Comments on: New Home Theater Projectors for Review

By: Art Feierman

Art Feierman — Sat, 01 Dec 2012 22:49:20 +0000

Greetings Sheraz,
That’s most interesting! For typical movie viewing, the general guideline has always been the movie theater engineers ratings. (SMPTE). 12 ft-lamberts minimum, 16 recommended. We measured 725 calibrated lumens. Now on a 100″ screen 1000 lumens gives you a whopping 33 ft-lambert. (32 is the max the SMPTE recommends, but you won’t find theaters near that bright). That assumes a 1.0 gain screen. Let’s work with that.
A 130″ screen is 69% more sq feet than a 100. (100×100 = 10,000 sq inches 130×130 = 16,900 sq inches)
33 ft lamberts / 1.69 = 19.5 ft lamberts. But, with 725 instead of 1000 lumens to start, 19.5*.725 = 14.1 ft – lamberts

So, with a 1.0 gain screen, yes, you have as much brightness as a typical theater (and your room is no doubt darker).
But, your lamp will dim over time, so, technically after perhaps 500 hours you’ll be down to the 12 ft-lamberts, and by the time the lamp reaches claimed life you’ll be at 7 and change. (For your reference, most 3D movie theaters are apparently less than 4 ft lambert – and they are too dim.)

So, technically, longer term, you are thin on lumens. But, if you have, for example a typical 1.3 or 1.4 gain screen, then, say with a 1.3 (like my Studiotek 130), that 14.1 ft-lambertts becomes about 18.3… My biggest concern would be for any 3D viewing you do. you’ll be movie theater dim if you try to fill the whole 130. That I can assure you from my own. I found the 95ES adequate in 3D at 100″ diagonal.

BTW don’t forget, that’s calibrated lumens I’ve been talking about. The Sony still has very good color in our quick-cal tuned “brightest” mode, where it is almost exactly 20% brighter…

Sheraz, while I like the 95ES, and I believe you can definitely go with it, (I have a 124, and previously a 128″ and would be ok with the 95ES’s brightness for 2D, but, that said, here’s one of those times where I think I can recommend a projector that in several ways is better choice that’s lot less expensive.

Consider the slightly newer, Sony VPL-HW50ES. Technically it’s a step down, but, in this case, the HW50es is actually better than the older 95ES at several things. First, it’s brighter – it calibrated to 992 lumens – your brightness problem basically vanishes. Second, it produces a sharper – or rather a “sharper seeming” image thanks to it’s impressive Reality Creation. (which can be pushed too far, of course, but it really is impressive. The 95ES will still win at black levels, but the HW50ES is very good, the equal to the Epsons, and not far below the 95ES. And you can put a couple thousand aside for your true 4K projector in a few years… -art
Let me know how it all turns out! -art

By: Sheraz

Sheraz — Sun, 18 Nov 2012 03:40:54 +0000

Hello,
I’m vary interested in buy Sony VPL-VW95ES but I have been told that it’s not good if I want to use it to display on 130″ screen. I have a completely dark room. Even then I have been told (on the forums) that it’s not bright enough to show on 130″. Your opinion plz. Thanks.

By: Art Feierman

Art Feierman — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 23:19:57 +0000

Thanks Mike, I looked around, and tackled the Lens/Anamorphic around 2am last night. I also asked Lori to scan the whole review… but she’s not back in until tomorrow… Now that you let me know it was also on the summary… I shall correct that as well.

thanks! -a

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 17:53:30 +0000

Art, I see that you now added info and analysis on the lens memory feature under heading “VPL-VW95ES Anamorphic Lens, Lens Memory”. Thx, also good to read that it works as advertized. However, in the summary section, where you list Pros&Cons you still say the following as Pro: “Can manually (from remote) do equivalent to Lens Memory”. Then as con you say “Lacks Lens Memory – of course in this price range, dealers are recommending an anamorphic lens for those wanting Cinemascope widescreen”.

This is now both in conflict with the facts and what you also report elsewhere in the review. Yeah, I know, residual copy/paste from some past review (maybe last years VW-90), but still, would probably be good to correct this to avoid any confusion

By: Art Feierman

Art Feierman — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 06:11:09 +0000

Mike, probably a residual from the previous projector review I used as as template. I used the lens memory myself (I have a 2.35:1 screen). It works as advertised, no issues. With power zoom, focus and lens shift, and digital shift it’s even more versatile than the Panasonics which were the first to sport lens memory (except maybe some super expensive 3 chip DLPs).

By: Mike

Mike — Sat, 14 Jan 2012 13:47:07 +0000

Hi Art, your Sony 95 review states that it does not have zoom memories, this must be an error as the projector has this feature, check mnf specs and eg AVS forum discussions. Otherwise thxs for the interesting reviews, keep up the good work!

By: Art Feierman

Art Feierman — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 10:53:50 +0000

Hi Rav, Not a bad idea. I’ll see if I can find the time. Meantime, a new favorite is the most recent X-Men movie. I’ll be using it heavily. -art

By: Art Feierman

Art Feierman — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 07:11:51 +0000

Hi Ryan,

I don’t have the Panny anymore – barely two weeks total. But, perhaps you’ve got the digital shift causing that. Check those settings – or, perhaps you can compensate, using them, and incorporate those changes into your various saved lens memories. -art

By: Art Feierman

Art Feierman — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 07:09:31 +0000

Hi Irfan, I’m always far behind. SIM2 publishing tonight. W7000 is next…
But, if I’m so far behind – where are the other W7000 reviews? Just kidding. Mitsubishi HC7800D is after that. -a

By: Irfan

Irfan — Tue, 20 Dec 2011 19:53:55 +0000

Hi PJ Reviews, time to publish fresh reviews, you are far behind. Awaiting BenQ w7000 Review eagerly.