Quantcast

Best Projectors of 2019 - Editor's Choice Awards

Abacus

Well-known Member
Wow! only 3 projectors in the list, with big price jumps between them, I would have thought the Epson 9400 & Optoma UHZ65 would have been in there. (Unless it was longer than a year since they were reviewed)
Slight correction on the Benq, it is a True 4K projector as it can display the requisite 8.3 million pixels, faux 4K is like the Epson & JVC E-Shift models which can only put 4.15 million pixels on-screen. (However if you see any report that says the Benq is Native 4K (There are some reviews out there) then that is most definably a lie)
Keep up the good work.

Bill
 

Phil Hinton

Editor
Staff member
Wow! only 3 projectors in the list, with big price jumps between them, I would have thought the Epson 9400 & Optoma UHZ65 would have been in there. (Unless it was longer than a year since they were reviewed)
We only ever do three awards for the projectors. And they have to be reviewed within the last 12 months.

Slight correction on the Benq, it is a True 4K projector as it can display the requisite 8.3 million pixels, faux 4K is like the Epson & JVC E-Shift models which can only put 4.15 million pixels on-screen. (However if you see any report that says the Benq is Native 4K (There are some reviews out there) then that is most definably a lie)
Keep up the good work.

Bill
It's not true 4K, despite what their marketing claims, which is the same as every 4k DLP at this market level. The term true 4K comes from an industry group that isn't well known and is used for marketing purposes. The BenQ uses the TI quadruple flash method which is faux 4K as the eye is tricked into seeing the pixels on the screen, that simply don't exist. However, it works well and as long as people know what is actually happening that's all we are concerned about.
 

Jenz

Active Member
Nice but again sadly missing the £3000 sweet spot that many can afford but can't stretch above.

Please would you add a fourth option at this price point for 2020? I believe the best Projector at this point is the Epson 9400 (at approx. £2500).
 

THX1138UK

Active Member
Totally agree that the best projectors are JVC. The black levels cannot be beaten (that’s why JVC can charge a premium price).

But I’m surprised to see the BenQ being picked as a winner, with not a single Epson in the running.

Epson have some excellent mid price products that offer great performance. Anybody thinking about getting a projector are doing themselves a disservice if they don’t give Epson some serious consideration.

Regards,
James.
 

daveb975

Well-known Member
Would anyone be able to advise what is the best alternative to a W2700 with a more normal throw ratio?

I waited for ages for the W2700 to come out to replace my W1070 because it was the only one that had the short throw I needed at the time. Now I have changed my room around, it has too short a throw!

I could mount it in the middle of the ceiling, but I think I'd rather just swap it if I can get similar performance for the same money.
 

fswift

Active Member
W2700 over the Epsom 7400?

Ive just purchased the latter for similar cost to the Benq. Would I have been better off with that one.
 

Abacus

Well-known Member
Would anyone be able to advise what is the best alternative to a W2700 with a more normal throw ratio?

I waited for ages for the W2700 to come out to replace my W1070 because it was the only one that had the short throw I needed at the time. Now I have changed my room around, it has too short a throw!

I could mount it in the middle of the ceiling, but I think I'd rather just swap it if I can get similar performance for the same money.
You will need to up your budget to the 5700 or one of the Epson's (Make sure you try before you buy either) to get a longer throw, as all the ones around the 2700 price are short throw.

Bill
 

Abacus

Well-known Member
W2700 over the Epsom 7400?

Ive just purchased the latter for similar cost to the Benq. Would I have been better off with that one.
Yes, No, Possibly, unfortunately there is no one size fits all, so the only way to be sure is try them out in person. (That you are asking the question means you already have a doubt, which will only get worse until you try the Benq out, to confirm one way or the other)

Bill
 

noob0101

Active Member
Would anyone be able to advise what is the best alternative to a W2700 with a more normal throw ratio?

I waited for ages for the W2700 to come out to replace my W1070 because it was the only one that had the short throw I needed at the time. Now I have changed my room around, it has too short a throw!

I could mount it in the middle of the ceiling, but I think I'd rather just swap it if I can get similar performance for the same money.
What is the distance from the screen and size of screen?
 

daveb975

Well-known Member
What is the distance from the screen and size of screen?
I’ve got a 100” screen, and am projecting from 13’. I can bring that down to just over 12’, but not much less. The W2700 needs to be at about 10.5’ maximum.

The annoying thing is that I could have accommodated a 110” screen, but the only compatible model came directly from China and their courier had an upper limit for 100” for the UK.
 

noob0101

Active Member
I’ve got a 100” screen, and am projecting from 13’. I can bring that down to just over 12’, but not much less. The W2700 needs to be at about 10.5’ maximum.

The annoying thing is that I could have accommodated a 110” screen, but the only compatible model came directly from China and their courier had an upper limit for 100” for the UK.
For 100" screen at 12' throw required is 1.65x and 1.79x for 13'. DLP's don't really go that high with throw range.

The Viewsonic PX727 4K has 1.5-1.8x. But it lacks certain features that the W2700 has: iris. DCI-P3 coverage, no lens shift, less bright (since it's further away), worse tone mapping.

The Benq W5700, but more expensive.

Epson TW7000 or 7100 and TW7400, but they are 3LCD.

Some more info regarding 3LCD vs DLP and some of the other posts:

If you really want the W2700 the mount has to be moved.

LE: what is the seating distance?
If it's 12 or 13' that is too far to see the improvement the 4K resolution will bring. Feeding it a 4K HDR source will be better than a SDR source, and with 100" the WCG filter (which cuts 30-40% of brightness) might leave enough brightness.
 
Last edited:

daveb975

Well-known Member
If you really want the W2700 the mount has to be moved.
LE: what is the seating distance?
If it's 12 or 13' that is too far to see the improvement the 4K resolution will bring. Feeding it a 4K HDR source will be better than a SDR source, and with 100" the WCG filter (which cuts 30-40% of brightness) might leave enough brightness.
[/QUOTE]

Thanks again for the advice. I already own the W2700 by the way, just trying to make it work with my new room layout.

One thing I had forgotten during the room re-construction was that my W2700 seems to be out of spec at the wide end of it's zoom.

In the few minutes I had this morning, I pulled the projector forward so the lens is now 126" from the screen. The image at the widest setting is still much bigger than the 100" screen. I'll have to measure it properly tonight, but I'd estimate it's around 110".

The calculators I have used (BenQ's own, Projector Central and Projectorpoint) are all slightly different, but all agree that I should be able to go as low as 100". I appreciate that they are never 100% accurate but I'd expect the image to be a little bit different size rather than massively out.

Am I calculating this right? The longest throw on the W2700 is 1.47, meaning that the projector lens can be placed at 1.47x the image width. A 16:9 screen with a 100" diagonal has an 87.16" width, so longest throw should be 87.16 x 1.47 = 128"


LE: what is the seating distance?
If it's 12 or 13' that is too far to see the improvement the 4K resolution will bring. Feeding it a 4K HDR source will be better than a SDR source, and with 100" the WCG filter (which cuts 30-40% of brightness) might leave enough brightness.
Seating is around 10' from the screen. The images I have tested it with certainly look great (although I can't see the whole screen!), but I've not compared 4K to 1080p properly.
 

noob0101

Active Member
LE: what is the seating distance?
If it's 12 or 13' that is too far to see the improvement the 4K resolution will bring. Feeding it a 4K HDR source will be better than a SDR source, and with 100" the WCG filter (which cuts 30-40% of brightness) might leave enough brightness.
Thanks again for the advice. I already own the W2700 by the way, just trying to make it work with my new room layout.

One thing I had forgotten during the room re-construction was that my W2700 seems to be out of spec at the wide end of it's zoom.

In the few minutes I had this morning, I pulled the projector forward so the lens is now 126" from the screen. The image at the widest setting is still much bigger than the 100" screen. I'll have to measure it properly tonight, but I'd estimate it's around 110".

The calculators I have used (BenQ's own, Projector Central and Projectorpoint) are all slightly different, but all agree that I should be able to go as low as 100". I appreciate that they are never 100% accurate but I'd expect the image to be a little bit different size rather than massively out.

Am I calculating this right? The longest throw on the W2700 is 1.47, meaning that the projector lens can be placed at 1.47x the image width. A 16:9 screen with a 100" diagonal has an 87.16" width, so longest throw should be 87.16 x 1.47 = 128"




Seating is around 10' from the screen. The images I have tested it with certainly look great (although I can't see the whole screen!), but I've not compared 4K to 1080p properly.
[/QUOTE]

The numbers are correct.
Longest distance for an 100" screen is 128.18"=10.69'

If the PJ is placed at 126" with no zoom that will be 98".
If it's with 100% zoom that will project a 128" diagonal image.

The closer a projector is to the screen the brighter it will be. This one is not particularly bright.

It's not the first time I've heard of this model's zoom not corresponding to specifications.
 

daveb975

Well-known Member
The numbers are correct.
Longest distance for an 100" screen is 128.18"=10.69'

If the PJ is placed at 126" with no zoom that will be 98".
Thanks. I thought I was doing it right. Mine is way off that, so I might try another one first.

The closer a projector is to the screen the brighter it will be. This one is not particularly bright.
Brightness seems fine, but that might be another advantage for changing to something else.

The room is well light controlled with a full blackout blind covering the only window, but the walls are quite light-coloured and the ceiling is white. The partial lens cover on the W2700 seems to do quite a good job of not putting too much light on the ceiling, so not sure if that would be worse with a projector which doesn't have that.

It's not the first time I've heard of this model's zoom not corresponding to specifications.
Yep, sounds like a replacement is in order. It's annoying because my first one stopped working suddenly and I don't think it had this issue. That was used at the other end of the zoom range to project a 92" diagonal image at roughly 92" throw - as large as it would go!
 

Stridsvognen

Well-known Member
Nice list, would think the JVC N5 should possible be on the list instead looking at price/ performance.
And doubt anything other than 4K DLP would come close to the Benq.
 

Trending threads

Top Bottom