I’d be really surprised if it was, as they would have to drastically redesign the color tables, and the limited CMS to compensate. That said, I have just sent an email, inquring! -art

Paul

OK, let me answer this way. When I originally reviewed the Viewsonic it was both expensive, and flawed. It got a so-so review from us. With the firmware fix that several readers have advised improved the iris making its performance still not great, but acceptable, and the huge price drop, there has been a lot of interest. And I’ve had several recent emails back from folks who just bought the Pro8100. The feedback has been very positive. Like you, most were looking for an bargain, at a pretty entry level price, and the Viewsonic seems to deliver on that.

Now, to the PT-AE4000.

On the average bright scene, there will be differences between the Panny and the Viewsonic. In most cases the Panasonic will have the advantage, such as black levels or shadow detail (slight). In dark scenes though the Panny will shine. It is on those that it will leave the Viewsonic “in the dust”.

After adjustment both should be roughly comparable in overall color, but the Panasonic now has the better tools and color management system, so for those really wanting to dial in perfect color, the Panny has the advantage.

The Viewsonic though should prove to be a little brighter in best mode, and a little dimmer in brightest mode compared to the Panasonic.

Let me put it this way: 1. You might really like CFI for sports viewing. 2. The panny will have a slight edge on most scenes. 3. When you get to those darker and really dark scenes, all of a sudden there should now be a very big, very visible difference, as the black look gray and flat on the Viewsonic compared to the Panny.

If you’ve got the “bug” you’re going to want to move up, sooner or later. Short of returning the Viewsonic (don’t know if that’s something you are thinking about), I would at least say hang in a few months. There might be some reduction in pricing after the season. Rebates perhaps, that might lower the Panny a little or even the Epson 8500UB, which has the advantage of long term lamp expense that is less than 40% that for the Panny.

Your call, your budget. Meantime you’ve got what has to be considered a very good value and it certainly has some respectable performance. Especially if it’s your first projector! (Hey, I do get a little jaded at times.) -a

I bought a Viewsonic PR08100 and i like it very much. When I choosed it, my choice was very money oriented (1300$) But now with the release price of the Panasonic PT-AE4000, I was wondering if I would notice a big image quality upgrade with the Panasonic?

Thanks,

Jerome

I really do like modest CFI for sports. I’ve mostly avoided the higher settings, even for sports, on the various projectors I’ve worked with, with CFI – Sanyo Z3000, PT-AE3000 and AE4000, and Epson 6500UB, 8500UB, JVC RS25, etc.

So, my answer would be probably – yes. It’s not so much that you will better see a tennis ball during a match, or a baseball with a smoother trajectory during the worlds series. The biggest benefit in my opinion, is that it deals with the background. It’s very effective with panning. Afterall, in most sports, the camera follows the action. That is, as the wide receiver goes streaking down the field, the receiver is in the middle of the picture, being followed by the camera, and it’s the background that goes zooming – no, panning, by.

SAme thing is true of the “ball”. In that football game the camera follows the ball as the quarterback passes. The ball will remain pretty much in the same screen area, while the background – the field – streaks by.

So again, most likely you will like it, and appreciate having it. But that gives you a pricing dilemma. For a few hundred more than the 8100 you can get the Panasonic, and probably the Sanyo PLV-Z3000. But for another $300, you can have the Epson 8500UB, which like the 8100 has that long life lamp, and therefore, in the long run, not cost you more, probably less than the Panasonic, but you need to plunk down more, up front.

Ahh, the trade-offs. As the old Knight in the 3rd Indiana Jones movie recommends: “Choose wisely”. -art

I would say that there’s no reason to make your assumption. From a logic standpoint, it wouldn’t hold up – not enough info, and distorted info. Here goes:

Hmm, my first thought is that I’ve never found consistency in terms of dimming from one lamp to the next. That is, I wouldn’t be surprised if there is a fair amount of difference in how quickly a lamp dims. Also to do that, and get useful results, you would have to restrict the usage to either low or bright modes. I know as a routine part of our review process I view primarily in bright mode, but do measure low power, and also look for color shifts when shifting to low power during use. (Example, the Epson 8500UB/9500UB definitely has an increase of green in the image, in low power, compared to full power.) I would think, that Evan, like myself does at least a moderate amount of playing, in low power, which, would theoretically help the Panasonic, but not the Epson (the Panasonic claims a 50% increase in life to 3000 hours in Eco mode, while the Epson claims the same in full or low, of 4000 hours. The 4000 hours represents how long that lamp will last until it has lost 50%.

Over the years I was a dealer we did pay some attention to lamp life. I saw curves showing projected lumen output. I did find lamp rolloff to be inconsistent from projector to projector, from lamp to lamp.

Remember this important point, as it is key to my statement that you can’t make your assumption from the data:

The “official” lamp life rating is not how long a lamp lasts until failure, but how long it lasts until it’s down 50%.

Thus, in your example, the Epson should still be putting out half of its original brightness at 4000 hours, while the Panasonic will be down half at 2000 hours (both in full power mode). Obviously we aren’t going to get linear rates of dimming, just based on what you reported of Evan’s measurements. At some point, that Epson lamp is going to decrease it’s rate of dimming until it catches, and far surpasses the Panasonic, thanks to the twice as long “life”.

Also of note – Evan and I tend to work with pre-production units as often as not with these brands. Certainly we both had pre-production Epson’s this year (and last). Last year I had a pre-production Panasonic, although this year’s seems to be from the first full-production batch. Using pre-production adds a whole extra level of potential inconsistency. I wouldn’t read too much into them. For example, the Epson pre-production unit came to me showing 0 hours on the lamp. There was no way this unit did not have a bunch of hours on it before getting to me, so it was obviously reset.

Consider, even with Evan’s numbers, it’s perfectly reasonable to expect that although the Panasonic might be just about as bright in best mode – as the Epson, at, say 200 hours, no doubt by 400 or 500 hours, the Epson would be brighter again, and the Epson would continue to get brighter still, compared to the Panasonic, until you finally need to replace the Panasonic lamp.

By 1000 hours, the Epson should be significantly brighter than the Panasonic (let’s say it’s 500 lumens dims 20% at the quarter life point of 1000 lumens, so you end up with 375 lumens at 1000 hours. The Panasonic, at 1000 hours (half way through its life, would likely lose about 35% so yield only about 280 lumens compared to 375 for the Epson. All of a sudden, the difference has grown to the Epson being over 1/3 brighter, and just short of 2000 hours, the Epson will be far brighter as the Panny which will be at half brightness – 215 lumens in best mode, and the Epson would probably (at the lamp’s half life), still maintain about 70-75% of original brightness, so about 350 lumens vs. 215…more than 50% difference. At 2001 hours, though, the Panny would have a new lamp, and likely be about 15% brighter. And it continues in that cycle. Then by a few hundred more hours, the Epson would be brighter again, and continue to gain the advantage. By 3000 hours, the Epson will be the brighter, but close (Panasonic lamp 50% used, Epson 75%. Either way, though, overall, the Epson should be, on average, almost 20% brighter, in best mode, and 25+% in brightest. There may be some times the Panasonic will be brighter, but the Epson will average that 20% brighter, and peak at over 1/3, brighter around when both lamps are around 1500 – 2000 hours old…

Without some serious multi-unit testing, I’d suggest just forgetting the whole issue, as there’s no reasonable way to predict anything from Evan’s pair of measurements. That’s particularly true since this Panasonic has a brand new lamp design, who’s characteristics are no doubt at least as different in performance compared to last year’s Panasonic lamp, as between any two different projectors. That’s a big lamp change, and there is no reason to believe a lamp with such a radically different color temp would behave more like the old Panasonic lamp, than any other projector’s lamp. It’s just as likely that the new Red Rich lamp has characteristics like the Epson (in terms of short term rolloff, than it does with the previous Panasonic lamp.

Now, if Evan comes out with more measurements this time around, we might learn something different. Who knows, the Red Rich lamp might be better or worse, than the typical UHP lamp. What is most interesting, though is that both Epson and Panasonic claim to have their own lamps now. Until a year or two ago, they relied typically on Philips or Osram for their lamps.

When comparing cost, as well as brightness, remember, the Epson lamp is $300 vs. Panasonic at $400. That also means that if you want to really have higher lumens, you could replace the Epson lamp at 3000 hours not 4000 hours. In that case it’s lamp would still be well above the minimum brightmess it would experience (so less than 50% dimming, lets say only 35-40% of 500 lumens, whereas the Panasonic lamps you would still be using until 2000 hours would be much lower – 50% of it’s 430 lumens.

Any way you slice, it the Epson will be the brighter projector, and far less expensive in operational costs for those putting on moderate to heavy hours their projector. For most people keeping the projectors say 2-4 years, the Epson will have the lower total cost of ownership. Afterall, there’s only a $300 difference currently in selling price, and that savings, favoring the Panasonic, dissappears completely at 2000 hours when you need to spend 400 extra for a Panny lamp, but won’t need a spare Epson lamp until 4000 hours, when the Panasonic will need its second spare. ($800 vs. $300) -art

If possible, could you please comment on lumen output for the Panny and for the Epson after 100-200 hours of use?

Evan reported earlier this year that for last year’s models the Panny’s lumens dropped 9% after 200 hours and the Epson’s dropped 15% after 150 hours. If that is the case with the new models (and the new lamp on the Panny) then the Epson loses all of its lumen advantage on optimized modes after about 150 hours.

It would be very interesting to see a graph of lumens vs hours of use for both lamps, wouldn’t it?