Just thought I would post this for those not aware of this shootout yet. Some great reading.

http://www.avforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=460012

Wish we could see some close up screen shots of test patterns on each projector...
So many subjective comments, someone must own a tripod and dSLR?

Excellent.

So, where is our 3 year warranty from JVC that they are all getting on pre-orders in the UK?!!

Unfortunately, so many people wanted to see it, it was a case of one group in, another group out. They are subjective comments but unanimously praising. We did see some test patterns, (again, sorry, subjective) convergence was very close to perfect. As good as, if not better than, any 3 chip I have seen. Considerably better than the Pearl. White uniformity was perfect, looked like single-chip DLP. Again, the Pearl looked poor. The on/off contrast was excellent, in comparison to other projectors I have demoed, it seems cine4home's measurements are accurate. Shadow detail, on par with the best. The only elements that could be better are intra-scene contrast and its ability to handle ambient light. You really need absolute darkness to get a good picture. I find that, one persons take on ANSI and whether it is relative to image depth, to be completely different to another persons. All I can say is that the image looked considerably more 3D than the Pearl but, I am guessing here, that the combination of lower ANSI but very high on/off produces depth slightly differently to DLP. Regardless of spec it represents remarkable value compared to the competition.

Daniel, you say "you need absolute darkness to get a good picture." What if we have white walls/ceiling? Otherwise, have decent light control, but certainly not absolute darkness. Are the advantages of the JVC significantly reduced/much less obvious if one does not have a bat cave?

I'm sure the JVC looks great, but I just can't imagine a decently setup Pearl looking poor?
At the recent show a comment was made the Pearl looked washed out??

I had a chance to use a Pearl for a day, and while the lens could have been sharper edge to edge, it looked far from poor or washed out. The JVC may offer more contrast and lower light output producing darker blacks, but I just dont understand how that can make the excellent quality image the Pearl can produce suddenly look washed out and poor?

That's why I wish someone could post closeup images comparing the projectors...

I think that if one saw the Pearl by itself, one would be very positively impressed by it. It is only in the side-to-side comparison that it looks 'dull and washed out'.

White uniformity was perfect, looked like single-chip DLP.

This is the statement that stands out most for me. :)

I'm sure the JVC looks great, but I just can't imagine a decently setup Pearl looking poor?
At the recent show a comment was made the Pearl looked washed out??

I had a chance to use a Pearl for a day, and while the lens could have been sharper edge to edge, it looked far from poor or washed out. The JVC may offer more contrast and lower light output producing darker blacks, but I just dont understand how that can make the excellent quality image the Pearl can produce suddenly look washed out and poor?

That's why I wish someone could post closeup images comparing the projectors...


I actually read quite a few comments in the linked thread where people said the Pearl threw a great picture. It was just that the JVC was noticably better in a side by side. There were actually comments from a few Pearl owners in the thread as well. I would agree with Millerwill that the Pearl looks great on its own, but you see its limitations, especially with DI CR compared to native CR, when you do a side by side with the JVC. I thought it was great that the guy who calibrated both units was posting as well. Seems like this was a fair comparison IMO.

The differences were highlighted by HD source material as the HD1 is clearly capable of resolving more detail. I would call this improved sharpness... The differences were less pronounced with upscaled DVD, but in all cases the HD1 had more image depth. It was also more punchy and "alive" whilst seeming natural at all times.

The Pearl did look great, but in direct comparison with the HD1, it did look washed out. Sorry! Quite simply, the HD1 uses different technology to the Pearl (digital backplane, aligned liquid crystal layer, wire grid polarizers) and a better lens, and it showed...

BTW, Gordon Fraser (who did the calibration) has a reputation as being one of the best ISF guys in the UK. He's also the UK distributor for Lumagen.

It sounds like a great shootouot and it reinforced what others have said with the RS1 vs Ruby shootout and RS1 vs Sharp 20K. But one question. How did they ISF calibrate the RS1 when it's been confirmed that there is no way currently to change the shape of the grey scale curve or to shade it?

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=789828

Mark,

Gordon did the best he could without the benefit of an external scaler. Elliot said that the HD1 was essentially linear so getting it completely flat at all IRE levels was quite easy. Not so with the Pearl.

They freely admitted that the Pearl could get better by using an external VP with multi-point gamma correction.

It's a very difficult to decide how to compare these two projectors. In one sense, it seems that it is simply not possible to get the Pearl to a flat D65 with the two IRE points that are provided in the basic menus. If you just want to buy a projector and plug a couple of sources into it, the HD1 is streets ahead. It's clear that the HD1 has better processing and lens.

Now if you pair up both HD1 and Pearl with the same VP, things would probably narrow in favour of the Pearl.

Personally though, I feel that the HD1 would easily best a Pearl+VP without any assistance from a VP itself. And the Pearl+VP would cost more too.

I'm not buying the HD1 for the processing. I'm buying it as the best possible monitor that I can afford. The fact that it has great processing and you can get it do a flat D65 easily is a bonus.

Joel

I'm sure the JVC looks great, but I just can't imagine a decently setup Pearl looking poor?
At the recent show a comment was made the Pearl looked washed out??

I had a chance to use a Pearl for a day, and while the lens could have been sharper edge to edge, it looked far from poor or washed out. The JVC may offer more contrast and lower light output producing darker blacks, but I just dont understand how that can make the excellent quality image the Pearl can produce suddenly look washed out and poor?

That's why I wish someone could post closeup images comparing the projectors...



As an 60XBR2 owner it is clear why the Sony Pearl looked washed out at the downstairs JVC Hd1 and Pearl demo.

The brightness level was set too high (said to be out of box settings by the JVC demonstrator).

KT

We're talking about a different demo (last night's in the UK). Both projectors were properly IFS calibrated to D65 (or as close as possible without using an external VP).

Have posted in on the main thread on the UK forum as well but I would like to thank on behalf of all us as JVC everybody who turned up yesterday.

The biggest thank you obviously to Elliot and this team for hosting such excellent evening, great to put a few faces and names together and thanks for the excellent discussion in the breaks

Sorry I could not be there for more than an hour but it was well worth it.
Keep the posts coming, it's great reading all the positive feedback, it honestly gives our guys great satisfaction.

"True Black HD1" is in town!www.jvctrueblack.co.uk (http://www.jvctrueblack.co.uk) h

It was a great event and thanks to all who attended.

Just a note to say i was at CES and saw the HD1 vs Pearl there, ours was a very different demo. I highlighted to Alex Kobayashi (HD1 designer) that the demo in vegas was poor, as it was obvious no effort had been made to calibrate the 2 for a fair demo.

Ours was entirly fair, we sell both units and we had the top ISF calibrator do the setup. The difference is still very apparent, the Pearl simply cannot go as black or more importantly be deep inky black and vibrant white in the same scene. I used the opening of the Harry Potter HD DVD as a demonstration of this.

Convergence on our unit after shifting red 1 pixel right was a 1/4 pixel over the entire image, its pefectly uniform with no abberation. A very different situation with the pearl and its convergence. Alex (HD1 designer) said that this was not a great unit for convergence which i was stunned about, can't wait to see a good one!

Visited the UK thread (link above) and it reads like a useful comparison. The UK JVC link above is a nice brochure-type layout of the features and specs, too.

Believe there a few long threads here debating the value/loss of using perforated screens for audio transparency. Noticed the UK thread mentions they used a 110" diagonal (8'-wide) Stewart ST130 microperf screen. What's the texture of such a screen inches away, and if the 'microperfs' are visible would it be better (extreme resolution-wise) to have a smooth(er?)-surface screen like the one I've read was designed for the Pearl (Stewart Firehawk SST)? Thanks. -- John

JackLT go here for screen shot of fish

http://www.jvctrueblack.co.uk/index.php

Rival PJ (un-named unsurprisingly)shot has either been photoshopped, purposely washed out or is an old machine. It is not reflective of the competition in any way.
Looks like some dodgy use of contrast and brightness to me as well as some colour work.

JackLT go here for screen shot of fish

http://www.jvctrueblack.co.uk/index.php

Rival PJ (un-named unsurprisingly)shot has either been photoshopped, purposely washed out or is an old machine. It is not reflective of the competition in any way.
Looks like some dodgy use of contrast and brightness to me as well as some colour work.

Geeeze. :rolleyes:
The fish picture example is just "generic." Same as ALL manufactures do to try and illustrate a point.

The example has been OBVIOUSLY skewed. I've never seen a picture so bad from a well set up pj as that shown as "conventional". This is misleading at best.

In one sense, it seems that it is simply not possible to get the Pearl to a flat D65 with the two IRE points that are provided in the basic menus.
All the professional reviews I have seen on the Pearl have praised the flat grayscale! WSR got dE < 2, with most points at 0. UltimateAvMag got similar results.

With grayscale tracking, the Pearl was a dream. Its out of the box performance was excellent, centering around 7000K through the range and only erring toward a benign amount of blue. For the perfectionists out there it calibrates quickly and nearly perfectly. Tracking was exceptionally tight on the D65 target, which is even more critical than the temperature readings themselves. The Pearl didn't deviate from the x/y targets for D65 by more than .002 from 30 IRE to 100 IRE, and unlike many displays it maintained that tracking down to black. Exemplary. We couldn't ask for more

http://www.ultimateavmag.com/videoprojectors/1106sonypearl/index5.html

I just have to shake my head when I see anyone say anything about the picture attributes of the Pearl that is definitive.

Like snowflakes it seems, no two Pearls are exactly alike in their issues.
the only thing these positive and negative reviews of the Pearl should tell anyone is that they could get a unit like that. They do exist (and that goes for good and bad). Well just have to wait and see how much more consistent (or not) the retail JVCs are.

The example has been OBVIOUSLY skewed. I've never seen a picture so bad from a well set up pj as that shown as "conventional". This is misleading at best.

jeez you're really anti JVC arent you ? ALL manufacturers use touched photos when doing comparisons. please. most manufacturers lie on specs too.
In the end the Sony and the JVC pjs dont lie much at all on there specs
i wont name other brands who do however !

Side by side = ambient light
This is holding both projectors back unless it is done in side by side standing black boxes or close to such a setup.

jeez you're really anti JVC arent you ? ALL manufacturers use touched photos when doing comparisons. please. most manufacturers lie on specs too.
In the end the Sony and the JVC pjs dont lie much at all on there specs
i wont name other brands who do however !



This guy has been trying to sabotage JVC with every post on here and the UK forums. He obviously has ulterior motives. His credibility was completely shot yesterday when he was asked several times where exactly in NY he supposedly saw the JVC (store name and approx location) and he never gave an answer. Ignore his posts, as nothing he says at this point can be taken seriously at all IMO.

Elliot,

"Convergence on our unit after shifting red 1 pixel right was a 1/4 pixel over the entire image, its pefectly uniform with no abberation."

Curious what happens at the left edge of the screen when this is done - is there a column of G+B, or is the pj smart enough to blank it?

"His credibility was completely shot yesterday when he was asked several times where exactly in NY he supposedly saw the JVC (store name and approx location) and he never gave an answer."

It was shot for me when Tom Stites made it clear that there was no pj in NYC.

He is probably a disgruntled Sim2 D80 owner.

Geeeze. :rolleyes:
The fish picture example is just "generic." Same as ALL manufactures do to try and illustrate a point.


thanks at last a bit of common sense, that is all we tried to do
Cold Machine has obviouly a some sort of anti JVC attitude, has not seen any HD1 in NYC and could even comment on our demo last night in the UK without ever actually crossing the Atlantic... sad sad sad

[QUOTE=noah katz]Elliot,

"Convergence on our unit after shifting red 1 pixel right was a 1/4 pixel over the entire image, its pefectly uniform with no abberation."

Curious what happens at the left edge of the screen when this is done - is there a column of G+B, or is the pj smart enough to blank it?
QUOTE]

Its smart enough to blank it :cool:

Side by side = ambient light
This is holding both projectors back unless it is done in side by side standing black boxes or close to such a setup.

Elliot blanked of the pj we weren't watching each time by placing a black felt stand over the lens. This effectively took the pj out of the room while we were watching the other one. I don't see any stray light from the blanked pj effecting the one we were viewing

Gary