Können Sie mir bitte einen 1080p oder höher 3 Chip DLP mit ordentlichem Kontrast empfehlen??

  • Hello, I'm new to the forum and google helps me to speak German. : D Can you please recommend a 1080p or higher 3-chip DLP projector, either a home cinema projector with normal noise and heat levels or less, or a cinema projector that is very quiet and cool, that meets these criteria? Most likely it needs to be "used." It can be released yesterday, or 10 years ago, so long as it is excellent. The criteria are:


    - 3-chip DLP

    - 1080p or higher resolution

    - As much color space as possible

    - At least 1,750 lumens after calibration

    - 5,000: 1 or higher native contrast plus dynamic contrast 20,000: 1 or higher

    - Frame interpolation

    - Cool and quiet enough to work without a hushbox or dedicated projector cabinet

    - Maximum weight of 80 pounds.


    Thanks very much. I already know the Sim2 Lumis, so I'm looking for recommendations next to this model. If nothing exists that meets these criteria, then take away dynamic contrast and frame interpolation. But we prefer to find something in them too ... Don't drag them off the list just because it's easier, only take them off if there is really nothing apart from a few Lumis models that meet these and the other criteria: D Thank you very much!!

  • macelman

    Hat den Titel des Themas von „CKönnen Sie mir bitte einen 1080p oder höher 3 Chip DLP mit ordentlichem Kontrast empfehlen??“ zu „Können Sie mir bitte einen 1080p oder höher 3 Chip DLP mit ordentlichem Kontrast empfehlen??“ geändert.
  • Hi there and welcome!


    The only projector that checks all your boxes is the one you already found by yourself, the Lumis. Your point "cool and quiet enough to work without a hushbox..." renders pretty much every professional machine inappropriate. Secondly, your contrast requirements are also too high for professional projectors - at least in stock form. If you fancy some diy iris tuning and the like, 5000:1 native are achievable with the Christie HD6K-M or HD10K-M - but NOT stock! Good thing about the Christies, they bring the dynamic iris function which is very efficient and widely customizable.

    If you really need the frame interpolation, it all comes down to a few Panasonic units (in the pro sector). Again, both Christie and Panasonic are too loud to use within the seating area without a hushbox!

    Regarding frame interpolation, I also recommend you to read the full "Profi-Beamer-Thread" which Mankra has linked. I gave some advice there about a PC-based frame interpolation which works very good, even together with MadVR. So you can at least remove this requirement from your list.


    May I ask what our plans are? How come you have such special requirements (3-Chip DLPs are (unfortunately) not exactly very common in the home theater scene)? Have you already owned one? You may want to introduce yourself and your project here, then you will receive more feedback and support from the community.


    Best regards, Martin

  • One more recommendation would be the Barco RLM W Series. W8 for example, or even W12. These are not too loud (in professional scales) and rather cost-efficient. The Gamut is not the largest, but can be increased decently beyond Rec.709 by means of a didymium filter. Contrast would also have to be improved by adding one or two irises. Dynamic contrast and frame interpolation is not available.

    But the basis is good to improve upon - in the end it's all about the question "which model can you find second hand and how much are you willing to spend on it". This is usually a tad more difficult than walking into a pro shop with 100 grand and picking the rig of your choice - believe me, I know what I'm talking about :sbier:



  • One more recommendation would be the Barco RLM W Series. W8 for example, or even W12. These are not too loud (in professional scales) and rather cost-efficient. The Gamut is not the largest, but can be increased decently beyond Rec.709 by means of a didymium filter. Contrast would also have to be improved by adding one or two irises. Dynamic contrast and frame interpolation is not available.

    But the basis is good to improve upon - in the end it's all about the question "which model can you find second hand and how much are you willing to spend on it". This is usually a tad more difficult than walking into a pro shop with 100 grand and picking the rig of your choice - believe me, I know what I'm talking about :sbier:


    Thanks very much. Good idea to introduce myself. You can call me Art. My project is a bit complicated as far as projection... just a little bit... I actually need to make post about some of the most complicated aspects having to do with 3D, which it might be a big help if you guys took a lot at it since you seem to know what you are talking about. Actually I am impressed coming from a very popular english HT forum to see great answers on the best models that come closest to meeting my criteria right away, instead of going in circles for dozens of pages of arguments and questions "that's stupid why do you want that" while no one knows the answers. :D So I really appreciate the knowledge here, which is why I joined after reading the threads and seeing it, but let me get to describing my project.


    I will be sitting 15 feet from a 130 inch 2.35:1 screen for 2D. I want one bright, high quality 3 chip DLP projector for 2D HDR. I would prefer 4K of course but I dont have $100,000 to spend on a projector so it will probably be 1080p combining with madvr, although I do have a curiosity what more informed people think pf projectors like, for instance, the BenQ HT9060/x12000H, and if, despite very poor contrast, it can still perform as good or better than, for instance, a Lumis overall, simply because it has DLP sharpness combined with four times as many pixels on screen. Maybe clarity can outweigh everything else? Or is it wrong to assume it would have more clarity than a Lumis even despite 4x as many pixels?


    It sounds like there are at least some things to look into. But why 3 chip DLP? It hasnt really been a problem, but I have seen rare rainbows on 1 DLP projectors with RGB LED lightsource, specifically the Sim2 M-150. So for peace of mind, 3 chip DLP would be better for that reason. I am also very sensitive to motion blur. I compared the M-150 to a Lumis and noticed zero difference in the motion, but for peace of mind, I know 3 chip DLP cant mess it up, whereas sequential color, maybe it could even if I am not noticing? Or maybe it will for content I havent tested yet? Probably not but 3 chip DLP is to me a "sure thing."


    And except for color wheel models, which I want to avoid, and the BenQ HT9060 (which has low contrast and I think cannot output 24fps sources at 24fps), 3 chip DLP are the only bright DLP projectors I can find.


    Then for 3D, I want to double-stack projectors for passive 3D. Why? I have sensitive eyes and 3D is sort of all or nothing. Either it works for you and doesnt bother you, and you can enjoy it immensely, or it doesn't and you can't enjoy it at all or even watch it. So I want to build the best 3D setup I can afford and give myself the best chance to be able to enjoy it.


    3D stacking is the big reason why I care about frame interpolation. I have no way to know if it's true or not until I do it, but I have seen people say that the artifacts from frame interpolation are less visible in 3D, but meanwhile the benefits are a bigger deal, and that frame interpolation really enhances 3D much more than 2D. I already have two Sim2 M-150's for stacking, which should be bright enough on close to a 3 gain screen (at least, with linear polarization filters and glasses), however I am worried about hotspotting. I've seen people say it is less visible in 3D, but I dont want to take that chance given the cost of the screens I am looking at.


    Can it work? Yes. With a 2 gain screen, with polarization, I can get 15 foot lamberts after 3D filters and glasses. However, I dont know if that is actually the ideal brightness for 3D, or just the standard at a time when most theaters were not capable of achieving higher brightness than that. Additionally, I am sensitive to eye strain, and linear polarization has more crosstalk than color bandpass filters. I have the equipment necessary to do 3D luts for both projectors in a stack, so I would like to use color bandpass filters. A privilege of being in the U.S., I was able to find the M-150's at good prices, and believe I can unload them without much hassle or losing any money. If I could find 3 chip DLP projectors with frame interpolation, or at least brighter 1DLP projectors with fast sequential color like the M-150's, it should work a lot better and allow me to use color bandpass filters with less crosstalk, and a lower gain screen with less hotspotting and sheen. And if I already see rainbows sometimes, albeit very rarely, in 2D, I wonder if it could be a problem, or cause extra eye strain, to have stereoscopic sequential color. With a double stack of 3 chip projectors, there is peace of mind on that issue also.


    I was also told DLP projectors would work the best with color bandpass compared to lcos and LCD at the time I bought the M-150's, but did not know that did not apply to DLP projectors with LED lightsource. It might still work but it will require an even higher gain screen.


    Maybe the sheen wont be noticeable from 15 feet away and through 3D glasses, so if I could find a 5 to 10 gain curved screen that will not cause homogeneity issues with a projector stack, maybe I can go forward with the M-150's in a stack.


    There are many elements involved which makes it very complicated on the surface. On the other hand, it is definitely something that can be figured out, but only once you have all the information, like how bright, after the 3D filters and glasses, is the ideal brightness for 3D? What number do I want to hit for the best experience? As well as, from 15 feet away on a 135" (diagonal) 16:9 screen, how much gain before there will be hotspotting? For reference the gain screens I found so far around 3 gain have a 40 degree half gain angle. Throw distance will be 17.5 feet from lens to screen. There is also a possible "prism" solution but I will make a dedicated topic for this.

  • Your point about frame interpolation is something I wanted to ask more about. I am guessing you are talking about SVP frame blending? So the first question would be, is there any way to tell how good quality that is, which converts 23/24 frames per second movies into 60fps and has to use "blending" because 23/24 do not fit into 60 evenly, compared to frame interpolation on a Lumis 3D-S or Sim2 M-150 which evenly doubles the frames from 23/24 to 47/48? Not to mention even if 23/24 could fit evenly into 60, 60 is higher than 48 so maybe more soap opera effect? But also smoother so... it depends how good the "blending" is compared to regular interpolation? In any case, the main reason I want frame interpolation is for double-stack 3D, and unless I am mistaken, I do not think SVP works with 3d blu-rays at all. But if it does then it would be a great option.

  • One more recommendation would be the Barco RLM W Series. W8 for example, or even W12. These are not too loud (in professional scales) and rather cost-efficient. The Gamut is not the largest, but can be increased decently beyond Rec.709 by means of a didymium filter. Contrast would also have to be improved by adding one or two irises. Dynamic contrast and frame interpolation is not available.

    But the basis is good to improve upon - in the end it's all about the question "which model can you find second hand and how much are you willing to spend on it". This is usually a tad more difficult than walking into a pro shop with 100 grand and picking the rig of your choice - believe me, I know what I'm talking about :sbier:

    Do you know what contrast it can get after those modifications? Does it have dynamic contrast feature?


    Also, does anyone know the noise levels on these and what kind of contrast these can get? https://www.projectorcentral.com/Barco-F85_1080p.htm or the F82 version?


    If you take out my "frame interpolation" requirement, are these, the Barco RLM W8 and W12, and the Christie PT-RQ13 and Christie HD10K-M, the best options, or are there any others to add to the list now that we've eliminated frame interpolation?


    I notice some of these appear to have nicer lenses than the Sim2 Lumis line, but the Sim2 Lumis line may have better native contrast, as well as a decent dynamic contrast multiplier. It raises a question, how important is the lens? What effect does it have from seating distance? Up close, sometimes I can see chromatic aberration on these HT projectors, but from seating distance, you can't consciously see it anymore. My question is, even if you can't consciously see it anymore, is it still causing some sort of subconscious blur, or strain on the eyes, where the eyes are still picking up the light particles from the chromatic aberration even if you cannot consciously make them out through all the other "correct" light particles making up the image?


    Or is it the case from seating distance, that if you cannot consciously see the chromatic aberration on a worse lens anymore, then if you view an image with a better lens side by side, the images will look identical, and feel identical, because the benefits of the greater lens are not visible from your viewing distance?


    It reminds me of how, out of the three people I have seen online who have owned both the Sim2 Lumis, and the Runco LS-10, two seemed to prefer the LS-10. This always confused me because both projectors seem very similar other than the Lumis is a better version on paper. The Lumis is 3-chip with 0.95 DMDs, and has higher contrast. The Runco is 3-chip with 0.65 DMDs, and lower contrast. it is just probably just randomness, or small sample size, but the only other explanation I could think of is, what if none of the lenses on models like that are big enough to fully resolve the 0.95 DMDs, and therefore they are creating chromatic aberration? Whereas the 0.65 DMDs, while worse DMDs, are taking a load off the lenses, and able to work with those lenses without as much chromatic aberration. So maybe the worse chip is actually able to create a sharper image than the better chip because the worse chip can interact with these HT-sized lenses with less negative effects?


    I have never had the opportunity to try a Christie or Barco type of lens, so I dont know what is better, 20,000:1 contrast with a Sim2 lens, or 10,000:1 contrast with a Christie lens, and stuff like that. What do you think?

  • Hi Art,

    sorry for the late answer, but your very, very long statements and thoughts spread over different topics, combined with my very, very little amount of free time makes it quite hard to give you an appropriate answer to your questions. I will try and start now :)

    First of all - you are not alone :sbier:

    I went through almost everything that you are thinking about at the moment, and I am pretty pleased with the outcome in my modest "Belle Cinema". Maybe you wanna check out my build thread : Belle Cinema

    In the first post you also find a link to the VISATON forum, where I "originally" come from and where much more details can be found. However, I haven´t updated anything in both threads during the last 2 years due to time constraints...


    The similarities and parallels are quite astounding: I also use a passive 3D stack with color-bandpass-filters from OMEGA OPTICAL, a Geobox for signal splitting and warping and 2 DLP Projectors. I have developed and built my own double curved / torus screen with gain 2.0, and I also own a SIM2 M.150 Projector :respect:. All projectors equipped with anamorphic lens.

    So here´s my first advice: the 3D stack with Omega filters works very good, I am very pleased with it. But as you already assumed, I highly doubt that it will give you good results with the SIM2 M.150. The color coordinates of red and even more green are so far from "normal" projectors (hence the huge gamut), I don´t expect the pass- and stop-bands of the filters to match with them and give you satisfying results in terms of hue shift and crosstalk.

    I would recommend to ask Bob from Omega directly what he thinks about the issue, but not sure if he knows the gigantic gamut of the M.150...

    If you ask me, I would not take the risk of combining the projector with the largest gamut and narrow-bandwidth spectrum with the Omega filters. A standard bulb-lit device is definitively the safer way to go here.

    Staying with the projector choice: I wouldn´t consider laser-phosphor single-chip DLPs, especially with RGBW color wheels as your linked Christie above. Those have very limited gamuts, nothing for home cinema use.


    Now regarding your curved / high gain questions. I answer in this topic, as your questions and considerations about projectors and screens are all related to each other, and I find it rather difficult to have two parallel threads here.

    First of all, as you obviously struggle with envisioning the multiple impacts on geometry and light distribution that come with a curved screen, I also strongly recommend you to get familiar with the hotspot simulator from FoLLgoTT ! It is a great and very helpful tool that shows you very precisely what happens to your light distribution depending on the curve radius, projection distance, viewing distance and material properties. I believe the 40 days trial issue has nothing to do with the simulator itself. It is only the WinRar which wants you to buy it! The hotspot simulator is only an excel, and it is free of charge.

    That said, your preconditions are pretty unproblematic in terms of hotspotting, as your distances are rather long and your screen is very small. Nontheless, there is no gain without hotspotting, and even under your circumstances, a flat screen is not an option once you go higher gain than say 1.5. On the other hand, I am wondering about the gain figures that you undiscerningly talk about. Gain 5, gain 8, gain 10... As if you could pick whichever gain you choose off the shelf somewhere :shock:. Same goes for single or double curved. Other than the aforementioned Couchscreen, which is a very special case, I am not aware of one single manufacturer of double curved screens for home cinema use. So as long as you don´t go the "hard way" and construct one by yourself as I did, single curved is the only option for you. And then again, which company offers curved screens of the desired size with more than gain 2 (or something the like)? Before you dig deeper into pro and cons for higher gain, you should maybe check out if these considerations are only of academic nature, or if they can be put into reality somehow.

    As it is very hard to find suitable screen materials with a gain higher than 2, I on my side opted for the Opera High Gain from Gerriets and built my torus screen with this sheeting. It is a good compromise between higher light output, but still manageable side-effects. Due to the shape of my screen, I can see no hotspot at all, never ever, even though the curve is not narrow enough in theory. But such a high curvature as theoretically needed to fully avoid hotspotting is just not feasible in terms of focus depth and warping. And to obtain the theoretic ideal, one would have to place the projector "in your head", or at least on the same horizontal line of your head, which is nothing but impossible. That said, going "very" high gain, say 4, 5 or more, even if you could find a screen material that does it, brings you problems that you cannot mitigate any more, even with the best possible curvature. In addition, such a high gain will not come without glitter issues.

    Also, very important point, "very high gain" can only work for one master seat, and even there only in theory. You ask about projector placement issues and want to use prisms to combine the two projectors (which is absolutely not feasible in practice by the way). Why? Because your projectors are like 20 cm apart from each other. But in the next chapter you talk about your complete seating row and viewing positions 100-150 cm apart from the master seat?!?! :dry:

    Seating postition and projector position are to be considered exactly the same way! There is no difference technically. So as long as you want a decent image uniformity for a complete row of seats, don´t waste any more thoughts on gains higher than something around 2! And if you stick in the region of around gain 2, you also don´t have to waste a single thought on the slightly differing projector positions, as you will never be able to notice it on your screen!


    Best regards so far, Martin

  • Your point about frame interpolation is something I wanted to ask more about. I am guessing you are talking about SVP frame blending? So the first question would be, is there any way to tell how good quality that is, which converts 23/24 frames per second movies into 60fps and has to use "blending" because 23/24 do not fit into 60 evenly, compared to frame interpolation on a Lumis 3D-S or Sim2 M-150 which evenly doubles the frames from 23/24 to 47/48? Not to mention even if 23/24 could fit evenly into 60, 60 is higher than 48 so maybe more soap opera effect? But also smoother so... it depends how good the "blending" is compared to regular interpolation? In any case, the main reason I want frame interpolation is for double-stack 3D, and unless I am mistaken, I do not think SVP works with 3d blu-rays at all. But if it does then it would be a great option.

    Sure there is a way to tell how good the quality of any FI is - watch it, test it, and then judge for yourself. Frame interpolation ist a difficult topic, there is no absolute right or wrong or better or worse. In the end it even comes down to a question of personal taste. I for myself can not accept the terrible judder of 24p, as with my screen size and viewing distance, it is absolutely unbearable. And yes, I can confirm that a very good FI is even more important for 3D watching. This is why I chose Vivitek 1188 for my 3D stack, as these sport the best, flawlessly working FI that I have seen until today - and I have tested and compared many of them.


    In order to be able to use also professional projectors (e.g. 3-chip DLPs) in my cinema, which hardly ever come with integrated FI, I extensively tested and compared the 3 PC-based frame interpolation solutions available: SVP, AMD Fluid Motion and Dmitri Render. SVP is getting better and better and has many tuning options. It makes use of the CPU instead of the GPU, which is also helpful as one needs all the available GPU power for MadVR. However, up to now there is no possibility to get SVP running together with MadVR tonemapping, so it is basically useless. Luckily, not so with AMD Fluid Motion. I can run fluid motion on an older AMD graphics card (newer ones don´t support it any more), but still have another, way more powerful GPU for MadVR rendering. So it is basically a dual GPU setup with one GPU only for the FI, and the other one (can then also be a NVidia) for all the other stuff. This solution gives very satisfying results in terms of frame interpolation. My conclusion after many long comparisons is that the AMD FI works very well, absolutely smooth and fluid, only little artifacts from time to time. It doesn´t fully reach the perfection of the Vivitek or some other good DLP solutions such as Optoma HD83 or the like, but it is fairly close. In any way it performs noticeably better and more flawless than the JVC FI in the X series.

    But coming to the downside: regardless of which PC-based FI we are talking about: they cannot work with 3D BluRays, as the frame packed format doesn´t support passing 60 Hz on to the projector. This is why, for my 3D stack, I have to do the frame rate conversion after the splitting in right and left image (GeoBox 601), within the projectors.

  • If I were you, I would go and search for two Sim2 Lumis for your 3D stack, and keep one of your M.150 for 2D. They all have decent frame interpolation, so you don´t have to worry about that. The lumis is brighter, but with a "normal" light source, so optimal for a passive stack with interference filters.

    And finally, for 2D, the brightness of the M.150 is more than enough on a gain 2 screen of your size, and all the other qualities of this machine are impeccable.


    Btw, concerning 2k vs. 4k: NEVER would I go for a 4k projector with less quality in your case! Your viewing ratio (viewing distance divided by screen width) is so huge (must be in the region of 1.5:1, right?), you will never ever benefit from the higher resolution as much as you do from the other qualities of your SIM2s.

    I have a viewing ratio of around 0.6-0.7:1 (appr. 2.7 m seating distance, 4 m visible screen width), which is absolutely borderline in terms of resolution (by means of an anamorphic lens it is acceptable). And still I haven´t found a projector which gives me a better overall performance than my beloved Sim2.

Jetzt mitmachen!

Sie haben noch kein Benutzerkonto auf unserer Seite? Registrieren Sie sich kostenlos und nehmen Sie an unserer Community teil!