I'm not familiar with lens and F stop values. In comparing those Ruby lens F stop #s to that of the RS1, can we conclude that it will be any better (or worse) than the Ruby's loss of light over the zoom range?

Based on the f-stop values (3.2-4.3), it sounds like the RS1 will produce about 80% more light at the wide end of the zoom range versus the telephoto end.

--
Steve

Are you talking about the way that light from a candle or flashlight will be dimmer the further it is away from the object reflecting its light?

If so, that concept does not apply to projectors because the light is all focused on a particular plane. It is not "spreading out" and losing intensity.

Actually it is, but obviously not spreading out 360 degrees like a candle.

For the purposes of this discussion, I think most people think in terms of the total amount of light over the entire picture area. In other words, if you zoom the lens out to make the picture twice as large we expect that any given point in the image would be half as bright and consider that to be the "same" brightness over the zoom range. The variable aperture offsets this effect somewhat. The plus side is that increasing the size of the image also increases the aperture so you don't lose as much light per unit area as you would if you simply moved the projector farther back. The down side is that if you move the projector farther back for a given image size, you lose brightness.

--
Steve

Yes, because the F stop values define the light lost/passed. See:

http://www.uscoles.com/fstop.htm

If the amount of light made available to the lens for the Sony Ruby and the JVC were the same (that's a very big "if", depends on lots of stuff) the Ruby would project more light, based solely on the f-numbers for the 2 lenses (Sony- 2.54 to 3.53 and JVC- 3.2 to 4.3). The Ruby would project almost as bright at its longest length (f-3.53 most dim) as the JVC at its shortest (f-3.2 brightest). Right, Cam Man? :)

btw I am on the pre-buy list and still looking forward to having my JVC, based on observations from other forum members, but I do hope the projector is bright enough for my 120" screen. I will be using the projector at its widest zoom, about 14 feet from the screen (a da-lite 1.5x "Cinema Master"? something like that)

If so, that concept does not apply to projectors because the light is all focused on a particular plane. It is not "spreading out" and losing intensity.
Aha. Thank you. So, the light loss we see as we back away with a projector and adjust the lens to hold the same area (in the plane) is due to optical light loss in the zoom lens as it adjusts toward the longer end.

FYI, some cinematography trivia... motion picture lenses are not marked with F-stops, but T-stops. The T refereing to "transmission," and indicates the effective amount of light actually making it through the lens.

Actually it is, but obviously not spreading out 360 degrees like a candle.

For the purposes of this discussion, I think most people think in terms of the total amount of light over the entire picture area. In other words, if you zoom the lens out to make the picture twice as large we expect that any given point in the image would be half as bright and consider that to be the "same" brightness over the zoom range. The variable aperture offsets this effect somewhat. The plus side is that increasing the size of the image also increases the aperture so you don't lose as much light per unit area as you would if you simply moved the projector farther back. The down side is that if you move the projector farther back for a given image size, you lose brightness.

--
Steve

Yes, this is true. The inverse square law holds true for any geometric point source that spreads out in a sphere. The area of the sphere increases by r^2 so the light falls off by 1/r^2. With a projector however the light is optically contained to the size of the projected image so the geometric relationship no longer applies.

One clarification though, "In other words, if you zoom the lens out to make the picture twice as large we expect that any given point in the image would be half as bright" by twice as large I assume you mean 2x the area and not 2x the width or 2x the height which would cause the area to be 4x larger and the image would be 1/4th as bright.

I'll see what i can find out :) More info posted up on the UK site RS1 Info (http://www.jvc.co.uk/site/d-ila/)

This is the same rehashed spec sheet that first appeared on the Japanese site and later translated here:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=8989577&&#post8989577

The 25db "normal mode" spec is also the same.

One thing that is different though, is the silver faceplate, this is very similar to the prototype version. So far we've seen the fully blackedout version for the U.S. market, the white for the Japanese (and I had assumed European version too). Then this one.

Elliot, if you do get a chance to see a production unit, please take some photos and post them :)

Actually it is, but obviously not spreading out 360 degrees like a candle.



This whole issue is addressed by lumens, screen area and the conversion to ft-lamberts. It is compatible with the inverse square law. You just have to factor in the ability of the zoom lens to change the angle of dispersion and that's what the ft-lambert calculation does in effect.

Edit: Oops, I just read Mark's post. Exactly. Even though stated differently my comments are redundant.

Mark - can you please add questions about discrete codes that the RS1 will support to your list? I don't believe we have much if anything on that yet. Thanks.

I knew it was too good to be true regarding the constant aperture zoom lens. Those tend to be very expensive, so I definitely questioned whether we would actually see that on the RS1. Now the question becomes how much light loss this will cause when at the mid to far end of the zoom range. :confused:

If I'm reading this chart right it looks like almost 50% light loss at the highest zoom...

http://www.uscoles.com/thirdstops.pdf

Well, for those of us interested in putting the pj at (or near) the closest possible location, I wonder if this means that we might get MORE than 700 lumens at this location. (It's an ill wind that ... !)

I'll bet that it will be EITHER 700 lumens at the shortest throw OR 15k:1 at the longest throw, but never BOTH at the same time...;)

I'm not about to give up my position as the pessimist of this group...:D

If I'm reading this chart right it looks like almost 50% light loss at the highest zoom...

http://www.uscoles.com/thirdstops.pdf

That's about right. It's proportional to the square of the f number.

4.3^2 = 18.49
3.2^2 = 10.24
10.24 / 18.49 = 0.5538

So at the longest focal length there would only be 55% as much light as the widest focal length. Or if you're a glass-is-half-full sort, there is 80% *more* light at the widest focal length :)

--
Steve

I'll bet that it will be EITHER 700 lumens at the shortest throw OR 15k:1 at the longest throw, but never BOTH at the same time...;)

I'm not about to give up my position as the pessimist of this group...:D

Pessimists, unfortunately, usually turn out to be correct. I'll take the lumens.

I knew it was too good to be true regarding the constant aperture zoom lens. Those tend to be very expensive, so I definitely questioned whether we would actually see that on the RS1. Now the question becomes how much light loss this will cause when at the mid to far end of the zoom range. :confused:

Very disappointing to me as well if this is true, and definitely not what was stated several times by Tom and others after the last showing. Possibly a deal breaker in my case. I was planning on mounting the pj near the back of my room and not sacrificing light by doing it...

So where is all that light lost?

I'd think it'd be easier/more efficient for the light to go through the system at smaller angles.

Noah,

Effectively the lens diameter decreases as you move towards telephoto. The smaller diameter simply lets less light through.

Shawn

50%? If true, this sucks and may be a deal breaker for me as well. :(

I want to know at what point in the zoom the 700 lumens comes from. If it is the best case scenario, which it probably is, then the RS1 may not even put out 500 lumens with a fresh lamp at the longest focal length. If, however, it is at the middle of the zoom, then we may expect say 550-900 lumens depending on the zoom setting. The former would suck, however, I could live with the latter. This is a really important issue to have clarified, as it may impact the buying decision of many who are on the pre-order list, myself included.

I want to know at what point in the zoom the 700 lumens comes from. If it is the best case scenario, which it probably is, then the RS1 may not even put out 500 lumens with a fresh lamp at the longest focal length. If, however, it is at the middle of the zoom, then we may expect say 550-900 lumens depending on the zoom setting. The former would suck, however, I could live with the latter. This is a really important issue to have clarified, as it may impact the buying decision of many who are on the pre-order list, myself included.



Exactly! We need some detailed clarification to this ASAP, as this would save both us and AVS time and money.


I really hope this is not true :( A big part of the draw to this projector for me was being able to put it in the rear of my room with very little/no light loss which we have been led to believe from the guys at JVC. 50% would be far from this.

The sooner we can get some detailed info about this, the better it will be for everyone involved.

We do not know anything for sure yet, so we should try to be optomistic. But I agree, that if there will be a 50% light loss at max throw, this could be a deal breaker for some unfortunately. I hope we can get some more info on this quickly somehow. Tom?

Maybe this is the reason why the Lumens spec went from 800 to 700. Without some additional information though, it's really pointless to speculate any further.

fyi: if you do the same calculations for the Ruby and the Pearl (they use lenses with the same specs) the results for the Sonys are a little worse than for the JVC (Sony 52% JVC 55%)

That's a loss of 48% of the light for the Sonys and 45% for the JVC's.

There's always the possibility that something was missed in doing the calculations this way, but people have been asking Tom & others from JVC for clarification on this for a long time, without response. It sure would be nice if they would give us a definitive answer.

Without some additional information though, it's really pointless to speculate any further.
I agree. This is pure speculation on everyone's part. The sky hasn't fallen...yet.

From what you guys describe it's starting to sound like the RS1 will have similar light output to the Ruby and Pearl. That's too bad, as I was looking forward to 700 lumens. I will be at mid throw (2x width) so I can still support my 106" Firehawk screen. But at any rate we really need some clarification from JVC on the matter...

I agree. This is pure speculation on everyone's part. The sky hasn't fallen...yet.

Tom could post here and clarify for us: is the sky falling?

I want to know at what point in the zoom the 700 lumens comes from. If it is the best case scenario, which it probably is, then the RS1 may not even put out 500 lumens with a fresh lamp at the longest focal length. If, however, it is at the middle of the zoom, then we may expect say 550-900 lumens depending on the zoom setting. The former would suck, however, I could live with the latter. This is a really important issue to have clarified, as it may impact the buying decision of many who are on the pre-order list, myself included.

Definitely.

I said very early on that the constant aperture zoom lens was a very big selling point to me. Now it looks as though that selling point has been taken away (of course it was probably never actually there to begin with). :(

Let's not jump to conclusions. JVC has been very helpful and forthcoming with information. I'm sure they will clarify this for us shortly one way or another, even if its not the answer we want to hear.

Sorry to break the "light output" train, but I wanted to comment on the colour issue some more :p

One thing that occurs to me is that there really isn't any content that uses the full Rec.709 gamut. Even though the Rec.709 colour standard is used for all HD content, the HD content that we are actually watching is pretty much all still being made using professional CRT monitors that only show the SMPTE-C or Rec.601 colour gamut.

To me, all that is important is that the correct colour decoder is used for the given content. For example, say you are watching 1080i HDTV from your digital satellite box. It is vital that the colour decoder used is the Rec.709 colour decoder and not the Rec.601 colour decoder. But in terms of what the display actually needs to be able to show, so long as it can show all the colours in the Rec.601 colour gamut you are probably just fine because the content you are watching from your digital satellite was more than likely mastered on a professional CRT monitor that uses the Rec.601 colour gamut.

In another case, say you are watching a DVD that is being upscaled by your DVD player to 720p or 1080i. In this case, it is vital that your display uses the Rec.601 colour decoder. And, of course, the Rec.601 colour gamut is what is needed since that is what is used by the source and that is the colour standard that was used to master it.

So my point is that even with a CMS system of some sort, there is probably more benefit in terms of getting the actual accurate colour that was intended by those who mastered the content by setting the colour primary co-ordinates to those specified by the Rec.601 colour standard rather than the co-ordinates specified by the Rec. 709 colour standard. So long as the correct decoder is used (Rec.709 decoder for HD content and Rec. 601 decoder for SD content) you'll get accurate colours with the primaries set to the co-ordinates found in the Rec.601 colour gamut.

Jon

wow you give some break in between news and rhe thread turns sour.

Good thing Ces is around the corner!

Please, all pessimists concerned about light output at the max throw distance, drop off the pre-buy list so I can move up. :D Thanks.

Now as far as the 700 lumens for this pj is concerned does it matter where this reading was taken at? Min. distance or max distance? What if it was taken at the max distance? I've never seen this much talk on this subject before and I certainly haven't seen this discussed in any of the reviews such as Jason's or gregr's. I would think if it was that big of an issue we would see numbers like 750 lumens @ min throw, 680 lumens @ mid throw, 500 lumens @ max throw for example, in their reviews.
Does it make a difference? Can anyone really discern, with their own eyes of course, the difference between 750 lumens and 680 lumens? I'm skeptical that one can. Although I'm sure there will be posters here in the forum that claim they can.
Anyway it's funny how when there's no news about a product we turn to speculation to pass the time.

Shawn,

"The smaller diameter simply lets less light through."

Sorry, that just begs the question.

I'm not aware of any effricency loss due to increasing photon flux density.

In another case, say you are watching a DVD that is being upscaled by your DVD player to 720p or 1080i. In this case, it is vital that your display uses the Rec.601 colour decoder. And, of course, the Rec.601 colour gamut is what is needed since that is what is used by the source and that is the colour standard that was used to master it.One would hope that, in fact, the upscaling DVD player would properly convert from the 601 to 709 gamuts when upscaling (as there is no way the display can know that the HD format is upscaled from SD). I accept that not all are correct in this area, so having manual control in the display device would be useful.

One would hope that, in fact, the upscaling DVD player would properly convert from the 601 to 709 gamuts when upscaling (as there is no way the display can know that the HD format is upscaled from SD). I accept that not all are correct in this area, so having manual control in the display device would be useful.
It isn't useful, it's essential. A digital color decoder is a simple thing, and there shouldn't be any mistakes. But there have been MANY mistakes in upsampling DVD players and upconverters (and projectors). Therefore, a display MUST have the ability to select Rec 601 or Rec 709 YCbCr color decoding manually. (BTW, an upscaling DVD player doesn't convert color gamuts, just color encoding matrices, so you still want to use Rec. 601 color primaries with upconverted SD sources if possible.)

I know that the dbs of the unit have been discussed but I am wondering how many people plan on building a hushbox or some other sound dampining device to surround the RS1? If so how close will your prime seating be to the RS1?

I'm not planning a hushbox on it and it will be on a shelf about two or three feet above my head. As someone stated before I won't notice the sound because I also own a G11 (vaccum cleaner levels). I'm not opposed to using one, but the exhaust and intake vents being in the front make it a little more awkward. I assume you would want the non-reflecting glass to be as close to the lens as possible, but you would also want the wall around where the ports are to be away from the projector. The ports would need breathing space and you would have to have active cooling (ie fans) to circulate the hot air out.

Blue I have wondred that myself... with the exhaust of the unit being in the front and sides, it does not lend itselft well to a standard hushbox venting system (top exhaust).

I have a Ruby (broken and hoping for money back) so when I think about the noise of that unit (nearly silent) I wonder how the RS1 will compare. The unit would be about 3-4 feet just over and behind my head.

Shawn,

"The smaller diameter simply lets less light through."

Sorry, that just begs the question.

I'm not aware of any effricency loss due to increasing photon flux density.

Hehe... It's not a matter of the photons bumping in to each other as they squeez through. It'a a matter of the angle of the light leaving the reflector assembly being larger than than the lenses ablity to pass at full zoom. Hence the light at the extremes of the dispersion pattern run in to the insides of the lens barrel (not preferable), or the lens incorporates an iris to allow only the light at that angle the lens is capable of passing (preferable).

fyi: if you do the same calculations for the Ruby and the Pearl (they use lenses with the same specs) the results for the Sonys are a little worse than for the JVC (Sony 52% JVC 55%)

That's a loss of 48% of the light for the Sonys and 45% for the JVC's.

There's always the possibility that something was missed in doing the calculations this way, but people have been asking Tom & others from JVC for clarification on this for a long time, without response. It sure would be nice if they would give us a definitive answer.
Cine4Home's review of the Pearl (http://cine4home.com/reviews/projectors/SonyVPLVW50/VPLVW50Review.htm) shows a measured lumens loss of about 17%, going from min throw to max throw. For example, if it produces 700 lumens at min throw, then it produces 580 lumens at max throw (83% of 700).

Hehe... It's not a matter of the photons bumping in to each other as they squeez through...
Since photons have no mass can they collide with each other or would they just pass through each other? :confused:

Stepmback,

Well as you said, this has been discussed before. My take is that there are many variables and nobody has seen a production model yet. I'm pretty sure the unit will be rather quiet, but I'm unsure how it stacks up against the pearl.

Noah,

"I'm not aware of any effricency loss due to increasing photon flux density."

It has nothing to do with efficiency.... you are simply blocking a portion of the light passing through the lens. It is really no different then what happens with an iris (or aperature if you are into photography) on the lens. It closes down and blocks some of the light passing through the lens.

Most zoom lens on cameras are very much the same. As you move from wide angle to telephoto the F-Stop increases and they loose light. There are constant aperature zooms but they are much larger and considerably more money.

Shawn

I know that the dbs of the unit have been discussed but I am wondering how many people plan on building a hushbox or some other sound dampining device to surround the RS1? If so how close will your prime seating be to the RS1?

Mine will be in a projector/equipment room so the db issue is a non-issue for me. However this whole lumen/zoom discussion... my projection distance will be 22 feet!

This may be the wrong place to ask this question, but does anyone know if JVC plans to incorporate the technology from this highly rated front projector into a rear projection TV?

I know that the dbs of the unit have been discussed but I am wondering how many people plan on building a hushbox or some other sound dampining device to surround the RS1? If so how close will your prime seating be to the RS1?
I'll solve this problem IF it exist. I built a hushbox for a Sony HS-10 that has front exhaust. The seating distance will depend on the lens/lumen issue that MAY exist. Again, I'm not going to worry about an issue that can be easily solved until I am CERTAIN it is real.

I agree that we are all just spinning our wheels with a lot of this discussion while we're waiting to see the REAL THING or get reports thereof.

So, in the meantime: can someone tell me what the RS232 'control' cable is for? I thought one would 'control' the pj with the remote control. Is this only for connecting a pc, or external HT master control unit or something? Would the rs232 be relevant if one just has a simple, standard setup, with HDMI cables from an cable stb/dvr and dvd player to the pj?

It's there in case you have an RS232 control centre which controls all your equipement (Crestron for example). If you haven't got another device with RS232, it's redundant. Some electric screens use it to trigger the drop-down, but it's more commonly a 12v trigger.

So, in the meantime: can someone tell me what the RS232 'control' cable is for? I thought one would 'control' the pj with the remote control.

This is for computer based theater automation systems.

tryingtimes and erkq: thanks much!

Shall i post my review in a new thread?

Elliot,
Whatever works for you, just post it already would you? :)

Elliot,
Whatever works for you, just post it already would you? :)

Here you go:

HD1 Review (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9102424#post9102424)

I'm not planning a hushbox on it and it will be on a shelf about two or three feet above my head. As someone stated before I won't notice the sound because I also own a G11 (vaccum cleaner levels). I'm not opposed to using one, but the exhaust and intake vents being in the front make it a little more awkward. I assume you would want the non-reflecting glass to be as close to the lens as possible, but you would also want the wall around where the ports are to be away from the projector. The ports would need breathing space and you would have to have active cooling (ie fans) to circulate the hot air out.

Not sure that is an issue. I plan to build a hushbox and have my anamorphic lens in side it. That will allow me room for the front venting. Can't see any reason why the non reflecting glass needs to be right up against the lens. Non reflecting glass from an anamorphic lens is 4 or 5 inches away ( front piece of lens)

Comments welcomed

Question for you previous JVC pj owners: what has JVC's policy been about firmware upgrades? Will we early adopters of the RS1 be able to (conveniently!) receive firmware upgrades to deal with bugs that will inevitably crop up.

All this talk about whether the light output is sufficient on the JVC...I certainly hope it is. But isn't a bigger concern the fact that when the lamp ages the brightness will drop (as much as half), meaning that in practice the brightness is actually much lower than 700 lumens? For many, 700 lumens is borderline, but much lower than this is problematic...Any idea how much switching the lamp to high mode will help compensate for the drop in brightness?

All this talk about whether the light output is sufficient on the JVC...I certainly hope it is. But isn't a bigger concern the fact that when the lamp ages the brightness will drop (as much as half), meaning that in practice the brightness is actually much lower than 700 lumens? For many, 700 lumens is borderline, but much lower than this is problematic...Any idea how much switching the lamp to high mode will help compensate for the drop in brightness?
Since every lamp that I have tracked to date has lost half of its brightness within a few hundred hours, as a rule of thumb I cut the measured (not published) lumens number in half in deciding what will and won't work for me. If the JVC accurately puts out 700 lumens calibrated, with a new lamp, I use 350 lumens as the number to figure my ftL needs, unless of course I am willing to replace the lamp after every couple of hundred hours.

I find Scott Gamman's nifty footlambert calculator a pretty good tool for predicting/designing for initial and aged bulb output. The trick with this and any projector is to either exceed both by enough that you can use ND filters (light cannon), or choose/design such that at the 50% point you are no lower than 11 or 12 FL (presuming you want to use established SMPTE standards). This presumes also that you will be somewhere near the short end of the zoom. If you are not, then you must factor the optical transmission loss.

For example, I will be using a 119" wide 2.35 CH screen, throwing from about 1.6:1. I'm gonna be initially at about 19 FL, but down below 10 FL at 50%. I will have to consider compensating by masking my AT screen to a somewhat smaller size (110" wide) as the lumens drop if I am to stay at 12 FL. I can probably live with that. :) If I did not have a little screen gain and/or I was not 2.35 CH, I would not make it up to those screen sizes. I think the RS1 is gonna make it for me, but I can see where some could get pushed over the edge.

I've run my last two pjs at under 10FL and it isn't a problem unless you prefer a brighter image (I actually think 12FL for DLP a little too bright). Don't forget CRT owners have been used to lower FLs but have the higher CR to give the impression of a brighter image. The JVC should be able to be more than watchable IMHO.

I think it was Lovingdvd who was surprised to find his 'bright and punchy' Pearl was only giving him 7.5FL so you'll probably have a more than acceptable image to look at. If you're not sure, if you can find one on demo with a similar surface area screen, you could try it with an ND2 and see how it looks. If you do get 19FL you could try running it with an ND2 for 200 to 300 hours and then remove it.

Gary

Hi Gary,
I'm of a mind to be happy anywhere in the range of the 12 to 22 FL SMPTE standard as that is what labs use to time proper density of release prints for the theater. The post houses for HD transfer are probably using CRT monitors calibrated to the SMPTE standard of 29FL (as I remember) for CRT monitors. We may tolerate reference white level luminance in the single digits, but we for sure are compromising rather significantly by doing so. That said, what do you do? You do the best you can and enjoy.

As I am on the "pre-order" I hope JVC has no more "surprises" with the spec's of this projector. On September 23, 2006 "tstites" from JVC stated the RS1 would have a "motorized zoom & focus" which we all know now is not the case. A minor inconvenience to be lived with. Now the statements the RS1 used a "constant aperture lens" appears to be a false statement as well. Due to the loss of lumens at max throw (critical in my install) I am so glad I ordered a screen with 1.5 gain per Tryg's suggestion. But!!!!!! if the throw ratio has changed from 1.4 to 2.8 to something shorter then the projector will have to be removed from the list of choices.

It would be interesting and appropriate for the rep's at JVC that monitor this forum to comment on some of these concerns. Sound level, anamorphic scaling, what throw for 700 lumens spec, etc. I hope they can answer the many questions from our fellow AVS members on the "pre-buy" which by all accounts was incredibly received for our sponsor AVS and one heck of an initial order for JVC!

Hi Cam,

It may be a mute point with the JVC and especially if you watch mostly HD, but I find the brighter you go the more you can see artefacts from the source, such as mpg noise, and that's why I actually prefer a dimmer image and use filters to achieve that if necessary. I think the SMPTE range is 12 to 16 but up to 22 is acceptable (16 without film in the gate, 12 with), though many theaters run lower than 12 and more around the 7 to 9 range IIRC. That's not everyones cup of tea though but like you say, it's all about the enjoyment, so we get the image how we like it. :)

Gary

Gary,
Another interesting twist is the DCI specs for digital cinemas (which you can search for...or for which I can post a link), provide a "nominal" luminance of 14 FL +/-.7FL in review rooms, and +/- 3FL in theaters.

I agree that all the not so great things show up better at higher luminance levels. Fortunately, I seem to lose them on most dislpays at about 18 FL when doing calibrations. Higher than 18 FL seems to be dangerous territory for seeing all sorts of noise, grain, and other gnarly artifacts. For quite a while I have had our screen at 12-15 FL. I tried out the much larger screen the other night and called the wifey in for a look. The luminance was probably 8 FL or so. I was surviving it, but on asking the wife what she thought of the scene I showed her, she said "It's too dim." :( Thanks, Honey. :rolleyes:

typically we like to see 20 ftl lamberts when using the specs provided by the manufacturers. This way between loss of lumens due to bulb aging and calibration, we wind up with needed
12-15 ftl

Hey, who threw the bucket of ice water on us in this thread?! :eek: We were having a great time salivating. :D

If one can mount the RS1 to take full advantage of a Dalite HiPower screen (i.e., just behind and above the viewers heads), then the 'brighteness issue' is completely removed. This screen is reported to be ideal for Ruby, Pearl, and thus presumably the RS1, since all these pj's have great black levels and 'smooth' pics. The HP screen is reported to have essentially no surface structure ('the screen disappears') and should thus be excellent for sitting 'up close and personal', which is why we all want 1080p's, right? But one does have to have a room that works for the HP, ie., mounted as noted above, and a relatively narrow viewing area (~with no viewers outside the edge of the screen).

It sounds like we can dismiss the 50% brightness loss talk. This number seemed insanely high. There is reported brightness loss with throw, but it is reported to be about 18-20% over the zoom range which is right about what the Pearl is at and similar to the Mits 5000 and other units in this class. No big surprise here, and this does not represent a disadvantage for the RS1, but rather puts it on par with all the other units in this class IMO.

Cant wait to get this unit after the report today!

It sounds like we can dismiss the 50% brightness loss talk. This number seemed insanely high. There is reported brightness loss with throw, but it is reported to be about 18-20% over the zoom range which is right about what the Pearl is at and similar to the Mits 5000 and other units in this class. No big surprise here, and this does not represent a disadvantage for the RS1, but rather puts it on par with all the other units in this class IMO.


"On par" is not what we were told. We were told the JVC would have a constant aperture zoom, with no light loss regardless of mounting location. This was a rather obvious advantage over other projectors, and it was mentioned numerous times early on in the RS1 discussions.

This turned out to not be accurate. That is a disadvantage....that it isn't coming with one of the specs that we were told it would have. This was a big selling point to some of us...myself included.

"On par" is not what we were told. We were told the JVC would have a constant aperture zoom, with no light loss regardless of mounting location. This was a rather obvious advantage over other projectors, and it was mentioned numerous times early on in the RS1 discussions.

This turned out to not be accurate. That is a disadvantage....that it isn't coming with one of the specs that we were told it would have. This was a big selling point to some of us...myself included.

I know, and I agree with you that it is a disadvantage in that way. I meant that it is not a disadvantage in comparison to other projectors in this class since they are all similar in this way.

On the bright side (compared to the Pearl), it will likely have better color uniformity, probably improved quality control, and adjustable convergance. On the downside, it may need a better processor (pearl benefits from one too), doesn't have motorized lens control, and is a bit more expensive than the Pearl.

I know, and I agree with you that it is a disadvantage in that way. I meant that it is not a disadvantage in comparison to other projectors in this class since they are all similar in this way.

I understand. It's just much more difficult to accept that fact now, since I had my hopes and dreams of a contant aperture lens smashed into oblivion! ;)

On the bright side (compared to the Pearl), it will likely have better color uniformity, probably improved quality control, and adjustable convergance. On the downside, it may need a better processor (pearl benefits from one too), doesn't have motorized lens control, and is a bit more expensive than the Pearl.

Processing should be good, since it will have the Gennum chip inside. But yeah, it's still not a given.

I understand. It's just much more difficult to accept that fact now, since I had my hopes and dreams of a contant aperture lens smashed into oblivion! ;)

Me too! This pj is to go in a projection booth at the back of my new home theater some 21 feet from the screen. I also don't want the light brushing just over viewer's heads in order to accomodate a HighPower screen. Would the HP geometry work at all with a rear mounted projector, stadium seating and front row eyeballs at 1/3 screen height? Perhaps a SilverStar would work. Or maybe I should start considering the Optima HD81. :(

From the report it sounds like the deinterlacing is better than the Pearl, which is nice.

Come on, guys--read Elliott's report: he saw the RS1 right next to a Pearl, with the same feed, and said that the difference was 'vast, really obvious'! And he's no novice (like me). There are many factors--brightness, O/F CR, ANSI-like CR, sharpness, etc.--but the bottomline is that the pic given by the RS1 is significantly better (by any measure you want) than the Pearl. To me it's certainly worth the few $100's extra cost. I don't see anything else as good at present in the ~/< $5K price range, and it may be as good as anything </~ $10K. [I will be at the CES, however, and be looking to see if there IS anything that might be better by the summer.]

"On par" is not what we were told. We were told the JVC would have a constant aperture zoom, with no light loss regardless of mounting location.

Actuallly I think Tom Stites exact words were, "no appreciable light loss". I took this to mean that there would be some loss but not to a large extent. I guess "appreciable" can mean different things to different people. For me 18-20% light loss is appreciable, but still it's not bad and it's not something that would be a deal killer for me. I'm more interested in what happens to the contrast with throw. Is the 15,000:1 spec from the shortest throw? If so, can we expect an 18-20% gain in the longest throw? If so, then this whole problem becomes a net positive for me as 700 lumens is a little too bright for my setup and more contrast is always welcome :)

Come on, guys--read Elliott's report: he saw the RS1 right next to a Pearl, with the same feed, and said that the difference was 'vast, really obvious'! And he's no novice (like me). There are many factors--brightness, O/F CR, ANSI-like CR, sharpness, etc.--but the bottomline is that the pic given by the RS1 is significantly better (by any measure you want) than the Pearl. To me it's certainly worth the few $100's extra cost. I don't see anything else as good at present in the ~/< $5K price range, and it may be as good as anything </~ $10K. [I will be at the CES, however, and be looking to see if there IS anything that might be better by the summer.]

Very true, the report is a huge positive. The poster of the review is a Sony dealer and very familiar with their products so he could verify the setup on the Pearl. In prior reviews where the RS1 spanked the Ruby and the Sharp the setup of those projectors was questioned. So here is an objective review by a knowledgeable source that confirms what others have been saying - that this is a terrific projector that delivers best in class performance. In fact a person could claim that it delivers the best overall performance up to the $20k mark.

Thanks Mark, I think you make valid points, and I do believe that you are correct that Tom Stites never specifically said "constant aperture zoom", and I specifically apologize to Tom and others for giving that impression. I guess it was inferred.

I am starting to worry that this pj may not be bright enough for me though. You don't seem to be concerned. What size screen are you using?

Have been sitting on the sides on this brightness issue but feel it is now time to jump in (with the advice/input of other InFocus 7210 users).

At present I have an InFocus 7210 projecting onto a 92" diagonal Stewart FireHawk screen at a distacne of roughly 13 1/2 feet. The room is completely light controlled but, as it doubles as a living room, the room does a white ceiling and medium gray walls -- yes, the colours are a compromise.

A long way to my point....I use the InFocus 7210 with its low lamp setting w/i a ND2 filter which means, given the rating of 950 ANSI lumens in low lamp mode with no filter, I am getting <= 475 ANSI lumens which I find plenty bright. (note: bulb has 400 hours on it)..which means that the 560 to 700 ANSI lumens which the RS1 will throw will not be a problem AT LEAST FOR ME...

All comments welcome...

Very true, the report is a huge positive. The poster of the review is a Sony dealer and very familiar with their products so he could verify the setup on the Pearl. In prior reviews where the RS1 spanked the Ruby and the Sharp the setup of those projectors was questioned. So here is an objective review by a knowledgeable source that confirms what others have been saying - that this is a terrific projector that delivers best in class performance. In fact a person could claim that it delivers the best overall performance up to the $20k mark.

Did he compare it to any 1080p DLP's? ;)

On the bright side (compared to the Pearl), it will likely have better color uniformity, probably improved quality control, and adjustable convergance.

Also, no light spill (based upon an earlier report), which is nice since the Pearl has appreciable light spill.

--
Steve

I am starting to worry that this pj may not be bright enough for me though. You don't seem to be concerned. What size screen are you using?

A long way to my point....I use the InFocus 7210 with its low lamp setting w/i a ND2 filter which means, given the rating of 950 ANSI lumens in low lamp mode with no filter, I am getting <= 475 ANSI lumens which I find plenty bright. (note: bulb has 400 hours on it)..which means that the 560 to 700 ANSI lumens which the RS1 will throw will not be a problem AT LEAST FOR ME...


I can vouch for this too. I'm using a 110" Studiotek 130 and a Phelps calibrated HD2K with a color correction filter. The actual measured D65 lumens with a new bulb on the HD2K with CCF is ~425 lumens. I've been very happy with both the brightness and image this setup throws although I've been wanting better performance in low APL. It sounds like the RS1 will deliver the higher CR that I've been wanting and if I mount it at around 17' it will be in the middle of the throw and it will end up being slightly brighter than the HD2K even in the low bulb setting! So that's why I'm not too concerned :)

Come on, guys--read Elliott's report: he saw the RS1 right next to a Pearl, with the same feed, and said that the difference was 'vast, really obvious'!
Interesting how reviews of the same pj comparison can run the gamet from very close you could be looking at two RS1 or 2 Pearls in most scenes to vast really obvious.

I predict that for some people either of those points may be correct! :) :)

Did he compare it to any 1080p DLP's? ;)

It was compared side by side at the EH Expo with the Sharp 20k 1080p DLP (which has been getting great praise in reviews). All of the reports by everyone who saw it at the Expo said that they liked the RS1 image better. My point though was that Elliot's review was the first by someone who could verify the setup on the projector being compared against the RS1 (the Pearl in this case) so it helps to validate the opinions of the other side-by-side comparisons (vs the Ruby at CEDIA and the Sharp at the Expo).

Interesting how reviews of the same pj comparison can run the gamet from very close you could be looking at two RS1 or 2 Pearls in most scenes to vast really obvious.

I predict that for some people either of those points may be correct! :) :)

Truer words have never been spoken! Such is life at AVS :)

One thing to keep in mind from Tom's comments though was this may have been relative to the Sharp 20k that they had been using at the Expo. I have no doubt that compared to the Sharp the Pearl and RS1 throw an image more similar than they are different. If JVC is successful in releasing a product that throws the same exact image as the Pearl, but with more ANSI, much better on/off, better shading and convergence, then this is an amazing feat as I've always thought the Pearl has been an exceptional price/performance machine.

Oh yeah! I just had another thought that we can toss into this discussion. Elliot's report was the first report of a production unit. Tom's observation was with the prototype and JVC has been saying all along that it's going to get better. So maybe that's one reason Eliott's comments were more favorable. If so, we should be buzzing with antiicipation rather than worrying about a 100 lumens light loss at longest throw.

...If JVC is successful in releasing a product that throws the same exact image as the Pearl, but with more ANSI, much better on/off, better shading and convergence, then this is an amazing feat ....
... and I will take two. :)

Of course within a month after it's release we will see several posts from people who saw it and were very unimpressed, because it looked dim, washed out, and soft! :D

... and I will take two. :)

Of course within a month after it's release we will see several posts from people who saw it and were very unimpressed, because it looked dim, washed out, and soft! :D

And *everyone* who sees one at BB/Magnolia will say it looked terrible... :)

Come on, guys--read Elliott's report: he saw the RS1 right next to a Pearl, with the same feed, and said that the difference was 'vast, really obvious'! And he's no novice (like me). There are many factors--brightness, O/F CR, ANSI-like CR, sharpness, etc.--but the bottomline is that the pic given by the RS1 is significantly better (by any measure you want) than the Pearl. To me it's certainly worth the few $100's extra cost. I don't see anything else as good at present in the ~/< $5K price range, and it may be as good as anything </~ $10K. [I will be at the CES, however, and be looking to see if there IS anything that might be better by the summer.]

Where is Elliot's report? Where can I find it? I would really like to read it!

Where is Elliot's report? Where can I find it? I would really like to read it!
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=764468

...I think it was Lovingdvd who was surprised to find his 'bright and punchy' Pearl was only giving him 7.5FL so you'll probably have a more than acceptable image to look at...Gary

Yep, except that it was with the Ruby not the Pearl (not that it matters). My light meter was one of the best investments I've made in HT gear in a long time. Its given me confidence to buy a new pj just by knowing its lumen output at D65. In fact this is why I purchased the meter.

For instance, now that I know I was only getting 190 some lumens from my Ruby, yet still very pleased with the brightness, I can purchase the RS1 with NO CONCERN about its brightness.

With the RS1 I'll be at about 60% of its zoom range (2.0 from the 1.4-2.4 range). So I figured this will give me say 700 lumens minus 15% (just picking a conservative number here - it may be less loss at this position say only 10%) for about 595 lumens. After I lose half that I'll still have over 50% more brightness than I had with the Ruby picture I was satisfied with on my 106" diag Firehawk,

Now, of course everyone's preference for brightness and punch is different so I can't speak for others. But I can say that I consider myself one to prefer a bright and punchy picture over a more realistic film-like experience or whatever you want to call it - yet found myself very happy with 7.5ftL. All I can say is for those of you worried, don't knock < 10 ftL until you try it - you just may be surprised. And if you really want to know, pick up a light meter for < $200 so you can judge exactly what you are getting now vs. what you'd get with the RS1. I have a thread floating around that explains how to use the light meter for this purpose if you are interested.

And *everyone* who sees one at BB/Magnolia will say it looked terrible... :)

Exactly. And they would be right! :eek:

;)

I use the InFocus 7210 with its low lamp setting w/i a ND2 filter which means, given the rating of 950 ANSI lumens in low lamp mode with no filter, I am getting <= 475 ANSI lumens which I find plenty bright. (note: bulb has 400 hours on it)..which means that the 560 to 700 ANSI lumens which the RS1 will throw will not be a problem AT LEAST FOR ME...

All comments welcome...Your 7210's 475 lumens is more than likely closer to 250. The reason you need to reduce your quoted number is you haven't allowed for the typical 50% loss that will have occured by the time you've put 200 hours on the lamp. Same goes for the RS1. After the lamp burns in you are looking at 230 lumens if the pj is mounted at it's farthest throw and 350 at it's closest.

The RS1 will be mounted around 18' (1x zoom) from my 120" SS (gain around 3.0) and based on the pj's given specs, I'll have around 1890 lumens initially and 945 after the lamp burns in. I will definitely be using an ND4 filter at first and then switch over to an ND2 after a few hundred hours are on the lamp.

lovingdvd,

re. brightness... assuming what we think are "reasonably" accurate numbers, I figure it will not be a problem 4 me either, at least based on the math... at 2.0 throw, 85x45 in screen (26.6 sq ft) pre stretch

L = ftL (screen sq. ft/screen gain)
{700 - 700 (.15)} = ftL 26.6/1.3

ftL= 29

which means a very respectable 14 ftL at bulb half life. please correct me if I'm missing something here ...

Exactly. And they would be right! :eek:

;)

:D

Your 7210's 475 lumens is more than likely closer to 250. The reason you need to reduce your quoted number is you haven't allowed for the typical 50% loss that will have occured by the time you've put 200 hours on the lamp. Same goes for the RS1. After the lamp burns in you are looking at 230 lumens if the pj is mounted at it's farthest throw and 350 at it's closest.



We are both correct...the bulbs in BOTH the 7210 and RS1 will dim/wear with time (perhaps though not at the same rate) meaning that whether working with the "posted numbers" or the "actual numbers" (due to bulb dimming) means that there is not going to be a problem.

Actuallly I think Tom Stites exact words were, "no appreciable light loss". I took this to mean that there would be some loss but not to a large extent. I guess "appreciable" can mean different things to different people. For me 18-20% light loss is appreciable, but still it's not bad and it's not something that would be a deal killer for me. I'm more interested in what happens to the contrast with throw. Is the 15,000:1 spec from the shortest throw? If so, can we expect an 18-20% gain in the longest throw? If so, then this whole problem becomes a net positive for me as 700 lumens is a little too bright for my setup and more contrast is always welcome :)

I'm still miffed about the lack of constant aperture here in the 11th hour, especially since it was hyped as a major feature, at a time when many were on the fence with the Pearl, waiting to see what the advantages of the RS1 would be over it. I spent 1/2 hour searching for Tom's words on this but couldn't find it and now am off to work. But I found several references where you yourself use the term "constant aperture" in reference to no loss of lumens over the zoom range. Suffice it to say it seems that Tom certainly alluded to constant zoom, we all picked up on it, and he did not chime in with a correction. To give him the benefit of the doubt he may not have known. If he did, then a comment certainly was due.

Granted it's still a great PJ, don't get me wrong. I have researched now on this site almost a year for buying my first PJ, and am on the preorder mainly based on 1) constant aperture 2) hopeful vertical squeeze (at least lack of this was correctly stated by Tom and others).

There was a huge flurry of posts a few months ago back at a pivotal time with the Pearl vs. JVC fence sitters from JVC. Now there are questions and have been zero posts from JVC.

I'm still miffed about the lack of constant aperture here in the 11th hour, especially since it was hyped as a major feature, at a time when many were on the fence with the Pearl, waiting to see what the advantages of the RS1 would be over it. I spent 1/2 hour searching for Tom's words on this but couldn't find it and now am off to work. But I found several references where you yourself use the term "constant aperture" in reference to no loss of lumens over the zoom range. Suffice it to say it seems that Tom certainly alluded to constant zoom, we all picked up on it, and he did not chime in with a correction. To give him the benefit of the doubt he may not have known. If he did, then a comment certainly was due.

Granted it's still a great PJ, don't get me wrong. I have researched now on this site almost a year for buying my first PJ, and am on the preorder mainly based on 1) constant aperture 2) hopeful vertical squeeze (at least lack of this was correctly stated by Tom and others).

There was a huge flurry of posts a few months ago back at a pivotal time with the Pearl vs. JVC fence sitters from JVC. Now there are questions and have been zero posts from JVC.

But what have you lost? A month is all. The prices on the Pearl have likely come down over the last month, so that's likely a gain. You are not obligated to follow through on your JVC pre-order. Buy the Pearl if the constant aperture was the deciding factor. I understand your frustration at the wrong information, but it's not the end of the world. Get off that fence and start enjoying movies :)

The Pearl does not have constant aperture either, so this is not a reason to choose a Pearl over a RS1. The only reason I could see getting the Pearl over the RS1 is if you needed the motorized lens features for whatever reason.

With the preorder price that mark lem is apart of you are correct Toe, but at JVC's MSRP to the pearl's street prices it wouldn't be so obvious.

The Pearl does not have constant aperture either, so this is not a reason to choose a Pearl over a RS1. The only reason I could see getting the Pearl over the RS1 is if you needed the motorized lens features for whatever reason.


I couldn't swap my Pearl for the JVC because of the lack of a motorized lens. I use a mask that pulls down and requires a lens shift. Although I did do this manually on my H79. It could be worse though (Optoma H81).

Please..is there anyone who knows if the RS1 is capable of showing 4:3 images by hdmi?
I am asking you this because for instance the Sharp 21000 doesn't do this.

thanks
francis

Please..is there anyone who knows if the RS1 is capable of showing 4:3 images by hdmi?
I am asking you this because for instance the Sharp 21000 doesn't do this.

thanks
francis

I have a very hard time believing that.

Guys - the news about the lens and light output is disappointing indeed. However we need to cut JVC some slack here. It is very cool of them to get involved with the community and participate here, and feed us TONS of preliminary information and be willing to sit down with Mark and go through dozens of detailed questions and so forth. Most manufacturers would not do this.

We have to keep in mind that one of the downsides to this is that information is subject to change when things are still in a prototype phase. Let's focus on the ton of accurate information we've gotten (at least as we know of so far).

Personally I'd much rather get tons of info and find out later that some of it was incorrect and have to readjust my thinking accordingly if needed be, than to be sitting in the dark for 3 months wondering about all the specs. Remember that no one is obligated to purchase a unit.

So while this info may disappoint some, we need to remain appreciative for JVC and their participation here and not say things that will drive them away and make them not want to participate in our discussions going forward...

I have a very hard time believing that.

Well...at least this is what a friend of mine, (who bought the 21000 a week ago) told me.. and so I got :( ... anyway I would be glad to be wrong ...and what about the RS1?
No problems at all?

francis

I don't see why the fuss about this PJ not being bright enough. I had an H79 with a DA-LITE high gain screen 119" and it was TOO bright..that's correct TOO bright EVEN in the LOW power mode and I believe the H79 calibrated was less than 500 lumens.

I now have a 150" 2:35.1 cinemascope high power screen on order with Jason along with an RS1 and I believe it will still be too bright.

I don't see why the fuss about this PJ not being bright enough. I had an H79 with a DA-LITE high gain screen 119" and it was TOO bright..that's correct TOO bright EVEN in the LOW power mode and I believe the H79 calibrated was less than 500 lumens.

I now have a 150" 2:35.1 cinemascope high power screen on order with Jason along with an RS1 and I believe it will still be too bright.

Chris - I think the fuss is that many folks think they have an idea of their lumens and ftL, but have never measured it and likely have lumens and ftL FAR below what they think they have. I was one of those folks myself not too long ago. Then I bought a light member and surprised myself and know I can be very happy with much less lumens and ftL than I ever would have thought. For those of you driving yourself nuts about whether the RS1 (or any pj for that matter) will be bright enough, a light meter for a couple hundred bucks will be well worth it!

@Rob Tomlin

Writing about problems showing 4:3 images by Hdmi I mean problems showing them without the intervention of the zoom.

But what if you want to use a Screen Research screen with a gain less than one? There's a vast difference between using a high power screen with a gain of 2.8 and using a Screen Reseach screen with a gain of 0.9.

But what if you want to use a Screen Research screen with a gain less than one? There's a vast difference between using a high power screen with a gain of 2.8 and using a Screen Reseach screen with a gain of 0.9.


Why would anyone want to use a negative gain screen to begin with is beyond me. Screens are now so cheap that replacing an existing negative gain screen that you may have with a newer, better & higher gain one is a no brainer plus the whites will stand out much more giving you even a better perceived black level at the same time.

There are a huge number of reasons to choose non- hipower screens. One is that the viewing angle doesn't suit the material (the case with my ceiling mounted pj) - the hipower actually gives a 0.9 gain in my environment.
Another major reason is accoustic transparency - that's why people like the Screen Research. Accoustically transparent without visible perforations.

There are other reasons too. But the main point is that choice is a good thing.

well its is disapointing that there isnt a constant aperture but on the bright side (no pun intended) its is verry possible and likly that the 700 lumen number is lower then what the unit will actually produce so it can help offset the loss of light output. so hopefully for the majority of most installations it will still hover around the 700 number (2.2 and less throw for instance, I'm pulling that number out of my ass just for an example).

I will continue to stay optimistic untill I hear more reports.

And it could end up the 17000 contrast rumor that was thrown around might be a bonus of using a longer throw.

Guys - the news about the lens and light output is disappointing indeed. However we need to cut JVC some slack here. It is very cool of them to get involved with the community and participate here, and feed us TONS of preliminary information and be willing to sit down with Mark and go through dozens of detailed questions and so forth. Most manufacturers would not do this.

We have to keep in mind that one of the downsides to this is that information is subject to change when things are still in a prototype phase. Let's focus on the ton of accurate information we've gotten (at least as we know of so far).

Personally I'd much rather get tons of info and find out later that some of it was incorrect and have to readjust my thinking accordingly if needed be, than to be sitting in the dark for 3 months wondering about all the specs. Remember that no one is obligated to purchase a unit.

So while this info may disappoint some, we need to remain appreciative for JVC and their participation here and not say things that will drive them away and make them not want to participate in our discussions going forward...

Well said. Even though it's a disappointment that the light output varies with the lens throw we need to keep in mind that all the information that JVC has been feeding us is preliminary and subject to change. We've seen changes in the RS1 specs in the past - remember when the contrast ratio spec went from 10000:1 to 15000:1 or the price went from $8000 to $6300? We've all benefited from these other changes so we should cut JVC some slack if some of the other features don't materialize. Personally I think it's a tribute to JVC that they are willing to to discuss this product so openly and listen to comments. This is something they haven't done in the past and I hope they continue to do so.

Well said. Even though it's a disappointment that the light output varies with the lens throw we need to keep in mind that all the information that JVC has been feeding us is preliminary and subject to change. We've seen changes in the RS1 specs in the past - remember when the contrast ratio spec went from 10000:1 to 15000:1 or the price went from $8000 to $6300? We've all benefited from these other changes so we should cut JVC some slack if some of the other features don't materialize. Personally I think it's a tribute to JVC that they are willing to to discuss this product so openly and listen to comments. This is something they haven't done in the past and I hope they continue to do so.

I agree completely.

-tony

Well said. Even though it's a disappointment that the light output varies with the lens throw we need to keep in mind that all the information that JVC has been feeding us is preliminary and subject to change. We've seen changes in the RS1 specs in the past - remember when the contrast ratio spec went from 10000:1 to 15000:1 or the price went from $8000 to $6300? We've all benefited from these other changes so we should cut JVC some slack if some of the other features don't materialize. Personally I think it's a tribute to JVC that they are willing to to discuss this product so openly and listen to comments. This is something they haven't done in the past and I hope they continue to do so.

Me too!

That said, where's Tom? :confused:

And it could end up the 17000 contrast rumor that was thrown around might be a bonus of using a longer throw.

That would make it a net positive for me. A little less light output at the longer throw and the fact that they added a low bulb setting means that I don't have to strap a ND filter on it :)

That said, where's Tom?


Good question, Tom has been pretty quiet lately.

Well said. Even though it's a disappointment that the light output varies with the lens throw we need to keep in mind that all the information that JVC has been feeding us is preliminary and subject to change. We've seen changes in the RS1 specs in the past - remember when the contrast ratio spec went from 10000:1 to 15000:1 or the price went from $8000 to $6300? We've all benefited from these other changes so we should cut JVC some slack if some of the other features don't materialize. Personally I think it's a tribute to JVC that they are willing to to discuss this product so openly and listen to comments. This is something they haven't done in the past and I hope they continue to do so.

I agree 1000%!

Why would anyone want to use a negative gain screen to begin with is beyond me. Screens are now so cheap that replacing an existing negative gain screen that you may have with a newer, better & higher gain one is a no brainer plus the whites will stand out much more giving you even a better perceived black level at the same time.

Why? Acoustic transparency and the ability to use identical loudspeakers in every location.

Sadly, the biggest myth in HT is that if you use the same driver complement, you've timbre matched. That ain't the case unfortunately. Never mind that the different offsets above/below the screen that you would have to use are distracting for me (in a major way), the timbre match issue is highly significant and very distracting.

Ok, so go with another alternative. Sure, I could do that, and I'd have to place an external EQ in circuit which means I wouldn't be able to test digital active loudspeakers properly without the correction curve applied. Plus every review becomes a review of the product under test + the EQ.

Personally, I prefer keeping the brightness lower rather than higher. I find that overly bright displays in FP environments tend to give me eyestrain.

You said it's beyond you -- well then perhaps you should open your mind and start thinking about it from other peoples perspective. There is more than one way to do things, and I appreciate you prefer a brighter picture than I do. IOW,
understanding that not everyone shares my preference isn't "beyond me".

Like John, I use a Screen Research screen. At times I wish there were higher gain alternatives to the CP2 screen, however, after having lived with a Stewart microperforated screen, I am not willing to give up what the CP2 screen offers. One nice thing about the CP2 screen is that it is colour neutral and there is NO hotspotting. You can sit way off-axis and get the same image as you do sitting on-axis.

Guys - the news about the lens and light output is disappointing indeed. However we need to cut JVC some slack here. It is very cool of them to get involved with the community and participate here, and feed us TONS of preliminary information and be willing to sit down with Mark and go through dozens of detailed questions and so forth. Most manufacturers would not do this.
So while this info may disappoint some, we need to remain appreciative for JVC and their participation here and not say things that will drive them away and make them not want to participate in our discussions going forward...

I am very appreciative for their involvement here giving us information. I would be even more enamored with them though if they followed up with a few words on a well talked about feature that didn't pan out to be deliverable. My post was not confontational towards JVC or anyone else. Pick one of the most important features to you that the RS1 brings to the party, and then pretend Elliot posts in his thread that the feature is well below the originally, you'd be disappointed also, even maybe more so if you heard it from a third party...

This is still number one on my list, it's got a lot of upside. I lived through the HD81 thread for a long while, it too had a lot of upside early on, lots of posts from Optoma, only to later find that things were not going to be deliverable as once thought. When the going got rough there were large stretches where no one from Optoma posted. I'm hopeful this doesn't go that way.

Is it me or is the projector central throw calculator for the JVC returning incorrect values?

Gary

Is it me or is the projector central throw calculator for the JVC returning incorrect values?

Gary

It's also way off for the BenQ W10000.

Someone on another forum has said they reduce the lumens by 75% to take into account lamp aging, which is unusual but useful so as to prevent getting an unwatchable image over a short period of time (which could happen if you calculate for 12FL with the 700 number). I think they should have both the 'as new' figures (measured when knwon preferably) and calculated aged figures too. I don't yet know where the 75% info originated from though.

Gary

I am very appreciative for their involvement here giving us information. I would be even more enamored with them though if they followed up with a few words on a well talked about feature that didn't pan out to be deliverable. My post was not confontational towards JVC or anyone else. Pick one of the most important features to you that the RS1 brings to the party, and then pretend Elliot posts in his thread that the feature is well below the originally, you'd be disappointed also, even maybe more so if you heard it from a third party...

This is still number one on my list, it's got a lot of upside. I lived through the HD81 thread for a long while, it too had a lot of upside early on, lots of posts from Optoma, only to later find that things were not going to be deliverable as once thought. When the going got rough there were large stretches where no one from Optoma posted. I'm hopeful this doesn't go that way.

I agree Mark. This is a reasonable approach. It does seem that many of the manufacturer reps that post suddenly stop when a certain feature turns out to not be usable (the DI in the HD81 thread) or when features that were promised or implied don't pan out. There really is no reason for this. I think most people here would take the attitude that you reference above, and actually be "more enamored with them" if they continued to post and explain the situation and be up front about it. We can actually be a pretty forgiving and understanding bunch of enthusiasts! :) And we all love having company insiders here, as there is no question that it is of great value, hopefully to both the company and the members of AVS Forum.

Never mind that the different offsets above/below the screen that you would have to use are distracting for me

I'm a HT neophyte but a pretty experienced audio guy from way back. I've always understood the human ear can detect direction horizontally but has a difficult time in the vertical axis. The shape of the outer ear can give some physical clues, but mostly vertical source direction is psycho-acoustics mixed with a little reflection/interference detection. In my experience one can easily be fooled.

Can you tell me if I'm wrong on this and just as importantly, why? I'm designing a HT (for my pre-ordered JVC!) on this assumption and don't want to make a mistake.

Is it me or is the projector central throw calculator for the JVC returning incorrect values? Yeah, that looks totally whacked; unlike any luminance calculator I've seen anywhere. Can others confirm?

It's by no means definitive, but I found that I have to be sitting closer than 10ft away from the center speaker before I think I can hear the dialogue coming from below the screen. Admitted I'm looking for the source so that may be helping, but I think I need to hear a set up with speaker behind an AT screen to see if it really makes that much difference (to me at least).

In my case having the speaker about 16ins higher from it's current position would put it on the same plane as my LR speakers. Would that make much difference audibly over 10ft?

Gary

Yeah, that looks totally whacked; unlike any luminance calculator I've seen anywhere. Can others confirm?

It was pointed out to me on another forum that if you click the 'about' button in the top left of the calculator all will be revealed.

Not sure i agree with a lot of it though - the even advocate ambient light in the room providing it doesn't shine dorectly on the screen, and in comparing it to a direct view monitor in a lighted office they say it's OK to have contrast ratios of 5:1 to 10:1. Hardly ideal when you have a high CR projector that's then crippled to douible figures when it should be in a light controlled room for critical movie watching IMHO.

Gary.

Still, presuming 75% lamp output doesn't put you anywhere near the right thing. Take a look at a 120" wide 1.3 gain screen with a throw distance of 16'. That calculator puts you into single digit footlamberts. That's ridiculous! I've checked two other brightness calculator spreadsheets that come up with about three times the Projector Central number. Am I missing something here?

I'm a HT neophyte but a pretty experienced audio guy from way back. I've always understood the human ear can detect direction horizontally but has a difficult time in the vertical axis. The shape of the outer ear can give some physical clues, but mostly vertical source direction is psycho-acoustics mixed with a little reflection/interference detection. In my experience one can easily be fooled.

Can you tell me if I'm wrong on this and just as importantly, why? I'm designing a HT (for my pre-ordered JVC!) on this assumption and don't want to make a mistake.

erkg:

This is generally true from above, ie when the center is above the plane of the ears, but not below the plane of the ears. I've personally found that I do notice when the plane is off regardless of whether it's above or below. But my knowledge could be clouding the judgement for cases where the CC is above the L/R.

What happens is you get a soundstage that looks like this, if you'll pardon the poor ASCII art:


--------------------\ __________/-----------------------------


____________\-----------------/___________________

The problem is that a traditional CC is designed for limited dispersion in the vertical plane, and expanded dispersion in the horizontal plane which leads to a disparity of presentation.

Then, there's the fact that even with "identical driver compliments", the cabinet is not the same volume nor is the driver arrangement going to be identical.

There is one thing that is truly a timbre match, and that is the same loudspeaker, in the same orientation and at the same height.

Everyone picks and choses the compromises they are willing to make in their HT. For me, it's brightness for identical speakers in each location.

For others, that perhaps aren't as particular about audio, they'll go with a different compromise.

Best,

Still, presuming 75% lamp output doesn't put you anywhere near the right thing. Take a look at a 120" wide 1.3 gain screen with a throw distance of 16'. That calculator puts you into single digit footlamberts. That's ridiculous! I've checked two other brightness calculator spreadsheets that come up with about three times the Projector Central number. Am I missing something here?

Let's just do the math ourselves instead of relying on a calculator. It's not calculus here.

Screen area in square feet = (l x w (in inches) ) / 144

ft-lamberts = (lumens * gain) / screen area (square feet)

For our 120" wide (16:9 assumed) we have a height of 67.5 inches.


120 * 67.5 / 144 = 56.25 square feet

ft-lamberts = (700 * 1.3) / 56.25 = 16.18 ft lamberts.

If we lose 40%-50 brightness that would break down to between 8-10 ft lamberts at the end of the bulb life.

Cheers,

John,

The long math does confirm the other calculators I am using. ;) My point is that the Projector Central calculator (since it doesn't jive with the math) is totally whacked with regard to luminance and should be ignored. :mad: Of course, even with the math, you have to decide whether there is any optical transmission loss depending where you are on the zoom, and come up with a factor for that.

My room has a 2.35 CH screen of a different gain and the same width, but I wind up with over 19 FL new with every calculation method except, of course, PC's. And that's good news. :)

erkg:

The problem is that a traditional CC is designed for limited dispersion in the vertical plane, and expanded dispersion in the horizontal plane which leads to a disparity of presentation.

Then, there's the fact that even with "identical driver compliments", the cabinet is not the same volume nor is the driver arrangement going to be identical.

There is one thing that is truly a timbre match, and that is the same loudspeaker, in the same orientation and at the same height.


Sorry to be OT but I've found it's good to seek knowledge here at AVS wherever you find it. I'd be happy to take this off-line with you. I'd be very interested in what you think.

This is good to hear. I agree and have been designing my audio system with these issues in mind, perhaps going overboard but that's the fun of a hobby!

I'm using Dynaudio tweeters (D260) and midranges (D76AF) with sealed backs so cabinet size won't be an issue down to 500Hz. Most spacial information is above this so I'm hoping this will work. Then I'm trying to get all the listener's ears inside the tweeter's 15 degree high frequency sweet spot using multiple tweeters set at 15 degree angles per cabinet. The mids are better behaved at the frequencies I'll be using them. THEN the xover is so complicated to design for this I'm using active Behringers with Outlaw Audio 7125 (1) and 1075 (2) amps. FINALLY I'm using eight Altec 15" 416's for an IB subwoofer. Xover points: sub up to 30 Hz, woofs at 30 to 500, mids at 500 to 3500 and tweets 3500 on up. Of course that can be changed very easily with the Behringers.

I have 6 12" Dynaudio woofers (beautiful things) and have been considering using them all around to get that timbre matching. But I think it's not worth it for 500Hz down. I'll use them for LF and RF only, copping out with 6" Dynaudios for the rest.

Setup will be a challenge. I currently have a 3 way stereo active xover setup and it takes a lot of futsing to get it all balanced out. But wow! the soundstage results make you believe in ghosts which inspired me to go active in a full 7.1 system.

John,

The long math does confirm the other calculators I am using. ;) My point is that the Projector Central calculator (since it doesn't jive with the math) is totally whacked with regard to luminance and should be ignored. :mad: Of course, even with the math, you have to decide whether there is any optical transmission loss depending where you are on the zoom, and come up with a factor for that.

My room has a 2.35 CH screen of a different gain and the same width, but I wind up with over 19 FL new with every calculation method except, of course, PC's. And that's good news. :)

I don't rely on anyone's calculators, I do my own, thank you very much :D

I use a 120"w CH setup myself with an SR ClearPix 2 TheaterCurve. It gets me where I'm going pretty well.

For my screen, I would be in the ballpark of approximately 20 ft lamberts new and 10 ft lamberts @ end of bulb life. Figure in drops for longer zoom from there :D

Cheers,

Tom has been out working long hours at a trade show and trying to get some work done in between having some fun here and there...none of which involves sitting at the computer or watching movies.

As for the issue of light output variation with regards to zoom setting, I was told the lumen rating was 700 lumens, worst case. and until we actually get one and measure it, no one knows for sure. When we get one and measure it in a lab, I will post the DATA here.

When I say "appreciable" I'm speaking of a loss of 10% or less...measureable but NOT significant in terms of 700 vs 630 lumens...and let me also add that the lumen output rating could very well be at worst case setting...could be that we're talking 700 vs 770 lumens!

Until we or a reviewer actually measure a production unit, you are all flailing...flail on...there is plenty of unused storage space on the AVS servers. :-)

Cheers,

Tom has been out working long hours at a trade show and trying to get some work done in between having some fun here and there...none of which involves sitting at the computer or watching movies.

As for the issue of light output variation with regards to zoom setting, I was told the lumen rating was 700 lumens, worst case. and until we actually get one and measure it, no one knows for sure. When we get one and measure it in a lab, I will post the DATA here.

When I say "appreciable" I'm speaking of a loss of 10% or less...measureable but NOT significant in terms of 700 vs 630 lumens...and let me also add that the lumen output rating could very well be at worst case setting...could be that we're talking 700 vs 770 lumens!

Until we or a reviewer actually measure a production unit, you are all flailing...flail on...there is plenty of unused storage space on the AVS servers. :-)

Cheers,


Tom, I just don't understand how you could come on this forum and say, with a straight face, that sitting in front of the computer and posting on AVS forum isn't fun!

;)

Thanks for posting Tom!

Tom has been out working long hours at a trade show and trying to get some work done in between having some fun here and there...none of which involves sitting at the computer or watching movies.

As for the issue of light output variation with regards to zoom setting, I was told the lumen rating was 700 lumens, worst case. and until we actually get one and measure it, no one knows for sure. When we get one and measure it in a lab, I will post the DATA here.

When I say "appreciable" I'm speaking of a loss of 10% or less...measureable but NOT significant in terms of 700 vs 630 lumens...and let me also add that the lumen output rating could very well be at worst case setting...could be that we're talking 700 vs 770 lumens!

Until we or a reviewer actually measure a production unit, you are all flailing...flail on...there is plenty of unused storage space on the AVS servers. :-)

Cheers,

Tom, thanks for clarifying and reassuring people that the sky isn't falling :)

Tom, Any info on where JVC will be showing the RS1 in Las Vegas at the CES?

Tom,

"and let me also add that the lumen output rating could very well be at worst case setting"

Can you ask someone what the policy for defining spec's is?

Thanks

Tom,
I also want to say thanks for stepping in to address the concerns about the light output. I agree that speculation without a true test can be damaging.

Thanks, Kim

Rob,

Who said I had a straight face? :-)

Millerwill...I think we'll have a suite of some sort at Caesar's, but I'm not clear on all that yet...I'll post info here as soon as I can say for certain...

Cheers,

Millerwill...I think we'll have a suite of some sort at Caesar's, but I'm not clear on all that yet...I'll post info here as soon as I can say for certain...

Cheers,

Tom, thanks very much; I'll be watching.

When I say "appreciable" I'm speaking of a loss of 10% or less...measureable but NOT significant in terms of 700 vs 630 lumens...and let me also add that the lumen output rating could very well be at worst case setting...could be that we're talking 700 vs 770 lumens!

Now that's exciting! It's going to be hard to wait to see the data...

Thanks Tom that is excellent news indeed.

Definitely exciting news.... thanks Tom!

Based on my setup (and reassurances on light output), I've figured I can go with a 48" x 115" screen and still get 20+ ftL with a new bulb. That's with the SmX screen material. I'm thinking about curved screen with acoustic treatments (absorption) behind. I don't have room to put the speakers back there. I still like the idea of an AT screen, though, since it won't focus reflected sound on the listening position while at the same time it will reduce echo in general. I've put too much time and energy into the acoustics of the room to have a curved screen mess it up.

Now all we have to hope for is the PJ having vertical stretch functions (hint, hint).

Adding my thanks for the update as well....

I'm a HT neophyte but a pretty experienced audio guy from way back. I've always understood the human ear can detect direction horizontally but has a difficult time in the vertical axis. The shape of the outer ear can give some physical clues, but mostly vertical source direction is psycho-acoustics mixed with a little reflection/interference detection. In my experience one can easily be fooled.

Can you tell me if I'm wrong on this and just as importantly, why? I'm designing a HT (for my pre-ordered JVC!) on this assumption and don't want to make a mistake.
I used a small center like most use for about 15 years. When I finally switched to the identical full range speaker for a center channel, the performance difference was huge. There is no way to get a much small center to sound identical to the large main speakers. I think it is better to use three small speakers across the front than to use two large mains and a small center. As an audiophile from way back also, I can tell you that the SR material is extremely transparent. There is no way I will ever go back to a small center speaker. For me it was easier to use light control to compensate for the the acoustically transparent screen than to try to make a small box sound like a big one which I found impossible. Check out Sandman's screen. At a gain of 1.16 and acoustically transparent, it's hard to beat. The Screen Research is more acoustically transparent but produces a much dimmer image. Pick your trade-off.

Check out Sandman's screen. At a gain of 1.16 and acoustically transparent, it's hard to beat.

I will, thanks. Fortunately my HT is COMPLETELY light controlled from the ground up. Maybe I'll have to have a "theater" dress code... outlaw white shirts! :D

As for the issue of light output variation with regards to zoom setting, I was told the lumen rating was 700 lumens, worst case. and until we actually get one and measure it, no one knows for sure. When we get one and measure it in a lab, I will post the DATA here.

Cheers,

Tom,
I certainly would be interested in how a 10% or 20% (the other thread) is derived. The reason I ask is, the given specs http://www.jvc.co.uk/site/d-ila/#FT-06 indicate a lens with a full stop change (F=3.2-4.3) which can simply be confirmed by noting the focal length change (f=21.3-42.6mm). This doubling indeed indicates a full stop and a full stop range would indicate a halving (or doubling) of the lens transmissibility.


BTW with respect to constant aperture - perhaps we should be careful what we wish for. Since F stop is a ratio of aperture to focal length it will always change with the image size. The one constant in this instance is the aperture which is dependent on the size of the glass passing the light. In a constant aperture setup the amount of light transmission would always governed by the longest focal length - since additional elements are not going to increase the lumens gathered by the front element. In other words perhaps its better that constant aperture is not used with pjs since it allows us to take advantage of the shorter focal length for higher lumens if that is what we desire. With constant aperture it would have to be designed with the longest focal length in mind which would be the worst for lumens.

ted

What´s the fill factor on the new chip?

There really is no reason for this. I think most people here would take the attitude that you reference above, and actually be "more enamored with them" if they continued to post and explain the situation and be up front about it. We can actually be a pretty forgiving and understanding bunch of enthusiasts!
Now that's funny!

Can someone that will be attending CES please start a "RS1 unanswered questions" thread and post a link to it here? The purpose of the thread would be to collect all unanswered questions in one consolidated thread.

I picture (pun intended) it working by the thread starter using their first post as a place to consolidate all questions posted which are unanswered. This way there is a summary post at the top that people can look at to see if their question already on the list. Not only would this provide a great summary for JVC but also for the thread starter to keep all the posts organized.

A couple of questions to start us off are things like clarification on the lumens at various throws (say min, max, mid), what throw the 15,000:1 CR is at and how it may vary at min vs. max throw, what IR discretes are available, dead pixel policy, the questions many folks have about the "stretch" feature they want, and perhaps most importantly, clarification on the smaller color gamut than the HD10K, when they anticipate the first production units for consumers (as opposed to the reviewers etc) will get into our grubby little hands!

What´s the fill factor on the new chip?Dunno. Is this good enough for you?

http://www.jvc.co.uk/site/d-ila/img/hd1_feat01_pixelgap.jpg
http://www.jvc.co.uk/site/d-ila/img/hd1_feat01_pixelgap.jpg

Can someone that will be attending CES please start a "RS1 unanswered questions" thread and post a link to it here? The purpose of the thread would be to collect all unanswered questions in one consolidated thread.

I picture (pun intended) it working by the thread starter using their first post as a place to consolidate all questions posted which are unanswered. This way there is a summary post at the top that people can look at to see if their question already on the list. Not only would this provide a great summary for JVC but also for the thread starter to keep all the posts organized.

A couple of questions to start us off are things like clarification on the lumens at various throws (say min, max, mid), what throw the 15,000:1 CR is at and how it may vary at min vs. max throw, what IR discretes are available, dead pixel policy, the questions many folks have about the "stretch" feature they want, and perhaps most importantly, clarification on the smaller color gamut than the HD10K, when they anticipate the first production units for consumers (as opposed to the reviewers etc) will get into our grubby little hands!

I'm going to attend CES so I will be happy to collect more questions from folks and post the responses here or on another thread. CES is still a month away though and more information from JVC might be coming out between now and then so why don't we wait until the week before CES to collect the questions that people want answered?

Dunno. Is this good enough for you?

http://www.jvc.co.uk/site/d-ila/img/hd1_feat01_pixelgap.jpg
http://www.jvc.co.uk/site/d-ila/img/hd1_feat01_pixelgap.jpg

Using 1/2 of the .5um gap from the link above with the pixel sizes in the Doi white paper yields a 94% fill ratio which is also what the white paper specs. The JVC marketing specs show 88% though which just happens to be the number calculated if a person plugs in a .5um gap size rather than 1/2 of it. So the two different numbers might reflect how the number is calculated.

I'm going to attend CES so I will be happy to collect more questions from folks and post the responses here or on another thread. CES is still a month away though and more information from JVC might be coming out between now and then so why don't we wait until the week before CES to collect the questions that people want answered?

Great idea and thanks for doing it...

Now that's funny!

:D

It seems like some people here don't think terms like calm, forgiving, laid back and heady (as opposed to anal) apply to members of AVS! :p :D :p

"The JVC marketing specs show 88% though which just happens to be the number calculated if a person plugs in a .5um gap size rather than 1/2 of it. So the two different numbers might reflect how the number is calculated."

? There's only one way to calculate it correctly.

"The JVC marketing specs show 88% though which just happens to be the number calculated if a person plugs in a .5um gap size rather than 1/2 of it. So the two different numbers might reflect how the number is calculated."

? There's only one way to calculate it correctly.

Agreed. In fact I originally phrased it as "incorrectly calculated as 88%", but I didn't think that was very diplomatic so I rephrased it :) Also note that the calculations are based on 8um square pixels which if I recall is what the white paper cited the pixel dimensions of the new panels. I went back to check the Doi white paper to confirm the 8um dimension but it has been removed.

If the visible pixel is 8um x 8um, and the total with 1/2 the gap is 8.5um x 8.5um (0.25um on each side), then why isn't the fill factor 88%? (8*8)/(8.5*8.5) = 0.886

It's just useless speculation without the actual dimensions.

--Dan

If the visible pixel is 8um x 8um, and the total with 1/2 the gap is 8.5um x 8.5um (0.25um on each side), then why isn't the fill factor 88%? (8*8)/(8.5*8.5) = 0.886

It's just useless speculation without the actual dimensions.

--Dan

Doh! Yes, you're right. Sorry for the confusion, I had incorrectly used 8*8/(8.25*8.25). Doing the calculation properly with 8um square pixels and a .5um gap yields a fill factor of 88%. Which unfortunately still doesn't jive with the Doi white paper (which may be why it was removed).

The latest marketing literature from JVC says 8um square pixels, .5um gap and a 88% fill ratio (which is unfortunately down from 90%+ on the old panels and on par with 1080p DLP).
http://www.jvc-victor.co.jp/english/press/2006/dla-hd1.pdf

Mark:

The numbers I've seen thrown around are 93-95% fill for true 1080p DMDs.

At one point, there was a link to the specs on TI's DLP site but of course they do a good job of keeping the good information hidden from the marketing site :D

Cheers,

John
1080p dmd is certainly not 93-95 percent. If people check the specifications that Digital Projection uses the answer is 87 percent.
Also this latest discussion to some extent show that the math you use affects fill factor. You can not use a single pixel to do the math. Two pixels SHARE an inter pixel gap don´t they.
Remember that d-ila is different from dlp in that d-ila has a continous liquid crystal layer.

I'm a HT neophyte but a pretty experienced audio guy from way back. I've always understood the human ear can detect direction horizontally but has a difficult time in the vertical axis. The shape of the outer ear can give some physical clues, but mostly vertical source direction is psycho-acoustics mixed with a little reflection/interference detection. In my experience one can easily be fooled.

Can you tell me if I'm wrong on this and just as importantly, why? I'm designing a HT (for my pre-ordered JVC!) on this assumption and don't want to make a mistake.

Dennis Erskine posted regarding this a while back as well. Hoever he did maske the distintion (as does John in his post as well) that generally it's above ear level that we have a harder time localizing sound, whereas below we can do so more accurately.

And additional negative of having a speaker below the screen is that the center channel is then likely obscured for addtional rows of seating.

So I'm in agreement with John... it's a matter of the tradeoffs that are right for you. I decided to go with a high-gain non-perf screen, and mounted my center in the soffit above my screen (angled downward at 30 degrees), and I'm very pleased.

So far, nobody I've asked after watching some content in my theater has said they noticed the center channel audio was coming from above the screen.

Doh! Yes, you're right. Sorry for the confusion, I had incorrectly used 8*8/(8.25*8.25). Doing the calculation properly with 8um square pixels and a .5um gap yields a fill factor of 88%. Which unfortunately still doesn't jive with the Doi white paper (which may be why it was removed).

The latest marketing literature from JVC says 8um square pixels, .5um gap and a 88% fill ratio (which is unfortunately down from 90%+ on the old panels and on par with 1080p DLP).
http://www.jvc-victor.co.jp/english/press/2006/dla-hd1.pdf

This is really getting confusing. In this link below the following paragraph also states the gap between pixels has gotten smaller with the micron measurement. Doesn't that have to increase the fill factor?

http://www.jvc.co.uk/site/d-ila/

"Newly developed 0.7-inch full HD D-ILA device

Conventional D-ILA devices suffer from surface unevenness, minute gaps and irregularities that are unavoidable using normal semiconductor manufacturing processes. Discontinuities between individual pixel cells or where the pixel cells are connected with the underlying semiconductor structure disturb the orientation of the liquid crystals, and the resulting diffraction and other effects lead to stray light. In the manufacture of this newly developed device, technology has been adopted to ensure extreme planarization; this reduces to an absolute minimum such stray light.
Moreover, as a result of employing new liquid crystal materials and orientation technologies, the gap between pixel cells has been optimised, reducing it from the previous 3.2 microns to 2.3 microns, cutting light loss from the liquid crystal layer itself, and significantly improving the compensation accuracy. Such new technologies have realised the extremely high device contrast ratio of 20,000:1, and at the same time halved response time from 8msec (Tr+Td) to 4msec."

And additional negative of having a speaker below the screen is that the center channel is then likely obscured for addtional rows of seating.

What if you angled the speaker upward?

John
1080p dmd is certainly not 93-95 percent. If people check the specifications that Digital Projection uses the answer is 87 percent.
Also this latest discussion to some extent show that the math you use affects fill factor. You can not use a single pixel to do the math. Two pixels SHARE an inter pixel gap don´t they.
Remember that d-ila is different from dlp in that d-ila has a continous liquid crystal layer.

Ohlson:

I really wish I could find that link... But TI had at one point a datasheet showing (I think) a 95% fill. Perhaps using a single pixel as the calculation.

Best,

What if you angled the speaker upward?

What about it. Same problem.

I've done that enough to know :-)

Cheers,

If people check the specifications that Digital Projection uses the answer is 87 percent.
Also this latest discussion to some extent show that the math you use affects fill factor. You can not use a single pixel to do the math. Two pixels SHARE an inter pixel gap don´t they.
Remember that d-ila is different from dlp in that d-ila has a continous liquid crystal layer.

87% fill factor for 1080p DLP DMD jives with the numbers that I've read too.

You also make a good point that the LC material above the pixel should be taken into account for fill factor measurements because it smooths the transition across the .5um gap.

The nature of the gap itself is also food for thought. According to the new JVC literature the older panels had a noisy interpixel gap because of liquid crystal irregularities. DLP on the otherhand has an off state between the pixels creating a more pronounced black border around each pixel. This makes SDE more pronounced, but it also makes it sharper compared to a noisy but non black border. With the new JVC planarization process, the interpixel gap is no longer noisy which should improve sharpness even though the transition between pixels is smooth due to fringing.

I decided to go with a high-gain non-perf screen, and mounted my center in the soffit above my screen (angled downward at 30 degrees), and

Yes, this is my plan also for exactly the same reason... direct access to the rear's ears.

This is really getting confusing. In this link below the following paragraph also states the gap between pixels has gotten smaller with the micron measurement. Doesn't that have to increase the fill factor?


The translation isn't perfect which I think contributes to the confusion. But in that paragraph, I believe they are talking about the thickness of the liquid crystal layer itself rather than the spacing between pixels.

What if you angled the speaker upward?

You'd need to do the math (or some drawing) to see if your ears had a "line of sight" the the area below your screen where the speaker would be. Most of the below-the-screen setups tend not be this way.

And even if it does, it's still easier to localize sounds coming from below ear level. And often times dialoge should be eminating from peoples heads on the top-half of the screen, which makes voices coming from their shoes even stranger.

:d

^^^^^^^^^^

Best Feature of the RS1 to date :)

very funny ....is that from the prototype or the production model? Now we'll all be upset if they don't deliver with this remote!

"it's still easier to localize sounds coming from below ear level."

That's not been my experience.

With my current setup, bottom of a 133" screen 20" from the floor and center speaker just below, I have to try to get voices to come from it, by looking at the speaker and concentrating.

With my previous setup, center on top of a 61" RPTV, I was occasionally bothered by voices coming from above the picture, the top of which was about 5' high.

There's a lot bigger distance between the speaker and the actors' mouths now than before.

very funny ....is that from the prototype or the production model? Now we'll all be upset if they don't deliver with this remote!

I'm sure delivering that remote would be no problem. Getting it to actually work would be another matter entirely...

The translation isn't perfect which I think contributes to the confusion. But in that paragraph, I believe they are talking about the thickness of the liquid crystal layer itself rather than the spacing between pixels.
From reading the Japanese press release they weren't describing the pixel gap but instead were explaining how their new alignment layer changes the orientation of the liquid crystal molecules thus reducing their gap space to 2.3 microns. Anyone know how many liquid crystal molecules there are per pixel?

From reading the Japanese press release they weren't describing the pixel gap but instead were explaining how their new alignment layer changes the orientation of the liquid crystal molecules thus reducing their gap space to 2.3 microns. Anyone know how many liquid crystal molecules there are per pixel?

The way that I read it is that there are two main themes being discussed in that paragraph. The first is the new planarization which provides better LC orientation and uniformity (which you mentioned) which also improves polarization and contrast. Then it goes on to talk about better panel response time and reduction of light loss both of which are effects of a thinner LC layer. So I take the 2.3 micron gap to mean the LC layer thickness but I might be wrong. If the 2.3 micron gap were to mean the spacing between LC molecules only a few molecules would span a pixel which isn't accurate.

The way that I read it is that there are two main themes being discussed in that paragraph. The first is the new planarization which provides better LC orientation and uniformity (which you mentioned) which also improves polarization and contrast. Then it goes on to talk about better panel response time and reduction of light loss both of which are effects of a thinner LC layer. So I take the 2.3 micron gap to mean the LC layer thickness but I might be wrong. If the 2.3 micron gap were to mean the spacing between LC molecules only a few molecules would span a pixel which isn't accurate.
I think the Japanese PR is clearer than the one from the UK. In it they don't say anything about the LC layer thickness, just that the new orientation of the LC molecules reduce their gap width and thus less light being lost. Maybe the new LC layer is thinner due to the new orientation of the molecules. Would 3 LC molecules per pixel be sufficient? One each for RGB?

Any word on HDMI 1.3 yet?

HDMI 1.2 i think.

will this pj have great benefit from a separate video processor or will a multi-input hub/switch be all that is needed?

thanks

I'll wait till next year then. Oh well.

I already have a pearl.

"it's still easier to localize sounds coming from below ear level."

That's not been my experience.

With my current setup, bottom of a 133" screen 20" from the floor and center speaker just below, I have to try to get voices to come from it, by looking at the speaker and concentrating.

With my previous setup, center on top of a 61" RPTV, I was occasionally bothered by voices coming from above the picture, the top of which was about 5' high.

There's a lot bigger distance between the speaker and the actors' mouths now than before.

Well... I have no explanation for that. Maybe your ears are installed upside down? ;-)

Seriously, I'm simply mentioning what somebody much smarter than I in that field has stated... and I'm sure that, as with most perceptual models, there are variances.

I have amost the exact same setup as you do: 133" screen about 22" off the floor, and I never have issues with the speaker above.

Noah,
A RPTV is a wonderful resonance device. Put a speaker on top of it, and you will not be able to get the RPTV to shut the hell up. The resulting distortions would be VERY distracting. BTW, I am a firm believer in the use of quality acoustical screens which are pretty much essential if you wish to have good room acoustics - a large acoustically reflective surface across the front wall is a definite no-no if you wish to have strong image localization and vocal clarity.

a large acoustically reflective surface across the front wall is a definite no-no if you wish to have strong image localization and vocal clarity.

Now THAT's an interesting point. My screen will be 10' wide, a very substantial surface.

erkq,
The problem is acoustical reflection off of the front wall and the resulting potential for slap echoes, comb filtering, etc. It can do some pretty nasty things to an otherwise well designed room. Most discussions on the benefits of acoustical screens centre on the added realism of using 3 identical speakers across the front positioned at the same elevation. This is an obvious benefit, but of great importance as well is the benefit of treating the front wall to absorb the backwave from the front speakers as well as sound bouncing around the room from the various speakers.

Noah,
A RPTV is a wonderful resonance device. Put a speaker on top of it, and you will not be able to get the RPTV to shut the hell up. The resulting distortions would be VERY distracting.

I have used several different center channels (Linn 5120 and VMPS RM30C) ontop of my RPTV for years and have never noticed the "resulting distortions". Granted, my RPTV is a Pioneer Elite CRT (known for being very well built) and my current center (VMPS RM30C) is around 110 pounds (see: http://www.vmpsaudio.com/RM30.htm), but I have never noticed such distortions. Now, I also have around 9 bass/mid/high range traps (one on the ceiling; four in the corners; two flanking the RPTV and matching stand; two for two of my subs), but before I purchased these, there were no distortions that I noticed and certainly nothing that rose to a "distracting" level. In fact, I must say that the system sounds incredible.

I should note that my RPTV weighs 330 pounds. Also, I have a matching rack that partially supports my center channel. This rack is filled with a 60 pound (or so) 5 channel amp, a 60 (or 80?) pound two channel amp, a 30-50 pound DVD player, a 30-50 pound preamp, a battery-powered DAC, a replay, a monster power conditioner, a TV receiver, and something else I can't remember right now. And, I put a qsc 3402 amp on top of my center channel. That's a lot of weight. Oh, and all my electronics are on rubber bumpers (I forget what they're called).

As long as we are comparing, my 4 surrounds weigh ~100 pounds each, my mains weigh ~180 pounds each, my center weighs 260 pounds, and my subwoofer weighs 350 pounds - I built them all out of 1.5" thick MDF. The front three are biamped, so I am using 5 stereo amps (80 pounds each) for a total of 10 channels @ 450 WPC for my system (6 channels for the front three and 4 channels for the surrrounds) plus 2 channels @ 1250 WPC to power my sub. So adding it all up I have about 1850 pounds between my speakers and amps...Do I win a prize? :p

On the acoustics note, I've been considering making a 48" x 115" 2.35 screen with SmX material and putting absorptive panels behind it. Hopefully the vertical stretch function will be implemented before release (or subsequently in a firmware upgrade). Since there will only be a few inches behind the screen, and I'll only have one row of seats, I think I'll put 3 high end center channels below it (Selah Audio) and use them as LCRs. Having identical speakers up front should help with realism, and having them just below the screen and with proper spacing should help integration. I don't think I'll have a problem with having them below the screen since no heads or furniture will be between the listeners and the speakers. We'll see. I have extenively treated the rest of the room, so having the front done properly will finish the room off nicely. I'm strongly considering curving the screen so having it AT will be even more important acoustically.

I have this thread set to instant notification so that I can find out any new information on the DLA-RS1. can we please move the discussion about audio accoustics to the proper forum? My mail notification alert is driving my wife crazy. :o Also, is there any chance we can combine the two active RS1 threads?

Thanks,
Jason

Jason ... let me put in (hopefully) a last post on the audio issue since I typed it up and then noticed your post when I did "Preview Post" ... apologies, but it is relevant to some of the questions asked. (I too am following this for RS1 info and realize what you mean!)

I had a Toshiba TW65H80 RPTV for a year in an otherwise well treated room before I moved to a FP system. The front wall (behind the TV) was treated with 50% absorption and I'd always thought that the sound stage was very good. The center speaker sat on top of the RPTV (which itself was solid and weighed in at 350 lbs -- the TV I mean) and I'd angled it slightly downwards with absorbers behind the speaker. I had also put absorbers on the sides of the RPTV and all along the front lower half (this made a difference).

The first thing I recall noticing when I removed the TV was how the stage opened up. The improvement was remarkable (to my ears at least) and my only explanation is that I had a large reflective "box" sitting bang in the middle of the room. Eliminating this must've made all the difference. I now have a 120" screen which is not acoustically transparent. I've tried playing music with and without the screen. There is a difference (especially when the experiment is done within a few minutes of each other), but its nowhere as dramatic as the removal of the RPTV. Also, I'd be hard pressed to argue which was "better" -- with the screen in place or not. I think that the reason for this is quite likely that the screen itself is not completely reflective --- being flexible fabric it probably acts more like an absorber than a reflector. The center channel is just at the base of the screen and slightly angled upwards ... I have not tried putting it in the middle of the screen ;)

Now ... folks, don't do what I just did and listen to Jason!! :D

So adding it all up I have about 1850 pounds between my speakers and amps...Do I win a prize? :p

Yes. You can pick it up at the chiropractor's office..... :cool:

OK, MY last post on acoustics.

Sankar,
Properly, treat the wall behind the screen and then try comparing the sound with and without the screen in place. You should notice a BIG difference. Replacing one acoustically reflective surface (non-AT screen) with another acoustically reflective surface (untreated wall) will not make any real difference.

Now I will shut the **** up.

Guys, can we move the AT screen discussion to another thread? It really has nothing to do with the RS1. It's also a subject that is impacted by many tradeoffs, including preference for two channel music vs multi-channel soundtracks. Many audiophiles prefer the liveliness of an untreated back wall when listening to two channel music so it's an uphill battle to convince that camp that putting a screen on that wall is any worse than hanging two sheets in front of a speaker. I have no problems with people expanding on the virtues of either setup but this isn't even the right forum, let alone the right thread for it. How 'bout if someone starts a thread in the screen forum?

I think the Japanese PR is clearer than the one from the UK. In it they don't say anything about the LC layer thickness, just that the new orientation of the LC molecules reduce their gap width and thus less light being lost. Maybe the new LC layer is thinner due to the new orientation of the molecules. Would 3 LC molecules per pixel be sufficient? One each for RGB?

I assume this is the paragraph that you refer to:

"It also employs new liquid crystal materials and improved alignment technology to reduce the gap between liquid crystals to just 2.3 microns, from 3.2 microns previously. As a result, light loss from the liquid crystal layer is reduced to dramatically improve compensation accuracy."

Remember that LCOS uses a vertically aligned LC structure so that when they talk about alignment it usually means up and down rather than side to side. They do say the gap between liquid crystals is 2.3 microns, but I think this is just a mangled translation similar to the next sentence, "light loss from the liquid crystal is reduced to dramatically improve compensation accuracy". (?)

I checked into the LC layer thickness of the older DILA panels and they were 3 microns and I know the new panels have a thinner LC layer to improve response times so I'm reasonably certain that this is what they meant to say.

The mention of light loss is interesting because a thinner LC layer will also reduce light loss. Think of LCOS as a mirror with a liquid crystal shutter in front of it. When the shutter is fully open the light passes through the LC layer to the mirror and it's reflected back out. When the shutter is closed the light is turned off. Since the light has to pass through the LC layer twice (on the way in and on the way out), any absorption in the LC layer will be doubly magnified and reduce the light exiting the projector. By reducing the thickness of the LC layer they reduce the amount of light absorbed (lost) by this layer.

Mark,

Thanks for taking the time to explain this as my understanding of LCOS is rudimentary at best. It is a bit confusing when looking at the diagram of the new alignment layer for the LC molecules and trying to get it to jive with the text. ;)

Mark P.
Are you not confusing things now. The LC layer determines how much and what light is wanted to exit the lens. Light that has a certain polarization is supposed to end its life in light traps inside the projector.

Mark P.
Are you not confusing things now. The LC layer determines how much and what light is wanted to exit the lens. Light that has a certain polarization is supposed to end its life in light traps inside the projector.

Ohlson, it is a simple analogy because it doesn't refer to the dichroic pre-polarizor, PBS, filters or other components needed in the optical block. But the analogy to a shutter is still correct if a person thinks of those components along with the LC layer as the shutter mechanism. In actual practice though, the LC layer forces specific polarization on the light which determines how much light exits the lens. Light isn't actually trapped though it's just repolarized, recovered and reused.

This does bring up an important point to clarify though. Many people think that LCOS being a reflective LC technology accomplishes the reflection off of the liquid crystal. The reflection actually occurs in the polished metal layer underneath the LC layer. This is what I referred to as the mirror in the analogy. The LC layer in front of the mirror forces a specific polarization of the light which is then used to determine (with other polarizors) how much light hits the screen (ie the shutter).

The main point regarding the JVC marketing page that I was making though is that a small amount of light can be absorbed in the LC layer (and also in the substrate) and any light that is lost reduces the light output. It's an unwanted device parasitic effect. So by raising the polarization efficiency (with new wiregrid technology), they can in turn reduce the thickness of the LC layer and still achieve the same degree of polzarization. The thinner LC layer though reduces the parasitic light loss which increases light output by a small degree (I believe the Doi white paper said 5%) which is what I think the JVC marketing blurb was trying to say. If we were to assume that the gap reduction referred to decreased spacing between the LC molecules, the result would be to make the LC layer more dense which you would think would increase light absorption parasitics and therefore decrease light output (the opposite of what the white paper was trying to get at). It is a confusing paragraph though and I may be wrong, but that's my best take on it.

At any rate, I hope I didn't confuse things too much by trying to keep my analogy simple :)

Any word on HDMI 1.3 yet?

Why would this matter to you, or others?

MH

Yes. I would like to see HDMI 1.3. Save me upgrading for a while longer.

Yes. I would like to see HDMI 1.3. Save me upgrading for a while longer.Oh yes. The never ending cycle of upgrades... :rolleyes:

The way I see this is that you'd have to have not only HDMI v1.3 hardware, but up to 16-bit processing/panel-driving inside the projector to make it "future-proof", and that isn't going to happen for some time. I doubt the first 1.3 display devices will handle the deeper of the Deep Color bit-depths and, even if they do, they're likely to scale down to 8- or 10-bit for driving the panels.

I admit that the ability to pass 10-bit 4:4:4 RGB or YCbCr to the RS1 would be very nice, but let's face it: the image, by all accounts, is stunning and you'd still need to upgrade eventually for those higher bit-depths.

I hear people say that HDMI 1.3 wont make much a difference for displays because there is nothing imminent that can output this new color depth. Am I missing something? When they start selling new graphic cards with 1.3 HDMI for HTPC wont that make a difference on game play and other computer based graphics for displays that can handle the increase color depth?

In no way would I not consider a projector because of a lack of hdmi 1.3. I think 1.3 is much more useful in a pre/pro for the newer audio formats, and is way overated in terms of what it will do for real world video performance. JMO.

In no way would I not consider a projector because of a lack of hdmi 1.3. I think 1.3 is much more useful in a pre/pro for the newer audio formats, and is way overated in terms of what it will do for real world video performance. JMO.


100% agreed. It will be a few years before all components in the video chain (starting from the source) are utilizing 1.3 video capabilities and even then I have to wonder how visible those changes will be.

It is funny to me how many people try to disqualify this projector before even seeing it ! This week it's 1.3 HDMI last week it was light lost due to zoom. The week before it was fan noise. And I am sure the list will go on.I am sure scaling for 2.35:1 and an anamorphic lens is on the way either it does it for 2.35 or you have to move the lens for 16x9 or it dosen't do it at all. Whats next ? Johnathan :rolleyes:

It is funny to me how many people try to disqualify this projector before even seeing it ! This week it's 1.3 HDMI last week it was light lost due to zoom. The week before it was fan noise. And I am sure the list will go on.I am sure scaling for 2.35:1 and an anamorphic lens is on the way either it does it for 2.35 or you have to move the lens for 16x9 or it dosen't do it at all. Whats next ? Johnathan :rolleyes:

How about this one: according to the UK forum thread (http://www.avforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3926421&postcount=57) , there may not be a way to thread an ND filter ... tsk, tsk ... that is a no-no! ;)

How about this one: according to the UK forum thread (http://www.avforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3926421&postcount=57) , there may not be a way to thread an ND filter ... tsk, tsk ... that is a no-no! ;)I'm gutted by this. Looks like I'll have to put up with around 40 ft lamberts in high mode! :eek: :D :D :D

How about this one: according to the UK forum thread (http://www.avforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3926421&postcount=57) , there may not be a way to thread an ND filter ... tsk, tsk ... that is a no-no! ;)

Wouldn't stop me.*





*from mounting a filter that is. I would likely go blind with the output this unit has.

ted

In no way would I not consider a projector because of a lack of hdmi 1.3. I think 1.3 is much more useful in a pre/pro for the newer audio formats, and is way overated in terms of what it will do for real world video performance. JMO.

Actually hdmi 1.3 is also way over rated in terms of what it can do for real world audio performance too. The vast majority of HD discs are encoded in the "advanced" mode, which means that the HD player MUST decode the new audio codecs internally before sending it to the audio processor....and can do so perfectly with hdmi 1.1!

Yes. I would like to see HDMI 1.3. Save me upgrading for a while longer.
I'm not sure it would. I read somewhere that Sharp is producing LCD panels with 100,000 to one contrast. The 15,000 to one contrast of this projector is going to be old news in a year or two.Then you'll want that too :) . I think we are still a few years off from rapid advances in digital projection. Still, I am certain I can be happy with this projector for several years.

Wouldn't stop me.*
And it shouldn't stop you if you need an ND filter. We put ND filters on motion picture and HD cameras all day and never use threads. You can easily use a 3x3 filter and make a simple slotted tray for it that is attached to a base that can be put in front of your lens. Light reflection/leakage can be controlled. If you are using an anamorphic lens, you can come up with a way to attach it to the rear of that. The Panamorphs would be particularly friendly to that. I don't like the idea of a filter so close to the front element of the lens and all that heat anyway.

Actually hdmi 1.3 is also way over rated in terms of what it can do for real world audio performance too. The vast majority of HD discs are encoded in the "advanced" mode, which means that the HD player MUST decode the new audio codecs internally before sending it to the audio processor....and can do so perfectly with hdmi 1.1!

Good info Rob. I did not know this.

Any word on HDMI 1.3 yet?
You will be able to send video from a source with an HDMI 1.3 transmitter to the projector (just as you can to any projector with an HDMI 1.1/1.2/1.3 receiver).

However, I suspect that what you are really want to know is if the JVC will support any features that are included as NEW OPTIONAL HDMI 1.3 video features (i.e. some Deep Color modes perhaps)? I haven't seen any reports that it would, but I have no personal knowledge about it. The point that I want to make is that just because future products will have HDMI 1.3 transmitters or receivers, doesn't mean they support any particular (or any at all) OPTIONAL HDMI 1.3 feature. So simply knowing if a product "has HDMI 1.3" tells you nothing about whether or not it has a feature such as Deep Color. Instead, you would have to ask the question, "Does 'display A' with its HDMI 1.3 interface implement Deep Color, and what Deep Color formats does it implement?". Then you would have to ask, "Does 'source B' with its HDMI 1.3 interface implement Deep Color, and what Deep Color formats does it implement that are compatible with Deep Color formats implemented by 'display A'. (What value HDMI 1.3 Deep Color may or may not have is a separate issue that I've written about in other threads.)

Unfortunately, over the next year or so marketeers will advertise that their products have HDMI 1.3 and some people will buy them simply for that reason even if they add no new video features at all. Eventually all products will have HDMI 1.3 (except those that have the first HDMI 1.4 chips that support Extreme Deep Color :)). After all, who asks today if a product with an HDMI interface implements 12-bit YCbCr 4:2:2, or 8-bit YCbCr 4:4:4 processing?

After all, who asks today if a product with an HDMI interface implements 12-bit YCbCr 4:2:2, or 8-bit YCbCr 4:4:4 processing?

ANSWER: You as well as those of us who have read your posting.... ;)

Hello:

Can anyone tell me what would be the absolute maximum screen size that one would use with the RS1 while being able to enjoy the full benefits of 1080p.
If + or - 144" diagonally is out of the question, any recommendations on what projector(s) would be best fit.

Thanks in advance.

Hello:

Can anyone tell me what would be the absolute maximum screen size that one would use with the RS1 while being able to enjoy the full benefits of 1080p.
If + or - 144" diagonally is out of the question, any recommendations on what projector(s) would be best fit.

Thanks in advance.

144" in 1080? I think even a calibrated Optima HD-81 would be challenged by that size. You would have to put up with the position/viewing angle limitations of a very high gain screen and have total light control. 3-chip DLPs could do it but are very expensive in 1080p.

From what I've gathered I'd say the RS1 is not up to that task.

I think you'd have to stack two PJs to properly light up a 144" screen.

Basically you're getting 13ft lamberts or less depending on throw/light loss results with a 1.3 gain screen with a new bulb.
I don't consider this unusable at all, but it will be dim when the bulb is worn.

If you can mount the projector really close to the viewing position and you don't have really wide seats or multiple rows of seats, you could try a High Power screen to get something more punchy, but this would need to be tested - don't buy a setup like this blind.

If you want to add other projectors to the mix, I would wait until CES - there will be a few new 1080 pjs there - hopefully giving a wider veriety of light outputs.

It is fine to toss ft lamberts around, however, I think that many/most people would be shocked to see how little light they are getting off of their screen and still find it very watchable. Keep in mind that the eye's response to brightness is logarithmic. A 20-30% increase in light output is barely noticeable - just switch your projector from low to high lamp mode to see what I mean. BTW, Elliot who had a chance to check out a RS1 on a 120" diagonal GreyHawk. The RS1 was set to normal lamp mode (not high) and was positioned near the end of its zoom range. This means that the RS1 could be outputting 30-40% more light in high lamp mode and positioned as close as possible to the screen. Elliot reported that the RS1 looked plenty bright and was much brighter and punchier than the Pearl it was compared against (Pearl was in high lamp mode). I think that provided you have complete light control and that the RS1 is positioned as close as possible to the screen, you should be fine with the RS1 on a 144" diagonal 1.3 gain screen.

I tend to agree with the above. In a dark room, our eyes can adjust rather easily to what by most measurements would be a "dim" picture.
Another option would be to go with a higher gain screen such as the Dalite HighPower and as long as you can stay within the 15 degree cone your gain should exceed 2. That may be enough to tip the balance.

"I think that many/most people would be shocked to see how little light they are getting off of their screen and still find it very watchable. Keep in mind that the eye's response to brightness is logarithmic"

in addition to this, the human eye in coordination with the brain has dynamic ability to adjust perceived light levels. this increase occurs between the time lights are turned out and levels off 30 mins after. maximum benefit from this assumes, of course, a light controlled environment

It is fine to toss ft lamberts around, however, I think that many/most people would be shocked to see how little light they are getting off of their screen and still find it very watchable.


Agree completely. In fact as I've posted previously I recently had this experience, measuring just 160 lumens and 7.5ftL off my screen when I would have guessed I was getting at least twice that since the picture still looks plenty bright.

The fact that at an absolute minimum I'll be getting 3 TIMES the brightness out of the RS1 than I have now, well I'm actually a bit concerned it'll be too bright! :) That's a good problem to have actually. I'll likely just run in lower lamp mode and enjoy a quieter pj (less fan noise most likely in lower lamp mode) until it starts to dim, then move it into high lamp mode.



Keep in mind that the eye's response to brightness is logarithmic. A 20-30% increase in light output is barely noticeable - just switch your projector from low to high lamp mode to see what I mean.

I measure about a 40% increase in brightness on my temporary Sharp 10K as I move from low to high lamp mode (although of course the black level gets destroyed so I don't run with this). This is definitely a significant and noticeable change when done A/B style. However if I was to leave the room and someone switched the lamp mode while I was away I wouldn't notice. So while the difference is not subtle in A/B testing it effectively is in real-world scenarios.

It's not that it can't be done, it's just not ideal is what I was getting at.

I know often when I first set a PJ up I'll set it up all zoomed in and throwing a large image and I'm often happy with what I see, but once you zoom out and shrink the image down you quickly realize how much better the image could be. So while the RS1 might be able to light up a normal 144" screen (not a super high gain screen), it would certainly look much better throwing a smaller image.

I guess I'd just much prefer a superior image, even if it meant going with a smaller screen... or using a brighter PJ for the larger screen.

There is a great preview from cine4home on the RS1, (HD1), today.

Francis

There is a great preview from cine4home on the RS1, (HD1), today.
There is? I don't see one on their site. Do you have a link?

There is a great preview from cine4home on the RS1, (HD1), today.

Francis

Do you have a link? I didn't see anything on their website. :confused:

Look on our site, there's a thread now.

Look on our site, there's a thread now.
Still don't see it - got a link?

Still don't see it - got a link?

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=768789

OK - one thing I need to know!!!


Because I hate Manual Lens.


Is there a LOCK so the **** doesn't lose Focus or Position?


And Also does the Lens Cap connect to the lens or the UNIT!


IT should connect to the unit as to not MOVE or defocus the LENS

My 1 Major Issue with the HS51!

Personally I like the manual lens better. It find it much easier to find the exact sweet spot for the focus by dialing it in by hand.

that was not my question

OK - one thing I need to know!!!


Because I hate Manual Lens.


Is there a LOCK so the **** doesn't lose Focus or Position?


And Also does the Lens Cap connect to the lens or the UNIT!


IT should connect to the unit as to not MOVE or defocus the LENS

My 1 Major Issue with the HS51!

Yeah, those are huge issues for sure! :rolleyes:

If you every single time go to use the projector and have to focus it, yes it is a huge issue.

If you every single time go to use the projector and have to focus it, yes it is a huge issue.


Why would you have to focus everytime you use the PJ unless someone was messing with the focus?

If you every single time go to use the projector and have to focus it, yes it is a huge issue.

Well, I would certainly agree with that. What I don't understand is why you would even think that this would happen.

My current pj is 3 1/2 years old with manual focus. It has never lost its focus, despite the booming bass (2 subwoofers for a total of 900 watts) in my HT. It seems to me that what you are really questioning is the build quality of the JVC.

Why would you have to focus everytime you use the PJ unless someone was messing with the focus?

If the lens cap attaches to the lens, the act of placing or removing the lens cap can change the focus setting. I have this issue with the cheap PJ we use at my office.

Personally, I find it to be only a very minor annoyance, but it is an issue.

If the lens cap attaches to the lens, the act of placing or removing the lens cap can change the focus setting. I have this issue with the cheap PJ we use at my office.

Personally, I find it to be only a very minor annoyance, but it is an issue.

I'm ceiling mounting my PJ and I'm not about to take off and put on the lens cap after every use. Is this something that is done by anyone on a regular basis?

I'm ceiling mounting my PJ and I'm not about to take off and put on the lens cap after every use. Is this something that is done by anyone on a regular basis?

Again, in 3 1/2 years, I have never used my lens cap. The PJ is ceiling mounted, so nobody is going to be touching/hitting the lens. When it gets dusty, I wipe it off with a microfiber towel.

Again, in 3 1/2 years, I have never used my lens cap. The PJ is ceiling mounted, so nobody is going to be touching/hitting the lens. When it gets dusty, I wipe it off with a microfiber towel.
Same here. I haven't put the lens cap on since it was mounted.

sounds like a deal breaker to me. could someone ask tom :rolleyes:

muncey

well, i just put a piece of tape over the focussing knob. keeps the focus locked so that even the vibration of the pj doesnt throw it off any more (HX2U).

it seems this projector has tremendous ability to shift and tilt the focal plane. Does that mean no more inverted mounts?! Would there be ANY advantage to an inverted ceiling mount in this pj? In particular, changing mounting orientation has been attributed as the cause for lamp flicker in other uhp bulb driven projectors. Since these pjs are probably ested at the factory in the right side up orientation, it would make sense to keep it that way.

well, i just put a piece of tape over the focussing knob. keeps the focus locked so that even the vibration of the pj doesnt throw it off any more (HX2U).

it seems this projector has tremendous ability to shift and tilt the focal plane. Does that mean no more inverted mounts?! Would there be ANY advantage to an inverted ceiling mount in this pj? In particular, changing mounting orientation has been attributed as the cause for lamp flicker in other uhp bulb driven projectors. Since these pjs are probably ested at the factory in the right side up orientation, it would make sense to keep it that way.

Maybe a stupid question, but how would you ceiling mount it if you don't invert it? Aren't the mount screws on the bottom of the unit? Would you have to build a suspended shelf?

Yes - a suspended shelf - like this one
http://www.cine4home.de/Specials/JVC_HD1/Pict55.jpg
This is from the http://www.cine4home.de preview.
Let me know if this is considered bandwidth steeling and I'll remove it

In answer to the question.
We'll probably only know this once launched, but using the extreme lens shift to do this while the PJ is above the top of the screen can have negative effects on the PQ. So it might not be worth it.

Why would you have to focus everytime you use the PJ unless someone was messing with the focus?

I had an HS51 and HS51A - They always lost focus, and the lens cap attached to the the lens, witch also defocused the lens as well as moved the lens

I had an HS51 and HS51A - They always lost focus, and the lens cap attached to the the lens, witch also defocused the lens as well as moved the lens

Note to self - never buy a Sony PJ. The ratio of Sony PJ problem threads to other companies is staggering. QC is not a high priority it would seem - but that also might have to do with the number they sell as well. Either way, not too crazy about their current options given the competition.