Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
HDobsession

New Epson TW 9400?

Recommended Posts

take the cost of the 9300

minus resale value (based on past sales not imagined)

allow for "use" value

then add whats left to the cost of the 9400

is the 9400 pq worth that  $ figure ?

only you can decide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Pedro Anders said:

Having had both an X35 and a 9300, the 9300 is way better for standard Blu-ray content.

 

I'm not sure if it is worth upgrading to the 9400 or not? I mostly watch UHD BD content.

Musts been one very crook x35? Ever get it calibrated or properly setup ?

 

Re 9300 or 9400 calibrate in capable hands  both and should be identical ...

 

id say not worth upgrade wait for next gen of epson if looking for significant step up ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 9300 vs 9400. They're not identical. Talk to someone who's had both, I have.

 

Best to get 10 year old 1080 jvc, after all, nothing's changed and they're all the same.

If you like 700 lumens that is 🤣

Edited by oztheatre

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve had both. And let me tell you there’s a jump in brightness and picture quality in the 9400. If you are watching 4K HDR I highly recommend the 9400.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


3 hours ago, HDobsession said:

I’ve had both. And let me tell you there’s a jump in brightness and picture quality in the 9400. If you are watching 4K HDR I highly recommend the 9400.

What I've been saying. This round got a better lens as Epson engineers also said. I'll see if I can find my 9300 lens shots showing the dreadful CA. This 9400 has virtually zero CA in the lens. Makes a good difference. Better, less CA than all my previous JVC's too. Though the X7500 was still excellent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

correction we were talking jvc x35 which is not a 10 year old projector i had one upto 3-4 years ago and it was released in 2013-4 making 5-6 year old projector. it was a SD projector and while was capable of 700-950 calibrated lumens it has to be seen in the sense that with SD blu-ray
(which was what we were discussing) and it was designed for you only need 12-16 FL on screen ie 14LF nominal and can easily do this on low lamp. it achieved 50,000:1 native contrast which epson design cannot achieve. while epson can certainly achieve more lumen ( i have personal experience of this) this is not of the calibrated nature. Crank up to upper and everything goes out of whack on colour balance. if we are comparing blue-ray and both calibrated showing 12-16=FL the JVC will win for its contrast ability. and this I have seen even in non dedicated room

 

re the 9300 vs 9400. the 9400 certainly comes with some pre programmed modes. however calibrate both. and why i asked the question if both had been calibtrated and they should be identical. if don't know how to calibrate id suggest using a professional calibrator. I certainly wouldn't replace a 9300 with a 9400 and bear the cost of change over. if had a 9300 id simply get it professionally calibrated instead. the epsons are certainly capable of pretty decent result. but like any projector these are not out of box machines. ie not like tellies you plug in the wall stick on the bench and good to go. they need some attention in basic setup and calibration especially with UHD and HDR. don t do this and you are unlikely seeing best from them :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, betty boop said:

correction we were talking jvc x35 which is not a 10 year old projector i had one upto 3-4 years ago and it was released in 2013-4 making 5-6 year old projector. it was a SD projector and while was capable of 700-950 calibrated lumens it has to be seen in the sense that with SD blu-ray
(which was what we were discussing) and it was designed for you only need 12-16 FL on screen ie 14LF nominal and can easily do this on low lamp. it achieved 50,000:1 native contrast which epson design cannot achieve. while epson can certainly achieve more lumen ( i have personal experience of this) this is not of the calibrated nature. Crank up to upper and everything goes out of whack on colour balance. if we are comparing blue-ray and both calibrated showing 12-16=FL the JVC will win for its contrast ability. and this I have seen even in non dedicated room

 

re the 9300 vs 9400. the 9400 certainly comes with some pre programmed modes. however calibrate both. and why i asked the question if both had been calibtrated and they should be identical. if don't know how to calibrate id suggest using a professional calibrator. I certainly wouldn't replace a 9300 with a 9400 and bear the cost of change over. if had a 9300 id simply get it professionally calibrated instead. the epsons are certainly capable of pretty decent result. but like any projector these are not out of box machines. ie not like tellies you plug in the wall stick on the bench and good to go. they need some attention in basic setup and calibration especially with UHD and HDR. don t do this and you are unlikely seeing best from them :) 

It's still 1080p, low lumens and can't do HDR. But good value if you get a 2nd hand one for 1500 bucks, I'd even buy one if the lens was ok as they were good projectors for the time. 

 

Now to say the 9300 and 9400 are identical is like saying all the JVC's are identical and the jokes on us. I can see the difference as does HDobsession also. 

 

Actually out the box they're more accurate than most, one chap on AVS said he could not believe how little was changed in the menu/colour etc to get it calibrated. So they're quite excellent out the box. I wouldn't even bother calibrating myself. Perfectly happy with it. And I come from owing pretty much every JVC that's ever been made plus most of the Sony's including the 760ES.

 

I rate the optics as the most important feature set over contrast IF contrast is acceptable (and I find the epson acceptable). I'd rather a sharp clear image with no CA or convergence problems over blacker space blacks any day of the week. That's just me though. Each to their own. You can have all the pixels in the world, 32K, and with an average lens, you no longer have a 32K projector. Same for 4K. The lens array needs to be up to that standard, otherwise it's not a 4K image. 

 

Forget pixels, they've tried to brainwash us and up sell us. Next 8k will come and a 2K projector with a great lens will be better viewing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/07/2019 at 2:25 PM, betty boop said:

Musts been one very crook x35? Ever get it calibrated or properly setup ?

 

Re 9300 or 9400 calibrate in capable hands  both and should be identical ...

 

id say not worth upgrade wait for next gen of epson if looking for significant step up ...

I'm a colourist for a living, I work on feature films, commercials, documentaries etc. I calibrated both with a Klein K10A. The X35 just isn't as good on almost any measure as the 9300. I'm borrowing a 9400 to compare it to the 9300, it should be interesting.

The X35 is a good projector, but the picture on the Epson is better in my bat cave theatre.

Edited by Pedro Anders

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Is the x35 stuffed broken in some ways ? How many hours has it gone overall ? At what part of life it’s lamp ? Original lamp ?  the benefit it has in contrast not visible  ? I find that very hard to believe given x35  I have owned and seen in few occasions since vs professionally setup and calibrated 9300 and 9400 have also seen.

 

Obviously it is what it is. Whatever is best decision and works best for you. Definitely worth borrowing if can. the 9300 / 9400 should be identical if you calibrate them and setup properly. presuming have ability to calibrate setup for both SDR and HDR ? Not just using presets :)

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 14/07/2019 at 6:18 PM, oztheatre said:

It's still 1080p, low lumens and can't do HDR.

Yes it is 1080p and low lumens but it has much higher native contrast and a much darker native black level.

Any projector can "do HDR", you just need to do the appropriate tone mapping externally. PC based tone mapping is ahead of anything used in current projectors.

 

On 14/07/2019 at 6:18 PM, oztheatre said:

I rate the optics as the most important feature set over contrast IF contrast is acceptable (and I find the epson acceptable). I'd rather a sharp clear image with no CA or convergence problems over blacker space blacks any day of the week.

Even cheap data grade projector lenses can resolve 20K plus, if they did not you would not be able to see the black gaps between the pixels.

What matters to the human perception of image sharpness is the MTF performance of the lens at MUCH lower spatial frequencies down around 1K. The thing is, digital sharpening is very effective at correcting MTF over the range of spatial frequencies that matter for image sharpness and when viewing a projector you wont know if the sharpness you see is due to the lens or digital sharpening unless the lens is REALLY poor. Any lens that bad on a projector costing $4k plus would be defective.

 

Its a good trick for manufacturers to improve the sharpening system and claim the sharper image is due to a lens improvement. 😉 

Clever sharping makes a really significant difference, more so than a lens will make as far as apparent sharpness is concerned.

 

Good quality projectors don't have CA issues unless the lens is faulty, and bad convergence is a manufacturing defect and warrants a replacement projector.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Owen said:

Yes it is 1080p and low lumens but it has much higher native contrast and a much darker native black level.

Any projector can "do HDR", you just need to do the appropriate tone mapping externally. PC based tone mapping is ahead of anything used in current projectors.

 

Even cheap data grade projector lenses can resolve 20K plus, if they did not you would not be able to see the black gaps between the pixels.

What matters to the human perception of image sharpness is the MTF performance of the lens at MUCH lower spatial frequencies down around 1K. The thing is, digital sharpening is very effective at correcting MTF over the range of spatial frequencies that matter for image sharpness and when viewing a projector you wont know if the sharpness you see is due to the lens or digital sharpening unless the lens is REALLY poor. Any lens that bad on a projector costing $4k plus would be defective.

 

Its a good trick for manufacturers to improve the sharpening system and claim the sharper image is due to a lens improvement. 😉 

Clever sharping makes a really significant difference, more so than a lens will make as far as apparent sharpness is concerned.

 

Good quality projectors don't have CA issues unless the lens is faulty, and bad convergence is a manufacturing defect and warrants a replacement projector.

Thanks for explaining. But keep in mind Owen, HT based PC's cater to about 1% of users, maybe even less. ie most wont bother as these projectors are 'good enough' to enjoy watching movies on. I have virtually zero complaints about this new epson and I'm a long time JVC and Sony owner, so they must be doing something right.

 

Good quality projectors can and do have CA issues. It's like the panel lottery for televisions. too much variance in the tolerances combined with damage in transit can lead to a woefully bad image even on a 50K projector. Not all, but it does happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So here we have That Home Theater Dude review and shootout between the 5050UB and 6050UB. (I think the 5050UB was slightly out of focus tbh. the difference isn't that grand)

 

And the comment about the 'vast difference' and 'leagues ahead' between it and the TW9300 (5040UB) reinforces what I've said about the optics once again.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


so.. i had only read about this projector and to be fair the current crop of similar brands (at this price point). I just came back from the home show and popped my head in to the Big Picture peoples set up. I couldn't believe the advances in picture quality that has occurred in projectors. 

 

Coming from a 9000W for a similar price point now the 9400 is better and not just by a lot, I mean it's better by a quantum leap amount. They then told me it's a 1080p BluRay that they were playing not a UHD!.. now this part I find hard to swallow, as what I was seeing looked stunning. It was a specific part of Thor Ragnarok so I'm not sure if it was colour edited show disk or not, but wow.

I didn't even have to convince my wife that it's time to upgrade, the picture did the sell!

Time to break open the piggy bank! 

 

Might be reaching out to ☝️

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, roh008 said:

so.. i had only read about this projector and to be fair the current crop of similar brands (at this price point). I just came back from the home show and popped my head in to the Big Picture peoples set up. I couldn't believe the advances in picture quality that has occurred in projectors. 

 

Coming from a 9000W for a similar price point now the 9400 is better and not just by a lot, I mean it's better by a quantum leap amount. They then told me it's a 1080p BluRay that they were playing not a UHD!.. now this part I find hard to swallow, as what I was seeing looked stunning. It was a specific part of Thor Ragnarok so I'm not sure if it was colour edited show disk or not, but wow.

I didn't even have to convince my wife that it's time to upgrade, the picture did the sell!

Time to break open the piggy bank! 

 

Might be reaching out to ☝️

Let us know your thoughts on it once you have set up, would be interested to hear as I still got my 9000w and I know its time for a upgrade to..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 13/07/2019 at 8:47 PM, betty boop said:

correction we were talking jvc x35 which is not a 10 year old projector i had one upto 3-4 years ago and it was released in 2013-4 making 5-6 year old projector. it was a SD projector and while was capable of 700-950 calibrated lumens it has to be seen in the sense that with SD blu-ray
(which was what we were discussing) and it was designed for you only need 12-16 FL on screen ie 14LF nominal and can easily do this on low lamp. it achieved 50,000:1 native contrast which epson design cannot achieve. while epson can certainly achieve more lumen ( i have personal experience of this) this is not of the calibrated nature. Crank up to upper and everything goes out of whack on colour balance. if we are comparing blue-ray and both calibrated showing 12-16=FL the JVC will win for its contrast ability. and this I have seen even in non dedicated room

 

re the 9300 vs 9400. the 9400 certainly comes with some pre programmed modes. however calibrate both. and why i asked the question if both had been calibtrated and they should be identical. if don't know how to calibrate id suggest using a professional calibrator. I certainly wouldn't replace a 9300 with a 9400 and bear the cost of change over. if had a 9300 id simply get it professionally calibrated instead. the epsons are certainly capable of pretty decent result. but like any projector these are not out of box machines. ie not like tellies you plug in the wall stick on the bench and good to go. they need some attention in basic setup and calibration especially with UHD and HDR. don t do this and you are unlikely seeing best from them :) 

Mmm... I’ve seen both in my own home. 

 

I’ll take the 9400 any day of the week. 

The Epson has 2x the ANSI and very very similar black level when calibrated. 

 

The Epson also has a much better colour management system and a dynamic iris. It’s also heaps more flexible and better at HDR than even my x9500 due to the ANSI and brightness when used in a bright calibrated HDR mode. It’s also sharper than the x9500 due to a better lens and better pixel shifting. 

 

Sure the x9500 is amazing with sci fi dark blue at material. Of course! But not nearly as flexible! 

 

The Epson 9400 throws an amazing image once calibrated! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, the worst ever JVC I have seen with bad ANSI and overly distracting black bars was the JVC x5000! Horrible bleed of bright areas into the black bars. It was so distracting I had to let go of it. 

 

That unit had 40000 : 1 native contrast and a dynamic iris. The 9400 behaves much much better than that unit so I think they can take their on/off contrast and put it where black bars don’t shine! 😜 it means squat if you don’t control light bleed. 

 

Don’t get get me wrong. JVC makes great projectors... for blu Ray watching. But I would only go for the 7xxxx and 9xxxx lines. Unfortunately as they increased lumens, the 5xxxx line’s weaknesses became more and more apparent to me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Just taken delivery of a 9400. A few movies last night with some basic 'recommended' settings. Will do a more detailed calibration at 25hrs and again at 100hrs.

 

So far i'm liking it. Bit of a step up from the X5000 I had previously especially in HDR

 

projectors of the past Epson 9100, JVC X3, JVC X5000 and now to Epson 9400

Edited by Johnny_Boy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Johnny_Boy said:

Just taken delivery of a 9400. A few movies last night with some basic 'recommended' settings. Will do a more detailed calibration at 25hrs and again at 100hrs.

 

So far i'm liking it. Bit of a step up from the X5000 I had previously especially in HDR

 

projectors of the past Epson 9100, JVC X3, JVC X5000 and now to Epson 9400

I used the settings in these reviews to do a "calibration". Very happy with the picture but also very bright when lamp on high. Useful to set the user button on the remote to change the lamp brightness on the fly.

 

https://www.projectorreviews.com/epson/epson-home-cinema-5050ub-review-a-very-4k-capable-home-theater-projector/

https://www.projectorreviews.com/epson/epson-pro-cinema-6050ub-4k-capable-home-theater-projector-review-picture-quality/

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, chaddy said:

I used the settings in these reviews to do a "calibration". Very happy with the picture but also very bright when lamp on high. Useful to set the user button on the remote to change the lamp brightness on the fly.

 

https://www.projectorreviews.com/epson/epson-home-cinema-5050ub-review-a-very-4k-capable-home-theater-projector/

https://www.projectorreviews.com/epson/epson-pro-cinema-6050ub-4k-capable-home-theater-projector-review-picture-quality/

 

 

Hi Chaddy not sure if doing, but if not it would be well worth setting iris (lens iris on remote) so achieving 12-16 fl for sdr and around 30fl for hdr. On epson lamp power takes jumps, iris adjustment to fine tune between. Screen luminance is dependant on not only screen size but also throw of projector ... how close projector is to screen. But either way should be able to dial in.

 

i wouldn’t suggest folk play with much past brightness contrast (using setup disk, color by eye. copying settings from the linked article as calibration is really setup and unit dependant :) Likely result in very hit miss results. 

am I only one thinking the screen shots from review look bit over ripe, too pumped, ott? Not sure if this was reviewers settings or calibrator Eric. Though reviewer says Eric result look bit “cooler” I think would prefer those to these that look like on hifi where hit the loudness button and turn up treble and bass levels to boo or tv on shop dynamic and vivid settings :D

 

helping someone in basic initial setup I found to get a pretty natural look to things... post setting luminance a touch of brightness and contrast, color to eye all was needed. Eco lamp seems most balanced, prob wouldn’t go beyond mid as get a colour cast with colours going off on high(which is prob what happening in review). Natural in preset seemed fine for blu-ray. Cinema for hdr. If struggling for light then try natural for hdr. Get huge step up in luminance but loose some colour accuracy without p3 filter. Didn’t do much more but looked great and enough till pro calibration if going further

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...