Hmm, up for a rant?  I find this news about setting energy requirements for TVs to be most annoying so, here goes:  BTW, the CEDIA organization (Custom Electronics Design and Installation Assoc.) which pretty much covers the home theater industry, has been fighting this all along.

California is the land of the politically correct.  It’s also the land of too many restrictions, the land of too many lost freedoms,  and, probably, the #1  anti-business environment in the US.  As an added bonus we should  mention it’s essentially financially bankrupt from all the “good” it continues to legislate but can’t afford, since it drives away businesses, jobs and tax revenues.

Well those “good” folks running the state have come up with another gem.  (OK this is reading like a political rant, but there is a point…) And it affects us home AV enthusiasts!  Seems that California has just set final rules, that will likely kill the plasmaTV.

It will start here in California, but as with many “environmental laws” it will spread to other states, regardless whether it makes sense or not.

Let’s take a look at what just happened. The California Energy Commission, a typical bunch of uncontrolled bureaucrats, that while not as completely unreasonable as our California Coastal Commission, has decided to limit our choices in home “theater” equipment.  These are probably some of the same folks that brought california its last Energy crisis, of national, and Enron fame.

It’s this simple. They have put in energy efficiency requirements for all TVs up to and including 58 inches.  They kick in in 2011 (yes folks that’s less than 14 months from now, just barely one retooling for the manufacturers), and then tighter ones in 2013.

OK, more on that in a second.  The worst part is that they reserve the right to also include larger than 58″ into their conniving, at some point in the future.  That should really scare the manufacturers of larger sets to death.

OK, apparently about 25% of the LCDTVs on the market already would pass (barely), so I figure there won’t be too much upset in the LCDTV market. Sure, some manufacturers may have to scramble, and maybe one or two will just forget about selling many of their models (that means less choices), in California.

But, Plasma TVs have never been as electrically efficient as LCDTVs.  Not even close. I admit I haven’t done any recent checking, but I have seen numbers in some of the articles about the California rules.  That said, I do believe that with, say, a 42 inch size, a plasma will typically draw about 300 watts.  The new standards for 42 sets will be, best I can tell, a maximum of 185 watts on 1/1/2011.

Two years later, that would tighten to about 118 watts.

OK, perhaps a miracle might get a few 42 inch plasma models to improve efficiency by 40% in one year, but don’t get your hopes up too high.  And to slash energy requirements by almost 2/3 in 3 years, that would be something!

So, there’s a good chance we’ll be saying goodbye to the Plasma TV in california.

Truth is, Plasmas are just not as efficient as LCDTVs.

So at a glance, it doesn’t seem to be such a bad idea, right - good for the environment, ok.  But…

The But in this case, is that LCDTV’s and Plasmas are very, very different in performance.  Many folks consider plasma TVs to be simply superior in picture quality.  While I don’t pay much attention, I would tend to agree.  Last I looked (it’s been a while) plasma’s inherently had higher natural contrast ratios, translating into better black performance, which we projector folks all know about and appreciate.

Also LCDTVs roll off more from side viewing, with a nasty color shift, to boot.  For a lot of people a plasma, in their room, makes far more sense than and LCDTV just for that reason - because they may have some folks seating well off to the side.

There are also differences in performance in terms of image persistence.  If I recall, plasmas are better in this regard.  That’s probably a good thing for gamers, for example.

And so on. LCDTV and Plasmas may seem virtually indistinguishable to the average bureaucrat, but to enthusiasts, and even wise shoppers, they are not the same.  And either one can be a truly much better solution for a particular person’s needs (and wants).

And I see this as basically a major loss of choice for those people who’s requirements would have them choose Plasma.

So, how will this all play out?  Very good question.

I expect, the major Plasma players - notably Panasonic, will start planning to stop selling in CA.  Froma marketing standpoint, you will likely see them start to disappear from the Cal market well before next Xmas, as the move inventory, and marketing to other states.  I could be wrong, maybe the plasma folks can pull off a major increase in efficiency, but, I’m not hopeful.

Californians, fear not,  you’ll be able to still go online to any number of out of state resellers, and buy your plasma TV from Nevada, Florida, Oregon, NYC, wherever the deal is.  In the recent past, the relatively heavy weight and high shipping costs for larger LCDTV’s and Plasmas, has tended to limit any pricing advantage of online resellers.  But, with no local guys still selling plasmas, those who want, will simply buy out of state.

And bingo, more california jobs - down the tubes.  The local best buys and local dealers, will lose business to folks that want a Plasma TV.   As to the new regs,  I haven’t seen any details.  As a result,  I’m not sure if there is any penalty to you (other than owing the sales/use tax), if you import one.  Course this is California, they might send you to jail.  (Don’t worry, with the jail overcrowding, they’ll let you out quickly.)  On the other hand, they say some of our prisons are really nice, so you might get to watch a plasma while in there?

I’m more concerned, however with what may prove to be the loss of the consumer PlasmaTV industry in the US.  Afterall, what california starts, many copy.

Plasma fans, don’t loose all hope.  There’s another angle as well.  For the enthusiast, you may find that you can still buy “professional” plasma sets in the state.  (There are definitely commercial applications where plasmas are necessary.)  A pro set, simply won’t have a built in tuner, so they aren’t TV’s and are not being regulated.  NO big deal, most of us use a satellite or cable set top box as our tuners.  All of us projector owners do the same.

So, if you must have one, and want to buy in state (Califonia) you’ll just end up buying the Panasonic Pro series Plasma monitor, instead of the Consumer Plasma TV.     Back in the 70’s the US limited imports of TVs from Japan, or rather required that many be built here.  Sony and others, if I recall correctly, basically opened plants down in Mexico, on the border, in trade free? zones (or maybe they weren’t trade free), but, basically they added the tuners here in North America, solving the quota problem.  I mention this, because it’s similar, and because it just shows, that when governments pass controlling laws like these, there’s always the rule of “unintended consequences”.

Another example is that 58″ has been becoming a popular new size.

If my local newspaper (the OC Register) is correct, those 58″ sets are all covered in the new regs.  The slightly larger 60 inch units aren’t.

YOu can kiss the 58″ size goodbye.  Even the LCDTV manufacturers will move away from it.  You can bet that 60 inchers will become more popular, and if they aren’t afraid of thumbing their nose at the California Energy Commission, the manufacturers could just go to a 59″ size, and see how long it takes the CEC to change the rule to include 59 inchers.  Don’t worry though, they will get around to regulating the larger sizes.

Think this won’t affect us projector folks?   OK, projectors are a relatively very small market compared to the combined LCDTV/PlasmaTV.  But, bureaucrats, once on a roll, are ruthless.  They want to regulate everything.  It’s their nature.

So, one day, they might just decide that projectors need efficiency standards too.   For example, they might base their numbers on the larger market of biz projectors, where a 200 - 300 watt lamp ends up in a projector with up to 3500 lumens.  (But most home theater projectors use similarly watt consuming lamps to get only 500 - 1500 lumens (sacrificing the brightness for better picture quality).

So, they might decide - a projector must produce at least 15 times the lumens as it draws in watts. OK, that should eliminate every home theater projector on the market (I think).

But even if they are more logical and reasonable (iffy at best), they might still look at it the way they did LCDTV vs. Plasma (I assume they are actually aware of the fundamental differences, and are conscious of the impact on plasmaTVs.  If they do apply similar logic, they would think:

Hmm, LCD projectors are definitely more energy efficient than DLP projectors.  (I’ll get some arguments from some DLP manufacturers, but… generally that’s very true).  Most single chip DLP’s use 200 - 250+ watt lamps in the HT projectors, while in LCD space, its more like 160-200, for about the same brightness.  (there are always exceptions).  In the biz projector world the same is true.  DLP’s are known less energy efficient, and typically noisier than competing LCD projectors.  The differences aren’t quite as big as LCDTV vs Plasma, but they are definitely there.

So, the “good guys” in Sacramento, CA, might just decide - hmm, we’ll set the standard here.  No problem for LCD projectors, they’ll mostly be able to qualify in a year.  DLP projectors? well, they probably won’t qualify, but, hey, a projector is a projector, so who cares?   And then we wake up, and it’s 2012 or 2014, or whenver and no more Optoma, BenQ, Marantz, SIM2, Runco, etc. etc. DLP home theater projectors.

Now, that folks, would be a real loss.

So, sit tight - the commissions of california have decided to inflict their whims (regardless of how noble the cause) on us Californians, when it comes to flat panel TVs.

Let’s just hope they don’t decide that we projector folks also aren’t smart enough to make our own choices.

And I’ll leave you with one, last, thought?

I’m planning to move to a new house next year (the kid goes off to college).  Most likely my new house will be a bit smaller.  Also, I plan to add solar panels within a year of buying, with the goal of being energy neutral (selling extra in the daytime to the utilities, buying it back at night).

So, if I’m not a net user of electricity on the grid.  If I’m installing solar panels just like the same CEC (consumer energy commission) wants, then I ask:  Why should they give a damn if my appliances aren’t the most efficient out there?

That covers the plasma/projector rant.  Just felt like it, as things are getting ugly out here on the left coast.

Put it on your calendar.  If you want a plasma, and to buy it from a local dealer, for next Xmas, you might need get an early start on your shopping.  -art

OK, this is a stocking stuffer, for those of you with portable tastes, you can save $100 for the next week, if the BenQ GP1 “lights your fire”.

BenQ's GP1 Projector: 100+ lumens in a tiny package

Back in July, I reviewed BenQ’s little GP1, a mini or “pocket” projector class device.  That is, much larger and heavier than the pico projectors, and a lot smaller and lighter than any of the traditional portable business projectors.  The GP1, for those of you who don’t remember, is a fun product that can double as a fairly low brightness business projector, suitable for some small meetings.  Check out the review!

It is the brightest of this class of small projectors that I’ve seen to date.  It is a low cost compromise product for business, but it can be a blast for more informal use, such as watching my first official YouTube video.  While projectors in this class are all about a lot of compromises, we found the GP1 to be pretty impressive, all considered.  As a result, I even gave it a Hot Product award.

Because of it’s relative uniqueness, and that a goodly number of these GP1’s are sold to folks who love new toys to play with, I thought I’d pass on this deal BenQ just told me about:

BenQ, who I assume sells most of the GP1’s direct to end users directly from their website, just launched a GP1 promo that runs through Black Friday Nov 26 - that’s a week from tomorrow.  You’ve got 8 days to order.

The  promotional price through Black Friday is $399.

When you go to the BenQ site, to get that price, you’ll need the promo code:  earlyblkfriday

That’s a savings of $100 off their usual $499 pricing.

As they say, (if this is your kind of product/gizmo), what are you waiting for?  -art

Just a heads up.  For the next roughly 3 days, I won’t be checking the blogs, and responding, sorry, but will try to catch up on the weekend.

In the meantime, I have just finished working on one of two videos.  The first one is now live on YouTube.

Basically it’s a 2+ minute teaser.  It’s a very short summary (humorous I hope) of our not long ago, Mitsubishi HC3800 review, a projector I really like a lot.  Click here:  The YouTube Mitsubishi HC3800 video summary of the full HC3800 projector review, is live.

Click on the link above, and check it out!

As you all know, my reviews are normally text and images.   This is not a separate review, just a summary and  highlights from the existing review.  One of the things we offer, as a service to the manufacturers that provide us product, is the paid option for us to create what I call a YouTube quality video Summary of the full review.

Yes, that means Mitsubishi paid to have me make this video.  No, the video draws no new conclusions, not expressed in the full review.

In final editing, is a longer video.  Whereas the first one is short - a teaser to get people to read the review, it also mentions a second video, that one is more in-depth.  It runs about 7 minutes and talks about more of the details - about brightness, color accuracy, placement flexibility, etc.  Of course it’s no match for the full length review, which would probably be long enough for a mini-series, when it comes to details, but, it’s also more than a teaser.  (Yes I congratulate the projector on its brightness, point out the limitations of its placement flexibility, etc.

That video should be live later on Friday of this week.  It will be posted on our site, accessible from banners, and from the “print” HC3800 review as well.   Most likely I will also have the longer one posted on YouTube, for people’s convenience.

Hey, anyone who wishes to comment on both, please do so.  I’m hoping to land a couple more contracts for creating these summaries, so the better I make them…  They are very time intensive, or, otherwise I just might have started doing them in general. Still, the online review is far, far more detailed than any of these could be.

Going Forward - what’s next:

The plan is simple.  I really need to finish up several of the recent reviews.  I believe at this time, I need competitive sections for several reviews, including the Panasonic PT-AE4000, the Sony HW15, JVC RS25, and Epson 8500UB/9500UB.

Each page is normally at least a full day’s work.   Because of the crunch I’m in, though, I figure to save a bunch of time by doing them at the same time.  This means I don’t separately write a Sony HW15 vs. the PT-AE4000 in the Sony review, and then a PT-AE4000 vs. HW15, written at a different time, for the Panasonic review.  When I put up the pages, you will see the same content for both projectors being compared, in their respective competitors page.

Other than that, I’ll be finding wrong and adding new images to the recent reviews, more proofing, some commentary, etc.  (Hey, I can’t read any of my review pages without wanting to make some changes.  Tis my nature.

If/when I catch up…   Here’s what’s in store next:

Although a lower priority, I’m in the midst of the Optoma HD8600 projector review.  it’s more expensive than many, but offers interchangeable lenses for those needing very short or very long throw solutions.  Not bad so far, but another projector with a dynamic iris that could use improvement.

I am hoping to get that one done, but, it’s possible that one of several others may bump it back another couple of weeks.

I now have a “first week in December” date from BenQ, for getting their W1000 $999 1080p projector for review.  I know a ton of you are waiting for that one.  I too, am dying to see where it fits in the DLP projector food chain.  Is it better/worse/similar to the HD20 $999, or is more a match, say, for the $1495 Mits HC3800.  With luck, we’ll all know within the next 3-4 weeks, well in time for last minute Xmas shopping.

Also coming in:  Mitsubishi HC6800.  And don’t forget, they still make 720p projectors so I’ve got to get to the low cost Epson 705HD, etc.  I’ve got limited budget people screaming for me to catch up on the few new 720p projectors.

Then there’s the backyard crowd.  They seem to want to know about Epson’s new all in one Moviemate 60.

Once in a while someone asks why I seem to pay more attention to Epson than any other brand?

As my regular’s know, Epson does get a healthy amount of attention here.  While I’ve answered that question  it in the past, why not again?

Here’s the scoop.  Epson gets more attention than any other brand, around here for these reasons:

1.  They are the number one player in projector home theater space.  They sell more, they have more models, they have more unique solutions, and, of course, they make the panels for almost every other LCD projector manufacturer.

Panasonic, may actually sell more home theater projectors in the US (it should be close), but, consider - Panasonic - this fall - 1 new projector, the PT-AE4000, 1080p.  Their 720p projector the PT-AX200, is essentially starting its 3rd year.  (Actually that includes the older PT-AX200U, but then, supposedly, the only changes have been the improvement in the gaming mode, the rest has stayed the same.

So, here’s Panasonic, with one new projector for me to review.  By comparsion - this is how Epson shaped up, this fall:

Epson Home Cinema 8500UB and Pro Cinema 9500UB
Epson Home Cinema 8100 and Pro Cinema 9100 (same thing)
Epson 705HD (720p Projector)  (btw, they launched another one earlier this year, so they have 3 in their lineup, including the Home Cinema 720 and 700.
Epson MovieMate 60

Epson Ensemble HD 8100
Epson Ensemble HD8500UB

Even counting the pairs as one (8500UB/9500UB), that’s 6 new solutions!!!   True, the new Ensemble versions use the same projectors, but they are truly unique solutions and certainly merit their full system reviews (including audio, screen, etc.)

By comparison, this year:

Panasonic: 1 new
Mitsubishi: 2 new (HC3800, HC6800)
Sanyo: No new
Optoma: 3 this year:  HD8200, 8600, HD20
BenQ: 2 this year:  W6000, W1000
Sony: 2 new:  HW15, VW85
JVC:  2 new:  RS15, RS25, and RS35 (Since the RS35 is a “special RS25, with higher performance, it too needs a review, but I’m not counting it the totals anymore than counting the Epson 8500UB and 9500UB as two separate reviews)

That covers most of the major manufacturers of projectors under $5000 (and some up to $10K).

My math says  that works out to:  12 new models combined this summer/fall, for Panasonic, Mits, Sanyo, Optoma, BenQ, Sony, and JVC.

And that’s vs. 7 for Epson.

And that folks is the story.  It hasn’t always been that bad - last year, Epson had about the same sized rollout, but larger - with 2 MovieMates.  But last year, Panasonic did have 2, Sanyo had 3  (right there that’s 5 total, compared to 1 total between them this year), and so on.   In other words, Epson is blanketing the market with projectors at every price (under $4K), and with a lot of variety, while most others are happy with product lines of 2 or 3 models, and a narrower focus.

I’m taking a break from playing with the PT-AE4000 for some pricing updates.

As some of you know, there were two real surprises this fall.  First, Optoma introduced the HD20 at $999 (and Vivitek and BenQ also announced their 1080p $999 projectors).   This apparently caused great consternation with other manufacturers.   I know Mitsubishi and Epson weren’t happy to see $999 projectors, and quite likely the pricing decisions of the low cost DLP manufacturers influenced Epson’s and Mitsubishi’s final prices on their Home Cinema 8100 and HC3800 respectively ($1599, and $1495, respectively).

That, however was almost minor compared to Panasonic’s late announcement in the US of the PT-AE4000 (which normally would have been announced at CEDIA, but Panasonic held off until most of “last year’s” PT-AE3000s were sold through.

So, in October, Panasonic announced the PT-AE4000 at $1999, and shocked everyone.  Most had expected something around last year’s $2499, or maybe a little lower.  (Afterall, the US dollar is in the “toilet”, and has performed poorly compared to the EU or the Yen, in the last year. That makes it tough to drop prices in the US.)

That had everyone else scrambling.  Most notably, it got a reaction from Epson who, at CEDIA, had not yet set the price for the Home Cinema 8500UB, beyond “Under $3000″.  Well, in time for our review, Epson assured me that the new price for the Epson Home Cinema 8500UB (scheduled to ship around Thanksgiving) would definitely be “Under $2500″.   (I had figured most likely they would (Panasonic notwithstanding) launch around $2799.

Well, the word is out.  The large dealers have now placed their opening orders for the Home Cinema 8500UB, and the news is even better.

Yes, the MAP is “Under $2500″ (Map is minimum advertised price), in fact $2499, as expected.

But, Epson is also launching the 8500UB with a $200 mail-in rebate.  That rebate will be in place at least until 12/31!

Bottom line, therefore, is an official “net price” of $2299.

$300 more than the Panasonic.  Epson no doubt will leverage their far less expensive cost of operation, to all who will listen.  I’ve mentioned that in the review. Panasonic charges $100 more per lamp, and their lamp has only half the life of the Epson’s at full power.  (Panasonic 2000 hours, Epson 4000 hours).  In other words, for just about everyone, except the very infrequent user, the Epson will actually cost less in the long run.  More to the point, though, is that the two projectors, considering all of that, are now priced roughly comparable, so pricing (other than the benefit of the “$1999″ price point), is, from a value standpoint, roughly the same.

OK, so that’s how Epson decided to play the pricing game, after the Panasonic price was set at $1999.

That brings us to another player - BenQ.  As noted, they already have one of the 3 lowest cost 1080p projectors - their W1000, with a MAP of $999.

But, BenQ also has an impressive projector known as the BenQ W6000.  It’s exceptionally bright, has a dynamic iris and very good (though not exceptional) black level performance, has that classic DLP look and feel to it’s image, and is also sharp.

BenQ launched at $2799, and just advised me that they have dropped MAP to $2499.

And that folks is the latest price positioning, that I am aware of.

Hope that helps as you count the pennies, and try to figure out which projector to spend them on.  -art

OK, I know a lot of folks have been waiting quite a while for this especially with the first online review of the PT-AE4000 published what is now several weeks ago.  And since I’m getting a whole ton of Panasonic PT-AE4000 vs. Epson UB questions by email, I’ll give you all my latest thoughts on that contest, throughout this blog.

As is usual, this is a “First Look” and not the full projector review.  I’ve been working with the PT-AE4000 projector since Panasonic brought it by last Friday, but I also was finishing up the JVC RS25 review, and as such haven’t spent quite as much time as I hoped to, before writing this.  (That’s probably just as well, - gotta save some goodies for the full projector review, which will go live this coming weekend.

Let’s start with the basics:

The Panasonic PT-AE4000 projector replaces the older PT-AE3000 model.  The new AE4000 started shipping about a week ago, according to several dealers now advertising the AE4000 on our site.

The price point - of $1999, caught most of the industry by surprise.  That translates to a lot of new performance, for less money, compared to last year’s AE3000.  It also puts pressure on other manufacturers - regarding price.  The Epson Home Cinema 8500UB was originally announced to be “under $3000″ in Sept., but following the Panasonic announcement Epson has changed their pricing to “under $2500″.  Of course they are still about 2 weeks or so from shipping, so you never know…   (A political thought: Considering that the US dollar is currently pathetically weak, and continuing to get weaker, I only hope Panasonic can maintain the price point. )   (Just as some of you may noticed that this year, LCDTVs don’t seem to be any less expensive than last year - sure - always a  few new features to be found, but pricing really hasn’t come down much in the last 18 months.)

Also in response to the PT-AE4000’s pricing, when I spoke to BenQ, the other day, they indicated that the Panasonic’s pricing is largely responsible for their decision to bring the pricing of the W6000 to $2499, from $2799 in the last week or so.

Bottom line, whether the Panasonic PT-AE4000 is the right projector for you or not, it’s agressive price point has also resulted in some of the best competition also costing less.  That has to be a win-win for the consumer!

OK, to the projector.

Physically, it looks almost identical to the PT-AE3000.  A very boxy, blackish commercial looking unit, it works out to about the same size and bulk as the Epson Home Cinema 85600UB, which btw, I had described as being smaller, in the review.  I guess it just goes to show you that a very black box, no styling, commercial looking projector can just “look larger” than a more sculpted and styled one of roughly the same size.  Few, of course, will particularly care.

In terms of improvements, the PT-AE4000 brings several new and improved aspects to their flagship home theater projector.

Of greatest note, is probably the improvement in brightness, in best mode.  While still only average in brightness, that’s a good bit better than last year’s AE3000 which was below average.  Doesn’t look like any significant improvement in brightness in “brightest” mode, where the older Panasonic was already about average.

In other words, this year’s Panasonic is pretty much average in brightness, certainly not brighter than average.  This increase in “best” mode brightness, however, may be enough to win over a number of folks looking at the PT-AE4000’s primary competition, the Epson Home Cinema 8500UB, which we’ve already reviewed.  True, the Epson is still rather noticeably brighter overall, but this Panasonic has the lumens needed for some mid-sized screens and room combinations - say 100″, 106″ and even 110″ diagonal.  Let’s say that in best mode, this year’s Panasonic moves up about two screen sizes, in terms of what it can handle.

Panasonic also definitely has improved black level performance.  (More so than the new Epson has, compared to its predecessor.)

It would seem, that when viewing normal bright and average scenes, that the Panasonic actually matches, and in a number of cases, ends up with a blacker black than the Epson.  The Epson, on the other hand, still will produce the blacker blacks on those really dark scenes, where they are most appreciated.  The important point, is that Panasonic as with the brightness, has closed down the gap somewhat this year, in terms of black level performance.

Panasonic has also improved all the usual dynamic features (as everyone tends to do each year).  CFI is supposedly improved, but I haven’t begun to play with it’s performance yet, other than to say, it’s propensity for that “live digital video” or “soap opera” look is minimal.

There are new sharpness algorithms as well.  As with most new 1080p home theater projectors this fall, the PT-AE4000, although sporting a number of refinements, is still an evolutionary product, without any breathtaking improvements over last year’s AE3000.

Is the Panasonic PT-AE4000 better than the older PT-AE3000?  Absolutely.   And with a starting price about $5000 lower than last year, that means you are not only getting better, but better for less.  Always a good thing!

Panasonic jumped the contrast (and improved the blacks), in part based on their polarizing contrast plate.  BTW the Epson projectors also have something similar, which they added to their light engine last year if I recall correctly.

For those going with 2.35:1 screens, and using the Panasonic Lens Memory feature, Panasonic has added what is essentially auto sensing.  With the PT-AE4000 if the projector sees that the content is a movie with a letterbox - (a  movie in Cinemascope - 2.35 or 2.37:1), it will automatically adjust the zoom and focus to fill the screen.  If the next content is, say 16:9, then the projector will again use lens memory to resize and refocus the image automatically.

Having this feature be automatic, is definitely a plus.  At this point in time, however, the real question is, are many people pairing the Panasonic 1080p projectors with 2.35:1 screens.  Until recently, however, 2.35:1 screens have been utilized by people our President considers to be rich, as adding an anamorphic lens and sled to a projector’s cost, is usually an extra $4000 or close.  And, for those upgrading, that also means scraping the existing 16:9 screen.

With the Panasonic, if you are almost exclusively movies, you can go to the Cinemascope format without letterboxing, knowing that it won’t cost you any additional beyond the screen price.  True, the whole concept has one issue - when you are filling that 2.35:1 screen, with a Cinemascope movie, the letterboxing is still there!  It’s just not hitting your screen, but rather, immediately above, and below it.  In other words, you end up with the black letterbox bars of about 10% of the total image hight each - one above the screen, one below.

And that means that if you have light colored walls, you will see that letterboxing, pretty much the same as if it was on the screen.  If your front wall, though, is very dark, then the letterbox will be essentially invisible.  I like the Lens Memory feature, but want to warn - for those really into the ultimate performance, Panasonic’s method of accomplishing this, is impressive and viable, but it will not yield quite as good a result as using a real anamorphic lens, which, if nothing else, should let you end up with both a brighter and more detailed picture.  I’ll discuss that all further, in the full PT-AE4000 review.

The new assorted “sharpening” controls (clarity…), I will also go into in the full review.  I do want to say that when the Panny folks were here, we did look briefly at the Panny vs. the Epson comparing their various sharpening controls.  Both have the ability to add a bit of sharpness, with minimal increase in “noise”.  Still, it works this way:   Anytime you do things to dynamically sharpen (or anything else) an image, there must be trade-offs somewhere.  Yet, like the Epson one can get a visible increase in relative sharpness with these controls, while at the same time ending up with a relatively slight increase in noise, or any other negative impact on the image.

I also viewed the PT-AE4000 along side the JVC RS25, who’s review just posted.

When it comes to black levels, although the PT-AE4000 may be gaining a bit against the Epson, which has had the advantage in the under $4000 price range, the Panasonic, like the Epson (but more so), still has a long climb to catch the JVC.

Color accuracy, right out of the box was extremely good.  We used the Cinema 1 mode, (Mike will be calibrating the PT-AE4000 tonight), and it looked very good, with just a touch too much red in the skin tones.

Here’s something interesting.  While Panasonic was here, we did run the PT-AE4000 side by side, with the Epson UB.  To get the brightness about the same, all we had to do, was reduce the Epson from full power on its lamp, to low power, while leaving the Panasonic at full power.  That got the two very close to each other (as expected).  Now, remember, we’re discussing out of the box color accuracy.  Despite the Epson being calibrated, we noted a bit too much green in the Epson, vs too much red in the Panasonic.  This was perplexing for a couple of minutes. Then, realizing that the Epson should look better (afterall, Mike really does no how to calibrate these toys), since it had been calibrated, I realized it must have something to do with the lamp mode.  Sure enough, when we put the Epson back into full power, it had the superior overall color and skin tones, - it was very “right on”, while the Panasonic had that slightly over the top red shift on skin tones.

No doubt the Panasonic, post calibration, will be about the same as the Epson, in terms of color accuracy, but I’ll save the final call on that until I’ve had plenty of time to view both of them - when they are both calibrated.

So far, it looks like Panasonic’s changes found in the PT-AE4000, are a bit more significant than that of the improvements in the Epson Home Cinema 8500UB, but, also, so far, the general positioning of the two projectors remains about the same as last year’s models.  Consider:

Last year, the two started out about $500 apart, with the Panasonic costing less.  Same thing this year (just $500 less overall).  Epson is able to argue, though, that for moderate and heavy users, that their projector in the long run doesn’t cost any more than the PT-AE4000, thanks to a custom lamp that costs less than half as much per hour to run at full power, than the Panasonic’s.   In other words, except for those people who can’t scrape up the initial price difference (about $500), and therefore buy the Panasonic, cost isn’t going to be much of an issue for most.  Of course someone “movie only” and just watches just 10 total hours a week, likely would have to keep the Panasonic for at least 3-4 years before the Epson’s total costs come down to match the Panasonic.  Thus the hobbyist, who upgrades his projector every couple of years will find the Panasonic a slightly better investment, price wise.

I said above that the positioning of the Panasonic and Epson remains unchanged relative to each other.  That is because that while it seems Panasonic has improved black levels more than Epson has, that the Epson still has a rather visible advantage on those dark scenes.  And while this year’s Panasonic is closer in brightness, in best mode, to the Epson, the Epson still retains the brightness advantage.  Because of the gains, in both areas though, more people will be torn between choosing the Panasonic or the Epson.

Panasonic will still have a significant (and slightly expanded) advantage in features - always their strength.  Motorized zoom and focus, plus the whole Lens Memory system, vs. manual everything on the Epson.  More inputs, (an extra HDMI, and an extra screen trigger), now favor the Panasonic (though input differences are not deal maker/breaker features).  The Panasonic is just dripping in features/gadgets, compared to the Epson, but ultimately both offer CFI, dynamic sharpness, dynamic irises, etc.

Last night was the first time I just hooked up the PT-AE4000 and watched a full length movie on it.  I really was impressed.   I started off projecting about a 110″ diagonal image, but after a bit, found myself happier down at 100″ diagonal for the slight extra brightness, which is where it remains.  I used Cinema 1 mode, with the only major change being reducing the color saturation about 4 steps (it definitely is a bit oversaturated “out of the box” (as was evident in side by sides with calibrated Epson and JVC projectors).

Overall, the image looked as good as expected.  No nasty artifacts. (I used CFI on the Sunday Night Football game, and also watched some of Quantum of Solace with CFI on low.  Only very occasionally did I notice the “live digital video” effect, but it was just enough that I got tired of it, and turned it off (similar to my thoughts on the Epson).

Panasonic vs Epson - Fall 2009:

Let me wrap this “first look” up this way:  The Panasonic is improved this year, in several areas.  At the beginning of this year, in our 1080p Projector Comparison Report, we ended up with the PT-AE3000 and the Epson Home Cinema 6500UB (last year’s models) in a tie for our Best In Class award - mid-priced projectors.   Despite, that, as our regular readers know, I personally favored the Epson, as extra lumens, and blacker blacks are my hot buttons.

For this year, it should be an interesting contest again.  Lot’s of features etc. that still need to be checked out, and compared.  As I said, fundamentally, the projectors still have the same advantages this year as last.  The major changes are that:

1.  Panasonic has cut the brightness gap in half, when comparing “best” modes, but still trails in brightness in both best and brightest modes by roughly 20 - 30% (preliminary numbers - final numbers, post calibration, in the full review).

2.  Panasonic’s Lens Memory, is further improved (by adjusting aspect ratio automatically)

3.  Epson’s CFI, which was not as good last year, as the Panasonic, is much improved, and probably roughly comparable now.

4.  While Panasonic has made more gains in black levels this year, than Epson, Epson still wins the war when looking at dark scenes.  Turns out though, that the Panasonic can do blacks at least as black as the Epson, on bright scenes, it’s just that it isn’t that important in such circumstances.

5.  Panasonic costs less upfront, Epson could cost less in the long run, though thanks to its far lower cost of operation.

Basically folks, this fall we have an “instant replay” of last year’s most important comparison.  While there are some new factors, and the gap has been closed somewhat in a number of areas - Blacks, best mode brightness, CFI… Ultimately, there likely won’t be any huge change in marketshare between Panasonic’s PT-AE4000 and it’s biggest rival.  Because, each projector is still superior, this year, at the capabilities it excelled at last year.  -art

OK, that’s it. Tonight (if Mike doesn’t steal the PT-AE4000 for calibration), I’ll be doing some side by side photo shoots with the Epson and the JVC, and also the BenQ W6000.

The goal will be to publish the full PT-AE4000 projector review on Friday, but I may lose a day or more, if Mike can’t get this panny calibrated tonight, and back to me tomorrow.   (It takes two evenings just for the photoshoot, and two more days for my daughter and I to go through the 600+ images, thinning them out, and then having her do all the cropping and resizes.  In other words, be warned.  Friday evening will be tough.  Sunday - no problem.  Hang in there.

Just a quick note, we’re still behind.  Not all the images done, and I haven’t even started the all critical Image Quality page, and the summary.  It will publish tomorrow late afternoon.  For sure.  I promise, I think.

Sorry.

On the bright side, I lost the afternoon and early evening today, thanks to the expected visit of folks from Panasonic.  They brought me a shiny PT-AE4000.  Looks great.  We also viewed a few clips with the Panny side by side with the Epson 9500UB and the JVC RS25.

Sorry, I’ll get to that after the RS25 review gets done.  Back to the grind for me.  -a

Greetings all,

Well, it seems, as usual, despite the best laid plans, the JVC RS25 review is not going to go live tonight.  Look for it tomorrow, probably late afternoon.  I’ve hit two snags, which is delaying the review one more day:

1.  My daughter Lisa, who handles all my cropping, resizing,  etc. of the images that go into a review, got slammed with both homework, and the high school play she’s in (which opens next week).  As such, she still has about 3/4 of the images to do, but should have them done shortly after school tomorrow (Friday).

2.  Sorry, taking the night off:  I’ve got a concert tonight (had tickets since the spring)  Ian Anderson.  For those not familiar, he’s that first class flutist and star of Jethro Tull.  (Rock trivia tells us that there was never a band member named Jethro Tull.)  Small venue, should be great!

Meantime, I finally got a handle on the black levels compared to the older RS20.  So, since I’m behind on the review, I’ll share that with you now.

Black level performance is improved.  It’s not improved by a lot, but the blacks are blacker.  Stubborn as I am, I hate breaking out the tall ladder and bringing down my RS20 from its shelf.  As a result, I didn’t, and that means I couldn’t do a side by side shoot between the RS20 and RS5.

What I did, instead was use the lens shift to raise the RS20’s image up, so the bottom of the bottom letterbox was just above the center of the screen.  Then, with the RS25 on its table, I lowered it’s image so the top of the top letterbox was ust below the center of the screen.  With full 16:9, the two images almost touch (but for a about 6 inches), but more importantly, with a letterboxed movie, I can see how black the RS20’s letterbox is, how black the RS25’s letterbox is, and I have a relatively thin (6 inch area) of true black, not being hit by either projector.  To get the brightness the same, I closed down the iris of the RS25 rather significantly.  I was able to get them almost identical. I set the gamma of both projectors to Normal.

The drop in blacks from the RS20 to the RS25, is slight.  I would say it’s definitely, significantly less change than going from the RS10 to the RS20.

Still, the improvement is there.  Considering I’m not aware of any projector, from any manufacturer, at any price (ok, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist), that can match or beat the older RS20, and that the closest thing to the RS20 was the RS10, even a small improvement, is a well appreciated one.  We’re still a ways from the true blacks of a CRT projector, but nothing else comes close to the RS25, except the older RS20 it replaces.

There!  Happy?  Gotta get back to writing up the review.  So, to paraphrase the well known song:  ”Tomorrow, tomorrow….” You’ll have your RS25 review… tomorrow!” -art

By Mike Rollett, November 2009

Intro, and conclusions by Art

Greetings all, this is one of those times I get caught between a rock, and a hard place, situations.  Several months ago, one of our larger dealer advertisers mentioned to me that they were introducing their own line of lower cost fixed projector screens.  Further they asked:  “Art, would you review one of our screens, and publish it?

Now some of you know I do an occasional “end user” review – where I write up a review of a related product, that I bought for my own theaters, and worked out well enough that

The VApex 106" diagonal projector screen looks good, with a nice 3.5 inch velour border

I thought I would share the word.  I’ve done that for Gefen and Octava switchers and extenders, etc.   In this case, however, I really don’t need one more screen, they are piled up in the garage. (Projector companies always want their projectors back after a review.  Screen companies almost never do.)

I also have a bit of a problem doing what I’ll call a “private label” product review.  Do one, and next thing I know, every dealer I have wants me to review their “this or that” private label product.   I came up with the best solution I could,  for now.  The dealer/manufacturer – in this case, Visual Apex, should be happy, you should be happy, and I’ve dodged another bullet, for now.

To accomplish all this, my solution was simple.  I asked Mike if he would review the screen. Mike’s independent, makes no profit off of Visual Apex advertising, etc, and Mike has plenty of experience with screens, and it’s not his first screen review, either.  Besides, I just hate assembling screens. I’ve provided commentary, relating to pricing vs. performance starting with Mike’s conclusions, and in consultation with him.

So, with all that in mind, here’s Mike’s review of the Visual Apex 106” fixed matte white screen (I have managed, of course, to throw in lots of  comments at the end). -art

VApex 106″ Matte White Fixed Projector Screen Overview:

With the price of some 1080P projectors now approaching $1000, the market for an inexpensive, but good-looking, fixed frame screen has increased.  Visual Apex, a prominent retailer of home theater and business projectors, has addressed this need with their line of Cinema White, fixed frame screens.

Available in sizes from 92” to 135” diagonal (16:9 format only), the VApex screens feature a 3.5” black velour-covered aluminum frame that is easy to assemble and at selling prices ranging from $329 to $499.  They also offer the screens in package deals with certain projectors at additional savings.

The screen material is a 0.32 mm thick, highly elastic fabric that is washable, mildew resistant and is rated at a gain of 1.1.  This is a fairly typical type of surface for low cost screens from asia.

The pricing quoted above, is pretty low, for screens of this type.  Pricing seems to be below that of Elite Screens, which is probably the largest and best known of the screen brands that bring in screens from asia. Elite sells their screens for less than the US manufacturers can match, and it looks like VA is selling their own screens for at least 20% less than any recognized brand name, including Elite.   This makes the VApex screens an excellent, low cost way, to get into an entry level home theater projector based system.  The VApex screens are definitely far less expensive than the well respected Carada Brilliant White that Art uses in his testing room, and Mike uses in his theater, and even less expensive still, compared to screens from Da-Lite, and Draper, nevermind Stewart screens which are probably three times the price, and hard to rationalize if you are buying a $1000, or $2000 projector.

VApex 106″ Diagonal Screen:  Assembly

Unpacking the VApex 106" diagonal projector screen

Assembly of the VApex screen is pretty straightforward.  Opening the shipping box, you’ll find each of the velour-covered frame pieces wrapped in tissue paper and the screen material is rolled up over a piece of PVC pipe and inserted into a larger PVC pipe to protect it during shipment.  There is a bag of plastic screen clips, plastic rods for the screen connection and the frame connecting brackets and hardware are in a separate box.

After removing and unwrapping the frame pieces, you lay them out, velour side down, on a clean soft surface (like a bed sheet or plastic drop cloth).  You then insert the frame connecting brackets into each corner. With a screen this size (106” diagonal), the top and bottom frame pieces would be over 100” long if they were a single piece.  A box that long can cause a large increase in shipping cost over a smaller box and is likely more expensive to produce, so,

with the VApex screen, these frame pieces come in two halves and are connected with a straight connecting bracket.  The frame pieces are then secured together with machine screws that connect the frame to the connecting brackets.

Spitting the frame width into two pieces makes the unit smaller to box and less expensive to ship.

Next, you unroll the screen material inside the screen frame and insert the plastic rods into the pockets on each edge of the screen.  Starting on one end of the screen and working from the middle out toward the edges, the screen ends and plastic rod are pushed down into a channel in the frame.  Plastic screen clips are then placed over the screen and channel where they clip into the frame, holding the screen in place.

You then repeat the process on the other three sides.

The screen material is slightly undersized for the frame, so when you attach on side opposite one that has already been attached, the screen must be pulled and stretched to seat it into the channel.

The assembled corner still missing the backcloth

Once you’ve completed attaching all four sides, you can go back and add clips as necessary to remove any wrinkles that may remain and you’ve got a finished screen.

The VApex screen comes with wall hanger brackets, as well as screw anchors for drywall (though you should use a stud finder to screw the brackets into studs wherever possible).  The brackets need to be installed at the desired height and should be level across the width of the frame.  The screen is then placed over the brackets and the brackets fit into a slot that runs the length of the frame.  The screen comes with a backing.  On paper the screen is “black backed”, according to the documentation, but this one wasn’t.  The back surface provided with this unit was white, not black.  I’ve already got a “what’s up with this” email into Visual Apex, and will post the explanation.  Mike doesn’t recall noting any significant light leakage through the screen, though we’d both be happier with a black backing.

Update:  11/3/09 - Spoke with Visual Apex.  They advise that the screen they sent me was a previously used one, that’s been around a while, and assure me that the screens in current inventory all have the black backing, as advertised! -art

VApex 106″ Diagonal Projection Screen: Performance:

The back of the VApex 106, with backing attached

The VApex screen has a smooth white surface that adds no significant coloration or texture to a displayed image.  While I did not measure its gain, it was a typical example of a white matte screen, which usually delivers gains in the 1.0-1.2 range, so its claimed 1.1 gain is probably correct.  Also typical of screen material of this type, it has a fairly wide angle of viewing, again probably close to the claimed 80 degrees.

The wide, velour-covered tapered frame looks quite good and gives the impression of a much more expensive screen.  Typically, you’d be lucky to get a one-inch frame, painted black, for a screen in this price range.  It has some joint misalignment, but it’s not noticeable at normal viewing distances, especially in a darkened theater room.  If you’re home theater buff, but trying to save some money in today’s economy, you can have a home theater setup with a 1080p projector and a respectable 106” screen for under $1500.  Not bad!

Final notes: Mike’s additional comments include that although he didn’t attempt to measure color shift from the screen, he did observe the screen, along side his Carada Brilliant White (known for having very good color accuracy).  He notes that there is a slight shift in color.  (We’ve noted some slight shifts in color in  at least two Elite screens we’ve reviewed, to date, so it’s hardly rare.)  For those interested, You can read more about the Carada, in its review, a similar sized Carada, will retail for close to $600.). This slight color shift probably isn’t a significant issue for an entry level buyer. Also, should any buyer calibrate their projector, they can take any screen color shift into consideration, as they should.

Bottom line: VA offers up a “private label” lose cost, fixed screen. It’s only available in neutral gain (around 1.0-1.2) matte white, and in sizes from about 90” to 135” diagonal. With a typical size like 106” diagonal selling in the mid-$300s range, (and probably a little less when bundled with a $999 type projector), their screen will likely save you $100 - $200 over any of the lower cost “name brands”, and save close to half,  or even more, compared to the top recognized brands. All in all, it’s a nice basic screen. Looks good and works well enough. Mike says assembly is pretty straight forward. I think one of the VApex screens is probably a very good choice for those on a really tight budget.  It allows the buyer to put more money toward the projector.  A solid entry level product!  -art

Best I can figure, there are only about three ways to spend less on a screen:

1. Go with a pull-down screen, but they never (even with tensioning) will be quite as flat as a fixed wall screen, but they do start in the $200 range with tensioning.

2. Use “screen paint” such as Goo, and paint your wall to be a screen. This is basic stuff, I’m not a big fan, as it seems everytime I see a setup using screen paint, that there is more of a tendency to hotspot than with screen materials, and you have to get that wall, very, very smooth.

3. Even worse – just shine it on whatever wall you have. (We needn’t discuss that further!)

The VA 106" projector screen, with wide velour border.

The VApex screens, in general, and the 106″ specifically, turn out to be a very nice low cost screen solution. I’m not going to recommend the VA for use with projectors in the $2000+ range. where I believe most people will be better served with a more expensive screen.  Still even there, a VApex screen might do in a pinch if there’s no money left for more expensive screens.

On the other hand, if you are looking to spend less than $2000 on the whole deal – projector, screen, and perhaps audio, blu-ray player, this VApex screen may well be a good example of “choosing wisely”. I believe Visual Apex was smart to create this line of screens, considering that the low cost will benefit many home theater buyers on a tight budget.  -art

I’m a couple of days late, but hopefully this “first look” was worth the wait.  The JVC RS25 arrived, and headed over to Mike’s for calibration before I ever got it out of the box.  Mike took an extra day, playing with it, and got it back to me mid-week.  I’ve been watching extensively, but only in my main theater.  Still haven’t lugged the JVC DLA-RS25 home theater projector into the “testing room”/second theater.

Let’s start with the obvious.  The JVC DLA-RS25, and it’s “consumer division” twin, the HD950, pretty much “look and cook” like last year’s RS20 and HD750.

The most sigificant differences between old and new, are the addition of  Creative Frame Interpolation (two modes - low and high), an increase in contrast (and presumably black level performance), and an improved color management system.  JVC had upgraded the CMS during the life of the RS20, and I haven’t changed mine since I calibrated my RS20 early on.  I believe there was one firmware change to the CMS of the RS20 that I haven’t seen. Whether the RS25’s CMS is different from the last iteration on the RS20, I’m not sure.   Either way, Mike reports that the JVC DLA-RS25’s CMS is a lot easier to work with than the rather difficult CMS he and I had to work with (and get outside help from the forums), back early in the year when I bought my RS20. (Whew, that was too long!)

The JVC’s out of the box performance is excellent.  The THX mode, is a dandy place to start from, and extremely watchable.

I’ve been switching back between the RS25, and my RS20.  I had to close the RS25’s manual iris down 3 steps to compensate for the now dimmer lamp in my RS20 (about 600 hours on the lamp).  My projector, as I stated, hasn’t been recalibrated since it was first done, when there were only a few dozen hours on the lamp.  Immediately, the RS25’s color was slightly superior to my RS20’s.  Skin tones with the DLA-RS25 were definitely a touch more believable, and the RS20’s already are extremely good.  The settings I used were Mike’s calibration based on the THX mode.

Overall, the most noticeable difference is that the RS25 has more pop to the image.  With the iris down three steps, the older RS20 was a tad brighter, but when both gammas are set the same, the RS25 seemed to have a bit more pizazz. Fair enough!  Figuring out the why’s of that, will have to wait.  Obviously a little might come from the higher contrast, or it may just be the two calibrations.

Before I ramble further, The RS25 projector for just under $8000, should, like the RS20 before it, have the best black level performance of any projector under $10,000, and by a noticeable margin.  There are still a few competitors of note, including the Sony VW-85, we haven’t received yet, but there’s no reason to believe any will match the black level performance which gives the RS25 a big head start on the rest, and has favored JVC for the previous two generations of home theater projectors as well.

The RS20 was our Best In Class last year, and the RS25 is now the favorite for this year’s competition.

Basically, all considered, the RS25 is an improved RS20, with the same optics, case, warranty, and many other components.

Let’s talk CFI since that’s a real difference.  The CFI on the RS25 isn’t bad, isn’t a great one either.  I’ve been using it for sports, but for other content, I am noticing occasional artifacts, and more “live digital video” than I care for, even on the low setting.  At any rate, it works well enough for the sports, and that’s enough to make me happy, and one reason why I might upgrade to the RS25.

But, wait!  The RS25 is not the top of the line this year.  JVC has an RS35 (and an HD990).  These are of the $9999 variety, price wise (or was it $9995?).  What makes them interesting is that these are essentially the same as the DLA-RS25 and HD950, but for the fact that the top of the line are made of hand picked components and extra quality control.  The guys at JVC say - yep, you can see the difference.  I buy into that, the best of the optics, the best assembled light engines, etc., the best overall alignment, etc., each can add a little to  the picture, and that can add up.  I’m looking forward to comparing one of each.

Black levels.  I really can’t say how much improvement there is, I won’t really know until I move it into the other room.  I would say that the improvement is not dramatic, more toward the slight side.  Considering how good the older ones are (in a class by themselves), this just makes things a bit better still.

Sharpness, I would say, is the same as last year, and variations should be slight from one unit to the next.

Brightness - Sadly no change here.  Like the last two generations, the projector is well brighter than average in “best” mode, although this unit measured just a couple dozen lumens less than last year’s.  Not enough to represent a difference.  And, once again, brightest mode is only about 100 lumens brighter, making it below average in brightness.  I watched football all day, had to keep my shades basically all the way down, to enjoy, and the room was darker than I would have liked.  By comparison, if I was using the Epson 8500UB / 9500UB, I would have been happier, and had the shades on my french doors partially opened, to brighten the room.

Ahh, an RS25 - if only it did everything it does, but also had 1200+ lumens in brightest mode, I’d be all over it in a heartbeat.

Tonight I’ll be doing some side-by-side’s starting with the Epson Pro Cinema 9500UB.  I can already tell, that even at it’s best, the Epson won’t match the black level performance, nor the naturalness of the skin tones on movies.

OK, more to come.  Basically, though, the Best (under $10K), just got a little better, and it got CFI to boot!

I’ll drop in an image or two perhaps later tonight (very late), or tomorrow afternoon.  I’m going to try to have the full review posted on Thursday.  (and start on the Panasonic PT-AE4000 on Friday).  -art

Greetings people!

Ok, as usual, I’m a bit behind the curve.  I’m in the midst of the competitors page for the Epson review, and have some additional images showing the Epson tackling a pretty decent amount of ambient light, for sports viewing.

And yes, for those of you waiting, I have been working with the Optoma HD8600, a DLP, a bit higher end, with optional interchangeable lenses.  Unfortunately, there are a few projectors I have prioritized higher due to wider audience.  I’ll get back to it in a couple of weeks.

Panasonic just let me know they’re hand delivering a PT-4000 next Friday.  They’ll be flying out of NJ hq.  (Hand delivering pre-production units as seemed to be more the rule, than the exception, these last couple of years.)

That works out to Nov 6th.  That will be the highest priority.  The JVC will be done before it arrives, and I’ll get right to the Panny PT-AE4000.  I promise no more than 1 week to complete it, barring some life crisis.

Yes, I’ll follow that in a couple three days with a head to head between the PT-AE4000 and the Epson Home Cinema 8500UB.

Hey you guys are smart, you’ll have it figured out from the reviews before I get it done, but ya keep asking, and asking…

The JVC arrived, and Mike started calibrating it yesterday.  He emailed me earlier today, saying he was really having fun and wanted to try something or other - could he keep it until tomorrow?  Well, nice guy that I am…

I am looking forward to the JVC RS25.  I’m pretty darn happy with my  own JVC RS20 but for the lack of more lumens in brightest mode, but always up for something better.  I’m most curious to see what JVC has squeezed out of the RS25.

What’s really “scary” though, is that I asked if the DLA-RS35 was clearly superior to the DLA RS25.  Now the JVC RS35, is essentially, according to JVC, units built with the same components as the RS25’s but with hand picked components and higher quality control.

I was told, yes, it really does make a difference.   So, while the RS25 will no doubt be the hot one, in terms of sales (at least $2K less), I need to get my hands on one of those RS35’s for sure.

I’m still awaiting, for a Sony VPL-VW85, too, and waiting.  I see one of the print pubs has looked at it, so maybe they’ll have one for me soon.  They were great getting me an early VPL-HW15, which reviewed very well.

Oh yeah, fun stuff.  I’m spending tomorrow “filming” a short video - a video summary of the recent Mitsubishi HC3800.  We offer to do these for any projector we review (for a nice fee).  The video goes on the ProjectorReviews.com site.   As they say “good work when you can get it.”  (This is only our second.)  Anyway, a sweet projector and I’m going to have fun.

Besides the 4-5 minute video summary, the real fun part is doing a 90 second teaser for it, which we’ll put up on YouTube.  I’ve decided to, well, it isn’t finalized, I’m probably going to wing it when we do the shoot.  Hopefully, not too many takes.  Let’s just say, it’s informal.

OK, that’s it, I do want to work on the competitors section some more tonight.  -art