Starting with the PT-AE700 720p projector, Panasonic has built quite a reputation around their extremely wide installation capability and inexpensive pricing using transmissive LCD technology for the last couple of years. Panasonic continues their 720p capability with the PT-AX100 while introducing new 1080p24/60 capability in the form of the PT-AE1000U for a mere $4,000 USD street price, which is expected to get even lower as the months pass. This has certainly been the year for new 1080p front projection below $5,000 USD.

Transmissive LCD projection technology is well over a decade old using red, green and blue LCD panels. No color wheel is required and therefore no concerns over rainbows; those are a DLP issue only related to the size and expense of 3 chip capability as well as supply and demand of the devices. In the early days...

Read the Full Review

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’t have that problem well... please say so and I will investigate what is up with mine.

Richard wrote: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’t have that problem well... please say so and I will investigate what is up with mine.

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.

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’s Qualities of A High Performance Home Projection Screen

Many if not most calibrating professionals do not agree. This screen was used with the Cinema 1 mode for Bill Cushman’s review and I suspect that was at Panasonics request for reasons obvious in my review. It did strike me as an odd conflict that one mag article reviews the projector with a high gain screen and another mag article in the same issue tells you that high gain screens are not a good idea. I bet both Bill and Joe were gritting their teeth a bit... but this is Widescreen Review and maintaining favorable relationships with manufacturers for free review products is paramount and keeping Joe Kane on board requires he is allowed to express his scientific observations.

It is a fact that most dealers don't like Panasonic as they do make more off the brand names mentioned in this review.

Try it for 90 days free at Costco.

There is a small truth in your comment yet in my review I included the Samsung SPH710 which falls under the same slim margins. The key factor here is both the Samsung and Panasonic support internet sales and have aggressive internet pricing which kills margins unless you are running a warehouse; Costco. Most ISF dealers and calibrators steer away from the Panasonic LCD front projection line for the reasons stated in the article. As pointed out earlier in this thread...

"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."

So to be clear, I had no motivating reason for this review other than to state what was scientifically observed. I personally had high hopes that this new model would be far more improved and one could infer that means my observations may be tainted but as I discovered you can’t get past the transmissive LCD technology used.

All the pixels are displayed as received.

That was not the case with my machine as noted in the review for color burst response. Unless you have an Accupel generator to test your April build machine so we are comparing apples with apples it appears your comment is one of repeating what you have heard/read or perceive.

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.

Widescreen Review, Number 4, Issue 119, April 2007
Panasonic PT-AE1000U

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.

Widescreen Review, Number 5, Issue 120, May 2007
JVC DLA-RS1U

While the projector had a great response for grayscale with a Delta below 4, which was improved a bit more with calibration, even Greg Rogers comments over the lack of color management and over saturated color. That is not accurate either.

Those are the two main points I will touch on but there are more errors to be found in those reviews and mine on the Panasonic, errors that other projectors simply do not have! It should also be noted that many videophiles have noticed a change over at Widescreen Review and have dropped their subscription due to a lack of honest performance coverage. That said, I have always read Greg’s reviews and there is much technical info there if you can read between the lines and catch the quick performance blurbs.

While I think it is a great idea that manufacturers provide an accurate response out of the box that should not be interpreted as a guaranty of accurate performance in your application. A calibration for any video system consists of not only calibrating the display but also calibrating that display to your room, screen, lighting and reflected light from the screen along with your sources.

There is much to be said for this projector especially at the new price point and in that regard my subjective experience and perspective paragraph agrees with everybody else’s; bang per buck it is a good buy. Where I have differentiated is that my technical review clearly shows the warts compared to other products and technologies for the performance enthusiast and videophile; please don’t shoot the messenger but I thought those folks deserved a review that pointed this out.

Kudos to you for setting up your application to utilize the Cinema 1 mode as that is where a great deal of accuracy is to found!!!

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.