AVS Forum banner

10201 - 10220 of 19606 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
167 Posts
You don't want RC off you just want it set to 0. There's a difference and if you turned it off then you missed out on a much better PQ experience the Sony could have given. How did you have this set? Off or zero? Options to do both are available in the menus on the Sony.
You're missing what I'm trying to say. I'm not saying that I only ran the test with RC off. I'm saying that even with RC turned off (which I know is different from having it set to 0), upscaled 1080p on a 4K projector looked better than native 1080p on a 1080p projector.

I ran this test several times with different settings. I ran the projectors with detail enhancement turned way up, and again with middling settings, and again at very conservative settings, and again turned off.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
10,827 Posts
You're missing what I'm trying to say. I'm not saying that I only ran the test with RC off. I'm saying that even with RC turned off (which I know is different from having it set to 0), upscaled 1080p on a 4K projector looked better than native 1080p on a 1080p projector.

I ran this test several times with different settings. I ran the projectors with detail enhancement turned way up, and again with middling settings, and again at very conservative settings, and again turned off.
This is where I'd have to disagree. After seeing the difference of "off" and "0" on Mark's 1100ES the difference in image quality was pretty substantial. Every once in a while you'll see someone post pictures or comment on "bad" image quality from their 4K machine and completely perplexed as to why the image looks so "awful" and it turns out they have RC turned to off, instead of 0. If I made the mistake (which I almost did until Mark pointed out the error) I would have said the image from the X500 looked "sharper" and more natural than the 1100ES's. Thankfully that changed when I switched RC to on and set at 0.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
167 Posts
This is where I'd have to disagree. After seeing the difference of "off" and "0" on Mark's 1100ES the difference in image quality was pretty substantial. Every once in a while you'll see someone post pictures or comment on "bad" image quality from their 4K machine and completely perplexed as to why the image looks so "awful" and it turns out they have RC turned to off, instead of 0. If I made the mistake (which I almost did until Mark pointed out the error) I would have said the image from the X500 looked "sharper" and more natural than the 1100ES's. Thankfully that changed when I switched RC to on and set at 0.
Don't get me wrong -- I think people should definitely leave RC enabled, even if it's at 0. But I could still see a difference when it was off. I should have an X500 showing up in the next week or two (fingers crossed) so I'll be able to run the same test you're talking about.

It's entirely possible that the X500 looks better than the VW350 when RC is off. I wasn't testing against a JVC. We could both be right.

I only replied in the first place so you'd know that we're not basing our conclusions on Reality Creation alone.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,545 Posts
Don't get me wrong -- I think people should definitely leave RC enabled, even if it's at 0. But I could still see a difference when it was off. I should have an X500 showing up in the next week or two (fingers crossed) so I'll be able to run the same test you're talking about.

It's entirely possible that the X500 looks better than the VW350 when RC is off. I wasn't testing against a JVC. We could both be right.

I only replied in the first place so you'd know that we're not basing our conclusions on Reality Creation alone.
Personally I think you guys do a great job in your reviews -- it's pretty much impossible to please the people on this forum and to some extent that includes me.

O.K. here it comes -- I'm set up for 3D and that means converting 2D into 3D on the fly with a Teranex 3D processor, so obviously how a projector handles 3D (ghosting) is crucial to me. I have never seen any projector outside of DLP projectors handle ghosting in an acceptable manner (yes, I'm extremely fussy when it comes to 3D overall and ghosting in particular). I own quite a few 3D projectors and compare them against one another from time to time. When it comes to 3D my Epsons, for example, are unwatchable in 3D after comparing its 3D against my Sharp, Mits 8000 or Mits 7900's 3D. Of all the 3D projectors I have only the Sharp and Mits DLPs can handle the extreme depth and intensity of the Teranex without missing a beat (no ghosting). For some reason my PT-RZ470 (DLP) has all kinds of trouble with 2D converted by the Teranex to 3D. It can handle BD 3D and sbs 3D without a problem. The Teranex it seems is the acid test for ghosting.

I just wish you guys would run 3D capable projectors through the L/R ghosting test so we could get an objective idea about how well they handle ghosting. I would like to move to a laser or led 3D home theatre projector, however, after seeing the differences between the PT-RZ470 (DLP + laser and led) and the Sharp or Mits (DLP + lamp) with the Teranex I'm a little hesitant to invest a substantial sum in any projector that might get chewed up and spit out -- I suspect the Sim2 led 3D capable projectors wouldn't have a problem with the Teranex but who knows. Yes, I'm a little paranoid.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
10,827 Posts
Don't get me wrong -- I think people should definitely leave RC enabled, even if it's at 0. But I could still see a difference when it was off. I should have an X500 showing up in the next week or two (fingers crossed) so I'll be able to run the same test you're talking about.

It's entirely possible that the X500 looks better than the VW350 when RC is off. I wasn't testing against a JVC. We could both be right.

I only replied in the first place so you'd know that we're not basing our conclusions on Reality Creation alone.
Thanks for clearing that up. I have an off-topic question. I'm just curious as to why you guys don't post contrast numbers anymore? You used to post ANSI and on/off contrast numbers for most your reviews. Obviously you have the ability, otherwise we wouldn't be getting brightness numbers. Considering the VW350ES doesn't have "world class" aka immeasurable contrast, I can only speculate that Sony doesn't want you guys to post contrast numbers as it would look bad against most of the competition within it's price range. Is this false?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23,188 Posts
I just wish you guys would run 3D capable projectors through the L/R ghosting test so we could get an objective idea about how well they handle ghosting.
Bill mentioned that he would try the patterns if somebody would send them to him:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/24-digital-hi-end-projectors-3-000-usd-msrp/1671233-epson-4k-enhancement-e-shift-laser-projector-18.html#post29786177

If somebody here has the patterns (and maybe instructions) and cares enough, they should email him, if he doesn't have them by now.

--Darin
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,277 Posts
Discussion Starter #10,208
some interesting new TV's coming out of CES, this LG must look amazing, 77" 4K OLED



it also has 3D, imagine how nice that would look with basically infinite contrast.

I was using my Sony HMZ-T1 the other night, while only 720P, those OLED's are still amazing with the contrast. black is black. 3D is very bright and flawless. it's a shame they aren't more comfortable to wear.

I'm glad to see LG pursuing OLED, it would be great to see one of these @ 100+ inches in a few years from now.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
10,827 Posts
some interesting new TV's coming out of CES, this LG must look amazing, 77" 4K OLED



it also has 3D, imagine how nice that would look with basically infinite contrast.

I was using my Sony HMZ-T1 the other night, while only 720P, those OLED's are still amazing with the contrast. black is black. 3D is very bright and flawless. it's a shame they aren't more comfortable to wear.

I'm glad to see LG pursuing OLED, it would be great to see one of these @ 100+ inches in a few years from now.
How's the ghosting on that 3D headset? When Sony still owned the building in New York City, the ground floor had a display room for most of their current electronics. I got to try out the headset and thought it was pretty neat. Though it never felt like I was "watching a huge screen". I never really felt that illusion like I do with a real projector. How would you rate the contrast?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,277 Posts
Discussion Starter #10,210
there is zero ghosting even on the patterns, the 3D is bright to the point of squinting in certain scenes.

I would rate the contrast as an 11 out of a 10. :) All the dark content i've watched looks remarkable, the blacks are so dark when they need to be but adjacent areas with brighter objects cut through with impressive brightness.

if the room is dark while wearing them, the illusion is a little more convincing but it's definitely a different experience vs a real projector/screen setup.

there's a few hacks out there to make it more comfortable, I may give it a shot so I can use it more often.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
167 Posts
I just wish you guys would run 3D capable projectors through the L/R ghosting test so we could get an objective idea about how well they handle ghosting.
Actually I'm all set on this -- I'm now using patterns from the 2nd edition Spears & Munsil BD and a Minolta LS100 to measure crosstalk. I want to gather some more data before I start publishing numbers, but once I'm set up I will start incorporating it into our reviews. It'll be a percentage number, as in X% of the light intended for your left eye is visible from your right eye with the shutter closed. That kind of thing. But I want to have a baseline of what is good vs. bad, objectively, before I start reporting it.

Thanks for clearing that up. I have an off-topic question. I'm just curious as to why you guys don't post contrast numbers anymore? You used to post ANSI and on/off contrast numbers for most your reviews. Obviously you have the ability, otherwise we wouldn't be getting brightness numbers. Considering the VW350ES doesn't have "world class" aka immeasurable contrast, I can only speculate that Sony doesn't want you guys to post contrast numbers as it would look bad against most of the competition within it's price range. Is this false?
That is false.

Short version: It was a lot of work and very few people got anything out of it, so we stopped doing it. It had nothing to do with any external pressure from anyone.

Also, we stopped doing ANSI contrast measurements years ago. I don't even think Sony was sending us projectors at the time (for a few years there we had to buy any Sony projector we wanted to review, and that got old fast).
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
10,827 Posts
That is false.

Short version: It was a lot of work and very few people got anything out of it, so we stopped doing it. It had nothing to do with any external pressure from anyone.

Also, we stopped doing ANSI contrast measurements years ago. I don't even think Sony was sending us projectors at the time (for a few years there we had to buy any Sony projector we wanted to review, and that got old fast).
ANSI contrast I can understand as, from what I understand, it seems more of an art than a science to get consistent measurements, plus the room conditions are key. But on/off is very easy to measure. The reason why I asked is because, and I mean this in the best way possible even though it sounds mean, reviews without numbers to back up claims seem like "fluff" reviews to me. I read reviews that say "contrast was good" or "contrast was excellent" and no offense but without numbers how am I supposed to weigh that claim against another projector you also claim "contrast was good" or "contrast was excellent"? Like you said, you do these reviews because people who are on the fence need something to nudge them over to one side. If you say each image looks excellent but fail to give us the reason why (in this case with contrast; numbers) how am I supposed to know which is better and by how much in one area over another? This is another reason why so many people are pushing for the L/R 3D image pattern test. It gives us proof to back up a claim that 3D performance is "excellent" when claimed so, which I've seen so many publications say, but fail to show us why. This is one of many reasons many people here favor reviews that give us a more technical breakdown of a product, like cine4home for instance, while many others just give us fluff and say things like, "it's good" or just use hyperbole statements that get us no further to the answers many of us are after before going into the review.

I think the following should be mandatory for a projector review from any serious publication; ootb best mode brightness accompanied by charts to show color/greyscale/gamma, calibrated best mode brightness accompanied by charts to show color/greyscale/gamma, effects on brightness through the zoom range (telephoto, middle, and max zoom) and bulb setting, native on/off contrast and dynamic on/off with a breakdown of how well the dynamic iris implementation is and an explanation as to how the black level with the DI on compares to typical contrast with actual content (with many projectors the dynamic contrast black level is not really a descriptive number to what "typical" contrast will be in a dark scene), if you can swing it ANSI contrast, color uniformity, white field uniformity, mention bright corner issues, dead pixels, 3D performance accompanied with photos of the image pattern many of us have mentioned to show absolute ghosting performance, 3D color calibration from behind the glasses (and mention brightness loss), motion performance without frame interpolation enabled with a lines of resolution number accompanying subjective thoughts on how it compares to reference devices such as plasma, CRT and DLP, lens quality (referencing CA and pixel delineation, soft corners, effects on zoom and lens shift), input lag (Leo Bodnar test and/or CRT test), smart sharpening features and what a recommended setting would be before serious image artifacts occur, menu system (how well it's layed out), a brief sentence or two on the remote (ergonomics and layout), fit an finish of the chassis, decibel reading to show how loud it is in different bulb settings, frame interpolation modes performance (do they support 3D modes too?), and pros/cons to extraneous unique features of that particular model. I'm sure I'm missing a few things but I know of a few publications and specific reviewers who do the majority of these tests and talk about each individually. I think these are the things most people who buy a $3000+ projector care about when deciding what model they want to buy because it answers how much a particular model has an advantage over another. If you just give us bland, non-descriptive sentences about relative performance, people can't really make concrete decisions if they're truly on the fence between two models.

If I were offered to do a legitimate review of a projector I'd want to give people the most comprehensive review out there. Sure it may take longer and be more work, but it would be worth it because I'd know it would be something people REALLY wanted to read. I don't know how much you "hang around" on the forum reading posts, but all of the things posted above are things we talk about regularly and we use them as reasons why to go with a specific model over another when making suggestions to people who are less informed and just want "an answer" because they don't want to do all the work by digging around for those answers. And I think they come here and ask those questions because many reviews out there fail, in the broad sense, to get deep enough into the projector which means they also fail to give us the information wanted in the areas listed above.

This isn't an attack on you personally, but at the projector review industry in general. Many of the things I listed above do get covered in your reviews.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,514 Posts
What Dillon (Seegs) said! Honestly I stopped reading PJC reviews a long time ago. They didn't really tell me a lot. If you are going after a different readership and succeeding, then great and more power to you. Without measurements, I really have no standard for comparison.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,277 Posts
Discussion Starter #10,214
The spears test pattern is ok but I think the L/R patterns give a better visual representation of how a specific projector will handle tough 3D content.




Let's look at 3 different projectors ranging from below average, very good and excellent.

Mitsubishi HC5 - this projector's 3D performance was not great (I am being generous..) Relatively poor x-talk performance and also dim with the shutter glasses. Even more so than would be expected from other models.



Sony VW600 - definitely better than the HC5, this with the glasses set to high (vs normal). X-talk can be reduced further with the glasses setting but lumen output will drop a good amount. Still OK on my HP screen but I doubt it would be bright enough though on low gain screens with that setting.




the infamous Grand Canyon documentary. Damn that tree... :)




This actually quite good for a non DLP, MvA is a great 3D test, many difficult scenes in this movie.



then a DLP like the Sharp 30K which is just flawless with X-talk, there is no real way to trip up this projector with 3D content. It even kills on SBS which is usually below average on most non-DLP's.



so the DLP's are the benchmark in this area for 3D. I'd like to see how well the LS9600 and LS10000 handle these patterns and various content. Given the new models are compatible with the current RF glasses for the Epson LCD models, I am not expecting a miracle. More likely similar to the Epson LCD models.


All of this is better than the typical review comment 'projector has great 3D with minimal crosstalk'. it's the 1 time a screenshot can actually be useful.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,545 Posts
Actually I'm all set on this -- I'm now using patterns from the 2nd edition Spears & Munsil BD and a Minolta LS100 to measure crosstalk. I want to gather some more data before I start publishing numbers, but once I'm set up I will start incorporating it into our reviews. It'll be a percentage number, as in X% of the light intended for your left eye is visible from your right eye with the shutter closed. That kind of thing. But I want to have a baseline of what is good vs. bad, objectively, before I start reporting it.
Thanks for this. I appreciate that you're listening (seems like you're one of the few) to our concerns about the subject evaluation of 3D ghosting. I look forward to your reviews.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,529 Posts
How's the ghosting on that 3D headset? When Sony still owned the building in New York City, the ground floor had a display room for most of their current electronics. I got to try out the headset and thought it was pretty neat. Though it never felt like I was "watching a huge screen". I never really felt that illusion like I do with a real projector. How would you rate the contrast?



Sorry Seegs :) , but the headset has a separate screen for each eye..............;)


dj
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,529 Posts
You don't want RC off you just want it set to 0. There's a difference and if you turned it off then you missed out on a much better PQ experience the Sony could have given. How did you have this set? Off or zero? Options to do both are available in the menus on the Sony.



Really ? - why not 2 or 3 ( are there then ringing IYO ?) and what about the "C" ? Have you tried a lot of combinations with that ? ( and with the sharpness control at the same time and even contrast setting, which do change, how the RC behave )


But of couse, maybe you have a lot more experience ( hours playing with all the controls, and on different materiel ) then the rest of us :rolleyes:




Short story :), you shouldnt speak and makes firm conclusions, so much about this projector, before you have had a lot more time to play with one, then you did have at Marks´place ( and yes, I know that it was "calibreted" - but that has nothing to do with most of these settings ) .


Just my humble opinion :)


dj
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
167 Posts
I don't know how much you "hang around" on the forum reading posts, but all of the things posted above are things we talk about regularly and we use them as reasons why to go with a specific model over another when making suggestions to people who are less informed and just want "an answer" because they don't want to do all the work by digging around for those answers. And I think they come here and ask those questions because many reviews out there fail, in the broad sense, to get deep enough into the projector which means they also fail to give us the information wanted in the areas listed above.
I do as much testing as I can reasonably accomplish given the constraints I'm working with, but I do understand that most folks on this forum would prefer reviews with more data and less subjective discussion. I try to include as much of that as I can -- I made sure to get us a Bodnar tester as soon as I became aware that it existed, and we're going to start doing crosstalk tests as I mentioned above. But the folks on this forum comprise a relatively small fraction of our audience, and I have to consider the rest of them as well.

I don't agree that people come to this forum because reviews are falling short. I say this because I constantly (as in, several times a day) get email from people who want answers to questions I've already answered. Some people just want an answer and don't want to do any work, and "finding the answer that's already been given" counts as work. So they email me, or they come to the forum. Some do both -- I've definitely seen posts here that were word-for-word copies of emails I received.

You can see evidence for this in the under-$3000 forum, where there are multiple threads asking whether someone should get the W1070/HT1075 or one of the Optoma HD26 variants. That's an answered question and has been for quite some time.

The spears test pattern is ok but I think the L/R patterns give a better visual representation of how a specific projector will handle tough 3D content.



[...]

All of this is better than the typical review comment 'projector has great 3D with minimal crosstalk'. it's the 1 time a screenshot can actually be useful.
Zombie, I sent you a PM a month or two ago asking about those test patterns and never heard back. If you can tell me where to find them, I'll see about incorporating them as well.

For the record, though, I'm not using the test pattern that you screenshotted above (the visual crosstalk check). I'm using the measurement pattern and performing the following checks using a calibrated Minolta LS100 on a tripod:

Left Eye:
black reading through glasses
white/red/green/blue readings through glasses
white/red/green/blue readings through glasses w/ shutter closed
repeat all readings for right eye.

From this, I do a little math and get a percentage that I can report. I won't be posting a screenshot of the S&M pattern.

Thanks for this. I appreciate that you're listening (seems like you're one of the few) to our concerns about the subject evaluation of 3D ghosting. I look forward to your reviews.
Thanks for the feedback. I started coming to this forum because I noticed that a few people had some weird ideas about how we operated, and I thought having an actual person to talk to would allay some of that. So far it's been a pretty positive experience and I appreciate the feedback I've been getting.
 
10201 - 10220 of 19606 Posts
Top