Let me start by saying I can’t comment on your report about Sony’s and lamps. I just haven’t caught anything about that, although I admit I really haven’t spent but minimal time on the forums the past 3-4 months. Of course the units I review tend to show up either new, or with a couple dozen hours on their lamps.

As to sports, and VW85 vs RS25 – should be pretty comparable on sports. Both have CFI for those who like (I do for most sports). BTW, most likely your panning issue related to 24fps, not to anythings specific to the Sony? I recall when playing with the original RS1 and other projectors first supporting 24fps (remember – we didn’t have any 24fps source material until Blu-ray (and HD-DVD).

As such, you’ll likely still have the same panning “issue” (perhaps “reality” would be a more fitting term), with either of these at 24fps unless you engage CFI, and few enthusiasts are ready to swear off the “director’s intent” to watch movies with that digital look that comes from CFI.

Anyway, I was most impressed with the VW85, but, as I probably stated, don’t see any real area where it proves superior to the JVC, and it’s not quite as bright. And, I’d rather achieve great black levels without a dynamic iris, if I could, as the JVC does.-a

I’ll take issue – re “my judgement” since I am a huge fan of brightness. I’m a large screen owner, and I like to sit close (11.5 feet from eyeball to screen, on a 128″ diag Firehawk.)

I presume your “one minute” was about avatar, not Sherlock (sherlock sadly being a rather poor movie, but for Robert Downey Jr.’s performance being the best thing about it, but he couldn’t carry the film.

Yes, 3D has black level problems, and since 3D also seems to be inherently dimmer, we may well see a new generation of brighter digital projectors to cope. Still, the effects of Avatar made the movie, despite the lower contrast, etc. downright dazzling.

I have long said that with most respectable home theater projectors, if you have a decent room (darker walls, etc.) you will have a better viewing experience than the typical cineplex (and that’s nevermind the kids in the theater, sitting behind you, talking and texting during the flick).

As to sharpness, no, your projector is definitely not as sharp as any commercial projector, but you sit so far back (relative to where you sit in a theater), that it seems sharp. Hey, you can put standard TV on a 20 year old 27″ Sony Trinitron, and if you watch it from 25 feet away it will look every bit as sharp as a 27″ LCDTV from the same distance, showing HDTV. For a mid theater seat, in most theaters, to get the same relative size (immersion) with your 8 foot wide screen, you would probably have to sit no more than 7 feet from the screen, maybe closer.

Besides, sadly, most of those DLP projectors in the theaters, simply do not have the resolution of their film counterparts.

I do believe the theaters would need to offer a minimum of true 8K resolution to be in the ball game, not 4K. To me, the digital projectors definitely are not as sharp, although folks sitting in the back of theaters might not notice (I sit between 1/3 and 1/2 back).

Which brings us back to the Sony. I don’t dictate what people must like. The vast majority of home theater setups use screens of 110″ diagonal or less, and as you have pointed out, you have a 110″ and it’s too small.

However, other folks are perfectly happy. Or they have a smaller room. I do have a friend with a 92″ screen stuffed into what was a 13×11 foot bedroom. They sit about 8 feet back, and, I might note, love their setup.

So, it’s simple, while bigger might be better, it’s not for everyone, due to price, room, or taste. Remember, 10′s of millions of people actually believe having a 42 or 50″ lcdtv in a room with some lights on, is “home theater”. Imagine that. (I still think 50″ diag is a good size for a kitchen.)

Lastly, since I’m bouncing around, a to that detail, in the theater – it should be there, unless you are sitting so far back that its too small to see, OR, FAR MORE LIKELY, you are watching in a Cineplex in California, or some other state with anal-retentive theater lighting laws. I’m all for fire safety, but out here in California, those huge Cineplexes are never really dark. There’s way too much ambient light from all the sconces, and colored walls, and overly bright green Exit signs.

I remember, as a kid, when the lights went out, you were barely able to see you hand in front of your face. Now you can almost read a magazine.

So, the theater experience is definitely flawed, and while different flaws, I do believe a respectable (not necessarily expensive) home theater in a good room, does provide for a superior experience. (Ya need good sound, too!) BTW, remember, black levels in theaters not only have deteriorated due to ambient light, but also because those big 3 chip DLP’s aren’t even close in black level performance to the best home products like the JVC’s Sony VW85 and even the Epson UB projectors. To my knowledge (thin in this area) most of those DLPs were pretty basic. The newer ones, I imagine are now sporting their own dynamic irises to improve black level performance. Also look for more dynamic sharpening,a nd things like “super-resolution” to come to the theater projectors.

Enough. Hey, the HC1600 still does have mediocre black levels. For all your positioning, replace that 1600 with something like a BenQ W6000 or Optoma HD8600 (if you want to stick to DLP) or an Epson UB, VW85 or better, JVC RS25, and you will be truly amazed when viewing darker scenes. -art

That said, HW15 vs VW85 – very simple. Overall, similar picture, but whereas the HW15 has good black level performance, the VW85 has superb black level performance, immediately superior to the Epson 8500UB/9500UB. By comparsion, the Epsons have the advantage on the Sony HW15. You also get anamorphic lens support and CFI for the VW85′s roughly 2.5 times the price. It’s a lot more money, but the extra performance, primarily in terms of black levels are definitely there to justify it, budget allowing! -a

I only needed one minute to immediately notice: how dark and dim the image was, how fuzzy it was too, and how big the screen was. I also noticed the rather ordinary black level.

In my Home Theater I have noticed the skin blemishes of the actors and actresses. This is a result of a sharp, bright picture. In Sherlock Holmes on a forty foot screen in the newest theater in town, I could not see any skin detail at all. In every way except size the commercial theater image was inferior. The movie itself looked interesting. I’ll wait for it’s release on Blu-ray so I can enjoy it with good pq at home.

This experience suggests to me that Home Theater is already sharper than comercial theater and has more than enough black level. This is significant because I only have a Mitsubishi 1600 – a 720 projector famous for it’s poor black levels.

I went away wishing for a bigger screen however. I have a standard 8 foot wide Da-Lite HP screen in 16:9. I want bigger so as to capture the full theater experience.

My priorities are bright and big. Resolution on any kind of modern HD projector just isn’t much of a problem, but not all projectors can shoot a really big image with sufficient brightness.

I want at least ten feet wide for 2.35:1. Therefore this Sony just doesn’t cut it – too dim on big screens.

P.S Off to CES; hope to see a couple of these.