http://www.ultimateavmag.com/videoprojectors/207jvchd1/

It not called Stereophile any longer!

Quote:
"While less than specified (not uncommon), the JVC's contrast ratio is still state-of-the-art performance for a digital projector."

Hopefully not bait and switch tactics?

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

Yes nicely surprising and evidence of a quality optical system and alignment. One that I've waited years for in a reasonable priced front projector:)

Lastly there is no better front projector reviewer than Tom Norton, especially compared to that infamous brand loyalist Shane Buettner from the same magazine.

As a calibrated by Jason Turk Sony Pearl owner, Norton's review doesn't exactly make me want to sell the Pearl for the JVC. I'm sure the JVC is better but it seems to share some of the negatives the Pearl has such as brightness in the corners and a sometimes lack of "pop" in bright scenes compared to DLP. This lack of pop on the Sony was blamed on the auto iris. Maybe a lot of this lack of pop has to do with the LCOS SXRD technology. As you can tell, I am trying to point out the negatives in his review to make me feel better about my purchase of the Pearl. ;) I wonder why he didn't use a ND filter to lower the light output on his smallish screen to bring black level down?

It not called Stereophile any longer!

Quote:
"While less than specified (not uncommon), the JVC's contrast ratio is still state-of-the-art performance for a digital projector."

Hopefully not bait and switch tactics?

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

Yes nicely surprising and evidence of a quality optical system and alignment. One that I've waited years for in a reasonable priced front projector:)

Lastly there is no better front projector reviewer than Tom Norton, especially compared to that infamous brand loyalist Shane Buettner from the same magazine.


I respect and enjoy Norton's reviews but GREG ROGERS of WSR mag is by far IMHO the best most detailed FP reviewer in the business.

Let the nitpickers have at it...but note that he concludes with the following:

"I'll just conclude for now by paraphrasing what Shane Buettner had to say in his review of the Sony Pearl. So far, the JVC is the best projector I've seen for under $10,000."

UNIFORMITY
"The only issue I noticed was a slight lightening in the corners with a full black image (a video black test pattern or a fade to black between scenes), which never intruded in normal viewing. (I noticed this same effect on the Sony VPL-VW100 or "Ruby," but less so on the Sony VPL-VW50 "Pearl.")"


BRIGHTNESS COMPRESSION
"The DLA-HD1 suffers less from this bright scene fading than most LCD and LCoS designs I've seen, even without an iris. That's likely due to improvements in the chip and light engine described above. The fading isn't completely absent, however, though I'm still sorting this out with extensive comparisons to good DLP projectors, which don't suffer from this effect at all. Oddly, some bright scenes look more faded and 2-D on the JVC than on a DLP, while on most such shots the effect, if present, is unnoticeable."

BLACK LEVEL
"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." My measurements so far suggest that while the JVC has superior peak contrast (at roughly identical black levels but higher peak whites), it has lower ANSI contrast. This combination would explain the visible result."

CONVERGENCE
"Unfortunately, vertical lines at the far right side of the image were off by about one pixel in both red and blue. This was rarely noticeable from a normal viewing distance, primarily as a slight red edge to very high contrast objects on that side, such as white titles on a black background. A difference in pixel convergence in different parts of the screen is generally due to chromatic aberration in the lens or something else in the optical path, not panel misalignment, which would be uniform across the entire screen."

NOISE
"It's not as quiet as the Sony Pearl or Mitsubishi HC5000, but quieter than the Sharp XV-Z20000."

my observations have been its the best black level of any digital I've seen.


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

This is good news. Maybe it will quite those who only focus on sharpness and say things like "it was unwatchable" from past projectors like the Sony. Unwatchable? :rolleyes:

I respect and enjoy Norton's reviews but GREG ROGERS of WSR mag is by far IMHO the best most detailed FP reviewer in the business.
Exactly. That is why you bought the Sony Pearl. Mr. Norton, to his credit verified the Pearls softness. Here Tom almost instantly reports that the JVC is actually sharper than a high end DLP. Wow!
Greg is great for measurements but Tom gives the best johnny-on-the-spot expert opinion advice. Greg eventually divulges all the truth but he ain't very timely.

And here Tom got the review scoop first. Congratulations to Ultimate. And lets all hope that Bob hasn't made another mistake:) (just kidding Bob)

BRIGHTNESS COMPRESSION
"The DLA-HD1 suffers less from this bright scene fading than most LCD and LCoS designs I've seen, even without an iris. That's likely due to improvements in the chip and light engine described above. The fading isn't completely absent, however, though I'm still sorting this out with extensive comparisons to good DLP projectors, which don't suffer from this effect at all. Oddly, some bright scenes look more faded and 2-D on the JVC than on a DLP, while on most such shots the effect, if present, is unnoticeable."
I don't believe that what is being described is brightness compression.

Exactly. That is why you bought the Sony Pearl. Mr. Norton, to his credit verified the Pearls softness. Here Tom almost instantly reports that the JVC is actually sharper than a high end DLP. Wow!
Greg is great for measurements but Tom gives the best johnny-on-the-spot expert opinion advice. Greg eventually divulges all the truth but he ain't very timely.

And here Tom got the review scoop first. Congratulations to Ultimate. And lets all hope that Bob hasn't made another mistake:) (just kidding Bob)

I partially based my Pearl purchase because of Greg's review and with speaking to Jason Turk. I purchased my first three projectors based mostly on Nortons reviews in SGHT mag. :D

"A difference in pixel convergence in different parts of the screen is generally due to chromatic aberration in the lens or something else in the optical path, not panel misalignment, which would be uniform across the entire screen.""

Such a 2D thinker..... ;)

Shawn

The only thing that concerns me with that report is he is claiming 20-25ftL on a 78" diag ST130 screen. If the cine4home numbers are correct, he should be getting WAY more lumens than that. I have figured ~23-28flL (according to C4H numbers) on a 94" ST130 depending on low or high lamp, and this is about 1.5' from the FAR end of the throw. What is up with that? :confused:

When all is said and done the best way to test is the double blind method. This way the biases of the reviewer/s doesn't come into play.

FWIW, based on the resolution of the measured brightness values (18.11fL peak white/0.002fL video black), and assuming perfect linearity and calibration which is highly unlikely, On/Off contrast could range anywhere between

18.105/0.0025 = 7242

to 18.115/0.0015 = 12077

Put another way, a black level reading of 0.0012, not too far off .002 in an absolute sense, would have resulted in an CR of 15000

Brent

The only thing that concerns me with that report is he is claiming 20-25ftL on a 78" diag ST130 screen. If the cine4home numbers are correct, he should be getting WAY more lumens than that. I have figured ~23-28flL (according to C4H numbers) on a 94" ST130 depending on low or high lamp, and this is about 1.5' from the FAR end of the throw. What is up with that? :confused:

I agree 100% and noticed this right away about the review. Something is off with regards to the reported ftL in comparison to cine4home and other reports.

I don't believe that what is being described is brightness compression.

That was exactly my sentiments when I read it too. I think the effect he is describing is the high ANSI in DLP vs the lower ANSI in LCOS. There should be no BC in a native projector assuming a decently setup gamma table.

I agree 100% and noticed this right away about the review. Something is off with regards to the reported ftL in comparison to cine4home and other reports.

Glad you noticed this as well. According to my numbers, he would be getting ~276 lumens in low mode and ~350 in high plugging in 17.94 for his 78" diag screen! Even IF he was at max throw, this is 175 lumens off of the cine4home 525 number the Ekkehart has reported, and reconfirmed with a production/serial unit. Something is screwy here :confused:

From the review:

On most program material, I found the JVC to be a hair sharper than the Sharp XV-Z20000. While I did not have a Sony Pearl on hand to perform a direct comparison for this Sneak Peek, I did find in my short time with the Pearl that it was a bit less sharp than the Sharp, suggesting by deduction that the JVC is sharper than the Pearl.
His "deduction" is brilliant. He's a f*cking Sherlock Holmes.

"According to my numbers, he would be getting ~276 lumens in low mode and ~350 in high plugging in 17.94 for his 78" diag screen!"

Yes, quite alarming, and that's before the 15% loss after 100 hr.

The contrast and lumen output are lower than what we were "hand-fed" with. Think, who were these sources? Will you trust them next time?
Makes one really wonder about how susceptible human nature is to corruption.

Please remember not take out out any anger and disappointment by shooting the messenger who is simply reporting the truth. Thank you Tom!

That being said, I'll be buying after Alan. In the meantime Bob will surely help us all to understand:)

This is an extract from the Home Cinema Choice Magazine (not on-line yet but in print) courtesy of nathankemp on AVF -


"Ladies and gentlemen, you are cordially invited to join me as I explore a projector that I think could rock the world to its very foundations,

Strong words? Certainly. Over the top? You might think so. Unless, that is, like me you've seen JVC's truly remarkable DLA-HD1 projector in action...

D-ILA technology has been covered at length in previous HCCs but this is actually the first genuinely domestic projector from JVC. But rather than opt for a budget job, the brand has produced a high-end model with serious aspirations.

Design and Features

Visually, the True Black HD1 is a very striking proposition; it uses a centrally positioned lens and has a high-gloss black finish offset by a neat central grey stripe.

However, one aspect of the HD1's design that is not living room-friendly is its considerable size. Interestingly, in Japan the projector comes in a more modern gloss white finish, to suit lighter living rooms, and it would've been nice to be given the option here. Mind you, it you're ceiling mounting the unit, that probably doesn't matter and the black finish will, at least, make it less visible in the dark.

Connectivity is effective with two HDMI jacks, a component video input, an RS-232C control terminal for system integration (JVC hopes the HD1 will be a big hit with custom installation companies), and the usual S-video and composite video fallbacks.

There's no VGA input for PCs - use with a computer is only possible via OVI/HDMI. Of course, the core technology inside the HD1 is D-ILA (Direct Drive Image Light Amplification), JVC's variation on the more common Liquid Crystal on Silicon (LCoS) technology. This makes the HDl arguably closest in technological spirit to Sony's VPL-VW5O and VW100 projectors, which use a proprietary variation on LCoS, which is dubbed SXRD.

Contrast Claims

Previous D-ILA projectors have consistently impressed with their freedom from video noise, avoiding both the chicken wire/ screen door effect common with LCD technology, and the problems with motion dithering and the rainbow effect of some DIP competitors.

They've tended to be rather less impressive when it comes to black levels and colour response, however. Which is why I was rather startled to find the HD1 claiming a native contrast ratio of 15000:1. Unlike the highest contrast levels of practically all rival LCD and LCoS/SXRD projectors, this can be delivered without any iris-induced reduction in brightness.

The key to such a dazzling leap forward in black level is a combination of two innovations to the D-ILA engine. First, the latest 0.7in D-ILA device carries new ultrasmoothing technology that reduces irregularities in the liquid crystal alignment to reduce stray light. Secondly, it introduces new, next-generation liquid crystal materials and improved alignment technology to reduce the gap between liquid crystals so that light loss from the liquid crystal layer is reduced dramatically.

Even more innovative, though, is JVC's Wire Grid Optical Engine. Traditional polarising beam splitters in D-ILA (and similar) projectors use glass prisms and multi-layer interfaces, which is fine - except that these inevitably cause considerable light leakage into the lens. But the Wire Grid Optical Engine ditches the prism in favour of an inorganic reflective polarising plate. This consists of a flat glass substrate, upon which a 'cattle grid' of microscopic aluminium ribs have been deposited. These ribs produce an ultra-fine wire grid that apparently reduces the angle dependency for polarised light, so that there's less light leakage while showing dark scenes.

Naturally, the HD1 delivers Full HD 1080p resolution, which includes 24fps compatibility, and utilises Gennum's acclaimed GF9351 video processing engine. While all of these touches are undoubtedly important, I've stressed the use of the new light engine because I believe it to be the key reason why the HD1 projector is capable of producing such groundbreaking pictures.

Performance

Perhaps, the single most startling trait which characterises the HD1 is its black level. The opening battle of Star Wars: The Revenge of the Sith recorded in hi-def from Sky enjoys quite simply the most inkily black rendition of space I've ever seen at anything like the HD1's price point.

Even better, since the HD1 achieves its near-perfect black levels without any auto-iris device, there's no loss of brightness during dark shots. The stars continue to twinkle as vividly and look as phenomenally numerous as they would if watched in a real cinema, therefore, and the thousands of space craft on show lose absolutely none of their CGi lustre.

As well as helping the HD1 produce images of breathtaking dynamism during bright and dark scenes alike, the high contrast/high brightness combination helps the projector's colour range become something special too. The dazzling kaleidoscope of rich hues, metallic finishes and subtle blends that so illuminate the Revenge of the Sith's opening moments are all rendered with a precision and, particularly, a vibrancy that leaves even Sony's mighty Pearl projector looking inadequate. In fact, the HD1's colour intensity looks even better than Sony's £6k Ruby projector's, even though the Ruby uses horribly expensive £1,000 Xenon lamps while the HD1 uses just normal and much more affordable UHF illumination.

So bewilderingly impactful are the strengths reported thus far that two other talents only become noticeable upon later viewing: the image's sharpness/detail, and its freedom from noise. Regarding the former, the picture delivers every last minute pixel of Sky's exemplary Revenge of the Sith HD broadcast with pin-point accuracy, showing each drop of the 'HD' difference. Especially since the image's sharpness and clarity is entirely unsullied by seemingly any form of technology induced noise or motion blur.

Conclusion

Regardless of the unit's modest £4,500 price tag, there's really nothing disparaging to say about the HD1's performance at all. In every way it simply blows the competition away. In fact, to my eyes it delivers a Full HD performance that even gives three-chip DIP projectors something to think about, but for a fraction of the cost.

Frankly, if DLP and LCD projectors had knees, they really ought to be knocking right about now..."

Dazzer

I have a PDF, if you need it, just PM me

Yep, that RS-1 is sounding better and better every minute. Only a few more weeks now... :D

Frankly, if DLP and LCD projectors had knees, they really ought to be knocking right about now..."

Dazzer

Hype and reality, hype and reality...

If all this is true, can someone explain to me why anyone would buy another projector (except perhaps for budgetary reasons)? Really, why buy any other projector?

Hype and reality, hype and reality...


That's the quote from HCC not me BTW :p

That said I did demo the Sim2 HT5000, C3X and D80 a couple of weeks ago. The HT5000 is way over my budget at $50k+ but the C3X and D80 were real options. After the HD1 demo I could not justify the cost difference of these based on PQ. So the reality is I purchased the HD1. No hype just my opinion based on first hand viewing. ;) YMMV

Dazzer

The contrast and lumen output are lower than what we were "hand-fed" with. Think, who were these sources? Will you trust them next time?
Makes one really wonder about how susceptible human nature is to corruption.

Please remember not take out out any anger and disappointment by shooting the messenger who is simply reporting the truth. Thank you Tom!

That being said, I'll be buying after Alan. In the meantime Bob will surely help us all to understand:)

Just so that I'm clear, are you saying:

Ultimate AV (T. Norton) = Truth
Cine4Home = "hand-fed" and "susceptible...to corruption"

?

If all this is true, can someone explain to me why anyone would buy another projector (except perhaps for budgetary reasons)? Really, why buy any other projector?

I suspect there's a "sweet spot" in terms of screen size, viewing environment etc that fits the HD1. Outside of this other PJ's may be better suited i.e. their sweet spot.

I don't think there is a one size fits all PJ yet but I guess I'm in the HD1 sweet spot.


Dazzer

Well.. this is very interesting. The first comments on how the ANSI CR is not up to par on the JVC are disturbing. I may end up keeping my Sharp afterall, but it will be interesting to compare the two when the RS1 arrives.

Well.. this is very interesting. The first comments on how the ANSI CR is not up to par on the JVC are disturbing. I may end up keeping my Sharp afterall, but it will be interesting to compare the two when the RS1 arrives.

I can't wait for your comparison Free. I'm in Toronto and the JVC will not be on display anywhere. I've never been more blown away by a projected image as I was with the Sharp Z2000 in terms of sharpness and contrast. Unfortunately it's expensive but most of all I'm very sensitive to DLP rainbows. If the JVC compares favorably with the Sharp I'd be extremely happy with the JVC.

This is an extract from the Home Cinema Choice Magazine (not on-line yet but in print) courtesy of nathankemp on AVF -


"Ladies and gentlemen, you are cordially invited to join me as I explore a projector that I think could rock the world to its very foundations,....

Conclusion

Regardless of the unit's modest £4,500 price tag, there's really nothing disparaging to say about the HD1's performance at all. In every way it simply blows the competition away. In fact, to my eyes it delivers a Full HD performance that even gives three-chip DIP projectors something to think about, but for a fraction of the cost.

Frankly, if DLP and LCD projectors had knees, they really ought to be knocking right about now..."

Dazzer

Great words, but where are their mearements accompanying this review? The low lumens from Norton are very surprising. I will have a fairly long throw in my room and these are shocking. Hopefully we can get another review or two with measurements (Jason, Greg,...)

Interesting sneak peek, however UltimateAV generally has lower figures compared to Cine4home and WSR.

Great words, but where are their mearements accompanying this review? The low lumens from Norton are very surprising. I will have a fairly long throw in my room and these are shocking. Hopefully we can get another review or two with measurements (Jason, Greg,...)


I would be a liar to tell you I was not a bit concerned with the ftL that Norton is reporting. I would think this surely has to be a mistake somehow (I hope). Like I said, even if he was at max throw (which he probably was not), these lumens are WAY off from all the reports so far. If he was closer to min throw, these numbers are farther off still and are about 1/2 of what cine4home is reporting, and confirming with a production model. Even the JVC guys reported they were getting 18ftL on the ST130 110" diag at CES, and later reported this to be about 525 lumens. They claimed this was at a 14.5 ft throw in LOW lamp which is nearly 1/3 the way back from min throw so they were no doubt loosing a few lumens as well. I wish we could get this cleared up one way or the other as this is a HUGE difference from everything reported to this point. Maybe some of the UK guys could give us some measurements? :confused:

I respect and enjoy Norton's reviews but GREG ROGERS of WSR mag is by far IMHO the best most detailed FP reviewer in the business.

Nonsense! Norton is by far the best writer. Norton gives you an eagle view of a product and always put it in perpective, where it comes from and where it is going, where the competition is, is it going to be obsolete two months from now.. Greg Rogers reviews read like a manufacturer's manual.. When you write for WSR you never criricize anything. You always cheer, like for DVHS.

he measured contrast at the screen which may explain why he measured 9k:1. weren't c4home and the other reviewers measuring at the projector?

Interesting sneak peek, however UltimateAV generally has lower figures compared to Cine4home and WSR.


The thing is these lower figures are not slightly lower, they are extremely lower. This is troublesome as I expect there to be slight variations between numbers, but nothing like this. What is up? :confused:

those who have PMed me should have the UK HCC review in their inbox

the UltimateAV also meassures the Pearl extremeley lower than Cine4home i dont care about that

If you look at TJN's reviews of other projectors, you will see that his screen is a 78" WIDE StudioTek 130. The 78" diagonal reported in the RS1 short take must be a mistake. This does improve the lumen values somewhat, but are admittedly a little low.

A comparison of TJN's Ft-L results for the RS1 versus other 1080P projectors he has reviewed on the same screen (78" wide StudioTek 130) gives the following:

Sharp Z20000: 12.7 fL (Eco lamp+High Contrast)
15.78 fL (Eco lamp+Medium Contrast)
39 fL (Bright lamp+High Brightness)

Optoma HD81: 23 fL (Iris setting 8)
28 fL (Iris on auto)

Is there a reason why pj reviewers never give lumen output, but instead ftl, making all of us use spreadsheets to determine how bright the pj will be on our screens. And then Norm using a screen with GAIN requires yet another calculation.

I would think he would update that screen. Does 78" really represent what most people are watching on? Why not review on 100 or 110 for a good average of what the typical HT reader and researcher would be using?

I write reviews for a Swedish site and you ALWAYS give lumens and not fL IMO.

fL should be included, however the primary number should be lumens as it is not screen dependent

Nice thing about the review is the comparison to other projectors by name, it looks at the projector from a user point of view, as opposed to an expert.

Having used both the Pearl, Mits and Sharp with the compares I gained a pretty clear perspective on how the JVC will perform.

I had posted some time ago the I found it hard to believe the JVC could exceed the Sharp in black level, as the Sharp's black is just that, with the lamp on low and iris closed. The JVC having no iris will result in grey blacks where bright objects are also in the frame as was noted in the review, just from reflections alone.

The comments about the JVC being sharper than the Z20000 are interesting too, given the noted convergence issues on the JVC. I can also relate the the Mits seemed crisper than the 20000 as well, and I'm not sure why as the Sharp had a pixel perfect display with a quality lens edge to edge.

Overall a great 'fair' intro to the JVC, which is a nice change
+lower price than the 20000 for a slightly quieter unit with a similar image and maybe a better video processor resulting in images that appear sharper, trading off brighter blacks at times, and having less inputs, and some convergence/lens issues

If the JVC had more inputs , a manual iris, simple user menu RGB cuts/gains, and a lower price, it might be the only choice, but now I think many will find reasons to own it or another projector.

I don't think it will completely change the market as some expected, but will take away market share of others as its price falls. I'm looking forward to seeing one.

I find it quite amusing how 'alarmed' people are getting on here. I suppose its good to be skeptical but I mean how many more reviews, screenshots and consumer opinions do you need to know that this is an excellent projector?
If you need a reliable opinion on this projector, listen to Tryg. After I saw it, I found myself agreeing with everything he has said about it.
I don't think you would have to worry too much about gain until you get to the 120" mark. Until I got within 2 ft of the projector I couldn't hear it at all. It may not have as high a measured ANSI as the Sharp but if I had to choose between watching bright scenes on these two, it would be the HD1 every time.
Just wait until you see it, then you will see how the market changes

If you look at TJN's reviews of other projectors, you will see that his screen is a 78" WIDE StudioTek 130. The 78" diagonal reported in the RS1 short take must be a mistake. This does improve the lumen values somewhat, but are admittedly a little low.

A comparison of TJN's Ft-L results for the RS1 versus other 1080P projectors he has reviewed on the same screen (78" wide StudioTek 130) gives the following:

Sharp Z20000: 12.7 fL (Eco lamp+High Contrast)
15.78 fL (Eco lamp+Medium Contrast)
39 fL (Bright lamp+High Brightness)

Optoma HD81: 23 fL (Iris setting 8)
28 fL (Iris on auto)

Thanks for the info. This makes it better, but the lumens are still suprisingly low compared to other reports thus far. Why is there such a difference from the cine4home numbers to these? I suppose room conditions could play a role with this? Is there any reason not to believe cine4home?

I find it quite amusing how 'alarmed' people are getting on here. I suppose its good to be skeptical but I mean how many more reviews, screenshots and consumer opinions do you need to know that this is an excellent projector?
If you need a reliable opinion on this projector, listen to Tryg. After I saw it, I found myself agreeing with everything he has said about it.
I don't think you would have to worry too much about gain until you get to the 120" mark. Until I got within 2 ft of the projector I couldn't hear it at all. It may not have as high a measured ANSI as the Sharp but if I had to choose between watching bright scenes on these two, it would be the HD1 every time.
Just wait until you see it, then you will see how the market changes

I would not characterize as 'alarmed', maybe slightly disappointed fits better. I did not become a daily reader of AVS until about 12 months ago, and this will be my first PJ, so I don't have the experience in the PJ world as many on this forum.

I am trying to push the envelope with the RS1 (120" width screen), and have already been knocked from the 700 spec'd lumens to 500+ by Cine4home. Now if it drops even more, I may have to go smaller screen or different PJ.

I am trying to push the envelope with the RS1 (120" width screen), and have already been knocked from the 700 spec'd lumens to 500+ by Cine4home. Now if it drops even more, I may have to go smaller screen or different PJ.

Mark, What type of screen are you planning for? Is it a 2.35 cinemascope, or standard 9x16 (at 120" W, that would be REALLY big)? And are you thinking of a high gain screen, eg. Dalite HiPower, or something else? Bill

"The Sharp XV-Z20000 sometimes outperformed the JVC with respect to depth of image and contrast consistency from scene to scene. But on much of the program material I watched I could switch back and forth between the two projectors and not be able to make an easy, clear call as to which one I preferred. And when I did see a difference worth commenting on, the far less expensive JVC often came out on top"

sounds good to me

I suppose its good to be skeptical but I mean how many more reviews, screenshots and consumer opinions do you need to know that this is an excellent projector?

An infinite number of reviews, screenshots, and consumer opinions couldn't convince me of that. Only my own two eyes can.

Just so that I'm clear, are you saying:

Ultimate AV (T. Norton) = Truth
Cine4Home = "hand-fed" and "susceptible...to corruption"
?
We as casual readers will never find out what goes on behind the scenes.
All we can do is ponder and build a case of what we were told and when.
Where did the published 15,000:1 contrast ratio go? And the high level D65 output?
The color primaries are off by as much as the Sony.

I'll be waiting for some more data points. Even Mr. Norton writes he is still sorting some issues out. Time will tell.

Mark, What type of screen are you planning for? Is it a 2.35 cinemascope, or standard 9x16 (at 120" W, that would be REALLY big)? And are you thinking of a high gain screen, eg. Dalite HiPower, or something else? Bill

I am planning to go 120" wide 2.35:1 CIH. Of course the lack of vertical stretch was the first small disappointment. I was going to get an anamorphic lense, but now with the need to also buy a VP for the vertical stretch, no can do. I will zoom in for 2.35:1 for the time being.

For screens, thinking about Dalite HP a lot. Other screens I'm considering are Carada BW or Studiotek 130. I have a new light controlled 14x21 dedicated room.

I am not shaken from the belief that the RS1 is a great PJ for the price, and I am on the prebuy. Back in the original discussions on the RS1, and what we knew about the projected specs, this was going to work great in my situation.

If I go a smaller screen and mount the PJ closer than I had planned, I'm sure it will output a great picture in my room. but I don't want to make either of those concessions. As time goes on, each little dink in the RS1 armor is adding up to a possibly tough go in my room.

I'm somewhat concerned that this is not a production model, as to my knowledge (and from what JVC has said) there are no production model HD1s in the States yet. Other than that, it's a pretty good first peek. It will be nice to see the full review when it's complete.

I am planning to go 120" wide 2.35:1 CIH. Of course the lack of vertical stretch was the first small disappointment. I was going to get an anamorphic lense, but now with the need to also buy a VP for the vertical stretch, no can do. I will zoom in for 2.35:1 for the time being.

For screens, thinking about Dalite HP a lot. Other screens I'm considering are Carada BW or Studiotek 130. I have a new light controlled 14x21 dedicated room.

I am not shaken from the belief that the RS1 is a great PJ for the price, and I am on the prebuy. Back in the original discussions on the RS1, and what we knew about the projected specs, this was going to work great in my situation.

If I go a smaller screen and mount the PJ closer than I had planned, I'm sure it will output a great picture in my room. but I don't want to make either of those concessions. As time goes on, each little dink in the RS1 armor is adding up to a possibly tough go in my room.

Thanks for the info. I've been thinking of a 133"diag 9x16 (116"W, 65"H), but could fit a 126"W, 54"H 2.35 screen in (also a Dalite HP). But since I probably watch hdtv at least 50% of the time, I'm reluctant to throw away the 9x16 size that the 2.35 screen would entail. If I only used it for movies, then 'yes', but I think I will just live the the black bars above and below on the 133" 1.78 screen.

reincarnate
You can spin what you want from carefully selected sources.

wm has measured 12000:1 in the contrast thread. That is close enough to 15000:1 if you do not want to count Cine4Home. It is very probable that the light output will be above 600 ANSI lumen in high mode. The thing that JVC should have done is to implement a Color management system. On this I agree with you. Lets wait for the real data on the primaries and not just how they are worded.

I thought Norton's comments on LCD/LCOS "fading" oin bright scenes were odd; I don't recollect he ar anyone else ever mentioning that about the Pearl/Ruby.

Also inconsistent with his saying the JVC was more of a breakthrough than the Pearl.

Maybe it's just a poorly expressed comment on ANSI CR?

reincarnate
You can spin what you want from carefully selected sources.

wm has measured 12000:1 in the contrast thread. That is close enough to 15000:1 if you do not want to count Cine4Home.

On this I agree with you. Lets wait for the real data on the primaries and not just how they are worded.
Correction: we have both been spined. At least I realize it and question it. You on the other hand are in denial and choose not to. To each his own.

I suggested gathering the evidence as to what has been previously published.
Since there have been few sources of these very high measurements, the task is almost trivial. Hold these people accountable for their published exaggerations or let them explain the situation. In any event I don't think anyone likes being duped. Maybe they too were duped?

The difference may simply be one of carefully tweaked samples vs. what gets sold to the consumer. (This case happens quite frequently).

No spin here Ohlson just a tiny bit of critical/science thinking. I say cut the crap out, get to the truth and prevent this deplorable situation from occurring again.:)

I hope you haven't been spined; it sounds painful.

"The Sharp XV-Z20000 sometimes outperformed the JVC with respect to depth of image and contrast consistency from scene to scene. But on much of the program material I watched I could switch back and forth between the two projectors and not be able to make an easy, clear call as to which one I preferred. And when I did see a difference worth commenting on, the far less expensive JVC often came out on top"

sounds good to me

I don't think anyone expected the HD1/RS1 ti hands down beat every single pj out there in every single category. That's not going to happen with any pj in the same class compared to another.

From his review there are things he liked a bit better about the picture quality of the JVC, and things he liked better about the PQ of the Sharp 20K. And that's to be expected.

What I was most impressed by was the final comment which velvetpoet highlighed in bold above. Sounds like to the reviewer the PQ was very similar but when it came down to it he tended to prefer the HD1 in most scenes. That to be was a big statement.

Has anyone tried to contact the reviewer about the ftL and/or lumens in his review and the discrepancy with earlier reports? As an example, cine4home reported they demoed the HD1 to him on a 4m wide screen and it looked very bright. Based on what this reviewer reported, I don't see how that wouldn't have looked very dim on a 4m wide screen on the contrary. Something is off somewhere. Perhaps the reviewer can clear this up?

Re: CR measurements, they are useless taken on their own. Every reviewer does it a different way and comes up with different results. Most never reach the spec claimed by the manufacturer. The only way to use these results is to compare them to measurements taken by the same reviewer on other projectors, hopefully one that you're familiar with.

So, for Mr. Norton:

Sharp XV-Z20000
Claimed: 12,000:1
Highest Measured: 6350:1

JVC DLA-HD1
Claimed: 15000:1
Highest Measured: 9055:1

Panasonic AE900 (a projector that I'm extremely familiar with)
Claimed: 5500:1
Highest Measured: 1940:1

My own measurements on the AE900 are very close to Mr. Norton's, so I would expect to get similar results with the other projectors. That being said, I'm not concerned with the numbers, just the results. ;)

I would think he would update that screen. Does 78" really represent what most people are watching on? Why not review on 100 or 110 for a good average of what the typical HT reader and researcher would be using?

I suspect the screen size is predicated by what Stewart recommends for the projector. Don't forget that lumens decline when the projector lamp ages so a too large screen will result in a washed out image.

Nice comparison. Do you have lumen ratings for those as well? It's the lumens that jumped out for me.

This is an extract from the Home Cinema Choice Magazine

I wouldn't take too much notice of HCC magazine or most of our other UK AV mags to be honest. Ask yourself if you've gleaned any other useful information from the review over and above JVC's info about the projector on their website. I can tell you now the answer would be no.

Last year another one of our UK mags concluded their points/marking system by giving a sat speaker systems front three speakers 4 stars and the rear 'surround' speakers 3 stars. Every speaker in this sat system was identical! :(

Quote from TJN
CONVERGENCE
"Unfortunately, vertical lines at the far right side of the image were off by about one pixel in both red and blue. This was rarely noticeable from a normal viewing distance, primarily as a slight red edge to very high contrast objects on that side, such as white titles on a black background. A difference in pixel convergence in different parts of the screen is generally due to chromatic aberration in the lens or something else in the optical path, not panel misalignment, which would be uniform across the entire screen."

Then he says....

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


Sorry but IMO TJN dropped the ball here. I'd say given the less than perfect pixel misalignment (for whatever reason), and then suggesting that it is sharper than the XV-Z20000 (one of the sharpest projectors on the market regardless of price) I would take TJN's 'sharpness' statement with a very large pinch of salt. The JVC is a great PJ with fantastic black level and 'real world' sharp enough for most. But IMO it is nowhere near as sharp as the Z20000 or Marantz VP11-S1.

I wouldn't take too much notice of HCC magazine or most of our other UK AV mags to be honest. Ask yourself if you've gleaned any other useful information from the review over and above JVC's info about the projector on their website. I can tell you now the answer would be no.
...
But IMO it is nowhere near as sharp as the Z20000 or Marantz VP11-S1.
This is great drama as your own countrymen beg to disagree with you.
Quote:
"The image is incredibly smooth, but with amazing detail The ship turning over in Poseidon on HD-DVD has the most stunning amount of detail, and its all here for you to see. Peoples faces, their wrinkes, their freckles, their sweat.

Convergence is superb. Elliot had my machine running when I arrived to collect, and felt it was better than the model that was on demo previously."

Oh no - some unit to unit variability? The posted pictures are very nice!
I think JVC is playing their usual processing tricks with the browns and yellows too (as Mr. Wiggles once explained).

http://www.avforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=470757&page=4

Hello there,

Again, we can confirm our measurements of the pre-production. We also tested a serial mass market projector which was never opened before and got the same results as with the pre-production.

However, contrast and Lumen output are very dependant on the zoom ratio. We already wrote that here before.

I can not comment about other reviews, however the units we had in our hands fullfilled the specs as we published.

Regards,
Ekkehart, Cine4Home

Well, he said it was only "a hair" sharper (by which I assume he means "very little"), and there is some unit-to-unit variation with all PJs. The Z20000 he had may suffer from a little chromatic aberration. Mine has none, but others have reported a little of this.

I have until now refrained from contributing to this thread, because I usually find discussions that involve a back-and-forth analysis of a published review a little tedious, but I can no longer resist the temptation.

What most surprises me, and what I feel is the elephant in the room that no one is talking about, is color accuracy. He compares the JVC to the Pearl (whose color performance is not especially good, along with all of Sony's SXRDs) and makes some cryptic comments on the limited ability to adjust gray scale. With the included CMS, the Z20000 is capable of perfect color reproduction. This is NOT a subtle phenomenon. It is also NOT like rainbows--in that some are bothered by them, but most not. It isn't even like extremely high On/Off CR, which really only matters with certain types of program material. Accurate color is ALWAYS visible, visible to EVERYONE, and it makes an enormous difference to the perceived quality of the image.

This has nothing to do with differences between LCoS, DLP, and LCD. Manufacturers are capable of bringing projectors to market with accurate color, but they mostly don't. Some manufacturers (Sharp's high-end DLPs, Yamaha's high-end DLPs, Epson's LCDs, for example) at least provide a way to obtain completely accurate color with a little tweaking. Most people don't know what they are missing because they've never seen accurate color. Once I saw it, I wouldn't even consider going back.

On the assumption that the people posting to this thread have both rods AND cones, I'd suggest everyone start thinking about this as a performance criteria worthy of consideration.

Should have looked here first, but I will repeat:

I found Mr. Norton's comments/review to be VERY interesting.

Here is someone who was able to put into words much better than me what I experienced when I demoed a Pearl and Ruby:

Most of the criticism of past LCD and LCoS projectors has focused on their blacks, with good reason. But the LCD and LCoS projectors I've reviewed in the past have also had a tendency to look a little faded on bright scenes as well, which reduces their punch and dimensionality. This effect is subtle on the best of these projectors, but never completely absent. Many of these displays were equipped with auto irises, and while an auto iris can greatly enhance dark scenes, once it opens up on a bright scene you're left largely with the naked, native contrast of the panel and light engine.

The DLA-HD1 suffers less from this bright scene fading than most LCD and LCoS designs I've seen, even without an iris. That's likely due to improvements in the chip and light engine described above. The fading isn't completely absent, however, though I'm still sorting this out with extensive comparisons to good DLP projectors, which don't suffer from this effect at all. Oddly, some bright scenes look more faded and 2-D on the JVC than on a DLP, while on most such shots the effect, if present, is unnoticeable.

By far, without any question, the thing that bothered me the most about the Pearl and Ruby was this look of "bright scene fading" that Norton refers to in this mini review.

He says the JVC doesn't suffer to the same degree, but it isn't completely absent either. Given my apparent sensitivity to this issue, I hope it won't be a problem for me.

I wouldn't take too much notice of HCC magazine or most of our other UK AV mags to be honest. Ask yourself if you've gleaned any other useful information from the review over and above JVC's info about the projector on their website. I can tell you now the answer would be no.

Last year another one of our UK mags concluded their points/marking system by giving a sat speaker systems front three speakers 4 stars and the rear 'surround' speakers 3 stars. Every speaker in this sat system was identical! :(

Quote from TJN
CONVERGENCE
"Unfortunately, vertical lines at the far right side of the image were off by about one pixel in both red and blue. This was rarely noticeable from a normal viewing distance, primarily as a slight red edge to very high contrast objects on that side, such as white titles on a black background. A difference in pixel convergence in different parts of the screen is generally due to chromatic aberration in the lens or something else in the optical path, not panel misalignment, which would be uniform across the entire screen."

Then he says....

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


Sorry but IMO TJN dropped the ball here. I'd say given the less than perfect pixel misalignment (for whatever reason), and then suggesting that it is sharper than the XV-Z20000 (one of the sharpest projectors on the market regardless of price) I would take TJN's 'sharpness' statement with a very large pinch of salt. The JVC is a great PJ with fantastic black level and 'real world' sharp enough for most. But IMO it is nowhere near as sharp as the Z20000 or Marantz VP11-S1.

Thanks I would never buy blind based on a review from any mag UK or US. After demoing the Sim2 C3X and D80 I went for a demo of the HD1. Following the demo I purchased the HD1 and it's sat in my HT right now. The JVC is plenty sharp IMO and no RBE. :) After owning a Pearl I was paranoid about MC and checked the unit with test pats before leaving the dealer. There is a difference from unit to unit.

My advice to anyone is go see the products and decide for yourself. ;)

Dazzer

What most surprises me, and what I feel is the elephant in the room that no one is talking about, is color accuracy. He compares the JVC to the Pearl (whose color performance is not especially good, along with all of Sony's SXRDs) and makes some cryptic comments on the limited ability to adjust gray scale.

Having owned a Pearl there is a very different feel to the colours of the HD1. I haven't got around to proper calibration yet but out of the box the HD1 is far more natural IMO compared to the Pearl.

The attached is a extract from a review that comments on the HD1, Pearl and Ruby.

Dazzer

Well, he said it was only "a hair" sharper (by which I assume he means "very little"), and there is some unit-to-unit variation with all PJs. The Z20000 he had may suffer from a little chromatic aberration. Mine has none, but others have reported a little of this.

I have until now refrained from contributing to this thread, because I usually find discussions that involve a back-and-forth analysis of a published review a little tedious, but I can no longer resist the temptation.

What most surprises me, and what I feel is the elephant in the room that no one is talking about, is color accuracy. He compares the JVC to the Pearl (whose color performance is not especially good, along with all of Sony's SXRDs) and makes some cryptic comments on the limited ability to adjust gray scale. With the included CMS, the Z20000 is capable of perfect color reproduction. This is NOT a subtle phenomenon. It is also NOT like rainbows--in that some are bothered by them, but most not. It isn't even like extremely high On/Off CR, which really only matters with certain types of program material. Accurate color is ALWAYS visible, visible to EVERYONE, and it makes an enormous difference to the perceived quality of the image.

....

On the assumption that the people posting to this thread have both rods AND cones, I'd suggest everyone start thinking about this as a performance criteria worthy of consideration.

Tom, the lack of access to the LUT's and a CMS have been discussed at length. There is an entire thread dedicated to the issue.

Should have looked here first, but I will repeat:

I found Mr. Norton's comments/review to be VERY interesting.

Here is someone who was able to put into words much better than me what I experienced when I demoed a Pearl and Ruby:



By far, without any question, the thing that bothered me the most about the Pearl and Ruby was this look of "bright scene fading" that Norton refers to in this mini review.

He says the JVC doesn't suffer to the same degree, but it isn't completely absent either. Given my apparent sensitivity to this issue, I hope it won't be a problem for me.

I agree that this is very interesting. Many people feel the Ruby/Pearl lacks a certain "pop." Most people can't put their finger on what appears to be missing. I have heard it was attributed to the "softness" of the SXRD technology. This review suggests it is due to "bright sceen fading." However, he indicates that he is still "sorting this out" and that "oddly some bright sceens look more faded and 2-D on the JVC than the DLP..." Yes, interesting.

Tom, the lack of access to the LUT's and a CMS have been discussed at length. There is an entire thread dedicated to the issue.No doubt there are threads elsewhere that discuss this and many other issues as well. I was commenting on THIS thread, which discusses at length and with great passion and, yes, repetitiveness, sharpness, ANSI, and on/off contrast. It is not as if these issues have not also been discussed elsewhere.

It's just that I find the relative inattention to color accuracy baffling, and I feel so strongly about its importance--much more important than endless debates about various display technologies--I'm going to keep bringing it up from time to time.

Having owned a Pearl there is a very different feel to the colours of the HD1. I haven't got around to proper calibration yet but out of the box the HD1 is far more natural IMO compared to the Pearl.

The attached is a extract from a review that comments on the HD1, Pearl and Ruby.

DazzerI was referring to another passage, which you chose not to quote, so I will.

"While the subjective color of the JVC was excellent, some of its primary (red, green, and blue) and secondary (yellow, cyan, and magenta) colors were a little oversaturated. Green glowed a bit too brightly on sunlit foliage. Red was also a little intense, though unlike green, a bit too much fire in the reds can often be pleasing, provided flesh tones look right. And the JVC's post-calibrated flesh tones were just fine, as long as the program source allowed them to be (there's a lot of odd color processing going on in today's films). The color points were off to about the same degree as in the Sony Pearl, which is to say a bit too creative, but not to a degree that is likely to bother most viewers. Still, I wish manufacturers would at least give us the option to select accurate colors."

The only reason this this is not, in the reviewer's words "likely to bother most viewers" is that they are so accustomed to inaccurate color they don't know what they are missing until they have a reference to serve as a comparison.

I'm really not surprised about the contrast in high APL scenes - we already knew this would not be as good as a projector that can manage > 800:1 ANSI.

I'm just hoping that brightness uniformity isn't a real issue. He says it worse than in the Pearl, although Pearls are fairly inconsistent so I'm hoping he just had an exceptionally good Pearl and the RS-1 isn't that bad when it comes to this issue, or that it has the ability to correct shading through the service menu.

However, contrast and Lumen output are very dependant on the zoom ratio. We already wrote that here beforeThanks Ekkehart! I'm a little confused though - in the review article on the website it says the following,
"The placement did not permit us to measure light output and contrast as a function of the zoom factor. However, it was technically explained to us that D-ILA projectors like the HD1 do not exhibit considerable fluctuations in contrast and brightness at different distances."Am I missing something? Are you able to post the sensitivity (particularly lumens) in your forthcoming review? This is extremely important for me since I'm toward the high end of the zoom ratio and have a very large screen (127"W 2.35AR). I think there may be a few others in the same boat from what I've read here. It would be much appreciated!!

Re: CR measurements, they are useless taken on their own. Every reviewer does it a different way and comes up with different results. Most never reach the spec claimed by the manufacturer. The only way to use these results is to compare them to measurements taken by the same reviewer on other projectors, hopefully one that you're familiar with.

So, for Mr. Norton:

Sharp XV-Z20000
Claimed: 12,000:1
Highest Measured: 6350:1

JVC DLA-HD1
Claimed: 15000:1
Highest Measured: 9055:1

Panasonic AE900 (a projector that I'm extremely familiar with)
Claimed: 5500:1
Highest Measured: 1940:1

My own measurements on the AE900 are very close to Mr. Norton's, so I would expect to get similar results with the other projectors. That being said, I'm not concerned with the numbers, just the results. ;)

highest on JVC HD1: 18000:1 at 830 ANSI lumens(cine4home)
Sharp onoff: 7000:1 (widescreenreview) on off (iris closed I think)

JVC demoed the HD1 in Germany and in Paris on a 420cm 16/9 screen....

CRT had all very low ansi contrast (70-100:1) but massive ON/OFF contrast 30000:1)

No doubt there are threads elsewhere that discuss this and many other issues as well. I was commenting on THIS thread, which discusses at length and with great passion and, yes, repetitiveness, sharpness, ANSI, and on/off contrast. It is not as if these issues have not also been discussed elsewhere.

It just came across as you saying that nobody cared about the lack of a CMS or access to the LUT's in order to get accurate color, and that isn't true.

It's just that I find the relative inattention to color accuracy baffling, and I feel so strongly about its importance--much more important than endless debates about various display technologies--I'm going to keep bringing it up from time to time.

There is no argument. Color accuracy is very important, and I agree that once you have seen a very well calibrated display, with accurate colors, it would be very difficult to go back.

Nonsense! Norton is by far the best writer. Norton gives you an eagle view of a product and always put it in perpective, where it comes from and where it is going, where the competition is, is it going to be obsolete two months from now.. Greg Rogers reviews read like a manufacturer's manual.. When you write for WSR you never criricize anything. You always cheer, like for DVHS.
I could not disagree with you more concerning your comments regarding GR. The only reason that certain defects in past PJs were exposed was due to Greg Roger's reviews. He is one of a very few number of pro reviewers whose measurements match what I measure when doing ISF calibrations of those same machines. IMO, he is in a class by himself when it comes to thoroughness and accuracy in reviewing displays. IMO, this is the result of a superior understanding of all things video on his part.

You might not be interested in this level of technical detail, and find it dull and boring. Wheras I find little value in the subjective fluff that is found in many reviews from other sources.

What I learn about a PJ from a GR review, would take me days to learn on my own, and some of it I would never figure out. When it comes to defects in a PJ, the more typical pro-reviewer doesn't know enough about the science or the physical construction of the machines to uncover them the way that GR does.

If you really want to know the good and bad of a PJ, read a GR review.

Glenn

I'm getting tired of reading 10,000 posts of the JVC RS1 and only seeing 2 or 3 photos of its picture. Not that photos can do justice, but text is getting very boring...people arguing left and right, contrast this, funk that, brightness, FTL, FTW, lightbulbs, paint the walls, aspect ratio, 2D vs 3D, lumens ho', ANSI this, APL that, etc.

I'm not sure if I'm detailed enough to handle front projection, just let me waste 5K on the JVC, set it up in an hour and watch the damn movie. :o

What most surprises me, and what I feel is the elephant in the room that no one is talking about, is color accuracy....

This does not bother me at all and what I was expecting. Certainly I would prefer full CMS capabilities like what's available on the 20K. However if I had to pick between being locked in with a color gamut at Rec 709 vs. that of the Ruby, I'd take the Ruby every time.

This is a personal preference. Many others that wanted to be true to the source would go with the Rec 709.

As a case in point, I'm using a Sharp 10K while I await the RS1. Months ago I used the CMS to dial in Rec 709. While things looked nice, I found it a bit dull compared to the Ruby which has slightly over saturated red and green.

So then as a further experiment I used the CMS to set the color to the gamut that cine4home measured on this HD1. This was rather similar to the Ruby, except slightly less saturated in red, and slight changes to yellow and cyan.

I've had the Sharp 10K set up like this for a few months and really prefer it. So while purists will no doubt balk at the over saturation, many folks myself included enjoy this look. I'm not saying it is "correct". But rather it is a personal preference. In my case I do not look at it as a negative, and I think many others do not either. This is why I believe the reaction to this color report in the review was less than you anticipated.

Quote:


Lastly there is no better front projector reviewer than Tom Norton, especially compared to that infamous brand loyalist Shane Buettner from the same magazine.

I just wanted to reply to Reincarnate that I am guilty as charged- Looking back over my life I've owned three different VW automobiles. Four if we count a Passat wagon my wife bought a few years ago!

On top of that, I'm moving soon and plan to buy another Thermador oven since the one I have now has served me so well in my cooking endeavours.

An infamous brand loyalist indeed! Rats, someone is onto me!

On the other hand I agree that Tom Norton is the best in the biz!

I'm not sure if I'm detailed enough to handle front projection, just let me waste 5K on the JVC, set it up in an hour and watch the damn movie. :o
Amen brother!!!!! :) :) :) :) :) :) :)

I would not characterize as 'alarmed', maybe slightly disappointed fits better. I did not become a daily reader of AVS until about 12 months ago, and this will be my first PJ, so I don't have the experience in the PJ world as many on this forum.

I am trying to push the envelope with the RS1 (120" width screen), and have already been knocked from the 700 spec'd lumens to 500+ by Cine4home. Now if it drops even more, I may have to go smaller screen or different PJ.

Don't forget that you can go with a higher gain material also. The hotspotting/uniformity dissadvantages are not that big of a deal. They are rarely noticable with actual video, whereas the smaller screen is quite noticable, all the time. :}.

The last I read form Cin4home the RS1 was about 700L in the front of its throw, and about 500L when mounted mounted in the rear of its throw. A 122"D screen is about 45 sq ft in area. 500L yields 14.4 fL on a 1.3 gain screen at 122"D. A 1.5 gain screen yields 16.7 fL and a 1.8 gain screen yields 20 fL. Where is the problem?

Some caveats. You can't trust the gain ratings from screen manufacturers. There is no standard way to measure gain. Some very good screens I have measured: The Stewart ST130 measures at 1.3 gain. The Carada BW measures 1.1 gain. The Vutek PearlBright measures 1.8 gain. The Dalite HighPower measures at 1.2 gain. All of these measurements were taken with a ceiling mounted PJ mounted at a 16% offset above the top of the screen material.

Stewart makes white screens rated at 1.3, 1.5, 1.8, and 2.0 gain.

I recommend a screen gain that yields at least 14 fL with a new bulb. Most folks find that a PJ in a light controlled HT is bright enough down to 7 fL in my experience. That should allow one to get most of the life out of the bulb.

Glenn

Thanks for the info. This makes it better, but the lumens are still suprisingly low compared to other reports thus far. Why is there such a difference from the cine4home numbers to these? I suppose room conditions could play a role with this? Is there any reason not to believe cine4home?
The most likely reasons are differences in equipment and measurement technique. Another source of varience is that new bulbs can vary as much as 20% up or down in lumens output and still be considered in spec. Also, bulbs loose brightness as the age and one needs to know the lamp hours to evaluate lumens measurements.

Glenn

7 ftL may be fine for purists in a bat cave, but I'm going with a 133" HP, with the pj mounted near eye-level to get close to the full 2.8 gain (viewing angle is no problem for just my wife and I). So in normal (low lamp) mode with 575 lumens, this wil generate ~ 30 ftL; when the lamp dims, I'll go up to high lamp mode, and if I want to watch football in daytime (still no direct external light) I'll go to the 7500K mode to get > 800 lumens if necessary. I'm in Tryg's camp re brightness.

Regarding TJNs brightness measurements:

He stated that his screen was a 78" wide, 16x9, ST130. In High Power (high bulb power) it measured 25 fL. He didn't state it was 78" diagonal. If was 78" in actual width then it computes out to 594 lumens, which is what Cine4home found in to be the HD1's output in the middle of its throw.

Glenn

I'm getting tired of reading 10,000 posts of the JVC RS1 and only seeing 2 or 3 photos of its picture. Not that photos can do justice, but text is getting very boring...people arguing left and right, contrast this, funk that, brightness, FTL, FTW, lightbulbs, paint the walls, aspect ratio, 2D vs 3D, lumens ho', ANSI this, APL that, etc.

I'm not sure if I'm detailed enough to handle front projection, just let me waste 5K on the JVC, set it up in an hour and watch the damn movie. :o

Starting on this page of the AV Forum's thread of first user reports & working forward in time 4 or 5 pages are quite a few screen shots, all with the posters' caveats that it's impossible to determine actual quality of any projector's images via screen shots for a variety of reasons. They do look nice though and you requested more pics.

http://www.avforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=470757&page=15

So while purists will no doubt balk at the over saturation, many folks myself included enjoy this look. I'm not saying it is "correct". But rather it is a personal preference. In my case I do not look at it as a negative, and I think many others do not either. This is why I believe the reaction to this color report in the review was less than you anticipated.

All the hands on reports would support this arguement.

I am planning to go 120" wide 2.35:1 CIH. Of course the lack of vertical stretch was the first small disappointment. I was going to get an anamorphic lense, but now with the need to also buy a VP for the vertical stretch, no can do. I will zoom in for 2.35:1 for the time being.

For screens, thinking about Dalite HP a lot. Other screens I'm considering are Carada BW or Studiotek 130. I have a new light controlled 14x21 dedicated room.

I am not shaken from the belief that the RS1 is a great PJ for the price, and I am on the prebuy. Back in the original discussions on the RS1, and what we knew about the projected specs, this was going to work great in my situation.

If I go a smaller screen and mount the PJ closer than I had planned, I'm sure it will output a great picture in my room. but I don't want to make either of those concessions. As time goes on, each little dink in the RS1 armor is adding up to a possibly tough go in my room.

I have an Optoma H78 projecting on to a 118" wide cinemascope screen (Carada BW). It's lumen tested slightly lower than the HD1. It is plenty bright even at 700 hours in my light controlled room. When you want to watch sports or HD it will be on a smaller screen size so you get the extra brightness when it is needed.

"I suspect the screen size is predicated by what Stewart recommends for the projector. "

Most reviewers don't swap screens for every pj they review; Norton's been using that screen for as long as I can remember.

"The only reason this this is not, in the reviewer's words "likely to bother most viewers" is that they are so accustomed to inaccurate color they don't know what they are missing until they have a reference to serve as a comparison."

Thanks for your en masse ad hominem assessment.

I'm certainly happier to be getting a pj that doesn't have full color adjustment and doesn't need it, than one that has it and does.

"The Dalite HighPower measures at 1.2 gain. All of these measurements were taken with a ceiling mounted PJ mounted at a 16% offset above the top of the screen material."

Lest anyone conclude Dalite is inflating their spec's, this result is to be expected given the setup; the HP will closely approach 2.8 gain when used optimally.

Regarding the whole sharpness debate, I don't think the issue can be discussed with any clarity unless you separate perceived sharpness from sharp pixel boundaries/SD from true resolvable detail as determined with test patterns and/or standard reference material.

"I suspect the screen size is predicated by what Stewart recommends for the projector. "

Most reviewers don't swap screens for every pj they review; Norton's been using that screen for as long as I can remember.




True... so maybe the Stewart Studiotek 130 isn't a good choice for the JVC.

Regarding TJNs brightness measurements:

He stated that his screen was a 78" wide, 16x9, ST130. In High Power (high bulb power) it measured 25 fL. He didn't state it was 78" diagonal. If was 78" in actual width then it computes out to 594 lumens, which is what Cine4home found in to be the HD1's output in the middle of its throw.

Glenn
You've forgotten to account for the 1.3 gain which takes it down to 455.
Those who are on the edge of their preferred fL, will just have to wait for further clarification.
Personally, the max I can go will be 110" wide 2.35:1 screen. Which even using 455 Lumens and zero gain = 13fL - so I'm not at all worried.

I was referring to another passage, which you chose not to quote, so I will.

"While the subjective color of the JVC was excellent, some of its primary (red, green, and blue) and secondary (yellow, cyan, and magenta) colors were a little oversaturated. .."

The only reason this this is not, in the reviewer's words "likely to bother most viewers" is that they are so accustomed to inaccurate color they don't know what they are missing until they have a reference to serve as a comparison.
It’s always good to emphasize color accuracy. Member Ohlson and I already raised they issues here as did Mr. Norton review. So color accuracy is not being neglected at all. I also stated the JVC color decoding turns browns into (brighter) yellow. Perhaps this is why I like the JVC oversaturated color a lot more than the dim Sony.
Member dazzerxxx makes and excellent read but the bias is there (only talk up the good points). Reminds me of the Blu-ray spinner TalkStr8t. I guess we have to go to the TV news to get "fair and balanced":)

Member dazzerxxx makes and excellent read but the bias is there (only talk up the good points). Reminds me of the Blu-ray spinner TalkStr8t. I guess we have to go to the TV news to get "fair and balanced":)

There is bias in as much as I preferred the HD1 relative to others I investigated around the same time. My decision to purchase was based on first hand viewing not on the opinion of others or reviews from experts real of imagined. :)

This approach is somewhat different to pre-ordering blind and then attempting to defend my decision or "only talk up the good points". I'm simply attempting to provide feedback (good or bad) in the context of what's important to me and what I see rather than a detailed review. :p

My advice is always to go see any product in action. Then make an informed purchasing decision based on what YOU see and what is important to YOU. If you don't like don't buy it. It's that simple. ;)

Dazzer

However, contrast and Lumen output are very dependant on the zoom ratio. We already wrote that here before.
That's no excuse not to publish them. Give us lumen and contrast at minimum and maximum zoom.

The reason you don't is you don't want readers writing in asking why your lumen ratings are SOOOO much lower than the manufacturers specs - and I don't mean just JVC, but every pj maker.

.......
This approach is somewhat different to pre-ordering blind and then attempting to defend my decision or "only talk up the good points". I'm simply attempting to provide feedback (good or bad) in the context of what's important to me and what I see rather than a detailed review. :p

.......

Dazzer

Yep, and that is why I enjoy reading your opinion. You actually have the projector and are commenting on what you see and are experiencing. I put a lot more stock in that than I do the speculation of those who do not yet own the projector. I do not know anything about attaining scientific color accuracy or in depth calibrating procedures but I do know when I see a pleasing picture and that is all I care about. From all of the first hand reports that I've read on the UK forums, I am sure that the JVC will provide that in spades so I eagerly await my RS-1 preorder. :D

Don't forget that you can go with a higher gain material also. The hotspotting/uniformity dissadvantages are not that big of a deal. They are rarely noticable with actual video, whereas the smaller screen is quite noticable, all the time. :}.
Now that's funny. Spend forever trying to get a pj with great color and detail and then screw it up with a gain screen because the problems are only rarely noticeable. I almost thought Tryg wrote this.

The last I read form Cin4home the RS1 was about 700L in the front of its throw, and about 500L when mounted mounted in the rear of its throw. A 122"D screen is about 45 sq ft in area. 500L yields 14.4 fL on a 1.3 gain screen at 122"D. A 1.5 gain screen yields 16.7 fL and a 1.8 gain screen yields 20 fL. Where is the problem?
And what would a 6.0 gain yield? :rolleyes:

Stewart makes the best screens - bar none. But even their modest 1.3 gain Studiotek screens exhibit hotspotting.
"If there is any imperfection in the Studiotek 130 it is the mild hotspot resulting from the positive gain. All screens manifesting a real gain of greater than 1.0 have a detectable hotspot.That is because the way they achieve increased gain is by channeling some greater portion of the incident light back toward the center of the viewing angle than would occur if it were evenly diffused. The result is that as you walk around the screen the brightest portion of the image will shift with you as you move. "
SOURCE (http://www.projectorcentral.com/stewart_screens.htm)

Starting on this page of the AV Forum's thread of first user reports & working forward in time 4 or 5 pages are quite a few screen shots, all with the posters' caveats that it's impossible to determine actual quality of any projector's images via screen shots for a variety of reasons. They do look nice though and you requested more pics.

http://www.avforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=470757&page=15

Thank you Ronald McDonald! :o

For anyone interested, one of the UK guys just posted that he measured the HD1 lumens in "normal" mode (low lamp) at 570 lumens, min throw, D65 :)

This falls right in line with C4H latest report. They claimed 720 in high lamp, min throw and ~20% decrease if using low lamp which comes out to about 576.

Now that's funny. Spend forever trying to get a pj with great color and detail and then screw it up with a gain screen because the problems are only rarely noticeable. I almost thought Tryg wrote this.

And what would a 6.0 gain yield? :rolleyes:

Stewart makes the best screens - bar none. But even their modest 1.3 gain Studiotek screens exhibit hotspotting.
"If there is any imperfection in the Studiotek 130 it is the mild hotspot resulting from the positive gain. All screens manifesting a real gain of greater than 1.0 have a detectable hotspot.That is because the way they achieve increased gain is by channeling some greater portion of the incident light back toward the center of the viewing angle than would occur if it were evenly diffused. The result is that as you walk around the screen the brightest portion of the image will shift with you as you move. "
SOURCE (http://www.projectorcentral.com/stewart_screens.htm)


I love the Vutec SS and what it does for the image on a relatively dim PJ with a larger screen. (My 'eyes' tell me this from actually viewing the setup - vs. forming my opinions purely on what I read from questionable sources) Quoting PJ central is not much different than quoting C-NET - a waste of oxygen, IMO.

I believe a HG screen and the RS1 are perfect for each other in 120"+ setups.

I love the Vutec SS and what it does for the image on a relatively dim PJ with a larger screen. (My 'eyes' tell me this from actually viewing the setup - vs. forming my opinions purely on what I read from questionable sources) Quoting PJ central is not much different than quoting C-NET - a waste of oxygen, IMO.
A lot of people can't tell a good picture from bad. If I put a calibrated ISF tv in WalMart next to the same model in bright mode, the ISF model would not sell. What people like and what is accurate and correct are two different things. Our eyes prefer brighter images - at the expense of detail and accuracy. It takes a trained eye to see the difference, but once you do there is no going back.

I've seen the Stewart gain screens and they are quite good. Hotspotting is not that bothersome. I've also seen the Vutec, and looking at it right down the center I didn't notice any hotspotting, but I did notice white crush. Off center I found it unbearable.

I quoted Projector Central because they have more credibility then just making my own comments. If you got into a debate concerning politics, would you blow off data from official sources and instead listen to the unknown poster on a website?

It's a rhetorical question.

[QUOTE=Mark Lem]"I am planning to go 120" wide 2.35:1 CIH. Of course the lack of vertical stretch was the first small disappointment. I was going to get an anamorphic lense, but now with the need to also buy a VP for the vertical stretch, no can do. I will zoom in for 2.35:1 for the time being."



Would someone please fully explain to me what is meant by vertical stretch and what effect that has on viewing DVD's. Since I got a great price on the JVC and ordered it based strictly on reviews and seeing only the Sony VPL-VW50 as an example of how it can perform, I am curious. Thanks!

A lot of people can't tell a good picture from bad. If I put a calibrated ISF tv in WalMart next to the same model in bright mode, the ISF model would not sell. What people like and what is accurate and correct are two different things. Our eyes prefer brighter images - at the expense of detail and accuracy. It takes a trained eye to see the difference, but once you do there is no going back.

I've seen the Stewart gain screens and they are quite good. Hotspotting is not that bothersome. I've also seen the Vutec, and looking at it right down the center I didn't notice any hotspotting, but I did notice white crush. Off center I found it unbearable.

I quoted Projector Central because they have more credibility then just making my own comments. If you got into a debate concerning politics, would you blow off data from official sources and instead listen to the unknown poster on a website?

It's a rhetorical question.

Well, I hope you are done editing this post - it's a pain to have to keep coming back to see what you've added since your original reply. The latest addition seems to take a stab at me having an "untrained eye". I'm dropping this, since it is off topic to the original thread - needless to say, the person buying the PJ/screen should see things for themselves, untrained eyes or not :rolleyes: , to find out what is desireable to them.

BTW - I'm coming from an ISF calibrated Pioneer Elite PRO-730HD monitor, so I've seen both sides of the coin as well...

...Projector Central because they have more credibility

This made me laugh... :eek:

Pardon my ignorance, but how do you calculate lumens from foot lamberts?

I have a CRT that produces 6.75 foot lamberts (on an 8 foot wide screen 1.85:1 screen) that, while I'd love it to be brighter, is fairly satisfying. I'm curious how many lumens this would be.

233 lumen.
96/1.85=51.89
96x51.89=4981.6
4981.6/144=34.6
34.6x6.75=233.5

[QUOTE=Mark Lem]"I am planning to go 120" wide 2.35:1 CIH. Of course the lack of vertical stretch was the first small disappointment. I was going to get an anamorphic lense, but now with the need to also buy a VP for the vertical stretch, no can do. I will zoom in for 2.35:1 for the time being."



Would someone please fully explain to me what is meant by vertical stretch and what effect that has on viewing DVD's. Since I got a great price on the JVC and ordered it based strictly on reviews and seeing only the Sony VPL-VW50 as an example of how it can perform, I am curious. Thanks!

You can find a thorough explanation in the constant height forum (the one right above this one), but basically it is when a projector or video processor takes an image and stretches it vertically by removing the typical black bars on 2.35 material. An anamorphic lens is used in front of the projector to stretch the image horizontally back to the correct ratio. This allows you to use all of your projectors brightness to show a full 2.35 image on a 2.35 ratio screen. This is especially meant for use when viewing 2.35 material, which are found on most widescreen DVDs. You should really go to the constant height forum to get a full understanding of it though.
Constant Height Forum (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/forumdisplay.php?s=&daysprune=&f=117)

Do LCOS (SXRD & D-ILA) projectors use a polarizer in the light path like LCD projectors do? If this is so, then doesn't the polarizer only pass 50% of the incident light?

If this is the case, then an LCOS projector with a given wattage bulb will only be half as bright as a DLP projector with the same wattage bulb since DLP doesn't use a polarizer.

This made me laugh... :eek:

Yeah, I almost blew my Diet Coke through my nose! :eek:

This made me laugh...

Yeah, I almost blew my Diet Coke through my nose! :eek:
Can either of you point to something on the Projector Central website that is inaccurate or untrue? I find their site quite informative, but if there's a reason I shouldn't trust that site I'd like it pointed out and will be more skeptical of their future reviews and articles.

Thanks in advance.

Can either of you point to something on the Projector Central website that is inaccurate or untrue? I find their site quite informative, but if there's a reason I shouldn't trust that site I'd like it pointed out and will be more skeptical of their future reviews and articles.

Thanks in advance.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with that site if you agree that Panasonic LCD projectors are the best you can get...

I just wanted to reply to Reincarnate that I am guilty as charged- Looking back over my life I've owned three different VW automobiles. Four if we count a Passat wagon my wife bought a few years ago!

On top of that, I'm moving soon and plan to buy another Thermador oven since the one I have now has served me so well in my cooking endeavours.

An infamous brand loyalist indeed! Rats, someone is onto me!

On the other hand I agree that Tom Norton is the best in the biz!Hi Shane,

Where have you been all these years?

I have to say you have made me reconsider getting a Pearl, but have you now seen the JVC?

BR, (Welwyn) Nick

There is absolutely nothing wrong with that site if you agree that Panasonic LCD projectors are the best you can get...
I get the sarcasm, but I'm being serious. Can anyone please post a link to something they have written that is incorrect or is it that they didn't like the products you already own.

Hi All:

As originally posted, my review of the HD1 stated that my Studiotek 130 screen was 78" diagonal. That was an error; if you've read any of my past reviews, it is 78" WIDE. The text is being changed to read wide. (If you run the math you'll find that for a 16:9 screen the width is the diagonal measurement times 0.87, so it's easy to go back and forth.)

All of our front projector light readings are made off the screen, the only place it really matters. For a movie theater, SMPTE recommends a projector open-gate light output of 16 foot-Lamberts at center screen, which translates to about 12fL with a clear film in the gate. I prefer to see about 16-18fL from a projector with a new lamp, which will still provide a reasonable light output when the lamp dims with age, as it will. All of this, of course, assumes a fully darkened room.

For my light output readings I use the Minolta LS-100 spot-reading light meter, positioned as closely as possible at just above and behind the projector, aimed directly at the center of the screen. The Minolta is widely used in the industry for this type of measurement and reads directly in foot-Lamberts.

It's easy enough to translate foot-Lamberts measurement to Lumens, if you need to. Simply divide the measured result by 1.3 (the specified gain of the Studiotek 130) and multiply that number by the area of the screen--about 23.74 square feet in my case. But this does involve another variable; it assumes that the specified screen gain is correct.

If you want to know the maximum foot-Lambert output on a different size screen (a more useful number than Lumens), divide my measured fL reading by 1.3 to account for screen gain, multiply that by the ratio of your screen size to mine, then multiply that result by the gain of your screen. (Once again, we're assuming that the manufacturer's specification for screen gain is accurate in both cases.) The difference in light output from two screens, everything else being equal, is directly proportional to the relative areas of the two screens.

Tom Norton
UAV

Thanks Tom.

Could you tell us the relation of the projector's position with regards to the center of the screen?

If the PJ is ceiling mounted, the gain of the screen would be less than 1.3 at the projector. If the PJ is mounted with the center line of the lens perpendicular to the center of the screen then the gain will be 1.3 at the projector.

This could be why the foot-lamberts number yields a lower lumens rating than what c4home calculates.

Thanks,
Noah

All of our front projector light readings are made off the screen, the only place it really matters. But this does involve another variable; it assumes that the specified screen gain is correct.
(Once again, we're assuming that the manufacturer's specification for screen gain is accurate in both cases.)

You are right that light readings from the screen are all that matter to the viewer. However, you are writing to people who do not own the same screen you do - not even the same size screen. How are the 99.99% of interested readers supposed to know lumen output with unknown variables like screen gain?

There is a reason why manufacturers specify lumens - it's unfortunate that their lumen ratings are done during the day, outside, with the sun directly behind their projector.

Wow. Thanks Shane and Tom for posting here. Along with GregR and others, it's great to have reviewers participate!

I would much rather see the lumen output measurement, and at what point in the throw range this reading was taken at (min throw, max throw, mid throw). This is much more useful to the reader IMO. Atleast one of the UK guys has confirmed 570 lumens in low lamp at min throw which makes me feel better, and is consistent with C4H reports.

Also, how many hours were on the bulb when the lumens reading was taken.

Toe, it would seem like a reviewer could do both kinds of measurements so the reader could decide what's most relevant for themselves. As in most things, satisfaction is in the mind of the consumer whether it's a projector or a projector review.

I also appreciate the reviewers commenting on this site and hope they view this as an excellent opportunity to dialog with their customers (or future customers) and to improve their future products (as painful as this can sometimes be). :)

Toe, it would seem like a reviewer could do both kinds of measurements so the reader could decide what's most relevant for themselves. As in most things, satisfaction is in the mind of the consumer whether it's a projector or a projector review.

I also appreciate the reviewers commenting on this site and hope they view this as an excellent opportunity to dialog with their customers (or future customers) and to improve their future products (as painful as this can sometimes be). :)

I agree. :) Both kinds of measurements would be great. I Very Much appreciate the reviewers coming on here and spending time with us AVS nuts :eek:

Thank you Tom for coming on to this forum to clear up some of the questions. You are a braver man than I.

I think foot-lamberts are a fine way of reporting brightness. I think some people just need a little more information to judge how the pj will light up their screen.

That's no excuse not to publish them. Give us lumen and contrast at minimum and maximum zoom.

The reason you don't is you don't want readers writing in asking why your lumen ratings are SOOOO much lower than the manufacturers specs - and I don't mean just JVC, but every pj maker.



First, our Review is not out yet. In that review we give exact Lumen numbers as we always do. At different zoom ratios as well.

Second, I did already post the information, that the HD1 has around 25% light loss in minimal zoom.

Third, our lumen ratings are not much lower than the manufacturors specs.


Get your facts right before accusing us please...

Thanks and Regards,
Ekkehart, Cine4Home

For anyone interested, one of the UK guys just posted that he measured the HD1 lumens in "normal" mode (low lamp) at 570 lumens, min throw, D65 :)

This falls right in line with C4H latest report. They claimed 720 in high lamp, min throw and ~20% decrease if using low lamp which comes out to about 576.



Ah, finally at least some readers read carefully, what we publish.

Ok here again guys (normal serial production unit):

Min zoom (picture as small as possible), we measured 410 Lumen

Max zoom (picture as big as possible), we measured 580 Lumen.

Both in LOW lamp mode @D65...




More to come in our review...

Regards,
Ekkehart, Cine4Home

Ekkehart - Simple is making a habit of rubbing people the wrong way. Ignore him and know that most of us AVSers appreciate your contribution to the community. I for one really appreciate you filling the RS1 void while we wait for our pj's!

Mako"untrained eye"machine

I must say I find some of the the skepticism and mudsliging leveled at cine4home to be completely, and I mean COMPLETELY unjustified. Cine4home produce some of the best reviews on the net. The whiners among you should get off your asses and do your own reviews before posting such lazy, jaundiced opinions.

I must say I find some of the the skepticism and mudsliging leveled at cine4home to be completely, and I mean COMPLETELY unjustified. Cine4home produce some of the best reviews on the net.

I agree. Ekkehart's reviews have had a wealth of information in them. Definitely some of the best I've seen on the web. It'll be interesting to see if the 15,000:1 on/off CR number on the pre-production unit holds up.

I also agree. Ekkehart does a good job. Sure, more info is always useful, but he still puts out far more than most, and he was the quickest to get his review out :).

BTW, Mark... I liked you old avatar a lot more. It cracked me up every time I saw it :).

I must say I find some of the the skepticism and mudsliging leveled at cine4home to be completely, and I mean COMPLETELY unjustified. Cine4home produce some of the best reviews on the net. The whiners among you should get off your asses and do your own reviews before posting such lazy, jaundiced opinions.

Completely agree. Its pretty annoying to see someone bite a reviewer's head off b/c they didn't present the information the way that person wanted it.

We should be thankful we have access to such people and that they are willing to share their observations on a forum like this.

First, our Review is not out yet. In that review we give exact Lumen numbers as we always do. At different zoom ratios as well.
Second, I did already post the information, that the HD1 has around 25% light loss in minimal zoom.
Third, our lumen ratings are not much lower than the manufacturors specs.
Thanks and Regards,
Ekkehart, Cine4Home
Thanks to both you and Mr. Norton for responding and clearing up the picture.:)
Could either of you gently explain the discrepancy in measured contrast? What are the factors which can contribute to the difference?

Thanks also to everyone in the global community who contributed to a very enjoyable thread. It’s obvious that we all share a common passion. True technological breakthroughs make for exciting times!
After JVC establishes and maintains a high level of production quality control, this revolutionary products success is all in the presentation and marketing. Imagine the big-box retailers running the JVC in their Sunday flyer with an instant rebate and free financing incentives. The reward here is that if JVC’s bold and brilliant plan succeeds, it will bring in a new generation of enthusiasts. If you grow the base then Alan will still have a job, and we will still have a forum!

Ah, finally at least some readers read carefully, what we publish.

Ok here again guys (normal serial production unit):

Min zoom (picture as small as possible), we measured 410 Lumen

Max zoom (picture as big as possible), we measured 580 Lumen.

Both in LOW lamp mode @D65...




More to come in our review...

Regards,
Ekkehart, Cine4Home


Thanks for posting this again Ekkehart. I guess some need to read a bit more carefully :)

Sorry about some of the rudeness around here. I think some are getting a bit crazy at this point. Just know we appreciate your time, and certainly DO NOT expect anything from you, but rather are thankfull for your contribution to not only the forum, but to HT in general. :)

Thanks again

BTW, Mark... I liked you old avatar a lot more. It cracked me up every time I saw it :).

I'll recycle it and bring it back one of these days. Maybe I'll be like Disney and put it into the vault for a period of time before rereleasing it lol.

Can either of you point to something on the Projector Central website that is inaccurate or untrue? I find their site quite informative, but if there's a reason I shouldn't trust that site I'd like it pointed out and will be more skeptical of their future reviews and articles.

Thanks in advance.

imws and Rob Tomlin and MrLittleJeans,
Your silence is most reassuring.

Thanks for posting this again Ekkehart. I guess some need to read a bit more carefully :)

Sorry about some of the rudeness around here. I think some are getting a bit crazy at this point. Just know we appreciate your time, and certainly DO NOT expect anything from you, but rather are thankfull for your contribution to not only the forum, but to HT in general. :)

Thanks again

I agree with Toe. With new machines out we are all anxious to know as much as possible and there is a great deal of speculation. The detailed reports from Ekkehart have always proved to have been credible and well founded. He provides a service that many people rely on for useful objective information.

First, our Review is not out yet. In that review we give exact Lumen numbers as we always do. At different zoom ratios as well.

Second, I did already post the information, that the HD1 has around 25% light loss in minimal zoom.

Third, our lumen ratings are not much lower than the manufacturors specs.


Get your facts right before accusing us please...

Thanks and Regards,
Ekkehart, Cine4Home
Not accussing you of anything that did not appear in your post. Your post, in its entirety stated:

----------------------------------------------------
Again, we can confirm our measurements of the pre-production. We also tested a serial mass market projector which was never opened before and got the same results as with the pre-production.

However, contrast and Lumen output are very dependant on the zoom ratio. We already wrote that here before.

I can not comment about other reviews, however the units we had in our hands fullfilled the specs as we published.
-----------------------------------------------------

The last sentence made me believe you had already published, since it was written in the past tense.

The second to last sentence appears to be an apology to the manufacturers.

The first sentence stated you could confirm measurements, but since I saw no lumen measurements and since the last sentence was written in the past tense it was logical to assume that it wasn't in your report.

Last - I don't follow you on this site and you didn't specify you were working on a different review - I thought you were associated with Mr. Norton. I have no clue what Ekkehart, Cine4Home means.

imws and Rob Tomlin and MrLittleJeans,
Your silence is most reassuring.

I have bashed PJC in the past (and will continue in the future), so you can throw me in there as well. There reviews are very basic and give hardly any definitive information. My favorite quote is "The black levels are satisfactory.". That is totally subjective. Being a CRT owner, that means something different for me than it does for someone else. PJC may be one of the most visited sites, but there are plenty of other places to get good info. Darin is doing some reviews over at Secrets.

Last - I don't follow you on this site and you didn't specify you were working on a different review - I thought you were associated with Mr. Norton. I have no clue what Ekkehart, Cine4Home means.

Then you need to read up a bit before spouting off.

I have bashed PJC in the past (and will continue in the future), so you can throw me in there as well. There reviews are very basic and give hardly any definitive information. My favorite quote is "The black levels are satisfactory.". That is totally subjective. Being a CRT owner, that means something different for me than it does for someone else. PJC may be one of the most visited sites, but there are plenty of other places to get good info. Darin is doing some reviews over at Secrets.
I'm not defending the Projector Central reviews, rather I posted a link to why they didn't like screens with gain. The response from the three was "ha ha, he quoted Projector Central." I asked them to back up their laughter with some sort of evidence showing the website made any technical errors. They've failed miserably.

I am well aware of the quick, short and lack of depth in their reviews, but when they do make a statement they are accurate.

Thanks for you input.

Then you need to read up a bit before spouting off.
Do you know anything about me? Should you do research on me before making the statement I've quoted?

The answer is no. If I want the reader to know who I am, a link in their signature would be helpful. I don't have time to research everyone of the 100,000 posters on this site, as I'm certain you do not either.

Then you need to read up a bit before spouting off.

Agreed. Give it a rest PLEASE! Ekkehart is one of the most respected, thorough reviewers around. Aside from that, he is one of the most pleasant personalities on this forum IMO.

imws and Rob Tomlin and MrLittleJeans,
Your silence is most reassuring.

I know I shouldn't respond....

There is absolutely nothing wrong with PJC. It has lots of good information. However, I would not buy a projector because they recommend it. Its like buying stereo equipment based on what consumer reports says is the best.

Do you really think the Panasonic 1000U beats a Pearl in performance? Do you think the Panasonic's picture is "as sharp as any 1080p projector we have seen to date"?

Cheers,
Noah

I know I shouldn't respond....

There is absolutely nothing wrong with PJC. It has lots of good information. However, I would not buy a projector because they recomend it. Its like buying stereo equipment based on what consumer reports says is the best.

Do you really think the Panasonic 1000U beats a Pearl in performance? Do you think the Panasonic's picture is "as sharp as any 1080p projector we have seen to date"?

Cheers,
Noah
I think this Panasonic would blow the doors off the Pearl:
Panasonic PT-DW10000 (http://www.projectorcentral.com/Panasonic-PT-DW10000.htm)

But in all seriousness, I searched Projector Central and can't find any review on the Panasonic 1000U. Do you have a link?

I think this Panasonic would blow the doors off the Pearl:
Panasonic PT-DW10000 (http://www.projectorcentral.com/Panasonic-PT-DW10000.htm)

But in all seriousness, I searched Projector Central and can't find any review on the Panasonic 1000U. Do you have a link?

Front page right below the projector news. Also right above the "Commentary" links there are reviews of all the 1080p projectors they have seen.

Ok, just used google to find the Projector Central review of the 1000u. They knocked on the pre-productin unit and love the new unit. Is it as good as the Pearl? I haven't seen this Panasonic, so I don't know.

This is what happens when you get away from hard numbers and use subjective words to describe a product. My neighbor thinks extreme edge-enhanced DVD's are the best because they look sharper. Some times you just have to shake your head and say "that's what they think".

But I stand by my anti-gain screen preference, even though I know some people like them.

Can either of you point to something on the Projector Central website that is inaccurate or untrue? I find their site quite informative, but if there's a reason I shouldn't trust that site I'd like it pointed out and will be more skeptical of their future reviews and articles.



They have posted inaccurate information on certain projectors throw distances in their calculators.

They have also come up with some rather bizarre/confusing calculations on lumens output and resulting foot lamberts. For example, if you go to their calculator for the Optoma HD81, it tells you that they use the manufacturers specs for the calculations.

Well, Optoma says the HD81 has 1400 lumens output (this is obviously too high). But the PC calculator says that using a 123" diagonal 1.3 gain screen results in an Image Brightness of 15 fL.

1400 lumens would result in a fL reading of over 40 on the above setup!!

Even if you use their actual review numbers, where they measured 655 lumens from the HD81, you would still get about 19 fL.

There is no explanation on their site for these obvious errors.

But you can keep trusting them all you want.

My high power doesn't hot spot that I've seen.

Do you know anything about me? Should you do research on me before making the statement I've quoted?

The answer is no. If I want the reader to know who I am, a link in their signature would be helpful. I don't have time to research everyone of the 100,000 posters on this site, as I'm certain you do not either.

Not knowing that Cine4Home is one of the most professional, thorough, and highly regarded presences on the Forum says that you really are not up on things. It tends to negate the credibility of any of your posts. (Look, I'm quite a novice, but I have learned some things here.)

Now that's funny. Spend forever trying to get a pj with great color and detail and then screw it up with a gain screen because the problems are only rarely noticeable . . .

Stewart makes the best screens - bar none. But even their modest 1.3 gain Studiotek screens exhibit hotspotting.


I'm sorry, but your statement (in response to one of my posts) about gain screens and color accuracy is not accurate. You are apparently not aware of it, but all the screen models that I listed measure out to have exceptional color accuracy and color uniformity. That is why I listed them. They are all in the same ballpark as the ST130, which is ISF certified and is considered to be a reference quality screen.

In screen selection, the most important goal is to achieve proper image brightness. All other considerations are secondary to that, that includes hot-spotting. There are two reasons that hot-spotting is rarely noticed in actual video. One is that the human eye/brain is not very sensitive to it as compared to the light meter that is used to measure it. It takes an almost six fold increase in actual brightness for the eye/brain to perceive a doubling of brightness. The other and more significant reason, IMO, is the lack of uniformity in the typical images that compose movies and TV. It hides the lack of uniformity added by the screen.

The Dalite High Power, a retro-reflective gain screen mentioned in my prior post, exhibits absolutely no measurable hot-spotting when used with a ceiling mounted PJ, which is the only position from which I have measured it.

In closing, let me point out that in the common HT, which has light colored walls, floor, or ceiling, there is an advantage to a screen that hot-spots. It throws less light out onto the walls, ceiling and floor resulting in fewer cross-light reflections and a higher on-screen CR. So, depending on your HT, some degree of hot-spotting might actually be desirable.

Glenn

Simple Theater,

"Do you know anything about me? "

After just a few posts of yours, I need all I need to know about you - you made false accusations against Ekkehart. I know they are because I have been following his writings.

Don't bother responding, you're now on my Ignore list.

I hope others do the same or least deesist from engaging him in debate, as it just provokes more nonsense.

Guys

Can we get back on topic please; bringing out personal issues on a public forum is surely not for all intents and purposes the aim of this forum/thread

By doing so, you alienate people away from this forum to other forums - I can see that already happening - if you want to continue to get input from Europeans (regardless if it is a reviewer or manufacturer) who have already access to the HD1 I would really hope we can get things back to normality here. Otherwise, I for one, will no longer post here with any updates from JVC/Europe side.

Rant over....

Agreed. It is usually more constructive to work toward someones good side as you usually get a better response!

So I'll sincerely ask my question again because in all honesty I want to know what to believe:
Could the reviewers who measured and published the contrast ratios explain the discrepancy between the numbers?
What are the factors which can contribute to the differences?
Is in in the methodology, equipment or test environment? Sample to sample variation?

Thanks again. I'm all ears...

Agreed. It is usually more constructive to work toward someones good side as you usually get a better response!

So I'll sincerely ask my question again because in all honesty I want to know what to believe:
Could the reviewers who measured and published the contrast ratios explain the discrepancy between the numbers?
What are the factors which can contribute to the differences?
Is in in the methodology, equipment or test environment? Sample to sample variation?

Thanks again. I'm all ears...


Hi there,

I dont think your question can be answered. We, for our part, make sure that we use trustworthy measurement tools and measure independantly from any "room / screen influences"... to make sure that our results are really based on the projector alone.

And with an exact lumen number everyone can calculate what brightness he has with what screen size / gain etc...

Same about contrast: We make sure to measure contrast many times with different meters to make sure to get accurate results.


And what results do we get? Normally very close to manufacturors spec. In case of the JVC we really get the manufactures spec. Actually we always did, we already tested the SX21, HX1, HD2k in the past.. JVC is really trustworthy here..


And it is no suprise that we get close to the manufacturors spec: When a manufacturor claims things in the technical data, he takes the responsabilty. Many companies are aware of that and therefore they dont exaggerate specs too much anymore. Because if they did, the customers could give their machines back...

You cant claim and sell a car with "300 hp" if in reality it has only 130hp.. as simple as that. Of course with a projector there are more possible tricks like adaptive iris, wrong colors etc..


So I for my part can assure you, the JVC pre production model and the serial model both really had the brightness and the contrast we published so far. And deviation was minimal. If you want to complain about the machine, then maybe about the fact that you can not combine the 700 Lumens with the 15000:1 contrast at the same time.


But I can not speak for others, nor have I seen more models. Hopefully I will get to see 10 (yes ten) more machines end of the week, then I can tell you about deviation in production units if you are interested (of course you are ha ha)

:)

Regards,
Ekkehart, Cine4Home

Thanks Ekkehart
much appreciated - now we are keen to see your findings on your Ger/Eng websites very soon. Let us know when they will be posted

Can either of you point to something on the Projector Central website that is inaccurate or untrue? I find their site quite informative, but if there's a reason I shouldn't trust that site I'd like it pointed out and will be more skeptical of their future reviews and articles.

Thanks in advance.

Good question. :confused: I don't think the PC reviews are inaccurate or untrue - although they do make mistakes - however, so does every reviewer from time to time. I believe most folks view PC as the "consumer reports" of projector reviews. The reviews are not considered thorough, or full of the details that the more demanding readers of AVS come to expect.

Out of curiosity I looked at PC 1080p shootout review done in November. This review compared the latest Mistu, Panny, Optoma and Sony 1080p offerings. They ranked each PJ in 12 categories including sharpness 1080p, sharpness DVD, deinterlacing, lumens, contrast, black level, zoom, lens shift, connectivity, fan noise, price and warranty.

I added the numbers up and came up with the following. Please note that here the lowest score is considered the best.

Mitsu = 26
Panny = 23
Optoma = 29
Sony = 30

I can see how a lot of Sony fans and Pearl owners would be upset with this outcome. However, if you look into the individual categories the Sony may be the best PJ if you are a lover of contrast and black level - categories that the Sony won hands down. On the other hand if you want a brighter projector and cost is not the most important consideration the Optoma might be your number one choice. You get the idea.

I look at PC as just one more data point. No they are not perfect - or even the best, however, they do offer some good information.

Finally, remember to look at the bias a certain reviewer, website or publication may have. Do they need to attract people to their site, sell advertising, etc.? Who advertises the most on PC and what PJ came out on top. Is that a coincident or simply how the numbers added up?

Hi there,

...


But I can not speak for others, nor have I seen more models. Hopefully I will get to see 10 (yes ten) more machines end of the week, then I can tell you about deviation in production units if you are interested (of course you are ha ha)

:)

Regards,
Ekkehart, Cine4Home

Well. I'am.

If I'm lucky one of these will be mine. :)

Are you C4H optimizing with the glass filter?
I wonder if that is necessary. According to your preview the JVC already has additional filtering for color optimization.

Also interesting will be the defective pixel count across the batch.

Hi there,
If you want to complain about the machine, then maybe about the fact that you can not combine the 700 Lumens with the 15000:1 contrast at the same time.
:)

Regards,
Ekkehart, Cine4Home
Excellent response. We as readers need to keep the before and after figures separated. Have the after calibration numbers been published yet?


To Mr. Norton:
Are Ultimates' measurements before or after calibration?

cine4home.de has posted the mesurements from preproduction models. Go take a read.

I believe that all of Cine4Home's figures are after calibration to 6500K (unless he specifically says otherwise e.g., when he reports > 800 lumens at 7500K). And I think that his comment about not being able to get 15000:1 CR and 700 lumens at the same time has to do the distance of the pj from the screen (the throw); i.e., one gets 700 lumens when the pj is as close as possible, but not 15000:1 CR, etc.

I believe that all of Cine4Home's figures are after calibration to 6500K (unless he specifically says otherwise e.g., when he reports > 800 lumens at 7500K). And I think that his comment about not being able to get 15000:1 CR and 700 lumens at the same time has to do the distance of the pj from the screen (the throw); i.e., one gets 700 lumens when the pj is as close as possible, but not 15000:1 CR, etc.

I think that is a good and accurate summary.

I think that is a good and accurate summary.
Panel contrast of 20K and 15-17K optimized only contrast ratio is nice to hear and advertise. But (as always) a system is only as good as its weakest link.

Again, what are the measured numbers after compromising for the best overall D65 color, contrast, grey scale and brightness? Is asking for the highest fidelity bottom-line numbers unreasonable?

I had believed that the JVC had a higher measured static contrast than the Sony Pearl even with its dynamic iris engaged. But now we learn that this is not the case under practical real world conditions. That mistaken bragging makes one now feel like a bit of a fool:)

Again, what are the measured numbers after compromising for the best overall D65 color, contrast, grey scale and brightness? Is asking for the highest fidelity bottom-line numbers unreasonable?

:)


Our numbers were @D65....

Regards,
Ekkehart

I still don't understand how zoom ratio affects contrast. I can see it affecting lumens, but how does the zoom affect contrast?

This usually has to do with the Iris in the optics... In case of the JVC as well...

Regards,
Ekekhart

I still don't understand how zoom ratio affects contrast. I can see it affecting lumens, but how does the zoom affect contrast?

A narrow angle throw (small picture) uses less glass than a wide angle throw, therefore I believe, less lens flare. ANSI contrast suffers more than On-off contrast.

I think I understand: imperfections in the glass cause small amounts of "light scatter" that affect ANSI CR.

Would higher quality optics reduce this? Has anyone ever taken the lens out of their pj and used a different lens? Can this be done?

I still don't understand how zoom ratio affects contrast. I can see it affecting lumens, but how does the zoom affect contrast?
With most zoom lens changing the focal length usually changes the f-stop. Something like f4 only lets through half as much light as f2.8. Stepping down most lens one or two stops also increases the contrast/resolution but at the expense of its light gathering ability.

I understood how the zoom lens changed the f stop. I just didn't understand how it affected contrast. I think I understand now. The f stop of the lens shouldn't have anything to do with the contrast though, correct? An ND filter doesn't affect contrast.

I think I understand: imperfections in the glass cause small amounts of "light scatter" that affect ANSI CR.

Would higher quality optics reduce this? Has anyone ever taken the lens out of their pj and used a different lens? Can this be done?
The best camera lens frequently use ED glass elements. Stands for Extremely Low Dispersion glass. From my experience it makes for better color quality. The lens in most projectors today use inferior plastic.

I think I understand: imperfections in the glass cause small amounts of "light scatter" that affect ANSI CR.

Would higher quality optics reduce this? Has anyone ever taken the lens out of their pj and used a different lens? Can this be done?
Get out the fat wallet. Here is an example of an aspect ratio lens.
It's perfect at $6K!

http://www.projectorcentral.com/schneider_optics_anamorphic.htm

why dont you stop trolling and just go and read the article posted on cine4home.com, is that unreasonable?

I dont think it can be stated any clearer then already stated.

Hi All:

As originally posted, my review of the HD1 stated that my Studiotek 130 screen was 78" diagonal. That was an error; if you've read any of my past reviews, it is 78" WIDE. The text is being changed to read wide. (If you run the math you'll find that for a 16:9 screen the width is the diagonal measurement times 0.87, so it's easy to go back and forth.)

All of our front projector light readings are made off the screen, the only place it really matters. For a movie theater, SMPTE recommends a projector open-gate light output of 16 foot-Lamberts at center screen, which translates to about 12fL with a clear film in the gate. I prefer to see about 16-18fL from a projector with a new lamp, which will still provide a reasonable light output when the lamp dims with age, as it will. All of this, of course, assumes a fully darkened room.

Tom Norton
UAV

Thanks for the update, it is much apprecaited. A quick question I had reading your sneak-peek: You measured the video black at .002 fl for your CR calculation. I am not familiar with the meter you used, so I am not sure if that device has more significant digits of capability, or if the video blacks measured exactly .002 (i.e., would .0015 -.0024 all read .002)? It seems at some point it would get pretty difficult (impossible, even) to read the light from a very black image, and this would be very measurement device dependant.

Great first look by the way, we're all starved for information on this projector, no matter how much we get.

I went and re-read the most recent Cin4home RS1 review of a production model:

Cin4Home Quote:
“As is already known, the manufacturer JVC admits to a native contrast of 15000:1 with the DLA-HD1, without aids like for instance an adaptive iris. This value is so high that it can be believed only with difficulty. Besides that, the maximum brightness is not to suffer by this contrast optimization, and with 700 lumens the HD1 is suitable even for large picture diagonals .
But measurement is always better: this time we had the opportunity to measure contrast and brightness with sensors. Does the HD1 actually reach 15000:1 with 700 lumens and does it actually reach this with correct colors (D65)?
Let's make it short, the answer to both questions is: "Yes!!". First we determined the contrast in the perfect Low mode (D65), presented above. In addition, we held the sensor in direct proximity of the optics, in order to receive reliable results of our measurements despite the outstanding Black Level. And our result certifies JVC's honesty with the data, as one rarely finds in the home cinema industry: the projector reached a contrast ratio of 15200:1, exactly "as promised". Also regarding brightness there is agreement concerning the manufacturer indicated data and our measurement result astonishes: the HD1 reached 695 Lumen after 50 hours of operation in High mode with D65!”

Then in this thread Cin4Home gives us the following quote:
“If you want to complain about the machine, then maybe about the fact that you can not combine the 700 Lumens with the 15000:1 contrast at the same time.”

Maybe something got lost in the translation, or the fact that I've presently got a stuffy head! Can someone please clarify? Again I'm all ears. Thank you.
http://www.cine4home.com/index.htm

"I still don't understand how zoom ratio affects contrast."

Another thing is that at shorter throw the extreme rays (towards O.D. of light bundle) are at greater angles from the centerline as well as closer to surrounding surfaces (because the light bundle is fatter), both of which increase scattered light off of the surrounding surfaces.

I went and re-read the most recent Cin4home RS1 review of a production model:

I believe that is still the pre-production model, the 2/1/07 date is Jan 2. They are due a new review of a production system sometime soon, hopefully this week.

...But measurement is always better: this time we had the opportunity to measure contrast and brightness with sensors. Does the HD1 actually reach 15000:1 with 700 lumens and does it actually reach this with correct colors (D65)?
Let's make it short, the answer to both questions is: "Yes!!". First we determined the contrast in the perfect Low mode (D65), presented above. In addition, we held the sensor in direct proximity of the optics, in order to receive reliable results of our measurements despite the outstanding Black Level. And our result certifies JVC's honesty with the data, as one rarely finds in the home cinema industry: the projector reached a contrast ratio of 15200:1, exactly "as promised". Also regarding brightness there is agreement concerning the manufacturer indicated data and our measurement result astonishes: the HD1 reached 695 Lumen after 50 hours of operation in High mode with D65!”

Then in this thread Cin4Home gives us the following quote:
“If you want to complain about the machine, then maybe about the fact that you can not combine the 700 Lumens with the 15000:1 contrast at the same time.”

Maybe something got lost in the translation, or the fact that I've presently got a stuffy head! Can someone please clarify? Again I'm all ears. Thank you.
http://www.cine4home.com/index.htm

My understanding is you can get 700 lumens or 15:000:1 contrast at D65, but not both at the same time. The Cine4home articles are originally in German, and the translation perhaps makes the first article not so clear on this. As I recall, you get highest lumens at one end of the throw range, and highest contrast at the other.

Ekkhart can probably explain this all much better than I.

Re: previous note: seems that the 15K + D65 is at 600 lumens, with the lamp in low mode, if the table in the report is reviewed. With the lamp in hi mode, there are more lumens, and contrast is even higher, at the expense of change in color temp.

..Mike

Many seem to want more and more lumens?

I actually wish it had a manual iris so we could tone down the brightness as needed.
Projecting in a normal room with white ceilings, the only way to get decents blacks is to have lower light output in mixed scenes, else the reflections wash out the image?

Thanks for the update, it is much apprecaited. A quick question I had reading your sneak-peek: You measured the video black at .002 fl for your CR calculation. I am not familiar with the meter you used, so I am not sure if that device has more significant digits of capability, or if the video blacks measured exactly .002 (i.e., would .0015 -.0024 all read .002)? It seems at some point it would get pretty difficult (impossible, even) to read the light from a very black image, and this would be very measurement device dependant.

Great first look by the way, we're all starved for information on this projector, no matter how much we get.

Thanks for the kind words.

The Minolta LS-100 is specified to read down to 0.001fL. (Their LS-150, I believe, will read much brighter images than the LS-100, but its 0.01fL minimum low level capability is inadequate for our purposes.) But once we get to levels as low as 0.002fL, as with the JVC, we are in a region where the meter's accuracy is less than ideal. Still, this is the tool many manufacturers, reviewers and calibrators use, as anything more sensitive gets outrageously expensive (last time I checked, even the Minolta was around $3000).

The Minolta only reads to three significant decimal points, so you could say that the result, assuming reasonable accuracy, could be anywhere between 0.0016fL and 0.0024fL.

When I measured the Sharp XV-Z20000, with its similarly low video black level, I rechecked the results on a sample of screeen material positioned much closer to the projector. The smaller image raised both the white and black levels simultaneously, moving the black level into a range more easily measurable with accuracy. I have not yet had the opportunity to do that with the JVC, but will do so for the final review.

Tom Norton
UAV

Good question. :confused: I don't think the PC reviews are inaccurate or untrue ...

great post, Mit07
paul

Welcome to the forums Tom.

I apologize reincarnate-

cine4home took the time to post on the forums when he got another presample production to do testing with. He posted some numbers for the min and max zoom. I thought it was posted in his article.

I dont remember the specs but i thought it was something like

500 lumens 15k contrast max range
700 lumens 12k contrast min range

I thought it was posted in the article but it was posted on the forums.

It was disapointing to hear, getting both the high lumens and high contrast regardless of zoom and no bright corners where two of the reasons i preordered.

I've gotten over it and now eagerly await my purchase =)

I had believed that the JVC had a higher measured static contrast than the Sony Pearl even with its dynamic iris engaged. But now we learn that this is not the case under practical real world conditions. That mistaken bragging makes one now feel like a bit of a fool:)

I don't want to get into a Pearl vs HD1 debate because I think both throw a great image. But just to clarify, static contrast means without any dynamic gamma applied and with this terminology a projector with much higher native contrast will always have much higher static contrast. Dynamic contrast means a DI equipped projector that may also be capable of dynamically boosting gamma in dark scenes.

To better capture dynamic contrast performance, I posted some graphs here (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9751112&&#post9751112) that shows the extrapolated (not measured) theoretical best case dynamic contrast for a VW50 compared to the same projector with iris off, as well as a native 14000:1 projector suggested by the VW50 on/off CR (which is also close to the performance of a HD1). As you can see the native projector has a higher dynamic contrast even in dark low APL scenes with the dynamic gamma at maximum boost. If the low APL scene contains only dark content (ie only pixels less than ~60 IRE) then the two perform about the same, but if the low APL scene contains bright detail the native projector has a signficiant advantage in contrast (up to a 3x more contrast with 100 IRE pixels).

In "practical real world conditions" the VW50 may often use less than the maximum gamma boost to reduce BC so the benefits of a DI even with dark detail in low APL scenes would be less than that shown by the yellow curve. In "practical real world conditions" with higher APL scenes where the DI is fully open, the contrast approaches the static ANSI contrast where both projectors have similar contrast performance.

If you want to see what this means with a real image, check out Erik Garci's Intrascene contrast calculator: http://home1.gte.net/res18h39/intrascene.htm
The dark space scene has a low 4% APL so the VW50 iris should be fully closed. Even in this dark scene the brightest pixel is at 81% lum and the darkest pixel is at 0 (full black). From the chart, the contrast difference between these two brightness extremes is about 8000:1 for the native contrast projector (ie the projector with 14000:1 on/off) vs about half that for the DI VW50. This assumes the VW50 is using maximum dynamic gamma to achieve these numbers.

I've reposted one of the dynamic contrast graphs here:
http://public.csusm.edu/kai/mark/dc1.gif

I think I understand: imperfections in the glass cause small amounts of "light scatter" that affect ANSI CR.

Would higher quality optics reduce this? Has anyone ever taken the lens out of their pj and used a different lens? Can this be done?

It's not easy to interchange lenses if the manufacturer hasn't designed for it. But I know JVC once did an experiment of mating a G150 lens onto a HD2K and the ANSI CR was signficiantly improved. There was talk of offering this as an option for the 2K but it never panned out. I don't recall which G150 lens that they used, but it was probably one of the fixed (non-zoomable) lenses which means the least amount of glass that the image has to go through.

Thanks Tom.

Could you tell us the relation of the projector's position with regards to the center of the screen?

If the PJ is ceiling mounted, the gain of the screen would be less than 1.3 at the projector. If the PJ is mounted with the center line of the lens perpendicular to the center of the screen then the gain will be 1.3 at the projector.

This could be why the foot-lamberts number yields a lower lumens rating than what c4home calculates.

Thanks,
Noah

I know what you mean, and I try to take this into consideration. The angle of incidence equals the angle of reflection, and this could affect the result, particularly with a screen with a gain other than 1.0. But our test projectors are not ceiling mounted (it would be a chore to keep swapping them out!).

The center of the JVC's lens was about 6" below the center of the screen, the meter positioned about 9" above the center. Even allowing for vertical offset in the projector's throw (the lens' vertical shift was also set up just slightly off center).
Just to be sure, I took a series of peak white readings with the meter varied from 2.5" to 16" above the center of the screen. The maximum deviation was 0.42fL.

Tom Norton
UAV

I believe that all of Cine4Home's figures are after calibration to 6500K (unless he specifically says otherwise e.g., when he reports > 800 lumens at 7500K). And I think that his comment about not being able to get 15000:1 CR and 700 lumens at the same time has to do the distance of the pj from the screen (the throw); i.e., one gets 700 lumens when the pj is as close as possible, but not 15000:1 CR, etc.I posted a similar comment in the "brightness" thread - I am trying to learn a much as I can here and although I feel like I've digested volumes , this onion has many layers for someone starting off with no background in the science of display technology. That said, would someone mind explaining (or point me to a link) that explains the interaction of contrast ratio, color temperature, throw and brightness? I am afraid to say that I simply don't get it - I'd love to understand the "math" behind it. Sorry if this is a stupid basic question for many of you but I would really appreciate it!

Craig.

I know what you mean, and I try to take this into consideration. The angle of incidence equals the angle of reflection, and this could affect the result, particularly with a screen with a gain other than 1.0. But our test projectors are not ceiling mounted (it would be a chore to keep swapping them out!).

The center of the JVC's lens was about 6" below the center of the screen, the meter positioned about 9" above the center. Even allowing for vertical offset in the projector's throw (the lens' vertical shift was also set up just slightly off center).
Just to be sure, I took a series of peak white readings with the meter varied from 2.5" to 16" above the center of the screen. The maximum deviation was 0.42fL.
I'm curious, why do you take readings off of the screen rather than directly from the lens? If you measured lux output close to the lens your meter could be put into a comfortable range for both high and low readings and would minimize the effects of the room and screen at the same time. From there it is simple math to calculate lumens levels for both black and white as well as sequential contrast.

Maybe it is just because I am an amateur, but I have found it very difficult to obtain accurate, repeatable, and reliable information by measuring reflected light from the screen (small changes in angle can sometimes result in large differences in measurements depending on the screen), while obtaining direct measurements yields much better results. Is there some particular reason that you want to include the screen when taking these readings? Or is it that the Minolta can not handle the light intensities involved in direct readings?

I agree with those who prefer that pj output be given in lumens, not screen brightness.

Otherwise the first thing I have to do is get out my calculator and calculate lumens.

Thanks

Tom, I for one found found your review very informative. Thank you. I hope you are thick skinned enough to hang around and contribute further.

That said, I want to nitpick this statment a little:
The Minolta only reads to three significant decimal points, so you could say that the result, assuming reasonable accuracy, could be anywhere between 0.0016fL and 0.0024fL
Well, I went through the math for that on the first page of this thread (now ancient history I know...)

FWIW, based on the resolution of the measured brightness values (18.11fL peak white/0.002fL video black), and assuming perfect linearity and calibration which is highly unlikely, On/Off contrast could range anywhere between

18.105/0.0025 = 7242

to 18.115/0.0015 = 12077

Put another way, a black level reading of 0.0012, not too far off .002 in an absolute sense, would have resulted in an CR of 15000I submit that in the best case the error is +/- 0.0005 not +/- 0.0004 fL. However, the real issue is that the error is likely to be much greater than that for readings down in the last one or two digits. There is a good chance that the 15000 CR spec is being met. I agree with Bob that it would be better to point the meter directly at the projector so that there are more digits in the black level reading. A stack of ND filters might be required to protect the meter for the white level reading....

Brent

I
It was disapointing to hear, getting both the high lumens and high contrast regardless of zoom and no bright corners where two of the reasons i preordered.

Now we are thinking on the same page. This zoom setting coupling was unexpected at this late time.

My original goal was to reconcile the lower measured results from Ultimate with those at Cine4home. When you stay at a superficial level everything appears fine, but when you start to dig one finds surprises. Well see where all this goes. All I want is to believe in the science of making accurate and ethical measurements without spin being added to improve the results.

Tom Norton- Welcome to the Forum!

As indicated earlier in this thread, I found your initial review of the JVC to be quite interesting, including comments that you made about other LCoS devices, including this:

Most of the criticism of past LCD and LCoS projectors has focused on their blacks, with good reason. But the LCD and LCoS projectors I've reviewed in the past have also had a tendency to look a little faded on bright scenes as well, which reduces their punch and dimensionality. This effect is subtle on the best of these projectors, but never completely absent. Many of these displays were equipped with auto irises, and while an auto iris can greatly enhance dark scenes, once it opens up on a bright scene you're left largely with the naked, native contrast of the panel and light engine.

The DLA-HD1 suffers less from this bright scene fading than most LCD and LCoS designs I've seen, even without an iris. That's likely due to improvements in the chip and light engine described above. The fading isn't completely absent, however, though I'm still sorting this out with extensive comparisons to good DLP projectors, which don't suffer from this effect at all. Oddly, some bright scenes look more faded and 2-D on the JVC than on a DLP, while on most such shots the effect, if present, is unnoticeable.

I feel as though I know exactly what you are describing when you say "bright scene fading", though I used a different description in my comments of a Pearl and Ruby that I saw when I gave my opinion on this forum. I described this as a lack of depth, 3 dimensionality, or "pop". I think your term is even more descriptive and accurate.

Do you believe that this "bright scene fading" is the result of the lower ANSI contrast numbers that the LCD and LCoS devices have vs DLP? I know you said you were going to look into this issue further and compare the RS1 with good DLP's. Have you done this and if so, have you reached any other conclusions or opinions in this regard?

Thanks for your time here!

Does anyone know where reincarnate is coming from? He seems clearly not interested in anything but planting inuendo and missleading info. I think he really does understand things very well, but feigns ignorance in order to sew confusion. Is he a deep cover Sony employee? Weird.

[QUOTE=Mark Petersen]I don't want to get into a Pearl vs HD1 debate because I think both throw a great image.

MARK, with due respect to you and so much outstanding info you have shared, I believe that myself and many others cannot quite grasp a few of the finer details being discussed, but we know what we "like" when we see it, and what falls short for our tastes. Not to "debate" RS-1 vs. Pearl, but many if not most of us HAVE seen the Pearl (albeit set up at times in less than stellar circumstances), and for about $1000. more, we would like to know what the RS-1 can offer us. I think that is a large part of the "game" around here anyway...how much can I get for my money...compared to a particular product. NO PRODUCT, in my humble opinion, could be more germane, more in line than the Pearl, in comparison with the RS-1. ;)

The dark space scene has a low 4% APL so the VW50 iris should be fully closed. Even in this dark scene the brightest pixel is at 81% lum and the darkest pixel is at 0 (full black). From the chart, the contrast difference between these two brightness extremes is about 8000:1 for the native contrast projector (ie the projector with 14000:1 on/off) vs about half that for the DI VW50. This assumes the VW50 is using maximum dynamic gamma to achieve these numbers.
Mark correct me if I am wrong, but those calculations (8,000:1 / 4,000:1) are based on a linear light system. A more interesting question is what happens in a real world, non linear (gamma encoded/decoded) system. We can calculate that at such a low APL, and assuming a gamma of ~ 2.2, the 15,000:1 RS1 has a max CR range of < 100:1 !

Is he a deep cover Sony employee? Weird.
I am the deep cover Sony employee, remember :D Reincarnate has a long standing anti Sony bias. He even posted about his reasons for his anti Sony bias.

Mark correct me if I am wrong, but those calculations (8,000:1 / 4,000:1) are based on a linear light system. A more interesting question is what happens in a real world, non linear (gamma encoded/decoded) system. We can calculate that at such a low APL, and assuming a gamma of ~ 2.2, the 15,000:1 RS1 has a max CR range of < 100:1 !

How do you arrive at a "real world" max CR range of 100:1 from the above information?

Mark correct me if I am wrong, but those calculations (8,000:1 / 4,000:1) are based on a linear light system. A more interesting question is what happens in a real world, non linear (gamma encoded/decoded) system. We can calculate that at such a low APL, and assuming a gamma of ~ 2.2, the 15,000:1 RS1 has a max CR range of < 100:1 !

Hi HHF, atually those numbers are for a 2.5 gamma encoded system. Static contrast was measured using linear light (decreasing areas of full white) but dynamic contrast was extrapolated using % stim for a 2.5 gamma encoded projector. To get the 8000:1 and 4000:1 numbers I simply looked up the contrast chart for 81% stim which is the brightest pixel in the space scene. The chart assumes contrast for full off (min black) and this 4% APL scene will elevate the blacks slightly so the actual contrast numbers will be slightly lower. Erik's calculator measures 7500:1 for the native projector for example for just this reason. I would assume the DI projector in this example would be closer to ~3500:1 for the same reasons. As far as the RS1 having a max CR range of <100:1 in low APL scenes goes, I can't really see how you arrived at that. It might have this CR with high APL measured at the screen with a highly reflective room but not with low APL scenes measured at the projector.

EDIT: I should also mention that the chart is designed to display simultaneous (Intra-Image) contrast while Erik's calculator shows Intrascene contrast. Intrascene contrast is much more problematic because of spatial relationships between pixels and the luminance histogram. So the calculator is really more of a theoretical tool that is useful for illustrations. In actual practice for example it's impossible to measure the tiny clumps of pixels that represent the stars so it's not even possible to measure intrscene contrast for this scene.

[QUOTE=Mark Petersen]I don't want to get into a Pearl vs HD1 debate because I think both throw a great image.

MARK, with due respect to you and so much outstanding info you have shared, I believe that myself and many others cannot quite grasp a few of the finer details being discussed, but we know what we "like" when we see it, and what falls short for our tastes. Not to "debate" RS-1 vs. Pearl, but many if not most of us HAVE seen the Pearl (albeit set up at times in less than stellar circumstances), and for about $1000. more, we would like to know what the RS-1 can offer us. I think that is a large part of the "game" around here anyway...how much can I get for my money...compared to a particular product. NO PRODUCT, in my humble opinion, could be more germane, more in line than the Pearl, in comparison with the RS-1. ;)

I agree that the RS1 vs Pearl comparison is pretty central for most people. Much of the debate centers on the contrast differences between native and DI technologies and hopefully the contrast plot that I posted helps people to understand how the contrast differs between these technologies.

Good question. :confused: I don't think the PC reviews are inaccurate or untrue - although they do make mistakes - however, so does every reviewer from time to time. I believe most folks view PC as the "consumer reports" of projector reviews. The reviews are not considered thorough, or full of the details that the more demanding readers of AVS come to expect.

Out of curiosity I looked at PC 1080p shootout review done in November. This review compared the latest Mistu, Panny, Optoma and Sony 1080p offerings. They ranked each PJ in 12 categories including sharpness 1080p, sharpness DVD, deinterlacing, lumens, contrast, black level, zoom, lens shift, connectivity, fan noise, price and warranty.

I added the numbers up and came up with the following. Please note that here the lowest score is considered the best.

Mitsu = 26
Panny = 23
Optoma = 29
Sony = 30

I can see how a lot of Sony fans and Pearl owners would be upset with this outcome. However, if you look into the individual categories the Sony may be the best PJ if you are a lover of contrast and black level - categories that the Sony won hands down. On the other hand if you want a brighter projector and cost is not the most important consideration the Optoma might be your number one choice. You get the idea.

I look at PC as just one more data point. No they are not perfect - or even the best, however, they do offer some good information.

Finally, remember to look at the bias a certain reviewer, website or publication may have. Do they need to attract people to their site, sell advertising, etc.? Who advertises the most on PC and what PJ came out on top. Is that a coincident or simply how the numbers added up?

the native ON OFF contrast of the H81 is around 1300:1 and 2500: 1 with an acceptable iris mode. the SOny is around 2300-2400 on off native and up to 10.000:1 in auto 1 but with lots brigthness compression of course.
if it (H81) ranked that good it's perhaps because many people like the plasma images while LCOS based pjs provide a more cinematic image though with much higher contrast ratio now.
note also the same plasma bright effect can be obtained with a high gain screen and a LCOS (say 1.5 and higher)...

the native ON OFF contrast of the H81 is around 1300:1 and 2500: 1 with an acceptable iris mode. the SOny is around 2300-2400 on off native and up to 10.000:1 in auto 1 but with lots brigthness compression of course.
if it (H81) ranked that good it's perhaps because many people like the plasma images while LCOS based pjs provide a more cinematic image though with much higher contrast ratio now.
note also the same plasma bright effect can be obtained with a high gain screen and a LCOS (say 1.5 and higher)...


You might find Greg Rogers review of the HD81 quite interesting

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=805785

my observations have been its the best black level of any digital I've seen.


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

This is good news. Maybe it will quite those who only focus on sharpness and say things like "it was unwatchable" from past projectors like the Sony. Unwatchable? :rolleyes:

First of all it is written "quiet" (and English is not even my native tongue...) and second "most program material" obviously means upscaled SD content as well as deinterlaced 1080i sources. All this tells us that the Gennum processing of the HD-1 is superior to Sharp's in house CIVICIII solution - something we knew/assumed all along. When fed a native 1080p input signal the JVC is indeed "unwatchable" compared to the crispness of a state of the art 1080p DLP :p

(little hint: don't take the last sentence all too serious - but there certainly lies some truth in it...)

Tom - did you have an opportunity to measure the different gammas at each of the gamma options provided (normal, 1, 2, 3)? I'm curious what these measure and how they look, if you tried any of them other than normal. Thanks.

...When fed a native 1080p input signal the JVC is indeed "unwatchable" compared to the crispness of a state of the art 1080p DLP :p
...
I have a slightly different definition of "unwatchable". When I watch a DLP for more than about 10 minutes, I get a splitting headache. That makes my definition of "unwatchable" the exact opposite of yours, the Sharp is unwatchable! ;) ;)

I have a slightly different definition of "unwatchable". When I watch a DLP for more than about 10 minutes, I get a splitting headache. That makes my definition of "unwatchable" the exact opposite of yours, the Sharp is unwatachable! ;) ;)

It takes you that long to get a headache? Boy, are you lucky! ;) ;)

I get a splitting headache. ;) ;)

For myself, add too that extreme nousia followed by vomiting. :(

Now that's funny. Spend forever trying to get a pj with great color and detail and then screw it up with a gain screen because the problems are only rarely noticeable. I almost thought Tryg wrote this.
[/URL]
[/B]

Excellent observation, I agree 100%! The sub par uniformity and sheen of high gain screens IMO totally kills any believability in the picture and will never look "real". It's like look through a window, but with a glaze or frosting over it.

The sub par uniformity and sheen of high gain screens IMO totally kills any believability in the picture and will never look "real".
I guess you haven't seen any high quality high gain screens then. The DaLite High Power, for example, is capable of realizing as much as a 2.8 gain, yet exhibits NONE of the problems that you have mentioned. It is simply brighter with no hotspotting, no color shifting, no uneven shading, and no surface particles to obscure the picture quality. What you have said is true of cheap and/or old high gain designs (some were horrible!) - not the quality screens of today.

Excellent observation, I agree 100%! The sub par uniformity and sheen of high gain screens IMO totally kills any believability in the picture and will never look "real". It's like look through a window, but with a glaze or frosting over it.
Other than the Silverstar (which I didn't list), what other gain screens do you have a problem with seeing a sheen? IMO, there is no "sheen" on any of the gain screens that I listed in my post. Have you seen any of those screens?

Glenn

agree with Bob and Glenned

as for the H81, after all the launch buzz, reality sets in and it's a failure. confirmed by professional viewers (not only Greg).

I've seen the sheen on the SS in bright scenes, but had to make a concerted effort to look for it. I try not to look for flaws when enjoying a movie - some people spend too much time looking at cross hatch patterns and white screens, IMO. Relax and enjoy a movie - I'll be enjoying a bright picture on a 120" SS/RS1 combo...

How do you arrive at a "real world" max CR range of 100:1 from the above information?

...As far as the RS1 having a max CR range of <100:1 in low APL scenes goes, I can't really see how you arrived at that...

I answered this in the the Alternative to ANSI CR thread to avoid cluttering this one with OT posts.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9789781#post9789781

I guess you haven't seen any high quality high gain screens then. The DaLite High Power, for example, is capable of realizing as much as a 2.8 gain, yet exhibits NONE of the problems that you have mentioned. It is simply brighter with no hotspotting, no color shifting, no uneven shading, and no surface particles to obscure the picture quality. What you have said is true of cheap and/or old high gain designs (some were horrible!) - not the quality screens of today.
This brings up a really good point (of course I'm going to go off on a tangent here). But why don't these magazines review some screens?

I just went to the WSR website and there isn't even an option for screens in their pull down list for equipment reviews.

Home Theater - nothing.

The Perfect Vision - nothing.

Ultimate A/V - Three reviews (don't count the Stewart short take).

These four magazines have reviewed a combined total of 3 screens, but over 300 projectors.

We spend hours researching our projectors to make sure we get the best white uniformity, color, lumens and contrast - but unless we have some serious equipment we have no clue if our screen is screwing up the image. When you see white crush or black that is really dark gray, is it the screen hotspotting or the projector?

I'd like to politely ask the reviewers on this thread to ask your editors to do at least two screen reviews a year.

Bob. Over the years I have sold and installed many many screens. There is no free lunch with any screen. Screens are chosen to ameliorate certain problems. I am not going to go into a bunch of examples. The best screen given no problems to ameliorate is a 1.0 matt white. EVERYTHING ELSE HAS NEGATIVES. If you don't see them fine. That doesn't change the reality though. In many cases the positives outweigh the negatives.

To me, anytime the gain exceeds 1.3 or so, the negatives outweigh the positives. 1.5 is too high with obvious hotspotting and sheen. 2.8 ? Please, I won't even go into the adverse effects.

However, if one really needs gain and sits in reasonable proximity to the screen center, and mounts the projector appropriately, it can give good results. Remember somebodies favorite wine, can taste like aviation gas to a wine critic. The only thing that counts is the purchasers happiness. If someone likes a 60 gain Silverstar (if 6.0 is a believable number, what a joke from the laws of physic, so would be 60), great.

To me, anytime the gain exceeds 1.3 or so, the negatives outweigh the positives. 1.5 is too high with obvious hotspotting and sheen. 2.8 ? Please, I won't even go into the adverse effects.

However, if one really needs gain and sits in reasonable proximity to the screen center, and mounts the projector appropriately, it can give good results.

Mark, I don't disagree with any of your statements, and the reduced viewing cone (but still MUCH larger than a RPTV) and retro-reflectivity (requiring proper location of the pj) are well-recognized. But if one can achieve these requirements in ones room--e.g., because of a narrow room, etc.--I think Bob was saying that the HP does NOT have the PQ shortcomings of some other high gain screens, e.g., hotspotting, sheen or other surface structure, color shift, etc. So if one can achieve the placement and seating requirements for an HP, do you perceive it to have other 'defects'.

My issue with screens w/gain is that even if implemented perfectly they exacerbate problems with a projector. Take the DaLite High Gain 2.8 and assume you are sitting in the perfect spot - no hot spotting. Now there is no projector made that has perfect white uniformity - the sides will appear dimmer than the center. Most projectors exhibit a 20% drop off (this is an obviously over-generalized statement).

For simplicity with numbers lets say you have a 1.0 gain screen and measure 10 footlamberts coming off the screen (in the center). You will lose 2 footlamberts (8 footlamberts instead of 10 due to the projectors problems with uniformity) at the edges of the screen. But with a 2.8 gain screen that problem is magnified. The center of the screen will be emitting 28 footlamberts and the sides will drop off 5.6 foot lamberts. The percentage is still a 20% loss, but it will be more noticeable, just like the difference between talking at 50db vs 60db is the same % difference as 100 db and 120 db, but 20 db is the difference between uncomfortable and painful.

Will people notice that? It depends on the person. I complain when CBS/ABC/etc. send out poor quality HDTV while the people sitting right next to me say they don't see any problems.

Couldnt the same arguement go towards any projector that has high lumens? Yet you will see a number of posts wanting higher lumens from their projectors.

Couldnt the same arguement go towards any projector that has high lumens? Yet you will see a number of posts wanting higher lumens from their projectors.
It's not the lumens but the uniformity.

For simplicity with numbers lets say you have a 1.0 gain screen and measure 10 footlamberts coming off the screen (in the center). You will lose 2 footlamberts (8 footlamberts instead of 10 due to the projectors problems with uniformity) at the edges of the screen. But with a 2.8 gain screen that problem is magnified. The center of the screen will be emitting 28 footlamberts and the sides will drop off 5.6 foot lamberts. The percentage is still a 20% loss, but it will be more noticeable, just like the difference between talking at 50db vs 60db is the same % difference as 100 db and 120 db, but 20 db is the difference between uncomfortable and painful.


I'm definitely no expert (experts please chime in!), but I don't think your analysis is correct for the HP. The light going from the pj to the edge of the screen has its peak intensity STRAIGHT BACK at the pj (and thus ideally not far from your eyes). And the light from the pj to the center of the screen obviously has its peak intensity straight back to the pj. And this seems to be verified over and over by HP users, that there is no observable falloff in brightness from any part of the screen (provided your eyes are not very far from the pj). Any non-uniformity in brightness from the pj will of course not be corrected for.

And even if you're sitting at the edge of the screen, and thus not getting the full 2.8 gain, if you calculate the angles between the pj, various points on the screen, and your eye, you will find the the angles vary very little for different points on the screen. So even though this viewer has a less bright image, it is quite uniform in brightness.

I'm definitely no expert (experts please chime in!), but I don't think your analysis is correct for the HP. The light going from the pj to the edge of the screen has its peak intensity STRAIGHT BACK at the pj (and thus ideally not far from your eyes). And the light from the pj to the center of the screen obviously has its peak intensity straight back to the pj. And this seems to be verified over and over by HP users, that there is no observable falloff in brightness from any part of the screen (provided your eyes are not very far from the pj). Any non-uniformity in brightness from the pj will of course not be corrected for.

And even if you're sitting at the edge of the screen, and thus not getting the full 2.8 gain, if you calculate the angles between the pj, various points on the screen, and your eye, you will find the the angles vary very little for different points on the screen. So even though this viewer has a less bright image, it is quite uniform in brightness.

Bill:

Since you own a high power screen I'd trust your eyes than others who've commented but never seen a high power screen. :rolleyes:

Bill:

Since you own a high power screen I'd trust your eyes than others who've commented but never seen a high power screen. :rolleyes:

Ah, the thing is I don't own a HP (or ANY) screen, though I did have the good fortune to view Noah Katz' 133" HP several months ago (which helped convince me that it is the way to go for me). And while at Noah's I did move around at various distances from the screen go get a feeling for difference viewing distance/screen width ratios looked like. Since his pj then was a Panny 900, though, it obviously didn't have the sharpness one expects of the RS1.

The thing I'm trying to decide--without being able to do the experiment--is whether sitting a 1.3 SW will give a noticeably less sharp pic than sitting at 1.5 SW, with the RS1 and a HP screen.

Ah, the thing is I don't own a HP (or ANY) screen, though I did have the good fortune to view Noah Katz' 133" HP several months ago (which helped convince me that it is the way to go for me). And while at Noah's I did move around at various distances from the screen go get a feeling for difference viewing distance/screen width ratios looked like. Since his pj then was a Panny 900, though, it obviously didn't have the sharpness one expects of the RS1.

The thing I'm trying to decide--without being able to do the experiment--is whether sitting a 1.3 SW will give a noticeably less sharp pic than sitting at 1.5 SW, with the RS1 and a HP screen.

Oops... I got you and Noah confused... :o May be Noah can chime in on this subject. But you are on the pre-order list for a JVC RS1/HD1, right?

I know its the uniformity not the lumens, but an projector with increased lumens still has the same uniformity issues as a projector with less lumens no?

Then what about precieved brightness? Its not a linear equation?

I just wonder about the validity of saying 20 lumens drop off will be noticbly painfull compaired to 2 lumens drop off.

I guess you haven't seen any high quality high gain screens then. The DaLite High Power, for example, is capable of realizing as much as a 2.8 gain, yet exhibits NONE of the problems that you have mentioned. It is simply brighter with no hotspotting, no color shifting, no uneven shading, and no surface particles to obscure the picture quality. What you have said is true of cheap and/or old high gain designs (some were horrible!) - not the quality screens of today.

Actually, the glass beads in the HP create "sparklies". It doesn't happen all the time, but if a person lives with a HP for awhile as I have you will see them more often than you want. I think that those who say the HP doesn't have sparklies probably came to that conclusion from demo'ing the screen for short periods of time or from examining screen samples. The HP sparklie problem is discussed in the screen forum. Here is an example:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=738514

There is no free lunch with any screen

Truer words have never been spoken. The HP and Silverstar are outstanding examples of what a manufacturer can do to mitigate the problems of high gain screens but they do have their limitations.

Oops... I got you and Noah confused... :o May be Noah can chime in on this subject. But you are on the pre-order list for a JVC RS1/HD1, right?

By all means! And it was exciting to read that ALL the AVS preorders may actually be filled in the 'first batch' that Tom said would go out by the end of THIS month.

Actually, the glass beads in the HP create "sparklies". It doesn't happen all the time, but if a person lives with a HP for awhile as I have you will see them more often than you want. I think that those who say the HP doesn't have sparklies probably came to that conclusion from demo'ing the screen for short periods of time or from examining screen samples. The HP sparklie problem is discussed in the screen forum. Here is an example:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=738514



Truer words have never been spoken. The HP and Silverstar are outstanding examples of what a manufacturer can do to mitigate the problems of high gain screens but they do have their limitations.

Mark, you certainly know more about (all of) this than I do; all I've learned (or think I've learned) is from reading the Forum (especially including many of your posts, which I've enjoyed). But one of the attributes that I read over and over from HP owners' posts is how the screen 'just disappears', showing effectively no distracting surface structure (compared to the 'sheen', e.g., of the SS). I read the post you referred to above, and the originator was talking about a Dalite HCCV screen, not the HP. In fact, I think your posts are the only ones I've ever seen that comment on being distracted by the surface of the HP. I certainly don't doubt your observation--and some of these rave reports may just be purchasers making themselves feel good about their purchase--but your experience does seem to be the exception.

I noticed that Jason agreed that the HP can have sparklies. "Hi Power can indeed have sparklies. Essentially any screen with gain can, but some are better than others. Now the Hi Power does well considering its 2.8 gain."

I noticed that Jason agreed that the HP can have sparklies. "Hi Power can indeed have sparklies. Essentially any screen with gain can, but some are better than others. Now the Hi Power does well considering its 2.8 gain."

Good point. And we all also know the view that Jason's AVS partner, Tryg, has of the HP. I guess that's what keeps this all interesting, a lot of personal pref involved.

Hello together...

Good news... I saw two production units today and both matched our previous measurements regarding brightness & Contrast.

Convergence was also very good (both machines had half a pixel red off)

Regards,
Ekkehart, Cine4Home

I know its the uniformity not the lumens, but an projector with increased lumens still has the same uniformity issues as a projector with less lumens no?

Then what about precieved brightness? Its not a linear equation?
Let me preface my post by saying there are real instances where I would recommend a screen with gain. Rooms with ambient light or where everyone sits nearly centered with the screen, are two of the most obvious.

Now onto answering your question. If one's goal is to get 28 foot lamberts coming off 1.0 gain screen then matching that screen to a super lumen pj is NO different than a 2.8 gain screen matched to a lower output lumen pj that acheives the same 28 foot lamberts.

This, of course begs the question why don't I like screens with gain if they produce the same result. First of all they don't produce the same result, they will exhibit other problems (hotspotting / uniformity / vieiwing angles) - and if someone says differently ask for the numbers. But to get back on point, the real problems with screen gain is pursuit of brightness for brightness sake, not for need. Instead of trying to get the brightness one needs people use gain screens to go BEYOND what they need. Humans perceive brighter as better and I understand the want for brighter images. I'm not trying to pick on anyone, but there was a long review on screens with gain where the reveiwer (and AVS guy) chose the brightest screen as best even though his own pictures showed the screen with less gain had more detail. The reviewer prefers brighter over detail. Its similar to the guy telling you about how many horsepower his new car can produce without regards to handling.

In conclusion, if you need a brighter image, by all means get a screen with gain. If you just want a brighter image for brightness sake, I would hope anyone reading this just thinks twice. If they think twice and say "I still want a brighter image, even if it blinds me." then that's an honest answer and they should get a screen with gain, but don't come back here and say everything is EXACTLY the same as a non-gain screen. The very concept of focusing light back to the source requires that those sitting off axis view an image that is less bright than those in the center. Again, nothing wrong with that if there are only one or two people in the room, just don't act like you got all the benefits of gain with no negatives.

When you see white crush or black that is really dark gray, is it the screen hotspotting or the projector?
Neither...White and/or black crush is caused by miscalibration. That is not the same thing as hotspotting.
To me, anytime the gain exceeds 1.3 or so, the negatives outweigh the positives. 1.5 is too high with obvious hotspotting and sheen. 2.8 ? Please, I won't even go into the adverse effects.
Sorry, Mark, but I have to respectfully disagree when it comes to the High Power specifically. It does not hot spot, it does not color shift, it does not have any uniformity problems, and it has no surface particles to mar the PQ. If you haven't already seen one properly set up (and by your comments I assume that this is the case), you really owe it to yourself to audition one, perform the tests yourself, and then come back and tell us what you find. The HP is truly amazing!

The only negatives with that particular screen are the constricted PJ mounting conditions and the limited viewing cone...That's it! Everything else about that screen is virtually perfect. Oh yeah, there is one more negative...It has a low profit margin...:p

Edit: Doh! It just dawned on me why Mark doesn't like gain screens...He owns a CRT, and with CRT projectors he is absolutely right. Due to the fact that the 3 primaries are in separate guns, gain screens don't work well at all. With digitals all color comes out of a single lens, so high gain screens perform MUCH better.

Mark, I don't disagree with any of your statements, and the reduced viewing cone (but still MUCH larger than a RPTV) and retro-reflectivity (requiring proper location of the pj) are well-recognized. But if one can achieve these requirements in ones room--e.g., because of a narrow room, etc.--I think Bob was saying that the HP does NOT have the PQ shortcomings of some other high gain screens, e.g., hotspotting, sheen or other surface structure, color shift, etc. So if one can achieve the placement and seating requirements for an HP, do you perceive it to have other 'defects'.
Bill, you are absolutely correct!
Couldnt the same arguement go towards any projector that has high lumens?
Yes, exactly correct. It is not the gain of the HP, it is the fact that the image is brighter. Whatever faults the PJ might have would be brought out equally with either a 2.8 brighter lamp or a 2.8 gain screen (assuming a High Power, of course ;) ).
It's not the lumens but the uniformity.
Uniformity is mostly controlled by the PJ's LUT (look up table). The problem can be made worse with a bad high gain screen (such as the Optoma GrayWolf), or it can remain unaffected (like with a HP).
Since you own a high power screen I'd trust your eyes than others who've commented but never seen a high power screen.
I don't know about Bill, but I've owned at least one of many different screens from Vutec, Da-Lite, Draper (ugh!), and Stewart and I have settled on a 2 screen setup - a Firehawk for when the lamp is new and a High Power for when the lamp has reached half brightness (and beyond). The Firehawk's real gain is about 1.1 and it exhibits very slight hotspotting (you really have to look for it) and a very slight color shift towards blue (not enough to affect an ISF calibration), but it is excellent at rejecting ambient light, so I prefer it to a ST 130 in most situations. But when you need more light output as the lamp dims, nothing can beat a High Power if you can accommodate the PJ mounting and viewing cone!
Actually, the glass beads in the HP create "sparklies". It doesn't happen all the time, but if a person lives with a HP for awhile as I have you will see them more often than you want. I think that those who say the HP doesn't have sparklies probably came to that conclusion from demo'ing the screen for short periods of time or from examining screen samples.
Nope. Sorry, but once again I must disagree. I have owned and used 4 different High Powers in the last year and a half and I have yet to see even one case of the "sparklies". I suppose it could happen if you have a lot of ambient light, but in a proper theater it has NEVER been an issue...Not even once!

Edit: Mark, I just realized that you said that you have lived with an HP for awhile. Do you have ambient light problems? I'm just trying to figure out why you have sparkly problems while I have had none whatsoever. :confused:

There's no reason to believe me...Talk to Darin about the High Power...

Neither...White and/or black crush is caused by miscalibration. That is not the same thing as hotspotting.
They were two separate items, not the same thing (black crush, or hotspotting), but thanks for clarifying that if my sentence was poorly worded.

Hello together...

Good news... I saw two production units today and both matched our previous measurements regarding brightness & Contrast.

Convergence was also very good (both machines had half a pixel red off)

Regards,
Ekkehart, Cine4Home

Wow, this is good to hear (esp after GregR's fairly devastating review of the HD81). Thanks, Ekkehart, for this and all your very excellent contributions that have been so useful to so many.

Bob,

"The Firehawk's real gain is about 1.1 ..... But when you need more light output as the lamp dims, nothing can beat a High Power if you can accommodate the PJ mounting and viewing cone!"

From what I saw the HP actually had a better viewing cone then the FH.

You know my room. I get a uniform picture over the entire screen with the HP from any of my seats. Obviously the gain varies seat to seat but the picture looks uniform in each seat.

With the FH samples if it was hung on the right side of the screen it looked like a black cloth was hung on the screen from the left seats. When the sample was on the left side of the screen the picture of course looked fine from the left seats.

"Nope. Sorry, but once again I must disagree. I have owned and used 4 different High Powers in the last year and a half and I have yet to see even one case of the "sparklies"."

I have, but it is fairly rare. Basically when you get lined up just right you get what looks like a bright little point of light at the screen. Move you head literally half an inch or so and it disappears.

Shawn

Let me preface my post by saying there are real instances where I would recommend a screen with gain. Rooms with ambient light or where everyone sits nearly centered with the screen, are two of the most obvious.

Now onto answering your question. If one's goal is to get 28 foot lamberts coming off 1.0 gain screen then matching that screen to a super lumen pj is NO different than a 2.8 gain screen matched to a lower output lumen pj that acheives the same 28 foot lamberts.

This, of course begs the question why don't I like screens with gain if they produce the same result. First of all they don't produce the same result, they will exhibit other problems (hotspotting / uniformity / vieiwing angles) - and if someone says differently ask for the numbers. But to get back on point, the real problems with screen gain is pursuit of brightness for brightness sake, not for need. Instead of trying to get the brightness one needs people use gain screens to go BEYOND what they need. Humans perceive brighter as better and I understand the want for brighter images. I'm not trying to pick on anyone, but there was a long review on screens with gain where the reveiwer (and AVS guy) chose the brightest screen as best even though his own pictures showed the screen with less gain had more detail. The reviewer prefers brighter over detail. Its similar to the guy telling you about how many horsepower his new car can produce without regards to handling.

In conclusion, if you need a brighter image, by all means get a screen with gain. If you just want a brighter image for brightness sake, I would hope anyone reading this just thinks twice. If they think twice and say "I still want a brighter image, even if it blinds me." then that's an honest answer and they should get a screen with gain, but don't come back here and say everything is EXACTLY the same as a non-gain screen. The very concept of focusing light back to the source requires that those sitting off axis view an image that is less bright than those in the center. Again, nothing wrong with that if there are only one or two people in the room, just don't act like you got all the benefits of gain with no negatives.

The one (among many) things I don't understand in these discussions is exemplified your statement "Humans perceive brighter as better", even some very experienced professional AV humans. Well since all of this visual business is 'perception' anyway, if humans perceive it to better, then why isn't it better, period? I don't mean that brightness is more imp than good CR, sharpness, low noise, high resolution, etc., but if all of these other things are equal, why isn't brighter simply better, without any qualifiers? Isn't that why many people would buy a 3-chip dlp if they wanted to lay out this much $ on this hobby?

And also, it still sounds to me that IF the viewers are reasonably well centered (and as I noted, this is much less restrictive than for a rptv), and the pj properly placed, then the HP screen DOES 'get all the benefits with no negatives'.

Hi Shawn!

Yes, I agree with you wholeheartedly. I have never had any viewing cone problems with either screen in my 3 seat theater, so I have never checked which one has the wider cone. I know your setup, so I believe you are right! If I were to choose a single screen for my setup, I would use a High Power and just use an ND filter when the lamp was new. I use the Firehawk simply because I already had it there and I prefer it over the ND filter....and it didn't cost me any additional money!

"Sorry, Mark, but I have to respectfully disagree when it comes to the High Power specifically. It does not hot spot, it does not color shift, it does not have any uniformity problems, and it has no surface particles to mar the PQ."

Same here. It seems that there's at least one post/day from someone who lumps the HP in with other types of gain screens and their problems. Gets old.

Hello together...

Good news... I saw two production units today and both matched our previous measurements regarding brightness & Contrast.

Convergence was also very good (both machines had half a pixel red off)

Regards,
Ekkehart, Cine4Home
That IS good news!

Geesh, I didn't realize how far offtopic this screen thing had become, so I'll stop posting about screen choices. I have said what I wanted to say, so buy what you want...It's your money!

Bob,

"If I were to choose a single screen for my setup, I would use a High Power and just use an ND filter when the lamp was new."

Heck, I don't even need to do that. The seats in the first row have lower gain then the second row. When I want a really bright picture I sit in the back row.... for darker films I sit up front and recline down further. ;)

Shawn

Well since all of this visual business is 'perception' anyway, if humans perceive it to better, then why isn't it better, period? I don't mean that brightness is more imp than good CR, sharpness, low noise, high resolution, etc., but if all of these other things are equal, why isn't brighter simply better, without any qualifiers? Isn't that why many people would buy a 3-chip dlp if they wanted to lay out this much $ on this hobby?
If you could have ALL of what you mentioned - no hot spotting, no sparklies - then yes. I've said it before - I think a high gain screen (especially a good one) is good for a small number of people sitting within the 'cone of reflectivity'.

And also, it still sounds to me that IF the viewers are reasonably well centered (and as I noted, this is much less restrictive than for a rptv), and the pj properly placed, then the HP screen DOES 'get all the benefits with no negatives'.
Agreed - it seems as though a high gain screen will work for you. It won't work for my theater.

One fact in home theater is that there is no perfect solution. Want acoustically transparent - enjoy your light loss. Want a projector - enjoy buying a bulb every 1,500 hours and enjoy watching your picture get dimmer with every hour you watch it. Want a plasma - enjoy your maximum 100" screen, $100K investment and hope your wall can hold 700 lbs.

Mark, you certainly know more about (all of) this than I do; all I've learned (or think I've learned) is from reading the Forum (especially including many of your posts, which I've enjoyed). But one of the attributes that I read over and over from HP owners' posts is how the screen 'just disappears', showing effectively no distracting surface structure (compared to the 'sheen', e.g., of the SS). I read the post you referred to above, and the originator was talking about a Dalite HCCV screen, not the HP. In fact, I think your posts are the only ones I've ever seen that comment on being distracted by the surface of the HP. I certainly don't doubt your observation--and some of these rave reports may just be purchasers making themselves feel good about their purchase--but your experience does seem to be the exception.


Nope. Sorry, but once again I must disagree. I have owned and used 4 different High Powers in the last year and a half and I have yet to see even one case of the "sparklies". I suppose it could happen if you have a lot of ambient light, but in a proper theater it has NEVER been an issue...Not even once!

Edit: Mark, I just realized that you said that you have lived with an HP for awhile. Do you have ambient light problems? I'm just trying to figure out why you have sparkly problems while I have had none whatsoever. :confused:

There's no reason to believe me...Talk to Darin about the High Power...

For reference, my HT is a cave with total light control. The sparklies aren't from ambient light but from projected light that hits a glass bead with just the right orientation to shine very bright light directly into a persons eye. From the seating position where this happens a person can move their head a few inches to the left or right and the "mini supernova" goes away. With my old HP I would see one about once a movie or so which wasn't often, but it was very distracting when it happened. I've never seen a sparklie with a ST130.

Jason may be correct that it may be dependent on the projector orientation and throw, which is why some people see and it and some don't but it is a well known and documented problem for glass bead screens nonetheless. I'm surprised that you guys haven't heard of it before.

Here is another post where someone has described the same thing (post #2 in the thread).
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=702771

I know exactly what Mark is talking about. It doesn't happen often, but when it does, it certainly stands out. It's like a single point of bright light.

I demoed the S1 on a Firehawk that had 3 sparklies. Although distracting, it didn't change the fact that the PJ threw one hell of a picture!

I know exactly what Mark is talking about. It doesn't happen often, but when it does, it certainly stands out. It's like a single point of bright light.

:) Yeah it's unmistakable when you see it. It usually looks brighter than even a 100 IRE pixel because it collects light and focuses it into a single small but very bright area. It's a very different artifact from the sheen on a SS though.

:) Yeah it's unmistakable when you see it. It usually looks brighter than even a 100 IRE pixel because it collects light and focuses it into a single small but very bright area. It's a very different artifact from the sheen on a SS though.

Well, this is something to watch out for. I think if I saw it I would return the screen as defective, until I got one that didn't have it (which it sounds like many don't).

Let me preface my post by saying there are real instances where I would recommend a screen with gain. Rooms with ambient light or where everyone sits nearly centered with the screen, are two of the most obvious.
.


What exactly does everyone mean when they say "nearly centered with the screen?" I have 4 Berkline 090 recliners that span around 10 feet. My screen is about 8 feet wide. So when someone is sitting on one of the end Berklines they are outside the end of the screen. Is that far enough off center to have negative effects from a high gain screen?

What exactly does everyone mean when they say "nearly centered with the screen?" I have 4 Berkline 090 recliners that span around 10 feet. My screen is about 8 feet wide. So when someone is sitting on one of the end Berklines they are outside the end of the screen. Is that far enough off center to have negative effects from a high gain screen?

Yes.

Yes.

So the high gain screens are only good for 2 people watching in the center seats. :eek:

So the high gain screens are only good for 2 people watching in the center seats. :eek:

Different people come to very different conclusions about this. I think that most (but I'm sure not all) agree that you still get major benefit from the Dalite HP screen if the viewer is within the edges of the screen (i.e., with the viewer projected straight toward the screen). But many people find it good at even wider angles. (When I saw Noah Katz' 133" HP, I was amazed at good it looked at VERY wide angles; certainly not as bright, but still very good.) This really is something you need to check out for yourself. Since this screen is very popular, there should be a good chance you can find someone near you that will let you come by to have a look.

Does the projector mounting play a role in the relative merit of high gain versus low gain screens? Or does it create special problems owing to the projector position in the theater?

That is, does table or low shelf mounted projector benefit more from a high gain screen or conversely is it more suited to a ceiling mounted projector?


michael

Some people say off center is fine for them. Others won't accept being off center. It just depends on how critical you are. Some people don't see hotspotting, generally they don't know what it is. In this screen game, it all works reasonably well. it just depends on you.

So the high gain screens are only good for 2 people watching in the center seats. :eek:


I didn't say that. But the two people in the center seats will certainly benefit more from the high gain of the HP screen than those on the sides, outside the screen width.

Does the projector mounting play a role in the relative merit of high gain versus low gain screens? Or does it create special problems owing to the projector position in the theater?
Use a longer throw distance for higher gain screens to help avoid hot-spotting (which may or may not be an issue with HP screens - I don't want to join that debate).

(which may or may not be an issue with HP screens - I don't want to join that debate).
Chicken! :p