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.

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

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

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

As usual, this is first pass, there may be some “artifacts” left over from the review I used as a template, the recent BenQ W6000, which is a direct competitor, and therefore the competitive images in the W6000 review belong in the Epson Home Cinema 8500UB and Pro Cinema 9500UB projectors review.  And there’s plenty of proofing to do.

There are I think 2 or 3 images actually discussed that aren’t there yet, they seem to have wandered off.  I’ll find them.  I’ve got a bunch of side by sides to add, with the new Epson vs the 6500UB, and also the BenQ.  Of course, when the Panasonic PT-AE4000 arrives, I’ll be doing a whole pile of those side-by-sides, as well, although I am likely at that point to write a single piece on Epson vs Panasonic, and save them for that article.  In such a case, I’ll update this Competitors page (not yet written), with a link to that comparison.

I liked the older models, I definitely like the newer ones better.  CFI is much improved as discussed, oh, nevermind, go read the review.

I had hoped to post (and mentioned in a previous blog) the Epson Home Cinema 8500UB and Pro Cinema 9500UB review this afternoon, but encountered a few difficulties.

No, none have anything to do with the projector itself, which seems to be working rather flawlessly.  On the weekend, when I projected Wednesday as the publish date, I had mistakenly thought I had a concert tonight - but it turns out it was last night - cutting into writing time.  (That said, the band was Grizzly Bear, a rather excellent, and unusual alternative rock band.  I’m no music critic, but I’d put them somewhere between Arcade Fire and Moby, with a touch of Radiohead perhaps, and maybe a smidgen of Coldplay.

Even more significantly, we are behind in the processing of the photos.  Lisa, my day to day webmaster, and high school senior, daughter, got slammed with homework and tests.  It normally takes her about 3+ hours to do all the cropping and resizing of the images.  She was only able to get about 1/3 of them done, as of now.   She’ll finish them tonight, she tells me.

So, the bottom line, look for the Epson Home Cinema 8500UB review to publish tomorrow - Thursday, probably early evening.

Sorry about that!  Hang in there!  -art

OK, here’s what I’ve got for you.  I received a sample (no, not production) of the Epson Pro Cinema 9500UB projector.  For those of you not familiar with Epson’s projector marketing, they have the Home Cinema 8500UB sold through authorized online dealers and local dealers to0.  The Pro Cinema 9500UB, which is virtually identical, on the other hand is sold only through local installing dealers.  The Home Cinema 8500UB is finished in an off white, the Pro Cinema 9500UB has a dark charcoal case.

Other differences:  The Pro Cinema 9500UB supports 3rd party anamorphic lenses, is ISF certified, comes with an extra year warranty, and the various color modes have different names.

Essentially, therefore, this blog, and the full review next week, will cover both projectors.  There should be no actual performance differences - in terms of picture quality or brightness.  Oh yes, one more difference - the Pro Cinema 9500UB will be more expensive.  Typically the “Pro” version, each year, comes bundled with ceiling mount and spare lamp, but, nothing’s official yet.

There’s a lot of conjecture right now about what the Epson Home Cinema 8500UB will sell for.  This is due to the industry surprise last week, when Panasonic announced it’s PT-AE4000 at $1999 MAP, down about $500 from last year’s PT-AE3000, and lower than most expected.   As it is, the Epson was originally supposed to have a MAP price “under $3000″, but now there’s a lot of guesswork, as to what the official price will be in a couple of weeks when it ships.  (BTW, my best guess would be $2500 - the Epsons historically have commanded a higher price than the Panasonics.  Of course a lot of you have been waiting for this blog to figure if that will be true this year as well.

I’ve only had the 9500UB here for 2+ days.  Mike was able to pick it up to measure and  calibrate the 9500UB  less than two hours after it arrived, and he eturned it later Wednesday night.  (Yeah, too bad I was at a Bob Dylan concert, and didn’t get to fire it up until 2am, or I might have gotten this posted this afternoon - forgive me!)

OK, some basics re the 9500UB - and 8500UB - relating to Mike’s measurements, etc.

Brightness, once again, is similar to last year’s.  Mike actually measured the 9500UB as a touch brighter than last year’s 6500UB, but only by a few lumens.  Given, this is a sample, it measured 498 lumens in best mode, with the zoom lens at mid-point, as we always measure. .  It’s possible (and likely) that production units will be a bit brighter, but no guaranties.

When it comes to brightest mode, the new Epsons are very bright, Mike measured a nice 1316 lumens (mid-point zoom) in Vivid mode (that’s the brightest, on the 9500UB.  Vivid is called Dynamic on the 8500UB).  That makes 1718 lumens with the lens at wide angle (projector at closest).  And that many lumens makes it the brightest of any of the under $4000 projectors I can think of - with one caveat.  The Epson actually has some pretty good color in Vivid/Dynamic mode (minor calibration improves it still).  This is unlike last year’s projectors, which were a touch brighter, but had way too much green in brighest mode.  (We ended up with about 1450 lumens with decent color, but the 9500UB definitely has better color still, in its brightest mode.

BTW the Epson’s this year, are apparently the first lower cost projectors to ship, that are THX certified.  (The first THX certified projectors appeared about 18 months ago, and were all extremely expensive Runco and Vidikron 3 chip DLP projectors.)

The Pro Cinema 9500UB’s THX mode, when comparing the 3 “best” modes, turns out to be the best of them, and as Mike put it, needed only the minimum in calibration.

For those of you rushing out to compare the 9500UB / 8500UB brightness with the Panasonic PT-AE4000, if you have read Evan’s review, it looks like they are pretty close, but with the Epson (as usual) having the advantage.  Still this year, it doesn’t look like the Epson has as big an advantage as last year.   I do believe Evan is measuring the brightest point (at least it reads that way), which is full wide angle.  He mentions that the Panny drops 41% from 548 lumens when in full telephoto - thus only 323 lumens, with lamp on full.   With the Epson, in terms of full telephoto, the 498 (since that’s at midpoint) lumens drops about 25% to 375 lumens.  The Epson drops about 42% from full wide angle to telephoto, so that would put it at maximum best mode brightness (wide angle) of 649 lumens - about 100 more than the Panny.  That would still have the Epson be about 18% brighter at brightest (wide angle), and about 16% brighter in full telephoto, but remember the Epson can be placed further from the screen due to more zoom range.  Figure that at the distance that would have the PT-AE4000 at maximum telephoto, the Epson wouldn’t quite be there, so the brightness difference is probably 18-20% when placed the same distance from the screen.

Ok, enough about the Epson vs. Panasonic, until I get the Panny in for review.   Bottom line, the Epson is the brighter projector, by what would look to be about 20% overall.  Not as great as in the past, but still enough to make a real difference for those with larger screens.

Mike did a real rush job (heading out on vacation), so I didn’t get to “tweak” a brighter still, brightest mode, before he worked on the 9500UB.  (I’ve since pushed up the contrast to get more lumens, at the cost of crushing some of the near white areas).  My best guess is that we can get as many as 1600 or 1700 lumens at mid-zoom point, and over 2000 at wide angle, without sacrificing too much.  That’s great news for folks like me who sometimes need to deal with more than a little, intentional ambient light.  In other words - lots of lumens for my football games!

Epson has improved the CFI - creative frame interpolation.  I actually watched an entire movie, and didn’t find it offensive.  I set it CFI to Low.  The movie I watched was The Water Horse.  I had never seen it before, so it may be that once I watch it again, with CFI off, I won’t like it On again, but it did add some real depth to many scenes, and didn’t scream “live digital video” like most CFI.  Oh, the tendency is there, but pretty tame - let’s say on the edge.  Some will like it, some not.  I watched some HD college football tonight (Pitt - Rutgers), also with it on low, and that worked out very well.

New for this year is Epson’s latest enhancement is called Super-resolution.  I haven’t read anything about it yet, but let’s call it another smart sharpening algorithm, until I learn otherwise.  Turns out, it works nicely, and does seem to sharpen things up, a little, without significant additional noise or other artifacts.  No doubt there are trade-offs that might show up on certain types of scenes, but so far, so good.

In fact I’ve been watching with Contrast Enhancement on 1, and Super-Resolution on 2, and the image really pops!

OK, the good stuff - black level performance - so, what do you think 200,000:1 contrast gets you, compared to last year’s 75,000:1?  Well, if you guessed “a little improvement” you nailed it.  The difference is slight, between the 9500UB and the 6500UB, which I ran side by side on segments from 3 or 4 movies last night.  Still when you have achieved the black level performance of the 6500UB, even a small increase is a real improvement.  On most mixed scenes you really won’t likely notice anything, but on some darker ones the difference is there.

There are still features I haven’t gotten to.  Including the ability to split the screen, to observe the CFI in operation on half.   I did note that Contrast Enhancement at 1, is very usable, but 2 is over the top, by my take, and adds a lot of image noise.  Forget setting 3.

For perspective, I did do some viewing (back and forth, not side by side) with the Epson Pro Cinema 9500UB projector, compared to my JVC RS20.  JVC owners, no worries, the RS20 still is one magnitude better.  The 9500UB and 8500UB may, at their very best, now rival the RS10 (on just the right type of scenes) but the RS10 too, still should have the black level advantage.

I’ve got just a few links to images for you, although I took a lot of side by sides.

First are 9500UB vs. 6500UB images.  Our first contestant is a space/stars scene from Space Cowboys.  this link will open a 1000 pixel wide side by side image, with the new Pro Cinema 9500UB on the left, 6500UB on the right.  You can definitely make out the difference in the blacks.  It’s not great, but there.  Also the older Epson had a tendency of the “blacks” to have a slight redish caste, almost invisible, but always tends to show up on my dark photos.  The new epson seems more neutral, in that regard.

The next image of Bond in Casino Royale - also comparing old Epson vs. new, is a photo that I really think captures the essence of the difference between the two projectors.  The new 9500UB, and of course, therefore the Home Cinema 8500UB as well, seems to have just a bit better,  more dynamic look.

OK, everyone can contemplate those images.

Next are a few side by sides with the BenQ W6000.  First, the BenQ, while having rather respectable black levels, still isn’t a match for the Epson projector.  Because the W6000 is significantly brighter in best mode, I not only had the W6000 in low lamp (eco) mode, but also had to reduce the size of the Epson’s projected image to try to get the brightness to equal the W6000.

I’ve got the overexposed satellite image from Space Cowboys, for your consideration, and following that, the DC comics logo from the beginning of The Dark Knight.  In the Dark Knight image which is very dark and overexposed, you can clearly see a significant difference in black levels (unlike the new Epson  vs. the old).

One more image - to look at the relative picture quality  - the plane scene from Casino Royale.  (Remember, colors will have changed from the projected image - to digital camera, to file, to web compressed file, to your computer monitor).  Still, both look good, and, not that dissimilar in terms of skin tones.

and finally, from Quantum of Solace:

Ok, time to just about wrap this up, tonight!   After all, need to save something for the full review.

One more thing before wrapping up:

Cost of Operation:

I’ve been blogging about this to people’s questions, about whether I think Epson will match the Panasonic PT-AE4000’s $1999 price.  I seriously doubt it.  True, it would be a good move having a lower price, in terms of more people who might afford it up front, but the Epson can command the higher price because of its lower cost of operation.  It’s lamp at full power is rated 4000 hours, and the Panasonic’s is 2000 hours. Better still, the Epson lamp is $299, vs $399.  For anyone who really watches their setup a lot, in three to five years, lamp costs can save the Epson owners $500 or more compared to the Panasonic.  A 40 hour a week user, can literally save  at least $800 in 5 years in lamp costs.

Final thoughts:  Everyone knows I’m a big fan of the Epson UB series, ever since the 1080 UB.  While last year, the Epson Home Cinema 6500UB and the Panasonic PT-AE3000 shared our Best In Class award (for mid-priced projectors), I personally favored the Epson for its extra brightness, more dynamic look, and superior blacks.

From my perhaps 8 hours of viewing so far, I am suitably impressed with this newest generation of UB (”Ultra Black”) projectors.  How it will stack up against the new Panasonic, I’ll report in a couple of weeks, but having run it with the BenQ W6000, and the Epson 6500UB, I do believe I’ve seen enough to still prefer it over the BenQ, and the Sony (I’ve viewed the Sony and BenQ side by side).

In other words, it looks like a worthy successor, and should prove most successful.  The big questions remaining are how the 8500UB stacks up against the PT-AE4000 of course,  and, on the higher end, the new JVC RS15 and RS25, and Sony VPL-VW85.    I mention these, because, I do get a lot of email, from people trying to decide between spending on best projectors in the $2000 - $3000 range, or whether to dig deeper into their wallets, and drop twice the bucks for an even better overall picture.

OK, the Epson Pro Cinema 9500UB and Home Cinema 8500UB in summary.

• Likely, still the best black level performance of all the new under $4000 projectors
• At least as bright as last year’s models, but not significantly brighter
• New super-resolution may prove to be a nice feature for more perceived sharpness
• Great 2, or 3 year warranty (Home or Pro), with replacement program
• Still not bright enough in “best” mode to fill larger screens, but very comfortable at a 110″ diagonal size with a typical screen surface, in a dark room
• Lots of lumens when you need them, in brightest mode, one of the brightest projectors around
• Price uncertain
• Appears a little sharper than the 6500UB
• Lowest cost of operation!

The end - for now - - - art

It’s getting exciting.  Here’s what’s up:

Although I barely got started on my review of the new Optoma HD8600, I’m going to delay that one a bit, and finish it as I can.

The Epson Pro Cinema 9500UB has arrived, and it top priority.  The full Epson projector review should post on Oct 21! (I think I can actually make that self imposed deadline!)

BTW, I just looked at Mike’s calibration numbers for the Epson Pro Cinema 9500UB, and they look as tight (to D65) as any projector I’ve ever seen, post calibration (based on the THX mode).

Immediately following the Epson review, will be my review of the new JVC RS25. (This is cool since it means that, on back to back weeks, I’m reviewing the newest versions of the projectors I personally own - the JVC DLA-RS20 and the Epson Home Cinema 1080UB.)  Target date for the JVC DLA-RS25 - aka JVC HD950 - to publish, is Oct 28th.

That means I’ll have side by sides, showing the black level differences between the 200,000:1 contrast Epson (using a dynamic iris), against the 50,000:1 JVC (with no dynamic iris).

By the time the JVC RS25 posts, I hope to have received the PT-AE4000 for review, which is my third top priority projector.  If it isn’t here by then, I’ll likely finish up the Optoma HD8600, and start on the Mitsubishi HC6800.

OK, now I’m into November.  Assuming all of those are done, it then comes down to when I can get some other projectors in.  I’m hoping for the BenQ W1000 at $999, and the Vivitek HD1080FD (same price) - I’m waiting for an updated version, as Vivitek, who has sent out at least one sample, indicated that it the sample wasn’t ready for prime time, and would have one with new firmware, for me shortly.

Also for early November, I’ll get back in a production InFocus ScreenPlay 8602, and finish that review.  Hopefully, by then I’ll also receive a Sony VPL-VW85, which I’m pretty excited about.  As many of you know, I’ve definitely favored the JVC over the Sony when it comes to these LCoS projectors, but the VPL-VW85 looks particularly formidable this year!  We shall see.

That should pretty much cover the next month and a half, afterall, 1 per week is my absolute best time, and I prefer 10 days average.  (So if they all show up, that probably takes me close to mid-december.

Other projectors on my short list:  the JVC RS15, and if they come through, one of the Digital Projection projectors (with LED light source), but that’s iffy.  I’m also very curious about the RS35 JVC, which supposedly is a souped up RS25 with hand picked components.  I don’t even know if they would actually have a review unit of it.  The RS35 quotes higher contrast than the RS25.

With virtually no new 720p projectors announced this fall, and Sanyo not announcing any home theater projectors, the list overall, is shorter this year, which may give me time to bring in and review a few more expensive projectors.

OK, that’s the scoop.  Time to fire up the Epson Pro Cinema 9500UB, and take it for a ride!  Look for the First Look blog on the Pro Cinema 9500UB and Home Cinema 8500UB tomorrow evening!  -art