AVS Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 21 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
647 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I currently have the AE100, how does the X1 compare to the AE100?


Thanks,
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19 Posts
Hi


When I decided to go looking for a projector, the first demo I had was between these two units:


AE100 was the first unit on show and if this had been the only avalable unit I would have stopped watching within seconds. I found the picture to be totally unacceptable, in terms of overall quality. That was before I'd even considered issues of Contrast and screen artifacts. I was not very hopeful when the X1 was then shown, at the time this was a cheaper unit, but the result was fantastic. Needless to say I now have an X1. the other point I should make is also that I have never found an LCD projector in the 'lower' end of the market sector to be of aceptable quality - but I haven't seen that many.


Paul
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
909 Posts
If you are not prone to seeing rainbow artifacts then comparing the AE100 to the X1 is like comparing a old carburator engine with a top of the line fuel injection one. There is no comparison. The X1 will win hands down even over more expensive and contrast challenged pjs like Sony VPW12.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
647 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Lets shake it up a little bit, what about the anticipated AE500, how would it compare?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
122 Posts
uh- ae100,300,500 are 16x9 - x1 is not. If you're going to watch movies and don't have an affinity for black bars - 16x9/4:3 is more of an issue than rainbows - screen door or blacks - to me its apples and verbs - I prefer to watch movies that fill the screen - yes, you can overcome the 4:3 obstacles; yes the ae100 has been virtually obsolete for quite some time but the 1st question that should always be asked is what will you be watching most.


good article from someone who sells this stuff :
http://www.alliantsolutionsinc.com/h...emid=423&nav=2


"AE100 was the first unit on show and if this had been the only available unit I would have stopped watching within seconds. I found the picture to be totally unacceptable, in terms of overall quality. "


Comments like this are worthless - do you really think that the thousands of Ae100 owners out there have standards so far below yours that they suffer through movies, sporting events, and late-night xbox sessions oblivious to their bad taste and sub-standard viewing requirements. c'mon -welcome to the forum but use some calculated discretion.


- fact is, you probably saw it in a retail outlet with some former cell phone salesman in charge of setup (no offense to cell phone salesmen intended) - plenty of posts on why that's not optimal.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,280 Posts
The 4:3 black bar on the X1 when running a 16:9 screen (i only run 16:9 screen and watch 16:9 material) is a NON issue. With simply masking using black velvet they are not detectable. Others have masked closer to the PJ, but there is a black velvet that is SUPER black, blacker than felt or other materials and it just soaks up that little of spill easy as.


D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
122 Posts
I fully understand - but then the 4:3 mode and the native mode of the PJ are virtually useless - a 4:3 projector is optimized at 4:3 viewing.


Now, if the question is is the X1 in 16:9 mode better than the AE100 - I understand and would simply say that its entry LCD from 2 years ago vs. last year's entry level DLP - not really a fair match-up. AE300 vs x1 - which has been done many times, is. Edge goes to preferences.


Z1 vs X1 vs AE300 now that's a good matchup, of course it's a year old debate though. Now Z2, X2, AE500. . . you get my point.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,280 Posts
Projectorcentral helps tell the story.


It seems they put both the X1 and AE300 above the Z1 but the X1 v the 300 is a closer match. While the 300 has some advantage in detail due to its high res in 16:9 it looses out on shadow detail and dark scenes, it seems X1 has slight edge in colour also.


I guess some comes down to preference.


As stated but the 100 vs the X1 in 16:9 or not is NO comparison
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19 Posts
Hi Nthusiast


"- fact is, you probably saw it in a retail outlet with some former cell phone salesman in charge of setup (no offense to cell phone salesmen intended) - plenty of posts on why that's not optimal."


Actually, the retailler in question was a High-end Specialist, who has been in business for some 30 years. I had to book a slot over a week in advanced and the demo was undertaken in one of their three purpose built demo rooms.


The AE100 and the X1 are poles apart in picture quality.


Paul.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
122 Posts
Pawil -


If that's the case then 2 things are at play -


First, As I said - an out of date LCD vs a late model DLP - the blacks should be blacker on the X1 and it should win out (rainbows notwithstanding) - it's not a very good match up.


Second - My comments were directed at your "unacceptable" view - casually dismissing the thousands of AE100 owners who are well aware that better pjs with different issues hit the scene last year and that the newer models with better resolution, blacker blacks etc. are coming this year (and the year after that etc.) - is an obvious rush to judgment.


Fact is, many Ae100 owners and their guests find these little dynamos quite suitable for the assigned task. (Adebar shhh.)


Also, no offense to your 30 year professional - but I doubt he's trying to sell the AE100's very hard - how much was he asking for it - did he use a hoya fl-d filter? was he using the vga input? was he using an htpc and playing through ZoomPlayer w/ffdshow filters or another program that lets you dynamically adjust gamma, contrast, and color levels? Judging by your reaction - probably not.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
333 Posts
Based on Pawil's comments, I suppose I should get my eyes checked and make an appointment with a psychiatrist because I think my 2 year old AE100 is fine; no, great. It may not be suitable for people who routinely view $10K, $20K, or even $5K projectors, but for the bargain I got the AE100 for, it's really priceless to see people's jaws drop when they see my near 100" screen.


I realize that HT is a passionate hobby for many. But for those of us who just want good PQ and a big screen experience, saying that our projector is "unacceptable" is kind of like saying that I was stupid for buying such a piece of crap. I know you didn't say that (and I hope you didn't mean it), but like Nthusiast said, I'm sure you could have picked a nicer way of indicating it wasn't acceptable for YOUR viewing requirements.


By the way, welcome to the forum. Lots of great information here, and I'm sure you have much to contribute.


Cheers!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
125 Posts
I'm still very happy with my AE100 pic quality. Using WinDVD5 filters, proper gamma and colour settings, a Hoya FL-D filter and a grayish screen the picture is a joy to look at. Here are some screenshots that I've taken over the years:


Vertical Limit superbit (click for camera original):
http://membres.lycos.fr/karpaasi/vertical_limit_ae100_olympus_original.jpg http://membres.lycos.fr/karpaasi/ver...it_ae100_3.jpg


The 5th element:
http://membres.lycos.fr/karpaasi/5th...nt_ae100_1.jpg

http://membres.lycos.fr/karpaasi/5th...nt_ae100_2.jpg


I've now since moved the plant from the edge of the screen :D.


Now, if the image you see doesn't look at least as good as these shots the AE100 is not set up properly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19 Posts
Hi Nthusiast & akelley (thanks for the welcome)


First, let me say that I have nothing but admiration for Panasonic and what they did with the introduction of the AE100. This was truly a pivotal machine (in the UK) and responsible for a complete shake-up of the market. At its time of launch it was the only unit available at its price point with certain attributes – so if you bought then, you got the only PJ that could do the job at the price. When I started looking for a PJ some time later, the AE100 had some competition at its point in the market sector and most could better it in someway. But, I will stand by my observation that for me, if this had been the only unit available, for the money I had to spend, I would not have gone down the front projection route – I didn’t like what I saw. What some people find acceptable other will not, as a point in case I project onto a Draper manual pull down screen which has horizontal ripples and a few diagonal ones as well. This has never worried me others would find this totally unacceptable.


As for the question of the dealer not trying to sell the AE100 very hard, well no he wasn’t, but neither was he pushing the X1 either. His role was to show me the products he had available, answer my questions and let me make up my own mind. With regard to VGA input and “…was he using an htpc and playing through ZoomPlayer w/ffdshow filters or another program that lets you dynamically adjust gamma, contrast, and color levels?..†Then the answer is no, but to have done so would have been pointless as I would never have used these either. Prior to the demo I was asked about my set-up, what I used and my future expectations. This was so he could provide a similar set-up to my own or advise me to bring in my own units. Afterwards of course we slotted in other unit to explore the upgrade potential.


So, if you are one of those early adopters of the AE100 – thank you, you made the front projection market a more competitive place for the rest of us.


Paul.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
122 Posts
Pawil,


Welcome, I hope my rant doesn't leave you gun shy.


The reason I mentioned the setup is because its critical on the AE100. Sure a progressive scan DVD player looks ok, but to make the AE sing you've got to use the vga port.


The home theater world is riddled with "30yr" guys who are really just converted audio buffs - bear in mind that just five years ago a CRT was about the only way to get over 50 inches in your home - many that I've dealt with talk the talk but really don't get the details



This forum and the AE100 are proof that sometimes seeing for yourself just isn't enough, the experience of actual users is invaluable - it has been to me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
88 Posts
Karpassi, I am a happy AE100 owner but cannot get my picture as nice as yours. Currently I use Zoom Player with the latest ATI DVD filters since I found the PowerDVD5 and WinDVD5 filters to be of worse quality but based on your pictures you have had good results with the WinDVD5 filter.


I'm not sure how to properly setup gamma and colour settings and do not have a Hoya filter. I also project on a white screen.


Could you share with the rest of us your setting in more detail? Does the superbit DVD have something to do with it also?


Thanks in advance for your help.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19 Posts
Hi Nthusiast,


Didn't consider your reply as rant, just a different point of view ;) so, no I'll still be around. The only thing I'll do in future is (perhaps) be a bit more specific about qualifying my remarks.


For me, I would only ever connect the X1 direct to a DVD player and have no thought about going the PC route. As such, wanted a player to be able to deliver the goods straight out of the box. The X1 did, the AE100 didn't and yes I am aware that the AE100 can provide better results but the investment in ancillaries is expensive but this would also improve the X1's output.


Paul
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
125 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by cliffk3
Karpassi, I am a happy AE100 owner but cannot get my picture as nice as yours. Currently I use Zoom Player with the latest ATI DVD filters since I found the PowerDVD5 and WinDVD5 filters to be of worse quality but based on your pictures you have had good results with the WinDVD5 filter.


I'm not sure how to properly setup gamma and colour settings and do not have a Hoya filter. I also project on a white screen.


Could you share with the rest of us your setting in more detail? Does the superbit DVD have something to do with it also?


Thanks in advance for your help.
Hi, I just caught this reply, but here are some details on how I've improved my AE100 pic quality:


First the Hoya FL-D filter was an easy try since it's cheap and available at most shops selling photographic equipment. After installing the filter (which will give a slight red cast to the picture) you can boost the green and blue values (from the projector menu) way up giving more range to the picture. I prefer the picture with the filter. Some people don't. Some also think that it cuts down the visible fixed panel noise. The filter also cuts some of the light output and thus makes the blacks a bit deeper. Be warned that if you think that a dimmer picture automatically means worse picture the filter might not be for you. You would need a light controlled room for viewing.


I've made my own screen from blackout cloth stretched over a wooden frame and with black velvet trimmings/edges. The cloth is slightly gray (in comparison to the white wall behind it). I don't know but I would guess that a professionally manufactured 'gray-screen' could give a better picture still.


One thing I didn't mention in my previous post is that I also use bias lighting. That is, I have my screen mounted about an inch away from the wall and I've installed lighting behind the screen, so that no light is spilled on the screen but some is cast on the wall behind it. This also improves the black levels (this won't show up in a photograph, but the difference is there for the human eye) and reduces eye fatigue.


I use a Radeon 9000 graphics card and you can set the gamma settings for the overlay either from the Control Panel -> Display -> Settings -> Advanced -> Overlay or from ZoomPlayer Color Controls (available from the default right click menu). Just bump the gamma up so that you can see better shadow detail but not so much up that you begin to see the compression artifacts or otherwise overly distort the picture.


As for filters, I'm not sure but I think the latest ATI filters are actually Sonic filters. I think that there is not much difference between the latest Sonic filters and the WinDVD5 filters. Both have good image quality but I slightly prefer the WinDVD5 filters. I suggest you visit the Home Theater Computers forum and read up on ffdshow and the available filters and so on to further boost the image quality. For most ffdshow processing you need a beefier computer in the 2400+ / 2.4 Ghz and more range.


These settings should improve the image quality for any material be it a superbit high-end DVD or just a mushy DivX.
 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top