AVS Forum banner

621 - 640 of 1225 Posts

·
ABSOLUTE ULTIMATE AV
Joined
·
5,606 Posts
Thanks a lot for those measurements.

I notice 80% laser on the 5000ES and then around 118 nits compared to the GTZ380 at 384 nits so 3.25 times brighter compared at 80% laser?

Looking at the 5000ES light output gain from 80 til 100% laser (1.15) it would have around 136 nits compared to 476 nits at 100% laser on the GTZ380, which is then 3.5 times brighter.

So looking at your chart the GTZ380 is 3.25-3.5 times brighter and I havent even looked at P3 nit output on the 5000es, because then it is almost 5-6 timers brighter.

I just did some quick calcs on your chart, so correct me if I am wrong.

Still, at 3.25-5 (depending on P3) times bright however you look at it, that is quite a lot more than I thought it would be.

Questions on many peoples minds then is - how is the black floor? 🙂
So 3-5x the light output of the 5000 ? Very interesting and awesome !

Art
In short, NO it is NOT 3-5x the light output of the Sony 5000.

Important to note that with the Sony 5000 the color filter needed to achieve 100% of DCI-P3 within BT.2020 color gamut reduces light output by almost half, which means that the color filter is essentially unusable and hence why literally nobody uses it. Essentially all Sony 5000 owners use the projector without the color filter, and because this is how everyone is operating it the comparison should be without the color filter if/when comparing light output gains.

The peak light output of the Sony GTX380 measured here is as expected and pretty much the same as I measured myself with respect to a pre-production unit. 8594 Lumens.

The Sony 5000 here measured only 1834 Lumens. This is with the color filter in place. Without the color filter it would measure almost double this. Hence the GTZ380 actually measures circa double that of the 5000 without the color filter, as expected. No surprises here 🙂
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
303 Posts
In short, NO it is NOT 3-5x the light output of the Sony 5000.

Important to note that with the Sony 5000 the color filter needed to achieve 100% of DCI-P3 within BT.2020 color gamut reduces light output by almost half, which means that the color filter is essentially unusable and hence why literally nobody uses it. Essentially all Sony 5000 owners use the projector without the color filter, and because this is how everyone is operating it the comparison should be without the color filter if/when comparing light output gains.

The peak light output of the Sony GTX380 measured here is as expected and pretty much the same as I measured myself with respect to a pre-production unit. 8594 Lumens.

The Sony 5000 here measured only 1834 Lumens. This is with the color filter in place. Without the color filter it would measure almost double this. Hence the GTZ380 actually measures circa double that of the 5000 without the color filter, as expected. No surprises here 🙂
I'm not sure what you mean by using 5000 without the filter? With mine I had to use it as is to get proper color. It's a compromised image without the filter, unless I was missing something and I wish I'd known that and would be able to get double the nits out of my 5000!

With 380 you now have no such problem so when comparing apples to apples, you do indeed get 3-4 or more difference in output brightness? I am not sure what one achieves when comparing the 5000 version that couldn't reproduce proper color to a 380 that can, it should be color per color and lumen per lumen.
 

·
ABSOLUTE ULTIMATE AV
Joined
·
5,606 Posts
I'm not sure what you mean by using 5000 without the filter?
I mean using the 5000 without the color filter. It's as simple as that.

With mine I had to use it as is to get proper color. It's a compromised image without the filter, unless I was missing something and I wish I'd known that and would be able to get double the nits out of my 5000!
It's a compromised image either way in more ways than one and you aren't actually achieving proper (= perfect) colour either. Proper / perfect color = 100% of BT.2020. You can't achieve this with either the Sony GTZ380 or the Sony 5000 with its color filter. These can achieve only 100% of DCI-P3 within BT.2020 color gamut, which is only circa 66% of BT.2020.

Furthermore, whilst you can achieve 100% of DCI-P3 within BT.2020 color gamut with the Sony 5000 in doing so the image is compromised with respect to light output being pretty much HALVED down to only circa 1800 lumens.

With 380 you now have no such problem so when comparing apples to apples, you do indeed get 3-4 or more difference in output brightness? I am not sure what one achieves when comparing the 5000 version that couldn't reproduce proper color to a 380 that can, it should be color per color and lumen per lumen.
The vast majority of Sony 5000 owners choose not to use the color filter because reduces the light output by almost HALF. Hence, all of these people will experience circa double the light output with the GTZ380 as compared with their Sony 5000.

With respect to the distinct minority of Sony 5000 owners who choose to operate their Sony 5000 at only circa 1800 lumens due to the color filter, then yes these people will experience circa 4.6 times greater light output with the Sony GTZ380 as compared with their Sony 5000. However, I have to say you are the first person I have come across who uses the Sony 5000 with its color filter. Most people consider it does not make much sense buying a Sony 5000 with an MSRP of $60,000 and then operating it at only 1800 lumens!

I should add that it is a key benefit of the Sony GTZ380 as compared with the Sony 5000 that it can achieve 100% of DCI-P3 without any loss of light output.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,866 Posts
[
I'm not sure what you mean by using 5000 without the filter? With mine I had to use it as is to get proper color. It's a compromised image without the filter, unless I was missing something and I wish I'd known that and would be able to get double the nits out of my 5000!

With 380 you now have no such problem so when comparing apples to apples, you do indeed get 3-4 or more difference in output brightness? I am not sure what one achieves when comparing the 5000 version that couldn't reproduce proper color to a 380 that can, it should be color per color and lumen per lumen.

I'd say a better comparison is the 5000 without the filter and the 380 for light output. I'm sure they are out there (you being one ) but the 5000 owners I know wouldn't accept the light loss for color trade so for light .without and for color accuracy with seems to be a better comparison to me at least.

But to say the calibrated light output of a 5000 is a fifth that of the 380 seems less than honest.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
303 Posts
I mean using the 5000 without the color filter. It's as simple as that.
I personally do not know anyone that had a 5000 that didn't use the filter, nor any calibrator that would recommend that. Based on what I know that sounds crazy in terms of the resulting picture quality. Yes you lose the light output but back then it was still incredible compared to absolutely anything else on the market. The filter is pretty much an absolute requirement with that projector. But again if someone would like to use it like that, good for them if they like the resulting image quality.

Trust me, I was all about 3d back then and HDR, if I had a way to realistically and practically get 2x output from my setup I would've done so in a heartbeat.
Plus I do not believe that you're really losing half of the light output with the filter, I remember it being somewhere more around 30% range.

Again, we need to compare apples to apples here. To get the comparable quality in terms of color output between both projectors you would need to use the filter with the 5000 and therefore you lose light output. If you're willing to compare compromised color of the 5000, that's just not an apples to apples comparison. But if that's what you had with your 5000, then sure, you "only" get in excess of 2x brightness.

It's a compromised image either way in more ways than one and you aren't actually achieving proper (= perfect) colour either. Proper / perfect color = 100% of BT.2020. You can't achieve this with either the Sony GTZ380 or the Sony 5000 with its color filter. These can achieve only 100% of DCI-P3 within BT.2020 color gamut, which is only circa 66% of BT.2020.
As someone that is actually making HDR content professionally and knows a thing or two about color, these conversations always baffle me.
How much content actually supports this incredible color gamut you speak of? How many mastering studios have equipment in which they can view that and care to check for it in that mode where almost absolutely every single device out there wouldn't be able to reproduce it? And even if there is that extra usage of the BT.2020 in the content, I think we're starting to hit perception limits in terms of human eye for anything but extremely revealing content that is focused on showcasing that particular range of color.

I think covering DCI-P3 to 100% is a huge leap, but beyond that we're starting to really talk about something that will not be practical for another 10 years and even if it is, it's questionable if it's that perceivable.

This reminds me a lot of the sampling rate conversation.

To settle this, I would love for someone to do a double blind test being seated in front of a device that can perfectly reproduce the full BT.2020 and toggle between partial and full coverage on a few content samples available to us.

If enough people score something of statistical significance between the 2 I would say this has significance. Until then I think this is a very theoretical discussion that has no practical value for most of us enthusiasts here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
517 Posts
I personally do not know anyone that had a 5000 that didn't use the filter, nor any calibrator that would recommend that. Based on what I know that sounds crazy in terms of the resulting picture quality. Yes you lose the light output but back then it was still incredible compared to absolutely anything else on the market. The filter is pretty much an absolute requirement with that projector. But again if someone would like to use it like that, good for them if they like the resulting image quality.

Trust me, I was all about 3d back then and HDR, if I had a way to realistically and practically get 2x output from my setup I would've done so in a heartbeat.
Plus I do not believe that you're really losing half of the light output with the filter, I remember it being somewhere more around 30% range.

Again, we need to compare apples to apples here. To get the comparable quality in terms of color output between both projectors you would need to use the filter with the 5000 and therefore you lose light output. If you're willing to compare compromised color of the 5000, that's just not an apples to apples comparison. But if that's what you had with your 5000, then sure, you "only" get in excess of 2x brightness.



As someone that is actually making HDR content professionally and knows a thing or two about color, these conversations always baffle me.
How much content actually supports this incredible color gamut you speak of? How many mastering studios have equipment in which they can view that and care to check for it in that mode where almost absolutely every single device out there wouldn't be able to reproduce it? And even if there is that extra usage of the BT.2020 in the content, I think we're starting to hit perception limits in terms of human eye for anything but extremely revealing content that is focused on showcasing that particular range of color.

I think covering DCI-P3 to 100% is a huge leap, but beyond that we're starting to really talk about something that will not be practical for another 10 years and even if it is, it's questionable if it's that perceivable.

This reminds me a lot of the sampling rate conversation.

To settle this, I would love for someone to do a double blind test being seated in front of a device that can perfectly reproduce the full BT.2020 and toggle between partial and full coverage on a few content samples available to us.

If enough people score something of statistical significance between the 2 I would say this has significance. Until then I think this is a very theoretical discussion that has no practical value for most of us enthusiasts here.
I don't even know if I am using or not using a color filter with my 5000. Don't know where to check it - but it sure throws a very bright image (calibrated) across my 13.5 ft-wide ST100.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,735 Posts
The 5000ES puts out right at 4000 lumens without the filter and right at 3000 lumens with the filter.

Something isn’t right in that chart because even using the filter, I’ve never seen a 5000ES measure anywhere remotely that low in lumens.

I personally know 22 5000ES owners, and only 1 of them uses the filter. Most settle for the 87% of P3 for the added lumens because most are using 14’ wide or larger screens.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,735 Posts
I don't even know if I am using or not using a color filter with my 5000. Don't know where to check it - but it sure throws a very bright image (calibrated) across my 13.5 ft-wide ST100.
If you are using Rec2020 color space you are using the filter. If you are using color space 2 then you aren’t using the filter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
  • Like
Reactions: ARROW-AV

·
Registered
Joined
·
303 Posts
The 5000ES puts out right at 4000 lumens without the filter and right at 3000 lumens with the filter.

Something isn’t right in that chart because even using the filter, I’ve never seen a 5000ES measure anywhere remotely that low in lumens.

I personally know 22 5000ES owners, and only 1 of them uses the filter. Most settle for the 87% of P3 for the added lumens because most are using 14’ wide or larger screens.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
So the filter seems to have cost exactly 25% of the brightness in that case, which is closer to what I remember.
I tend to agree that the numbers on the 5000 here seem a bit low. I wonder if the calibration was identical and the measurement conditions were identical. I think it's likely that the real numbers we're looking at are more closer to 3x for P3 and 2x for rec.

Also 21 folks out of 22 not using the filter... ! Obviously different than my circles but that's very interesting. I guess live and learn :)
The fact that so many people were okay settling for that image would confirm my personal belief that conversations about color gamut coverage beyond 100% P3 are mostly theoretical at this point.


Also let's not forget the other factor - the noise! I personally never ran my 5000 at 100% just because of the noise. Back then I didn't invest in a special hushbox design and it was quite a nuisance. I will be putting the 380 in a properly treated hushbox this time, not making that mistake again! But for those of us that didn't even max out the 5000 if 380 can do this with new quieter cooling, that's quite an awesome sauce and even a bigger leap in output.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,735 Posts
So the filter seems to have cost exactly 25% of the brightness in that case, which is closer to what I remember.
I tend to agree that the numbers on the 5000 here seem a bit low. I wonder if the calibration was identical and the measurement conditions were identical. I think it's likely that the real numbers we're looking at are more closer to 3x for P3 and 2x for rec.

Also 21 folks out of 22 not using the filter... ! Obviously different than my circles but that's very interesting. I guess live and learn :)
The fact that so many people were okay settling for that image would confirm my personal belief that conversations about color gamut coverage beyond 100% P3 are mostly theoretical at this point.


Also people forget another thing - noise. I personally never ran my 5000 at 100% just because of the noise. Back then I didn't invest in a special hushbox design and it was quite a nuissance. I will be putting the 380 in a properly treated hushbox this time, not making that mistake again!
Well most would love the larger color gamut but not at the loss of light. 25% on the Sony 5000ES and I think close to 40% on the JVC RS4500.

Just like the 5000 I don’t know anyone using the filter on the JVC 4500, but again most of these installs have larger screen sizes.

But the fact that the GTZ380 can do full light output at 100% P3 is a nice advantage in addition to the added light output.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
303 Posts
There's also rumors going around the 5000 losing contrast due to panel degradation while not in use over some time. I've heard horror stories of the projectors measuring 2000:1 contrast after being in storage for a few months.

Does anyone know if 380 has the same issue or they've done anything to mitigate that?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,878 Posts
I've calibrated lots of 5000ES projectors and I think I only have one client that uses the filter. I can say the same about the 4500 from JVC. I have exactly one client that uses the filter (he has a pretty small scope screen and has a DCR Lens, so still gets plenty of light from the 4500).

VD, I also don't understand your comment on 3D in this regard. What does 3D have to do with the filter? The only time you'd actually use the filter is with HDR content. And with HDR and projectors, you need light for headroom when it comes to tone mapping. If you have a smaller screen that doesn't require the extra light running the filter robs, great! But I think most people that use 5000ES projectors tend to have pretty large screens (and on top of that, weave based screens with negative gain), so light is a premium.
 

·
ABSOLUTE ULTIMATE AV
Joined
·
5,606 Posts
I personally do not know anyone that had a 5000 that didn't use the filter, nor any calibrator that would recommend that.
Based on what I know that sounds crazy in terms of the resulting picture quality. Yes you lose the light output but back then it was still incredible compared to absolutely anything else on the market. The filter is pretty much an absolute requirement with that projector. But again if someone would like to use it like that, good for them if they like the resulting image quality.
I see some others have already chimed in regarding this... And the same as them practically none of the Sony 5000 owners I know use the color filter due to the significant light loss.

Most Sony 5000 owners have larger sized screens and the primary reason why they chose the Sony 5000 is because they need a larger amount of light output to sufficiently light up their larger size screen. In which instances it is case of pick your poison, where NEITHER situation is ideal... It's a case of achieving either good image luminance with circa 85-87% of DCI-P3 color gamut (w/o filter) or bad image luminance with 100% of DCI-P3 color (with filter). Literally ALL of Sony 5000 owners whom I know opt for the former and most who are AVSForum members as well.

Perhaps the situation is different in Israel? 🙂

Plus I do not believe that you're really losing half of the light output with the filter, I remember it being somewhere more around 30% range.
When I measured this with respect to a Sony 5000 the light loss with the color filter post calibration measured circa 40%. I spoke to @Kris Deering earlier and he says he has measured similar. Either way it is too much loss of light output which is why almost nobody uses the color filter.

Again, we need to compare apples to apples here. To get the comparable quality in terms of color output between both projectors you would need to use the filter with the 5000 and therefore you lose light output. If you're willing to compare compromised color of the 5000, that's just not an apples to apples comparison. But if that's what you had with your 5000, then sure, you "only" get in excess of 2x brightness.
The peak light output of the Sony GTZ380 being circa 8500 lumens is circa twice that of the Sony 5000 w/o color filter. To state that Sony GTZ380 has 4 times the light output of the Sony 5000 in incomplete information and misleading given the vast majority of Sony 5000 owners operate the projector without the color filter due to the light loss being too much. We are not talking about carrying out a properly matched A-B comparison here. We are talking about by what magnitude of increased light output Sony 5000 owners will experience with the Sony GTZ380 as compared with their Sony 5000... which in the vast majority of instances will be operating without the color filter for the aforementioned reasons. The fact of the matter is that for the vast majority of people who do not use the color filter all of these people will experience circa double the light output with the GTZ380.

As someone that is actually making HDR content professionally and knows a thing or two about color, these conversations always baffle me. How much content actually supports this incredible color gamut you speak of?
Literally every single movie is graded with respect to the BT.2020 color gamut. Put on any movie you want and open the video information window and it will clearly state BT.2020 as the color gamut. NOT DCI-P3. Furthermore, I have already discussed this matter in detail previously wherein it was proven that numerous movies make use of the BT.2020 color gamut beyond 100% of DCI-P3. This includes movies that are decades old, such as the Matrix for example.

It is on my To Do List to carry out an analysis exercise utilizing professional analysis equipment wherein I will compile a comprehensive list of all movies which make use of BT.2020 color beyond 100% of DCI-P3 and I will start a thread on here into which I will publish my data in this regard. This will be a valuable resource in this regard as and when I do. And I will keep adding to it as and when new movie titles are released.

This isn't my data but it demonstrates the point nonetheless. Firstly, this data is from professional video calibrator and TV reviewer Vincent Teoh of HDTVTest taken from his article "Do 4K Blu-ray discs contain any colors outside the DCI-P3?". Here are some of his screenshots of the Sony BVM-HX310 Trimaster HX Professional Master Monitor using its 'Gamut Marker' function to highlight any and all areas of the image via Zebra Striping wherein the color extends beyond 100% DCI-P3.

Firstly, here is Lego Batman:














Wherein, as you can clearly see, the percentage of content that is beyond 100% DCI-P3 is extensive.

The same goes for Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse:








And here's Planet Earth II:







And even in the Blu-Ray Disc MENU ! Wherein here's the Gamut Marker Setting Menu for illustration purposes as well:






And here's some data from @sylwahan, who is a video professional, which shows some more examples of the numerous instances wherein there is color beyond 100% DCI-P3 with respect to movies:

THE MATRIX:






ALIEN COVENANT:







LA LA LAND:






THE SHAPE OF WATER:




How many mastering studios have equipment in which they can view that and care to check for it in that mode where almost absolutely every single device out there wouldn't be able to reproduce it? And even if there is that extra usage of the BT.2020 in the content, I think we're starting to hit perception limits in terms of human eye for anything but extremely revealing content that is focused on showcasing that particular range of color.
As just demonstrated there most certainly is usage of BT.2020 above 100% of DCI-P3; and you are wrong about it hitting HVP limits. Here are the Rec.709, DCI-P3, and BT.2020 color gamuts and how they compare versus HVP. The large rounded shape is HVP and the triangles are the respective color gamuts. Where as you can clearly see even BT.2020 doesn't exceed HVP, but it does cover significantly more of it than DCI-P3:



I think covering DCI-P3 to 100% is a huge leap, but beyond that we're starting to really talk about something that will not be practical for another 10 years and even if it is, it's questionable if it's that perceivable.

This reminds me a lot of the sampling rate conversation.

To settle this, I would love for someone to do a double blind test being seated in front of a device that can perfectly reproduce the full BT.2020 and toggle between partial and full coverage on a few content samples available to us.

If enough people score something of statistical significance between the 2 I would say this has significance. Until then I think this is a very theoretical discussion that has no practical value for most of us enthusiasts here.
Achieving 100% of DCI-P3 isn't a huge leap at all. Video displays have been achieving this for years. That is yesterday's target. Today's target is BT.2020 and this has always been the ultimate target. And there are numerous displays which can achieve towards the full BT.2020 color gamut, such as the Christie Eclipse and Christie Griffyn. And yes the difference most certainly is perceivable. I already invited you to come and visit us to experience a demo and direct comparison of the Christie Eclipse, Christie Griffyn HC, and Sony GTZ380. If you do you will see with your own eyes what BT.2020 color looks like as compared with DCI-P3. The difference is by no means slight! And I am very happy to make the comparison blind if you so wish 🙂
 

·
ABSOLUTE ULTIMATE AV
Joined
·
5,606 Posts
Well most would love the larger color gamut but not at the loss of light. 25% on the Sony 5000ES and I think close to 40% on the JVC RS4500.

Just like the 5000 I don’t know anyone using the filter on the JVC 4500, but again most of these installs have larger screen sizes.
Is that pre or post calibration Chris? Post-calibration I recall measuring circa 40% light loss with the Sony, similar to the JVC RS4500. @Kris Deering care to chime in?

But the fact that the GTZ380 can do full light output at 100% P3 is a nice advantage in addition to the added light output.
Now THIS I am sure we can all agree! 😎
 
621 - 640 of 1225 Posts
Top