AVS Forum banner

641 - 660 of 681 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,202 Posts
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.




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.

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.
The Epson 4010 has worse (albeit SLIGHTLY) native contrast than even the bargain basement HT2050A (and much worse ANSI contrast which many people consider a truer measure of contrast performance— not going to bark up that tree here). I haven’t seen the 3800 but Sound and Vision measured the 3800 at 1372:1 NATIVE— This is still an improvement over the older 3700 and a significant improvement over the 4K DLP competition which, AGAIN, took a step backwards and traded contrast performance for resolution performance. We agree in this and yet keep repeating ourselves. :) I’m sorry you feel like you got bad advice here. You clearly have an axe to grind. But it’s also clear you haven’t seen a lot of the projectors you’re dragging/championing.

If you want better contrast save your pennies and buy an Epson 5050UB or settle for 1080p and buy a Sony 45ES. Those two are the best you’re going to do in this price range when it comes to contrast and both will blow the doors off the 4K DLPs, 1080p DLPs and HD/UHD Epsons below them. (IDK maybe I ended up on the wrong end of the recession but $3000 for a projector is not something I would call for the ‘average joe’ but it’s still within the scope of this forum so it’s worth discussing.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,359 Posts
The Epson 4010 has worse (albeit SLIGHTLY) native contrast than even the bargain basement HT2050A (and much worse ANSI contrast which many people consider a truer measure of contrast performance— not going to bark up that tree here). I haven’t seen the 3800 but Sound and Vision measured the 3800 at 1372:1 NATIVE— This is still an improvement over the older 3700 and a significant improvement over the 4K DLP competition which, AGAIN, took a step backwards and traded contrast performance for resolution performance. We agree in this and yet keep repeating ourselves. :) I’m sorry you feel like you got bad advice here. You clearly have an axe to grind. But it’s also clear you haven’t seen a lot of the projectors you’re dragging/championing.

If you want better contrast save your pennies and buy an Epson 5050UB or settle for 1080p and buy a Sony 45ES. Those two are the best you’re going to do in this price range when it comes to contrast and both will blow the doors off the 4K DLPs, 1080p DLPs and HD/UHD Epsons below them. (IDK maybe I ended up on the wrong end of the recession but $3000 for a projector is not something I would call for the ‘average joe’ but it’s still within the scope of this forum so it’s worth discussing.)
Going with measurements made by the same source/reviewer posted on the same page, the HC3800 has 50% more native contrast than the HT2050. We can argue about this, however they are still under 2000:1.

I'm talking about what contrast is possible with the iris.
This is where Epsons are far ahead. I don't understand why you keep avoiding this topic.

It's not just about you or me, what I or you prefer, it's about what the people who come to this forum would want. Contrast/black level is of huge importance since if it's lacking it will have a serious negative effect on dark scenes.
A third of scenes in movies under 3% ADL sounds like a lot to me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,202 Posts
Going with measurements made by the same source/reviewer posted on the same page, the HC3800 has 50% more native contrast than the HT2050. We can argue about this, however they are still under 2000:1.

I'm talking about what contrast is possible with the iris.
This is where Epsons are far ahead. I don't understand why you keep avoiding this topic.

It's not just about you or me, what I or you prefer, it's about what the people who come to this forum would want. Contrast/black level is of huge importance since if it's lacking it will have a serious negative effect on dark scenes.
A third of scenes in movies under 3% ADL sounds like a lot to me.


Because an iris cannot help contrast IN a scene. The native contrast of a projector is VASTLY more important than whatever dynamic contrast spec you want to quote. An iris is not completely useless— it can help a bright projector reach a lower lumen output and it’s good at lowering the black floor on an all black screen. In the example of the Epsons it’s effective at lowering lumen output. In the example of the BenQ 4Ks it’s effective in lowering the lackluster native black floor. But it’s not going to do a damn bit of good for what you actually see in any given frame of content. That’s where a projector’s native contrast becomes much more important. And even then I need to SEE the projector because a simple sequential FOFO contrast measurement (measuring a 100% peak white frame and then a 0% all black frame) tells me only part of the story.

Consider the two most recent BenQ 4K projectors: look at any review and you’ll see the TK850 measures a noticeably higher contrast spec than the Ht3550. And yet, the Ht3550 is the model widely recognized as having the better, higher contrast image. How is that? Because a simple FOFO spec tells you nothing about color contrast or color volume and it disproportionately values lumen output. You’re boiling down everything to a single spec. It’s an important spec but you need CONTEXT.

Bringing this back to the Epsons— since secrets measures the 3800 at 1717.2:1 and the 4010 at 1257.8:1 do you think the Epson 3800 has a 140% better image than the 4010? Do you think Epson sells the 4010 for $500 more with a crappier picture? Or did you stop to think that the 3800’s prodigious lumen output has something to do with it’s higher contrast spec? Context. ****ing context.

The funny thing is we don’t even need to talk about dynamic contrast. The 4K dlps have taken a big step back in NATIVE contrast. NATIVE contrast which is a spec that actually matters. And that SUCKS. But I’m not going to sit here and compare DYNAMIC contrast specs when it’s one of the least important factors impacting image quality. By your measure you’d have people picking the Epson HC2150 over the BenQ HT2050A. While I’m sure there are several reasons someone would pick the Epson over the BenQ I can tell you with a straight face that contrast is NOT one of them. Despite the epson having a better dynamic spec it’s no match for the BenQ. If you’ve seen an HT2050A and an HC2150 in the same room, as I have, you’d know that. Don’t believe me? Try Cnet when they compared the HT2050A to the HC2150: “Both projectors are far brighter than even high-end projectors from a few years ago. What's more obvious than the numbers would suggest is how much better the black level, and therefore the contrast ratio, is on the BenQ. This is clear when viewing widescreen movies, with the black bars several shades darker on the BenQ. Because their light output is roughly the same, this gives the HT2050A a bit more dimensionality to the image and more apparent depth. A good example of this is the contrasty scene in Avengers: Infinity War where Thor and his pet rabbit help Tyrion Lannister forge the Stormbreaker battle axe. Nidavellir's colorful neutron star and magical effects are brightly offset compared to the darkness of space and the shadows of the forge. These shots don't look bad on the Epson, but the shadows are far more gray than on the BenQ, giving the latter a more pleasing look overall.” BenQ HT2050A review: Great (big) picture for the money

And that’s just a couple examples. How about that Epson 3800 over a Sony 45ES? You’re going to tell me with a straight face that the Epson’s dynamic contrast is more valuable than the Sony’s native contrast? Really?

And now i’m really just over this conversation. I don’t have a bone to pick with you noob. I think you’re an active and valuable member of the forum. But these sweeping statements you’re making just aren’t accurate and they leave little room for nuance or context. I’m going to continue to contribute and share MY knowledge and MY experience no matter what you might think of it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MJ DOOM

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,359 Posts
Because an iris cannot help contrast IN a scene. The native contrast of a projector is VASTLY more important than whatever dynamic contrast spec you want to quote. An iris is not completely useless— it can help a bright projector reach a lower lumen output and it’s good at lowering the black floor on an all black screen. In the example of the Epsons it’s effective at lowering lumen output. In the example of the BenQ 4Ks it’s effective in lowering the lackluster native black floor. But it’s not going to do a damn bit of good for what you actually see in any given frame of content. That’s where a projector’s native contrast becomes much more important. And even then I need to SEE the projector because a simple sequential FOFO contrast measurement (measuring a 100% peak white frame and then a 0% all black frame) tells me only part of the story.

Consider the two most recent BenQ 4K projectors: look at any review and you’ll see the TK850 measures a noticeably higher contrast spec than the Ht3550. And yet, the Ht3550 is the model widely recognized as having the better, higher contrast image. How is that? Because a simple FOFO spec tells you nothing about color contrast or color volume and it disproportionately values lumen output. You’re boiling down everything to a single spec. It’s an important spec but you need CONTEXT.

Bringing this back to the Epsons— since secrets measures the 3800 at 1717.2:1 and the 4010 at 1257.8:1 do you think the Epson 3800 has a 140% better image than the 4010? Do you think Epson sells the 4010 for $500 more with a crappier picture? Or did you stop to think that the 3800’s prodigious lumen output has something to do with it’s higher contrast spec? Context. ****ing context.

The funny thing is we don’t even need to talk about dynamic contrast. The 4K dlps have taken a big step back in NATIVE contrast. NATIVE contrast which is a spec that actually matters. And that SUCKS. But I’m not going to sit here and compare DYNAMIC contrast specs when it’s one of the least important factors impacting image quality. By your measure you’d have people picking the Epson HC2150 over the BenQ HT2050A. While I’m sure there are several reasons someone would pick the Epson over the BenQ I can tell you with a straight face that contrast is NOT one of them. Despite the epson having a better dynamic spec it’s no match for the BenQ. If you’ve seen an HT2050A and an HC2150 in the same room, as I have, you’d know that. Don’t believe me? Try Cnet when they compared the HT2050A to the HC2150: “Both projectors are far brighter than even high-end projectors from a few years ago. What's more obvious than the numbers would suggest is how much better the black level, and therefore the contrast ratio, is on the BenQ. This is clear when viewing widescreen movies, with the black bars several shades darker on the BenQ. Because their light output is roughly the same, this gives the HT2050A a bit more dimensionality to the image and more apparent depth. A good example of this is the contrasty scene in Avengers: Infinity War where Thor and his pet rabbit help Tyrion Lannister forge the Stormbreaker battle axe. Nidavellir's colorful neutron star and magical effects are brightly offset compared to the darkness of space and the shadows of the forge. These shots don't look bad on the Epson, but the shadows are far more gray than on the BenQ, giving the latter a more pleasing look overall.” BenQ HT2050A review: Great (big) picture for the money

And that’s just a couple examples. How about that Epson 3800 over a Sony 45ES? You’re going to tell me with a straight face that the Epson’s dynamic contrast is more valuable than the Sony’s native contrast? Really?

And now i’m really just over this conversation. I don’t have a bone to pick with you noob. I think you’re an active and valuable member of the forum. But these sweeping statements you’re making just aren’t accurate and they leave little room for nuance or context. I’m going to continue to contribute and share MY knowledge and MY experience no matter what you might think of it.
I'm no expert and maybe I'm missing something but it seems like what I've said went over your head.

The issue is black level in low ADL scenes.
This is where an iris operates, right?

From projector dream's tests, while they did not use any dynamic feature, it showed that even in that environment good CR models were effective AT LOW ADL.
Again, unless I'm missing something I don't understand why it can't be extrapolated to models using iris/dimming function.
I would expect at low ADL the CR obtained with the iris to have the same curve as the other models without one.

The HC4010 has other features and is a different chassis than the HC3800, that's why it costs more.

With regards to the HC2150 vs. HT2050A, how does the image look like in low ADL when the iris is active on the Epson?

I'm not talking about how the black bars look like with a brighter image. I'm trying to understand why you would even make this point.

For example, the HC4010 has ~1500:1 native and up to ~10 000 or 16 000:1 dynamic.
I expect it to have the same curve as the Sony 520ES in the test which has native ~12 000:1.


Let's not get sidetracked with models from different eras. Apples to apples. I can't recommend, to an average user, an old 1080p projector vs. a 4K one. Because a lot of people chase labels. Unless that person is willing to sacrifice certain features.

Second part is, while it may have the same curve, and maybe same effective contrast, what is the actual black floor?
From Secret's.

HC3800
Eco fast iris 0.0055 nits
High lamp Natural fast iris 0.0075

HT3550
Normal lamp High iris 0.0711
SmartEco 0.0591

UHD51A
Normal lamp Dynamic lamp 0.1441

HC4010
Eco fast iris 0.0128
High lamp fast iris 0.0183


My general point is that dynamic iris can improve things significantly where these entry level models have a tough time, low ADL. Honestly I've said this so many times but you've ignored it.

Don't you understand that potential buyers look at your presence here and believe that what your experience will match theirs, when in reality you seem not to care that much about black level? Your review of the HT3550 says it has solid black level.
Solid black level? For who? Compared to what?
This model, with the exception of the HT5550, is a step above the likes of UHD51A or UHD50x /other 4K DLP, but still well under an Epson with DI.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
118 Posts
This can only be settled in the projectagon

You guys both bring some strong arguments

The HT3550 besides the UHD50x is probably the strongest contender to something like the Epson 3800. @sage11x has some points too for DLP, the guy is speaking to sharpness and 1080p where the .47 dmd excels. Even me as an Epson fan he brings up stuff I like about the DLP. The HT3550 would forgo the white strips which brings some color saturation back into the picture too.

BenjaminQ is not going to be left out of this anchorman fight!
 

Attachments

  • Like
Reactions: sage11x

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,202 Posts
I'm no expert and maybe I'm missing something but it seems like what I've said went over your head.

The issue is black level in low ADL scenes.
This is where an iris operates, right?

From projector dream's tests, while they did not use any dynamic feature, it showed that even in that environment good CR models were effective AT LOW ADL.
Again, unless I'm missing something I don't understand why it can't be extrapolated to models using iris/dimming function.
I would expect at low ADL the CR obtained with the iris to have the same curve as the other models without one.

The HC4010 has other features and is a different chassis than the HC3800, that's why it costs more.

With regards to the HC2150 vs. HT2050A, how does the image look like in low ADL when the iris is active on the Epson?

I'm not talking about how the black bars look like with a brighter image. I'm trying to understand why you would even make this point.

For example, the HC4010 has ~1500:1 native and up to ~10 000 or 16 000:1 dynamic.
I expect it to have the same curve as the Sony 520ES in the test which has native ~12 000:1.


Let's not get sidetracked with models from different eras. Apples to apples. I can't recommend, to an average user, an old 1080p projector vs. a 4K one. Because a lot of people chase labels. Unless that person is willing to sacrifice certain features.

Second part is, while it may have the same curve, and maybe same effective contrast, what is the actual black floor?
From Secret's.

HC3800
Eco fast iris 0.0055 nits
High lamp Natural fast iris 0.0075

HT3550
Normal lamp High iris 0.0711
SmartEco 0.0591

UHD51A
Normal lamp Dynamic lamp 0.1441

HC4010
Eco fast iris 0.0128
High lamp fast iris 0.0183


My general point is that dynamic iris can improve things significantly where these entry level models have a tough time, low ADL. Honestly I've said this so many times but you've ignored it.

Don't you understand that potential buyers look at your presence here and believe that what your experience will match theirs, when in reality you seem not to care that much about black level? Your review of the HT3550 says it has solid black level.
Solid black level? For who? Compared to what?
This model, with the exception of the HT5550, is a step above the likes of UHD51A or UHD50x /other 4K DLP, but still well under an Epson with DI.
For ****’s sake. Because a best case scenario dynamic black level does not mean diddly. If you clamp down so hard on your light output that your mediocre black level is now great that means your peak white level is now going to be mediocre and your NATIVE CONTRAST doesn’t change. An iris cannot effect different areas of the image independently— it effects the whole image at once! So the VERY aggressive iris in an Epson can clamp down on an all black field to score a lower black level. Great. But that doesn’t matter when you’re watching anything but an all black 0 IRE field. You DO realize that those black level measurements were made with a full field black screen right?

To be frank— I don’t think my understanding is the issue here. You’re quoting a lot of specs at me. I’m just curious, of the models you’re listing above, how many have you used or have had any experience with?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,202 Posts
This can only be settled in the projectagon

You guys both bring some strong arguments

The HT3550 besides the UHD50x is probably the strongest contender to something like the Epson 3800. @sage11x has some points too for DLP, the guy is speaking to sharpness and 1080p where the .47 dmd excels. Even me as an Epson fan he brings up stuff I like about the DLP. The HT3550 would forgo the white strips which brings some color saturation back into the picture too.

BenjaminQ is not going to be left out of this anchorman fight!
The sad thing is: I don’t want to take that fight. I have no interest in a format/tech/fanboy war. I haven’t had the 3800 in my theater YET (working on that) but from what i’ve read and seen it’s a fantastic projector. But that doesn’t mean it makes DLP models obsolete as noob here is trying to argue for.

I’m trying to extricate myself from this discussion but every time I think I’m out...

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,202 Posts
View attachment 3042766
So yeah this angle is killing me
I have that same mount—

Does the Optoma have horizontal keystone? Other wise you’re going to need to find a better place to mount. DLPs like this lack lens shift and look best when centered to your scren.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
50 Posts
Has anyone tried out 1080p @ 240Hz, but running it as 120 fps + 120 BFI?
I dun think i can see any motion blurriness at 240Hz, everything is quite smooth, dunno if BFI would bring any benefit.
Actually, wouldn't brightness be lost?

How would u I the BF btw?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12 Posts
I dun think i can see any motion blurriness at 240Hz, everything is quite smooth, dunno if BFI would bring any benefit.
Actually, wouldn't brightness be lost?

How would u I the BF btw?
There is various software, most of it is discussed over at blurbusters
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,202 Posts
I dun think i can see any motion blurriness at 240Hz, everything is quite smooth, dunno if BFI would bring any benefit.
Actually, wouldn't brightness be lost?

How would u I the BF btw?
Why would you need BFI with DLP? BFI is only a thing because of the slow pixel switching speed and sample and hold method of LCd— and it’s meant to simulate the effect you get from a pulse type display like DLP. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12 Posts
Why would you need BFI with DLP? BFI is only a thing because of the slow pixel switching speed and sample and hold method of LCd— and it’s meant to simulate the effect you get from a pulse type display like DLP. :)
I agree BFI is a thing because of sample and hold, but BFI doesn't even work if the pixels are switching slow since you couldn't actually black the frame. Also DLP generally has continuous rolling color flashes from the cycling color wheel which does not avoid the pitfalls of sample and hold. I have a HZ39HDR, I didn't actually realize the sequential frame 3D mode on the projector acts as black frame insertion. It is a 4 segment YRGB color wheel. By default a 120fps frame is roughly yellow 2/5ths of the time and then red, blue, green 1/5ths of the time. In 3D sequential frame mode a 120fps frame is roughly black, yellow, red, blue, and green for 1/5ths of the time each, so you're getting roughly 20% BFI @ 120Hz. I think it probably has something to do with 144Hz 3D and 144/120 = 1.2. Also by default there is really really bad posterization with brilliantcolor on this projector and 3D mode almost entirely eliminates that with brilliantcolor on. Anyways maybe the UHD50x has some exotic built-in BFI with 3D mode, and if not 50% BFI @ 120Hz can be done with software.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
50 Posts
Anyways maybe the UHD50x has some exotic built-in BFI with 3D mode, and if not 50% BFI @ 120Hz can be done with software.
Not sure if there's any BFI in 3D mode since this projector supposedly does 120Hz natively, but, since optoma can't really be trusted who know if it's not just an edid trick... can anybody test if at 120Hz the projector outputs 120fps?

Btw, @OPTOMA PM DUDE Any news regarding the 25ms latency at 4K, or is that dead and buried and we're stuck with 50ms latency despite the propaganda?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,202 Posts
I agree BFI is a thing because of sample and hold, but BFI doesn't even work if the pixels are switching slow since you couldn't actually black the frame. Also DLP generally has continuous rolling color flashes from the cycling color wheel which does not avoid the pitfalls of sample and hold. I have a HZ39HDR, I didn't actually realize the sequential frame 3D mode on the projector acts as black frame insertion. It is a 4 segment YRGB color wheel. By default a 120fps frame is roughly yellow 2/5ths of the time and then red, blue, green 1/5ths of the time. In 3D sequential frame mode a 120fps frame is roughly black, yellow, red, blue, and green for 1/5ths of the time each, so you're getting roughly 20% BFI @ 120Hz. I think it probably has something to do with 144Hz 3D and 144/120 = 1.2. Also by default there is really really bad posterization with brilliantcolor on this projector and 3D mode almost entirely eliminates that with brilliantcolor on. Anyways maybe the UHD50x has some exotic built-in BFI with 3D mode, and if not 50% BFI @ 120Hz can be done with software.
Hm... not sure if I understand. What you’re describing is not sample and hold but the sequential color creation of DLP. The artifacts produced are not the same. On LCD, sample and hold combined with the relatively slow pixel response times will appear for some people as blur or smearing. On DLP, the sequential color creation can appear for some as a rainbow trail following a bright object on a dark background.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12 Posts
There is motion blur from persistence which both DLP and low response time LCDs have which can be allievated by black frame insertion, then there is a separate form of motion blurring from pixel transitions which only LCDs with slow pixel response times have
 
641 - 660 of 681 Posts
Top