Sony Projector Deal
Discussion
The sony is a true 4k projector £20k new. The other one is £3k 1080p with pixel shifting. They are totally different projectors.
If you feel you'll see the difference and can afford it, go for it, but you'd have to be very serious about having the absolute best to go down the Sony route.
Youd also want a very big screen to see the difference between true 4k and pixel shifted 1080p
If you feel you'll see the difference and can afford it, go for it, but you'd have to be very serious about having the absolute best to go down the Sony route.
Youd also want a very big screen to see the difference between true 4k and pixel shifted 1080p
OK so for a bit more context we're looking at building a dedicated, light controlled room.
Screen size will be around 100-110".
I'm just wondering that although it was significantly better tech a few years ago, is it still considered better tech today? And in my environment, would it be worth it?
Screen size will be around 100-110".
I'm just wondering that although it was significantly better tech a few years ago, is it still considered better tech today? And in my environment, would it be worth it?
Just the Sony lens on its own would be more expensive than the Epson projector, its a really high end piece of kit, hence the eye watering price tag.
As others have said, it all depends how serious you are about your cinema room. I would also ask about the Sony warranty situation, just so you know where you stand. If you can afford it, the Sony is an exceptional projector, and you won't be disappointed. The Epson uses light defraction and image processing to replicate 4k, whereas the Sony is the real deal. It all depends on whether your eye will spot this image trickery with the Epson compared to the purity of the Epson - some would be oblivious to it - some can spot it a mile off. All depends on what YOU can see!
As others have said, it all depends how serious you are about your cinema room. I would also ask about the Sony warranty situation, just so you know where you stand. If you can afford it, the Sony is an exceptional projector, and you won't be disappointed. The Epson uses light defraction and image processing to replicate 4k, whereas the Sony is the real deal. It all depends on whether your eye will spot this image trickery with the Epson compared to the purity of the Epson - some would be oblivious to it - some can spot it a mile off. All depends on what YOU can see!
RogerDodger said:
110" really doesn't justify the PJ. Heck, I run 1080p on a 135" screen and you can't see a pixel.
I bet you can buy a TV not far of 100" for less than the PJ price.
I'm going to reply with a post that'll end up being very long!I bet you can buy a TV not far of 100" for less than the PJ price.
I've done a lot of experiments over the years, as a home cinema enthusiast, dispelling many a myth and there is some mythical thinking in this post. Not being insulting at all, as its a very common train of thought that is often repeated and as a result, taken as truth.
There are lots of charts around, screensize v seating distance v resolution. You need to be seated at x ft away to see 4k on a screen size of y. They are a load of old tripe to be brutally honest. The test conditions for these experiments miss out some fundamental variables that need to be considered.
Straight off the bat, is understanding 20:20 vision. The standard 6m (20ft) distance to measure eyesight quality is the benchmark vision acuity test but many people can easily see better, either naturally, or with corrective glasses from their optician. The benchmark letters in the chart for 20:20 vision can be seen at 40ft, as well as the standard 20ft. So straight away, those charts could be out by a factor of 100%, or more, depending how good the vision of the participant is.
Then you've got how our eye actually works. These experiments take a black and white chequer board pattern and you basically walk backwards until you see a grey picture, rather than the black and white squares. But our brain takes a nap under this scenario.
Just like it does if you look at the wheel of a car when it drives past. The wheel is just a blur, but if you blink, you momentarily see the wheel, before it blurs again. Your eyes can actually see the wheel, but your brain decides to blur it, rather than give you fatigue.
But let me give you a better example. One morning, sitting outside in the morning sun, having a coffee, when something caught my eye. It was a cobweb, about 15ft away. Just one little strand was lit up by the morning sun. Depending on what way I tilted my head, the sun would catch the web, making it visible. If I tilted again, the web would dissappear. I walked over to it and it was a tiny, really thin, bit of spider web. That's when I realised that these viewing charts completely disregard how our brain processes information.
Our brain reacts in an organic manner, rather than digital. It disregards information at will, but also pulls things to our attention if it thinks its of use. Outside of home cinema, there has been some amazing research into how we see, and how our brain processes it, especially in reference to contrast and colour- I read quite a few papers on the subject. And when we apply that to a home cinema, it becomes clear that these home cinema resolution experiments are far too basic for something as complex as how we see.
With all that considered, we move onto another subject, large TV v projector. A lot of people are of the view that huge, oled tvs will eventually replace projectors, once the price becomes reasonable. If huge tvs became cheaper, who would buy a projector? But it misses an important point, which is overall feel of the image. There is actually quite a big difference between an emmisive display (TV) and a reflective display (cinema screen)
When Peter Jackson did the Hobbit in 48fps rather than the standard 24p frame rate that we are all used to, many people thought it removed the cinematic feel (most cinemas showed it in 24p, only specialist cinemas had the high frame rate)
It was technologically superior in every way for those that watched it at 48fps, but many didn't like it.
Its a similar story for emmisive display v reflective. You could lose that cinematic feel. Great for sports fans, but maybe not so for movie fans.
I've been typing for a while now, but I'll maybe come back tomorrow with some more info if you're giving the Sony some serious thoughts OP, as I'm going to bed now. I can give you some good insight into some really detailed tests that a group of us carried out over a few years, a group of people from all over the world, testing all sorts of theory's but more importantly, testing all the best projectors around, this Sony being one of them.
I'm no expert compared to some of the people dissecting these projectors, but I learned a lot from them and will be able to give you some good Intel on the choice you are facing.
Looking forward to the next post soup dragon!
I wrote on AV Forums about how my old Yamaha projector from over a decade ago, can, in very precise light circumstances blow my more modern JVC out of the water with it's drastically lower resolution but more naturally "cinematic feel" to it's chips.
I wrote on AV Forums about how my old Yamaha projector from over a decade ago, can, in very precise light circumstances blow my more modern JVC out of the water with it's drastically lower resolution but more naturally "cinematic feel" to it's chips.
Douglas Quaid said:
I wouldn’t buy a 6 yr old projector for £7800. Bypass the epson 9400 and go for a jvc n7 is my advice.
That N7 is a really good shout, although at £8.5k, even more expensive again. Or even the JVC N5 at £6.5k is worth exploring? I'm a big fan of the JVC projectors, and over the years, have been switching between JVC and Sony - in my opinion, the 2 projector kings at this part of the market.I still wouldn't dismiss the Sony 1100 though - but as I had mentioned earlier, I would be exploring what warranty is getting offered. While the JVC's are newer, glass doesn't age and that lens in the Sony is a work of art, and I can't see JVC matching it.
I remember testing the JVC X70, X90 and Sonys flagship 1080p projector at the time (can't remember the model number) and while the flagship X90 was indeed beautiful, with its lens being cherry picked from the very best lenses available, it still had visible errors....and that was a £10k projector at the time! I kept it though, as it was still brilliant, and sold the Sony and X70 once I had tested them all out.
If the Sony doesn't have any warranty though, I would be all over these JVC's like you suggest. They are mighty fine projectors. The JVC's beat the Sonys for contrast which is important. One area where I feel Sony have the upper hand is motion handling - and when we are in the realms of ultra detail with 4k, the Sonys can appear sharper due to how they handle motion. Sort of a 1 up to the JVC for contrast, and 1 up to the Sony for motion handling.
For the OP, you should be able to get a demo of these 4k JVC's and faux 4k Epsons to see them in action. At the price point, absolutely get a demo 1st. Would be harder to get a demo of the Sony 1100 but you may be able to check out the cheaper Sony native 4k projectors which are also worth exploring for a demo. If you can find someone that stocks all 3, that would be even better.
Thank you everyone (particularly Soupdragon) for your responses, they are really helpful.
One thing I wanted to ask is whether or not the HDMI standards of a 4 year old projector would be of any concern vs the latest projectors.
I belive the Sony has HDMI 2.0 but I think we're now on 2.1 as a standard? Is this an issue?
One thing I wanted to ask is whether or not the HDMI standards of a 4 year old projector would be of any concern vs the latest projectors.
I belive the Sony has HDMI 2.0 but I think we're now on 2.1 as a standard? Is this an issue?
I think it depends on the sources that the OP will use.
I haven't invested in UHD partly because of the cost and primarily because ripping them is a bit hit and miss at the moment - I always rip to lossless MKV and store the main feature on DAS and then use Kodi as a media player.
My screen has a 200" diagonal (2.35:1) and the picture from my JVC 7800 with a BD source is pin sharp on detail yet you can't see pixels because of the nature of projection. At no point do I feel that resolution is limiting my enjoyment of the picture. I did trial a 4K Sony projector but even with a 4K source it was visibly less "natural" picture than the JVC (to my eyes).
In the end I opted for the more expensive JVC projector that was "limited" to 1080p rather than the cheaper 4K Sony, because the picture was simply better on the sources I have. I also have a 65" 4K OLED in the house and I genuinely couldn't tell the difference between the UHD vs HD versions of The Grand Tour, which I thought was a bit of a showcase for 4K.
Definitely worth demo'ing as far as you can, but my choice was to go for the best experience rather than the best specification.
I haven't invested in UHD partly because of the cost and primarily because ripping them is a bit hit and miss at the moment - I always rip to lossless MKV and store the main feature on DAS and then use Kodi as a media player.
My screen has a 200" diagonal (2.35:1) and the picture from my JVC 7800 with a BD source is pin sharp on detail yet you can't see pixels because of the nature of projection. At no point do I feel that resolution is limiting my enjoyment of the picture. I did trial a 4K Sony projector but even with a 4K source it was visibly less "natural" picture than the JVC (to my eyes).
In the end I opted for the more expensive JVC projector that was "limited" to 1080p rather than the cheaper 4K Sony, because the picture was simply better on the sources I have. I also have a 65" 4K OLED in the house and I genuinely couldn't tell the difference between the UHD vs HD versions of The Grand Tour, which I thought was a bit of a showcase for 4K.
Definitely worth demo'ing as far as you can, but my choice was to go for the best experience rather than the best specification.
Spot on.
All things equal, higher resolution is great, but often people miss the fact that one with lower spec maybe just be the nicer picture.
Not saying the 4k Sony is not the best, it may well be, but I doubt it will be the best because of the resolution.
If I watch UHD on the Sony XF9005 it doesn't look anywhere near as good as HD on the LG B6 OLED, in the same way the C8 OLED didn't look as nice as the B6 it was meant to be replacing, the B6 simply gets more right.
For me I have yet to see a digital projector that I have preferred over the JVC DiLA projectors, I just think they are much nicer to sit and watch. And I don't think I have seen a 4K DiLA.
I still love the CRTs though, 9" sharp CRT showing 960p will still give a nicer image than 4k digital 9 times out of 10.
All things equal, higher resolution is great, but often people miss the fact that one with lower spec maybe just be the nicer picture.
Not saying the 4k Sony is not the best, it may well be, but I doubt it will be the best because of the resolution.
If I watch UHD on the Sony XF9005 it doesn't look anywhere near as good as HD on the LG B6 OLED, in the same way the C8 OLED didn't look as nice as the B6 it was meant to be replacing, the B6 simply gets more right.
For me I have yet to see a digital projector that I have preferred over the JVC DiLA projectors, I just think they are much nicer to sit and watch. And I don't think I have seen a 4K DiLA.
I still love the CRTs though, 9" sharp CRT showing 960p will still give a nicer image than 4k digital 9 times out of 10.
soupdragon1 said:
I'm going to reply with a post that'll end up being very long!
Can't say I've ever put any thought into emissive vs reflective. Hmmmm.With my PJ I've always assumed the sheer size is what gives it the movie "feel".
That said, I use my 65" OLED a LOT now and I really miss the blacks (at first) when watching movies on my PJ. You do forget after a while
RogerDodger said:
This is a similar reason as to why I always use DLP projectors. To me they just look more filmic.
100% YES!Well, in my humble opinion anyways (with my laser surgery improved, better than 20:20 vision). Motion is so important with PJs too, something you really need to demo for.
I have a Sony 4K projector and previously had an epsom 1080p.
I too had the opportunity to buy a slightly older Sony but decided to get a newer lesser model. That’s because all the technology from the older projector had passed down to the later versions.
I have a 120” screen and I sit about 10-15 feet away (guessing). I tried to watch Game of Thrones in 1080i the other night and it was painful compared to 1080p on the App. Really noticeable.
4K UHD videos from Amazon look stunning particularly computer generated space scenes. You can tell when a show has been filmed to impress in 4K specifically. It’s like 10 years ago and 3D.
Here’s the thing.............
As stunning as my projector is, it is still only as good as the input. Also, you can get a great picture for 30% of the price. The extra is diminishing returns.
I too had the opportunity to buy a slightly older Sony but decided to get a newer lesser model. That’s because all the technology from the older projector had passed down to the later versions.
I have a 120” screen and I sit about 10-15 feet away (guessing). I tried to watch Game of Thrones in 1080i the other night and it was painful compared to 1080p on the App. Really noticeable.
4K UHD videos from Amazon look stunning particularly computer generated space scenes. You can tell when a show has been filmed to impress in 4K specifically. It’s like 10 years ago and 3D.
Here’s the thing.............
As stunning as my projector is, it is still only as good as the input. Also, you can get a great picture for 30% of the price. The extra is diminishing returns.
Great Post SoupDragon.
And completely agree with all statments. When we install large tv screens for film use with a surround sound system I am left cold and isolated from the 'event' when compaired to any projector and especially my personal Sony 340es (3 year old native 4K)
We recenly installed one of the new Optoma EShift projectors and that was stunningly for its cost, bright and vibrant, liked it but would still take a little getting used to compaired to my PJ & screen.
I am looking forward to trailing the next generations of lasers as they are tumbling in price. Optoma have an EShift 4K, Ultra Short Throw, Laser coming, which on paper should be rather good for its price and function.
V.
And completely agree with all statments. When we install large tv screens for film use with a surround sound system I am left cold and isolated from the 'event' when compaired to any projector and especially my personal Sony 340es (3 year old native 4K)
We recenly installed one of the new Optoma EShift projectors and that was stunningly for its cost, bright and vibrant, liked it but would still take a little getting used to compaired to my PJ & screen.
I am looking forward to trailing the next generations of lasers as they are tumbling in price. Optoma have an EShift 4K, Ultra Short Throw, Laser coming, which on paper should be rather good for its price and function.
V.
soupdragon1 said:
I'm going to reply with a post that'll end up being very long!
I've done a lot of experiments over the years, as a home cinema enthusiast, dispelling many a myth and there is some mythical thinking in this post. Not being insulting at all, as its a very common train of thought that is often repeated and as a result, taken as truth.
There are lots of charts around, screensize v seating distance v resolution. You need to be seated at x ft away to see 4k on a screen size of y. They are a load of old tripe to be brutally honest. The test conditions for these experiments miss out some fundamental variables that need to be considered.
Straight off the bat, is understanding 20:20 vision. The standard 6m (20ft) distance to measure eyesight quality is the benchmark vision acuity test but many people can easily see better, either naturally, or with corrective glasses from their optician. The benchmark letters in the chart for 20:20 vision can be seen at 40ft, as well as the standard 20ft. So straight away, those charts could be out by a factor of 100%, or more, depending how good the vision of the participant is.
Then you've got how our eye actually works. These experiments take a black and white chequer board pattern and you basically walk backwards until you see a grey picture, rather than the black and white squares. But our brain takes a nap under this scenario.
Just like it does if you look at the wheel of a car when it drives past. The wheel is just a blur, but if you blink, you momentarily see the wheel, before it blurs again. Your eyes can actually see the wheel, but your brain decides to blur it, rather than give you fatigue.
But let me give you a better example. One morning, sitting outside in the morning sun, having a coffee, when something caught my eye. It was a cobweb, about 15ft away. Just one little strand was lit up by the morning sun. Depending on what way I tilted my head, the sun would catch the web, making it visible. If I tilted again, the web would dissappear. I walked over to it and it was a tiny, really thin, bit of spider web. That's when I realised that these viewing charts completely disregard how our brain processes information.
Our brain reacts in an organic manner, rather than digital. It disregards information at will, but also pulls things to our attention if it thinks its of use. Outside of home cinema, there has been some amazing research into how we see, and how our brain processes it, especially in reference to contrast and colour- I read quite a few papers on the subject. And when we apply that to a home cinema, it becomes clear that these home cinema resolution experiments are far too basic for something as complex as how we see.
With all that considered, we move onto another subject, large TV v projector. A lot of people are of the view that huge, oled tvs will eventually replace projectors, once the price becomes reasonable. If huge tvs became cheaper, who would buy a projector? But it misses an important point, which is overall feel of the image. There is actually quite a big difference between an emmisive display (TV) and a reflective display (cinema screen)
When Peter Jackson did the Hobbit in 48fps rather than the standard 24p frame rate that we are all used to, many people thought it removed the cinematic feel (most cinemas showed it in 24p, only specialist cinemas had the high frame rate)
It was technologically superior in every way for those that watched it at 48fps, but many didn't like it.
Its a similar story for emmisive display v reflective. You could lose that cinematic feel. Great for sports fans, but maybe not so for movie fans.
I've been typing for a while now, but I'll maybe come back tomorrow with some more info if you're giving the Sony some serious thoughts OP, as I'm going to bed now. I can give you some good insight into some really detailed tests that a group of us carried out over a few years, a group of people from all over the world, testing all sorts of theory's but more importantly, testing all the best projectors around, this Sony being one of them.
I'm no expert compared to some of the people dissecting these projectors, but I learned a lot from them and will be able to give you some good Intel on the choice you are facing.
I've done a lot of experiments over the years, as a home cinema enthusiast, dispelling many a myth and there is some mythical thinking in this post. Not being insulting at all, as its a very common train of thought that is often repeated and as a result, taken as truth.
There are lots of charts around, screensize v seating distance v resolution. You need to be seated at x ft away to see 4k on a screen size of y. They are a load of old tripe to be brutally honest. The test conditions for these experiments miss out some fundamental variables that need to be considered.
Straight off the bat, is understanding 20:20 vision. The standard 6m (20ft) distance to measure eyesight quality is the benchmark vision acuity test but many people can easily see better, either naturally, or with corrective glasses from their optician. The benchmark letters in the chart for 20:20 vision can be seen at 40ft, as well as the standard 20ft. So straight away, those charts could be out by a factor of 100%, or more, depending how good the vision of the participant is.
Then you've got how our eye actually works. These experiments take a black and white chequer board pattern and you basically walk backwards until you see a grey picture, rather than the black and white squares. But our brain takes a nap under this scenario.
Just like it does if you look at the wheel of a car when it drives past. The wheel is just a blur, but if you blink, you momentarily see the wheel, before it blurs again. Your eyes can actually see the wheel, but your brain decides to blur it, rather than give you fatigue.
But let me give you a better example. One morning, sitting outside in the morning sun, having a coffee, when something caught my eye. It was a cobweb, about 15ft away. Just one little strand was lit up by the morning sun. Depending on what way I tilted my head, the sun would catch the web, making it visible. If I tilted again, the web would dissappear. I walked over to it and it was a tiny, really thin, bit of spider web. That's when I realised that these viewing charts completely disregard how our brain processes information.
Our brain reacts in an organic manner, rather than digital. It disregards information at will, but also pulls things to our attention if it thinks its of use. Outside of home cinema, there has been some amazing research into how we see, and how our brain processes it, especially in reference to contrast and colour- I read quite a few papers on the subject. And when we apply that to a home cinema, it becomes clear that these home cinema resolution experiments are far too basic for something as complex as how we see.
With all that considered, we move onto another subject, large TV v projector. A lot of people are of the view that huge, oled tvs will eventually replace projectors, once the price becomes reasonable. If huge tvs became cheaper, who would buy a projector? But it misses an important point, which is overall feel of the image. There is actually quite a big difference between an emmisive display (TV) and a reflective display (cinema screen)
When Peter Jackson did the Hobbit in 48fps rather than the standard 24p frame rate that we are all used to, many people thought it removed the cinematic feel (most cinemas showed it in 24p, only specialist cinemas had the high frame rate)
It was technologically superior in every way for those that watched it at 48fps, but many didn't like it.
Its a similar story for emmisive display v reflective. You could lose that cinematic feel. Great for sports fans, but maybe not so for movie fans.
I've been typing for a while now, but I'll maybe come back tomorrow with some more info if you're giving the Sony some serious thoughts OP, as I'm going to bed now. I can give you some good insight into some really detailed tests that a group of us carried out over a few years, a group of people from all over the world, testing all sorts of theory's but more importantly, testing all the best projectors around, this Sony being one of them.
I'm no expert compared to some of the people dissecting these projectors, but I learned a lot from them and will be able to give you some good Intel on the choice you are facing.
Gassing Station | Home Cinema & Hi-Fi | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff