|
Here are a few things that would make my choice of the AE2000 easy:
1. The AE2000 is higher in contrast, has better black levels, and better color saturation.
2. The AE2000 also has an advantage in lumen output.
3. The AE2000 has no pixel structure whatsoever.
4. The AE2000 has powered zoom/focus, whereas on the Z2000 it is manual.
To me this is a plus because they go on to say:if you plan to install a 2.35 Cinemascope screen, you can use the AE2000's powered zoom to increase the size of a 2.35 movie to fill the screen, then zoom it back down to vertically fill the 2.35 screen with 1.78 (16:9) material. And: If you want to install a 2.35 screen and maintain a constant image height system with the use of an anamorphic lens, the AE2000 has the vertical stretch mode to accommodate this type of lens while the Z2000 does not.
5. The AE2000 has an austere, dark industrial case design. I must be out of the norm here, but I'd prefer this over white.
6. The AE2000 has 16 user programmable pre-sets, while the Z2000 has seven.
And the clincher for me is:
The AE2000 has some other features that the Z2000 does not. The split-screen calibration is unique to the AE2000, as is an onboard waveform monitor that can be used to assist calibrations. The AE2000 has three HDMI ports to the Z2000's two. And the AE2000's remote has some universal capability that allows it to learn and control several devices in your theater, whereas the Z2000 remote is more conventional.
For those plusses alone I would gladly pay $500 more for the AE2000. As far as the 'incremental' advantage they claim the Z2000 has....I dunno, but when I hear 'more filmlike', that tends to worry me since it usually means 'soft' and that just ain't my preference.
For the record, I own both a Panny (AX100U) and a Sanyo (Z2) so I feel I'm unbiased when I say the AE2000 would without a doubt be the one for me.
|