New Epson 4k Lasers

Triggaaar

Distinguished Member
Why cherry pick what I said to make it look this way? o_O
I wasn't 'cherry picking'. You made several points, and I quoted the one I was replying to. I haven't made your post look a certain way. Some people here are saying they think the motion and contrast on some Epsons can be improved, and you're saying that only nerds care about that. There are a lot of projectors out there that will produce a decent image for much less than £3k - now they may not be decent enough for some enthusiasts here, but the majority of people will think they're decent. This thread is not about those cheaper projectors, it's about Epson's new top of the range projectors, at over £4k, and many here (not the overall market, but this enthusiasts forum) would like good motion and contrast for that price tag.
 

DLxP

Distinguished Member
And the 'Worst Thread on AVF' award goes to...
 

Luminated67

Distinguished Member
I wasn't 'cherry picking'. You made several points, and I quoted the one I was replying to. I haven't made your post look a certain way. Some people here are saying they think the motion and contrast on some Epsons can be improved, and you're saying that only nerds care about that. There are a lot of projectors out there that will produce a decent image for much less than £3k - now they may not be decent enough for some enthusiasts here, but the majority of people will think they're decent. This thread is not about those cheaper projectors, it's about Epson's new top of the range projectors, at over £4k, and many here (not the overall market, but this enthusiasts forum) would like good motion and contrast for that price tag.
Are we discussing the 9400 or these new LS models?
 

Stridsvognen

Distinguished Member
the majority aren't bothered by motion, pixel fill, contrast or the other stuff that's extremely important to nerds (no offence) because to them they go view the product and if they like it they buy it and if they don't then they look at something else which is why I always suggest getting a demo because not everyone's priorities are the same and neither are their eyes.
So should we adopt the discussion on the forum to who? You dont like to hear about Epsons extremely low pixel fill, and you cant see it, and you dont want anyone to point it out to newcomers, so what are we to tell people who ask how the Epson compares to other brands?

Could you make a list of what's ok to talk about and what's not?

Do you mind this one?
Pixel fill.png
 

IWC Dopplel

Distinguished Member
I wasn't suggesting for one minute we ignore the science and the measurements despite you completely missing my point. I was just suggesting people also actually see this PJ in action with their own eyes. Our eyes are all different and what you see may be very different to someone else. I mean you can see things that an eagle can't.

This PJ seems to have garnered a lot of interest look at the size of the thread compared to the new JVC Lasers. A fair chunk of the posts seem to be really negative, I don't really get why people want to come on here and just try and highlight negative aspects all the time. Almost as if they have an agenda?!?

There is a challenge with just looking at measurements without the sometimes necessary subjectivity. Contrast, especially ANSI being one, how we measure movement and so on. The correlation between accurate measurements and what we 'see' isnt always straight forward and certainly not linear. Even more so on the audio front
 

Ricoflashback

Active Member
Science is only as good as your skills in interpreting it. ASR's review of the T758 is pretty much: "here is an arbitraty measure at an arbitrary level. It distorts here. But yeah, if you stay below -5 dBm it works just fine. Btw this is the worst thing I've ever reviewed because of my made up metric".
If it’s Amir at ASR doing the writing, he has statistics on problems that don’t exist. Like the Denon 6700 AVR which he negatively reviewed at reference (volume levels) your coked out cousin wouldn‘t listen to. Hard pass on Amir and ASR.
 

Ricoflashback

Active Member
I wasn't going to post any more after last Thursday as it's a waste of time now, but just thought I'd leave this here:

083fcbc0403860b5df462a78b54f8a9e.gif

giphy.gif
Ah, c’mon Peter. We always enjoy your posts. So what if it’s just conjecture and blind posts until someone really gets their hands on one of these projectors. You could mow the lawn. What a minute - summer is over.
 

Eddie 209

Standard Member
what are we to tell people who ask how the Epson compares to other brands?

I'd suggest that you can tell people to look at it using their eyes and go with what they like the best, for their own circumstances. I understand the important of pixel fill, etc - but these are measurable technical matters that are all being used as a proxy. What matters with a projector is how it looks to the person who's planning to look at it.

Ther's the old joke in science: "Sure your idea is really effective in practice, but does it work in theory?".

A lot of the discussion here seems to depend which end of the telescope you want to look down - some people love the technical performance side, personally I'm a pragmatist. If it looks good and puts an immersive image on the screen then I'll be happy however it achieves it.
 

Alaric

Well-known Member
I don't know about that, I have watched dozens of videos on youtube where people use very expensive JVC's and Sony's in normal rooms.

It is actually rare to see one of those projectors in a batcave.

YUP.....A lot of high end PJs are in less than ideal environments and yet often you get people chasing higher performance and a better projector hoping that it'll fix an inherent room problem.
 

Alaric

Well-known Member
I guess the biggest motivation for posting projector videos on youtube is to show off and brag about the new expensive equipment, and not necessarily to show how to get the best picture and sound quality out of it.

I keep contemplating doing something like this with my room, however it's more because my room has some unique features, my set-up is a bit different from the norm and it may give people some ideas and help and we appear to be moving to a more video format with things. Most the info is in my sig but explaining it and passing information on in a video format may be more helpful and digestible.

The black velvet thing is relatively cheap, quick and easy in a dedicated room. My floating screen is pretty unique. The re-use of an old flagship amp as a power amp. The way I've perfectly aligned my projector and screen using the projector rather than measurements (my room is far from square, so normal measurements don't work well etc). There's LOTS of useful info and tweaks and stuff. BEQ, BOSS, Calibration etc

However i'm not sure about the fame and fortune aspect :rotfl:
 

Alaric

Well-known Member
Hi @alebonau,

You asked this question about motion 'issues' on the 9400. I think you asked this a few times. Did you get an answer? I've skimmed the thread, but there are a lot of messages!

I'm coming from a much older (Epson) projector and was holding out for something newer, but I have now gone back to considering the 9400. Interestingly I found a review for my current PJ that mentions it has some motion issues, but is generally okay. I've never seen any motion issues on it, so maybe I don't notice them.

Would be useful to know what these motion issues are though.

Big wide fast pans are not the best (left to right, right to left) on the 9400....It's rare i find a film with the kind of content that does it to the point i notice, but occasionally there's something i notice and then it's over in a second or so.

FI is only on 1080p and it's best set to low or off, you can get too much smooth with the soap opera effect. Some people like FI and it's available for 4K stuff on the LS, which was a complaint about the 9400 and yet most don't use it when they can o_O
 
Last edited:

Stridsvognen

Distinguished Member
I'd suggest that you can tell people to look at it using their eyes and go with what they like the best, for their own circumstances. I understand the important of pixel fill, etc - but these are measurable technical matters that are all being used as a proxy. What matters with a projector is how it looks to the person who's planning to look at it.

Ther's the old joke in science: "Sure your idea is really effective in practice, but does it work in theory?".

A lot of the discussion here seems to depend which end of the telescope you want to look down - some people love the technical performance side, personally I'm a pragmatist. If it looks good and puts an immersive image on the screen then I'll be happy however it achieves it.
But then you have the reference factor, some have seen a Benq DLP and a Epson, others have seen a Epson and a SONY 4K, and then there is the guy with the JVC NX9. non of them performs alike, and looks very very different, especially to people with high reference level, not trying to say that you cant be happy with whatever you get or have, just that discussing on a forum we should try to be objective and honest about strength and weaknesses of different models and brands without some constantly getting insulted as they have one and its the best they have ever had.

I have had the Experience calibrating a Epson TW9400 and do a lot of testing and thinking that was kind of ok-ish, until turning on the JVC N series with identical calibration at the same time, making a direct A-B comparison, where there was no doubt that the Epson was really struggling, nobody wanted to watch more Epson after that. But sure you can live with it not having any reference to something much better, or put it next to something worse, and it suddenly becomes the to go to choice.
Where do we put the bar? if there is 12 steps on the ladder, should we all lower expectations to step 1, or from step 12, with those who have tried and seen it all.
 

Alaric

Well-known Member
Exactly. So that example is a good one where if we listened only to science no one would buy that receiver. As it measured so poorly compared to all others. The fact that 99% of those measurements were a range of inaudible vs inaudible could easily get lost in translation.

Same as here. People get a bit carried away with the measurements. People need to see this PJ too to see what all the measurements translates to. Not use science for their entire decision. As they might be surprised in either direction. Could be worse than they were expecting too!!

Just trying to suggest a more balanced approach.

Acoustics are at BEST a dark art. We once believed a flat response was the ideal, until we got it and went URGH, lifeless!!!

Heck a lot of the very best acoustical spaces out there, don't work on paper and were created hundreds of years before we had all the tech and measurements and yet still sound incredible.
 

Luminated67

Distinguished Member
Acoustics are at BEST a dark art. We once believed a flat response was the ideal, until we got it and went URGH, lifeless!!!
Back in the day when I did the old car sound competitions you had two settings, one for frequency and another for sound quality, heaven forbid you forgot to switch over for the sound quality judging. :laugh:
Heck a lot of the very best acoustical spaces out there, don't work on paper and were created hundreds of years before we had all the tech and measurements and yet still sound incredible.
Or maybe it's our arrogance that we think we know it all because we have the science and equipment but back then they knew as much as us if not more and had none of this.
 

Triggaaar

Distinguished Member
Are we discussing the 9400 or these new LS models?
Well all of them really. None of them are cheap, they're all quite high level projectors. The 9400 has been very well regarded over the years for being the best under £2.5k. Like all projectors, it has its limits, and they are being discussed. You have to spend quite a lot more (when buying new) to get an improvement on the 9400, but it's been out for a good number of years and many (including you I think) are hoping to get a good improvement with the LS12000.
 

Luminated67

Distinguished Member
Well all of them really. None of them are cheap, they're all quite high level projectors. The 9400 has been very well regarded over the years for being the best under £2.5k. Like all projectors, it has its limits, and they are being discussed. You have to spend quite a lot more (when buying new) to get an improvement on the 9400, but it's been out for a good number of years and many (including you I think) are hoping to get a good improvement with the LS12000.
OK so what we are discussing the LS12000 in relation to how it compares to the 9400 which we all know.

I think quite a few myself included are questioning what the LS12000 is bringing to the table over what the 9400 already has and this can only truly be answered by the likes of Ricky and reviews as to where the improvements are but ultimately it's up to each of us to determine whether there's enough of an improvement to justify the expense of upgrading.

Certainly this new 4 axis shift function should give a smoother almost 4K projector look to the image, whether that makes the actual image look slightly softer than we currently have with the 9400 will be interesting to see.

I think other aspect of the LS12000 haven't moved on, I never had an issue with the level of blacks I see from my 9400 but that's not to say that I don't acknowledge that the likes of the JVC are better, I hoped that given the time involved and this was a continuation in model name from the LS10500 that what we were getting was a LCoQ projector but alas it wasn't so things like contrast are probably little different from the 9400.

OK, last post until some actual info on these projectors arrive.
 

Gordon @ Convergent AV

Distinguished Member
AVForums Sponsor
Short update.

1: I'm just watching in a living room environment on a matt white 177cm wide screen. With a short throw....it is bright. I am running 55% power and it's 200NITS peak white.lol I might look see if i can get a filter of some sort to knock it down.

2: At this brightness i still think the Epson tone mapping is not great. Of course i am spoilt with the Lumagen i use but there is a massive difference in image quality using the Radiance...

3: The CMS is useless imho.

4: Greyscale and gamma dial in well with on board tools but i've tweaked with the Radiance i use.

5: Motion....well, now having spent time with this thing i agree that 24fps handling is not as good as my old HD350. If you turn on the motion processing of the LS11000 its much more watcheable (low)...until some 50Hz content comes along at which point it's hideous and is much better turned off.

I don't have time to grab any pics of measurements i'm afraid as i'm a bit busy but i thought i ought to chuck something out there to add to this thread....
 

ricwhite

Standard Member
On paper, the LS12000 has some advantages over the 9400 but until reviews come in there is no way to know how great those advantages are. To help mitigate the increased cost of the LS12000, be aware that the laser light unit is equivalent to 6 lamps and the extra 2 years of warranty is worth something. That won't completely offset the increase in price, but it helps. And if the reviews indicate overall better image quality and performance compared with the 9400, then all things considered, it would likely be worth the price difference.
 

Stridsvognen

Distinguished Member
5: Motion....well, now having spent time with this thing i agree that 24fps handling is not as good as my old HD350. If you turn on the motion processing of the LS11000 its much more watcheable (low)...until some 50Hz content comes along at which point it's hideous and is much better turned off.
Thats odd as the old HD series JVC had quite bad motion, ill almost say horrible, and that also goes for the first 3 generations of the JVC X series.
 

Gordon @ Convergent AV

Distinguished Member
AVForums Sponsor
It is what it is. I have never been taken out of a scene because of motion when watching on my old hD350 and HD990 but it was one of the first things i noted on this LS11000. Hence turning on the motion processing...only to discover it "gives with one hand and takes with the other"
 
Last edited:

Stridsvognen

Distinguished Member
It is what it is. I have never been taken out of a scene because of motion when wathcing on my old hD350 and HD990 but it was one of the first things i noted on this LS11000. Hence turning on the motion processing...only to discover it "gives with one hand and takes with the other"
Is that not how motion processing has always worked?, Just wondering... Do you get better motion when turning off the eshift / twerking feature, i always found that eshift reduces motion on JVC.
 

The latest video from AVForums

Sony Bravia XR A80J OLED TV Review
Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Latest News

Piega launches Ace Wireless speakers
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
M&K Sound launches V+ Series subwoofers
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Denon launches DHT-S517 Dolby Atmos soundbar
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Perlisten Audio launches loudspeaker ranges in UK
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
What's new on UK streaming services for February 2022
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published

Full fat HDMI teeshirts

Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom