Panasonic PT-AE1000U LCD Front Projector

I have a few comments about this review. First, the CR calculations are incorrect. You divide the 100 IRE lumen output by the 0 IRE lumen output to calaculate On/Off CR, not multiply it. Second, there must have been something wrong with your review unit, as there shouldn't be a problem with a 480p input over HDMI.

Mike

First, the CR calculations are incorrect. You divide the 100 IRE lumen output by the 0 IRE lumen output to calaculate On/Off CR, not multiply it.

Considering how many eyes have seen this review and another article in which the same error was made you deserve kudos for catching it and for reporting it! It is something rarely checked in calibration as the display and viewing environment is what it is and in my experience that typically will not be changed.

Original

With the dynamic iris feature, the Panasonic potentially comes with two measurements. When a projector provides that I measure the response with the dynamic iris turned off, this is a simple measurement of a 0IRE raster and 100IRE window after calibration.

Edited

This measurement is provided for the purpose of comparison only to other reviews of front projectors to illustrate true contrast ratios using a D65 calibrated color temperature using a 100IRE and 0IRE window pattern. With the dynamic iris feature, the Panasonic potentially comes with...

Original

With the Dynamic Iris OFF, and using a calibrated D65 light output at 96 lamp hours, I obtained 367fl at 100IRE multiplied by .522fl for 0IRE yielding a contrast ratio of 192.

Edited

With the Dynamic Iris OFF, and using a calibrated D65 light output at 96 lamp hours, I obtained 367fl at 100IRE and .522fl for 0IRE yielding a contrast ratio of 703:1.

This also led me down a road of lengthy research on contrast ratio and what I found was a term far more complicated and even less useful than I imagined inspiring to me write a note to myself to do an article on the topic from A-Z for the HD Waveform Column. It is that deep and convoluted...

The actual formula is

PEAK - MIN divided by MIN = contrast ratio:1

peak equals maximum light output and MIN equals minimum light output

For my testing I simply divide PEAK by MIN but the full formula is required for ambient lighting conditions accounting for how that affects black reproduction and to keep the result relevant to actual viewing conditions!

there must have been something wrong with your review unit, as there shouldn't be a problem with a 480p input over HDMI.

Ultimately this is determined by the manufacturer and is not the first time such an oddity has surfaced. For the record, this projector was purchased over the internet. It is not a manufacturer provided review product and should be identical to what a consumer would receive. Panasonic was also notified of the article prior to publishing and provided a copy of the review for comment; we received no response.

Now if you are telling that you own one and don

It is something rarely checked in calibration as the display and viewing environment is what it is and in my experience that typically will not be changed.

Quite true. I never check it for an installation, but have done it for projector reviews and in my own controlled environment. It's commonly included in projector reviews due to the constant one-upmanship of each new projector boasting a higher CR. Thanks for making the correction.

The actual formula is

PEAK - MIN divided by MIN = contrast ratio:1

peak equals maximum light output and MIN equals minimum light output

Can't say that I've seen that formula before, but it has little value as it would only change the ratio by 1. This would likely be less than the error of the probe or light meter used. If applied to your calculated CR, it would reduce the total from 703 to 702.

Also, using a calibration probe for on/off CR will result in much lower CR than could be obtained with a light meter that can accurately read well below 0.5 ft-L and is less susceptible to overload on the high end. You could calculate ANSI contrast fairly accurately using a calibration probe, but you'll always get lower on/off results (I know I've never been able to get good results with one, but that's not what it's made for anyway).

Now if you are telling that you own one and don

Can't say that I've seen that formula before, but it has little value as it would only change the ratio by 1.

Me either but that appeared a number of times. We both agree that including MIN in the calculation is irrelevant to a darkened room but under ambient light conditions it can make a huge difference. Think of a stadium display during the daytime...

Also, using a calibration probe for on/off CR will result in much lower CR than could be obtained with a light meter that can accurately read well below 0.5 ft-L and is less susceptible to overload on the high end.

I will have to look into that and find the money. Without writing that contrast ratio article now it does appear that the difference in contrast ratio is not as relevant as one would imagine. As an example in the upcoming BenQ review it has a much higher contrast ratio than the Panasonic yet the Panasonic specs claim a ratio 1000 times greater. Some of the material I read puts a huge question mark on whether a 10000:1 ratio is better than a 5000:1 and without some other information provided has very little meaning.

I don't own one myself, but there are a number of people on other users forums using 480p over HDMI (which they mentioned in response to your review), so I thought I'd bring that up.

Thanks. It could be a timing issue from the Sencore generator causing a problem. This came up with the new Sony SXRD where image centering shifts with scan rate from the generator but appears correct with actual sources.

Original

Overscan
Via HDMI, 720p, 1080i, and 1080p all chopped off a few pixels on the right side. This also revealed two interesting observations; 1) the unit does not accept 480p digital video, and 2) it remembers vertical and horizontal centering positions by scan rate. Via component analog video, 720p and 1080i had the same result with only a one pixel loss on the left side for 720p. 480p over scan varied from 4-6%.

While this never came up in my system, the lack of support for 480p via HDMI was a surprise. That could be a problem for some users who have their satellite or cable set top box set to output SD content at 480P so they have full access to formatting features of the display and appears to be the only possible concern one could have over this.

Edited

Overscan
Via HDMI, 720p, 1080i, and 1080p all chopped off a few pixels on the right side. This also revealed an interesting observation; the projector remembers vertical and horizontal centering positions by scan rate. Via component analog video, 720p and 1080i had the same result with only a one pixel loss on the left side for 720p.

Thanks to m-roll for bringing this error to my attention!

"For this projector there is practically no fill factor. There is little to be seen between the pixels even when you are within a foot of screen. With LCD you are focusing on the panels and they have enough depth that when you are setting focus there are three steps that appear to be in focus."

The fill factor is very close to 100% and thus perfection. Use the focus pattern to easily adjust for perfect focus.

For 1920 progressive sources the projector does no pixel processing. All the pixels are displayed as received. This projector is extremely clear. I have an April build.

The best screen for most installations today is the 2.8 gain Da-Lite High Power.
Everyone loves its brightness and clarity with NO side effects. It mates especially good with this Panasonic. The image is BRIGHT! (Set the zoom to about 1/4 from minimum and place the projector just over your head at the center of the screen coordinates). Smok'in on my 119" Hi-Power!

It is a fact that most dealers don't like Panasonic as they do make more off the brand names mentioned in this review. The fact is most users do not need to have many of the latest projectors calibrated anymore. Digital precision. First the JVC and now the Panasonic.
Read the reviews at PC or WSR. Out of the box color accuracy is excellent.
Try using the 1000 with the Sony PS3 set to 24Hz , super-white and full range settings. I use cinema 1 only The clarity and color combined with excellent blacks and contrast are out of this world!
Try it for 90 days free at Costco.

The best screen for most installations today is the 2.8 gain Da-Lite High Power.

Widescreen Review, Number 4, Issue 119, April 2007
Joe Kane

Where does one go for a realistic look at a front projector? I tried at BestBuy but it was washed out...looked terrible...

That can be a very tough nut to crack. I have provided demos here at the home for clients and some of our old clients will provide a demo if requested. Unfortunately it is rare to see one or more in a retail environment setup well. I think this is one of those areas where you have to take faith in the fact that most videophiles are into projection and for very good reason; they get far more imaging aspects correct over other display types.

That said, to get the full benefits you need to work with a pro.

www.isfforum.com

Thank you. Would you please be so kind as to compare (positives and negatives) a front projector/superior screen in a dark room with similar sized (60"+) panasonic plasma? Thank you.

In depth...

Video Waveform
http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=103

Some of this info is old but the relationships remain in performance.

In simple terms...

Regardless of Americas love affair with plasma displays they do not do imaging science. That's a Joe Kane statement and it still holds true.

Sure, there are some aspects of performance that is unique to plasma such as being a hit for bright room applications. There are far more negative response issues though related to the technology that would be an article unto itself. Only you can decide what kind of performance you want. A calibrated plasma display is still better than one that isn't but it won't do the numbers; it is what it is. Current LCD displays with full spectrum lighting are superior in a number of aspects but do suffer from a good dynamic range.

Front projection using technology with a good natural dynamic range are a huge hit because of the problems they overcome but that comes at a price as room decore and lighting become paramount in the design or you will have another set of problems on screen.

One might also suggest that drawing any sort of comparison with a 60" to a 85-100" screen is outlandish due to the impact of a large screen. This is critical to understand because many are visually overcome by shear size tending to overlook the other limitations that have been introduced in favor of the large screen experience. The good news these days is there are projectors that perform very well at prices unheard of just a few years ago. If you are willing to make the investment in any large screen display hovering at 60" or greater then you are in font projection land which is under $4000 for 720p and under $6000 for 1080p. The only decision left is which type of experience you seek versus what kind of commitment you want to make for a room. Both need to go hand in hand and from there you choose a display that fits your unique application. A fornt projector in a sunroom won't work any better than a plasma in a dark room. Wrong technolog y for the application.

Thanks again. If I wanted to spend $5000 on a front projector...what manufacturer/model would YOU go with?? Or would I have to spend $6000??

At the end of the article is Putting It in Perspective which compares products.

I use Window Xp at 1920*1080@60p for my signal generator. Anyone can see single line text perfectly from their normal seating chair. I've use display Mate and Nokia test generators to prove 1:1 mapping. The text is perfectly sharp corner-to-corner with virtually no misconverence or chromatic errors. (The ED lens elements at work here).
Anyone can see these attributes very clearly! Who would have thought three panel LCD could generate text better than the data grade DLPs?
The Panasonic is a milestone achievement, no questions asked.

You give no objective reason for NOT preferring the High Power screen. The reason to use it with the Panasonic is for exactly the reason your review criticizes it (for being too dim). As Bill states there were no side effects. Joe Kane could give no objective reasons either. Proof that it ain't about science at all.

Again I would ONLY use the Panasonic with the High Power.

Widescreen Review, Number 4, Issue 119, April 2007
Panasonic PT-AE1000U
You quote:
"The review clearly states the primaries were oversaturated. Yes, Bill follows that with how a calibration may not be noticed by many. The Delta error for gray scale was over 10. None of that is accuracy and with calibration can be corrected or dramatically improved for those who desire it. "
This is a misleading half-truth statement

WSR review quote:
"In Color 1 mode the "the gaument was close to that specified in the HDTV standards."
This is why the Panasonic requires no calibration: a trend which is expected to increase as factory quality control standards are improved upon.
However if someone wants to goose their colors for effect then use Cinema 1:
WSR quote:
"The Cinema 1 color gamut was much wider and will reproduce some highly saturated colors not possible in the Color 1 mode".

Cinema 1 is nice for many movies/animation as the pictures are breathtakingly beautiful.

The new 14 bit processing LSI achieves very, very low picture noise. The Panasonic also properly picks up and deinterlaces the 3:2 film sequence when given a 1080i signal, something that even the great JVC RS1 fails on.

I went to In depth...

http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=103

and found no product comparisons...please clarify. Thank you

Sodapop,

Anyone can see these attributes very clearly! Who would have thought three panel LCD could generate text better than the data grade DLPs?

The pictures in the article for 1:1 pixel mapping tells all and clearly refutes your claim of better clarity. Any individual who would visit me would see this difference. Like nearly all of the review this is observed science, not an opinion. Opinion is expressed in the Putting it in Perspective section.

You give no objective reason for NOT preferring the High Power screen.

Under Light Output
Bear in mind screens in the 85-110" range typically vary from .8 to 1.3 based on the projector used for a committed room for a multitude of reasons; higher gains more often than not point to a unique situation.

Under Conclusion
Having said that I must put CINEMA 1 in perspective; this is where imaging science is to be found, but you are going to have to use the oddball high gain screen and depending on your selection and viewing position that may cause sparklies and uniformity errors potentially taking a hit in detail which other products can fully deliver as well as good light output for common screens, so it does not make sense to this reviewer to use this projector for such an application.

The unique situation is this projector has some real light pass through efficiency problems whether or not you are using the Pure Color Filter Pro. Fortunately without it you can use a standard screen gain. Engaging the Pure Color Filter Pro, Cinema 1 mode as one example, creates a huge hit in light efficiency requiring a unique high gain screen.

I could not test it with a high gain screen because I do not own one since none of my projectors have a unique problem requiring a unique solution. I was not going to buy one just for this review and Panasonic was not going to loan me one either since they did not sponser the review; yours truly financed this project! Regardless of that I gave the Cinema 1 mode the merit it deserved based on observed science.

In addition to the review comments I will also add that using a special high gain screen creates limitations in replacing the light engine with other technology unless you are replacing the screen as well because it would create an image way too bright with other projectors that do not have the light output problem of the Panasonic.

As Bill states there were no side effects. Joe Kane could give no objective reasons either.

As for Joe giving objective reasons, read his article, but no, he did not specifically comment on the Panasonic review and the reasons appear quite obvious to me. I am not going to comment further on the internal politics of WSR as it is none of my business, I don't even work for them and have no vested interest. I do find it troublesome that NO REVIEW ANYWHERE will point out the warts with this product and Bill

I went to In depth...

http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=103

and found no product comparisons...please clarify. Thank you

The in depth is all about the why. What you wanted is at the end of the REVIEW under the section titled, Putting it in Perspective.

http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/reviews/200 ... jector.php

Added to the review:

Day and Night Settings
Over the last couple of years this has become a new feature in the control menu or on the remote for some displays that changes calibration settings based on ambient room light at the push of a button. Unfortunately many displays cannot do that and maintain relevant accuracy. The Panasonic is a surprising exception due to the Pure Color Filter Pro because not only is it a filter but it also acts like a manual iris reducing light output with the difference being you do not have a variable range. The difference in light output is significant enough that this projector could be implemented in a dark/medium room or medium/bright room. If this is an application you are seeking for this product I highly recommend you work with a professional to select the proper screen size and gain for optimal results. There are only a handful of products that can do dark/bright applications accurately; contact a professional.

Thank you for the review....anyone in the South Bay area of Los Angeles installing same these days?

HQV Benchmark Blu-ray, Tested HDMI, 1080i via the Sony PS3

HD Noise Test A & B
While the Panasonic does have a generic Noise Reduction and MPEG Noise Reduction feature neither had any effect on the image beyond a momentary blip from turning the feature on and off. Due to the transmissive LCD technology there is already a softening of detail that helps hide the noise making this test somewhat difficult to perceive.

Video Resolution Loss - PASS
As noted in the review the Panasonic does not apply vertical filtering to 1080i content. The rotating bar passed.

Jaggies A - PASS

Jaggies B - PASS

Film Resolution Loss A Vertical - PASS
Film Resolution Loss A Horizontal - FAIL (marginally)
While none of the vertical resolution boxes failed as expected from the first resolution test the addition of motion caused the 1080 box to develop about a 2 pixel visible black vertical line on the left side and 2 pixel visible white vertical line on the right side when panning right to left only. For horizontal resolution the 960 and 480 line boxes flicker in both directions. When panning left to right the 480 box adds a flickering blue chroma error.

Film Resolution Loss B - PASS

Perspective
Due to the transmissive LCD technology there is already a softening of detail. Designing the scaler for optimal results with 1080i is in the best interest of that native response envelope.


HQV Benchmark DVD, Tested Analog component 480i via the Panasonic DVD-RP91

Color Bars (4:3) V-PASS, H-FAIL
Color Bars (16:9) same response
Luminance 720 horizontal block was rolled off significantly. Chroma 240 vertical block had slight flickering.

Jaggie 1 (16:9) FAIL

Jaggie 2 (16:9) FAIL

Flag (4:3) FAIL

Detail (16:9) PASS

Noise (4:3) PASS
Minor improvement with noise reduction

Motion Adaptive Noise (16:9) PASS
Motion Adaptive Noise (4:3) PASS
Minor improvement with noise reduction

Film Detail (4:3) PASS

Assorted Cadences (16:9)
2-2 30fps film - PASS
2-2-2-4 DVCAM - PASS
2-3-3-2 DVCAM - FAIL
3-2-3-2-2 VARI SPEED Broadcast - FAIL
5-5 Anime - FAIL
6-4 Anime - PASS
8-7 Anime - ? minor errors
3-2 24fps film - PASS

Mixed 3:2 with titles (4:3) PASS and FAIL
The final scene of vertical scrolling credits took a while to lock, long enough and easily seen to earn a FAIL

Digital Video Essentials

Frequency / Detail Response PASS and FAIL
Vertical response starts with a mottled pattern growing smaller and perfectly correcting itself within 2 seconds. Horizontal luminance and chroma had banding and the high frequency luminance test was very poor.

Test Material PASS

Perspective
This is an entry level display and for most entry level users an external scaler is either at the bottom of the list or not even on it. That works out great because the internal scaler will handle 480i video quite well for broadcast content even though it failed some of the tests. It is worth your time to compare this internal scaler to that of your broadcast source, cable or satellite box, provided it allows native scan rate output. For DVD you can do much better with an upconverting player.