Has anyone seen an RS-1 in direct comparison to a 1080p single-chip DLP projector
such as the XV-Z20000 or HT3000?

I'm somewhat concerned that the D-ILA technology used by the RS-1 will result in softer images than those of the DLPs. Perhaps a comparison to the Ruby is relevant--I was disappointed with the Ruby precisely because of its image softness compared to DLP. Is the RS-1 any better in this regard?

The price of the RS-1 is certainly attractive, but not if the image is soft. Some people rave about image brightness and others go for extreme color accuracy, but I'm a sharpness addict.

These concerns are exhaustively discussed already in these threads

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=785485
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=778292

I think that here's little doubt that the Sony implementation of LCoS results in a noticeably softer image than what's available in the good single-chip DLPs. Whether this is endemic to LCoS in general (and hence will also affect the RS-1) or is something specific to SXRD remains to be seen.

Of course, there are other issues to consider as well, but if you are as you put it a "sharpness addict", then you should definitely audition the RS-1 and one of the better single-chip DLPs before making a purchasing decision.

Perhaps a comparison to the Ruby is relevant--I was disappointed with the Ruby precisely because of its image softness compared to DLP.
How would you rate the convergence on the Ruby you saw?

When I compared a Pearl to a Ruby, the Ruby was worse in terms of convergence (see pictures (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=64534)). However, if you compare two other units, the results might be different, since the convergence varies from one unit to another.

In all fairness, I need to go back to the store (Magnolia) and re-evaluate the Ruby. When I was last there, they had it connected to a cable HD feed (Comcast). While this feed is generally good, it can be very variable and range from extremely good to fair.

The salesman promised he'd have a Blu-Ray or HD-DVD player available soon if I'd care to come back. I'll take him up on his offer this weekend and see how it goes.

I plan on using whatever pj I buy for my home "drive-in" theater. I call it my "drive-in" because it's in a room with no light control and I plan on watching only at night. I have a 50" Fujitsu plasma mounted on a wall behind where I intend to mount the screen for everyday TV viewing. I only intend to watch Blu-Ray and HD-DVD movies on the pj and perhaps the occasional DVD--no broadcast TV, HD or otherwise.

In this application, I've heard many people say the Ruby is more "film-like" than soft. As someone who goes to movies several times a week, I know this look well and will use this as the basis for my second look at the Ruby. If I find the Ruby acceptable, I'll probably wait for the RS-1.

Has anyone seen an RS-1 in direct comparison to a 1080p single-chip DLP projector such as the XV-Z20000 or HT3000?
I'm somewhat concerned that the D-ILA technology used by the RS-1 will result in softer images...

Jerry, I saw both an RS1 and XV-Z20000 demo at CES and I DID NOT find the RS1 either soft or distractingly sharp.

OK, this has probably been asked and answered 10,000 times here, but when is the RS-1 expected to hit the streets?

February, 2007.

In this application, I've heard many people say the Ruby is more "film-like" than soft.I really think that people are rationalizing when they say this. LCoS has a slightly higher fill factor, which may lead to a small improvement in film-like smoothness, but the sharpness/detail phenomenon is a separate issue. It has been reported regularly by objective observers. Consider this passage from Widescreen Review's latest review of the Sharp Z20000.

"The last film I will mention is Grand Prix (1966). I discussed how this amazing HD DVD video transfer captured the appearance of 60’s film in a previous projector review [he is referring to the Sony Pearl], and how I was impressed by detail and definition throughout the movie. So I was really surprised when I watched the HD DVD again on the XV-Z20000U. It was like watching a new version of the transfer. The images were significantly sharper, the fine details were even clearer, and additional layers of image depth were revealed as the Formula One cars circled the streets of Monte Carlo."

I think that here's little doubt that the Sony implementation of LCoS results in a noticeably softer image than what's available in the good single-chip DLPs. Whether this is endemic to LCoS in general (and hence will also affect the RS-1) or is something specific to SXRD remains to be seen.



Think back to the 004.
Sharp as a tack.
SXRD is fine.
Sharpness depends on optics, convergence, processing, and MTF.

Think back to the 004.
Sharp as a tack.
SXRD is fine.
Sharpness depends on optics, convergence, processing, and MTF.

Qualia 004 is no where as sharp as 1chip dlp(at least the ones I owned), that's Marantz, sharp and even the Benq w10k. DLP's MTF is higher than SXRD

DLP's MTF is higher than SXRDThat's the issue. Is there something about LCoS technology that results in inherently low MTF or is it an implementation issue?

BTW, a prize will be awarded to someone who can offer a clear explanation of just what MTF is.

I posted in another thread that I had compared the JVC to the D80 and the Sim2 unit was very noticably better. The thing that really amazed me however was that the jump to the HT5000 from the D80 was not as large as i had expected. I also felt the JVC to be quite soft.

I notice that JVC usually has side by side with the Sony SXRD projectors.

Do we think that the JVC may look soft and not as punchy side by side with a good 1080 DLP ??

On the subject of Sharpness:
One of the big differences between DLP and LCoS is whats happening between the pixels. DLP is black between each pixel and LCoS is [sort of] the average between the pixels (because they do affect each other).

Which is more natural? I think this explains why people say LCoS is "smoother". Does having a black border between colors make it look "sharper"? Is that good? Obviously real life does not have black borders around color changes.

BTW, a prize will be awarded to someone who can offer a clear explanation of just what MTF is.

The real skinny is MTF is how sharp transitions are between two pixels. If the signal tells one pixel to be totally on and the adjacent to be totally off one chip DLP can do it SXRD,LCOS can not. Imagine a square wave form next to a sine wave.

I'm making no judgements as to the overall superiority or desirability of either since personally, I can see advantages to each.

Art

One way sharpness can be an advantage is in static images like windows desktop or text like email. Real life doesn't have sharp pixel edges. Real life has an organic feel.

My demos of the RS-1 put it on equal par with other three chip DLPs "sharpness". 1 chip DLP may have a slight edge on 3 chip projectors but many other things need to be considered. Nobody every talks about seating distance or source material. All very important to the final image sharpness.

Getting into sharpness debates are definatley a red herring. The RS-1 at 1.5 screen widths and 1080i or 1080p video material is definatley much sharper than a movie theater and about 5 times the contrast ratio. If sharpness is the only image parameter your interested in, many 720p single chip DLPs will satisfy you.

The contrast ratio of the RS1 sets the bar for all other projectors out there. In a side by side comparison with a 1 chipper nobody would say the one chip is every so slightly sharper. My bet is 100 out of 100 people would say "holy $hit the contrast and image are not comparable".

When you go to further magnatudes of improvement it's almost silly to make comparisions except to show this is where we used to be. This is now the new reference standard.

This is what Pioneer did with their prototype plasma. On the left last years Elite series plasma at about 4000:1. On the right the prototype at +20,000:1. No comparison. And definately noone asking which is sharper ;)

When the black bars match the bevel surrounding the image it's a whole new viewing experience.

To those that saw both the RS1 and the three chip DLPs, what was the difference in image depth like?

Some views by Glenned on the image depth between the Sharp XV-Z20000 vs the JVC RS1-

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=778590&page=4&pp=30

In some types of movie scenes, the lower ANSI contrast of the LCOS PJs, shows up as less contrast within the image. This will reduce the impression of 3D compared to them in those movie scenes. There is a visible difference between the RS1 prototype and the Sharp 20000 in this regard, but I didn't think the RS1 looked flat by any means. Though the RS1 isn't as good as the Sharp in this regard (and the difference is visible, not just theoretical) I thought the RS1 was very good. While the Sharp was great in this regard. The Sharp isn't bright enough in High Contrast mode for my screen. So it isn't really in contention for me.

The way I look at it is that none of these PJs has everything that I want in terms of image quality. I am willing to accept only satisfactory performance in some PQ parameters.

I expect the RS1 will be bright enough for my setup, and that it will have the very high CR that JVC claims. It has excellent rendition of shadow detail and was better than the Sharp (at the settings that the Sharp was in). I found that its intra-image contrast was acceptable and yielded an image comparable to the older DLPs in terms of intra-image contrast. I expect it will measure out between 200-300:1 ANSI. My main concerns about the RS1 are about noise level, image sharpness during motion, and can it be calibrated to a high level of accuracy in the field. These questions won't be answered until the production version is released.


IMO, the intra-image (ANSI type) contrast of the RS1 looked similar to me to that from the HD2 DLP based PJs like the Marantz S2, Infocus SP7200, and Sharp 10K which were in the neighbor hood of 300:1 ANSI.

There is a caveat to all this, though:

Intra-scene contrast is affected by a number of factors. What we are primarily interested in and measure with ANSI measurements is the limitation of the hardware in the PJ.

There are other things that can affect what kind of contrast you actually see in a particular image, though. The gamma response of the display being the the biggest factor. The gamma of the display determines how contrasty an image is going to be at each brightness level. The gamma determines how much of a displays CR is used at dim, middle, and bright levels of picture brightness. Every display has a limited CR. This creates a limit as to how much of it can be used at each brightness level to create contrast.

To be more specific, in digital video the command for Black is the number 16. The command for White is 235. In digital video there are 219 possible discrete steps in brightness from Black to White. Each step in brightness should be just barely distinguishable from the step above and below it. The gamma response of a display, which is determined by the gamma table in a PJ, determines just how bright each step will actually be when displayed. The larger the difference in brightness between each step, the higher the contrast at those levels.

Some examples: A gamma of 1.8 creates larger steps in brightness between each of the lower signal values such as step 31 and step 32 while reducing the step in brightness between the higher signal values such as step 200 and 201. This results in creating greater contrast in dim images resulting in enhanced visibility of shadow detail, but reduced contrast in middle and bright images resulting in reduced 3D effect in scenes with brighter content. As the gamma response in a display is increased, the opposite occurs. The steps in brightness between lower signal levels is reduced, while the steps in brightness at middle and high signal levels is increased.

Since I don't know the gamma response of either display for certain, it creates an unknown. The JVC reps indicated that both PJs were set to a gamma of about 2.2., but I can't verify this. I could see the following in comparing the images from the Sharp and the JVC: the JVC showed more shadow detail than the Sharp; the Sharp showed more image contrast in scenes of middle and high brightness. As you can see from the explanation above, this can be caused by setting the PJs to have different gamma responses. With out measuring the gamma response of each, it isn't possible to say definitively that the differences were caused by the hardware or by gamma settings.

Upon cursory evaluation, both the Sharp and RS1 looked very good to me. It will take a closer look to really determine how good each is. Greg Rogers has already done that for the Sharp. The RS1 is still somewhat of an unknown. The Sharp in high contrast mode on a large Silverstar would likely yield a spectacular image. The RS1 is likely too bright for the Silverstar (though you didn't reveal your screen size).

I expect the most likely outcome from close comparison of the two PJ's will be that the Sharp will have a slightly sharper image and a bit more intra-scene image contrast. The RS1 will be much brighter, have darker black, and superior discrimination of shadow detail.

In terms of Black levels and intra-scene contrast, both PJs were good. I couldn't assign a percent of difference between the two PJ's as far as how much it impacted me. Upon close inspection and direct comparison, I could see the differences. However, the difference between the two PJs wasn't so large as to make one look pale in comparison.

Glenn

This post is interesting, though it could have equally well applied to black and white displays. Color performance isn't even mentioned. For me, the biggest selling point for the Sharp is the Color Management System. Once you have lived with accurate colors you simply cannot go back. It really makes a profound difference to the image quality.

Obviously, this factor has nothing to do with the differences between LCoS and DLP. It's a feature that all displays should have.

"It was like watching a new version of the transfer. The images were significantly sharper, the fine details were even clearer, and additional layers of image depth were revealed. . . ."

This doesn't sound like a red herring to me. It sounds like a fairly profound real-world difference.