K movies are shot in 2K), quality of the stream, etc.
From normal distances there is no discernible screen door effect on Epsons.




Testimonials confirm this and some even claim it looks sharper than 4K DLP:





Regarding brightness comparisons are done with new lamps. After ~500h lamps loose ~25% brightness, which does not bode well for something like the HT3550/5000. For a larger screen and or HDR, extra brightness is needed.
Positive gain screens are hard to find, or expensive. Silver TIcket has an actual 1.3 gain white screen, but I don't know if they sell it as an already assembled screen, not just fabric.

Some will say that they are fine with how a RGBRGB DLP looks like on a large screen, but this is also what others say when the lamp has dimmed over time.
What is their reaction when they get a new lamp? Often surprised how dim it was, and how good the image looks now. Same with low power DLP and brighter Epsons.

Another advantage of Epsons is longer throw ratio, which is needed for many ALR screens, that require 1.8x at the minimum, if not 2.0 to avoid artifacts.

Epson also have better screen uniformity which helps with ALRs and shother throws.
HC3800 has 87%, 5050UB ~84%, HT3550 ~67% and ~84% for the HT5550.

Epsons are also much brighter, which means they can be used with negative gain screens, to attenuate light pollution. Considering a lot of these entry level units will go in untreated living rooms, Epsons are very good in combination with ALRs and shorter throws or grey screens.

Can you find the hotspot in this setup with the TW6700 (HC3700), Cinegrey 5D at 1.35x throw ratio?




Epsons have lower lag, under 30ms, while 4K DLPs can do 40ms, they generally go for 50 - 80ms, if the model has interpolation.

Some Epsons also have lens shift, motorized in some cases. I mean the HC3200 has quite a bit of vertical and horizontal lens shift, how much is that?

RGBRGB models are not that bright, which is necessary for HDR, and non RGBRGB models have color accuracy issues in brighter presets, not to mention even poorer black level and higher lag.
Being brighter Epsons with WCG filter is more usable than the two Benqs that also have it.

Being brighter also means they can be used in Eco mode, for silent running. Optoma UHD51A and other on this chassis is quiet, but HT3550 is not.

When measuring brightness, depending on preset and BC setting, color lumens are often not the same as white lumens, which the reviews measure, for DLP and color wheels.
3LCD white lumens = color lumens.

For 3D, at least for the 5050UB commenters have said it's overall better than lower brightness DLP.

I don't believe the lamp life claims of 10 000 or 15 000 when used in Dynamic/SmartEco for some newer models. Sounds like RAM 99 years warranty.

Pricing. While in the US prices are competitive, especially with the 5050UB (not good pricing), in the EU at least Epson has much better pricing. The TW9400 which is the same the 6050UB without the extras is priced at ~$2600 MSRP, and has been on a permanent sale at lower than that. In the US the 5050UB is $3000 and $4000 MSRP for 6050UB.

WCG:
~84% for the HT3550, 100% with the filter on (minus 30-40% brightness).
~71-75% for the HC3800, no filter.
~80% for the UHD51A
~84-87% for the HC4010/5050UB and previous generation, 100% with the filter on (minus 50% brightness)


Contrast.
Not going to post the 5050UB values, they are well known.


HC3800
Eco 1717:1 native
32 461:1 with iris on fast
Natural mode and High lamp 36 655:1


HT3550
Normal lamp 608:1 native
Nornal lamp with iris on high 1743:1
Eco lamp with iris on high 1720:3
Normal lamp with SmartEco 2094.9:1


The HT3550 is amongst the best out of the 4K DLP pack when it comes it contrast, other do worse.

UHD51A
Eco 470:1
Bright lamp 471:1
Bright lamp with Dynamic Black 1021:1
Bright lamp with Dynamic Black in HDR mode 1711:1


HT2050
Eco calibrated 1355:1
Normal lamp 1331:1
Normal lamp with SmartEco 1937:1




While irises may not be perfect, they are usable. Dynamic dimming, at least on my W2000 (HT3050), takes 5 seconds to adjust. And I can't see any difference visually vs. Normal lamp, with black level.
They help with low ADL scenes.

The test done by ProjectionDream of 57 movies, shows that ONE THIRD of all scenes are under 3% ADL.
ADL: ANSI contrast in particular with JVC projectors

While some low ADL scenes may be broken up with brighter objects in between which causes the perception of improved black, it's minor. With my W2000 which has been measured at over 500:1 ANSI (in a perfect room), with an ALR screen and some furniture, does not do the trick. I had an Optoma before it, and even though it's black floor was only slightly lower, it was very clear to my eyes. A unit with dynamic iris would make a big impact.

Regardless of the percentage of low ADL scenes, they play a large role in perception because they look bad, take the viewer out of the experience. To my perception, they are often and bothersome.


Performance in dark scenes, since they represent a large proportion of scenes is very important. It's not as someone recently said, something that only 5% of people notice. Many people notice, but they many not have the knowledge, time or money to do anything about it.

Anecdotally, I recommended a W2000 a few months ago because the user had found a deal or something, Epson was too expensive for him. The first thing he complained about was the milky grey blacks.

Especially since they end up on this forum, it can be assumed they are more picky.

DLP has a few advantages which for most people are not worth it:
Motion.
Reliability.
Not to say 3LCD as not reliable, or are not ok with motion.

More resistance to dust blobs.
CFI in 4K.
Some models with lower throw ratio.
Sharper if screen is too big and or seating is too close. But if screen is too big it's likely that the projector is not bright enough. And if it's the bright type, for sports it does not matter. For gaming only a few have low 40ms lag, which is still higher than Epson. And picture quality is not good with these, even for gaming.



I see over and over 4K DLP recommended.
I was also recommended DLP when I was supposed to have been recommended an HC2150 or HC3700. They both have native under 2000:1, but dynamic on the 3700 is similar to the 3800, and on the 2150 it's between 8 and 10 000:1.


Don't take this personally, but I am very upset that I spent almost 5000h with DLPs, ruining many titles that I can't revisit. I switch between my monitor which is VA, and the projector, and I can clearly see the difference in dark scenes. In the last year I've put ~700h, when in the start it was over 2000.
I don't know what your situation is, but I've seen users like Scooty make claims that are false. When comparing the HT5550 and 5050UB. Can't say 100% if they were made knowingly, but it looks like it to me.

A user wanted a recommendation for a replacement for a HW45 in a room covered entierly in dark fabric, and Dun Munro recommended the UHD51A. It has a native contrast of 470:1 !!!!!! The sony has a native CR of ~5000:1. User said he wanted for movies. Is anyone going to argue that a user like that won't notice?
In another case with a room with dark grey walls and an 150" spandex screen he also recommended the UHD51. An Epson would have been brighter and with better contrast.
They both came from 1080p, so sharpness would have been at least as good, so seating position/screen size was not an issue for SDE/sharpness.
I don't want to accuse people of being promoters, but how can someone who supposedly knows all the facts do that with a straight face? To the detriment of potential buyers.

You took the time to write a novel but apparently not the time to read the rest of my post... :) So I actually AGREE with you on a lot of that. Let me take you to the part of my post you may have missed.

___

“So, no, the ‘4K’ Epsons are not in the same resolution discussion as the 4K DLPs. They have half the available pixels to work with. But the story doesn’t end there. Enter into the room an elephant... contrast!

While 4K DLPs took a major leap forward in their efforts to democratize 4K for the masses they took a step back in one other crucial aspect of image quality: contrast. A step back that many critics would argue they didn’t have the space to take. Meanwhile, the Epson move to ‘faux’K resulted in no such penalties. This is important as contrast is a major contributor to how our eyes perceive sharpness.”

___

Yeah, 4K DLP has taken a massive hit to contrast and that’s a problem. Especially as Epson has brought down the price of entry into their ‘4K’ lineup of projectors. One could somewhat excuse 4K DLP’s lack of contrast when they were the only game in town but it’s becoming more difficult to look past. And, YES, contrast plays a huge role in how our eyes perceive image sharpness and clarity. So a higher contrast / lower resolution image can appear just as sharp or even sharper than a low contrast / high resolution image.

Couple things: I’ve largely given up on active or dynamic iris. With the BenQ’s they are seemingly too fast which results in a sort of flicker/overshoot. With the Epson’s they are seemingly too slow, taking too long to decide what they are going to do well after a new scene is already underway. So native or sequential or FOFO contrast— whatever you want to call it— is very important. Native contrast is the contrast you SEE on any given frame of content. I don’t care how black your all black screen is. I want to know how dynamic the image is in any given frame.

I also realize the effect contrast has on image clarity. This is why I still haven’t replaced my 1080p VT60 plasma in my living room. I don’t want a larger TV in our living room and so the advantages of 4K resolution are completely obliterated at that size for our seating distance. That means I’m going on color/contrast/motion for my picture quality considerations and, frankly, I haven’t found anything to offer an appreciable improvement. In our media room things are a bit different. We sit about 7/8 feet from a 100” screen. At that range the benefits of 4K become VERY noticeable. If someone chooses to stick with a lower resolution image to attain better picture quality in other areas— absolutely a fair compromise and, honestly, I’m considering the same for my next purchase. :) But to say that there isn’t a difference? I’m sorry, but no algorithm in the world can disguise the difference between 4 million and 8 million pixels. Just like with my plasma— at your seating distance/screen size the difference may be negated or largely diminished. Or you may simply not care as the image performance is so much better in other areas. But the difference is there.

You quoted a member and owner who upgraded from a $1500 HT3550 to a $3000 Epson 5050ub and the Epson is, surprise, clearly the superior projector. ( Although I do seem to recall that same owner getting into it a little but with some of the other members when he suggested the Epson *might not be as sharp as the HT3550 :) ). And, yes, if you have TWICE the budget to spend on a projector you absolutely should do that. But I want to defend the HT3550 a little bit here as I still feel it’a a solid projector and compelling model in the price range.

I measured the BenQ at 800:1 native, that matches what S&V spec’d and, honestly, it’s not an impressive number. But we should have some context. First, that contrast spec is largely a ‘calibrated’ spec since BenQ calibrates the projector at the factory. As in, you can take the 3550 out of the box and not touch a thing and it looks great. That’s not the case with most other projectors. For example the Ht2050A I’m using now measures over 1900:1 out-of-the-box. But that mode is too bright for a darkened home theater with a white point that skews green. Calibrated that number falls to 1300:1 while my ‘close enough’ calibration is 1550:1. When I helped a buddy setup his Epson 4010 recently (on my recommendation, btw) I stuck around to demo some clips. I’m pretty familiar with the 4010 having seen a few and his unit is a fine example: bright, colorful and sharp. The contrast of the Epson 4010, minus the iris, is largely the same as the HT2050A. Out of the box the 4010 is VERY bright with a slightly cool white point. Like most displays, it’s color contrast controls (gain) only really work in one direction: down. That means that we can expect similar losses to contrast as we tamp down the Epson’s brightness and bring it’s color in line. We don’t have to guess as Secrets has done this for us: calibrated Secrets spec’d the Epson 4010 just behind the BenQ HT2050A at 1257.8:1 versus the HT2050A at 1355.2:1. Still a substantial improvement over the HT3550 but not the night and day difference you’re alluding to. I tried to demonstrate this in my head-to-head between the HT2050 and HT3550 by taking pictures of both models projecting onto the same screen and allowing the reader to decide. See post 2 here: BenQ HT3550 True 4K Home Cinema Projector Review
At this price point you should fight for every shred of contrast you can get. But taken into account with all the things the Ht3550 does well I don’t think it’s an open shut case for either model. And this reinforces my above post: that below the 5050 and Sony 45ES all contrast specs are pretty modest. I don’t engage in speculation and I’ve never parroted what other members have said. If I make a statement or a recommendation it’s based on my own observations.

Edit: since you made some disparaging remarks I want to defend a fellow AVSer and friend who is not here to defend himself. Scott initially purchased both the TK800 and Epson 4000 himself for that initial comparison. He was later loaned an HT5550 reviewer by BenQ which he compared directly against his own 5050ub in the video that now has over 50K views on youtube. His own 5050ub which he purchased with his money and installed in his theater. His opinions are his own but I respect his opinion and have mad respect for his contributions here on this forum and over on youtube.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,385 Posts
You took the time to write a novel but apparently not the time to read the rest of my post... :) So I actually AGREE with you on a lot of that. Let me take you to the part of my post you may have missed.

___

“So, no, the ‘4K’ Epsons are not in the same resolution discussion as the 4K DLPs. They have half the available pixels to work with. But the story doesn’t end there. Enter into the room an elephant... contrast!

While 4K DLPs took a major leap forward in their efforts to democratize 4K for the masses they took a step back in one other crucial aspect of image quality: contrast. A step back that many critics would argue they didn’t have the space to take. Meanwhile, the Epson move to ‘faux’K resulted in no such penalties. This is important as contrast is a major contributor to how our eyes perceive sharpness.”

___

Yeah, 4K DLP has taken a massive hit to contrast and that’s a problem. Especially as Epson has brought down the price of entry into their ‘4K’ lineup of projectors. One could somewhat excuse 4K DLP’s lack of contrast when they were the only game in town but it’s becoming more difficult to look past. And, YES, contrast plays a huge role in how our eyes perceive image sharpness and clarity. So a higher contrast / lower resolution image can appear just as sharp or even sharper than a low contrast / high resolution image.

Couple things: I’ve largely given up on active or dynamic iris. With the BenQ’s they are seemingly too fast which results in a sort of flicker/overshoot. With the Epson’s they are seemingly too slow, taking too long to decide what they are going to do well after a new scene is already underway. So native or sequential or FOFO contrast— whatever you want to call it— is very important. Native contrast is the contrast you SEE on any given frame of content. I don’t care how black your all black screen is. I want to know how dynamic the image is in any given frame.

I also realize the effect contrast has on image clarity. This is why I still haven’t replaced my 1080p VT60 plasma in my living room. I don’t want a larger TV in our living room and so the advantages of 4K resolution are completely obliterated at that size for our seating distance. That means I’m going on color/contrast/motion for my picture quality considerations and, frankly, I haven’t found anything to offer an appreciable improvement. In our media room things are a bit different. We sit about 7/8 feet from a 100” screen. At that range the benefits of 4K become VERY noticeable. If someone chooses to stick with a lower resolution image to attain better picture quality in other areas— absolutely a fair compromise and, honestly, I’m considering the same for my next purchase. :) But to say that there isn’t a difference? I’m sorry, but no algorithm in the world can disguise the difference between 4 million and 8 million pixels. Just like with my plasma— at your seating distance/screen size the difference may be negated or largely diminished. Or you may simply not care as the image performance is so much better in other areas. But the difference is there.

You quoted a member and owner who upgraded from a $1500 HT3550 to a $3000 Epson 5050ub and the Epson is, surprise, clearly the superior projector. ( Although I do seem to recall that same owner getting into it a little but with some of the other members when he suggested the Epson *might not be as sharp as the HT3550 :) ). And, yes, if you have TWICE the budget to spend on a projector you absolutely should do that. But I want to defend the HT3550 a little bit here as I still feel it’a a solid projector and compelling model in the price range.

I measured the BenQ at 800:1 native, that matches what S&V spec’d and, honestly, it’s not an impressive number. But we should have some context. First, that contrast spec is largely a ‘calibrated’ spec since BenQ calibrates the projector at the factory. As in, you can take the 3550 out of the box and not touch a thing and it looks great. That’s not the case with most other projectors. For example the Ht2050A I’m using now measures over 1900:1 out-of-the-box. But that mode is too bright for a darkened home theater with a white point that skews green. Calibrated that number falls to 1300:1 while my ‘close enough’ calibration is 1550:1. When I helped a buddy setup his Epson 4010 recently (on my recommendation, btw) I stuck around to demo some clips. I’m pretty familiar with the 4010 having seen a few and his unit is a fine example: bright, colorful and sharp. The contrast of the Epson 4010, minus the iris, is largely the same as the HT2050A. Out of the box the 4010 is VERY bright with a slightly cool white point. Like most displays, it’s color contrast controls (gain) only really work in one direction: down. That means that we can expect similar losses to contrast as we tamp down the Epson’s brightness and bring it’s color in line. We don’t have to guess as Secrets has done this for us: calibrated Secrets spec’d the Epson 4010 just behind the BenQ HT2050A at 1257.8:1 versus the HT2050A at 1355.2:1. Still a substantial improvement over the HT3550 but not the night and day difference you’re alluding to. I tried to demonstrate this in my head-to-head between the HT2050 and HT3550 by taking pictures of both models projecting onto the same screen and allowing the reader to decide. See post 2 here: BenQ HT3550 True 4K Home Cinema Projector Review
At this price point you should fight for every shred of contrast you can get. But taken into account with all the things the Ht3550 does well I don’t think it’s an open shut case for either model. And this reinforces my above post: that below the 5050 and Sony 45ES all contrast specs are pretty modest. I don’t engage in speculation and I’ve never parroted what other members have said. If I make a statement or a recommendation it’s based on my own observations.

Edit: since you made some disparaging remarks I want to defend a fellow AVSer and friend who is not here to defend himself. Scott initially purchased both the TK800 and Epson 4000 himself for that initial comparison. He was later loaned an HT5550 reviewer by BenQ which he compared directly against his own 5050ub in the video that now has over 50K views on youtube. His own 5050ub which he purchased with his money and installed in his theater. His opinions are his own but I respect his opinion and have mad respect for his contributions here on this forum and over on youtube.
You disregarded the many positives of Epsons in the previous post, which combined would paint a different picture, literally and figuratively.
Some of my arguments were for DLP and 3LCD in general, not necessarily for the price point of a HT3550.

These products are not just one person, but for many others. Not going to go the entire thing again, but will touch on some points.


Regarding sharpness, what does it matter if the viewer can't tell the difference? And I'm not talking about SDE which is not visible on the HC3800/HC4010 from regular viewing distances, if were talking about the ~$1500 range.
Below is a video of the UHD50x and HC3800. If you put 100 people in front of the two units, how many do you think will see the Optoma as being more sharp?



But more importantly, it's not just about sharpness, but the entire package. Also consider the HC4010 has lenses similar to the 5050UB, which improve upon the HC3800.

I don't know what more could be said about this topic, don't know why you keep bringing it up. As others have said, HDR is not even primarily about resolution. If you personally can see the sharpness, and prefer it to the other aspects that make a picture look better, mainly contrast/black level, that's a minority position. You should make that case more since most people IMO would not agree with you.

In regards to the iris, it's not a agreed upon subject. Again, it's not just about you.
Recently I looked at some reviews for the iris action on the HC4010:

Some people don't like irises or dynamic dimming because it lowers the black floor by dimming the entire image. So if there is a shot in space with stars, planets, dark alley, etc, the bright parts will also be dimmed.
From the HC4010 review:
There are three settings for the auto iris including Off, Normal, and Fast. The Fast setting occasionally engendered visible light pumping on severe scene transitions or during rapidly edited sequences as the projector's logic struggled to settle on an appropriate aperture. These issues disappeared with the same content on the Normal setting.

Found contrast with iris on normal/fast for HC4010. TW7400 is the non US/Canada name of the HC4010.


From the TW7400 review:
The Epson TW7400 luckily has an adaptive iris that works with limited pumping effects and I recommend that you enable it.
To improve the situation, it will be necessary to involve the dynamic iris, which fortunately over the models has become much more discreet in its operation.


Another review:

The 4010 also has an excellent auto-iris which increases contrast by a factor of 10 for both SDR and HDR. The High Speed setting is the most effective and displays very little brightness pumping. After calibrating with it turned off, I engaged it for all my viewing.

So different people will have different opinions about how the iris looks like in operation.
Comments are scarce on the iris on the HC3200/3800 series. Some don't mention it at all, one said there is pumping, it's more aggressive. There have been firmware updates which can change iris operation and this topic has not been updated.

Even without dynamic iris, the HC3800 has 2.8x times the native contrast of the HT3550 and 3.6x times that of the UHD51A from hometheaterhifi's measurements.

I'm surprised I also have to reiterate intrascene contrast with you, but to summarize:
1/3rd of scenes in the 57 movies test are under 3% ADL. I assume this is mostly true if more movies were to be looked at.

The darker the scene, the less washout there will be. Which means that even in untreated rooms a projector with higher CR will do better at low ADL.

The room PD used had no furniture with white walls very close to the screen, which is not the case with most rooms, including mine. There is furniture and other objects, doors, curtains, etc.
I also try to recommend an ALR/grey screen in these kinds of situations, in which case a higher CR model will do even better.

I see posts about how this feature on this projector looks nice, but there's just one problem. When I look at my screen, I don't find those things lacking. What I do find lacking is performance in low ADL scenes.


Epsons are brighter, have better contrast, more WCG in some cases, better brightness uniformity, cheaper in other regions, lower lag, proper lens shift (sometimes motorized) can be used with grey screens because of brightness and/or with ALRs since they do better at lower throw ratios, quieter because they can be used in Eco lamp since they are bright.

What meaningful advantage does DLP (4K) have?

So I don't think you've made a compelling case why potential buyers, in general, would go for a DLP rather than 3LCD for regular use.

I haven't even started with used JVC.

If you aren't in a serious rush, wait/look for the Epson 5040UB. The older Panny projectors were very good, but it was at a time when lamps were super expensive and just weren't that bright.

The 5030, which IS available now, is a steal and will be a huge jump up from your AE2000.

There is no 'native' 4K for under $4,000-$5,000 or so. So, where you are shopping, budget-wise, is in the pixel-shifting arena.

If your room is good, then the 5050UB would be my goal. The 5040UB or the 4010 would be my absolute minimum. The 3800 (or 3200) are solid options, but coming from the AE2000, I think that you would be best off sticking with a more premium product.

I gotta say, it falls outside of typical budget, but I got my JVC DLA-X590 (RS440U) for well under $2,000 brand new via eBay. It would do a good job trouncing the rest of the options.
I see you've only mentioned Scotty, no one else. Ok.

Seem to remember a post in which Scotty enumerated the winner for each category, and remember something like:
Contrast: HT5550 winner.

His setup if I recall correctly had dark grey walls, an 160" white possibly AT screen?

How will a HT5550 after 500h look on his setup compared to the 5050UB on a screen that size (AT?)?

How can someone say that the 5050UB, which is brighter with a lower black floor, say that Benq is the winner there? He's no noob, right? Saying that it's his opinion is kind of a cop out. If someone says something that is factually incorrect, are you going to say, well, that's his opinion? The fact his videos have tens of thousands of views makes it much worse. The fact you can't be objective on this topic is troubling since I had a different opinion, and followed your posts in the past.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,206 Posts
You disregarded the many positives of Epsons in the previous post, which combined would paint a different picture, literally and figuratively.
Some of my arguments were for DLP and 3LCD in general, not necessarily for the price point of a HT3550.

These products are not just one person, but for many others. Not going to go the entire thing again, but will touch on some points.


Regarding sharpness, what does it matter if the viewer can't tell the difference? And I'm not talking about SDE which is not visible on the HC3800/HC4010 from regular viewing distances, if were talking about the ~$1500 range.
Below is a video of the UHD50x and HC3800. If you put 100 people in front of the two units, how many do you think will see the Optoma as being more sharp?



But more importantly, it's not just about sharpness, but the entire package. Also consider the HC4010 has lenses similar to the 5050UB, which improve upon the HC3800.

I don't know what more could be said about this topic, don't know why you keep bringing it up. As others have said, HDR is not even primarily about resolution. If you personally can see the sharpness, and prefer it to the other aspects that make a picture look better, mainly contrast/black level, that's a minority position. You should make that case more since most people IMO would not agree with you.

In regards to the iris, it's not a agreed upon subject. Again, it's not just about you.
Recently I looked at some reviews for the iris action on the HC4010:



Comments are scarce on the iris on the HC3200/3800 series. Some don't mention it at all, one said there is pumping, it's more aggressive. There have been firmware updates which can change iris operation and this topic has not been updated.

Even without dynamic iris, the HC3800 has 2.8x times the native contrast of the HT3550 and 3.6x times that of the UHD51A from hometheaterhifi's measurements.

I'm surprised I also have to reiterate intrascene contrast with you, but to summarize:
1/3rd of scenes in the 57 movies test are under 3% ADL. I assume this is mostly true if more movies were to be looked at.

The darker the scene, the less washout there will be. Which means that even in untreated rooms a projector with higher CR will do better at low ADL.

The room PD used had no furniture with white walls very close to the screen, which is not the case with most rooms, including mine. There is furniture and other objects, doors, curtains, etc.
I also try to recommend an ALR/grey screen in these kinds of situations, in which case a higher CR model will do even better.

I see posts about how this feature on this projector looks nice, but there's just one problem. When I look at my screen, I don't find those things lacking. What I do find lacking is performance in low ADL scenes.


Epsons are brighter, have better contrast, more WCG in some cases, better brightness uniformity, cheaper in other regions, lower lag, proper lens shift (sometimes motorized) can be used with grey screens because of brightness and/or with ALRs since they do better at lower throw ratios, quieter because they can be used in Eco lamp since they are bright.

What meaningful advantage does DLP (4K) have? Bupkis.

So I don't think you've made a compelling case why potential buyers, in general, would go for a DLP rather than 3LCD for regular use. The fact you can't be objective on this topic is troubling since I had a different opinion, and followed your posts in the past.

I haven't even started with used JVC.




I see you've only mentioned Scotty, no one else. Ok.

Seem to remember a post in which Scotty enumerated the winner for each category, and remember something like:
Contrast: HT5550 winner.

His setup if I recall correctly had dark grey walls, an 160" white possibly AT screen?

How will a HT5550 after 500h look on his setup compared to the 5050UB on a screen that size (AT?)?

How can someone say that the 5050UB, which is brighter with a lower black floor, say that Benq is the winner there? He's no noob, right? Saying that it's his opinion is kind of a cop out. If someone says something that is factually incorrect, are you going to say, well, that's his opinion? The fact his videos have tens of thousands of views makes it much worse.

You accuse me of bias but you say things like DLP projectors have ‘bupkis’ for benefits over their competition. To quote the great american poet JayZ: ... O.K. :) I LIKE DLP. Never been shy about that. It’s the last display tech standing that doesn’t rely on sample and hold and is the closest to a big screen plasma as we’re ever going to see. I too am dismayed and disappointed by the lack of contrast in current 4K models and I’ve made two whole posts above stating that. Not sure what else to say.

And, btw, if DLP was such **** then why is the HT3550 constantly popping up with positive reviews and recommendations from actual professional review sites making their own informed opinions (not enthusiasts parroting the opinions and comments of others) ?

PM me. Or start a new thread titled 3LCD vs DLP pissing contest and I promise I’ll participate. But this is off topic for this thread and I’m not going to continue here only for a mod to drop in and issue strikes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: harrisjr

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,912 Posts
I see you've only mentioned Scotty, no one else. Ok.

Seem to remember a post in which Scotty enumerated the winner for each category, and remember something like:
Contrast: HT5550 winner.

His setup if I recall correctly had dark grey walls, an 160" white possibly AT screen?

How will a HT5550 after 500h look on his setup compared to the 5050UB on a screen that size (AT?)?

How can someone say that the 5050UB, which is brighter with a lower black floor, say that Benq is the winner there? He's no noob, right? Saying that it's his opinion is kind of a cop out. If someone says something that is factually incorrect, are you going to say, well, that's his opinion? The fact his videos have tens of thousands of views makes it much worse. The fact you can't be objective on this topic is troubling since I had a different opinion, and followed your posts in the past.
Did you quote me in error? It looks like you quoted me from a completely different thread for some reason. A thread that I didn't even bring up DLP as an option. Just wondering if you are hitting up some crazy talk or not?

Things in this post are definitely getting too deep into the woods for me to even care. This generation of DLP seems to show that DLP has given up. At the end of the day, contrast is king and we need a better DLP chip which can deliver that contrast. Epson is trying hard to make top-tier product and get it to consumers, and LCoS is still the large giant foot that is ready to smash down both LCD and DLP from above in the cartoon a few posts up. At normal viewing distances, it is still very difficult for average people to see a difference between LCD and DLP, but they all see contrast. I certainly saw a pretty large jump in the contrast from a w1070 to a DLA-X590. But, that doesn't mean I didn't and still don't, love the quality my w1070 delivered either. Nothing here we are discussing is 'bad', and people that get overly hung up on the minutiae are missing the reality that this stuff is all 'good' or even 'very good' from the major manufacturers. Nothing is really even just so-so in terms of quality. Anyone can plop any of the models listed into any family room or basement and get a 120" image that is completely enjoyable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,385 Posts
You accuse me of bias but you say things like DLP projectors have ‘bupkis’ for benefits over their competition. To quote the great american poet JayZ: ... O.K. :) I LIKE DLP. Never been shy about that. It’s the last display tech standing that doesn’t rely on sample and hold and is the closest to a big screen plasma as we’re ever going to see. I too am dismayed and disappointed by the lack of contrast in current 4K models and I’ve made two whole posts above stating that. Not sure what else to say.

And, btw, if DLP was such **** then why is the HT3550 constantly popping up with positive reviews and recommendations from actual professional review sites making their own informed opinions (not enthusiasts parroting the opinions and comments of others) ?

PM me. Or start a new thread titled 3LCD vs DLP pissing contest and I promise I’ll participate. But this is off topic for this thread and I’m not going to continue here only for a mod to drop in and issue strikes.
This can be discussed here because it directly relates to the UHD50x. Unless you can't talk about other projectors on threads for certain models.

I wrote two long posts with arguments, but you haven't really countered them. You don't use the iris, you like DLP, etc. Ok fine, but you as someone who posts and gives advice should be able to put yourself in someone elses shoes. What does the average avs joe want?

There are many bad products that for whatever reason people enjoy, that's not a valid argument. Here on this forum, if a potential user asks I would expect to be given a more thoughtfull advice. Is it unreasonable to assume they would appreciate an image with proper contrast?

I am one of those people that did not receive the right advice in the begging. This is where I'm getting at, I know what it's like to be on the receiving end. I think, and I'm sure I'm not the only one, that there is a huge difference between a 1080p DLP that can do at most 2500:1 dynamic and an Epson HC3000 or 4000, even 2000 series, which can go to 10 or 30+K dynamic. I would have been reticent to buy a used higher CR model like Sony HW, JVC, or some older models from Panasonic/other brands, but a new HC3100/3700 would have been very nice. I don't give a hoot if DLP is sharper (106" from ~10') or has better motion handling. HC3000 series is sharp enough. And I would love a brighter projector even though highest CR models JVC are not that bright.

Making the assumption that new buyers will not notice or appreciate contrast/black level is a huge error in judgement of those who recommend products here. For the general population. Recently I've tried to recommend the unit with the highest CR that fits the questioner's setup. That means a lot of Epson.

Assuming the recommendation is done in good faith and that individual does not have some agenda.

As I mentioned before, if someone ends up on this forum, they're already in another category of buyer.


Did you quote me in error? It looks like you quoted me from a completely different thread for some reason. A thread that I didn't even bring up DLP as an option. Just wondering if you are hitting up some crazy talk or not?

Things in this post are definitely getting too deep into the woods for me to even care. This generation of DLP seems to show that DLP has given up. At the end of the day, contrast is king and we need a better DLP chip which can deliver that contrast. Epson is trying hard to make top-tier product and get it to consumers, and LCoS is still the large giant foot that is ready to smash down both LCD and DLP from above in the cartoon a few posts up. At normal viewing distances, it is still very difficult for average people to see a difference between LCD and DLP, but they all see contrast. I certainly saw a pretty large jump in the contrast from a w1070 to a DLA-X590. But, that doesn't mean I didn't and still don't, love the quality my w1070 delivered either. Nothing here we are discussing is 'bad', and people that get overly hung up on the minutiae are missing the reality that this stuff is all 'good' or even 'very good' from the major manufacturers. Nothing is really even just so-so in terms of quality. Anyone can plop any of the models listed into any family room or basement and get a 120" image that is completely enjoyable.
I was trying to point out that even in the $2K category or thereabouts models with better contrast than DLP can be had, which IMO should be the priority when recommending a product. Yours was a recent post that mentioned a great choice in a high CR model in this price range.

LE:
Ok, but what are you using the DLP for? If you only had a DLP, since scenes with 3% and under ADL are about one third of all scenes (from the test), what would your impression be then?

Maybe I watched too much content, but low ADL scenes look like someone's thrown a bucket milk on the screen and just take you out of the experience. Isn't the entire purpose of entertainment to be an escape, relaxation, fantasy enjoyment? It's like someone waking you up every 30 minutes when you're having nice dreams. They're putting billions of dollars a lot of work into it, so if possible whoever is viewing should have the best equipment they can afford. I don't see how anything I've said is controversial.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
87 Posts
As of right now it does, but its broken, i.e you have to switch to enhanced gaming mode, and that does not work all the time, and its not a smooth operation.

Let me give you an analogy, I think it will paint the picture well.

Think of the 51A as last years bmw 5 series with 35mpg, and now think of the 50x as this years toyota corolla with 40mpg. its like buying the toyota corolla for the 40 mpg, and call the whole thing an upgrade.

That is the trickery that these greedy bastards pulled. the uhd50x is not in the same class as the 51a, it is a toyota corolla pretending to be a bmw because of a name switch and just better mpg.

If your expecting the 50x to be a 51a with newer/ same/ similar features with improved input lag, then you will be very disappointed.

Dont get me wrong though, if your primary goal, and i mean if gaming is more important, and i mean more, by a big margin to just watching movies and the additional features that the 51a brings, Then do go ahead and get the 50x
Iam also watching movies and gaming on it..

Maybe there will be newer 51b or something coming out ? Does anyone have any details?
 
621 - 640 of 688 Posts
Top