Panasonic PT-Ax100 Vs. Sharp XVZ3000

Thanks guys. I just like the idea of buying it local that way if anything does go wrong the store will take care of it from me.


I am a little wooried about the offset. I am ceiling mounting and my ceilings are 8.5 ft high. the top of the screen is going to be roughly two feet from the ceiling. I attached a picture of the screen wall. The screen will fill up most of the dark brown area (the upper half) with the top of the screen being about even with the bottom of the arch.


I want to avoid a long tube dropdown system but willing to take 6" inches or so. Not sure how offset and that works.

brboulder - costco has a few projectors in the store, but most of their HT projector line is only online. However their indefinite satisfaction guarantee applies and you can return an online purchase for complete refund (including shipping) to the local store. I'm fairly certain the DT-500 and XV-Z3000 are identical except for the 2nd iris in the Z3000, so feel free to head down to the DT-500 for a little more info.


Also, if you could ask your installer for the service menu access code to the Z3000 that would help us out quite a bit.



FJ - if you look at these two reviews you'll see that the XV-Z3000 measures pretty close to the AX100U. Amazing but Sharp actually seems to quote D65 lumens and can actually go a bit brighter than rated - roughly 1400 lumens. In what Art seemed to think was a usuable mode on the AX100U, he estimated 1800 lumens (why he didn't measure I don't know). Most manufacturers pretty much blatantly lie on their specs, so it's always good to look for actual review measurements when possible. In an extreme example some plasma mfgs measure contrast by sending no signal to the unit or even taking the front glass off, and most pj mfgs are ethically no better.

http://www.projectorreviews.com/Shar...erformance.asp
http://www.projectorreviews.com/Manu...erformance.asp

FWIW, I have the Z3000, and have been pretty happy with it. Not that I have a lot of experiance with DLP's. I got mine from Magnolia A&V (Seattle area) on a thanksgiving door buster, it was about 30% under mail order, and I just couldn't pass it up. Sure made springing for the extended waranty easier, and it's local.


I spent a lot of time screwing around with mounts as I was trying to get max performance out of a 106" hp screen. I started out with celing mount, then toyed with wall mount just behind the seats. Found that to be too loud, and a bit too bright even with the highest contrast seting, finally went with hight rear wall mount with an apex articulating mount I got for really cheap on ebay.


I wanted to avoid keystone adjustment as it is software baised, and as I understand, it uses up some resources and can lead to more artifacts. Also, It straightens the sides by clipping the picture, so even fairly small keystone adjustments leave the picture smaller than you would expect. In a room with limited throw distance, and a really big screen, I found that I couldn't do any keystone adjustment without having white on either side of the image. Remember too, increasing throw to inlarge a cropped pic will result in a dimmer overall image as some of the pixles are not used.


If you are going to hang with a 6" tube, and about 2" more for the center of the lense, then ideal screen offset would be about 7 3/8" or about 15 3/8 total. There is a software based picture shift of about 1.75" up or down, which gets you to about 17" drop. Adding 7" aditional drop will result in very noticable keystoning.


I was amaised on mine how precise I had to be in hight to avoid needing keystone adjustment. My final adjustment was about 2" and resulted in zero keystoning. I think it's the short throw of the projector, combined with the eye's ability to notice almost any error in keystone, given that the masking on the sides is straight. I supose if you had a fixed screen, you could use black masking to match a small keystone error, and it would probably not be noticable.


Bottom line, mount the screen as high as you can, then try the projector from where you want it, before you run perminant wires and screws. I understand the sharp is not as adjustable as some other projectors, and I did a lot of tweaking on position before it came out just right. I am very happy with the results though.


Best of luck!

Ken

I sold an AE900 to move up to the z3000, and I couldn't be happier. I consider the move a significant upgrade in PQ. I too paid less than I would have paid for the 100.


Even if brightness was equal between the Ax-100 and the 3000, the 3000 would still have a great deal more pop and depth due to the superior contrast/black level. The 3000 has noticeably lower black level and higher contrast when in high brightness mode than the 900 has in its best theater mode, and the 3000 has to be pushing 800 theater optimized lumens at that. In medium contrast mode the 3000 renders black, and it is better than twice as bright as the 900. In high contrast mode it's still 150 lumens brighter than the 900, and the contrast/black level is second to none. Needless to say, sharpness is worlds better than the 900.


I keep reading about the z3000 having a second iris compared to one in the DT-500. I've had the 3000 for 2 months now, and I've yet to find a second iris.

If you look through the lense (from the side, it will damage your eyes from straight on, esp at close range) And shift from high brightness to med contrast and high contrast, you will see something shift across, just behind the lense. I assume this is the iris they are talking about. I don't pretend to understand exactly how a smaller iris will increase contrast, but the results are there.


I went from an old 3 gun projector to the 3000, and wow, I had no idea how much these had improved. Everyone is talking about lumens, which is fine for an office presentation, but for movies, contrast is where it's at! At night, in my dark white walled room, I use nothing but high contrast mode. During the day, with the white mini blinds on the 10ft X 4ft picture windows on the side, it's a little blown out, even in high brightness, low bulb mode, but it is usable. I may look for some other blinds, which will def improve the situation.


One word of warning, the default settings are for bright bulb with dynamic picture, by far the worst setting, makes the colors crawl. Usable only in extreme conditions. This is what the sales people had it set to. Made it look like an over driven LCD. Is there a conspiracy amongst sales people to keep us from buying DLP's???


Ken



Quote:
Originally Posted by lupy /forum/post/0


Everyone is talking about lumens, which is fine for an office presentation, but for movies, contrast is where it's at! At night, in my dark white walled room, I use nothing but high contrast mode. Ken

Click to expand...

Ken,


I've been looking at the DT-500, which apparently does not have the high contrast mode due to lack of that second iris. However, a couple of 3000 owners on other threads have suggested that they never use the highest contrast mode as it is too dark. You obviously have a different impression, so I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts on the high contrast mode vs. the "mid" setting.


Many thanks!


Tim

I have a high power screen, I am a bit out of the optimal cone of brightness, having the projector high. I got it mainly for the lack of ripple in a roll up screen, off axis light rejection, and a modirate bump in the brightness. That being said, the high contrast mode is very usable for me in a dark room with white walls. I do notice the wall directly behind the projector is noticibly brighter from the retro reflective screen. If my wife would let me paint the back wall black, I am sure the pic would look even better.

Fat chance..


As far as I can tell, the iris is changed for each contrast setting, so the 500 may only have the max brightness/ low contrast setting, which at least on the 3000 is noticibly less contrastly than the others, and which I would only use in a partilly lit room. I like black blacks, which is what I get with high contrast, but mid contrast is noticibly better than the bright. A darker screen would probably help, but then your light output would suffer when you needed it. When I am fooling around with settings, and I go back to high contrast, I initially think that it's too dark, but then I sit down and watch it for a while, and I like it. If there is much light in the room, then mid contrast is better.


I would be interested in seeing what a 500 would test for contrast if a filter were added over the front. Might be a low cost contrast boost??? it seems odd that just adding an iris would result in a 1K$ bump, about twice the $$$. I suspect that there's more diferences than just the iris, but stranger marketing decisions have been made.

Hey guys thanks for all the input.


I sent back the Panny 100 today so I don't have to worry about the light flicker or green/red tint that almost every member in the Panny 100 forum is experiencing.


My local installer has nothing but good things to say about the Sharp saying it is one of his favorite projectors and he has been installing from 20 years.


Install is set for a week from today. Just received my Kef IQ7 yesterday and they look amazing. I am pairing those with a Kef Iq6 center channel. My four surrounds are all Speakercrafts AIM8 three's.


the screen is a Vutec PearlBright 103" .


Will post impressions and pics next week.


Someone should start a Sharp Z3000 forum.