2019 - 2020 projector releases ?

[betty boop]

3 minutes ago, oztheatre said:

Yeah but neither were calibrated, he used a phone, no tripod, and then took live moving images to compare with a split screen.. so kinda pointless really... Not a single test pattern or measurement given? Did he even set the contrast and brightness to start with? 

 Bizarre if comparing projectors without even setting up basics. Really ? What a waste of time !

[MLXXX]

2 hours ago, oztheatre said:

Yeah but neither were calibrated, he used a phone, no tripod, and then took live moving images to compare with a split screen.. so kinda pointless really... Not a single test pattern or measurement given? Did he even set the contrast and brightness to start with? 

The review was expressly stated to be of the "out of the box" performance, so the two projectors were not calibrated post-manufacture. It is what you'd encounter if you asked for a demo of these models in a showroom, relying on the manufacturer's default settings.  The reviewer mentions that he chose what he considered to be the "best, bright, out-of-the-box modes": cinema mode for the BenQ and natural mode for the Epson.

 

A lot of what the reviewer says you of course actually have to take on trust, as an electronic  camera does not capture the way human eyes do. In particular, the R G and B sensors of a camera do not have the same spectral response shapes as human cones.* For comparison purposes in a video review this might not matter quite so much if the two projectors used the same technology. However the BenQ is a DLP projector whereas the Epson is a 3LCD projector.   The spectral distribution they emit for nominal red, nominal green, and nominal blue would differ quite substantially. This means that you could adjust both projectors to deliver a particular shade of red, green or blue blue that might look identical to the average human eye,  and be correctly "calibrated" to the relevant colour standard, but a camera would almost certainly capture the shade of colour differently as between the two projectors. [Try photographing a flat panel plasma TV screen next to a flat panel LCD screen and you should find that that the camera distorts the colour of the two screens in different ways. The screens may look much the same to the human eye in real life, but quite different to each other in the photograph. ]

 

Despite the considerable limitations of using a camera to capture projector screen images, I found the video interesting, not least because the reviewer seemed to have a sincere desire to share and comment on his experience of comparing the two uncalibrated projectors, using his own eyes.

_________

 

* The following diagram (from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoreceptor_cell) shows the typical spectral response of human cones (and rods). Neither mobile phone cameras nor professional cameras use sensors that match these spectral response curves of the human eye:-

 

[Javs]

9 hours ago, shadowboy said:

That  Epson vs. BenQ review by Scott's Tech and Stuff  was so much better those terrible Dreamedia Home Theater reviews.  Given the lack of good video reviews of these new projectors we need people like Javs, Kris Deering, and Arrow to start making and posting video reviews. Though of course there was still no review about the 3D on either projector.  Reviewers really must stop thinking that no one cares about 3D.

The BenQ will not have good 3D at all because of the XPR chip-set not being a clean multiple of 1080p so it will be scaling (badly) in 3D and look all soft and blurry. My JVC X9500 absolutely destroyed the BenQ LK990 I had here in 3D, it was drastic, because the JVC will just go into its sharp native 1080p mode and display proper 1:1 pixel mapping in 3D.

 

So, based on that, the Epson would have far better 3D. But it will also have ghosting. The BenQ has no ghosting at all being DLP. but for me, the blurriness made all that useless anyway.

[oztheatre]

6 hours ago, MLXXX said:

The review was expressly stated to be of the "out of the box" performance, so the two projectors were not calibrated post-manufacture. It is what you'd encounter if you asked for a demo of these models in a showroom, relying on the manufacturer's default settings.  The reviewer mentions that he chose what he considered to be the "best, bright, out-of-the-box modes": cinema mode for the BenQ and natural mode for the Epson.

 

A lot of what the reviewer says you of course actually have to take on trust, as an electronic  camera does not capture the way human eyes do. In particular, the R G and B sensors of a camera do not have the same spectral response shapes as human cones.* For comparison purposes in a video review this might not matter quite so much if the two projectors used the same technology. However the BenQ is a DLP projector whereas the Epson is a 3LCD projector.   The spectral distribution they emit for nominal red, nominal green, and nominal blue would differ quite substantially. This means that you could adjust both projectors to deliver a particular shade of red, green or blue blue that might look identical to the average human eye,  and be correctly "calibrated" to the relevant colour standard, but a camera would almost certainly capture the shade of colour differently as between the two projectors. [Try photographing a flat panel plasma TV screen next to a flat panel LCD screen and you should find that that the camera distorts the colour of the two screens in different ways. The screens may look much the same to the human eye in real life, but quite different to each other in the photograph. ]

 

Despite the considerable limitations of using a camera to capture projector screen images, I found the video interesting, not least because the reviewer seemed to have a sincere desire to share and comment on his experience of comparing the two uncalibrated projectors, using his own eyes.

_________

 

* The following diagram (from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoreceptor_cell) shows the typical spectral response of human cones (and rods). Neither mobile phone cameras nor professional cameras use sensors that match these spectral response curves of the human eye:-

 

 

It's all subjective. I find cinema mode on the 9400 to be better 'out of the box' as it's brighter for one.

I just found the comparison to be completely lacking, the split screen thing was silly. He's no doubt 'keen to make a video and share his thoughts'.. but so what? I could be as keen as anything to make a video, but I'm not a calibrator or a projector reviewer (nor is that guy) so I'd only be kidding myself and I'd be giving out inaccurate information, which is what he did. Like doing a review on 2 4WD vehicles and never once taking them off road.

 

I would expect at a bare minimum, lumens, native contrast numbers, ansi contrast, then check optics using test patterns, edge to edge etc. This guy filmed the projectors with an iphone without a tripod.... un calibrated, split screen, no test patterns, no checks, no contrast numbers, no lumen output figures.. Like I said, quite pointless. 

 

When you're playing with people's hard earned money, there is a need to get this stuff right. 

Edited May 14, 2019 by oztheatre

[betty boop]

there are some real problems in the review posted...ok its fine as an out of box and use an iPhone. but it is very limiting. who on earth is going to buy a projector at this level and just use it out of box ? note I am not suggesting these have to be fully calibrated or anything out of box for a demo and comparison, often these things out of box are actually pretty good calibration wise. but you still have to do some basic setup to do them justice ! 

 

and really as a prior epson owner (using same base chips) I can tell you natural mode is certainly not natural.....also what lamp output is he running it on ? eco ?  high ?  this is really important has he set these for output if its just most brightest ? really ? if so will be completely whacko in colour balance ! has he setup the brightness and contrast even ? looks to me just out of box so not setup either at all for SDR or HDR ? sounds bizarre to me. would take a few minutes to even just setup for output and run some test patterns to tweak up. its quite clear with the uhd HDR he is not even selecting an appropriately setup  mode for the epson...once setup you are going to get a completely different story.

 

also an iPhone for this kind of thing to do justice is really not good. I am an iphone xs owner myself(the latest one). if doing any screen shots id be using a full frame or aps-c sensor camera at the minimum and from actually viewing distance using focal length optics to best mimic human eye. his close to the screen shots ... even if pixel shifting with jvc for instance you dont see screen door as you do with the epson. you dont need individual pixels for that as he contends. and certainly neither of these projectors are native 4k in any case. 

 

re 3D I remember knock out 3D on epson it was a step up from pre x7000 jvc projector I had, but the x7000 was certainly a step up again I felt. its a pity to hear dlp isnt as good on 3D as that was always a strength of DLP.

 

ultimately while its a good overview of either projector its really disappointing that it is literally just out of box and without even THE most rudimentary of setup for installation. projectors ARE not plug and play and demoing them and comparing them like this I dont see point of. there should have been a follow up on demoing these setup as just leaving this here with out of box is a bit pointless. 

[oztheatre]

Even Art's reviews are lacking. Photos of at least calibrated machines, but no real readings for us to go off.

 

[MLXXX]

4 hours ago, oztheatre said:

I would expect at a bare minimum, lumens, native contrast numbers, ansi contrast, then check optics using test patterns, edge to edge etc. This guy filmed the projectors with an iphone without a tripod.... un calibrated, split screen, no test patterns, no checks, no contrast numbers, no lumen output figures.. Like I said, quite pointless. 

Certainly it was not a review using measurements. It was a review using the enthusiast's eyes. What he saw would be similar to what a customer would see if they walked into a showroom and asked to see the two projector models working side by side [out-of-the-box].

 

In the video he reports what he is seeing. He could have done it as an audio recording, or even as a written [subjective] report.  The video adds interest and shows that his subjective evaluations were actually made with the two out-of-the-box projectors in operation simultaneously. (This was not a case of visiting one showroom one day, and another showroom another day.)
 

                                                                                      *  *  *

 

I thought the positioning of barriers a few centimetres in front of the lenses to block out the left or right side and provide a split screen view, on a single physical projector screen, a neat trick.  Has anyone seen an equivalent setup in a showroom for comparing two projectors?

[shadowboy]

14 hours ago, oztheatre said:

Yeah but neither were calibrated, he used a phone, no tripod, and then took live moving images to compare with a split screen.. so kinda pointless really... Not a single test pattern or measurement given? Did he even set the contrast and brightness to start with? 

That's exactly my point.  Despite  the failings or limitations of the review it was still better than Dreamedia reviews. The only other reviews I've come across are European foreign language videos that are useless to english speaking viewers.  That's why I say that we need people like Kris or Arrow or Chad, people with calibration knowledge, to post in-depth videos which cover all the issues that forum  followers desire information about.  Many here don't have access to demo-ing of the  new projectors so we depend on the information and reviews of others to inform our decisions. Even Art's reviews at projectorreviews.com seem a bit "lite" these days when it comes fair and in-depth comparisons between projectors.  The only other video I have seen is by Films At Home, and that guy has never owned a projector before.

I agree about the use of moving pictures in these reviews.  One of my main complaints about Dreamedia reviews is that he picks some of the worst films  to showcase the image (Mission Impossible, Marvel movies, things with fast cuts and pans).  Mark Henninger(imagic) posted a brief review of the Epson 505UB at the start of an owners thread and there's the aforementioned Art Feierman review, but that's about it.  Waiting patiently for Arrow's comparisons.  It just seems like there is a void there waiting for  some talented, knowledgeable person to become the go-to video reviewer on You-Tube for projectors.

[oztheatre]

8 minutes ago, MLXXX said:

Certainly it was not a review using measurements. It was a review using the enthusiast's eyes. What he saw would be similar to what a customer would see if they walked into a showroom and asked to see the two projector models working side by side [out-of-the-box].

 

In the video he reports what he is seeing. He could have done it as an audio recording, or even as a written [subjective] report.  The video adds interest and shows that his subjective evaluations were actually made with the two out-of-the-box projectors in operation simultaneously. (This was not a case of visiting one showroom one day, and another showroom another day.)
 

                                                                                      *  *  *

 

I thought the positioning of barriers a few centimetres in front of the lenses to block out the left or right side and provide a split screen view, on a single physical projector screen, a neat trick.  Has anyone seen an equivalent setup in a showroom for comparing two projectors?

Yes it was more a of fan review than something more serious. I'm getting both of mine calibrated before really commenting on them outside of optics and features, remotes and black level etc. Every store should be getting their projectors calibrated or at least tweaked with the basics (many do though). Luckily the JVC's have been good out of the box in the past and needed little work. Same for the sony's, but the Benq and Epson appear to need more work.

 

But I agree with the calibrators, the image can be improved and that's what people should be able to see, is the projector running at it's finest.

 

Yes woofer on here has done some split screen shots of the LK970 and his Z1.

[MLXXX]

5 hours ago, Javs said:

The BenQ will not have good 3D at all because of the XPR chip-set not being a clean multiple of 1080p so it will be scaling (badly) in 3D and look all soft and blurry.

Typically Full HD 3D Blu-rays are pretty soft to begin with. For example Avatar is very soft.  I myself would be inclined to go for a device with low 3D cross-talk, and not be as concerned about image softness from scaling. (I note that image processing for sharpening is not as straightforward with 3D as the sharpening could create unintended disparities between the left and right views.)

 

Another issue is the left view right view alternation rate in 3D mode for different frame rate source material (source material at  24p, 50i, 60i, 50p, or 60p) something often not mentioned at all in reviews, or even in the manufacturer's published specifications for the projector. Is the left-right alternation rate 100Hz, 120Hz, 144Hz, 96Hz, or something else?

[betty boop]

18 minutes ago, shadowboy said:

That's exactly my point.  Despite  the failings or limitations of the review it was still better than Dreamedia reviews. The only other reviews I've come across are European foreign language videos that are useless to english speaking viewers.  That's why I say that we need people like Kris or Arrow or Chad, people with calibration knowledge, to post in-depth videos which cover all the issues that forum  followers desire information about.  Many here don't have access to demo-ing of the  new projectors so we depend on the information and reviews of others to inform our decisions. Even Art's reviews at projectorreviews.com seem a bit "lite" these days when it comes fair and in-depth comparisons between projectors.  The only other video I have seen is by Films At Home, and that guy has never owned a projector before.

do you think there is a base lack of understanding out there that you need to do even the most basic rudimentary setup with projectors ? ie not just hooking it up and zooming to fit the picture on screen (something our friend at dream media cant even seem to manage  ) 

 

is there a lack of understand on picture possible given different modes on the projector and different settings needed for SDR / HDR ? 

 

how on earth do people feel they can provide any sort of comparative evaluation given such a flawed comparison I have no idea ! 

[Javs]

1 minute ago, MLXXX said:

Typically Full HD 3D Blu-rays are pretty soft to begin with. For example Avatar is very soft.  I myself would be inclined to go for a device with low 3D cross-talk, and not be as concerned about image softness from scaling. (I note that image processing for sharpening is not as straightforward with 3D as the sharpening could create unintended disparities between the left and right views.)

 

Another issue is the left view right view alternation rate in 3D mode for different frame rate source material (source material at  24p, 50i, 60i, 50p, or 60p) something often not mentioned at all in reviews, or even in the manufacturer's published specifications for the projector. Is the left-right alternation rate 100Hz, 120Hz, 144Hz, 96Hz, or something else?

Its funny you mention Avatar because that's the film where I notice the BenQ looked horrible and my JVC looked sharp, it was night and day. I dont use image sharpening on the JVC either so it was a fair match.

 

The JVC has zero crosstalk at crosstalk cancel -4 on my screen anyway so its a non issue there. If you are brightness starved then you might need the extra brightness of the BenQ.

 

Trust me mate, you would notice the image just looked really soft.

 

The BenQ is 120hz and the JVC is 96hz.

[betty boop]

9 minutes ago, oztheatre said:

Yes it was more a of fan review than something more serious. I'm getting both of mine calibrated before really commenting on them outside of optics and features, remotes and black level etc. Every store should be getting their projectors calibrated or at least tweaked with the basics (many do though). Luckily the JVC's have been good out of the box in the past and needed little work. Same for the sony's, but the Benq and Epson appear to need more work.

 

most do ... eg remember going to a gtg at cleff locally years back and even a basic epson of the time they had their calibrator make sure it was doing its best for the night. whats the point other wise ?

 

yes some are decent out of box. but these aren't tellies you can just plonk them in the room hook them up and good to go. every projector performance is going to be determined by its specific installation. no maker can cater for that out of box. impossible and to be expecting every projector to be worthy to be compared in that state out of box is very naive I would suggest. by all means out of box comparison is ok, as tells people what its like out of box.... but a bit meaningless as used in any other setting is likely quite different and really quite different . and unless then go on  do even some basic setup just plain meaningless overall ? 

9 minutes ago, oztheatre said:

But I agree with the calibrators, the image can be improved and that's what people should be able to see, is the projector running at it's finest.

absolutely can be improved upon. re calibration many eg benq are providing calibration settings out of box. same with epson I found on its base eco thx it was not far off where it calibrated out to. where "out of box" its pretty good. however that doesnt set aside some basic setup needed and selecting the right modes ?  

9 minutes ago, oztheatre said:

Yes woofer on here has done some split screen shots of the LK970 and his Z1.

likes of zombie been doing this for years .... the cardboard in front of the projector for side by side. I dont mind either but i personally like to see the whole picture to take it in

[betty boop]

2 minutes ago, Javs said:

Its funny you mention Avatar because that's the film where I notice the BenQ looked horrible and my JVC looked sharp, it was night and day. I dont use image sharpening on the JVC either so it was a fair match.

 

The JVC has zero crosstalk at crosstalk cancel -4 on my screen anyway so its a non issue there. If you are brightness starved then you might need the extra brightness of the BenQ.

 

Trust me mate, you would notice the image just looked really soft.

 

The BenQ is 120hz and the JVC is 96hz.

this is a real pity to hear with regards the benq ... how are other 2019 projectors playing out with 3D eg the new jvc range ... upto performance of previous jvc range as got nothing to grumble about with the superseded jvc range on 3D  

[Javs]

1 minute ago, betty boop said:

this is a real pity to hear with regards the benq ... how are other 2019 projectors playing out with 3D eg the new jvc range ... upto performance of previous jvc range as got nothing to grumble about with the superseded jvc range on 3D  

Jason (Zombie) says the 3D on the new 4K models is as good as the old ones.

 

Also being native 4K it can very simply and cleanly use pixel doubling to display 1080p.

 

The BenQ with its XPR chips (and any other brand which uses them) is having to scale 1080p to some odd 2400x something resolution which is not clean, thus ends up looking super soft.

[betty boop]

1 minute ago, Javs said:

Jason (Zombie) says the 3D on the new 4K models is as good as the old ones.

 

Also being native 4K it can very simply and cleanly use pixel doubling to display 1080p.

phew this is a relief  I know they got some other niggles but thank goodness this is still right  

 

 

1 minute ago, Javs said:

The BenQ with its XPR chips (and any other brand which uses them) is having to scale 1080p to some odd 2400x something resolution which is not clean, thus ends up looking super soft.

I do wonder how they are going to solve this. unless they can determine some cleaner scaling ? DLP has always been a bit of a king at 3D so something no doubt likes of benq be working hard at I imagine.

[Javs]

4 minutes ago, betty boop said:

I do wonder how they are going to solve this. unless they can determine some cleaner scaling ? DLP has always been a bit of a king at 3D so something no doubt likes of benq be working hard at I imagine.

By going native 4k

[MLXXX]

5 minutes ago, Javs said:

he BenQ with its XPR chips (and any other brand which uses them) is having to scale 1080p to some odd 2400x something resolution which is not clean, thus ends up looking super soft.

If video looks "super soft" after being resampled (upscaled) from a 1080p format on a Blu-ray disc to a 2400 or so format for display, then I suggest there must be other factors in play, such as contrast, or the nature and extent of image sharpening. Computer generated text and graphics is best upscaled using an integer multiple, to maintain sharp pixel boundary content, but alias-free video of a feature film is so soft to begin with, there should be no need to restrict the resampling to integer multiples.*

 

Anyway, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. If the BenQ XPR chip picture actually looks soft, so be it!

 

________

 

* If anyone doubts this, take a 1080p frame ripped from a scene in a Full HD Blu-ray, upscale it to 2403p (or some other odd value around 2400) with image manipulation software (e.g. GIMP) using a reasonably sophisticated algorithm (e.g. bicubic interpolation), and then downscale the image back to 1080p. Any increase in the apparent "softness" after the two resamplings compared with the softness of the original frame, should be minor.

[MLXXX]

1 hour ago, Javs said:

The BenQ is 120hz and the JVC is 96hz.

I see. I may be hypersensitive but I've found that using a left-right 3D alternation rate of 120Hz, or only 96Hz, is no good for my vision.  I see mirage effects and/or a "jumbled" look. (I discovered my sensitivity to the alternation rate back in 2010 and 2011, with early 3D displays and projectors.) I would go for 144Hz or even higher.

 

These days I use a Full HD BenQ 3D projector, a  W2000, which reportedly has a 144Hz 3D alternation rate when displaying a 24p frame packed source.

[Javs]

If video looks "super soft" after being resampled (upscaled) from a 1080p format on a Blu-ray disc to a 2400 or so format for display, then I suggest there must be other factors in play, such as contrast, or the nature and extent of image sharpening. Computer generated text and graphics is best upscaled using an integer multiple, to maintain sharp pixel boundary content, but alias-free video of a feature film is so soft to begin with, there should be no need to restrict the resampling to integer multiples.*
 
Anyway, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. If the BenQ XPR chip picture actually looks soft, so be it!
 
________
 
* If anyone doubts this, take a 1080p frame ripped from a scene in a Full HD Blu-ray, upscale it to 2403p (or some other odd value around 2400) with image manipulation software (e.g. GIMP) using a reasonably sophisticated algorithm (e.g. bicubic interpolation), and then downscale the image back to 1080p. Any increase in the apparent "softness" after the two resamplings compared with the softness of the original frame, should be minor.

That all depends on your scaling algorithms. It seems the BenQ one is very bad when using 3d... I'm not sure which, nearest neighbour, bicubic etc...

The JVC in 3d mode is in native resolution technically. No scaling at all, no image enhancements used, I have them all off on the JVC these days. Both overlaid images paused playing same exact source.

I walked right up to the screen too, the JVC had proper hard edges on detail such as Jake in his wheelchair. There was a guy's face in the background just a blurry mess on the BenQ and I could make out facial features on the JVC.

It was the shot where he is getting a briefing from Quatrich while looking at the Holo map.

The XPR upscaling when using 4k input though in 2d is very very sharp and easily beats JVC eshift hands down. It's just horrible in 3D. No way around it.

[Javs]

I see. I may be hypersensitive but I've found that using a left-right 3D alternation rate of 120Hz, or only 96Hz, is no good for my vision.  I see mirage effects and/or a "jumbled" look. (I discovered my sensitivity to the alternation rate back in 2010 and 2011, with early 3D displays and projectors.) I would go for 144Hz or even higher.
 
These days I use a Full HD BenQ 3D projector, a  W2000, which reportedly has a 144Hz 3D alternation rate when displaying a 24p frame packed source.

I found the hectic rainbows more objectionable on the BenQ to be honest

[MLXXX]

1 minute ago, Javs said:

I found the hectic rainbows more objectionable on the BenQ to be honest

It really is amazing isn't it how different people have different sensitivities!  What is at the borderline of perception for one person can be a deal-breaker for another. 

 

I can see colour separation of a white line on a sports field displayed on a plasma TV if the camera is panning, if I go out of my way to look for the effect. Similarly with RBE with modern colour wheel DLP projectors I really need to look out for the effect to see it all all.

 

On the other hand, I find a 100Hz alternation rate for 50p 3D, disconcerting to watch whenever there is reasonably fast action on the screen. I see a watery effect similar to what you can see looking along a long bitumen road on a very hot day, caused by layers of air of different density near the surface of the road. (The problem is that the left and right images seen through the shutter glasses are not being displayed in sync with each other, but with a small time displacement. The lower the alternation rate, the greater the time disparity.)

[warroon]

I’ve only watched Ragnaroc in 3D on my N5, but the image was outstanding, clean and sharp with no need to adjust crosstalk.  It is a substantial improvement in 3D performance over my X35 ... much brighter, so much in fact that I watched most of it on low lamp.

 

the N5 does require each input and 3D to be calibrated to look it’s best ... OOTB settings are seriously overcooked for most things except 4K HDR.

 

The other curious thing to report is that my old JVC 3D glasses, and cheap LG ones, work fine ... so reports of the polerisation changing must have been a bug and fixed in updated firmware.

Edited May 18, 2019 by warroon

[betty boop]

3 minutes ago, warroon said:

I’ve only watched Ragnaroc in 3D on my N5, but the image was outstanding, clean and sharp with no need to adjust crosstalk.  It is a substantial improvement in 3D performance over my X35 ... much brighter, so much in fact that I watched most of it on low lamp.

 

the N5 does require each input and 3D to be calibrated to look it’s best ... OOTB settings are seriously overcooked for most things except 4K HDR.

 

The other curious thing to report is that my old JVC 3D glasses, and cheap LG ones, work fine ... so reports of the polerisation changing must have been a bug and fixed in updated firmware.

good ot hear as a past x35 owner I saw good gains in 3D to x7000 so good to hear these new gen are good too  I use 3D in low lamp as well.

 

good your glasses are working. I think more related to screen you use. if a "normal" one be no bother. its the ones with polarisation in certain direction eg high gain and such likely impacted

 

 

[cwt]

On 15/05/2019 at 10:24 AM, oztheatre said:

Even Art's reviews are lacking. Photos of at least calibrated machines, but no real readings for us to go off.

 

Was surprised to see Scotts close link with Art Rich which will be fleshed out when Art gets his hands on the Benq and does his more thorough review

https://www.projectorreviews.com/benq/benq-ht5550-4k-uhd-home-theater-projector-a-first-look-review/

 

 

Edited May 19, 2019 by cwt