NEWS: Epson announces two new 4K laser projectors

jfinnie

Distinguished Member
It appears I was wrong but as outlined in that report it doesn’t get used very often and a factor of 5 is the same as other laser dimming projectors and still much lower than a dynamic iris which can increase it by 250x + without obvious pumping issues.
I've measured the DI in my X7900 (which probably has some of the highest achieved native and dynamic numbers). It achieved a bit over 500,000:1 dynamic if you use it with the iris full open and let the dynamic iris operate. The native in that mode is around 45,000:1. The X7900, when used in that mode (full open, with DI engaged) does have visible pumping in scenes where the DI is operated, you have to close the iris quite a bit to make it less visible in operation, which significantly reduces the DI gain. And even then, if you are sensitive to such things you'll still see the iris in operation.

With a new lamp in my unit I'm able to run with the aperture at -11, which gets me to 80,000:1. At that point I can quite happily use it without the DI getting in the way. I'm at max zoom pretty much due to room layout, would be higher at min zoom.

attachment.png
 

Furnace Inferno

Well-known Member
Unfortunately not. We can provide many screens at over 4m wide, but the multiformat screens max out at around 3m viewable for electric, and 2.8m viewable for TT.


A good auto iris would not normally be that aggressive. 10x or under is more realistic. Too high and you would see pumping.
Interesting, I guess that makes sense I’ve been speed reading multiple forums and you get lost in what is objective and what is bias. Question then, if you have the same factor of dynamic contrast control which is going to produce the best result, lens based on laser light? I’m thinking of the physics behind it and would have thought the LG would be the same but yet I read otherwise again it could just be negativity towards Sony but the dimming only, no lens is not rated highly over there.

I've measured the DI in my X7900 (which probably has some of the highest achieved native and dynamic numbers). It achieved a bit over 500,000:1 dynamic if you use it with the iris full open and let the dynamic iris operate. The native in that mode is around 45,000:1. The X7900, when used in that mode (full open, with DI engaged) does have visible pumping in scenes where the DI is operated, you have to close the iris quite a bit to make it less visible in operation, which significantly reduces the DI gain. And even then, if you are sensitive to such things you'll still see the iris in operation.

With a new lamp in my unit I'm able to run with the aperture at -11, which gets me to 80,000:1. At that point I can quite happily use it without the DI getting in the way. I'm at max zoom pretty much due to room layout, would be higher at min zoom.


View attachment 1581093
Impressive native constraint numbers there! I wonder how long, if ever, before we’ll get back to that with the 4K chips.

It’s all moot for me at the moment as I’ve decided a 145” 16:9 screen will work better with Dolby’s recommended speaker angles and getting them all behind the screen so I need 2150 lumens calibrated for the 30ftL recommended for HDR limiting my choice greatly!
 

MickB

Well-known Member
I need 2150 lumens calibrated for the 30ftL recommended for HDR

Is there anything out there (without spending a king's ransom ) which will hit that!
 

Furnace Inferno

Well-known Member
I need 2150 lumens calibrated for the 30ftL recommended for HDR

Is there anything out there (without spending a king's ransom ) which will hit that!
:laugh: Short answer no but when JVC go into the 5 figure sums on their base model and there’s nothing else filling the void you start to just think fudge it!

Also I’d settle for less if needed, aim high and then realise you’re too poor to fulfil your dreams :(.
 

jfinnie

Distinguished Member
Impressive native constraint numbers there! I wonder how long, if ever, before we’ll get back to that with the 4K chips.
I think they're just par for the course for a non-broken X7900/
It’s all moot for me at the moment as I’ve decided a 145” 16:9 screen will work better with Dolby’s recommended speaker angles and getting them all behind the screen so I need 2150 lumens calibrated for the 30ftL recommended for HDR limiting my choice greatly!
Good tone mapping can mean you don't need that much light, but for sure, life is harder for those that have to light up a large screen. I only have a 92" screen in my tiny cinema, so I don't face those challenges.
 

MickB

Well-known Member
If you're really looking for a light cannon, maybe the professional Epson PU100x range mentioned recently would fit the bill?
 

Furnace Inferno

Well-known Member
I think they're just par for the course for a non-broken X7900/

Good tone mapping can mean you don't need that much light, but for sure, life is harder for those that have to light up a large screen. I only have a 92" screen in my tiny cinema, so I don't face those challenges.
Yeh I had the 104” in my sig below and even the 129” I had planned would still just about work but above that you start needing serious lumens. I’ve got a Lumagen on the cards though entirely for the best DTM money can buy so will see how that option pans out.
 

jfinnie

Distinguished Member
Yeh I had the 104” in my sig below and even the 129” I had planned would still just about work but above that you start needing serious lumens. I’ve got a Lumagen on the cards though entirely for the best DTM money can buy so will see how that option pans out.
They are very good. I use a Radiance Pro with my X7900, would definitely recommend. Though to be fair I've not had opportunity to compare Lumagen vs the latest tone mapping in shipping projectors from JVC.
 

Furnace Inferno

Well-known Member
They are very good. I use a Radiance Pro with my X7900, would definitely recommend. Though to be fair I've not had opportunity to compare Lumagen vs the latest tone mapping in shipping projectors from JVC.
The review of the MadVR Envy system sold me on it even more as it compares it to the JVC and you can see how much better it deals with 1000nit + films. JVC matches it on 1000nit mastered stuff which to be fair is most films at the moment but then washes out and clips above that so for future proofing and being a catch all nothing can beat it.

I do actually have a PC which can run MadVR so I could compare it myself to the fixed Auto-mode on the Epson now but I don’t want to use a PC for movies so I never bothered. It also didn’t help that the PC was transmitting CPU/modem noises into the speakers when I added a power amp so I started using headphones on the PC instead.
 

jfinnie

Distinguished Member
Thanks for posting.

It will be very interesting too also see some measurements for 1%-10% ADL, to understand what is happening with contrast in real world scenarios. Of course, not for so many iris position's as it will be too much work, but for at last two-three points would be excellent.
Be my guest! :) I have little interest in doing this at the mo, these were old measurements I did a couple of years ago. It is now mostly an old projector that I watch stuff I enjoy on... :)
 

Harold88

Member
The projector might be old but there is no perspective for something new , with even the same contrast, unless you are willing to spend the money for a nice car...
 

ti33er

Well-known Member
…boooring, it’s still E-sh*tF technology. Give me a real 4K panel please EPSON
 

ask4me2

Active Member
I guess not, if you do not want to go big (620 x 358.5 x 790 mm), heavy 51,4 kg and 12,000-lumen bright like the Pro L12000QNL Native 4K 3x1,03 inch LCD panels Laser Projector.

Dynamic Contrast 2.500.000 : 1
Native Contrast 1.200 : 1
Weight 51,4 kg
:D ;)
1639393699187.png
 

kenshingintoki

Distinguished Member
I guess not, if you do not want to go big (620 x 358.5 x 790 mm), heavy 51,4 kg and 12,000-lumen bright like the Pro L12000QNL Native 4K 3x1,03 inch LCD panels Laser Projector.

Dynamic Contrast 2.500.000 : 1
Native Contrast 1.200 : 1
Weight 51,4 kg
:D ;)
View attachment 1618762
Does it have 3D?
 

Harold88

Member
What does it matter if it has or not 3D? The thing cost 80 000 $.

Also native contrast looks garbage, unless 1200:1 is ANSI which I really doubt.

If you have that much money you could look at sony gtz380. I have watched a video with real movie footage on hollywoodzuhause youtube channel and I must say, it look absolutely fantastic.
 
Last edited:

ask4me2

Active Member
The point of posting the Epson Pro L12000QNL model here is that this is what a native 4K LCD projector looks like at the moment and to get more affordable native 4K models, they need to get the size of the LCD panels down from 1,03 inch to something similar to the 0,74 inch used in the TW9400 and the new LS series.
 

Harold88

Member
Why ? 1.03 inch panels are perfectly fine for a much smaller chassy.

The 51 kg in that machine are there to support the the other components needed to achive those 12000 lumens.
 

ask4me2

Active Member
Why ? 1.03 inch panels are perfectly fine for a much smaller chassy.

The 51 kg in that machine are there to support the the other components needed to achive those 12000 lumens.
I guess you need to ask Epson about that one.

Anyway, bigger higher resolution panels are more expensive need a corresponding light path, with bigger dichroic mirrors bigger prism, and a zoom lens.

The price vs size for different optics components does not have a linear relation.

One example of the bigger lens, look at the additional price between the NX7 and the NX9. There are some other differences too e-shift etc, but the price jump is mainly caused by using the bigger high-quality lens.
 

Luminated67

Distinguished Member
As the name suggests the Epson Pro L12000QNL is a PRO projector, I bet it’s lens is dearer than most normal priced projector and that probably includes JVC ones. These type of PJ aren’t really for use in the domestic environment unless you have one seriously big screen and room for a load of bums in seats.
 

Harold88

Member
That huge projector has a lot of big, heavy things inside.
Sure those large panels do need a significant larger optical block but there are also other things like a huge power supply, a large cooling system and a lot of metal parts.

I guess it would be possible to scale down this projector and make it fit in JVC NX chassy if the maximum light output would be let's say 3000 lumens.
 

Luminated67

Distinguished Member
That huge projector has a lot of big, heavy things inside.
Sure those large panels do need a significant larger optical block but there are also other things like a huge power supply, a large cooling system and a lot of metal parts.

I guess it would be possible to scale down this projector and make it fit in JVC NX chassy if the maximum light output would be let's say 3000 lumens.
According to what I was told it’s been done several years ago in a domestic sized chassis, what the panels actually were is anyone’s guess and I doubt the guy that told me knew either.

Of course an LCoS/LCoQ panel would make such a thing much more simple so it’s fare to assuming that was what was in that prototype.
 

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

iFi Audio launches new Go bar portable DAC/headphone amp
  • By Ian Collen
  • Published
Sony adds LinkBuds S to its earphone series
  • By Ian Collen
  • Published
T+A announces Solitaire T headphones
  • By Ian Collen
  • Published
Audio-Technica launches ATH-M20xBT wireless headphones
  • By Ian Collen
  • Published
Focal and Naim announce new Special Edition Ash Grey system
  • By Ian Collen
  • Published

Full fat HDMI teeshirts

Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom