[Mitch Sink]

Hi,


For 4:3 material which would be the better choice.


The Yamaha (native 4:3) or the Sharp or Marantz (better blacks and faster color wheel)?


In other words is there a disadvantage with 4:3 material with the 16:9 native chips?


Thanks!


Mitch

 

[WanMan]

I would imagine that if you are looking for a 4:3 any HD1 would be a waste of effort (and your money) as many 4:3 DLP projectors are available at drastically lower price points.


Not knocking the HD1 projectors as they are the 16:9 DLP choice. If you are looking exclusively at projectors in the 4:3 why not consider LCOS, or a JVC D-ILA?

 

[DanHouck]

You could use a 16:9 projector and watch 4:3 material in the center of the screen, using movable masking on left and right of screen. That kind of masking, which can actually be done with draperies, is pretty easy and cheap to do.


The slow color wheel of the DPX-1 IMO makes it useless and totally obsolete. As WanMan points out, there are many 4:3 DLPs out there that are cheaper. And you could look at the new HP XB31 which has the second generation optics and 12 degree mirrors, resulting in a mind-boggling 1800:1 contrast and (if I recall correctly) 1500 lumens.


Dan

 

[clehner]

Quote:

Originally posted by DanHouck The slow color wheel of the DPX-1 IMO makes it useless and totally obsolete. As WanMan points out, there are many 4:3 DLPs out there that are cheaper.

Hi,

I don't second that. IMHO there is much more to a home theater optimized DLP than aspect ratio and resolution. I think the Yamaha is an excellent home theater projector. You could buy it in Japan and save a lot of dough, anyways

I haven't seen one DPX-1 fail or having dead pixels or anything the like. BTW: It contains a home theater optimized light engine by PLUS. If you want to cut the budget think about the Piano.


If money is no or little objective, think about an HT300


Regards

Christoph

 

[Tryg]

If you are sensative to rainbow artifact, do not waste your time looking at the Yamaha. It isn't even in the same league as the Sharp and Marantz

 

[WanMan]

Quote:

Originally posted by clehner Hi, I don't second that. IMHO there is much more to a home theater optimized DLP than aspect ratio and resolution. I think the Yamaha is an excellent home theater projector. You could buy it in Japan and save a lot of dough, anyways

You can buy a lot of projectors outside the US and save a bundle, includnig the Sharp and Marantz, and, and, and ...

Quote:

I haven't seen one DPX-1 fail or having dead pixels or anything the like. BTW: It contains a home theater optimized light engine by PLUS. If you want to cut the budget think about the Piano.

By the sam token, I've not see the Yamaha in demonstratino once that yielded anything buy truly poor results for DLP. This is observational, and even the sales people noted it and agreed.

Quote:

If money is no or little objective, think about an HT300 Regards Christoph

 

[DanHouck]

Clehner: I've actually seen the DPX-1 and it had rainbows as bad as anything I've ever seen, on the order of the original Infocus DLPs. So bad, I didn't even have to move my eyes. More recently, I saw the Sharp 9000 playing a rainbow-tough action flick and saw no rainbows. I would classify myself as moderately rainbow sensitive, but not ultra sensitive.


The slow color wheel is a deal killer IMO. No reason to buy this projector when the much more advanced Sharp or Marantz are out there.


Dan

 

[slimoli]

I think I'm one of the few who had a DPX-1 and now have the Sharp 9000. Let me tell you the main differences, in my opinion:



-The Yamaha is not a true HD projector. Programs like the Winter Olympics on NBC will look much better with the Sharp. The Yamaha is a native 4X3 and loses resolution if you use it on a 16X9 screen. If you have the dough to buy a front projector at these prices , why keep watching only 4X3 and ignoring the beauty of High Def programs???


-The colors on the Sharp are much better. The Yama always looked a bit "washed" to me.


-I don't see rainbows at all and don't want to see them. But my wife does, only with the Yamaha.


-Because the Yamaha is a native 4X3, there is a lot of "light spill" when using a 16X9 screen. The "halo" is about 25% of the whole picture and is VERY annoying.


-The internal scaler in the Yamaha is better than the Sharp. S-video will look better with the Yamaha . I don't use S-video with the Sharp , but if you have to it will be worse than with the Yamaha.


I am very happy with the Sharp and I never was with the Yamaha. I agree with people that suggests you should buy a cheaper projector instead if you really want to watch only 4X3. Otherwise, go for the Sharp or Marantz.


Sergio

 

[clehner]

Quote:

Originally posted by DanHouck Clehner: ... No reason to buy this projector when the much more advanced Sharp or Marantz are out there. Dan

Dan,

in theory you are right. The problem is: quality control and availability (Marantz expects people who order now to have there unit early fall here in Germany , every second Marantz I saw so far had a severe quality control problem, just do a search here in the forum; Sharp Germany drives their customers nuts by refusing to listen to their problems and complaints). In case you want to benefit from new technologies you have to have a company that can handle the new technology. The DPX-1 is a very conservative machine. However, it works. The rest is academic ... oh well, if you really want to benefit from the HD1 chip, get an HT300


Regards

Christoph

 

[clehner]

Quote:

Originally posted by slimoli I am very happy with the Sharp and I never was with the Yamaha.

Slimoli,

good for you, bad for the Yamaha. Yet, the forums here in Germany are full with unhappy Sharp9000 owners, although the European version of the Sharp is supposed to be optimzed for PAL (I doubt that). I built HTPCs for at least a dozen DPX-1s (which unfortunately I did not sell ), not one single complaint so far (neither about the DPX-1s nor about the HTPCs).


The technological advantages of the Sharp and the Marantz exist in theory, I have seen good units of both, however in practice there seem to be a vast number of problems (again: do a search here in the forum).


Regards

Christoph

 

[DanHouck]

Christoph: Sure can't argue the point about Sharp and Marantz problems. Actually, I've been counseling sitting on one's wallet for the moment until the problems are resolved. Of course, about that time, the HD2 projectors will start appearing. Rather like trying to hit a moving target, no?





Dan

 

[clehner]

Quote:

Originally posted by DanHouck Christoph: Sure can't argue the point about Sharp and Marantz problems. Actually, I've been counseling sitting on one's wallet for the moment until the problems are resolved. Of course, about that time, the HD2 projectors will start appearing. Rather like trying to hit a moving target, no? Dan

Dan,

why not (re-)consider my advice that the HT300 may be a more reasonable choice? SIM2 is specialized on HT-DLP projectors, makes sense that they offer better service and more reliable products. It's not that difficult


... and I repeat: The DPX-1 is not a bad machine ... in case you search for ALL rational arguments....


Christoph

 

[WanMan]

Quote:

Originally posted by clehner Slimoli, good for you, bad for the Yamaha. Yet, the forums here in Germany are full with unhappy Sharp9000 owners, although the European version of the Sharp is supposed to be optimzed for PAL (I doubt that). I built HTPCs for at least a dozen DPX-1s (which unfortunately I did not sell ), not one single complaint so far (neither about the DPX-1s nor about the HTPCs). Regards Christoph

I wonder if it has anything to do with the Sharp 9000 'E' version, or are we talking about a bunch of complaints on grey-imports? Let's be more specific. Although I do not know what, if anything, got truncated on the 'E' version of the 9000 (for Eurpoe only), maybe its the water all of you are drinking!?!

 

[clehner]

Quote:

Originally posted by WanMan maybe its the water all of you are drinking!?!

Yeah, very funny


Seriously: Those people paid a lot more than they would have paid for the Sharp via **********. Yet, they find only deaf ears at Sharp/Germany concerning issues with grey motion artefacts and ridicuolous overscan (8%) other than via the VGA input (did you check your overscan? Sorry if I pushed you out of paradise now ). Last but not least it is very essential for a DLP to be able to drive it with 50Hz via VGA for PAL in case you want to benefit from an HTPC signal. Sharp has nothing done on that matter, even half a year later.


Regards

Christoph

 

[Tony-V]

To all


A new Software(Firmware) Version has been released here in Europe.

There have been some major discussions in German forums about service issues and software updates from Sharp.Mainly because everybody wanted to have the latest and improved version asap. I live in Switzerland and have a Sharp XVZ-9000E. Yes! Sharp made promises about solving some issues and yes you might think a 7 month wait is long but in the end here it is.

I'll be receiving my update tomorrow from a friend.

As far as I have been told, it probably isn't necessary to have the projector sent to Sharp or a dealer.....but let's wait and see.


So what improvements have been confirmed:


- sharper image

- better shadow details

- deeper blacks

- Lip-sync has been improved

- slightly less overscan on Input 1+2 (now at 96%)


I will post my findings as soon as I have the new version.


Missing improvements:

-50Hz on Input 5


I do understand that many trying to use a HTPC for PAL are disappointed on the other hand, using a good dvd-player with DCDi or SI503/504 and no Chroma bug should give a great result with the new software version.


Just my 0.2$



Cheers


Anthony

 

[Mitch Sink]

Hi,


Thanks for all of the help!


More precisely my question is if my goal is optimum 4:3 instead of optimum 16:9 is there any substantial disadvantage (picture quality) with a 16:9 native projector?


On a properly maske 4:3 screen will there be light spill using a 16:9 native projector that will reduce the image quality?

Quote:

Because the Yamaha is a native 4X3, there is a lot of "light spill" when using a 16X9 screen.

Will the picture not be as bright as it should be since the whole chip is not being used?


Any other issues with 4:3 on a 16:9 DLP?


I am leaning towards the Yamaha and Marantz because they have good built in scaling and I think I can get a free ticket to Japan.


BTW does anyone know how much an HT300 costs in Italy?


Thanks again!


Mitch

 

[clehner]

Mitch,


the best thing for you is to see for yourself. The problem is you want to buy in Japan so there won't probably be much time for you to go shopping and do extensive testing.


People in this forum will give you varying answers to your questions depending on their individual experience and/or HT-ideology


All projectors have excellent internal scaler although everyone still benefits from an HTPC (IMHO, I have seen and tested them all).


And to answer your last question: The HT300 is 14.000 Euro all over Europe.


Regards

Christoph

 

[WanMan]

Currently, a Euro is about $0.92. So, 14,000 Euros are about US$12880. There is someone that lists in the AVS classifieds HT300s for US$8400

http://www.avsforum.com/classifieds/...uery=retrieval


That would be about $9130 Euros. So, what's the problem? And the individual selling these is in Austria!