 ProjectorCentral Reviews |
 |
InFocus ScreenPlay 110 - Feb 5, 2002
InFocus LP530 vs. Optoma EzPro 755 - Jun 18, 2001
| ProjectorCentral User Opinions |
|
Read User Opinions
| User Reviews |
|
Jordan - Mar 1, 2002
| Application: |
video, computer |
| What I Like: |
- Price
- Size
- Brightness |
| Suggestions: |
- The contrast is very poor: this projector seems completely optimized for business graphics, at which it excels, but for video there is a grey muddiness to all images
- the remote/menu is very slow to respond]
- the flimsy leg and height adjustment is difficult and time consuming to adjust
- there is intermittent weird posterization with video, particularly when there is movement in the frame, this may be some artifact of the line doubler (?) |
| Comments: |
I don't understand why if Infocus can produce a 2000 lumen projector this small, why nobody else can? There is about a 10 lb penalty for anybody else's model.
The image quality for computer graphics is excellent, and there is almost no "screen door" effect with video.
I have been using it for a few days, and as much as I love the small size, I am going to return in and get something (heavier) with better contrast... |
zm - Oct 19, 2001
| Application: |
Video (home theater) |
| What I Like: |
* Price (brand new for $4200);
* Brightness - if picture is less than 6' diagonal you can pretty much watch it in normal room lighting;
* Very hardly noticeable pixel structure on video;
* Resolution - It projected 1400x1050 screen of my laptop, although this is not documented.
* (Supposedly) Faroudja™ DCDi™ - no way to turn it off and see the Performance without DCDi, but with my non-progressive DVD player video looked as from a progressive source.
* Less fan noise than expected. |
| Suggestions: |
Best value for the price I could imagine. |
| Comments: |
Ok, I've got the machine yesterday so my review will be based on only 5 hours of use so far.
Unfortunately, I haven't seen other InFocus projectors (like LP350) to compare with this one. Furthermore, the only other projectors I've seen were $20-40K machines in professional hometheater installations. Compared to LP530 they give only a marginal improvement in contrast and levels of black. Although I still recommend turning contrast up to 100 on LP530. At this setting darker scenes of Matrix and Gladiator looked very impressive and detailed.
LP530 does not have a lot of color controls, but colors look very natural in tint, brighness and saturation. And, frnakly, I like the fact that I don't need to spend a day finetuning the equpment before I can use it. Again, everything from Austin Powers to Bee Gees concert looked great.
Unlike some complains I've seen about LP350, LP530 leaks very few light but with the proper screen it is not noticeable at all.
I haven't noticed any distortions in the fast motion sceens at all, which was one of my biggest concerns before getting LP530.
Overall, I do recommend the projector to those who look for great value without major sacrifices in quality. It's a great machine for budget. It won't require a $2000 Stewart screen (I even project it on to the eggshell painted wall). It is very easy to move around the house - which I find very nice. |
sebastian - Oct 15, 2001
| Application: |
Home Theater and Home Theater |
| What I Like: |
high lumens, component video
|
| Comments: |
Like Noel (see previous review) I am waiting for someone to tell us if the video quality of the 530 is really as good (or better) than the LS 700. Is the Farudjia doubler worth the projector?
c'mon guys someone has to give us some pointers!! |
Bryan Lucas - Jul 26, 2001
| Application: |
Home Theater and heavy computer use |
| Comments: |
I currently own the LS-700, and LCD from InFocus, but had the Faroudja IC. I traded in my Vidikron for it. It was INCREDIBLE. Of course the PC side was good, but the video applications were even better. Video essentials grey test and images looked very good. Now, sure, the LP530 will do great PC, but what about its video use? Is the faroudja IC overhaul as good? Also, can it REALLY do 1280x1024 or is it compressed and ugly? |
|
Printer-Friendly Version
More ...
Send this Page
Send this Page to a Friend