Just wondering if anybody figures this shootout could happen any time soon. Epson, Mits and Panny 1080p lcd vs Pearl and RS1/HD1 would be interesting. I guess most of the fighting will be amongst the lcd projectors, but it would be neat to square them all off regardless to know just how different they are from one another.

Just wondering if anybody figures this shootout could happen any time soon. Epson, Mits and Panny 1080p lcd vs Pearl and RS1/HD1 would be interesting. I guess most of the fighting will be amongst the lcd projectors, but it would be neat to square them all off regardless to know just how different they are from one another.

excellent proposal! :D

I think this is what many people are interested in.

Surely the budget solution (3LCD) is tempting and the JVC solution is tempting due to it's high quality profile but the end of the day the differences might be smaller than expected.

I saw the HC5000 in direct comparison with the VW50 and the differences are so small and the advantages so minor that everyone can do his personal decision without having the fear to do a really wrong decision.

The end of the day the decision is very subjective and that's o.k.

Yeah, I would love to see the differences between these projectors. I like my TX200 but I would be really interested in a projector with blacker blacks and much higher contrast. I wonder how much better the Mitsubishi is compared to my TX200, and how much better the JVC is than both of those. Is it a noticeable difference? A shootout would be helpful for this.

Still hoping a shootout like this will happen. I say there should be two sub-shootouts within an overall shootout. Compare all the 1080p lcd's. Compare the JVC and Pearl. Then compare the best of the 1080p lcd's with the two LCOS.

I am curious to see just how the 1080p lcd projectors compare to one another. I hope Cine4home does a shootout of this kind :)

I saw the HC5000 in direct comparison with the VW50 and the differences are so small and the advantages so minor that everyone can do his personal decision without having the fear to do a really wrong decision.

.

Would you mind sharing the details behind this demo and a quick summary of what differences you saw? Much appreciated. :)

Be great to see them all go head to head !
Add the new Benq w9000 DLP as well as its priced like the Pearl and Mits.

I've compared the Pearl and the Mits with the same material on the same screen,
and the Mits IMO topped the Pearl in many ways:
+Better optics, its sharp edge to edge, big difference
+Better Scaler / Deinterlacer big difference here with 1080i, 720P
+Quieter its silent
+More inputs that work at 1080P, including VGA for the 360 HD DVD
+Easier to mount, smaller lighter with more vertical shift

Where the Pearl comes out on top is:
+Black level, big difference here
+Dynamic Iris is much faster to react

The Mits sounds and looks like a clear winner in so many cases but the black level is so much better in the Pearl, at least on the High Power screen, that its not an easy choice.
I wanted to like the Pearl, so I even tried a 2nd one, hoping the softness issues would improve, but it was still too soft after seeing the Mits, and being used to a DLP pixel perfect display the last few years.

Anyhow in the end, I decided to give the JVC a look.
If it turns out too loud or lacking sharpness due to convergence I think DLP is the answer. The manual warning about image retention on the JVC DILA panels is also a concern.

Evan from Projector Central who has given many LCD's good reviews tells me that the JVC RS1 has a clear advantage over any 1080P LCD and is worth the extra money. I wanted to have his opinion because I knew that he was familiar with most of the LCD projectors. That pretty much made my decision easy.

Evan from Projector Central who has given many LCD's good reviews tells me that the JVC RS1 has a clear advantage over any 1080P LCD and is worth the extra money. I wanted to have his opinion because I knew that he was familiar with most of the LCD projectors. That pretty much made my decision easy.

You have to watch those subjective comments, based on reports the JVC RS1 does indeed have a clear advantage over LCD projectors for black level and contrast, but thats just one factor in finding the right projector.

I also consider:

-Fan noise, no matter how good the image is I just dont want a louder projector
after hearing the silence of the Mits, and near silence of the Pearl
-Lens quality, do the corners look softer compared to the center
-Video Processor, how does 1080i from HDTV look
-Inputs, does the unit offer 1080P over VGA, does it have enough HDMI inputs, etc
-Ease of installation for your setup, throw ratio, can you shelf mount without flipping it upside down
-Menu options to calibrate color, overscan, etc
-Out of the box greyscale quality
-Image retention problems
-Will the panel degrade over time
-Warranty Service Support History
-Cost

The JVC has concerns or at least differences in some of those areas that may make another projector a better choice , depending on your needs.

The Sharp 20000 is another good example , it puts out an image that is 2nd to none that I have seen, has a decent processor and great input options, perfect pixel sharpness edge to edge... but its too LOUD for our setup.

Did Evan elaborate on the clear advantage?

Makes sense. Although the Pearl has its unique character (lighter corners in blank or dark scenes and slightly softer look) .. it should still have better black level and contrast and faster iris than the 1080p lcd's. The mitsubishi is definitely one of, if not the sharpest non-dlp 1080p projectors and the JVC will likely have by far the best black level and highest contrast, all without DI. A shootout would get to the finer details and peculiarities of each peice and show just how much each projector differs from one another.

I've compared the Pearl and the Mits with the same material on the same screen,
and the Mits IMO topped the Pearl in many ways:
+Better optics, its sharp edge to edge, big difference
+Better Scaler / Deinterlacer big difference here with 1080i, 720P

Where the Pearl comes out on top is:
+Black level, big difference here
+Dynamic Iris is much faster to react

.

Thanks for the nice summary. I'm mostly interested in PQ comparisons so I edited your list. Would love to see a side by side - where were you able to do this?

Evan from Projector Central who has given many LCD's good reviews tells me that the JVC RS1 has a clear advantage over any 1080P LCD and is worth the extra money. I wanted to have his opinion because I knew that he was familiar with most of the LCD projectors. That pretty much made my decision easy.



This falls in line with the vast majority of reports thus far. From what I have seen of the Pearl, 5000, and RS1 at Cedia, I would agree as well. They all throw awesome pics, but the RS1 is a clear step up.

Evan from Projector Central who has given many LCD's good reviews tells me that the JVC RS1 has a clear advantage over any 1080P LCD and is worth the extra money. I wanted to have his opinion because I knew that he was familiar with most of the LCD projectors. That pretty much made my decision easy.

Evan Powell's review usually is dead on. The shoot out among all 1080p LCDs had been done on PC. I think Mits comes out a winner (with Pana's inconsistent sharpness bothering me).

The only question really is Mits vs JVC. But that is NOT a fair comparison. JVC is two and half times the price of Mits. It boils down to whether that extra black level is worth the big difference in price.

Evan Powell's review usually is dead on. The shoot out among all 1080p LCDs had been done on PC. I think Mits comes out a winner (with Pana's inconsistent sharpness bothering me).

The only question really is Mits vs JVC. But that is NOT a fair comparison. JVC is two and half times the price of Mits. It boils down to whether that extra black level is worth the big difference in price.

What concerns me is that the PC review never mentions the Mitsu dynamic iris issues that are discussed in detail by many other reviews. What do you make of that? :confused:

What concerns me is that the PC review never mentions the Mitsu dynamic iris issues that are discussed in detail by many other reviews. What do you make of that? :confused:
DI would be a minor factor in contributing to PQ. Good constrast is primarily determined by ansi contrast anyway, while DI makes the specs look good on paper. With the DI off you won't see whole a lot difference in PQ only not so dark blacks. But black level is not a strong suit of this Mits.

Thanks for the nice summary. I'm mostly interested in PQ comparisons so I edited your list. Would love to see a side by side - where were you able to do this?

I'll try and expand on your key points, again just the impression I was left with based on the units I had in my setup, YMMV:

+Mits Better optics, its sharp edge to edge, big difference
Both Pearls I tried, suffered from blurring as you moved away from the center. I tested using a 1080p still frame signal. In the corners the blur or CA was much more noticable than on the Mits. The Mits had little if any, once I found the optimal horizontal shift position, it seemed sharp edge to edge.

+Mits Better Scaler / Deinterlacer big difference here with 1080i, 720P
This is something I never thought much about till I seen the Mits and the difference it can make. The Mits uses a new Silicon Optix HQV scaler/deinterlacer. I think you'd have to spend $2K-3K to get a stand alone processor like is built in the Mits. Menus on my ExpressVu (Dish) HD PVR looked sharp, crisp, 1080i HDTV football, Letterman, etc, the same, when I set the PVR to either 1080i or 720p. VGA out on the 360 looked sharper than Ive ever seen it, at 720p or 1080p. The Pearl on the other hand made those sources look soft, even blurry in comparison.
Now the Pearl is NOT a blurry projector, dont get me wrong, just in comparison to what I seen with the Mits. The Pearl looks similar to going to a movie theater, where I always seem to find the images on the soft side, some like that look.

Where the Pearl comes out on top is:
+Black level, big difference here
This here is the Pearl's Ace and why so many are very happy to own it.
The Mits was very weak in my setup with regard to black level. With the Mits if you put up a image where there is black in one area and light in much of the another, the iris opens and the black area looked 'screen white'. I could clearly see the screen and the border etc, it just lost the immersion experience. I think its because the Mits is brighter and its black level with the iris opened is much higher than the Pearl, so your entire room lights up, reflects and what should be black becomes screen white.

Now I'm using a high power screen , and the room has white ceilings both of those were working against the Mits, but in that room my old DLP has decent blacks and so did the Pearl.


+Dynamic Iris is much faster to react on Pearl
I never noticed the pearls iris, getting smaller for dark scenes to make them blacker and opening for bright scenes. I noticed every change on the Mits where it seems to take a second to react, it closes/opens slower. But this did not really concern me, the iris changes dont happen that often. It was the almost white blacks at times that i could not adjust to.


There may be optimal settings I missed on either projector, but I'm just trying to offer my unbiased view based on my observations. If one is planning to watch mostly DVD movies, those tend to often have many darks scenes and I think many might be happier with the Pearl, as sharpness is not much of a factor with DVD as they are low resolution to begin with. HD looks OK on the Pearl too, its just a softer more film like look, that didn't appeal to me being used to a crisper DLP image.

If your looking for a general purpose projector to play PS3 or 360 games on, to watch HD Sports, or use a PC with, and movies are not as important then the Mits will amaze you if you get one with decent convergence. The Mits I had looked sharper than even a Sharp 20000 DLP with bright 1080p still images, and I dont know how thats possible as the Sharp being DLP is pixel perfect.

Hope that helps, but be sure to compare or demo whatever you buy first, and draw your on conclusions, sorry I didn't take any images to post to compare :)

DI would be a minor factor in contributing to PQ. Good constrast is primarily determined by ansi contrast anyway, while DI makes the specs look good on paper. With the DI off you won't see whole a lot difference in PQ only not so dark blacks...
Absolute nonsense! Have you even seen a DI pj like the Pearl?

Evan Powell's review usually is dead on. The shoot out among all 1080p LCDs had been done on PC. I think Mits comes out a winner (with Pana's inconsistent sharpness bothering me).



Ummm, you are kidding right? If you asked Joe Kane and Evan about a projector and one of them said it was excellent and the other said it was garbage, then who would you believe? Replace Joe with Greg Rogers (whose reviews are considered the best and most complete) and who would you believe? I think most here would run away from a pj if Darin and Bob Sorel said a pj was crap even if Evan said it was the greatest pj ever. Evan did say the Canon was the best pj he had ever seen and that had more to do with brightness than picture quality.

But black level is not a strong suit of this Mits.

...which is the main reason I would leave it off my short list.

Ummm, you are kidding right? If you asked Joe Kane and Evan about a projector and one of them said it was excellent and the other said it was garbage, then who would you believe? Replace Joe with Greg Rogers (whose reviews are considered the best and most complete) and who would you believe? I think most here would run away from a pj if Darin and Bob Sorel said a pj was crap even if Evan said it was the greatest pj ever. Evan did say the Canon was the best pj he had ever seen and that had more to do with brightness than picture quality.

I'd believe what I'd see with my own eyes and hear with my ears, reviews/opinions are just a starting point for me :)

Hope that helps, but be sure to compare or demo whatever you buy first, and draw your on conclusions, sorry I didn't take any images to post to compare :)

Thanks for your detailed and thoughtful comments! You are a real asset to AVS.

How is the Epson Pro Cinema 1080 going to stack up against the jvc rs1? Will the fact that the epson uses a 1.3 hdmi inputs and the jvc doesnt make a difference that puts the epson ahead of the rs1?

The PC review does not include the Epson TW1000.

Absolute nonsense! Have you even seen a DI pj like the Pearl?
of course I have. From HS51 to Pearl the Sony DI works extremely fast and well. The Sony's aggressive DI often makes the image a bit too dim for my taste. It is just my opinion that sharpness is lot more important quality than perceived improved contrast with DI. Nowadays even without DI the LCD PJs have pretty decent ansi contrast.

I also think that one Even's favorite qualities in a PJ--sharpness happens to be something value the most in 1080p PJ.

"JVC is two and half times the price of Mits."

JVC MSRP is $6300, Mits is $5000

I have seen the Mits 5000 recently and in a good setup. The blacks, lack of, did it for me as it's a hell of a lot further behind the Pearl than the numbers on the spec sheet would indicate. I could clearly see the iris working and not only that it didn't appear to be helping the blacks in mixed brightness scenes that much and that's not good. As for sharpness, well the edges of the pixels and the gaps between them that you could clearly see were sharp, giving that artificial sharpness that both LCD and DLP seem to share. LCOS is a much nicer technology to look at, although some people might describe it as "soft and film like" but how can that ever be a valid complaint against a projector used for showing movies.

I should add that it would be really useful to include a specific comparison of the contrast and black levels of each 1080p pj to the older 720p lcd projectors.

I have seen the Mits 5000 recently and in a good setup. The blacks, lack of, did it for me as it's a hell of a lot further behind the Pearl than the numbers on the spec sheet would indicate. I could clearly see the iris working and not only that it didn't appear to be helping the blacks in mixed brightness scenes that much and that's not good. As for sharpness, well the edges of the pixels and the gaps between them that you could clearly see were sharp, giving that artificial sharpness that both LCD and DLP seem to share. LCOS is a much nicer technology to look at, although some people might describe it as "soft and film like" but how can that ever be a valid complaint against a projector used for showing movies.

I totally agree! I just bought a Sony VW50 :D (92" 1.0 gain light grey screen) Its the best projector I have ever seen. The crystal clear picture is detailed and smooth (not soft). The blacks are ultra deep and I have never seen the DI once.

Watching HD DVD on the Pearl is just as seeing a great print at the movie theater. Extremly natural. DLP and LCD is just too digital looking for me.

Anyhow in the end, I decided to give the JVC a look.
If it turns out too loud or lacking sharpness due to convergence I think DLP is the answer. The manual warning about image retention on the JVC DILA panels is also a concern.

The HD1 (or the at least the unit I have) is much better than the Pearl in several areas including convergence and optics. In terms of noise level in normal mode it is similar to the Pearl in high mode.

In comparison with the Pearl (IMO) on the same Da-Lite matte white screen:

+ Greater install flexibility - Good vertical/horizontal shift.

- Noise level in normal is similar to Pearl in high mode (not an issue for me and the PJ is 2' from my head) YMMV.

+ Resolves more detail esp with HD DVD - due to better convergence and quality of the Fujinon all glass lens.

+ Crisper image.

+ Better detail in dark scenes.

+ Increased perception of image depth - significant to my eyes.

+ Better black level.

+ More "punch".

+ Much better in dark scenes with bright objects - bright objects jump out!

+ Appears brighter in low colour mode which tracks very close to D65.

+ Better uniformity - very good to my eyes with no clouding whatsoever.

+ No chromatic aberration.

+ Great convergence across the whole screen area.

+ Colours appear more natural (low mode ~D65) even pre calibration.

+ Better video processing due to Gennum VXP (as used in Crystalio II VP). A test example I use is MI3 "Vatican wall scene" with 1080i source. No moire with HD1.

+ I haven't notice any image retention despite leaving test pats on screen for 30 minutes +. Also nothing with sat TV logos after watching for hours over that past 4 days.

Here's a HD1 photo of a 1080p/60 test pat from a Lumagen taken 20 inches from the screen. Also some screen shots (for fun only please :) ) borrowed from UrbanT on the UK forum.

Dazzer

Some more HD1 screen shots (for fun only please :) ) borrowed from UrbanT on the UK forum.

Dazzer

can you post a screenshot of 40 or 50 IRE for shading please?

can you post a screenshot of 40 or 50 IRE for shading please?


Sorry I'm probably being very dense but can you elaborate on what you want to see ?

Thanks

Dazzer

Dazzer - thanks for your post and honest comments about the higher noise level compared to the Pearl. I found the Pearl on high fan level loud in my shelf mount setup with the projector right behind us.

Too bad the JVC could not have been quieter,
but I'm sure it wont be an issue for many who seem happy with projectors that I find loud.

Your other comments sound great, the convergence does seem off some, take a look in my sig I have a few convergence test patterns to try, that will give you a clear idea of when adjusting the JVC, convergence adjustment is a great feature on that unit!

Convergence Tests Click Here (http://www.pbase.com/jackcnd/convergence)

"JVC is two and half times the price of Mits."

JVC MSRP is $6300, Mits is $5000
Obviously I am not talking about MSRP, I am referring to the lowest retail price. And lowest retail prices are usually found in Japan which has about 3-6 months lead in prices when it comes in electronics.

The lowest prices for Mits and JVC in Japan now are about $2300 and $5500.

... As for sharpness, well the edges of the pixels and the gaps between them that you could clearly see were sharp, giving that artificial sharpness that both LCD and DLP seem to share. LCOS is a much nicer technology to look at, although some people might describe it as "soft and film like" but how can that ever be a valid complaint against a projector used for showing movies.

If you can see the pixel structures at normal viewing distance on those 1080p pjs and it bothers then you have supernatural eyesight and are ultrasensitive to SDE. I guess nothing short of a LCOS or CRT will do.

I don't understand why "soft" is related to "film like". Nothing wrong with preferring a soft look in photo or video. But if you go to a commercial movie theater and see a recent release, I will see the film is much sharper than any PJ can produce. After all they have 4000 lines of resolution. All PJs have a long way to go to get to the "film like" in terms of sharpness.

In Norway we all know that the HD1 is better than the Pearl. No argue. But the price is very different from the US too:

Pearl: $5500

HD1: $9300

So for us norwegian the Pearl is much "cheaper" way of getting a hi end picture ;)

Dazzer - thanks for your post and honest comments about the higher noise level compared to the Pearl. I found the Pearl on high fan level loud in my shelf mount setup with the projector right behind us. Too bad the JVC could not have been quieter, but I'm sure it wont be an issue for many who seem happy with louder projectors.
Your other comments sound great, the convergence does seem off, take a look in my sig I have a few comvergence test patterns to try, will give you a clear idea of when adjusting the JVC, convergence adjustment is a great feature on that unit!

Hi JackLT

How does the converegnce seem off ? I can't see any MC with my nose on the screen so I guess it's the photo. :p

For fun the attached photo again taken from ~ 20 inches shows the same test pat with red shifted to demostrate MC of one pixel. Do you notice it ?

For ref in the UK I believe the Sony tolerence is up to 2 pixels MC in any part of the screen.

The closest I've seen in PQ terms is from Sim2 but the fan noise of the HT5000, C3X and D80 is lounder than the HD1 so these may be of your list also. I guess you may need to compromise PQ and go with somtehing like the Mits or a quiet single chip DLP if one exists. :(

Dazzer

In Norway we all know that the HD1 is better than the Pearl. No argue. But the price is very different from the US too:

Pearl: $5500

HD1: $9300

So for us norwegian the Pearl is much "cheaper" way of getting a hi end picture ;)


In the UK I paid £3350 for the Pearl that was then swapped for th HD1 at £3800. Those prices include tax of 17.5%.

Dazzer

I don't understand why "soft" is related to "film like". Nothing wrong with preferring a soft look in photo or video. But if you go to a commercial movie theater and see a recent release, I will see the film is much sharper than any PJ can produce.

Hmm... that's not my experience. I often find the picture in a commercial movie theater to be VERY soft. 'Resolution' and 'Picture Softness' aren't really the same thing. Which is why I prefer the softer picture of LCD projectors over DLP (there's always been something very 'Hard' looking about a DLP picture to me). However, sometimes scenes with a lighter background, coupled with a fast camera movement, the SDE (Screen Door Effect) suddenly becomes quite appearent on my 720 front projector. Which is one of the reasons I'm looking to moving to a 1080p LCD projector.

I don't understand why "soft" is related to "film like". Nothing wrong with preferring a soft look in photo or video. But if you go to a commercial movie theater and see a recent release, I will see the film is much sharper than any PJ can produce.

Wow you must have a quality theatre near by, here I find films at the theatre look far softer than I'm used to even with DVD, but I do admit I seldom go a film at the theatre just enjoy them at home more.

Hi JackLT

How does the converegnce seem off ? I can't see any MC with my nose on the screen so I guess it's the photo. :p
Dazzer

You might be right, I just zoomed in and it looked like blue on one side and green on the other, a white crosshatch can make it hard to tell as CA can come into play as well.

If you have a PC attached try the convergence test link I posted, it uses just the primary RGB colors with a single pixel width, so there is no mistaking convergence issues.

Convergence Tests (http://www.pbase.com/jackcnd/convergence)

Hi JackLT

How does the converegnce seem off ? For fun the attached photo again taken from ~ 20 inches shows the same test pat with red shifted to demostrate MC of one pixel. Do you notice it ?...
Dazzer

Even your 'fun off convergence' photo shows blue or purple fringing on the horizontal lines, could be CA?

And the red shift is seen but whats up with the pink on the other side.
Something is not right, some unusual video processing is going on?

I'm not trying to knock your unit, I have one on order too, and I'm sure with video it looks stellar, but if you post a test image its only fair to comment on what is seen at least on my side. I just find a lot of the JVC images being posted are less than ideal, but few seem to want to mention that. Over on the UK board a few owners posted valid concerns with real color issues, fan noise, etc, but others just seem to take over the thread raving about how great it is?

The excitement level is high, maybe too high :)

Sorry I'm probably being very dense but can you elaborate on what you want to see ?

Thanks

Dazzer

Color Uniformity also called shading i think

Even your 'fun off convergence' photo is shows blue or purple fringing on the horizontal lines, could be CA?

And the red shift is seen but whats up with the pink on the other side.
Something is not right, some unusual video processing is going on?

I'm not trying to knock your unit, I have one on order too, and I'm sure with video it looks stellar, but if you post a test image its only fair to comment on what is seen at least on my side. I just find a lot of the JVC images being posted are less than ideal, but few seem to want to mention that. Over on the UK board a few owners posted valid concerns with real color issues, fan noise, etc, but others just seem to take over the thread raving about how great it is?


Hi JackLT

Don't worry as I said the photo's are for fun because it would be very foolish to attempt to draw conclusions from compact camera photo's that is massively compressed to fit AVS . ;)

I'm a regular on AVF and don't recall spotting any big conerns or issues ??

I guess people rave because first hand the HD1 produces stunning images when compared to PJ's at 3-4 the price. :p Also keep in mind that I didn't buy on a blind pre-order but went for a demo first and compared the HD1 to Sim2 (HT5000, C3X & D80), Optoma (HD81) and already owned a Pearl. :)

Dazzer

Color Uniformity also called shading i think

blackbird

I've attached some photo's but stress these are for "FUN only" taken on a compact camera and compressed to fit AVS. I've looked long and hard but can't see any clouds like I could see on Pearls I had.

Dazzer

Dazzer, can you tell us in words what you see when you look at your blank screen in terms of shading/uniformity so we can combine that with the pics you posted? Thanks!

Dazzer, can you tell us in words what you see when you look at your blank screen in terms of shading/uniformity so we can combine that with the pics you posted? Thanks!

Rob

I'll do my best. I'm using a test DVD from homecinema-fr.com via Lumagen @ 1080p. Screen is Da-Lite matte white.

Grey levels - I'm looking at a full screen IRE 100 image. The image is very bright and to my eyes appears uniform across the whole screen. By comparison the last Pearl unit had what I can only describe as a "greenish tinted cloud" in the middle of the screen with this test pat. It was slight but noticeable. This HD1 does not appear to have this. Same degree of uniformity at 50 IRE and 40IRE to my eyes.

Is there anything you specifically what me to check?

Dazzer

@dazzerxxx thank you

blackbird

I've attached some photo's but stress these are for "FUN only" taken on a compact camera and compressed to fit AVS. I've looked long and hard but can't see any clouds like I could see on Pearls I had.

Dazzer
Hey, those images look blueish on my monitor so your color balance must be off! ;) :rolleyes: :D

Hey, those images look blueish on my monitor so your color balance must be off! ;) :rolleyes: :D

:eek: No it's the fan noise affecting the PQ :D

Dazzer

Rob

I'll do my best. I'm using a test DVD from homecinema-fr.com via Lumagen @ 1080p. Screen is Da-Lite matte white.

Grey levels - I'm looking at a full screen IRE 100 image. The image is very bright and to my eyes appears uniform across the whole screen. By comparison the last Pearl unit had what I can only describe as a "greenish tinted cloud" in the middle of the screen with this test pat. It was slight but noticeable. This HD1 does not appear to have this. Same degree of uniformity at 50 IRE and 40IRE to my eyes.

Is there anything you specifically what me to check?

Dazzer

Nope, that covers it for me! Thanks! :)

Over on the UK board a few owners posted valid concerns with real color issues, fan noise, etc, but others just seem to take over the thread raving about how great it is?

The excitement level is high, maybe too high :)

Hi JackLT

I posted in the UK forum (HD1 thread) and asked "Have I missed something?" in relation to your comments above. I've got this repy so far -

If you did, so did I. Further, it doesn't seem to matter how much you tell someone a photo is limited due the environment, limited ability of the camera, compression etc, they always seem to insist on dissecting it. It does make you :confused:

I've spent the last couple of hours going through the HD-DVd collection again. The sheer level of detail that wasn't seen before, together with the colours and contrast giving the picture that 'pop' is simply amazing.

I know I've come from a modest projector with limted ability, but I am amazed at the quality and won't make any apology for my enthusiasm. :)

http://www.avforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=470757&page=27

Dazzer

Here's couple items from the JVC RS-1 manual dated 1/24/2007 worth mentioning:

D-ILA Device Characteristics
Do not project still pictures or pictures that have still
segments for a long period of time. The still parts of the
picture may remain on the screen. This is a characteristic of
D-ILA devices and not a malfunction. The picture will
disappear over time

Parts Replacement
This unit contains parts (optical part, cooling fan, etc.) that
require replacement to maintain its functioning. The
estimated time for parts replacement varies greatly
depending on the usage and environment. Please consult
your authorized dealer for replacement.

D-ILA devices are manufactured using extremely high-precision technology. Pixel effectiveness is 99.99 %. Only 0.01 % or less of the pixels
are either missing or would remain permanently lit up.

(Corrected! 1920x1080x3 x 0.0001 = 622)

JackLT, I'm honestly surprised that you have even decided to keep your preorder. You seem to be determined to find every potential negative aspect of the RS1 instead of being excited about what it does offer. Of course it's not the perfect projector, no such thing will ever exist, but according to everyone who has experience with it first hand, it is a significant advancement for the price. Are you trying to find negative things to keep your expectations in check or what? If that is what you are doing then feel free to witch hunt away. :)

Hi acegamer -

Not trying to do anything, other than put the JVC on the same playing field as any other projector. I'm hoping for the best, but some weaknesses have been mentioned by others, and even the manual tempers my excitement, yet the majority of posts seem to only gush,
heck on the UK forum it went as far as posting 'centerfold' pics of the projector and wishing it had wheels :)

I'd rather see some objective test pattern images posted,
than another 400 pixel wide digicam image of The Fifth Element...

What 'optical part' requires replacement, is it covered under warranty?
Will image retention be a common thing, how long will it last?
What about the color push users mentioned?
Louder fan noise?

It's really just all in fun, I like the projector too, I hope the UK folks don't take it personally.

D-ILA devices are manufactured using extremely high-precision technology. Pixel effectiveness is 99.99 %. Only 0.01 % or less of the pixels
are either missing or would remain permanently lit up.

(1920x1080x3 x 0.01 = 62,208)


Actually .01% is .0001 so that's 622

1920 x 1080 x 3 x 0.01% = 622.08 ;)

Jon

1920 x 1080 x 3 x 0.01% = 622.08 ;)

Jon

Great, I feel 100x better already. :)

"But if you go to a commercial movie theater and see a recent release, I will see the film is much sharper than any PJ can produce. After all they have 4000 lines of resolution."

That 4000 lines is highly theoretical; that may be on the original negative, but it goes through several generations (the only one I remember the name for is interpositive) before it makes it onto the film that gets projected in your theater, then add in gate jitter, and you get something like 720P effective res (paraphrasing MrWigggles), which squares with my experience.

Here's couple items from the JVC RS-1 manual dated 1/24/2007 worth mentioning:

D-ILA Device Characteristics
Do not project still pictures or pictures that have still
segments for a long period of time. The still parts of the
picture may remain on the screen. This is a characteristic of
D-ILA devices and not a malfunction. The picture will
disappear over time

Parts Replacement
This unit contains parts (optical part, cooling fan, etc.) that
require replacement to maintain its functioning. The
estimated time for parts replacement varies greatly
depending on the usage and environment. Please consult
your authorized dealer for replacement.

D-ILA devices are manufactured using extremely high-precision technology. Pixel effectiveness is 99.99 %. Only 0.01 % or less of the pixels
are either missing or would remain permanently lit up.

(Corrected! 1920x1080x3 x 0.0001 = 622)


JackLT

I'm sure the black case colour will clash with decor and should also be a deal breaker for everyone ! :p

Some extracts from early mag reviews -

Home Cimema Choice (UK) - Printed form not on-line yet

The gentleman reviewing the JVC has absolutely no negative comments about the projector, he is completely blown away by it's performance and has never seen such deep blacks on any projector, let alone something at this price point.

He goes on to say that it makes the very impressive Sony Pearl look 'inadequate' and even trumps the Ruby for performance.

He finishes the lengthy review by warning LCD and DLP projector manufacturers, basically telling them that they should be shaking in their boots.

FINAL SCORE:
Brightness: 4.5 stars
Clarity: 5 stars
Features: 5 stars
Overall: 5 stars

Awards: HCC BEST BUY GUARANTEE

"I didn't have any doubts about this wonderous machine even before this review, now it's officially in the press as the best money can buy in this price range and way beyond. I hope the other reviews follow suit."


ultimate AV

"On most program material, I found the JVC to be a hair sharper than the Sharp XV-Z20000."

"The JVC is very quiet in its Normal lamp mode, and only slightly louder in High. It's not as quiet as the Sony Pearl or Mitsubishi HC5000, but quieter than the Sharp XV-Z20000. Its noise is also pitched fairly low, making it less intrusive than the usual high frequency sound of rushing air."

"So far, the JVC is the best projector I've seen for under $10,000"


Dazzer

Dazzer - just to be fair...


Quote from Ultimate AV:
Overall, however, the Sharp XV-Z20000 still has the best blacks and most consistent scene-to-scene contrast ratio I've yet seen on a digital projector. While the JVC could match or even best its measured results, and on many scenes looked every bit as good, there were some scenes in which the prize clearly went to the Sharp. Blacks could turn a little too gray on the JVC in scenes with dark foreground details and strong backlighting. And, as mentioned above, even some bright scenes lacked a little of the Sharp's often stunning sense of three-dimensionality and that elusive quality we call "pop."

Dazzer - just to be fair...


Quote from Ultimate AV:
Overall, however, the Sharp XV-Z20000 still has the best blacks and most consistent scene-to-scene contrast ratio I've yet seen on a digital projector. While the JVC could match or even best its measured results, and on many scenes looked every bit as good, there were some scenes in which the prize clearly went to the Sharp. Blacks could turn a little too gray on the JVC in scenes with dark foreground details and strong backlighting. And, as mentioned above, even some bright scenes lacked a little of the Sharp's often stunning sense of three-dimensionality and that elusive quality we call "pop."

Just to be fair... how much is the Sharp?

I also think the Sim2 HT5000 is a bit better than the HD1 and it's only $44k more :D

It's always great to see feedback (good or bad) from people who have first hand experience of a product rather than those who constantly speculate and whine based on hypothetical concerns. ;)

Dazzer

ust to be fair... how much is the Sharp ?The MSRP is 12k, but it is heavily discounted. You shouldn't pay anywhere near that. The street price is approximately 1.5-2k more than the JVC (which is NOT heavily discounted).

The MSRP is 12k, but it is heavily discounted. You shouldn't pay anywhere near that. The street price is approximately 1.5-2k more than the JVC (which is NOT heavily discounted).

What is not mentioned is the general sense that the JVC seemed to match the Sharp with respect to image detail without the accompanying eye strain, rainbows, etc.

What is not mentioned is the general sense that the JVC seemed to match the Sharp with respect to image detail without the accompanying eye strain, rainbows, etc.


Given all the deal breaking concern over the JVC noise level at 25db how will people cope with ~ 31-33db of the Sharp :p

Dazzer

Here's couple items from the JVC RS-1 manual dated 1/24/2007 worth mentioning:

D-ILA Device Characteristics
Do not project still pictures or pictures that have still
segments for a long period of time. The still parts of the
picture may remain on the screen. This is a characteristic of
D-ILA devices and not a malfunction. The picture will
disappear over time

Parts Replacement
This unit contains parts (optical part, cooling fan, etc.) that
require replacement to maintain its functioning. The
estimated time for parts replacement varies greatly
depending on the usage and environment. Please consult
your authorized dealer for replacement.

D-ILA devices are manufactured using extremely high-precision technology. Pixel effectiveness is 99.99 %. Only 0.01 % or less of the pixels
are either missing or would remain permanently lit up.

(Corrected! 1920x1080x3 x 0.0001 = 622)


The image retention (not burn in) has been addressed in one of the other threads. So has the dead pixel wording in the manual. I believe BartS addressed the image retention and either he or Tom S addressed the dead pixel wording.

I bet the optical bart is the bulb. I'm sure this wording is in there for legal liability purposes as well. Your car manual states that you will have to replace all kinds of things.

The image retention (not burn in) has been addressed in one of the other threads. So has the dead pixel wording in the manual. I believe BartS addressed the image retention and either he or Tom S addressed the dead pixel wording.

I bet the optical bart is the bulb. I'm sure this wording is in there for legal liability purposes as well. Your car manual states that you will have to replace all kinds of things.

I looked for the answers but didn't find it,
probably missed it with so many posts.

I just posted the question in the main JVC Q and A thread.

The manual mentions the bulb life as 2000 hours elsewhere, not sure if they would call it an optical part later?

I'd just hate to call JVC in 6-8 months with a defective fan or degraded panels and hear they are not covered under warranty as the manual states they will need replacement. The version of the manual had no warranty to check, probably a insert?

The MSRP is 12k, but it is heavily discounted. You shouldn't pay anywhere near that. The street price is approximately 1.5-2k more than the JVC (which is NOT heavily discounted).

Unless you can get the Sharp for 50% off, this is not an accurate statement.

Unless you can get the Sharp for 50% off, this is not an accurate statement.

Actually thats about right up, the Sharp is about 2.2K more than the JVC

[QUOTE=JackLT]I looked for the answers but didn't find it,
probably missed it with so many posts.

........QUOTE]

Yeah, I asked BartS about the image retention thing when I first read about it. He stated that they haven't seen any image retention problems during testing, but that if it does occur it would take in the magnitude of seconds for it to disappear. I was worried when I first read about it because I plan to do a fair bit of gaming with my unit. Of course the term that had gotten tossed around at first was burn-in which is thankfully NOT what can happen on the projector. I can't even remember what thread this was posted in now though.

Actually thats about right up, the Sharp is about 2.2K more than the JVC


Jack, are you saying you can get the Sharp for 2.2k more than the AVS preorder price of the RS1?

Jack, are you saying you can get the Sharp for 2.2k more than the AVS preorder price of the RS1?

No as the AVS preorder price is history.

I dont want to break forum rules discussing price.
All I can say is contact AVS they have the best prices.

"The image retention (not burn in) has been addressed in one of the other threads. So has the dead pixel wording in the manual. I believe BartS addressed the image retention and either he or Tom S addressed the dead pixel wording. "

I don't remember the dead pixel issue being addressed; could you please summarize what was said?

Thanks