COMM:FS:Sony projector 1920by 1080 resolution..!

[Ext User(Trevor Lees)]

Sony's latest VW100 home theatre projector has a real 1920 by 1080
resolution for the first time...no competing products this time...1920 by
1080 native resolution and 15,000:1 contrast jsut $14,995 list less for cash
and a real steel bracket for ceiling mounting the heavy but silent beast,see
'our' demo and drool...HDMI input HDTV and DVD

cheers Trevor Lees

Trevor Lees Audio
10 Cotham Rd
Kew 3101
(03)9853 2522

0400 307489

[Ext User(Italo)]

"Trevor Lees" <tlee3842@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:ihDHf.6156$yK1.4811@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Sony's latest VW100 home theatre projector has a real 1920 by 1080
> resolution for the first time...no competing products this time...1920 by
> 1080 native resolution and 15,000:1 contrast jsut $14,995 list less for
> cash and a real steel bracket for ceiling mounting the heavy but silent
> beast,see 'our' demo and drool...HDMI input HDTV and DVD
>
> cheers Trevor Lees

Only $14,995 (less for cash)! After xmas sales don't get better than this.

--
Italo

[Ext User(thecommentator)]

$14,995 list less for cash

All this for a box, light bulb and a reflector screen.

There's a bridge going cheap in San Francisco................

Seriously Trev, know you're not responsible for the wholesale price but
that's just fucking ridiculous.

[Ext User(Trevor Lees)]

your grasp of what's in this projector is lacking to say the least...$40k
lasy year for similar specs...!!

cheers Trevor Lees


"thecommentator" <daveconmedia@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139871375.768507.216970@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
> $14,995 list less for cash
>
> All this for a box, light bulb and a reflector screen.
>
> There's a bridge going cheap in San Francisco................
>
> Seriously Trev, know you're not responsible for the wholesale price but
> that's just fucking ridiculous.
>

[Ext User(Atec77)]

Trevor Lees wrote:
> your grasp of what's in this projector is lacking to say the least...$40k
> lasy year for similar specs...!!
>
> cheers Trevor Lees
>
>
> "thecommentator" <daveconmedia@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1139871375.768507.216970@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
>> $14,995 list less for cash
>>
>> All this for a box, light bulb and a reflector screen.
>>
>> There's a bridge going cheap in San Francisco................
>>
>> Seriously Trev, know you're not responsible for the wholesale price but
>> that's just fucking ridiculous.
>>
>
>
and 5k in December ... so your point ? (apart from spamming)

[Ext User(thecommentator)]

What is a projector?

A light source and something to throw the image.
Note, I'm not having a go at Trev at all but the price that he has to
charge.
$15k is a shitload for a lightbox; agreed, no idea what is inside apart
from a lightsource and the pixel mirrors.
What makes these things so good that they're more expensive that gold
plated goose crap?

[Ext User(John)]

thecommentator wrote:
> What is a projector?
>
> A light source and something to throw the image.
> Note, I'm not having a go at Trev at all but the price that he has to
> charge.
> $15k is a shitload for a lightbox; agreed, no idea what is inside apart
> from a lightsource and the pixel mirrors.
> What makes these things so good that they're more expensive that gold
> plated goose crap?
>

Well, for starters there's the three LCD panels which have over 2
million pixels each in a square that is only 0.6". They not only have
to re-coup the R&D cost of the design of this new chip, plus the cost of
the initial manufacture setup, but they also have to allow for all the
dud ones that don't pass QA. 6 million tiny pixels is a lot to get a
good yield from. That's just the new LCD panels. There's also the new
scaler and associated LSI chips etc. Add to that the auto iris, lense
shift, 400W Xenon projector light, it all adds up.

I've paid more money for a projector that doesn't have as good specs.
Like Trev said, this would have cost >$40K only a year or so ago...

[Ext User(Michael)]

Are these newer Sony models able to handle computer resolutions with a bit
more flexibility, with regards to resolution and refresh rate? 72Hz for
NTSC movies would be nice, instead of 56Hz like the older models, and some
funky resolution like 1368x768.

"John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:43f435f8$1@mail.netspeed.com.au...
> Well, for starters there's the three LCD panels which have over 2 million
> pixels each in a square that is only 0.6". They not only have to re-coup
> the R&D cost of the design of this new chip, plus the cost of the initial
> manufacture setup, but they also have to allow for all the dud ones that
> don't pass QA. 6 million tiny pixels is a lot to get a good yield from.
> That's just the new LCD panels. There's also the new scaler and
> associated LSI chips etc. Add to that the auto iris, lense shift, 400W
> Xenon projector light, it all adds up.
>
> I've paid more money for a projector that doesn't have as good specs. Like
> Trev said, this would have cost >$40K only a year or so ago...

[Ext User()]

On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 13:44:03 +1000, "Michael"
<quadhammerNO@SPICEDHAM@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Are these newer Sony models able to handle computer resolutions with a bit
>more flexibility, with regards to resolution and refresh rate? 72Hz for
>NTSC movies would be nice, instead of 56Hz like the older models, and some
>funky resolution like 1368x768.

LOL 1368 x 768 is this newsgroup a genuine audio visual group or a
group full of wankers.

this one does 1920 x 1080 !

[Ext User(John)]

"" wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 13:44:03 +1000, "Michael"
> <quadhammerNO@SPICEDHAM@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Are these newer Sony models able to handle computer resolutions with a bit
>> more flexibility, with regards to resolution and refresh rate? 72Hz for
>> NTSC movies would be nice, instead of 56Hz like the older models, and some
>> funky resolution like 1368x768.
>
> LOL 1368 x 768 is this newsgroup a genuine audio visual group or a
> group full of wankers.
>
> this one does 1920 x 1080 !
>

The computer input does 48-92Hz (fV) and 19-72kHz (fH). Max res is
1920x1080 @ 60Hz.

John

[Ext User(Michael)]

wrote in message news:9p6av19807ca29k26014cgeooeg14u0btm@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 13:44:03 +1000, "Michael"
> <quadhammerNO@SPICEDHAM@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Are these newer Sony models able to handle computer resolutions with a bit
>>more flexibility, with regards to resolution and refresh rate? 72Hz for
>>NTSC movies would be nice, instead of 56Hz like the older models, and some
>>funky resolution like 1368x768.
>
> LOL 1368 x 768 is this newsgroup a genuine audio visual group or a
> group full of wankers.

Well you've shown there's at least one proud member of the latter.

> this one does 1920 x 1080 !

Thanks for that, Captain Obvious.

[Ext User(Michael)]

Cheers, that's very nice. About time they picked up their act in that
regard.

"John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:43f58dce$1@mail.netspeed.com.au...
> "" wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 13:44:03 +1000, "Michael"
>> <quadhammerNO@SPICEDHAM@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Are these newer Sony models able to handle computer resolutions with a
>>> bit more flexibility, with regards to resolution and refresh rate? 72Hz
>>> for NTSC movies would be nice, instead of 56Hz like the older models,
>>> and some funky resolution like 1368x768.
>
> The computer input does 48-92Hz (fV) and 19-72kHz (fH). Max res is
> 1920x1080 @ 60Hz.
>
> John

[Ext User()]

On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 14:50:08 +1000, "Michael"
<quadhammerNO@SPICEDHAM@hotmail.com> wrote:

>wrote in message news:9p6av19807ca29k26014cgeooeg14u0btm@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 13:44:03 +1000, "Michael"
>> <quadhammerNO@SPICEDHAM@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Are these newer Sony models able to handle computer resolutions with a bit
>>>more flexibility, with regards to resolution and refresh rate? 72Hz for
>>>NTSC movies would be nice, instead of 56Hz like the older models, and some
>>>funky resolution like 1368x768.
>>
>> LOL 1368 x 768 is this newsgroup a genuine audio visual group or a
>> group full of wankers.
>
>Well you've shown there's at least one proud member of the latter.
>
>> this one does 1920 x 1080 !
>
>Thanks for that, Captain Obvious.

if it's so obvious how come you didn't know it.

[Ext User(Michael)]

wrote in message news:ilucv1tcfdvl5bf524d6g19q3nt7b0jqn0@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 14:50:08 +1000, "Michael"
> <quadhammerNO@SPICEDHAM@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>wrote in message news:9p6av19807ca29k26014cgeooeg14u0btm@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 13:44:03 +1000, "Michael"
>>> <quadhammerNO@SPICEDHAM@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Are these newer Sony models able to handle computer resolutions with a
>>>>bit
>>>>more flexibility, with regards to resolution and refresh rate? 72Hz for
>>>>NTSC movies would be nice, instead of 56Hz like the older models, and
>>>>some
>>>>funky resolution like 1368x768.
>>>
>>> LOL 1368 x 768 is this newsgroup a genuine audio visual group or a
>>> group full of wankers.
>>
>>Well you've shown there's at least one proud member of the latter.
>>
>>> this one does 1920 x 1080 !
>>
>>Thanks for that, Captain Obvious.
>
> if it's so obvious how come you didn't know it.

Duh, is English your second language? Of course the new one does 1920x1080;
it's in the subject, imbecile. When you learn to read, you'll notice I was
referring to earlier models and their inability to make full use of the
panel's resolution with a PC.

Comprehende?

[Ext User(Battler)]

Extrapolating, if it was 40k a year ago and say 13 now, in a year, does that
mean it will be 5?

Ill get one then! And most likely at that price, given the speed with which
these things come down in price.


"Michael" <quadhammerNO@SPICEDHAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:43f6af48$0$15789$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
> wrote in message news:ilucv1tcfdvl5bf524d6g19q3nt7b0jqn0@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 14:50:08 +1000, "Michael"
>> <quadhammerNO@SPICEDHAM@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>wrote in message news:9p6av19807ca29k26014cgeooeg14u0btm@4ax.com...
>>>> On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 13:44:03 +1000, "Michael"
>>>> <quadhammerNO@SPICEDHAM@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Are these newer Sony models able to handle computer resolutions with a
>>>>>bit
>>>>>more flexibility, with regards to resolution and refresh rate? 72Hz
>>>>>for
>>>>>NTSC movies would be nice, instead of 56Hz like the older models, and
>>>>>some
>>>>>funky resolution like 1368x768.
>>>>
>>>> LOL 1368 x 768 is this newsgroup a genuine audio visual group or a
>>>> group full of wankers.
>>>
>>>Well you've shown there's at least one proud member of the latter.
>>>
>>>> this one does 1920 x 1080 !
>>>
>>>Thanks for that, Captain Obvious.
>>
>> if it's so obvious how come you didn't know it.
>
> Duh, is English your second language? Of course the new one does
> 1920x1080; it's in the subject, imbecile. When you learn to read, you'll
> notice I was referring to earlier models and their inability to make full
> use of the panel's resolution with a PC.
>
> Comprehende?
>

[Ext User(Michael)]

Yup, it won't be long until they're around that price mark. Projector
prices have plummeted over the last couple of years. I'll be replacing my
PJ with something that can do 1080p when they hit that mark too.

"Battler" <me@mail.com> wrote in message
news:CK_Rf.7467$dy4.1956@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Extrapolating, if it was 40k a year ago and say 13 now, in a year, does
> that mean it will be 5?
>
> Ill get one then! And most likely at that price, given the speed with
> which these things come down in price.

[Ext User(qwerty)]

Who the ? cares....

Blue Ray isn't out, HD DVD is just in infancy still. Why buy something you
can't use.

Secondly, from what I've seen in Australia for HD TV I wouldn't even bother
with 1080i either.

Buy a cheap SD box that will do natively dvd and you'll save enough money by
the time these new formats make a stronghold,, the1080p will be much cheaper
by then.

"Michael" <quadhammerNO@SPICEDHAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4418b848$0$14240$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
> Yup, it won't be long until they're around that price mark. Projector
> prices have plummeted over the last couple of years. I'll be replacing my
> PJ with something that can do 1080p when they hit that mark too.
>
> "Battler" <me@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:CK_Rf.7467$dy4.1956@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> Extrapolating, if it was 40k a year ago and say 13 now, in a year, does
>> that mean it will be 5?
>>
>> Ill get one then! And most likely at that price, given the speed with
>> which these things come down in price.
>
>