Why is the camp so split over the Pearl 'image'?

Steve.EX · 22-11-2006, 4:34 PM

It seems there are some very knowledgable fellows out there who understand image quality/presentation.
So why do some like and some loathe the Pearl image, can this be accurately defined/described? This does not seem in line with the general consensus with DLP for example where despite an acknowledgement that the sharpness of DLP can be interpreted as a more digital 'take' than LCD/CRT it is generally acknowledged that rainbows asides most people like the positives of (i.e) the IN76, 7210 etc.
I have read the reviews and the Pearl does indeed seem to tail off at the very highest frequency extremes but this imo is not representitive of just how 'soft' some people report it to be.
Do they really mean soft or is it perhaps 'perceived' as smooth given a high fill-rate?
I am confident that colour rendition (with a little work) will be as saturated as i would hope for and indeed contrast will be much better than i am used too, but this sharpness lark is of concern to me. As with music i am a detail freak. Whilst i like DLP i have discounted it due to my perception of rainbows. Whether i am overly sensitive to it i am not sure but having seen this on several PJ's and the effect it has on films like Sin City, which was rendered almost unwatchable to me, DLP is a flawed (like everything else) technology for me right now.
I will have to travel some distance to view a Pearl, which i honestly want to be good enough to warrant the immediate purchase.
I am very curious, but wonder at the (respected) opinions of several of the old hand members here and the split in opinion.
Do you really mean soft as i understand soft to mean?

Steve.EX · 22-11-2006, 4:40 PM

Also can anyone confirm or deny as too whether the reported Pal/2:2 cadence issue has been resolved?

Thanks

Steven

Steve.EX · 22-11-2006, 4:47 PM

Also is it a sealed optic assembly or is it (relatively) exposed to dust. if so how easy is to clean/service?
The upshot of all this is that i am very shortly about to move to a new property and this is, in all honesty, most likely my last expensive AV purchase for quite a while. I am very very happy with the audio abilities of my current kit so this upgrade will need to be a well judged purpose as i will not be upgrading my new PJ for a few years to come (financial restrictions and all

)

Gordon @ Convergent AV · 22-11-2006, 5:06 PM

My own take on it is that folk do not understand or are not used to projectors with the "look" of Pearl. It is able to resolve 1920 x1080 on/off lines. You can see each individual pixel if you stand close to the screen.

Look out a window. Life is NOT sharp. Life is smooth. Edges of objects are smooth....but there is detail within all this. Artificial edge enhancement caused by poor scaling, sharpness controls, screen door effect poor fill factor, are becoming things of the past.

I think sharp looking images also come from the ability to have high ansi contrasts though. IE The ability to have a bright white pixel and the black one beside it still remain black rather than look grey. That is one of the areas that something like a SIM2D80 has Pearl beaten. It is twice the price though.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I've got the use of a very highly regarded 720P DLP PJ at home. It was knocked in to next year on image quality by the Pearl I had in for a client. Both were used with an external video processor and both were calibrated, not on out the box settings.

Just my 2p..... I'm sure others wil disagree.

Gordon

Steve.EX · 22-11-2006, 5:37 PM

Gordon.

I most heartily agree with your statement regarding percieved detail in relation to contrast.
This was most poigniantly (abeit crudely) proved to my friend just the other night when i hauled my PJ, A1 and sit-up-and-beg 16:9 pull-up screen (with a 1.1 gain) to my friends.
I have long extolled the virtues of using a (decent) screen to him as he insists on projecting onto a large magnolia wall. It was not until this night and day demo that he finally saw the light. I was determined to go through with this demo as i have long used a reasonable (all be it manual) screen. My friend is about to step up to HD status with an impending new PJ purchase (much like myself) and either $ky HD or E1 or perhaps both. My mission was to try and get him to offset a little of his PJ budget to put towards a screen.

It took precisely 2 minutes for the dawning of the light to hit him. Whilst there are obviously several factors at work, what was absolutely apparent (and even to a mildly blind person imo) was the perceived lost in fine detail in the HD King Kong jungle scenes we were playing with.
Although obviously that low level detail was still there, you were just not aware of it.
This was very much as i had expected and known it to be but for my friend it was little short of startling.

Interesting your comments on the Pearl and very much in line with my own 'guesses' (having not yet seen it). Yet i am sure elsewhere i had read that you would choose an older 720 design over the Pearl given the choice.
I am reasonably aware of the implications of owning a 1080 device and well realise that only if all other things are equal then a higher res panel will/may offer something above a lower spec'd machine.
I dearly like the thought of owning a Pearl, but i guess like everyone else wants hard, proven facts (from someone else) that it really is the best thing since sliced bread.
Are you aware of any improvements to the 2:2 issue, which to be fair is probably the least of my concerns right now given that i will not own any variant of $ky and have only perhaps 2% Pal discs (and intent to keep it that way only buying if no other option exists), watching terrestrial through it is also of no relevance to me.

thanks

Steven

Gordon @ Convergent AV · 22-11-2006, 5:43 PM

Steve: My comment on the other thread about 720P DLP and the Pearl was exactly the opposite. I will now have to dig it out and clarify my point....I have no further knowledge on PAL 2:2 with the units.
Gordon

Steve.EX · 22-11-2006, 5:45 PM

I also agree with the 'life is not like that' statement.
I think people have gotten used to using photoshop or something, wacked out to mega-giga resolutions.
Back in the real world, can you see the stitching to your friends black suit at 15 feet in darkness? Of course you can't!

This is where a split and analogy (of sorts) does exist between the DLP and CRT camps.
DLP (to me) does and can seem very sharp, almost excessively so sometimes to an almost digital 'feel' as opposed to CRTs more glossy look.
I liken this to the vinyl vs cd camps.

Steven

Steve.EX · 22-11-2006, 5:58 PM

Gordon.
I am sure you are aware but your web link in your signature is experiencing 'technical difficulties'

Steven

recruit · 22-11-2006, 6:01 PM

Have a look Steve at some of the shots on my thread below and tell me what you think about the Pearls PQ ?

The Sony VPL-VW50 Thread AKA " Pearl "

Steve.EX · 22-11-2006, 6:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by recruit

Have a look Steve at some of the shots on my thread below and tell me what you think about the Pearls PQ ?

The Sony VPL-VW50 Thread AKA " Pearl "

Yes, i had seen those.
Unfortunately on (either of) my laptops it is not telling me 'enough' (my prob not yours

)

What PJ(s) did you have prior to this?

Steven

recruit · 22-11-2006, 6:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve.EX

Yes, i had seen those.
Unfortunately on (either of) my laptops it is not telling me 'enough' (my prob not yours

)

What PJ(s) did you have prior to this?

Steven

I had a Themescene HD72i which was nice but not anywhere near the quality of the Pearl, also had a Ruby for a week and demod an IN76 and have also seen Runco PJ's and a couple of Sims...

Steve.EX · 22-11-2006, 6:43 PM

Although i do not want DLP, i thought the IN76 to be a competent PJ. As a benchmark i can relate to how do you feel the Pearl compares, is it better on all counts?
Given the IN can be picked up for less than £1000 these days does the Pearl offer VFM on the same scale. I have read that it is on a whole different level but opinions are always subjective?
Whilst i am sure i will make the (very) long journey to demo the Pearl, i am always wary of demos in an enviroment that is not my own.
Hopefully they will at least have other PJ's by which i am able to establish comparison benchmarks.

Steven

recruit · 22-11-2006, 6:49 PM

Well i prefered the HD72i to the IN76

Gordon @ Convergent AV · 22-11-2006, 7:03 PM

Steve, Links work fine to me. Which one do you have problem with

Gordon

Avi · 22-11-2006, 7:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve.EX

Yes, i had seen those.
Unfortunately on (either of) my laptops it is not telling me 'enough' (my prob not yours

)

What PJ(s) did you have prior to this?

Steven

Steve

I spent some time with the Optoma HD81 before opting for the Pearl. I certainly don't think the Pearl looks soft but the image is different to DLP.

I guess it comes down to your image preference at the end of the day and for me it was the Pearl.

AVI

Gary Lightfoot · 22-11-2006, 8:30 PM

The Pearl may look less sharp in comparison to DLP, but it is a relative comparison that doen't necessarily meany one is right and the other isn't, as it can be down to personal preference as Gordon has said. I like the images most projector technologies can produce, but each has it's own 'issues' for want of a better word, so ultimately it can be down to the image qualities that you personaly may dislike (such as rainbows) rather than those that you like. Some image problems can be remedied and some can't, but the only way is to demo and decide for yourself if there is anything you don't like (which you've alreadt decided to do).

Curently though, what other pj with the performance of the Ruby can be had for that price? The JVC RS1 will be out soon but the price is an unknown quantity as is the final QC, but in the under £4000 price range there isn't much in the way of 1080 pjs right now.

You could buy the Pearl right now if you're happy with it, and then upgrade to something else in a year or so once 1080 prjectors have been produced in greater numbers and the prices have settled if you wanted (and any 'bugs' ironed out). It's a route I'd seriously consider if I felt it was enough of an upgrade over what I currently have (I've not seen a Pearl yet), plus 1080 HD is here now and content is ramping up, so that's another reason to get 1080 now.

Gary

Veolia · 22-11-2006, 11:20 PM

I've really been bitten by the whole projector thing since buying my first several weeks ago now.

It seemed to me that the Pearl is probably the best value in projection at the minute. Having said that £3k is an aweful lot of money and so I decided I'd get a demo with someone who offers credit terms.

After a brief search I found Stone Audio who are fairly close to me. I arranged a demo and they even let me bring in my PC to use as the source

Brilliantly accomodating and I would recommend their service without hesitation.

However I was less impressed with the picture from the Pearl. I played back a fair few of the 1080i and 720p movies I have stored on the PC and noticed many problems compared to my Yamaha DPX1100. The colours looked unnatural and I noticed on dark scenes that you got a rather exaggerated impression of facial tones. A good example would be Alien which I have 720p version of. This movie is pretty dark throughout and I really noticed the problem with this. Strangely it looked better with light scenes.

I can say that the black levels are extremely good, there's a really nice feeling of depth thanks to this. BUT it all seems for naught because you've got that rather poor colour representation. I just couldn't sit down and enjoy the movie for what it was, instead I was thinking "that looks odd", "way too much blue", "where's the remote to try and fix that". Also whilst the black level on the pearl is great I got the sense that it didn't feel quite so good on scenes with a mix of light and dark.

I didn't feel the optics were particularly high quality. I just couldn't get a good focus on the PC desktop and it always tended to look a fraction out of focus. The unit I saw also had about 1 pixel of misalignment on the one of the panels - I think it was the blue one, not sure though and eitherway it was slightly annoying coming from a single chip DLP.

The projector I looked at wasn't calibrated BTW and was on the default settings. I spent a lot of my time during the demo playing around with the colour settings trying to get something that resembled the really natural and film like look that I get from my Yamaha DPX1100.

On the plus side, I was shocked at just how quiet it was, infact I couldn't hear it from around 5ft away. It also looks beautiful IMO and the build was reassuring. Like I mentioned above, this projector has the best black I've seen yet. I've got a few 1080p clips which I played back and my jaw was on the floor with the detail but for me there's far more to the story than just resolution. Colour and greyscale accuracy as well as colour saturation make for the most pleasing image and I have a superior setup in this regard already. I can really just sit back with DPX1100 but the Pearl would have me reaching for remote to try and fix the problems halfway through a movie.

Overall I left with a mix of good and bad, perhaps more bad than good actually. I've decided I'll hold off until the 1080p DLP's come down to around £3k and then take another look and compare to the LCD/SXRD's that are around at that time also. The Pearl is an excellent step in the right direction and I don't think anyone can take away from its fairly good performance and 1080p capabilities for a reasonable price.

Veolia · 22-11-2006, 11:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot

The Pearl may look less sharp in comparison to DLP, but it is a relative comparison that doen't necessarily meany one is right and the other isn't, as it can be down to personal preference as Gordon has said. I like the images most projector technologies can produce, but each has it's own 'issues' for want of a better word, so ultimately it can be down to the image qualities that you personaly may dislike (such as rainbows) rather than those that you like. Some image problems can be remedied and some can't, but the only way is to demo and decide for yourself if there is anything you don't like (which you've alreadt decided to do).

Curently though, what other pj with the performance of the Ruby can be had for that price? The JVC RS1 will be out soon but the price is an unknown quantity as is the final QC, but in the under £4000 price range there isn't much in the way of 1080 pjs right now.

You could buy the Pearl right now if you're happy with it, and then upgrade to something else in a year or so once 1080 prjectors have been produced in greater numbers and the prices have settled if you wanted (and any 'bugs' ironed out). It's a route I'd seriously consider if I felt it was enough of an upgrade over what I currently have (I've not seen a Pearl yet), plus 1080 HD is here now and content is ramping up, so that's another reason to get 1080 now.

Gary

Hi Gary,

I seriously believe that 1080p is only really attractive if you've got an otherwise sorted picture. My Pearl demo proved to me that resolution actually isn't very important if other things aren't up to scratch.

Its certainly very exciting but I couldn't bring myself to buy a machine that wouldn't let me sit down and forget that I was watching a facsimile. I do understand you can have these calibrated but that doesn't fix all the problems I mentioned above.

Gary Lightfoot · 22-11-2006, 11:37 PM

Hi Veolia,

Yes indeed, resolution is just one piece of the puzzle, and if the other image components don't look right then all the resolution in the world isn't going to fix it. I have seen a poorly set up Ruby (by Sony would you believe), so I would hope to see a properly calibrated Pearl to see how it can perform. Not everyone can calibrate their own displays so getting someone like Gordon in to do it for them is a good way to get a display looking its best. I certainly wouldn't buy one without seeing what it was capabale of first.

I've seen the Optoma HD81 and Sim2 Domino 80 in the same room back to back, and the D80 looked the better machine of the two in this instance. It looks like it may be a while before DLP comes down to affordable levels for many of us unfortunatley, so if we want 1080, we're going to have to look at other options or wait it out.

Gary

Veolia · 22-11-2006, 11:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot

Hi Veolia,

Yes indeed, resolution is just one piece of the puzzle, and if the other image components don't look right then all the resolution in the world isn't going to fix it. I have seen a poorly set up Ruby (by Sony would you believe), so I would hope to see a properly calibrated Pearl to see how it can perform. Not everyone can calibrate their own displays so getting someone like Gordon in to do it for them is a good way to get a display looking its best. I certainly wouldn't buy one without seeing what it was capabale of first.

Thanks for the reply Gary,

Agreed, spending £3k and then another £200 or so on a proper calibration would be prudent. On the flip side I can't see why most manufacturers can't get something right out the box nowadays. People like Marantz, SIM2, Yamaha and Runco have been doing it for years. Sure you can tweak some extra performance out of these machines but they are already very apparently accurate and natural straight out the box.

Quote:

I've seen the Optoma HD81 and Sim2 Domino 80 in the same room back to back, and the D80 looked the better machine of the two in this instance. It looks like it may be a while before DLP comes down to affordable levels for many of us unfortunatley, so if we want 1080, we're going to have to look at other options or wait it out.

Luckily I don't see rainbows very often and given that I'd say that DLP is still offering the most well rounded image for the time being. I wish I'd got a chance to demo the Sim2 HC3000 or HC5000 which would be my choice should I ever rob a bank/come into money.