# More features for more money?



## GalaxyDrifter (Jul 26, 2010)

Hello everyone,

I have been researching quality projectors and am leaning towards 
solid state light source as opposed to lamps.

I like the features and specs in the $5000 to $8000 range.
Not to mention that is all I would be willing or able to pay.

My question is what is the difference when you compare 
this price range to something like the "Wolf" brand projector 
which is somewhere in the $85,000 range?

I am sure they both have great glass and good light source 
and good electronics but what else could they possibly do 
to a projector justify paying that much more?

And could I get all the the same features in my price range?

Just curious, 
Thanks, Dave


----------



## eugovector (Sep 4, 2006)

Definitely out of my league. If I had a room that would work, I'd be looking at a $2000 Epson. What are the specific features/specs that you are on the lookout for?


----------



## Trick McKaha (Oct 7, 2009)

Yeh oh man, a $80,000 projector had better sing. I've followed projector progress for about 10 years, and am impressed they improve at about the rate that computers do. So generally you are better off spending less for a newer model. The $2000 Epson available today would have cost $10,000 five years ago. Those JVC projectors now going for $5,000 - $8,000 are desirable, to be sure, and they just weren't available five years ago. Who could need anything more, unless one needed to light up a 50 ft. screen?


----------



## fitzwaddle (Aug 25, 2010)

I'd never buy the 1st generation of anything.


----------



## GalaxyDrifter (Jul 26, 2010)

Hello Mr Marshall

I had a chance to read a bit more and look around 
over at the wolfcinema website and yes its 
all out of my league as well by far.

Kind of like looking at a shiny red $100,000 sports car 
that I will never own or drive.

Their equipment appears to be all very high end for any 
home theater I could imagine. Better stick with a Ford or a Chevy.

Just getting into the basics of understanding what kind 
of projectors are out there right now.

It seems like the LED projectors are getting a 
foothold in the market but still fairly new.

Having a standard lamp type projector would not be 
so bad for me, but my wife would not be as understanding 
when a $200 to $300 lamp burns out.

That is why I am leaning to the LED or similar type.
Hopefully by the time I get my HT room built 
there will be some new projector models to check out. 

Thank you.
Dave.


----------



## eugovector (Sep 4, 2006)

Look at the price difference between LED and bulb-lit projectors. Now, most new projectors have bulbs somewhere in the $150-250 range. How many bulbs will the price difference buy? Assuming a bulb will last you 2+ years, how many years until you break even with the more-expensive LED projector over the bulbs? How much do you think a new projector will cost in that many years given the rapid price decline we've seen over the past 5 or so?


----------



## GalaxyDrifter (Jul 26, 2010)

Hello, 

Excellent insightful analysis. 
Makes perfect sense.

Get whats already good equipment now and 
enjoy it without breaking the bank.

Look at the high tech model when it comes 
down to a more sensible price range later.

Thank you.


----------



## TypeA (Aug 14, 2010)

I find it alarming that someone comes in with a $8k budget and he's guided to a $2k lcd projector! (Tho Trick kinda hinted at JVC) :dontknow:


But, anyway, Im really confused Galaxydrifter, can you help me out???



> I like the features and specs in the $5000 to $8000 range.
> Not to mention that is all I would be willing or able to pay.


But then you lost me on this:




> but my wife would not be as understanding
> when a $200 to $300 lamp burns out.


So your wife would be understanding of you dropping $8,000 on a projector, but will have some issues with periodic $300 lamps every couple of years? :yikes:

And to answer your question on the "wolf", those prices are for a dlp projector that has a dedicated color chip for each color, red green and blue (a $2000 lcd has ONE chip for all colors) A triple chip is what you want, and will beat a single chip projector in every single way. Yes, a 3 chip has a lamp that needs replaced, but then so does a single chip. PLUS the wolf has an extremely high light output for super large screens....


Sir, let me be honest, if your budget is $8k I recommend you run away from a $2k LCD projector! A $2000 projector is built for the cash-strapped masses, such as myself, and those that dont have an $8k budget! However, you wont need to spend $8k (not even close) to beat the snot out of a $2000 "LCD" projector! I highly recommend you look at the _vastly_ superior performance of the JVC *triple-chip* technology of their Dila projectors! 

http://pro.jvc.com/prof/attributes/features.jsp?model_id=MDL101733

$5000 for JVC's best!


----------



## fitzwaddle (Aug 25, 2010)

TypeA said:


> those prices are for a dlp projector that has a dedicated color chip for each color, red green and blue (a $2000 lcd has ONE chip for all colors)


Yes, I guess that's why they prominently display this:










:innocent:

JVC would be a good place to look though


----------



## eugovector (Sep 4, 2006)

I simply stated that, I personally would be looking at a $2000 projector. I should have been more specific and finished with "because I don't have a $8000 budget". Still, just because you have $8000 to spend, doesn't mean your should. Without understanding the complete setup, it would be irresponsible to recommend spending $8000 on a projector, when speakers, sources, and acoustic treatments may be lacking. Big Box stores are king of taking you right up to your budget and beyond if they can regardless of what you need. At the HT shack, I like to think that we repulse good value, and encourage people to consider all the options. 

I think the Epsons in the $2-3k range represent one the the best values in the history of Hone Theater. I also believe that projectors will continue to improve image quality and lower price in the sane way that TVs have. Ask anyone who bought an $8k TV 5 years ago if they wouldn't trade it for a $2k TV today, and I be they'll say "yes".

The counter argument to that is that they'll also likely say they got their $8k worth of use out of it in those 5 years. 

At the end of the day, speakers, amps, and rooms are good bets for large investments. Displays, physical media, and feature-heavy AVRs are not because these are the most moving of targets in today's market. My opinion is that you should invest heavily in the last category only after you've invested in the first.


----------



## TypeA (Aug 14, 2010)

fitzwaddle said:


> Yes, I guess that's why they prominently display this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No, thats different. That means three _lcd panels_ are used, its still a _single_ chip processor (and thus easily beaten by a triple-chip rig)

JVC D-ILA and perhaps Sony SXRD is the _only_ reasonably priced three chip choice (and neither choice will be "3LCD" :heehee ...


----------



## TypeA (Aug 14, 2010)

eugovector said:


> I think the Epsons in the $2-3k range represent one the the best values in the history of Hone Theater



Yeah I think thats what concerns me about you mentioning an lcd. Heres a vastly superior projector to ANY lcd projector:

A JVC DLA-RS2 D-ILA for *$3k* brand new.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=370466168363#ht_2123wt_902


----------



## eugovector (Sep 4, 2006)

It seems to me that you're taking this a little personally. For starters, my recommendation was based on the original question: what value is represented by an $80k projector? I'm proposing that that value proposition is very low compared to the performance that you'll get in Epson's latest line of consumer projectors at one 40th that price. In fact, you'll notice I didn't even dismiss this notion right away, and immediately admitted that an $80k, or $8K budget for that matter, was out of my league, personally speaking.

I'm also not making any recommendations except to consider you entire project to determine your needs before committing to a solution. I also said what I would do if I had $8k: Invest first in equipment that is most likely to last you the longest, i.e. speakers, outboard amps (if you need them), and your room.

If you have a problem with any of this advice, than you should confront it directly, but there is nothing inherently better with DLP over LCD technology. It all comes down to the implementation. There are DLP's like the Optoma HD20 that don't perform as well as the Epson 8100 (but cost less) and other that perform better and cost more. I think if you read through my post carefully you find the only recommendation that I made explicitly to the OP was to evaluate his options. When someone talks about their budget being "all...[they are] able to pay", I take that as a sign that they may be over extending themselves. When the next piece of the puzzle comes to the forefront, if the budget is blown, the whole experience suffers, and the whole experience is the goal, not one small piece.

In terms of your $3k JVC, I think that's a great option, but is the seller an authorized reseller, and does the unit come with a warranty? I personally wouldn't recommend that anyone buy a projector (or any equipment) without a warranty unless the cost savings were substantial enough that they would be able to justify paying for repair or replacement should something go wrong, and have a reasonable expectation of the likelihood of that happening. And don't take this as paranoia; my Home Theater is significantly comprised of used equipment, and when something goes wrong, I know what I got myself into. New doesn't mean problem free.

I think when you consider the advice I've given, you'll find it sound for a variety of home theater purchases, not just a $5-8K projector. If, after consideration of the advice I've given, the OP concludes that a JVC, Sanyo, or Wolf is right for him, than who am I to reject the results of my own process?


----------



## TypeA (Aug 14, 2010)

No, hey, please dont think that Im taking anything personally, ever. Sorry if I gave you that impression. :wave: 

I will say that I consider it a tragedy that _anyone_, who can realistically afford the best quality and biggest value, should opt for anything other than the best in quality and biggest value. In the projector world thats JVC and, to a lesser degree, Sony. Both manufactures hold that 'best in quality and value' title today, and have held that title for years. Whereas, "Epson in the $2-3k range" is not even in the running, especially in a dedicated theater room that the OP has indicated. And in the best quality and value I mean _reasonably_ priced consumer grade, which neither a $80k projector nor a $50k speaker represent, but a $3k three chip projector certainly does. Maybe that philosophy is where I gave you the wrong impression that I was taking it personally, again sorry about that, no worries sir...



And yes that particular e-tailer I linked to is factory authorized.


----------



## pietsch288 (Sep 10, 2006)

So how much better is the 2k epson over the $1200 8350???


----------



## Dale Rasco (Apr 11, 2009)

I actually just got one of the 8350's based on the review at projectorcentral.com and I love it. Of course I am still in that phase where I haven't figured out what other more expensive projectors have that mine doesn't. Wonder how long that will last.


----------



## eugovector (Sep 4, 2006)

TypeA said:


> In the projector world thats JVC and, to a lesser degree, Sony. Both manufactures hold that 'best in quality and value' title today, and have held that title for years.


Who awards this title and under what criteria?


----------



## Dale Rasco (Apr 11, 2009)

I think he TypeA is saying that in the projector world, Sony and JVC are two of the most highly regarded companies for quality and value. It was a subjective statement, but one that a lot of people in the industry happen to agree with.


----------



## eugovector (Sep 4, 2006)

When you put a title in quotes, it indicates that it's a proper title. For example: "Editor's Choice Award" from Projector Central. That was an award given to the Epson 8350, BTW.

Quotes can also be uses to indicate a specific phrase written or said, and usually you attribute it to a source. For example:

_"There's no sense beating around the bush: the Home Cinema 8350 is a fantastic value."_ - Bill Livolsi, October 4, 2010

Unattributed quotes are generally considered verboten, especially when used in sweeping generalizations such as "'Epsons in the $2-3k range' is not even in the running", but maybe that's just the academic in me coming out.

I'm not trying to be argumentative here, but being dismissive of LCDs, a particular brand's projectors, or projectors in a certain price range are not helpful (though admittedly, I was initially a little dismissive of an $80k projectors value proposition, though I've since been more explicit in my reasoning could get that considers all the options available to him.). Now, if the original poster, for whatever reason, we to say "I don't like Epsons", "I don't like LCDs", or "I don't like $2k projectors", then we could move on. But, I'd think the OP would want the best advice he could get with the info that is given. So far, we know:

1) He's looking for a projector, preferably anamorphic with a curved screen (which will be a big hit on the unknown full budget and may not be possible)
2) Can only spend up to $8k, and has intimated that would be dependent on other costs.
3) Like the features of $5-8k projectors, but didn't list what features those were, so they could be present in lower priced projectors
4) Is planning a yet incomplete Home Theater room of indeterminate size and configuration.

Things we don't know:
1) What other equipment the OP is planning on purchasing, but we do know from a more recent post on the HTS that: "I do not have my A/V equipment yet"

As it seems the OP is very much still in the planning and budgeting portion of his build, at this point, it would not be responsible to dismiss a lower priced projector from Epson out-of-hand. The value proposition of a more expensive projector goes down dramatically if it means compromising other aspects of the build.


----------



## eugovector (Sep 4, 2006)

Here's a list of recommendations from projector reviews. You'll notice that JVC, Sony, Epson, and many others are all recommendations given in a variety of budget and viewing scenarios.

http://www.projectorreviews.com/1080p-projector/summary.php


----------



## Dale Rasco (Apr 11, 2009)

eugovector said:


> When you put a title in quotes, it indicates that it's a proper title. For example: "Editor's Choice Award" from Projector Central. That was an award given to the Epson 8350, BTW.
> 
> Quotes can also be uses to indicate a specific phrase written or said, and usually you attribute it to a source. For example:
> 
> ...


Marshall, I was trying to answer your question below. I wasn't trying to argue whether or not what he said was correct technically or academically. Just answering your question.



eugovector said:


> Who awards this title and under what criteria?


----------



## eugovector (Sep 4, 2006)

The question was largely rhetorical. My apologies.


----------



## Dale Rasco (Apr 11, 2009)

eugovector said:


> The question was largely rhetorical. My apologies.


You know, when I go back and read it now it is painstakingly obvious that it was rhetorical. Not sure how I missed that one. :scratch:


----------



## eugovector (Sep 4, 2006)

The internet and casual written word, while a great facilitator of communication across time a distance, doesn't translate subtly well. Maybe I should invent a rhetorical smiley?


----------



## Dale Rasco (Apr 11, 2009)

eugovector said:


> The internet and casual written word, while a great facilitator of communication across time a distance, doesn't translate subtly well. Maybe I should invent a rhetorical smiley?


That's actually a good idea. I don't know how many times I have had to respond to someone with: "If you're getting upset right now, then you are looking way too deep into my last comment." :rubeyes:


----------



## TypeA (Aug 14, 2010)

eugovector said:


> When you put a title in quotes, it indicates that it's a proper title. For example: "Editor's Choice Award" from Projector Central. That was an award given to the Epson 8350, BTW.
> 
> Quotes can also be uses to indicate a specific phrase written or said, and usually you attribute it to a source. For example:
> 
> ...


My bad, the _single_ quotation mark I used, 'best in quality and value' was to indicate a general idea, theme or accolade, and was not intended to be a direct quote or specific title. Thanks for correcting me, I shant use the 'single' marks to indicate a general idea or theme any more.



> I'm not trying to be argumentative here, but being dismissive of LCDs, a particular brand's projectors, or projectors in a certain price range are not helpful (though admittedly, I was initially a little dismissive of an $80k projectors value proposition, though I've since been more explicit in my reasoning could get that considers all the options available to him.). Now, if the original poster, for whatever reason, we to say "I don't like Epsons", "I don't like LCDs", or "I don't like $2k projectors", then we could move on. But, I'd think the OP would want the best advice he could get with the info that is given. So far, we know:
> 
> 1) He's looking for a projector, preferably anamorphic with a curved screen (which will be a big hit on the unknown full budget and may not be possible)
> 2) Can only spend up to $8k, and has intimated that would be dependent on other costs.
> ...


I dont think youre being argumentative at all, I think these kind of discussions are how we learn. The bottom line is that a single chip $3k epson (lcd, led or dlp, you pick) would be beaten (in value _and_ performance) by a $3k three chip offering from either JVC or Sony, and would be beaten every time, in every regard. A single chip light engine simply cant compete with a triple chip platform (that only jvc and sony offer). Its not a reflection of Epson quality but was answered perfectly well by Dale:



> I think he TypeA is saying that in the projector world, Sony and JVC are two of the most highly regarded companies for quality and value. It was a subjective statement, but one that a lot of people in the industry happen to agree with.


----------



## eugovector (Sep 4, 2006)

TypeA said:


> I dont think youre being argumentative at all, I think these kind of discussions are how we learn. The bottom line is that a single chip $3k epson (lcd, led or dlp, you pick) would be beaten (in value _and_ performance) by a $3k three chip offering from either JVC or Sony, and would be beaten every time, in every regard. A single chip light engine simply cant compete with a triple chip platform (that only jvc and sony offer).


I don't know that it was ever in question about whether a single chip design could best a 3 chip design, but rather, which would be most appropriate for a given application. 

But, admittedly, my experience with projectors is limited, so to explore this point, I went to my publication stack and picked up the first thing with projectors on the cover. It was Sound and Vision, Feb/March 2010. A three way comparison of the Epson 9500UB ($3999), JVC DILA-HD550 ($4999), and Optoma HD8200 ($4999) resulted in overall scores of 8, 7.3, and 5 respectively. Brent butterworth said of the JVC:
_
"Overall, I slightly prefered the picture and less fussy setup of the Epson 9500UB. But I suspect a lot of people - including some, and maybe most, of my reviewer pals - would prefer the JVC's picture."_

Now what this tells us, other than that Brent is in desperate need of a proof editor, is that the issue is far from being clear cut. Granted, the Epson is a 3 chip design, but it can be purchased for less than $2000. DLP vs LCD in the projector market is no more clear cut than LCD vs Plasma in the flat panel market. Each have their advantages and disadvantages in a particular application. And, one of those factors, perhaps the biggest factor when creating an overall budget for a project, is price.


----------



## Dale Rasco (Apr 11, 2009)

eugovector said:


> I don't know that it was ever in question about whether a single chip design could best a 3 chip design, but rather, which would be most appropriate for a given application.
> 
> But, admittedly, my experience with projectors is limited, so to explore this point, I went to my publication stack and picked up the first thing with projectors on the cover. It was Sound and Vision, Feb/March 2010. A three way comparison of the Epson 9500UB ($3999), JVC DILA-HD550 ($4999), and Optoma HD8200 ($4999) resulted in overall scores of 8, 7.3, and 5 respectively. Brent butterworth said of the JVC:
> _
> ...


If you are going to compare those models, then you need to be comparing the differences between DLP vs LCD vs LCoS (Liquid Crystal on Silicon) as the DILA-HD550 is of the latter breed. 

I did some limited research, yes, I Googled it, and uncovered a helpful article in understanding the differences in the technologies and the cost differences associated with each. In the end it is still up to whoever is writing the check to make the decision on whether what they see is worth the cost. I will say that another quick search netted some results in the LCoS area as who the top players are and they appear to be JVC and Sony. I am not giving any definitive or substantial evidence that there is any one correct solution, just arguments on all three sides (LCD/DLP/LCoS). In the end it is up to the consumer, all we can do is offer our point of view and not cling to our own need to be right. 

http://www.projectorreviews.com/advice/dlpvslcd/3LCD_vs_DLP_vs_LCoS.php


----------



## eugovector (Sep 4, 2006)

I'm sure sound and vision just reached out for manufacturers to send their best $4-5k projectors, and spread the technology in those reviewed in this particular face-off to make all their readers happy. But you're right, in the article itself, they didn't spend much time talking about characteristics of each tech, though that would have been better left to a non-review piece, I think. 

The article you posted is a little out of date as we have had 1-2 product generations since it was written, but I think most of the info still rings true, especially the take away: "As usual no one single technology wins hands down, but as you can see, depending on your needs, one technology may have more projectors that will work for you, than another will."


----------



## Trick McKaha (Oct 7, 2009)

Why is a rhetorical question (almost) never answered?


----------



## GalaxyDrifter (Jul 26, 2010)

Thanks for the input everyone.

I kind of dropped out there for a bit getting side tracked 
with all of the holiday preparations.

Well lets see if I can clarify things a bit 
and jump out of this frying pan.

Yes I am new on the block, a wide eyed kid in a candy store.

I would love to dump the whole bundle on an awe inspiring 
projector that would make all my buddies cry with wide screen techno envy.

But like I said I am still learning, and perhaps talking way too much.:innocent:

As for my budget to be far more realistic I should have said 
the $5K to $8K would be for everything on the A/V rack, speakers, 
the projector and all excluding the room construction budget and screen.

For the occasional bulb replacement I will just have to toss a 
couple of bucks a week in the old coffee can and be 
prepared for that expense when it comes.

Thank you Mr. TypeA for the point to the JVC Dila projectors I will 
check those out, and for making me clarify my statements 
as I should have in the first place.

Thank you Mr. Eugovector for your point to the Epson projectors 
and your thoughts on sensible budget allocation.

Again all good feedback, I value everyone's input.

Happy holidays and New Year to everyone 
at the Home Theater Shack.
Dave.:wave:


----------



## eugovector (Sep 4, 2006)

In my experience, awe-inspiring requires both sound and video. People were dropping jaws with audio back when 32" CRTs were a "big TV". Plan 50% of your budget on video (including sources like blu-ray), and 50% on audio (including your AVR).


----------



## Dale Rasco (Apr 11, 2009)

They are. Oh wait; was that a rhetorical question? :duh:


----------



## TypeA (Aug 14, 2010)

Np Galaxy. LCD Epson at 1200 is a budget answer, and a good answer. Consider a Mitsubishi 4000 DLP as well, same price. 

If you can swing $2200 the Sony Sony VPL-HW15 will get you into a highly rated LCOS machine, though short of the performance you will get from a JVC D-Ila machine at $3k. Both these two will provide better blacks and contrast...


----------



## jmillerii43 (Jan 11, 2011)

eugovector said:


> Definitely out of my league. If I had a room that would work, I'd be looking at a $2000 Epson. What are the specific features/specs that you are on the lookout for?


What model(s) of Epson do you like in the $1-2k price range for a dedicated HT?


----------



## eugovector (Sep 4, 2006)

The 8350 is taking over where the well-regarded 8100 left off, so at $1299 (or less), that's what I would buy. The brightness of the Epson would come in handy for me as we tend to have a bit of ambient lighting, and I like to keep noise levels low which is where LCD usually does better than similarly priced DLPs. Pair it with the Black Widow screen paint formula, and you should have a winner for under $1500.

The Mitsubishi HC4000 seems to be it's most prominent competition, and is also well regarded.


----------



## TypeA (Aug 14, 2010)

eugovector said:


> The 8350 is taking over where the well-regarded 8100 left off, so at $1299 (or less), that's what I would buy. The brightness of the Epson would come in handy for me as we tend to have a bit of ambient lighting, and I like to keep noise levels low which is where LCD usually does better than similarly priced DLPs. Pair it with the Black Widow screen paint formula, and you should have a winner for under $1500.
> 
> The Mitsubishi HC4000 seems to be it's most prominent competition, and is also well regarded.


LCD is much more flexible for installing, both in lens shift and zoom power. I think with more numerous segmented wheels the rainbow effect some experience from DLP is all but eradicated, but it could still be a issue for more budget DLP's. 

Far as I know the break down still goes:

DLP
+Deepest blacks, shadow detail and contrast, smaller form factor
- Limited lens shift and zoom, moving parts

LCD
+Brightest, excellent price to performance ratio
-Greyish blacks and poor shadow detail, larger form factor


----------

