New Epson 4k Lasers

kenshingintoki

Distinguished Member
I literally can't count the number of bulbs I've purchased over the last 15 years. I also don't care about 3D, but I know a lot of people do. I think the 12000 is gonna be a home run for those who specifically want laser illumination and don't care about 3D.

The 9300 is still a rock solid choice also. It'll be nice to have options, if you're willing to spend the extra $.

True mate, more options the better. We need competition in the projection space.
 
I'd have considered this if it came out in NA sooner, but with no announcement that's too much uncertainty. if that DTM does bare out as high quality that was the main con imo. I didn't have the patience to wait, but this really is looking to be a solid option and factoring in bulbs, the higher price can be at least somewhat justified. I averaged about a bulb a year on my previous Epson.

Really awesome to see that it might have quality tone mapping.

I like 3D and will be happy to have it on my NZ7 when it arrives, but that's a nothing burger to most people and I think the DTM was looking like the biggest miss initially. This will sell gangbusters.
 
Last edited:

kenshingintoki

Distinguished Member
I'd have considered this if it came out in NA sooner, but with no announcement that's too much uncertainty. if that DTM does bare out as high quality that was the main con imo. I didn't have the patience to wait, but this really is looking to be a solid option and factoring in bulbs, the higher price can be at least somewhat justified. I averaged about a bulb a year on my previous Epson.

Really awesome to see that it might have quality tone mapping.

I like 3D and will be happy to have it on my NZ7 when it arrives, but that's a nothing burger to most people and I think the DTM was looking like the biggest miss initially. This will sell gangbusters.
Agreed. With DTM its going to be selling VERY well.
 

markymiles

Distinguished Member
Wonder when these will be out in the wild and we get some user opinions............
 

markymiles

Distinguished Member
Really, don't recall anyone buying one yet? That's what I meant, not the online "reviews" we've seen to date and the odd users demo at dealers.
 
Last edited:

djej

Standard Member
Sorry, am i missing something, what makes everyone now think it has high quality DTM?
There are reports of some who saw it in person saying it's HDR performance is very good, with something on par as DTM..(whether it truly is DTM is another question though)
 

CaroleBaskin

Distinguished Member
Sorry, am i missing something, what makes everyone now think it has high quality DTM?
Comparison earlier in the thread to it beating or matching the new JVC NZ7 with published ‘actual DTM in the spec’ in several movie scenes with the same preset.
 

Thatsnotmynaim

Distinguished Member
Good HDR and good DTM are different things, good HDR can look good on many films but crud on not very well mastered ones, such as Meg, good DTM will sort out HDR on not very well mastered material also.
 
There's definitely some more evidence required. I would not buy it based on that without seeing more reviews documenting it.
 

CaroleBaskin

Distinguished Member
I asked my dealer about it as a result of that unexpected NZ7 comment with the intent to buy one. Ended up not buying it 😄 Sounds like a cracking projector for the price point, but we should be realistic with the claims some are making.

I’m also not trying to take those claims back from anyone who enjoyed it and genuinely thought that it bested/got close to the NZ7, more power to you if that’s your take away.
 
Last edited:

djej

Standard Member
I asked my dealer about it as a result of that unexpected NZ7 comment with the intent to buy one. Ended up not buying it 😄 Sounds like a cracking projector for the price point, but we should be realistic with the claims some are making.
The only claim I probably wouldn't believe is if someone said it performed better at the lowest of ADL in regards to black level. I do believe however it could be very close in resolution, perceptually at least. DTM is still undetermined in my eyes (whatever Epson is actually doing...). Motion? another wait and see with those fancy new panels.
 

CaroleBaskin

Distinguished Member
The only claim I probably wouldn't believe is if someone said it performed better at the lowest of ADL in regards to black level. I do believe however it could be very close in resolution, perceptually at least. DTM is still undetermined in my eyes (whatever Epson is actually doing...). Motion? another wait and see with those fancy new panels.
 

darrellh44

Active Member
There are reports of some who saw it in person saying it's HDR performance is very good, with something on par as DTM..(whether it truly is DTM is another question though)
What's the definition of DTM? Only what JVC does because they came out with it first?

I still maintain that dynamic gamma which results in the luminance of each pixel being updated every frame as content in the scene changes (whether the dynamic gamma curve changes every frame or not) in a generic sense is DTM. Just because it's not the same exact algorithm as JVC doesn't mean it's not DTM as long as the end results are similar as has been reported when an LS12000 has been directly compared to an NZ7.

There may be corner cases with some content that look better with one algorithm vs the other, but we don't know at this point which one will have fewer issues.
 

Luminated67

Distinguished Member
I love reading reviews but as with every one you read you need to remember one thing and that’s personal opinion/preference, what one person thinks looks great you might think it’s crap and vice versa.

NEVER buy anything based on others opinions, yes use them as a guide to shortlist but always trust your own opinion.
 

Thatsnotmynaim

Distinguished Member
What's the definition of DTM? Only what JVC does because they came out with it first?

I still maintain that dynamic gamma which results in the luminance of each pixel being updated every frame as content in the scene changes (whether the dynamic gamma curve changes every frame or not) in a generic sense is DTM. Just because it's not the same exact algorithm as JVC doesn't mean it's not DTM as long as the end results are similar as has been reported when an LS12000 has been directly compared to an NZ7.

There may be corner cases with some content that look better with one algorithm vs the other, but we don't know at this point which one will have fewer issues.
JVC were not the first to use DTM, they did not invent an algorithm, many other things used DTM before JVC (TVs, MadVR etc), also there is unfortunately no standard for dong it just like some other aspects of HDR. JVC's DTM is also not the best at doing it, although it does a good job.
 

kenshingintoki

Distinguished Member
I love reading reviews but as with every one you read you need to remember one thing and that’s personal opinion/preference, what one person thinks looks great you might think it’s crap and vice versa.

NEVER buy anything based on others opinions, yes use them as a guide to shortlist but always trust your own opinion.

I personally only truly trust the opinions of people who have bought a product, lived with and critiqued it fairly.
 
I personally only truly trust the opinions of people who have bought a product, lived with and critiqued it fairly.
I agree.

Professional reviews are great, and they all add up together, especially for folk like me that only have the option of online ordering, but so much comes to light when products have been used extensively by actual users.
 

darrellh44

Active Member
I personally only truly trust the opinions of people who have bought a product, lived with and critiqued it fairly.

I agree.

Professional reviews are great, and they all add up together, especially for folk like me that only have the option of online ordering, but so much comes to light when products have been used extensively by actual users.
I agree with actual user evaluations for reporting on things like operational quirks and component degradation for example, but I think pro reviewers are better at evaluating performance related items and PQ since they have more experience with measurement techniques, have a wider range of product knowledge, and can typically make direct comparisons between products under controlled conditions. Having said that, you do have to be wary of reviewers that get paid to publish favorable reviews, or don't spend enough time evaluating one product before they're off to the next one to collect more publishing fees.
 

kenshingintoki

Distinguished Member
I agree with actual user evaluations for reporting on things like operational quirks and component degradation for example, but I think pro reviewers are better at evaluating performance related items and PQ since they have more experience with measurement techniques, have a wider range of product knowledge, and can typically make direct comparisons between products under controlled conditions. Having said that, you do have to be wary of reviewers that get paid to publish favorable reviews, or don't spend enough time evaluating one product before they're off to the next one to collect more publishing fees.

Really? Have you seen the user reviews of the JVC NZ range, the number of measurements they've made in different lamp settings and comparing to the bulbs? They're in a different stratosphere or detail to the official reviews mate.
 

kenshingintoki

Distinguished Member
I agree with actual user evaluations for reporting on things like operational quirks and component degradation for example, but I think pro reviewers are better at evaluating performance related items and PQ since they have more experience with measurement techniques, have a wider range of product knowledge, and can typically make direct comparisons between products under controlled conditions. Having said that, you do have to be wary of reviewers that get paid to publish favorable reviews, or don't spend enough time evaluating one product before they're off to the next one to collect more publishing fees.


For example, I'm yet to read a professional review of the LG OLEDs which mentions banding, yet on the user side of things, we have an entire thread devoted to it.
 
I agree with actual user evaluations for reporting on things like operational quirks and component degradation for example, but I think pro reviewers are better at evaluating performance related items and PQ since they have more experience with measurement techniques, have a wider range of product knowledge, and can typically make direct comparisons between products under controlled conditions. Having said that, you do have to be wary of reviewers that get paid to publish favorable reviews, or don't spend enough time evaluating one product before they're off to the next one to collect more publishing fees.
I think they can expose a lot of things that take more time and extensive use to expose that reviewers typically don't because of the short time they spend with the product, so yes the quirks and degradation you refer to. QOL type things are high up there that often don't get discussed in pro reviews, like the insane amount of time an NX projector takes to handshake an HDMI signal that I don't recall getting much attention in professional reviews until I read the NZ ones talking about it being a big step up in that regard. I hop sources and resolutions so much that would be a pretty big roadblock for me, so it's nice to know heading in. The premium I paid for my NZ over the NX might be worth it for that alone lol. But definitely a grain of salt is required in many cases.

Professional reviews are tricky. There are a lot of reputable ones out there and then there are the type we've seen for the new Epson's where they're mostly bullocks being used in poor environments with so many important aspects left not being paid attention to and discussed, like tone mapping in this new line. The one thing I was most interested was Tone Mapping (I'm confident that applies to many others) and that was barely even touched on if at all on these youtube "reviews". The nature of reviewing products has really gone downhill with so much of it being nothing more than veiled promotions.

There's also the objective to subjective matter. I'm interested in some quality audio products, but if I believed AudioScienceReview on everything they measure, I'd be making all my decisions based on measurements that are usually inaudible. So much of what you hear is subjective and I'm sure that applies to what we see in the projector world as well, albeit much less so.
Really? Have you seen the user reviews of the JVC NZ range, the number of measurements they've made in different lamp settings and comparing to the bulbs? They're in a different stratosphere or detail to the official reviews mate.
I've been checking them out. What are you seeing? Better or worse than pro reviews?

I find it amazing how reading through the owner threads gives me NZ8/9 envy even though I feel incredibly fortunate to be able to afford an NZ7. There's always something better.
 

The latest video from AVForums

Panasonic LZ2000, LZ1500 & LZ980 Hands-on Launch Event | No QD-OLED for 2022, new 77-inch for LZ2000
Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Latest News

Astell&Kern announces new Kann Max DAP and Pathfinder earphones
  • By Ian Collen
  • Published
McIntosh unveils flagship MCD12000 CD/SACD player
  • By Ian Collen
  • Published
Sonos announces new Ray soundbar
  • By Ian Collen
  • Published
Sony set to launch WH-1000XM5 wireless headphones
  • By Ian Collen
  • Published
VIDEO: Panasonic LZ2000, LZ1500 & LZ980 Hands-on Launch Event
  • By Phil Hinton
  • Published

Full fat HDMI teeshirts

Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom