As of right now, I’m figuring the JVC review will post around 5:30 or 6pm (pacific). Then, tomorrow I can start talking about the PT-AE4000. -art

He’s got a 128″ screen, there’s no way a CRT would be satisfactory at that size, people tend to forget the shortcomings of CRT’s:

-No longer in production.
-Limited screen sizes.
-They are huge.
-Reliability issues may arise due to the fact that they are really old.
-Burn in.
-No warranty.

I’m sure there’s more cons i can come up with.
Those are major drawbacks IMO, that make owning a CRT very inconvenient given the alternatives.

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.

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).

I’ve had an InFocus 7210 for four years in a dedicated, light controlled home theater (the projector 17 feet from the 120 inch diagonal screen). InFocus projectors are bright, often sacrificing contrast and black levels, but I am accustomed to the bright picture, one that I loved
for four years. Of course contrast, black levels and a film-like look matter a great deal to me (as I watch mostly movies, Blu-ray and DVD).

I am ready to upgrade to 1080p and saving as much money without sacrificing quality is the goal.

Knowing the above, would I be happy with the Panasonic PT-AE4000U?

Or should I save up my pennies a little longer and consider the JVC RS 15 or the new InFocus 8602? Or
perhaps even consider the affordable Epson 8500?

My home theater consultant tells me the Panasonic projectors are great machines and that, even if the JVC RS 15 is better, it may not be considered 2-3k better.

Care to share your expertise on this matter?

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.