Yep sure would. I was never truly happy with the brightness of the AE3000. Well, we shall see. I’ll just have to wait until my turn comes. -art

There’s a tiny problem with your last sentence:
“It certainly would have been a far less interesting showdown this fall, if Panasonic decided [to->]not to launch a new model.”

When you talk brightness, there are a couple of ways to consider it:

1) Brightness in the max brightness/inaccurate color Dynamic modes, which doesn’t seem to be higher;
2) Brightness in the accurate color modes, which as Adam says Panasonic claims the AE4000 improves on;
3) Improving the color brightness in the Dynamic mode so that the discerning viewer will be more likely to use it. Panasonic claims that their new red-rich lamp helps with this, and that Dynamic no longer has so much of a green push.

2) and 3) are improvements for people who really care about accurate colors. 1) is for people that have light issues and just need as bright an image as possible, whatever happens to the colors. It seems that the AE4000 still lags the Epsons in this regard. (Though, AIUI, the Epson 8500 still lags the otherwise-worse 8100 in this regard.)

Hey, I’m just as anxious to get to the Epson 8500UB and PT-AE4000 projectors and review them as many of you are to read the reviews. It should be a very interesting battle. I really have no idea who will come out the winner. The extra “best” mode brightness of the epson last year scored a lot of extra points with me. -art

thanks – fixed! -art

Hi Bjorn, Ahh, you’ve just been waiting for a chance for this comment. Good. OK, I’ll take issue with you.

The pricing is certainly a big thing and a “price/performance” breakthrough, in terms of the ultra-high contrast projectors (yes, there were times you could buy the Sanyo PLV-Z3000 this past year for $2K, and it too is ultra-high contrast, though its black level performance wasn’t quite up to the older panny.
But, as to the Epson’s Sony’s and JVCs being overpriced:
Not necessarily.

The JVC’s are the easiest to deal with, in comparison. Even the RS10 (aka HD350), should still have significantly better blacks than the new AE4000. Better still, it accomplishes them without a dynamic iris which compresses the overall picture. No contest there. I, of course have the RS20, and sorry, even at their best, the old Epson 6500UB and PT-AE3000 were no more match for the JVC, than say, an Optoma HD20 or Epson 8100 are a match for the new Panny and Epson 8500UB. (The RS10 falls somewhere between the new Epson/Panny, and the RS20, but most will liken it much closer to the RS20. (and then, don’t forget, we are getting some slightly improved JVC’s this fall, too. (“this spring” for our friends down under).

Now to the Sony’s. Well, as you know I favor JVC over Sony, but they are no longer priced competitive, with the Sony HW15 having dropped in price at least as much compared to the HW10, as the AE4000 is below the AE3000. It’s still about $700+ more than the Panasonic, but there are attributes that many will appreciate. The HW15’s iris was about as smooth as they come, and color is excellent. Yes the Panny has more features, but most folks don’t need all the fancy stuff. Few will, for example, will buy a 2.35:1 screen for the Panasonic. As to CFI – most folks don’t care. (Sports fans are most likely to, but hey will favor a projector with lots of “brightest mode” lumens with decent color, etc.

And that brings us to the Epson. First, I wouldn’t be surprised if they decide to roll out the 8500UB a bit lower in price (or more likely start it off with a mail in rebate (you buyers seem to really like rebates).

it may well be that the PT-AE4000 is now the brighter of the two (Epson 8500UB) in best mode, but the Epson will still own Brightest mode, probably by 40 – 50% – we shall see.

And the cost difference may not be as great as you assume. Consider this: running at full power (which most people do), the Panasonic lamp, I believe, is still rated at 2000 hours at full power. The Epson is rated 4000 hours (and it’s a higher wattage lamp – thus part of why the Epson has the extra brightest mode lumens.

If you are a heavy user – say 40 hours a week (that’s me, easily), The Panasonic needs a new lamp every year. Retail is $400.
The Epson will officially get you twice the life – 2 years, and the lamp replacement I believe is $299, vs. $399.

So, at 40 hours a week (2000 hours/year) on the first day of year 3 (2 years use), you will need to feed your Panasonic it’s 3th lamp (that’s you spending 2x$400 = $800 on lamps.
The Epson will need its second lamp, so your total spend at that point is $300. (ok, there will likely be slight discounts on both brands’ lamps). But the Epson 2nd lamp will last 2 years, the Panasonic lamp, just one.
To get through 4 years of use, you will have bought 3 Panasonic lamps ($1200) or 1 Epson lamp at $300 for a savings of $900! (less any discounts).

Bottom line, at the end of 3 years of 40 hours a week viewing, you will have spent approximately $900 more on lamps for the Panasonic.

Now, if you are only a 20 hour a week user it takes longer to recoup. (if you are much below that 20 hours a week, then yes, the Panny likely will be much less expensive over its life). If you are the kind of person who doesn’t expect to have any projector 3, 4, 5 or more years, than yes, the Panasonic has overall lower cost of ownership, but also remember you may need to provide a new spare lamp when you go to sell, if you have few hours left on the old one, while the Epson probably would still have a lot of hours left. I know when I sold my JVC RS1, to get my RS20, I provided a new spare lamp, as necessary to have a nice sellable package.

So, cost of operation can be a real equalizing factor between the Epson and Panasonic. That would be especially true, if Epson reacts to the Panasonic PT-AE4000 pricing and perhaps sets their net price lower than currently announced. At a $500 difference, considering the lamps, that’s pretty much parity for most users, just more upfront cost with the Epson (which also has the longer, better warranty).

Ultimately, therefore it likely will come down to black levels, color accuracy, skin tones, overall picture “look/feel/wow/pop”, special features etc., and price between the two will be relatively a minor issue, except for those that can just scrape up the dollars for the Panasonic, but can’t quite initially afford the Epson.

In other words, yes, the Panasonic has set a new price point for highly featured, ultra-high contrast projectors, but let’s not jump the gun on this one. I’m pretty sure Evan always preferred the picture of the AE3000 over the 6500UB. I personally preferred the 6500UB. And we’re not talking day and night differences here. -art

Thanks for your reply Art, always a pleasure to read You bring up a lot of good points and I agree with most if not all of them, but I still think that in terms of value, it will now be an even steeper price difference between say the ae4000 and the jvc’s.

Let’s say the standard selling price for the AE3000 was $2500, while the cheapest price I’ve seen for the RS10 is about $4500. Now the newer and better ae4000 will sell for a standard retail price of $2000 (who knows if there will be sales on top of that as well, like previous years) while the new RS15 AFAIK has not changed in price so will also probably sell for around $4500, which means the premium will go from about 1.8x to 2.25x, or almost half the price of a AE4000 projector…

The bulb factor is definitely interesting, especially with the super-high expected bulb life of the new Epsons, I don’t believe I’ve ever seen full lamp bulb life of 4-5000hrs before. Crazy! Which is one of the reasons why I’m hesitant towards the Sony’s, who never seem to have any official numbers on bulb life for some reason. That said though, you are a very heavy user my friend I think I use my ol’ Sanyo quite a lot for movies, gaming etc daily, and yet I’m still on my original bulb @ 2300hrs after almost three years…

However I wasn’t strictly refering to the higher end models like the 8500ub either, but why would anyone buy for example the Epson 8100 when it’s now so close in price to what should be a clear step up in the ae4000…

Ok Bjorn, fun and games time.

Well, the first point you raise has to be started with the question of relative value. While your new “factor” for the RS15 is 2.25x, also keep in mind that the pricing of the old RS10’s will come down in price, until they are all gone. Or, look at PT-AE3000s now, looks like those are going away at $1699…

But it doesnt really matter too much as long as the ratios aren’t turned completely upside down, ie. if the JVC held its price but the new Panasonic was $999.

It really comes down to what people will pay for extra performance. The first assumption must be to agree that one projector is the better of the two, for a particular person’s need. Then, it comes down to how much value the individual puts on money. For a person planning to spend $60,000 for their theater – including installation, wiring, lots of furniture, new walls, carpeting, a fancy motorized masking screen, etc. It would be sort of crazy to decide to only spend $2000 on a projector, if $4500 bought a visibly superior product (unless the buyer just doesn’t care at all).
For someone, though with almost no budget, where the choice is to have to wait a couple of years to save the additional, the dynamics of the decision making regarding the projector price is totally different. Consider: People who make $500K a year, rarely weigh whether a Lexus is worth the extra $15,000 over the equivalent Toyota, they just work on the basis of that it’s better, and they can afford “better”.

Ok, we will skip the lamp/price conversation for now. You ask about the 8100 vs the AE4000 – why anyone would by the Epson over the Panasonic, with only a projected $400 difference. My first answer is that a lot of folks are buying the Optoma HD20, because that’s what they can afford. I imagine many of them, if they simply had more disposable income would buy more expensive projectors. Such may also be the case with the 8100 vs. the Panny.

However, let’s have some fun: 8100 vs AE4000
1. OK, first of all, we assume a $400 difference. However, I know that most manufacturers were concerned about the “little three” – the Optoma HD20, BenQ W1000 and Vivitek H1080FD, all at $999. Did the 3LCD manufacturers need to match the $999 pricing of these DLP’s or could they command a higher price. Even the HC3800 from Mits, a more expensive DLP projector, adjusted initial pricing based on the announced $999 projectors.

So, that’s to say, it may well be that the combination of the $999 pjs and the $1999 Panny, or one of those, might yet trigger price changes, or simply the usual rebates sooner, rather than later. I’m sure Epson is thinking right now based on the Panny $1999, about what price they can command for the 8500UB, and still sell as many or more 8500UB’s than Panasonic sells AE4000. In the past, the Epson UB has typically commanded $300 – $700 more than the Panasonic, depending on rebates, end of life, etc.

Epson has been quoting 4000 hours on the lamps for more than a year, now, when they released the 6100 and 6500UB with their 4000 hour full power lamps. Most manufacturers are either quoting 2000 or 3000 hours at full power. The Panny, is at 2000. Epson designed their own lamp, and as you have now read, Panasonic did the same for the AE4000. No reason to disbelieve either company’s claims. Let’s face it, simply underutilizing a lamp by 20% is what most manufacturers do to get their 50 – 100% higher claims. The Epson is a higher wattage lamp than the panny, so they have more they can “hold in reserve” in exchange for longer life.

So, let’s say you plan to keep your 8100 or AE4000 for 5 years, and have at least 1000 hours left of the lamp to sell it.
If you are a 40 hour a week user, You will have bought 4 Panasonic lamps, or 1 Epson lamp, at list price a difference of

The bottom line numbers are, though, for that heavy user, based on right now prices:
Epson: $1599 + 1 lamp @ $299 = 1898 for our 5 years of use, and the Epson’s 1st spare lamp will have 3000 hours left on it.
Panasonic: $1999 + 4 lamps @$399 = $3595. the 4th spare lamp will have 2000 hours on it (brand new).

Also, the Panasonic inherently comes with a 1 year warranty, the Epson with 2 years, which if there’s a problem, in year 2, can save hundreds of dollars, but we’ll forget that.
The bottom line, using those numbers, is that the Panasonic costs over 5 full years (not counting electricity or popcorn), $720 a year. Not too bad.

But the Epson, by comparison, costs: only $380 a year, barely more than half.

So, looking at it that way, they are hardly price competitive products, the lower cost one, comes with a better warranty, but isn’t as high performance, but costs barely half as much.

Of course not everyone is a 40 hour a week person (I do far more, as you would expect).

At 20 hours a week, the cost difference is closer over the same period of time, and lamp cost is almost a non-factor for a purist who only watches one, two, or three movies a week and nothing else, nor is it a big factor for someone who replaces their projector almost every year, with something better.

So, it depends!

2. Better blacks, anamorphic emulation (ok few care), CFI, (verdict out), etc. No question the Panasonic is the more full featured and generally, the higher performance of the two, but, not everyone cares. Some just want something nice, and let’s face it, even the lowest priced 1080p projectors out there, impress the first time buyer, rather effortlessly.

OK, I could ramble on, but… the point is, we each for our own reasons have our own idea of what a good value is. Mine is different from yours, etc. Quite honestly, unless there’s something about the AE4000, that the first looks aren’t mentioning that makes it a lot better still, I can’t imagine I wouldn’t buy the RS20 (or RS35, or…) over the Panny, even if it was $999. I like, no, insist upon the blackest blacks, and I much prefer a projector that doesn’t need a dynamic iris to get them. So, to me, budget allowing, no PT-AE4000 or Epson 8500UB works for me in my primary theater, although either is more than welcome as a projector in my “second” lower end theater.

After reading that last sentence only one thing comes to mind, Art you should really get a CRT projector for your main HT I did and loved every minute of it, you will never get blacks as black as you do with a CRT, and if I could I would have one in my current apartment, but I just don’t have the space for that right now…

Speaking of which, have you had the opportunity to compare a good CRT like a 9″ Barco, Sony or similar to one of the JVC’s? It would be real interesting to see how big of a difference there is in black level, and also things like color which is one of the other main things I loved about my old CRT (a Barco Graphics 808s).

“why would anyone buy for example the Epson 8100 when it’s now so close in price to what should be a clear step up in the ae4000…”

And Art didn’t mention this, but the 8100 is still brighter in Dynamic mode than Panasonic in Dynamic mode. That doesn’t matter to anyone with a nice theater setup, but to people that need to/want to show some sports or regular TV in a non light controlled environment, that can be a big deal. Ambient light kills subtle contrast differences anyway, so if you need something with max lumens, the 8100 may work for you.

Art, how about an update ?

The PT-AE4000 first look blog, published last night. The full review, will be up this weekend, and the PT-AE4000 vs Epson HOme Cinema 8500UB comparison, by mid-next week. -a