Used but premium or new but budget projector?

Vlad3D

Standard Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Points
51
Hi guys,
I would like to upgrade my cheap (but great) ThundeaL TD96 to something more serious.
I am looking for 1080p, good contrast, good blacks and brightness and also motion interpolation.
I am going to use it in the night, all lights off, in unprepared living room with 135" grey (ALR) screen.
I hope using grey screen will partially compensate "unpreparedness" of my living room.

The problem is - in entire internet there is no reliable way to compare the native contrast and black levels.
Since manufacturers report fake values, how can I compare real values between different projectors?
Is there some reliable database where many projectors are tested and measured in same consistent way?

Most important I am interested to compare latest budget models versus old premium models.
For example for 1000 euros I can get Epson 7000 or XGIMI Horizon, OR I can get 8 years old JVC DLA-X35 with new lamp for around 700 euros. What do you think is better? How can I compare it without buying and testing it myself?

Big Thanks!
 
Jvc is best, but expensive to run.

£400 new lamp

£300 calibration every year.

X5000 onwards would be good for 135"

Epson eh-tw9300 ( Pro Cinema 6040UB) or eh-tw9400 (Epson Pro Cinema 6050UB) is a nice middleground.

Lamp £100

One off calibration.
 
Last edited:
£300 calibration every year.

Who told you JVC's needed calibrating once a year @3rdignis. It sounds nonsense and trust me, I've sold every major brand of projector with the exception of BenQ and have never heard any professional calibrator mention those words.

I will add, I have heard sceptical ones though where I've told customer to seek an alternative as its usually someone who is either lying or isn't aware.

If any projector is calibrated correctly and has been done once the lamp has burned in (usually settles around 100 hours), then when the lamp is replaced and the new lamp is burned in, it will return something very similar to the original calibration so long as the settings haven't been changed

As for brightness changes, this is the nature of the beast as the lamp degrades, but this will happen regardless of whether a projector has been calibrated or not
 
Plenty of decent 1080p second hand options out there, I think you might find high contrast, blacks AND high brightness a bit of a trade off. The X35 you mentioned is great in terms of contrast but won't be as bright as an LCD or a newer projector. It belongs in a dedicated space ideally. Most seem to have good enough motion handling and processing for interpolation if that's what floats your boat.

Personally I'd say an older JVC for as cheap as you can get it, but perhaps a left field option like one of the last Panasonic's would also be pretty good for contrast whilst having higher brightness.
 
The Panasonic PT-AT5000/AT6000 would be the last of Panasonic's I would suggest now. Maybe Sony HW50ES/HW55ES/HW60ES from that era and newer and if you are happy with DLP, you could also add HD82 HD86/87 from Optoma which were around the same boat as the Panasonic's and JVC's of that age. All can do 3D if that's important which also means they can go brightish if required. But as has been mentioned, none will be as bright as the latest projectors on offer
 
Jvc is best, but expensive to run.

£400 new lamp

£300 calibration every year.

Had my JVC for 8 years, never had it calibrated - except me using those Disney BluRays to improve the picture a little.

I don’t see calibration as necessary, but the dealer I bought it off did say it was very good out of the box after he had given it the once over and before I picked it up; but I do project onto matt white and use black Devore vlevet for room treatment.

Personally I’d go for quality rather than newer. If buying a higher end device it’s likely to have been treated with more respect imho.
 
I just think if someone is maxing their budget (£800) for a jvc they may be in for a shock when a new lamp/calibration doubles their budget.

I shouldn't assume everyone is like me.

12 months in-between previous calibrations.

I used 800hrs, changed lamp, lamp setting and iris.

I have no doubt of the value, but do understand the concept of bias.
 
I found that the input lag of the JVC X35 was too high for gaming, so I ended up buying a used SONY HW45 for 330 euros on eBay.

I will test it for sharpness and color fringing and then order a new lamp.
Is there a big difference between the original Sony lamp and the non-original lamp?
 
X5000 onwards would be good for 135"
Yes and therein lies the problem- to get your high contrast with sufficient brightness it's really JVC you need but these are still holding their value as their owners try to step up to a 4k replacement @ £7k!
 
I found that the input lag of the JVC X35 was too high for gaming, so I ended up buying a used SONY HW45 for 330 euros on eBay.

I will test it for sharpness and color fringing and then order a new lamp.
Is there a big difference between the original Sony lamp and the non-original lamp?
This is something I've heard before and as I'm not a gamer, I cannot comment on although it does seem Sony have had this side sorted for quite some time based on many customer comments over the years. I think this is why JVC a few years ago shouted about the improved lag timing like many of the other projector brands in the industry while Sony never really joined in as they were already there
 
Last edited:
Ok, I received my new (6 years old) Sony :)
So here is my comparison of Sony HW45 with cheap ThundeaL TD96.

Positives:
With old lamp (3K+ hours) it is about 30% brighter than ThundeaL.
New lamp (not original) made it once again 30% brighter - around 1100 ANSI lumen in my tests.
Black levels are better than ThundeaL, but difference is not big and blacks are still not fully black.
The smooth gradients are more clean. The color clamp is less (less detail loss in very colorful fragments).
The optics is better - wider DOF allows easier focusing and also image is sharper in the corners.
Pixels grid is much less visible because of thinner border between pixels. But I kind of liked stronger pixel grid in ThundeaL because I used it for focusing 😊
Lens shift is great, works better than TD96 optical trapezoid correction.
Motion interpolation is working in most cases, but cannot replace true high fps content.
Fan noise is MUCH lower.

Negatives:
Sony takes much more time to start - after about 30 sec it shows dark image and then it takes 2-3 minutes until it reaches full brightness.
There is additional canvas of "black level" around main image. In case of TD96 there is 0 light around main image. It means if I would use grey screen, I may see bright enough light leaking around of the screen area unless I use wide enough black frame (4-6 cm).
The Reality Creation fails in cases of detailed patterns like bird plumage, where it adds too much aliasing and shimmering.
Pixels RGB miss-alignment is clearly visible from close distance. I did not try panels alignment yet which supposed to fix it.
And last but not least - Sony body is big :)
 

The latest video from AVForums

Is 4K Blu-ray Worth It?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom