[BuGsArEtAsTy]

One thing I've noticed in lower end projector reviews is they rarely truly evaluate zoom lens quality. Perhaps it's not as important because they're watching mainly movies, but still, it would be nice to have lens quality reviews included. Often one just gets comments like "The image was very crisp", and slightly more crisp than the previous model." or something like that.


For example, I've noticed that for many low end projectors with significant zooms, the edge softness and lack of completely planar focus can be quite noticeable when viewing text on screen. This is something that is minimized on higher end projectors and even many not-so-expensive business projectors.


Furthermore, reviews of even $50 camera zooms comment on pincushion and barrel distortion. The fact that is usually not mentioned for $1000+ home theatre projectors somewhat surprises me.


What say you?

 

[BuGsArEtAsTy]

Hmmm... No takers.

I wonder if people in the sub-$3000 category are generally just assuming their lenses aren't going to be good... or if they generally just don't really care that much and I'm more of an anomaly here. To put it another way: I'd maybe pay $500 more on a $1xxx machine with a better lens, if all other characteristics were the same.

 

[mjg100]



Quote:
Originally Posted by BuGsArEtAsTy /forum/post/15402983


Hmmm... No takers.

I wonder if people in the sub-$3000 category are generally just assuming their lenses aren't going to be good... or if they generally just don't really care that much and I'm more of an anomaly here. To put it another way: I'd maybe pay $500 more on a $1xxx machine with a better lens, if all other characteristics were the same.

Knowing that the lens in the entry level 1080p projectors will not match up to the quality that you can get in a good (high end) 720p projector is the main thing keeping me out of the 1080p arena since I can't justify spending the money for a high end 1080p unit.

 

[schroedk]

While in principal, I agree with you (photography is another hobby of mine) that lens quality is extremely important, I think the reason reviewers don't obsess over lens quality in the sub-$3000 projector category is because it's perceived as one of the accepted "trade-offs" by not getting a more expensive projector. I have no idea about statistics with this situation, but my guess would be that fewer than 10% of users would use a home-theater projector as a computer monitor. When the image is perceived as "sharp" or "crisp" using real-world material, i.e. a movie, that should suffice. These reviewers have enough to do with setup, analysis with a large variety of sources/resolutions/picture settings, etc, not to mention write-up of the actual review, that assessing relative "non-issues" such as barrel-distortion and other lens issues needs to be an afterthought.


Additionally, it appears that lens quality (and quality-control) of many of these projectors varies considerably from projector to projector. I bought the 12th Panasonic ae3000u received by PP, and thankfully received a unit that has uniform focus (yes, I checked it with text), and very good convergence (nothing noticeable beyond about 2 feet from the screen). A review of a single unit may or may not be representative of the entire line, but typically video processing, brightness, picture settings, etc., are fairly consistent from unit to unit, so this is what's reviewed (and important).


Lastly, you need to realize that those of us at AVSForum are EXTREMELY picky and sensitive to video and audio "anomalies". When I point something out to my wife or a friend, they MIGHT agree that they see/hear it, but in reality if I didn't point it out they wouldn't have noticed it in a million years. FP reviewers need to present a review that appeals to the vast majority of consumers, not simply catering to our level of quality. If you want a reviewer to do that, I'm sure nobody's stopping you.


Home theater projectors are built to display movies, so that's how they're reviewed. Business projectors are built to display text, so a review of movie playback is less than fair, as well.

 

[BuGsArEtAsTy]



Quote:
Originally Posted by schroedk /forum/post/15403195


While in principal, I agree with you (photography is another hobby of mine) that lens quality is extremely important, I think the reason reviewers don't obsess over lens quality in the sub-$3000 projector category is because it's perceived as one of the accepted "trade-offs" by not getting a more expensive projector. I have no idea about statistics with this situation, but my guess would be that fewer than 10% of users would use a home-theater projector as a computer monitor. When the image is perceived as "sharp" or "crisp" using real-world material, i.e. a movie, that should suffice. These reviewers have enough to do with setup, analysis with a large variety of sources/resolutions/picture settings, etc, not to mention write-up of the actual review, that assessing relative "non-issues" such as barrel-distortion and other lens issues needs to be an afterthought.

Well, I note a lot of people here are HTPC types, so it would apply to them a certain extent.

Quote:
A review of a single unit may or may not be representative of the entire line, but typically video processing, brightness, picture settings, etc., are fairly consistent from unit to unit, so this is what's reviewed (and important).

True, but you could use that argument for all aspects of the review.

Quote:
Lastly, you need to realize that those of us at AVSForum are EXTREMELY picky and sensitive to video and audio "anomalies".

Also true, but projector owners are overrepresented in places like AVS. The vast majority of the population will never even consider a projector.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mjg100 /forum/post/15403149


Knowing that the lens in the entry level 1080p projectors will not match up to the quality that you can get in a good (high end) 720p projector is the main thing keeping me out of the 1080p arena since I can't justify spending the money for a high end 1080p unit.

This is going to be a consideration for me if/when I upgrade in a few years.


If I were to spend say few thousand $ on a projector, I'd probably prefer getting a 720p projector with a good lens, than a 1080p projector with a mediocre lens. That is, if there is no visible screen door effect on the 720p projector.


One can only hope that by 2011, 1080p pricing will come down so that I can get an 1080p projector with a good lens for what a 720p costs now.


P.S. What specifically in the 720p range were you looking at? I will likely never spend over $5000 on a projector though.

 

[mjg100]



Quote:
Originally Posted by BuGsArEtAsTy /forum/post/15403380


Well, I note a lot of people here are HTPC types, so it would apply to them a certain extent.



True, but you could use that argument for all aspects of the review.



Also true, but projector owners are overrepresented in places like AVS. The vast majority of the population will never even consider a projector.




This is going to be a consideration for me if/when I upgrade in a few years.


If I were to spend say few thousand $ on a projector, I'd probably prefer getting a 720p projector with a good lens, than a 1080p projector with a mediocre lens. That is, if there is no visible screen door effect on the 720p projector.


One can only hope that by 2011, 1080p pricing will come down so that I can get an 1080p projector with a good lens for what a 720p costs now.


P.S. What specifically in the 720p range were you looking at? I will likely never spend over $5000 on a projector though.

I currently use a Marantz VP-12S4 in one room and a Planar PD-7130 in my other room. The lens on the Marantz is just about perfect. The Marantz has a button on the remote labeled grid. When pressed you get a black background with a white grid. If anything is off you will see red or green at the edges of the grid lines. My Marantz shows a nice even focus grid pattern the full height and width of the 106" screen.


Another feature that I like on the Marantz is the "Blanking" memory settings. This allows you to blank off the DMD panel in the area of the screen that you are not using and store the setting in memory. You have three different memory setting available. This allows you to use a 16:9 screen and when showing 2.35 movies (other aspect ratios also) to make the gray top and bottom (and/or side) bars black. Basically an auto masking system. I love that feature.

 

[BuGsArEtAsTy]



Quote:
Originally Posted by mjg100 /forum/post/15403911


This allows you to use a 16:9 screen and when showing 2.35 movies (other aspect ratios also) to make the gray top and bottom (and/or side) bars black. Basically an auto masking system. I love that feature.

Very, very cool. That's a great feature, and one I'll look into for in my next projector. The Marantz is currently out of my price range, but who knows how much something comparable will be in 2011.

 

[reconlabtech]

Have you considered the Marantz VP8600 over on secondact.com?

 

[BuGsArEtAsTy]

Well, I'm not going to buy right now. I am spending my home theatre room money on more pedestrian things at the moment, like electrical heating and wiring.

(My home theatre has only one heating vent, so it's about 2C cooler in that room than the rest of the house.)


However, I'd be happier about potential buys a year or two from now, if I knew more about the lenses on the units. I like my Panasonic PT-AX200U well enough for the moment, but the lens on the thing really isn't very good, although to be fair I didn't actually expect stellar glass from an entry level unit with a 2:1 zoom.