Hint: Another "Editiors Choice Award"

The wave has begun.

http://www.projectorcentral.com/jvc_dla-rs1.htm

They seem to be handing out editor's choice awards like candy these days :p
Not saying the RS1 didn't deserve it of course.

Glowing review, though not particularly detailed. The only surprise, really, is that fan noise on the highest setting is reported to not be a problem. Also, while the review at projectorreivews indicated the sharpness was on par with the pearl, the projectorcentral review indicates the RS1 is noticeably sharper. Not quite sure why it only got 4.5 stars on "features" (perhaps lack of HDMI 1.3).

Notice that both reviews indicate that the advantages of the RS1 over other 1080p projectors is reduced with ambient light...alas, some of us can't create a bat cave environment, so I do worry about this a bit.

Best review Evan has written!

Hi, everyone. New forum member here. I just read this glowing review at projectorcentral, and it made me want one. Little did I know the RS1 was already so heralded. There's a freakin' 100 page thread on it here! Well, at least, I'm probably not the last person on earth to find out about this. :D When I upgrade my SP4805, I think the RS1 (or maybe a cheaper cousin ;) ) will be at the top of my list.

The RS1's 15,000:1 static contrast eliminates the need for the ban-aid dynamic iris and gray screen.

Quote:
"In viewing on both the Stewart Grayhawk RS and the Stewart Studiotek 130, which is a 1.3 gain white screen, the latter produced the more vibrant and satisfying image. "

I compared the gray Firehawk against a matte white screen years ago. Gray screens cannot reflect white and thus "suck" the life out of a picture. Glad to see the experts finally moving away from this. Maybe too this is why Bob Sorel is such a sour-puss about this most remarkable projector.

Notice that both reviews indicate that the advantages of the RS1 over other 1080p projectors is reduced with ambient light...alas, some of us can't create a bat cave environment, so I do worry about this a bit.

In Art's review, he admitted to having off-white walls. And yet he still noticed a large difference in black level and contrast in comparision to the Pearl. Makes me feel better about only having a "semi-bat cave". :)

When I upgrade my SP4805, I think the RS1 (or maybe a cheaper cousin ;) ) will be at the top of my list.

Now, that's an UPGRADE!

In Art's review, he admitted to having off-white walls. And yet he still noticed a large difference in black level and contrast in comparision to the Pearl. Makes me feel better about only having a "semi-bat cave". :)


yes, I noticed that, too--was good to hear. On the other hand, in the same review, Art said that the main advantages of the RS1 would be undermined without a bat-cave environment, so this seemed somewhat contradictory.

The RS1's 15,000:1 static contrast eliminates the need for the ban-aid dynamic iris and gray screen.

Quote:
"In viewing on both the Stewart Grayhawk RS and the Stewart Studiotek 130, which is a 1.3 gain white screen, the latter produced the more vibrant and satisfying image. "

I compared the gray Firehawk against a matte white screen years ago. Gray screens cannot reflect white and thus "suck" the life out of a picture. Glad to see the experts finally moving away from this. Maybe too this is why Bob Sorel is such a sour-puss about this most remarkable projector.

With no ambient light, yes, the RS1 seems best without a gray screen. But I think Art mentioned a gray screen was still a logical choice if one has unavoidable ambient light (such as white walls/ceiling). I'm hoping a High Power screen will be a good fit.

Sorry If I should've posted this in the main RS1 thread. But as soon as I saw the review I posted this here so peeps would know without having to enter the topic. I Didn't mean to add more threads to the RS1 discussion. :)

Seems a bit strange that someone would shell out over 5 K and not have a dedicated, light controlled, HT for this caliber PJ. Just an observation.

Seems a bit strange that someone would shell out over 5 K and not have a dedicated, light controlled, HT for this caliber PJ. Just an observation.

Good observation but does not the sun go down everywhere at sometime ??
Just an obsevation that was way to tempting to pass on :).

Seems a bit strange that someone would shell out over 5 K and not have a dedicated, light controlled, HT for this caliber PJ. Just an observation.

Do you expect everyone who orders this projector to move to a bigger house...? :rolleyes:

Sorry If I should've posted this in the main RS1 thread. But as soon as I saw the review I posted this here so peeps would know without having to enter the topic. I Didn't mean to add more threads to the RS1 discussion. :)

Seems a bit strange that someone would shell out over 5 K and not have a dedicated, light controlled, HT for this caliber PJ. Just an observation.


Not strange at all, actually. Plenty of people can afford this projector and want the high picture quality of this projector but for a variety of reasons simply do not have the space for a fully light controlled HT. This includes, of course, spousal resistance to painting walls/ceilings dark colors to create a bat-cave viewing environment :) Heck, even Art himself acknowledges in his review that he has light-colored walls.

The RS1's 15,000:1 static contrast eliminates the need for the ban-aid dynamic iris and gray screen.


When JVC introduces the RS2 with iris, all of you will be upgrading. Who can resist near 30k:1!

...Gray screens cannot reflect white and thus "suck" the life out of a picture...
:confused: :confused: :confused:

When JVC introduces the RS2 with iris, all of you will be upgrading. Who can resist near 30k:1!

VERY interesting observation...wondering how many people agree with this. Also curious that neither the PC or the PR reviews mentioned how enticing this possibility is...

Review from ProjectorReviews.com. (http://www.projectorreviews.com/jvc/DLA-RS1/index.asp)

VERY interesting observation...wondering how many people agree with this. Also curious that neither the PC or the PR reviews mentioned how enticing this possibility is...

After owning this projector for a few days now, I WOULD NOT want DI. The picture is so dynamic and alive and DI would just kill it. I'll live with my paltry 15000:1 contrast and somehow suffer though. ;)

Seriously, I don't think some of you, who haven't seen this projector, realize how nice a pic it throws, find a dealer and go see it for yourself. I really is amazing to look at.

glad to hear that! Makes me feel better about getting the RS1 now rather than waiting for the RS2 or RS3...

:confused: :confused: :confused:

Didn't you know that all grey screens come with a white light photon collector that must be plugged into the wall? Without this, there would be no way for the grey screens to white photons from the photons for all other light intensities :rolleyes:

Seems a bit strange that someone would shell out over 5 K and not have a dedicated, light controlled, HT for this caliber PJ. Just an observation.

One thing I have noticed from people posting screen shots is just how many projector owners put money and time into their home theater systems but give little or no consideration to the surrounding environment.

And I'm not just talking about black walls and dark carpets - I routinely see pics of "home theater" environments with screens tacked to the wall, cheap furniture, wires everywhere and bags of chips on the floor.

Not to be a snob, but it's kinda scary to see $10,000 worth of gear in a $500 apartment.

Perhaps that RS-1 money you've been saving can go towards drapes that didn't come from a trash bin.

One thing I have noticed from people posting screen shots is just how many projector owners put money and time into their home theater systems but give little or no consideration to the surrounding environment.

And I'm not just talking about black walls and dark carpets - I routinely see pics of "home theater" environments with screens tacked to the wall, cheap furniture, wires everywhere and bags of chips on the floor.

Not to be a snob, but it's kinda scary to see $10,000 worth of gear in a $500 apartment.

Perhaps that RS-1 money you've been saving can go towards drapes that didn't come from a trash bin.
Though I personally agree, to each his own. :)

Good observation but does not the sun go down everywhere at sometime ??
Just an obsevation that was way to tempting to pass on :).

Light walls and ceilings reflect light even when the sun is down! ;)

Though I personally agree, to each his own. :)

Hear hear. 200 dollars worth of wire conduit can make a room look great again. I'm about to paint my walls and ceiling dark red/brown to make my room less live.

One thing I have noticed from people posting screen shots is just how many projector owners put money and time into their home theater systems but give little or no consideration to the surrounding environment.

And I'm not just talking about black walls and dark carpets - I routinely see pics of "home theater" environments with screens tacked to the wall, cheap furniture, wires everywhere and bags of chips on the floor.

Not to be a snob, but it's kinda scary to see $10,000 worth of gear in a $500 apartment.

Perhaps that RS-1 money you've been saving can go towards drapes that didn't come from a trash bin.

^ Bwaaaa! Priceless!

I'm not cynical, I'm just not the bandwagon type. I mean, I don't want the difference to have to be measure by some equipment for me to know it. I'm not saying that is happening, but I just need to see to believe. I don't worry about the next product cycle coming out, nor do I look over my shoulder to ensure I AM the jones', I'm just passing through till either holographic video comes out, or HD movies get dimensionalized. :cool:

One thing I have noticed from people posting screen shots is just how many projector owners put money and time into their home theater systems but give little or no consideration to the surrounding environment.

And I'm not just talking about black walls and dark carpets - I routinely see pics of "home theater" environments with screens tacked to the wall, cheap furniture, wires everywhere and bags of chips on the floor.

Not to be a snob, but it's kinda scary to see $10,000 worth of gear in a $500 apartment.

Perhaps that RS-1 money you've been saving can go towards drapes that didn't come from a trash bin.

Hey, are you poking fun at Li On?... :p

http://www.avbuzz.com/audio-video/200703/li-502/index.htm

Best review Evan has written!

Totally agree. To be even more direct, first review from Evan that I didn't have big problems with. Still, compared to the projectorreviews and the cine4home reviews, well... decide for yourself.

And I'm not just talking about black walls and dark carpets - I routinely see pics of "home theater" environments with screens tacked to the wall, cheap furniture, wires everywhere and bags of chips on the floor.

.

Hey... I resemble that remark...a little. ( wires OK, no chips!)

Hey folks,

I'm still doing all the measuring and figurin' out stuff for my projectors set up. I have yet to really play with projector lens shifts to any great degree so I need to get up to speed.
In trying to figure out how high I could keep the JVC projector in my room - that is how close I can put it against the ceiling - I'm trying to get a handle on lens shift but I don't know if I'm calculating correctly, especially after reading this quote from the Projector Central Review of the RS-1:


In addition, there is vertical and horizontal lens shift capability. In neutral position, the centerline of the lens intersects the center of the projected image. From that position you can move the picture up or down within a total range of 2.67 picture heights. Horizontal shift allows you to move the projected image to the left or right of center in a range equal to 35% of the picture width in either direction.

Now, I thought the JVC offered vertical lens shift of 80%. I thought that meant that the image could be shifted a total of 80% of the screen height, starting at the center point of the screen. So if I have a 45" tall screen (as I'm planning), that works out I believe to being able to shift the image 36"....which means I can only have the projector 36" max above the centre of the screen (which seems really low to me).

But the above quote from Projector Central says it can be moved up and down a total of 2.67 picture heights. If I've done my math right, for a 45" screen that would mean being able to place the projector something like 60" above the screen center.

I have all the faith in the world that I'm doing the math wrong (given my history in math)....so can anyone clear this up for me?

Thanks.

I compared the gray Firehawk against a matte white screen years ago. Gray screens cannot reflect white and thus "suck" the life out of a picture.

The only thing that I know of that can't reflect white to some degree is outer space. Grey screen reflects white just like every other color. If you think a grey screen sucks the life out of the picture you must have made the horrible mistake of comparing the screen materials at the same time and/or not calibrating for each screen. Either that or the grey screen you viewed is too dark for the brightness of the projector. I personally haven't seen a Firehawk, but I've used light grey negative gain screens before. The firehawk should be brighter since it has some gain.

Want to see how my silver torus suck the life out of a matte white picture?

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-9/841594/Illyria-Torus-21.jpg

If viewed seperately the white doesn't look that dark. If you view two screen materials at the same time your eye's irises naturally adjust for the higher white level making the dimmer screen look dull and lifeless. Viewed seperately your eyes adjust for one white level.

The first time I painted a light grey screen was for my old Infocus X1 to improve the black levels and ansi contrast. I loved the results until I started putting up white poster board pieces to compare against. Then I thought the whites on the grey screen sucked and thought the picture looked too dull (something I never though when viewing by itself), but at the time I didn't think or realize that my eyes irises were adjusting for the higher brightness/white level of the 1.3 gain white. I changed back to white after comparing and wondered why I was sometimes less happy (dark scenes were back to sucking again).

So, in conclusion, comparing screens at the same time isn't a very good idea.

One thing I have noticed from people posting screen shots is just how many projector owners put money and time into their home theater systems but give little or no consideration to the surrounding environment.

You should all read this article about the invention of the World’s First Ideal Anti-Reflection Coating. Air has e refractive index on 1.0, meaning air does not reflect light. Till now, a material with the lowest refractive index made, was 1.4. But with nanotechnology, a material with index 1.05 has been invented. Talk about a black material, that doesn't reflect light.

In 10 years, you could have a "bat cave" withe this material coated on ceiling, walls and floor and there would be almost no reflection, so you wouldn't be able to see the material. It would pressumable just be black, as in deep space. The possibilities with this material is endless.

Read all about it (http://news.rpi.edu/update.do)

Now, I thought the JVC offered vertical lens shift of 80%. I thought that meant that the image could be shifted a total of 80% of the screen height, starting at the center point of the screen. So if I have a 45" tall screen (as I'm planning), that works out I believe to being able to shift the image 36"....which means I can only have the projector 36" max above the centre of the screen (which seems really low to me).

But the above quote from Projector Central says it can be moved up and down a total of 2.67 picture heights. If I've done my math right, for a 45" screen that would mean being able to place the projector something like 60" above the screen center.


Rich, just download the RS1 manual; it has a figure showing the lens shift quite explicitly. The same figure is in Cin4home's review.

Rich, just download the RS1 manual; it has a figure showing the lens shift quite explicitly. The same figure is in Cin4home's review.

Yes, it gives the 80% figure, which seems to jive with my first calculation and not that of Projector Central's claim. Again, I may be doing the math wrong. But it seems I could only have the RS-1 a max of 36" above centerline of a 45" screen, or 14.5" above the top of the screen. That works out to having the projector dropped down surprisingly low from the ceiling in my room, even at max lens shift. It would hang down significantly in front of a feature bay window. Given I've seen so many projectors mounted higher, both in stores and in photos of various member's HTs, this has taken me aback, especially since
mounting flexibiity is one of the touted features of this projector (and could be yet another source of domestic resistance to the projector route for me).

That's why I'm trying to make sure I am calculating this lens shift stuff accurately.

Hey, are you poking fun at Li On?... :p

http://www.avbuzz.com/audio-video/200703/li-502/index.htm

If he's not, I will!

:eek:

The RS1's 15,000:1 static contrast eliminates the need for the ban-aid dynamic iris and gray screen.

Quote:
"In viewing on both the Stewart Grayhawk RS and the Stewart Studiotek 130, which is a 1.3 gain white screen, the latter produced the more vibrant and satisfying image. "

I compared the gray Firehawk against a matte white screen years ago. Gray screens cannot reflect white and thus "suck" the life out of a picture. Glad to see the experts finally moving away from this. Maybe too this is why Bob Sorel is such a sour-puss about this most remarkable projector.

I hate to see this kind of a misunderstanding be perpetuated on the forum.

The ST130 produces a brighter image due to its higher gain. That is the only reason that it was "more vibrant". Note that the comparison was done with the screens side-by-side. This is exactly what happens in this kind of comparison. If you did the same comparison but lowered the brightness of the image on the ST130 then the GH would appear "more vibrant". Or if you compared the image on the ST130 to the same image on a higher gain screen, the St130 would suddenly look dull in comparison.

This point has been made a zillion times on the forum over the years. I'm not going to waste my time addressing this issue further in this thread. If anyone reading this post wishes to understand why this is the case, do a search on my name. You will find some extensive posts a couple of months ago explaining the physics as to why this is the case, along with actual measurements of several screen materials.

There are some dissadvantages to the Firehawk screen material, and perhaps to the GHRS (I haven't measured the GHRS and don't know), but not what was described above.

Glenn

Not to be a bother, but could someone confirm that my calculations regarding a 45" high screen and the JVC lens shift capabilities are on track? Thanks:

Now, I thought the JVC offered vertical lens shift of 80%. I thought that meant that the image could be shifted a total of 80% of the screen height, starting at the center point of the screen. So if I have a 45" tall screen (as I'm planning), that works out I believe to being able to shift the image 36"....which means I can only have the projector 36" max above the centre of the screen - (i.e. 14.5" above the top of the screen) - which seems really low to me.

But the above quote from Projector Central says it can be moved up and down a total of 2.67 picture heights. If I've done my math right, for a 45" screen that would mean being able to place the projector something like 60" above the screen center.

Multiply your screens vertical height by 30%. The resulting number is how high the pj can placed above the screen.

Not to be a bother, but could someone confirm that my calculations regarding a 45" high screen and the JVC lens shift capabilities are on track? Thanks:

Now, I thought the JVC offered vertical lens shift of 80%. I thought that meant that the image could be shifted a total of 80% of the screen height, starting at the center point of the screen. So if I have a 45" tall screen (as I'm planning), that works out I believe to being able to shift the image 36"....which means I can only have the projector 36" max above the centre of the screen - (i.e. 14.5" above the top of the screen) - which seems really low to me.

But the above quote from Projector Central says it can be moved up and down a total of 2.67 picture heights. If I've done my math right, for a 45" screen that would mean being able to place the projector something like 60" above the screen center.


Rich, for what its worth, I'll repeat some simple and good advice given to me when I first got into the projector/screen thing: buy the projector first, put it where you want it, then project on to the wall to see what size and location works best--and then you can order the screen that is the best fit. In my case, this really helped me figure out that I could get a 106" diagonal screen rather than a 92" diagonal screen, and I am extremely happy I didn't go with the smaller screen (which I would have done if purchased before the projector).

So, it sounds like you are moving ahead with your big move to a FP--perhaps a bit ahead of schedule?! Let me guess: you're getting the RS1...

Multiply your screens vertical height by 30%. The resulting number is how high the pj can placed above the screen.

Drat, that's what I feared. Now I've either got the screen higher than I want, or the projector hanging down in front of a feature bay window...not good on the domestic front.

Jumpin' Jiminy this projection stuff is brutal compared to simply buying a flat screen!

Pedro2,

While I'm fully dedicated to getting a projection set up working in my home, I'm still holding off buying a projector until I have the finances and domestic harmony in line with doing it right. I'm gathering as much info as I can now to see exactly how this will work in my situation.

I want it all to come together nicely, not piecemeal. Before making any final decisions my plan is to borrow a friend's projector to experiment with screen image size in my room.

BTW, yesterday I tested out the Sony Pearl in a dark (black) room, and tested out the image size I'm looking at: a 105/106" wide 2:35:1 screen. My 16:9 image size would be around 91-91" diagonal - viewing distance 11 feet. I was amazed how big even the 91" 16:9 image felt, once all the lights were out. But zooming 2:35:1 movies out to 106" width just blew my mind (from 11 feet). It was ridiculously cinematic and involving. I would just kill to have that in my home. (The only problem being the hit in image "punch" when zoomed out...but I believe this pearl likely had a lot of hours on the bulb, and I know using the anamorphic lens route recovers some screen brightness for scope movies).

yeah, it certainly IS more complicated than simply getting a flat screen plasma! But at least with pricing trends, it isn't actually more expensive, and indeed can be less costly (dramatically cheaper, inch per inch).

And, alas, I must agree with you that the spousal approval factor also gets more complicated with the projector vs. a plasma. But with a roll-up screen and the projector in a discrete location, it is actually less intrusive than a flat screen. Where I have yet to make any progress at all on the home front is the issue of painting the ceiling/walls dark...that will take some time, or perhaps even a move to a bigger place!