I don' t know if i should wait on the JVC to get into my distributor. Or should i jump onto the Sharp. I thought you guys might have some info to help me choose. anyone with any comparisons?

Some questions....
1. What is the room like it is going into?
2. What size/ratio screen?
3. What are going to be your primary sources?

That will help with the basic recommendation.

and another question: Do you see rainbows?

I'm still trying to make this exact decision myself. I'm leaning towards the Sharp; here's why:

1. It's probably sharper (pun intended) than the RS-1. Although I haven't seen an RS-1 in person, reviews I've read give the edge to Sharp. What some people call "film-like" I call fuzzy. I like the DLP look

2. I'm not affected by rainbows, headaches, or any of the other DLP issues, so this isn't a concern for me.

3. No possibility of misconvergence. I'm very sensitive to MC, especially on small text.

4. Better uniformity. No "bright corners" unlike the RS-1, although the jury is still out on this.

5. The Sharp seems to have better corrected optics.

6. Last, but not least, I can get a Sharp NOW.

I'm still trying to make this exact decision myself. I'm leaning towards the Sharp; here's why:

1. It's probably sharper (pun intended) than the RS-1. Although I haven't seen an RS-1 in person, reviews I've read give the edge to Sharp. What some people call "film-like" I call fuzzy. I like the DLP look

2. I'm not affected by rainbows, headaches, or any of the other DLP issues, so this isn't a concern for me.

3. No possibility of misconvergence. I'm very sensitive to MC, especially on small text.

4. Better uniformity. No "bright corners" unlike the RS-1, although the jury is still out on this.

5. The Sharp seems to have better corrected optics.

6. Last, but not least, I can get a Sharp NOW.

Sounds like you've already decided. :)

Personally I would not purchase a PJ without thorough first hand viewing. So that's my advice.

http://www.guidetohometheater.com/videoprojectors/207jvchd1/index2.html

"On most program material, I also found the JVC to be a hair sharper than the Sharp"

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

"In terms of overall image acuity, the RS1 is comparable to the DLP 1080p products in this price range (the Optoma HD81 and the BenQ W10000), and noticeably sharper than the Sony Pearl (VW50), which is the only other 1080p product in this price class featuring LCOS technology. "

Dazzer

Make some room...I'm in the same boat. I've heard very good things about both as well as a couple of bad things that have been discussed here. I have seen the Sharp and was able to compare it with the Pearl. I liked the Sharp better...it was sharper, had a vivid almost 3D look and the picture really popped. I have not seen the JVC but hope to soon. I wish someone or some standout feature would make this decision easier. Maybe I'll get my answer when I finally see the JVC.

Sound like you have already decided. :)

Not yet...

Personally I would not purchase a PJ without thorough first hand viewing.

This is why I haven't decided. I want to see an RS-1 before I decide.


"In terms of overall image acuity, the RS1 is comparable to the DLP 1080p products in this price range (the Optoma HD81 and the BenQ W10000), and noticeably sharper than the Sony Pearl (VW50), which is the only other 1080p product in this price class featuring LCOS technology. "

Apples to oranges comparison. None of these compared the RS1 to the Sharp.

Apples to oranges comparison. None of these compared the RS1 to the Sharp.

This is in comparison to the Sharp 20k - Apples with Apples :)

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

"On most program material, I also found the JVC to be a hair sharper than the Sharp"

Does the Optoma and Benq produce a "fuzzy" image unlike other DLP machines ? i.e. "I like the DLP look"

Dazzer

Sharpness as an issue with the RS1 has been pretty much settled. If the RS1 has good panel convergence (as most do) then both are very close. They are so close in fact that other issues such as: color accuracy, brightness, black level, contrast, etc should all weigh more into the decision. I also agree with dazzerxx in that you have to see both projectors in action because they do throw different looking images even though many of the specs (1080p, etc) are similar.

Count me in as another one contemplating this one as well. It seems like with the Judder problem being resolved on the Sharp it would be a very solid choice. Seemed like that was the only negative on any of the reviews that I read. With that issue being taken care of what other limitations are there on it?

I'm guessing it gives up some Lumens to the JVC unless you run it in High Brite mode then it might be close to even, except for it probably seperates them more on black level.

I just saw the Sharp 20k today. If you are not rainbow sensitive, I don't see how you could be disappointed with it.

I'm still in deciding mode and I'm leaning towards the sharp. It seems that the only thing going for the RS1 is the on/off contrast and price of course. Other than that, it seems the Sharp has the edge: convergence (single chip), uniformity, ANSI contrast, and most importantly, a CMS.

GregR's upcoming review should shed some good light on this and how these 2 compare.

I don't think many would be disappointed with either. But there are some differences that each has to work out for themselves as to what will be better for them personally.

It seems like with the Judder problem being resolved on the Sharp it would be a very solid choice. Seemed like that was the only negative on any of the reviews that I read. With that issue being taken care of what other limitations are there on it?
The firmware update to support 1080p24 is supposed to be out this month. I've been looking on the Sharp website daily and haven't seen it yet. I hope they deliver, but wouldn't be surprised if they don't--I've been disappointed too many times in the past by manufacturer promises to consider this one a sure thing.

Some questions....
1. What is the room like it is going into?
2. What size/ratio screen?
3. What are going to be your primary sources?

That will help with the basic recommendation.




It's going into a HT room 25 X 15 with a throw of 13 - 14 ft. onto a 92" Draper Onyx AT & HD Gray Screen with Veltex 16:9

my equpt.

Direct tv H20 : Watching Satilite
Toshiba XD -XA2 : HD DVDs
Samsung BDp 1200 (on order) : BluRay DVD
Xbox 360 : Just to get my mind off of life/bills/work/wife sometime and zone out
Direct tv w/tivo which i have set up to shoot out to all the tv locations in my house via Key digitals Component distribution system.

All of this is being fed to a DVDO VP50
For now the sound is being put threw a Marantz 8001
(but waiting for a newer reciever to proccess my 10.2 Surround set up.)

i was thinking way ahead with some of my inwall / ceiling speaker


The room is also has been set up with audio treatment boards :cool:

I'm still in deciding mode and I'm leaning towards the sharp. It seems that the only thing going for the RS1 is the on/off contrast and price of course. Other than that, it seems the Sharp has the edge: convergence (single chip), uniformity, ANSI contrast, and most importantly, a CMS.

GregR's upcoming review should shed some good light on this and how these 2 compare.

I think you omitted the fact that the RS1 is quite a bit brighter than the Sharp.

What is the current MSRP on the Sharp?

I believe it's at $9,999. Some places still have it listed as $11,999 but I thought it got changed to $9,999 shortly after release.

If you are serious about purchasing the 20K, then give Jason a call. He can quote you a REALLY good price.

Yes the Sharp is $9999 list.

It's going into a HT room 25 X 15 with a throw of 13 - 14 ft. onto a 92" Draper Onyx AT & HD Gray Screen with Veltex 16:9

Either would really work. Though the RS1 has higher on/off contrast and generally can be brighter (I say generally as I can get the Sharp about the same brightness, but only in low contrast mode), really for a 92" screen either would work. So that takes us back to the overall look. Have you seen both general technologies (LCOS based and DLP based)?

sounds like price is not a factor in your decision. factoring in price, the RS1 seems like the clear choice given how close they are in picture quality.

I'm another one who has been watching for comparisons with these two projectors. The Mother of all Shootouts (about three pages in - I don't know how to link) has two owners of the Sharp and the JVC (or JVC clone) and some interesting comments. It won't help you to decide, but maybe we should get them to follow up on their posts after living with them for some time. Even they are not fully decided, but it will give you additional info at this point. I'm also waiting for the review by Greg Rogers of the JVC.

Tawn

I think you omitted the fact that the RS1 is quite a bit brighter than the Sharp.

Exactly. The Sharp was in contention until I realized how dim it is in high contrast mode. Certainly not bright enough for my 123" 1.3 gain screen.

It should work for the OP though, given his screen size.

I rarely use High Contrast mode with the Sharp. It is simply too dim. The Medium mode is a good compromise between brightness and contrast.

Yeah, I looked hard at the Sharp and the BenQ 10000 but in the end the RS1 gives a much higher CR then the Sharp at high contrast and with similar brightness to the Sharp at high brightness mode AT THE SAME TIME.

RS1 with better on/off and lumens, but no CMS to correct what many are complaining are over exaggerated primaries. MC also seems to be off on some machines, which you mentioned is a problem area for you.

Sharp has less of what RS1 has (contrast/lumens), but seems to have the RS1 beat in CMS and MC, at least according to some...

The thing about buying from AVS is that if you are unhappy with the MC, return and exchange it. Most of the RS1s seem to be very good in MC though, as JVC has a very tight QC spec on it. In regards to the colors being oversaturated, for the difference in price you can get a Lumagen HDQ which will allow you to correct the colors AND give you vertical stretch along with being a switch and scaler.

Seems like a no-brainer to me and I am a big Sharp fan (having owned a Sharp 10k and Sharp 12k.) 8)

I rarely use High Contrast mode with the Sharp. It is simply too dim. The Medium mode is a good compromise between brightness and contrast.

I considered this too. But it IS a compromise, and you would be losing some of the contrast ability of the Sharp by running in this mode. No such compromise needs to be made with the RS1.

well to be fair the rs1 has compromises as well.

Colors for instance.

i think i might see how long it takes to get the rs1 in. i will give it till the end of next week, I am sure with my all of my equipment including the DVDO VP50 the RS1 should work great. now my problem turns to a bluray player. i have the samsung 1200 on order, but now i am reading on this forum that it could be delayed till may/june. i just got my Toshiba XD -XA2 in today.

This is the problem when everything starts trickling out around the same time, and you want to try to get all of the latest stuff, Nothing ever works out, because you are always waiting on something. Now i am thinking about just getting a PS3. but i really don't like it to play, i enjoy my 360. so just to get the PS3 to play DVDs, i think its not worth it. i guess i have to go rearrange my list on netfix and put all the bluray titles towards the bottom :( any thoughts Guys on my bluRay decision?

i think i might see how long it takes to get the rs1 in. i will give it till the end of next week, I am sure with my all of my equipment including the DVDO VP50 the RS1 should work great. now my problem turns to a bluray player. i have the samsung 1200 on order, but now i am reading on this forum that it could be delayed till may/june. i just got my Toshiba XD -XA2 in today.

This is the problem when everything starts trickling out around the same time, and you want to try to get all of the latest stuff, Nothing ever works out, because you are always waiting on something. Now i am thinking about just getting a PS3. but i really don't like it to play, i enjoy my 360. so just to get the PS3 to play DVDs, i think its not worth it. i guess i have to go rearrange my list on netfix and put all the bluray titles towards the bottom :( any thoughts Guys on my bluRay decision?

What about Panasonic?

What about Panasonic?


Panny is still 1st gen. it's not worth it and the 10A is the same as the 10 just updated firmware so say 1.5 gen

The firmware update to support 1080p24 is supposed to be out this month. I've been looking on the Sharp website daily and haven't seen it yet. I hope they deliver, but wouldn't be surprised if they don't--I've been disappointed too many times in the past by manufacturer promises to consider this one a sure thing.

Have some faith :)

Have some faith :)
As I said, I've been burned by manufacturer claims too many times to have faith.

Panny is still 1st gen. it's not worth it and the 10A is the same as the 10 just updated firmware so say 1.5 gen


Maybe so but the HD picture is spectacular and I thought it did a better job of upconverting standard DVDs then its competitors (but if you're not using it as all in one solution, then maybe that doesn't matter).

Maybe so but the HD picture is spectacular and I thought it did a better job of upconverting standard DVDs then its competitors (but if you're not using it as all in one solution, then maybe that doesn't matter).


which panny model r u talking about the dmb10 or something like that

I have both the Sharp 20K, and the RS1. Currently I am using the RS1, but would have no hesitation, in switching back to the Sharp, since they are really close.

With your size grey screen, I think the Sharp would be a great match. You really need to run it in HC mode to get the most out of it. The JVC is really bright, perhaps too bright for your screen, and you might start seeing the bright corners. You could use an ND filter with the JVC though.

IMO the sharpness question is a non issue, as long as the JVC is well converged, they are both very close. If you are not bothered by rainbows at all, I would lean towards the Sharp. If rainbows bother you, I would consider the JVC. If absolute color accuracy is the most important thing to you, then again, the Sharp would be the one. If you need the most absolute black, while still having a really bright image, then JVC takes the lead.

As I said, I've been burned by manufacturer claims too many times to have faith.

Tomorrow I will talk to the product manager in charge again. I published the 24p information in the first place so I feel responsible for it :)

I'll keep you informed.

I have both the Sharp 20K, and the RS1. Currently I am using the RS1, but would have no hesitation, in switching back to the Sharp, since they are really close.

With your size grey screen, I think the Sharp would be a great match. You really need to run it in HC mode to get the most out of it. The JVC is really bright, perhaps too bright for your screen, and you might start seeing the bright corners. You could use an ND filter with the JVC though.

IMO the sharpness question is a non issue, as long as the JVC is well converged, they are both very close. If you are not bothered by rainbows at all, I would lean towards the Sharp. If rainbows bother you, I would consider the JVC. If absolute color accuracy is the most important thing to you, then again, the Sharp would be the one. If you need the most absolute black, while still having a really bright image, then JVC takes the lead.



thank you!

which panny model r u talking about the dmb10 or something like that

I think they only have one right now.

IMO the sharpness question is a non issue, as long as the JVC is well converged, they are both very close. If you are not bothered by rainbows at all, I would lean towards the Sharp. If rainbows bother you, I would consider the JVC. If absolute color accuracy is the most important thing to you, then again, the Sharp would be the one. If you need the most absolute black, while still having a really bright image, then JVC takes the lead.That's a nice summary of the pros and cons. I really believe that we've gotten to the point at which image quality is SO good that the only remaining issue likely to bring substantial improvement is LED light sources, which, if properly implemented, solves all kinds of problems that currently plague front projection. They are not bright enough yet, but they are getting there.

well to be fair the rs1 has compromises as well.

Colors for instance.

True, but those can be addressed with an external processor and I believe the price of the RS1 and external processor (Lumagen HDQ) combined approach the Sharp. Then you can add vertical stretch, switching, etc into the benefits of the RS1 & processor combo.

There is nothing a processor can do about making the sharp brighter or giving it the same contrast ratio that the RS1 is able to achieve.

well to be fair the rs1 has compromises as well.

Colors for instance.

I never said the RS1 didn't have compromises. ALL projectors have compromises!

My point was simply that I would have had to use the Sharp in it's less than optimal setting for contrast because it is too dim for my screen. Therefore, the Sharp would NOT be performing to the best of it's ability in MY setup.

The RS1 does not require that I make this type of compromise, and it will be performing to its best ability, warts and all.

Not that this solves all the problems of the Sharp (won't help rainbows), but pair the Sharp with a High Power screen (if you can sit in the cone) and you can use high contrast mode (and low lamp). I have a 110" Da-Lite HP screen and plenty of brightness in High Contrast mode, even after close to 600 hours on the lamp. A friend just paired a 119" HP with a Sony Pearl and also has brightness to spare.

Not that this solves all the problems of the Sharp (won't help rainbows), but pair the Sharp with a High Power screen (if you can sit in the cone) and you can use high contrast mode (and low lamp). I have a 110" Da-Lite HP screen and plenty of brightness in High Contrast mode, even after close to 600 hours on the lamp. A friend just paired a 119" HP with a Sony Pearl and also has brightness to spare.

This would be the only way that it would be viable to me, and even then would have to contend with mounting issues, eventually not enough brightness (unless gimp the contrast even more.) I remember when I had my Sharp 12k and marvelled at the blacks with my 106 firehawk. I always wished it was much brighter.

For me, at least until I have a chance to test it out myself, I think that the RS1 answers that. I thought long and hard about a nice deal on a Benq W10000 and almost pulled the trigger. In the end still the RS1.

Yes, I couldn't keep my old high shelf mount position for the projector. I had to be creative with the pj positioning, but the results are worth it. If you can sit in the optimum viewing cone with the High Power, brightness is just not a problem. The narrower your seating area, the more likely you are to be able to use the HP screen. I'd encourage anyone to take a look at how the seating has to be arranged for the HP to work, if you are concerned about brightness. Having a high gain screen (that's also a beautiful screen) opens up the projector options dramatically.

True, but those can be addressed with an external processor and I believe the price of the RS1 and external processor (Lumagen HDQ) combined approach the Sharp. Then you can add vertical stretch, switching, etc into the benefits of the RS1 & processor combo.

There is nothing a processor can do about making the sharp brighter or giving it the same contrast ratio that the RS1 is able to achieve.

A Lumagen will not help with the colors on the JVC. You can adjust saturation of each color individually but this is not going to help get the colors at the right points on the tirangle.

I think I'm headed toward the JVC, but I can't help also looking at the Sharp when I get the chance.

Today I again checked out the Sharp Z2000. I'd hoped to also see the Pearl side by side but the store didn't have the Pearl operational.

It was projected on a Stewart Firehawk screen (newest version, I believe), my estimate of about 100" diagonal. I viewed some of the X-Men 3 and Casino Royale Blu Ray, and DVDs of 2001 Space Odyssey and LOTR ROTK.

Once again I was just blown away by the vibrancy and contrast of the image. The black levels were really satisfying and deep, and bright areas could be blinding. The Sharp remote didn't have batteries so I couldn't play with settings. Most likely it was in some sort of high lamp mode. I have to say I sure didn't notice a dulling of bright areas on the Stewart screen - sometimes it practically made me squint and wish for a bit of a more subdued image. But just like my previous encounters with the Sharp, I was left with the impression of a super punchy image.

And wow what a sharp, detailed image with Blu Ray disks.

It can be somewhat painful to go back to DVD on a projector after watching HD sources. Since my time frame for actually purchasing might be put off until next winter, at least it seems I'll have plenty of HD movie sources (HD-DVD/Blu Ray) by that point.

I'd recently watched a lot of DVDs on the Pearl projector at a different location - bat cave/105" Stewart unity gain screen. I really enjoyed that as well, although I certainly didn't get that "holy cow" level of contrast and dynamics from the Pearl image.

If I had any criticism of the Sharp's image - aside from rainbows, which I see on all single chip DLPs - it's that compared to the pearl the image was somewhat more digital and less film-like. Movies on the Pearl really engage me with that familiar "I'm at a movie" vibe because it can look so smooth, even and film-like. Whereas the Sharp dazzles with more brilliance and eye-candy image dynamics.

On the Sharp, bright areas in dark scenes just had such brilliance and realism (for a projected image). Like spaceship lights, lasers shooting through space, explosions at nightime (e.g. battles in X-Men 3) etc, which are more muted on the Pearl. I'm curious to see how the JVC will compete because I watch a lot of dark movies - space flicks and horror - so I do love that "bright light cutting through the darkness" vibe when it occurs.

I'm hoping the JVC will be something like the best of both worlds: some of the smooth film-like vibe of the Sony projectors, with some more dynamics (no DI) to boot.

Advantages of Z20K over RS-1
1. smoother images (to me)
2. probably longer bulb life

Tomorrow I will talk to the product manager in charge again. I published the 24p information in the first place so I feel responsible for it :)

I'll keep you informed.

Have you contacted the product manager regarding the 1080p24 support for the Sharp? Just want to know if it's going to happend or not.

Thanks!

Bruno

Advantages of Z20K over RS-1
1. smoother images (to me)
2. probably longer bulb life

3. 12 Volt Trigger
4. No Convergence Errors
5. No Bright Corners
6. A VP that works relatively well for SD sources
7. Onboard CMS for getting Color Saturation Correct

BTW,

For whatever reason, each time I've viewed the Sharp on the Stewart Firehawk screen it's been blazingly bright - squinting time in bright scenes. Yet the Pearl, on what I believe was a Stewart unity gain screen, appeared less bright. I even had to up the lamp mode to "high" on the Pearl but never got the punch/brightness I saw with the Sharp/Firehawk. The Pearl no doubt had quite a few hours on it, the Sharp was newer.

BTW,

For whatever reason, each time I've viewed the Sharp on the Stewart Firehawk screen it's been blazingly bright - squinting time in bright scenes. Yet the Pearl, on what I believe was a Stewart unity gain screen, appeared less bright. I even had to up the lamp mode to "high" on the Pearl but never got the punch/brightness I saw with the Sharp/Firehawk. The Pearl no doubt had quite a few hours on it, the Sharp was newer.

Do you know what size the Firehauk was?

Tony

BTW,

For whatever reason, each time I've viewed the Sharp on the Stewart Firehawk screen it's been blazingly bright - squinting time in bright scenes. Yet the Pearl, on what I believe was a Stewart unity gain screen, appeared less bright. I even had to up the lamp mode to "high" on the Pearl but never got the punch/brightness I saw with the Sharp/Firehawk. The Pearl no doubt had quite a few hours on it, the Sharp was newer.

What was the throw ratio on the pearl. I've measured 350 lumens on the minimum zoom and 500 lumens when the projector is close to the screen.

I don't know if the Sharp is as drastic but I measured only 250 lumens in high contrast and low lamp mode. At maximum zoom. Imagine at minimum zoom.

It's plenty bright on my hi-power (80 inchs wide) but i'm afraid it won't be enought as lamp age. I don't get the max out of my highpower. Probably a gain of 2.0 instead of the 2.8 .

Bruno

Bruno, that sounds about right, since I am measuring under 200 lumens, on a bulb that has a few hundred hours on it. I would definately mate the Sharp with a High Power screen, and try to optimize the position for the greatest gain.

I agree with some of the pro's in the list above, but am scratching my head over the "smoother image" one. Having both the Sharp, and the RS1, I can say that the RS1 has a smoother image.

The Pearl was about 14 feet from a 105 inch screen, although I'd shrunk the image to around 92" diag to mimic the size I'd get at home. Again, I found I had to go into Hi Lamp Mode to get a punchy image.

The Sharp was about 14 feet from a 100" diag Firehawk, most recent version of Firehawk I believe.
Don't know what lamp setting the Sharp was in.

The Sharp can certainly be "blinding" if the iris is open, but it won't produce the very best image in that mode. To really create an image comparable to the RS1, the Sharp must be used in HC mode, with a screen appropriately selected to enhance its brightness.

Having both the Sharp, and the RS1, I can say that the RS1 has a smoother image.LCoS has a somewhat better fill factor than DLP (approximately 95% vs. 89%), and this should result in a marginally smoother image.

LCoS has a somewhat better fill factor than DLP (approximately 95% vs. 89%), and this should result in a marginally smoother image.

Hi Tom, you'll probably appreciate the fact that the fill ratio on the RS1 is lower than that (JVC is quoting 89% for the new panels). I think both the RS1 and the Sharp are very close in this respect. The border on the Sharp is slightly more defined and black so it might have slightly more SDE. When I saw the two side by side with the same size screens though I really didn't notice much of a difference at all in SDE. A person probably has to be a few feet away from the screen to see any difference. The RS1 does look smoother though and I think this is probably more related to the analog nature of LCD and the fact that the image is more temporally stable than DLP.

EDIT: Oh yeah and you can add white field uniformity to the list of differences between the RS1 and the Sharp. The OOTB shading/uniformity on the RS1 is not bad but it's far from perfect (at least on the unit I have) and unlike prior JVC projectors there is no way to improve on it. On my unit in fact the black uniformity/corner brightness is a non-issue (although it is barely noticeable) while the white uniformity is a bigger issue and noticeable with some content (especially B&W film where some shading coloration really stands out).

ok, so i couldn't wait, so i went and purchase a temp. PJ, for the time i will be waiting for my RS1, i just went and bought the panasonic 1000. this should hold me over till i get my RS1. hopefully i get my RS1 within 90 days ;)

Hi Tom, you'll probably appreciate the fact that the fill ratio on the RS1 is lower than that (JVC is quoting 89% for the new panels).No, I didn't know that. Um, that's odd. I wonder what they've done to these panels that would lower the fill factor?

I wonder if somehow, the lower fill factor actually improves the perception of sharpness, since the RS1 looks sharper to me than any other Lcos I have seen?

I wonder if somehow, the lower fill factor actually improves the perception of sharpness, since the RS1 looks sharper to me than any other Lcos I have seen?

I have believed this to be the case on the new generation of DLPs for a while. It seems many people have perceived the smaller pixels on the 1080p DLPs versus the larger pixels on the older 720p DLPs to be "smoother" and less sharp. I too have noticed this when comparing 2 units. IMO it is just that, a perception. The sharpness is still there but the image has less of a defined "jagginess" (is that a word?) to the image as the pixels are a good bit smaller.

No, I didn't know that. Um, that's odd. I wonder what they've done to these panels that would lower the fill factor?

They shrunk the die size to 0.7" but the pixel gap wasn't reduced by the same ratio. I think they quote the gap as .5 micron. They do smooth the LC layer between the gap and also in the via on each pixel so this probably helps create both a smoother and sharper look even if the fill ratio decreased a few percentage points.

Hi Guys,

I am also deciding which one to get. Here in australia I can get sharp Z21000 for AUD$500 higher than the JVC-HD1. Considering the price difference is only AUD$500, Which projector I should go for?

I have 92" Screen at the moment with 12HT.

Any feedback is much appriciated. Also any links to unbiased reviews would be nice.

Cheers

Hi Guys,

I am also deciding which one to get. Here in australia I can get sharp Z21000 for AUD$500 higher than the JVC-HD1. Considering the price difference is only AUD$500, Which projector I should go for?

I have 92" Screen at the moment with 12HT.

Any feedback is much appriciated. Also any links to unbiased reviews would be nice.

Cheers


I looked at both of these projectors and settled on the RS1. I could have bought either for around the same price. Unfortunately, there is no right answer.

In my case, it really came down to brightness. The Sharp is not a bright projector, but at 92", that is not really an issue for you unless you plan to get a larger screen. Still, the RS1 has brightness to spare and can easily be used in a room with some lighting provided it is set up properly and still throw a really nice picture.

The build quality on the Sharp is excellent. The RS1 has good build quality but the lens adjustment mechanim feels cheap and is difficult to use, even though it is much more flexible than the Sharp. The RS1 has a bright corner issue on black scenes and convergence issues. These vary from unit to unit, but the Sharp has neither.

I believe that overall picture quality on the RS1 is better. The RS1 is better, if subtly so, in most scenes. The better on/off contrast of the RS1 translates in to better blacks and better brightness. The higher ansi contrast of the Sharp means that it will be better in some kinds of mixed light and dark scenes. In my opinion, you are better off with the projector with better on/off for typical movie/tv watching. The color mafia would have me warn you that the RS1's colors are not accurate and cannot be made to be accurate. I don't believe that this is an issue for most people, and is not for me after some tweaking with guidance from people here.

I try both and kept the Sharp. In my mind the Sharp gave me an excellent image for all material. The JVC performe extraordinary for black scene but oversaturated colors are more noticable to me with darker material (red faces for exemple). I think the Sharp as also more depth then the RS1. Image is Sharper because the lens is better quality and because of the one chip DLP (no convergence error). The JVC does look sharp. Better than the Sony VPL-VW50 for exemple but the Sharp as an hedge there.

I have an High Power 103 inchs screen wide (2.4:1 setup) (76.5x43 for 16x9) .

After 275 hours it's still plenty bright. I get 250 lumens with Iris close and lamp in economy mode. The JVC was brighter. Almost double. White uniformity was was not that bad on my unit and noticible only for credit on black screen.

I think you can't go wrong with both unit. If you are sensitive to rainbows that would be different. I'm not sensitive to them and none of my friends can spot them. Except on exception. Turn out ok I sold him my RS1. :)

If you get a membership from www.widescreenreview.com Greg Rogers reviewed both unit and gave a lot of details about calibration, mode you should choose to get right gamma etc... He is not bias toward technologie. Highly recommended.

I have owned an RS-1 for about 7 months and a Z20k (the US version of the Z21k) for about a month. In my mind it is no contest - the Sharp is the better projector, but if you are sensitive to rainbows, then it won't serve you well. Just to counter Lawguys points:
In my case, it really came down to brightness. The Sharp is not a bright projector, but at 92", that is not really an issue for you unless you plan to get a larger screen. Still, the RS1 has brightness to spare and can easily be used in a room with some lighting provided it is set up properly and still throw a really nice picture.
Lawguy, weren't you the one who auditioned the Z20k with an unreasonable amount of hours on the lamp? It doesn't matter, though, as you are correct that the RS-1 is brighter. On a 92" screen it will make ZERO difference, and if anything, the RS-1 will be too bright.
I believe that overall picture quality on the RS1 is better. The RS1 is better, if subtly so, in most scenes.
I disagree. In the vast majority of scenes, the higher ANSI, sharper picture, better shading, and of course, MUCH better color accuracy :) make the Sharp the winner.
The better on/off contrast of the RS1 translates in to better blacks and better brightness.
The higher on/off means better blacks in total fadeouts or in low APL scenes with very few bright elements, but in the majority of scenes the higher ANSI of the Sharp will provide less washout effect, so the blacks actually look deeper on the Sharp when there are significant bright elements in the same scene.
In my opinion, you are better off with the projector with better on/off for typical movie/tv watching.
And in my opinion you are better off with a prjector that has BOTH high ANSi and high on/off. If one needs to be sacrificed, in my opinion (just like Lawguy), I would give up the higher on/off, as there are a lot more mixed scenes than there are very dark ones.
The color mafia would have me warn you that the RS1's colors are not accurate and cannot be made to be accurate. I don't believe that this is an issue for most people, and is not for me after some tweaking with guidance from people here.
That's me...I'm the Mafia Don himself...:D
If color accuracy doesn't mean anything to you, then the RS-1 can be a reasonable choice, but color accuracy is very high on my list of priorities, and I found it bad enough that it caused me to sell my RS-1. But if you want correct colors, they will soon be able to be corrected by the use of a Lumagen Radiance VP, though it is a pretty expensive solution at about $4k MSRP.

I also have a bunch of other minor complaints with the RS-1, but I see no need to mention them here.

If you can see the DLP Rainbow effect at all the Sharp is out the window and the RS1 is your option.

If the colors on the RS1 cannot be adjusted to your liking (I find it hard to believe most people couldn't adjust to a satisfactory setting) then you might want to look at the Sony VW60. I'm still happy with the OOB Natural setting on the RS1 with a few minor tweaks for 99% of HD content I've seen. I don't watch any non HD content on it for the most part unless from an HTPC.

Are you seriously planning to stay with that size screen? If not the new size will impact peoples suggestions.

Just to clarifiy one point of disagreement between me and Color Mafia Don Bob Sorel that can not be attributed to mere preference is our respective positions on mixed scenes. This disagreement is just business, not personal, lest he ask me what he has done for me to show him such disrespect.

Bob says that the RS1's contrast advantage is lost unless you have a scene with "total fadeouts or in low APL scenes with very few bright elements." I disagree. In most mixed scenes where there is some degree of mixed light and dark (for the sake of argument let me say 60% light/40% dark) I find that the RS1 and the Sharp are more similar than different (with the advantage of the RS1 increasing as the darkness of the scene increases). There is a tipping point, however, in which the Sharp maintains its blacks but the RS1's turn grey. Perhaps this is 60% bright, perhaps somewhat more or less than that. As the scene gets progressively brighter, I again find more similarities than differences.

I have only had my RS1 for a little over a week but in the movie and TV watching that I have done, I stand by my statements.

...lest he ask me what he has done for me to show him such disrespect.
Sorry, but I don't even know what that means...:)

I also stand by my statements. I have performed side by side comparisons in my own theater with both the RS-1 and the Z20k using the same screen, the same size image, the same sources, etc. and respectfully disagree with Lawguy. In my opinion the higher intra-image contrast, higher MTF, and better optics quality all combine to provide a picture with greater image depth and "pop" than that of the RS-1 in the mid to higher APL scenes and dark scenes with significant bright elements. The RS-1 wins in low APL scenes with few/no and/or small bright elements.

Lawguy, did you ever get to audition a Z20k with a new lamp or did you only see one with a large amount of hours on it?

Lawguy, did you ever get to audition a Z20k with a new lamp or did you only see one with a large amount of hours on it?

Yes. They put in a brand new one for me. It made a difference but I couldn't justify it as an upgrade from my 12k. In the end, I justified the upgrade by reconfiguring my entire theater, something that ruled out the throw on the 20k because the new placement of the projector required a shorter throw.

I like the 20k, I really do. I suspect that although we disagree, we are disagreeing about several discrete kinds of scenesand if we viewed them together that the better of the two would be apparent. Reasonable people can disagree. Did you ever try your RS1 with an ND filter? I don't think I would ever be happy with an RS1 without one, at least not in a dark room. It may be that the filter lowers blacks in these mixed scenes enough so that I am happy with the blacks in them. I was not expecting that I would see this kind of image pop on the RS1 because I had previously (apparently wrongly) attributed this as the "ansi pop" that everyone talks about.

The quotation that had never heard of is actually derived from two Godfather quotations. Your less than encyclopedic knowlege of the Godfather films makes me now question your videophile credentials! :)

The question of the trade-off between ANSI and on/off is really not all that subjective. You can evaluate this issue with test patterns. It appears that the "tipping point" where the higher ANSI of the Sharp begins to exceed the high on/off of the RS1 in terms of measured contrast is about 5-10 APL. Above that the Sharp measures higher contrast. Below that the RS1 measures better. BTW, this is nothing particularly special about the Sharp. I think similar results would be obtained with most of the current crop of better 1-chip DLPs (e.g., Marantz, SIM2, BenQ).

BTW, statements like "If the colors on the RS1 cannot be adjusted to your liking (I find it hard to believe most people couldn't adjust to a satisfactory setting)" are based in a poor understanding of color performance in general or the adjustments available on the RS1 or both. The only adjustment it provides is a standard Color/Tint control and a very limited set of gray scale controls, neither of which makes much of a difference to the problems that have received so much attention. So it's not that people have just been too lazy to make the proper adjustments. The adjustments simply don't exist.

Something just occurred to me about this. The reason that people such as myself and others keep posting on this subject and apparently annoying the hell out of other members is that, speaking for myself anyway, I feel a need to respond to a rather steady flow of misinformation and outright distortions about this issue. Just a couple of days ago I felt compelled to post a correction in the thread discussing a magazine article had been quoted as saying that the RS1's color points were nearly perfect. Stuff like this is endless.

Imagine, if you would, that you regularly read here how the RS1 offered really poor on/off contrast, or how on/off contrast didn't matter, or how on/off contrast was a meaningless concept, or how since the RS1 didn't offer perfect (infinite) on/off contrast then ANY amount of on/off was equally acceptable. I suspect that posts like this would stimulate a rather steady stream of responses and counter-arguments.

Something just occurred to me about this. The reason that people such as myself and others keep posting on this subject and apparently annoying the hell out of other members is that, speaking for myself anyway, I feel a need to respond to a rather steady flow of misinformation and outright distortions about this issue. Just a couple of days ago I felt compelled to post a correction in the thread discussing a magazine article had been quoted as saying that the RS1's color points were nearly perfect. Stuff like this is endless.

Tom. No one here is in anything other than agreement that the RS1 has colors that are anything but inaccurate. If you disagree, tell me where it has been said.

You just love to talk about accurate colors and are offended that anyone can live with and be happy with inaccurate colors. Admit it just like I can admit that I love to argue meaningless points to death. Realizing you have a problem is the first of 12 steps to dealing with it! :)

The question of the trade-off between ANSI and on/off is really not all that subjective. You can evaluate this issue with test patterns. It appears that the "tipping point" where the higher ANSI of the Sharp begins to exceed the high on/off of the RS1 in terms of measured contrast is about 5-10 APL. Above that the Sharp measures higher contrast. Below that the RS1 measures better. BTW, this is nothing particularly special about the Sharp. I think similar results would be obtained with most of the current crop of better 1-chip DLPs (e.g., Marantz, SIM2, BenQ).


I think that this "5-10 APL" estimate based on test patterns will tell you only how good a particular projector does with a particular test pattern. Movies are made up millions of "test patterns".

Tom. No one here is in anything other than agreement that the RS1 has colors that are anything but inaccurate. If you disagree, tell me where it has been said.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=936744

I currently own both the RS1 and the 20K. I am rainbow sensitive, and not as critical about colors, so I choose the RS1 as my main projector, because it is easier for me to watch.

That being said, if I was not sensitive to RBE, I would find the image from the Sharp, superior in the ways described above, it just needs to be paired with a High Power screen if you want a big screen. The ANSI superiority, and optics make the image obviously superior to my tastes, and the On/Off is not that big a difference IMO.

Having just lost my Crystalio 2, the RS1, is looking considerably worse, due to processing as well as colors. I am now seeing some of the complaints that people have with this projector, that the C2 was doing a nice job mitigating.

I am really looking forward to getting the C3X 1080, so that I can have the best of both worlds. Christmas can not come soon enough. :)

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=936744

I meant this thread.

I think that this "5-10 APL" estimate based on test patterns will tell you only how good a particular projector does with a particular test pattern. Movies are made up millions of "test patterns".Fair enough. Then the RS1's famously high on/off contrast, which is also measured using a test pattern, is equally meaningless.

So perhaps everything is meaningless except what we like or don't like. I must take the the AV Science forum a little too seriously. However, I just can't get over the nagging feeling that hard data actually means something.

Tom, while I agree that adjustments to make the colors on the RS1 completely accurate do not exist certainly you can agree that adjustments to make the colors sufficiently beautiful and realistic to, apparently, 95% of the population do exist. Or at least appear to exist, evidenced by the fact that so many people are happy with the images from the RS1 despite the fact that some of them may have found the out of the box colors at least a little objectionable.

Comparing patently false statements about on/off contrast (and the RS1) to what you quoted from Lawguy would make sense if he was claiming that you could get accurate colors given the RS1's controls, but since all that he said was that the RS1s controls are sufficient to give beautiful/realistic colors to most people, his truthful statements cant really be reasonably compared to hypothetical outright lies about on/off contrast and the RS1.

Imagine, if you would, that you regularly read here how the RS1 offered really poor on/off contrast, or how on/off contrast didn't matter, or how on/off contrast was a meaningless concept, or how since the RS1 didn't offer perfect (infinite) on/off contrast then ANY amount of on/off was equally acceptable. I suspect that posts like this would stimulate a rather steady stream of responses and counter-arguments.

Comparing patently false statements about on/off contrast (and the RS1) to what you quoted from Lawguy would make sense if he was claiming that you could get accurate colors given the RS1's controls, but since all that he said was that the RS1s controls are sufficient to give beautiful/realistic colors to most people, his truthful statements cant really be reasonably compared to hypothetical outright lies about on/off contrast and the RS1.No, he's a champion of the "If-it-isn't-perfect-then-no-differences-matter" school of thought on this subject, one of the strategies I listed and you quoted.

I am not willing to accept it as a given that extremely high on/off CR is more noticeable to more people than the rather profound differences in color performance that we are talking about. In fact, I've said many times than on/off CR above a certain point (somewhere in the 3-5K:1 range) is completely invisible on all but a very small percentage of program material.

So perhaps everything is meaningless except what we like or don't like. I must take the the AV Science forum a little too seriously. However, I just can't get over the nagging feeling that hard data actually means something.

Data means something to the extent that it translates into picture quality. I think you will agee that different test patterns can give you different data. The point that I was making is that if a scene that you are watching shares some characteristics with a particular test pattern, then, and only then does it mean anything. If the scene does not resemble the test pattern, it can't tell you much. Am I right about this? This is one fact that I extrapolated from Cine4home's contrast article which, to me had some revelations about the extent to which ANSI contrast translates into actual intrascene contrast.

I am not sensitive for rainbows. But I like your opinions about following points.

1) Z20k lamp life quoted 3000hrs in eco mode. But I am seeing posts about loosing brightness around 600hrs?. Is it true and quoted lamp life is no where near in practical?.

2) I have dedicated HT room with light control and 92 inch screen. Mostly I will be using this to watch blu-ray dvds. Would JVC be more brighter for the environment?

3) Comming from LCD projector environment I have experiance with dust blobs. Is it true that RS1 maybe more proven to dust blobs than DLP projectors?

4) Finally silly question. How does 12Ht stacks up with these two projectors :P

Thanks heaps.

No, he's a champion of the "If-it-isn't-perfect-then-no-differences-matter" school of thought on this subject, one of the strategies I listed and you quoted.



Mischaracterization!

I am a champion of the "I don't think its worthwhile to emulate a copy of the original" school of thought. I also take issue with the use of the word "profound" as used to describe differences in color performance.

Here we are talking about color again when no one brought it up. :(

Mischaracterization!

I am a champion of the "I don't think its worthwhile to emulate a copy of the original" school of thought. I also take issue with the use of the word "profound" as used to describe differences in color performance.

Here we are talking about color again when no one broguht it up.No mischaracterization at all. Why is it that you think that it is not worthwhile to "emulate a copy of the original"? The reason you have expressed, more than once, is that the emulation is not worth it because it is at best an approximation. Do I really need to do a search and quote you back to yourself?

If you don't believe that the differences revealed in sfogg's posts about what he achieved on the RS1 with the help of the Lumagen are profound, then we are just using the language differently.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=11985500&postcount=38

He referred to the difference as "dramatic."

And, no, we are not talking about color "when no one broguht [sic] it up." Someone did bring it up. I mentioned the issue in direct response to this (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=12193851&postcount=69)post just below that I directly quoted as "If the colors on the RS1 cannot be adjusted to your liking (I find it hard to believe most people couldn't adjust to a satisfactory setting)".

Here we are talking about color again when no one broguht it up. :(

Amazing how that keeps coming up regarding the RS1, even though it's a non-issue. :D

I would like to add, given the OP is interested in using this PJ with a smaller screen (92"?), the RS1 will be very bright (perhaps way to bright). I now think part of the reason I disliked the oversaturated colors on my RS1 so much was because I was using it on a smaller screen in our BR for much of the testing as I compared it to other know PJs in our house. The JVC has a good amount of punch. When this PJ is combined with a smaller screen the effect of the oversaturated colors seems to be perceptionally enhanced... to the point everyone who saw it agreed the colors were way overpowering. I would not recommend this PJ to anyone with a smaller screen unless a ND filter is used, but even then I don't like using ND filters because they decrease the ANSI contrast (which isn't the JVC's strong suite to begin with).

The on/off CR between the two PJs in question is not that much different, but the ANSI CR is vastly superior on the Sharp.

I like that the Sharp is much sharper, has no bright corner issues, has perfect MC (my RS1 had poor MC), doesn't enhance grain/noise like the JVC has been criticized for, and the colors can be dialed in to near perfection on the Sharp.

Having owned the RS1 and demoed the Sharp several times, I'd highly recommend the Sharp over the JVC for use with a 92" screen. This is assuming the Sharp fits the installation requirements and RBE isn't an issue for the OP. I didn't have any RBE issues with the Sharp, but it did not fit my throw requirements.

Just my worthless 1 cents.

No mischaracterization at all. Why is it that you think that it is not worthwhile to "emulate a copy of the original"? The reason you have expressed, more than once, is that the emulation is not worth it because it is at best an approximation. Do I really need to do a search and quote you back to yourself?

If its not a mischaracterization why are you questioning me about this? You know what I think about it already. That fact that a quest for accuracy will never result in the exact duplication of the original to me suggests that it is a flawed approach. Trying to precisely emulate the wider gamut of film is also flawed. As between those two approaches, I won't judge anyone who prefers one or the other. Ideally we would be able to choose.

If you don't believe that the differences revealed in sfogg's posts about what he achieved on the RS1 with the help of the Lumagen are profound, then we are just using the language differently.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=11985500&postcount=38

He referred to the difference as "dramatic."

Had I been inclined to spend $4k on a Lumagen for the purpose of correcting color on my $4k projector, I suspect I would have used similar terms. I like Shawn and his posts quite a bit. That said, I stand by what I wrote and do think that we are using language differently.

And, no, we are not talking about color "when no one broguht [sic] it up." Someone did bring it up. I mentioned the issue in direct response to this (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=12193851&postcount=69)post just below that I directly quoted as "If the colors on the RS1 cannot be adjusted to your liking (I find it hard to believe most people couldn't adjust to a satisfactory setting)".

Someone stated their opinion about the RS1's colors. You responded with a reference to another thread that no one here had mentioned in which someone was posting misleading information. Perhaps your response could have been, "I disagree that most people could find the RS1's colors satisfactory", but that is not what you wrote about because you are not interested in what people find satisfactory. You are interested in accurate colors, whether people like them or not.

The on/off CR between the two PJs in question is not that much different, but the ANSI CR is vastly superior on the Sharp.


The on/off of the RS1 is about double that of the 20k. ANSI of 20k is almost triple that of the RS1. Both are great projectors. I agree that an RS1 on a small screen would be overpowering. The 20k does not have the bright corners or misconvergence issues. These are all things to take into account. I found sharpness to be about the same. My 12k seemed sharper than both!

Thanks guys for the kind answers. However anyone can give me some thoughts about the points i've mentioned in my previous post.

Also there is a rumor going on about 20k is discontinued. Any truth behind it?

1) Z20k lamp life quoted 3000hrs in eco mode. But I am seeing posts about loosing brightness around 600hrs?. Is it true and quoted lamp life is no where near in practical?.

I would guess that you would get 1000 hours after which it might be too dim.

2) I have dedicated HT room with light control and 92 inch screen. Mostly I will be using this to watch blu-ray dvds. Would JVC be more brighter for the environment?

The JVC would probably be too bright for that screen for use in a dark room without the use of an ND filter. With an ND filter, it would have ample light.

3) Comming from LCD projector environment I have experiance with dust blobs. Is it true that RS1 maybe more proven to dust blobs than DLP projectors?

It is possible, but I have not heard of an instance of dust blobs on an RS1.

4) Finally silly question. How does 12Ht stacks up with these two projectors :P

Don't know.

I hope the rumor about Sharp exiting the Home Theater market is not true. It has not been confirmed and it has not been denied. I would treat it as just a rumor and disregard it.

Thanks guys for the kind answers. However anyone can give me some thoughts about the points i've mentioned in my previous post.

Also there is a rumor going on about 20k is discontinued. Any truth behind it?At this stage it is just an unconfirmed rumor. As to your other questions:

1) ALL PJs lose brightness pretty quickly. The Sharp is no better or worse in this respect. You can count on losing about half your light output in 600-700 hrs.

2) The RS1 is brighter regardless of the environment. However, for a 92-inch screen the Sharp's brightness would be fine, especially if the screen has just a little gain.

3) Dust blobs occur more often on LCDs. I haven't know that to be much of a problem for DLP or LCoS. It's all a question of how the case is designed and the extent to which the light path is sealed.

4) The 12Ht stacks up against these two projectors poorly. It is an LCD design several generations old. It's on/off CR is in the sub-500:1 range and the ANSI in the sub-100:1. Brightness would be its only virtue.

In case anyone is interested, I did a semi-scientific study of the APL of commercial film. I took hundreds of readings from six different films of varying eras and styles. Here's what I got:

http://displaycalibrationonline.com/apl.gif


92% of all material was above 10 APL and over 98% was above 5 APL.

Thanks Tom Huffman much appriciated your comments. I can't find the rated lamp hours in RS-1. The brochure doesn't mention anything about the lamp hrs.

In case anyone is interested, I did a semi-scientific study of the APL of commercial film. I took hundreds of readings from six different films of varying eras and styles. Here's what I got:

http://displaycalibrationonline.com/apl.gif


92% of all material was above 10 APL and over 98% was above 5 APL.

I can't see any purpose of this chart being placed in this thread other than to be used as some support for the argument that the Sharp 20k is a better projector than the RS1 because (you claim) the RS1 only is better than the 20k is scenes where the APL is between 5 to 10 and under and because your "semi-scientific" study reveals that between 92 and 98% of film scenes are above those numbers.

If this is your intent, please start another thread so that this premise can be tested and so we don't detract from the OP's intended purpose.

I actually like the Sharp 20k quite a bit so if you can prove what you appear to think you can, I will accept that conclusion.

Amazing how that keeps coming up regarding the RS1, even though it's a non-issue.


Come on, Scott. We could be talking about the glossy finish and the color of the RS1 case and one of you guys will pull out "color" and "RS1" and wax nostalgic about how inaccurate and neonish they are. 8)

In this instance Tutmos was tallking about how most people should be able to reasonably get acceptable colors using the color setting, and if they werent there are other projectors to choose from, and next thing you know its the whole accurate color or bust argument again.

Whatever Lawguy's beliefs regarding color accuracy are does not change the fact that, as Tutmos believes, evidence suggests that the vast majority of people are OK with the RS1's colors. 8)

While having owned both the RS1 and a pretty good 1080p DLP projector I can visibly quantify the benefits of DLP, lenses, and ANSI contrast I can also attest to the immense benefit of the added on/off CR of the RS1 over the current DLP counterparts, mine included.


If I could add just that one aspect to my 15S1 it would be the perfect projector for me. 8)

In this instance Tutmos was tallking about how most people should be able to reasonably get acceptable colors using the color setting, and if they werent there are other projectors to choose from, and next thing you know its the whole accurate color or bust argument again.

Whatever Lawguy's beliefs regarding color accuracy are does not change the fact that, as Tutmos believes, evidence suggests that the vast majority of people are OK with the RS1's colors.

While having owned both the RS1 and a pretty good 1080p DLP projector I can visibly quantify the benefits of DLP, lenses, and ANSI contrast I can also attest to the immense benefit of the added on/off CR of the RS1 over the current DLP counterparts, mine included.Perhaps I misunderstand the focus of this forum. I had always assumed that it was a place where HT enthusiasts and hobbyists would come to discuss equipment and experiences with HT technology. If the standard is now that we should base our judgments upon what "the vast majority of people are OK with" then I clearly don't belong here. The vast majority of people are perfectly happy with images that I find nearly unwatchable. The only possible interest of what the unwashed masses think is its impact upon the bottom line of a manufacturer.

Then you throw in the claim about the "immense" benefit obtained by very high on/off CR. Do you honestly believe that the "vast majority of people" would appreciate that or even notice it? Do you discount the evidence that above 10 APL super high on/off CR is not only not important to image quality but completely invisible?

So which is it? You seem to insist upon joe six pack standards when it comes to color but super-duper high-end enthusiast standards when it comes to contrast.

Oh, god, it's another one of those endless contrast threads again. How boring. . .

If I could add just that one aspect to my 15S1 it would be the perfect projector for me. 8)

Well said.

If a dlp offered the real on/off on the RS1, I would have bought it in a heart beat. I was looking from demonstrable contrast improvement over my 12k. The 20k did not do it for me.

The important thing for everyone to understand is that there is no right answer to any of this. There are merely preferences. If someone is content with their projector, I am happy for them. I don't feel the need to continuously raise issues about their decision.

You got rid of your RS1 in favor of the Marantz. That is your decision and if you are happy, I am happy for you. This may be AV science but it is not rocket science. One size does not fit all. It cannot, in my opinion be reduced to a chart. It has to be seen and enjoyed.

Sorry I am getting bit confused here. You guys are saying RS-1 is the choice between two?. What is on/off CR in lamens term?

Thanks

The vast majority of people are perfectly happy with images that I find nearly unwatchable. The only possible interest of what the unwashed masses think is its impact upon the bottom line of a manufacturer.



We get all that, Tom. Believe me, we GET it.

It still does not change the fact that what Tutmos said was truthful and that you used some examples in your analogy that surely even you would not believe to be true.

Then you throw in the claim about the "immense" benefit obtained by very high on/off CR. Do you honestly believe that the "vast majority of people" would appreciate that or even notice it? Do you discount the evidence that above 10 APL super high on/off CR is not only not important to image quality but completely invisible?

So which is it? You seem to insist upon joe six pack standards when it comes to color but super-duper high-end enthusiast standards when it comes to contrast.


The only one who appears to be insisting on anything being absolutely necessary for a good picture is you, regarding color accuracy.

The benefit obtained by high on/off is easily noticeable by me and anyone else who seems to care about a realistic black floor. Note the number of folks like Lawguy, Rich and I who prefer to watch our projectors with ND filters to achieve better blacks. The real benefit of high on/off contrast to me is that at similar brightness levels the blacks can be much more black. In other words, my image could be brighter and I could still have the same level of absolute blacks as I need now.

Look at the CRT guys. The benefit of on/off CR isnt best realized in mid to high APL scenes, as you admit its realized at low APL scenes .. when the images/screen is darker. Wouldnt you agree that its easier to hear a whisper when its quiet, rather than at a rock concert?

Of course you would probably argue that anyone should be able to hear a whisper when its quite that the real art would be to hear the whisper when its loud. 8)

Sure I like the pop that I get out of my Marantz in the mid to high APL scenes, but if I still didnt get that pop in the low APL scenes it would not do it for me. I am not saying that the RS1 is a better projector than the Sharp all I am saying is that on/off contrast is very noticeable and that I dont believe that the benefits cease to be noticeable at 4,000 to 5,000 CR.

You certainly are entitled to feel how you feel about inaccurate colors. Someone who prefers to watch his projector in a middle contrast mode because he feels that the image is more realistic with less contrast, and not because of the brightness gain - which would have contradicted another argument he was trying to make at the time, has a lot of credibility with me.

Noone is disputing that the RS1's colors are inaccurate. I just wish you would quit trying to mishcaracterize people's statements to advance your agenda. Whatever your reasons are you dont have to burst everyone elses bubble with bulls***.

Right here Tutmos is reasoning that most people would not be offended by the lack of complete color accuracy on the RS1. Proven fact.

He also suggested that if you prefer complete color accuracy there are other projectors. Truth.

Where does that necessitate your need to contradict mounds of inaccurate and deceptive information? It was neither inaccurate or deceptive. Another mischaracterization.

Anyways, Lawguy. You can handle yourself here. I told my wife I would not get into any more discussions with people who made their living convincing themselves and others that a completely color accurate display, not just one that was capable of it -- of course it has to be ISF calibrated, is absolutely necessary for a beautiful image. 8)

Come on, Scott. We could be talking about the glossy finish and the color of the RS1 case and one of you guys will pull out "color" and "RS1" and wax nostalgic about how inaccurate and neonish they are. 8)


I was staying out of it, I just thought it was funny as I was waiting and wondering how long it would take to come up... and then I saw LG's post and knew it would be the catalyst! You have to love the comedy of this place! :D


I told my wife I would not get into...
You didn't try locking her in the basement yet? :confused:

:p

If I had a basement I would certainly give that a shot. 8) Since I dont, and I want to be able to sleep without having to worry about waking up the next morning I find its better to just do as I am told, most of the time. 8)

Sorry I am getting bit confused here. You guys are saying RS-1 is the choice between two?. What is on/off CR in lamens term?

Thanks

There no definitive answer. The choice between the RS1 and Sharp XV-Z20000 depends on what criteria is important to you Timhuffman and Lawguy have strong feeling about what is most important for them.

The conclusion on this is you should find out what your like or dislike the most.

lumens, darker black, color accuracy, depth of image, precision, shadow details are all important factor and the two projectors don't perform the same in any of them.

Other criteria should be consider. Noise, ease of installation, price etc...

I would give you what I think is the best and worst of both machines.

JVC vs Sharp
Oversaturated colors giving you a colorfull image that I could qualify as the Sony look. Deep red, darker green etc.. A good chunk of people would prefer oversaturated colors over accurate colors. Both the JVC or Sharp have oversaturated colors out of the box . The Sharp with the right instruments or with the help of a ISF technicien can be corrected to standard. The JVC can't. You can reduce some of it but by doing so you would worsen others colors. Tomhuffman started a thread talking specificaly about the difference bettween the two. A good read IMO.

on:off Contrast: You have two way of measuring contrast. On:off is the mesure between absolute black produce by the projector and the absolute white. The JVC has a better on:off contrast than the sharp. 20000:1 versus 6000:1 (base on my measures). The advantage of the JVC will mainly show in low light scene like stars field for exemple. Having both projectors side by side, would clearly show more details with the JVC than the Sharp with those scenes. I low percentage of scenes qualify for this. Some of that advantage could be lost for the RS1 if the image uniformity is bad. I viewed 3 JVC in my setup. The first one had sever brighter corner very visible in low light scenes. The two others were very acceptable.

Ansi contrast is a measure between black and white but displayed at the same time JVC ansi is in 250ish versu 700ish with the Sharp! (based on Gregs Rogers reviews). That would mainly show in brighter scene. Sharp has the hedge here. But that impact would be greatly diminish if your room is not optimize. In a white wall room the brighter projector would look more contrasty. Even if it's Ansi is lower.

Brigthness. The Sharp is a bright projector. It has 3 Iris setting. With both Iris open you would get 800 lumens but that won't be the best setting (contrast on:off down to 2000:1). The Sharp gave a better image with both Iris close and low lamp mode( higher on:off in that mode). But you get down to 250ish lumens with that setting. The JVC is brither for its optimal setting. 500 lumens. White the lamp in high lamp mode you get to 700 I think. Could be more not sure.

Installation. The JVC is easier to install. Bigger zoom and allow some offset (you can but the center of the lens above the top of your screen) With the Sharp the center of the lens has to be equal or below the top of the screen.

How is your setup? Walls? Light control? With your screen size you should be ok with the Sharp. But if you like it bright maybe the JVC is a better choice. It all up to you

Bruno

Thanks bgosselin for very helpful post. Currently I have my 12HT mounted on the celing from 4.2M away from the screen. Yes I do have fully light controlled room.

Would I be able to mount sharp on the same distence from screen as 12 HT (4.2m) for the 92" screen?

We get all that, Tom. Believe me, we GET it.
It still does not change the fact that what Tutmos said was truthful and that you used some examples in your analogy that surely even you would not believe to be true.Actually, it's sort of comical that you write sarcastically how we GET it, when I don't think that you got anything. This issue enrages you so much you don't seem to be able to think or write rationally about it. Because just about everything you write in this rambling post has very little to do with anything I have ever written or even thought. To begin, I didn't believe ANY of the examples I offered were "true." That was the whole point! The arguments I listed were supposed to be ridiculous just like the many ridiculous arguments I've read on this forum from you and others about color. My point, which was apparently too subtle, was that what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

The only one who appears to be insisting on anything being absolutely necessary for a good picture is you, regarding color accuracy.Please point to a single post where I have said that color accuracy was a necessary condition of a good picture? It's only necessary for me. In perhaps my most direct comment on this issue is the thread I started on color accuracy in which I wrote: "color performance is only one characteristic to consider, albeit an important one."

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=10806441&postcount=1

I stand by that statement. I take it you disagree, with some passion.

The benefit obtained by high on/off is easily noticeable by me and anyone else who seems to care about a realistic black floor. Note the number of folks like Lawguy, Rich and I who prefer to watch our projectors with ND filters to achieve better blacks. The real benefit of high on/off contrast to me is that at similar brightness levels the blacks can be much more black. In other words, my image could be brighter and I could still have the same level of absolute blacks as I need now.

Look at the CRT guys. The benefit of on/off CR isnt best realized in mid to high APL scenes, as you admit its realized at low APL scenes .. when the images/screen is darker. Wouldnt you agree that its easier to hear a whisper when its quiet, rather than at a rock concert?

Of course you would probably argue that anyone should be able to hear a whisper when its quite that the real art would be to hear the whisper when its loud.I don't quite know what to make of this, other than you, Rich, Lawguy, "the CRT guys", and "anyone else" who cares about high on/off really cares about high on/off. I don't disagree with any of that. I made very specific claims that you chose to ignore. You applied high-end standards to on/off CR and joe six pack standards to color. I also wrote that very high on/off is invisible above 10 APL, that is over 90% of what we watch. As far as I can tell, although you apparently don't disagree with either of those observations, but the mere fact that I made them irritated the hell out of you.

Sure I like the pop that I get out of my Marantz in the mid to high APL scenes, but if I still didnt get that pop in the low APL scenes it would not do it for me. I am not saying that the RS1 is a better projector than the Sharp all I am saying is that on/off contrast is very noticeable and that I dont believe that the benefits cease to be noticeable at 4,000 to 5,000 CR.I wasn't comparing any of these projectors, nor did I say that CR above 4-5K "cease[s] to be noticeable". What I said was that it ceases to be noticeable above 10 APL. And, by the way, referring to over 90% of what we watch as "mid-to-high APL scenes" is a little misleading, wouldn't you say?

You certainly are entitled to feel how you feel about inaccurate colors. Someone who prefers to watch his projector in a middle contrast mode because he feels that the image is more realistic with less contrast, and not because of the brightness gain - which would have contradicted another argument he was trying to make at the time, has a lot of credibility with me.

Noone is disputing that the RS1's colors are inaccurate. I just wish you would quit trying to mishcaracterize people's statements to advance your agenda. Whatever your reasons are you dont have to burst everyone elses bubble with bulls***.Catdaddy, I don't think that you are a nut case, but this passage reads like it as written by one. I didn't mis characterize anyone's statements. You didn't even attempt to show that I had. My only remaining "agenda" is responding to statements on this subject that are factually inaccurate. I used to have an agenda of convincing others that color performance was important and should be given more attention, but I gave that up long ago, largely because if I didn't I'd spend all my time responding to posts like this. I took the claim that the RS1 had controls that allowed one to adjust out the color problems that people had complained about was just such a statement. It doesn't have those controls. Period. Why making this indisputable claim enrages you is beyond my understanding.

Right here Tutmos is reasoning that most people would not be offended by the lack of complete color accuracy on the RS1. Proven fact. Where does that necessitate your need to contradict mounds of inaccurate and deceptive information? It was neither inaccurate or deceptive. Another mischaracterization.So you interpret his statement not as a factual claim about what controls the RS1 offers but just a demographic generalization about what most people like or prefer. OK, he might have meant that, but I read it differently. Let's just leave it at that. If that's all this dispute boils down to, then you could have just stuck to that rather simple claim, rather than blowing a gasket. For example, you might have written "Tom, I think Tutmos was just referring to the fact that most people would not be bothered by the RS1 colors, not that the RS1 has controls that allow them to fix the oversaturation problem that has been written about here." There, wouldn't that have been more productive?

Thanks bgosselin for very helpful post. Currently I have my 12HT mounted on the celing from 4.2M away from the screen. Yes I do have fully light controlled room.

Would I be able to mount sharp on the same distence from screen as 12 HT (4.2m) for the 92" screen?

www.projectorcentral.com is a good place to look at that. They have most projectors. Here is the link for the Sharp XV-Z20000

http://www.projectorcentral.com/SharpVision-XV-Z20000-projection-calculator-pro.htm

Remember that the Sharp need to be equal or below the top of your screen. Depending on your installation that could be too low. In my case it's about 5 feet 9. It's fine for me because no one needs to go near the projector while watching movies. Your setup could be different. The JVC has more flexibility in that regard.

Short answer would be yes :)

http://www.elisetalk.com/forums/images/smilies/popcorn.gif

Sorry to interrupt your flow with some actual information. There are people on this forum whose interests go beyond the pros and cons of specific products.

The point of this chart is to illuminate a general issue about the tipping point between ANSI and on/off CR, which had come up (again, that pesky AV Science stuff). I thought it was interesting. Sorry you don't.

I can't see any purpose of this chart being placed in this thread other than to be used as some support for the argument that the Sharp 20k is a better projector than the RS1 because (you claim) the RS1 only is better than the 20k is scenes where the APL is between 5 to 10 and under and because your "semi-scientific" study reveals that between 92 and 98% of film scenes are above those numbers.

If this is your intent, please start another thread so that this premise can be tested and so we don't detract from the OP's intended purpose.

I actually like the Sharp 20k quite a bit so if you can prove what you appear to think you can, I will accept that conclusion.

I just read this thread and it's a good debate, IMO. Both projectors have some superb qualities and some weaknesses or limitations. I think this simply proves there is no single projector that matches everyone's installation needs or personal preferences. That's why there are still more than just one (or two) companies in the projector business.

Sorry to interrupt your flow with some actual information. There are people on this forum whose interests go beyond the pros and cons of specific products.

The point of this chart is to illuminate a general issue about the tipping point between ANSI and on/off CR, which had come up (again, that pesky AV Science stuff). I thought it was interesting. Sorry you don't.

Right. You post this chart as fact and you say that the tipping point on the RS1 is about 10APL and you post that as fact as well.

If you truly believe that that this is science and what you have done is scientific, PLEASE cite to sources for your "5 to 10 APL" statement and PLEASE reveal the methodology behind the data in the chart.

Scrutiny is the backbone of science. You should welcome it.

It was "semi-scientific." What keeps it from being fully scientific is that I took hundreds of measurements from 6 films instead of thousands of measurements from 20 films. I am dedicated, but not that dedicated. So it is an approximation. However, on one of the films I tried doubling the sampling rate to see if it had an effect on the outcome. The difference was minuscule, so I'm confident that the approximation is pretty close.

Right. You post this chart as fact and you say that the tipping point on the RS1 is about 10APL and you post that as fact as well.

If you truly believe that that this is science and what you have done is scientific, PLEASE cite to sources for your "5 to 10 APL" statement and PLEASE reveal the methodology behind the data in the chart.

Scrutiny is the backbone of science. You should welcome it.

You applied high-end standards to on/off CR and joe six pack standards to color.

This appears to be the crux of your argument. Perhaps you miss the point. If I can speak for Catdaddy (who as of last night appears to have resigned from this fight (note to Catdaddy: come back, its fun!)) let me say the following:

You claim that Catdaddy is applying two standards, a "high-end" one and a "joe six pack" one. You miss the point. Catdaddy is not applying two different standards, he is applying only one standard. His standard is: "I like those things that produce a pleasing image to me." To him (and others), a pleasing image is produced by, among other things, a projector that produces black blacks and one that produces realistic looking (if not perfect) colors. Note that this is subjective. This preference poses no threat to those who prefer to watch material on a reference-type monitor.

Joe Kane, speaking about the new Samsung 1080p projector at Cedia, praised that projector as having reference quality colors, but defended the middling CR as "good enough." To me, that projector would not be good enough if it did not produce realistic blacks even though I might be very happy with its colors. Between the two, colors and CR, I choose CR (provided the colors are not distracting).

I don't understand how you can argue that one's preference in a projector is anything but subjective.

It was "semi-scientific." What keeps it from being fully scientific is that I took hundreds of measurements from 6 films instead of thousands of measurements from 20 films. I am dedicated, but not that dedicated. So it is an approximation. However, on one of the films I tried doubling the sampling rate to see if it had an effect on the outcome. The difference was minuscule, so I'm confident that the approximation is pretty close.

So please reveal your methodology and your source for your claim that the RS1's tipping point is 5 to 10 APL.

I took screen shots at defined intervals throughout each of six films and used the luminance data from the Histogram tool in Paint Shop Pro to determine the APL of each shot. I took approximately 60 readings from each film. On one film I took 120 readings and the results were almost exactly the same. I think that to be fully scientific I would have to take 480 readings per film (every 15 seconds) and have a wider variety of films, though the results from the six I looked at didn't vary that much. They had an average APL in the 20-30 range.

The tipping point claim is based upon Mark Peterson's contrast data, which uses ANSI-like test patterns at various APLs. I also tried it using test patterns of my own design and seemed to get similar results. However, as Mark is quick to point out, the geometry on these patterns has a great influence on the results and different patterns may show something different.

I took screen shots at defined intervals throughout each of six films and used the luminance data from the Histogram tool in Paint Shop Pro to determine the APL of each shot. I took approximately 60 readings from each film. On one film I took 120 readings and the results were almost exactly the same. I think that to be fully scientific I would have to take 480 readings per film (every 15 seconds) and have a wider variety of films, though the results from the six I looked at didn't vary that much. They had an average APL in the 20-30 range.

The tipping point claim is based upon Mark Peterson's contrast data, which uses ANSI-like test patterns at various APLs. I also tried it using test patterns of my own design and seemed to get similar results. However, as Mark is quick to point out, the geometry on these patterns has a great influence on the results and different patterns may show something different.

What films? How were they selected?

Where can I find Mark Peterson's contrast data? If you concede that the geometry on these test patterns influences the results, isn't it a stretch to take those reading and make the kind of general statements that you have?

Where can I find Mark Peterson's contrast data?

I believe it's been a sticky at the top of the forum for about the last 6 months... I'm not sure how you missed it (assuming you bothered looking for it).

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=852467

I have held off from publishing this data for several months because I thought Mark would, but he never got around to it. So, here it is.

http://displaycalibrationonline.com/contrast_data.gif

What's interesting about this to me is that every projector has a contrast profile. We have been accustomed to looking only at full on/off, which compares peak white to black, and ANSI, which compares peak white with black on a field of 50 APL, and this shows the effective contrast at several levels in between those 2 extremes. On the chart 0 APL is the on/off figure and 50 APL is the standard ANSI figure.

Using this, you can plot the point at which increasing APL lowers the effective contrast below a certain point.

As you can see, the problem with lower ANSI contrast displays is that their effective contrast falls off dramatically when even a very small amount of light is added to the scene. In the case of the standard tube CRT, the drop is catastrophic.

For this to be fully scientific, we would have to run the same series of tests using test patterns with varying geometries and see if that affected the outcome. I did create another set of test patterns that were simply modifications of the ANSI checkerboard. That suggested to me that while the absolute results are different, I saw little reason to believe that the relative differences between displays would substantially change.

And, BTW, the differences between the high-ANSI PJ and the medium ANSI PJ were even greater than I remembered. The tipping point was approximately 2 APL in the High Contrast mode and 5 APL in the Medium Contrast mode.

Note, this data also comes with the caveat that it was collected from only single samples of the respective displays. For instance, the JVC RS1 and the Sharp 20K were measured to have substantially lower numbers than WSR's tests reported for each.

http://displaycalibrationonline.com/contrast_data.gif



Very interesting. My first thought was how impressive the JVC looks in relation to the other digital displays... until I realized your chart scaling isn't linear on the X axis. If you change the scaling (eg:0,5,10,15,20,...50), I think it would drastically improve the point you're trying to get across.

This is assuming you have the data to do so... :)

I think the x-scale is fine if it's to illustrate how fast the degradation of effective contrast is as the light gets added beyond certain level, referred to here as the tipping point.

I think the x-scale is fine if it's to illustrate how fast the degradation of effective contrast is as the light gets added beyond certain level, referred to here as the tipping point.

I understand that, but 9 of the 10 data points shown make up only 40% of the range (0-50 APL), and 6 of the 10 data points show only 10% of the range. Unless you really look at it closely, it appears (at a glance) that the PJs that perform well at low APLs continue to perform well through much of the range, in reality they would drop off almost immediately if the X axis scale was linear.

Just an observation... nothing more. :)

That looks like some nice work Tom.

The variable in my mind is the patterns used to generate the results. On/Off is easy but as you increase light in scenes in different ways, my eyes at least, tell me that different projectors will respond differently. Bright light shining into a dark room would be different from light being diffused through trees in a forest, for example

The Cine4Home contrast article, for instance, suggests that intra image contrast can vary greatly depending on the kind of scene and the points in a particular scene from which contrast is measured.

I don't mean to discount what you have done, but it would useful to know what kinds of patterns were used to generate these results.

I understand that, but 9 of the 10 data points shown make up only 40% of the range (0-50 APL), and 6 of the 10 data points show only 10% of the range. Unless you really look at it closely, it appears (at a glance) that the PJs that perform well at low APLs continue to perform well through much of the range, in reality they would drop off almost immediately if the X axis scale was linear.

Just an observation... nothing more. :)

I see what you mean. The surprise is from the CRT component, and if it's representative of other CRTs as well, and since people love their CRT, then it may look like that on/off contrast is not worth fighting for as long as it remains reasonably steady towards some good ansi number.

...I don't mean to discount what you have done, but it would useful to know what kinds of patterns were used to generate these results.Mark Peterson (RS1 owner) and IIRC WM, created the original patterns. See the AVS Contrast thread.

Tom,

Where is the Pearl iris auto plot? :)

I see what you mean. The surprise is from the CRT component, and if it's representative of other CRTs as well, and since people love their CRT, then it may look like that on/off contrast is not worth fighting for as long as it remains reasonably steady towards some good ansi number.

I believe that as scenes get brighter, most projectors lose the ability to display a convincing black. Thus, it is not so much a matter of contrast as it is how black looks in those mixed scenes as compared to differing levels of brightness.

I think that perhaps as a scene gets brighter, an RS1 loses its black blacks and the 20k does a better job of holding on to them (at least for some kinds of scenes). I also believe that an ND filter, when paired with an RS1, remedies this situation and restores those blacks. I find mixed scenes much more convincing on the RS1 with the filter on as opposed to without it.

Just a theory.

I believe that as scenes get brighter, most projectors lose the ability to display a convincing black. Thus, it is not so much a matter of contrast as it is how black looks in those mixed scenes as compared to differing levels of brightness.

I think that perhaps as a scene gets brighter, an RS1 loses its black blacks and the 20k does a better job of holding on to them (at least for some kinds of scenes). I also believe that an ND filter, when paired with an RS1, remedies this situation and restores those blacks. I find mixed scenes much more convincing on the RS1 with the filter on as opposed to without it.

Just a theory.

In theory, placing the ND filter on the PJ will just shift the curve downward, while also decreasing its ANSI CR as it scatters more light.

I know some are really partial to ND filters, and I'm not knocking them because they do drop the levels, but I personally think they create more harm than good compared to a properly matched PJ and screen. The only thing I really like about them is they can be removed to increase brightness as a bulb ages, but I guess you can do the same with high and low bulb settings as well. JMHO...

In theory, placing the ND filter on the PJ will just shift the curve downward, while also decreasing its ANSI CR as it scatters more light.

Right. My theory is that that downward shift is enough to produce the sensation of image depth in many of these mixed scenes.

I know that to me, the RS1 without the ND filter, has much less depth in these mixed scenes than it does with it.

Tom,

Where is the Pearl iris auto plot? :)If I recall Mark had different patterns for dynamic iris displays, and since I wasn't testing a display with a dynamic iris, I never looked at that data. I assume that it results in much higher CR at very low APL, but falls off very quickly as the APL rises.

If someone has the raw data I can add it to the chart.

I believe that as scenes get brighter, most projectors lose the ability to display a convincing black. Thus, it is not so much a matter of contrast as it is how black looks in those mixed scenes as compared to differing levels of brightness.
Right, and that ability is reflected in its ANSI (or MANSI) contrast. The more bright elements in a scene, the more the washout effect takes place, thus elevating the level of black. The higher the ANSI, the better the projector's ability to "hold" black.
I think that perhaps as a scene gets brighter, an RS1 loses its black blacks and the 20k does a better job of holding on to them (at least for some kinds of scenes)
Correct.
I also believe that an ND filter, when paired with an RS1, remedies this situation and restores those blacks.
It "restores" black, but at the expense of white. The ND filter cuts ALL light in half and as such does not affect contrast (theoretically), so what you are seeing is a black level that is lower, but with a white level that is correspondingly lower with it. The ND filter, in practice, actually causes more light scatter than normal, so the intra-image contrast is reduced, not to mention that the image is also degraded in sharpness due to the insertion of a $50 piece of glass into the light path. Heck, even my $5k piece of glass (ISCO III) softens the picture slightly, so you can just imagine what a $50 piece is doing.
I find mixed scenes much more convincing on the RS1 with the filter on as opposed to without it.
It is simply due to the reduced brightness. Your eyes are not as sensitive to the changes in light output at the high end, but you can see the differences at the low end, so reducing the brightness simply brings the range to a better level for your eyes. The on/off CR is EXACTLY the same either way, and the ANSI is slightly reduced by the addition of the filter.

what about the jvc hd1? the rs1 looks like its a pro model and the hd1 is a consumer model

Right, and that ability is reflected in its ANSI (or MANSI) contrast. The more bright elements in a scene, the more the washout effect takes place, thus elevating the level of black. The higher the ANSI, the better the projector's ability to "hold" black.

ANSI contrast is really nothing more than the contrast measured from a particular checkerboard pattern.

People equate this with intrascene contrast but there is lots of evidence that this is not an entirely valid comparison. The closer a scene comes to that checkerboard pattern, the closer to the truth that comparison becomes.

The ANSI contrast measurement also begs the question of what exactly it is that provides the sense of image depth in mixed scenes. Contrast certainly has a major role to play. But, if contrast is defined as the ratio between the blackest black and the lightest white in a given scene, I believe that it only tells part of the tale. I believe that contrast alone is only effective to provide the sense of image depth if a given contrast ratio suggests a black level that is black enough. The larger the contrast ratio, the greater the chance of that happening so it is a convenient way of speaking about the issue, but only incidently.

I don't think that the greater image depth that I am seeing in mixed scenes with the ND filter in place is a result of just a dimmer picture. Dimness does not create depth. I believe that the blacker blacks that the ND filter creates results in image depth.

Evidence to support this is the experience of many CRT owners who don't complain at all about image depth of any kind in spite of low ANSI contrast.

what about the jvc hd1? the rs1 looks like its a pro model and the hd1 is a consumer model

No difference in performance. Same exact machine. If any difference exist it will be warranty and were it's sold. Color is also slightly different.

I believe that as scenes get brighter, most projectors lose the ability to display a convincing black. Thus, it is not so much a matter of contrast as it is how black looks in those mixed scenes as compared to differing levels of brightness.

I think that perhaps as a scene gets brighter, an RS1 loses its black blacks and the 20k does a better job of holding on to them (at least for some kinds of scenes). I also believe that an ND filter, when paired with an RS1, remedies this situation and restores those blacks. I find mixed scenes much more convincing on the RS1 with the filter on as opposed to without it.

Just a theory.

The problem here is that you all been playing in the high rent district and need to recall the early days when many of us had LCD's with low on/off and low ANSI. We don't need science or graphs, just find a friend or relative with an older Sony, Panasonic or Sanyo LCD to see first hand the manifestation of what is being discussed. Not too long ago I was at friends who has a Panny 700, we were watching Dreamgirls. There is a scene with just Beyonce and a black background, where one can clearly see her image illuminate the black space around her as if she were radioactive. We have come along way from the radioactive glow in mixed scenes, as well as the obligatory haze in darker scenes, so let's be grateful.

No difference in performance. Same exact machine. If any difference exist it will be warranty and were it's sold. Color is also slightly different.

thanks i figured as much we have the hd1 on display and its beautiful but i havent been able to play with the rs1 as we dont sell prosumer lines:(

On the ND filter cutting everything in half. Keep in mind people don't have the same perception of differences in the white region as in the black, meaning you can afford to loose a lot of white without any perceptual difference while the counter gain in black will be very noticable. So it's not a simplistic "cuts everything in half" when it comes to what the person sees as opposed to what an instrument measures.

Unless you really look at it closely, it appears (at a glance) that the PJs that perform well at low APLs continue to perform well through much of the range...I vowed to never comment about these contrast graphs again, but forgive me I just can't stand to see APL vs Contrast misinformation spread again. The graph has NOTHING to do with APL vs Contrast performance of a projector. The actual contrast performance of projectors is NOT related to APL. It is related to the intensity, distribution, and proximity of objects to a reference measurement point. If you distribute the same objects differently you can measure different contrast, but have the same APL. If you use a different combination of the number of objects, different sizes, or different intensities you can have the same APL but a different contrast. If you have different objects with a different APL you can have the same contrast. There is just NO general functional relationship between APL and contrast.

In these graphs the test patterns have been identified by their APL, but that relationship between APL and contrast ONLY applies to these test patterns. You can NOT relate the contrast and APL of real images to these graphs.

The ANSI contrast measurement also begs the question of what exactly it is that provides the sense of image depth in mixed scenes. Contrast certainly has a major role to play. But, if contrast is defined as the ratio between the blackest black and the lightest white in a given scene, I believe that it only tells part of the tale.
Contrast is the difference in brightness between any two features of the image. That is what some people seem to forget. A real image is made up of thousands or millions of contrast ratios, but usually only a fairly small subset of those contrast ratio occurrences will influence our perception of the image at any given instant. A contrast ratio of 50 or 100 between two features in the image (let's say a window sill and the body of the building it is in) produces a lot more depth than a contrast ratio of 20 between them. The large numbers associated with full-field (on-off) contrast and ANSI (or mANSI) contrast are simply quantitative methods of describing factors that relate to whether certain objects have a 10:1 or 60:1 contrast ratio (just an example) with other objects, or the background, or separate image details within the object. Those small ratio's (and the black level in some dark scenes) are what normally determine our perception of contrast in many of the images that are often discussed as examples of good or poor contrast performance. Contrast and other factors, such as detail, sharpness, color saturation, etc. etc. determine our perception of depth.

Hrmm that doesn't bode well for some of the posters in this thread. :eek:

Hrmm that doesn't bode well for some of the posters in this thread.
What is that supposed to mean? :confused:

And then again for others it bodes very well...;)

Let me guess you posted about how accurate the colors of the DLP rainbows on your Sharp are?

Let me guess you posted about how accurate the colors of the DLP rainbows on your Sharp are?
Great contribution...:rolleyes:

I vowed to never comment about these contrast graphs again, but forgive me I just can't stand to see APL vs Contrast misinformation spread again.


You have to give us some credit at least for not talking about color!

Thanks for your ever useful explanations.

Great contribution...:rolleyes:

Nice job trying to edit your post. Good thing I quoted you I guess.

Greg, since you reviewed and spent considerable time with both units being compared in this thread, would you please give us your take on the intra-image contrast performance between these two units?

Thanks! ....as always!

Edit: I know that Greg posted this info elsewhere in the forum a while back, but only someone like jigesh is capable of finding it...:)

...If you distribute the same objects differently you can measure different contrast, but have the same APL. If you use a different combination of the number of objects, different sizes, or different intensities you can have the same APL but a different contrast. If you have different objects with a different APL you can have the same contrast. There is just NO general functional relationship between APL and contrast.

.... You can NOT relate the contrast and APL of real images to these graphs.


Logical and interesting; thank you.

Greg, since you reviewed and spent considerable time with both units being compared in this thread, would you please give us your take on the intra-image contrast performance between these two units?

Thanks! ....as always!

Edit: I know that Greg posted this info elsewhere in the forum a while back, but only someone like jigesh is capable of finding it...:)

I think the difference is obvious from reading his (excellent) reviews, no?

...In these graphs the test patterns have been identified by their APL, but that relationship between APL and contrast ONLY applies to these test patterns. You can NOT relate the contrast and APL of real images to these graphs.The same thing can be said about the ANSI CR measurement, right?

Mark has done a tremendous amount of work in creating a more objective way to characterize projector contrast performance, while most of the rest of us continue to spout under-informed CW. I for one have not always agreed that the benchmarks fully quantify the performance of the Sony DI, however Mark has taken the time and effort to incorporate changes that is more effective in analyzing DI performance.

Is it perfect … no, but it is a big step in the right direction. Does it tell us info we already know … maybe, but it is a big step in the right direction.

I for one would love to see your expertise and involvement in the project, which would lead to a more effective tool.

Please, let’s not throw out the baby with the bath water by just dismissing the project, lets try to improve it.

2 things I don't understand:

Why is AVERAGE picture level being related in anyway to a measure of minimum to maximum? Isn't it obvious that as the average increases, the distance between the two is likely to decrease? I'm just talking about the selected frames, here, not what's coming out of the PJ. Shouldn't we plot the per frame min/max PL relative to contrast since each frame will contain different values? As it stands, these measurements only seem valid relative to themselves...I'm not sure they tell me much in the bigger picture.

Where in the projected image are measurements being taken and how are they being taken? With ANSI or on/off, that's explicit...I guess I don't see how this could be reliably done within random frames of a film, but I'm curious.

I'm very interested the work done and resulting numbers and I commend Tom and Mark for putting it together, but I really need more background on the methodology this is based on.

Is it perfect … no, but it is a big step in the right direction. Does it tell us info we already know … maybe, but it is a big step in the right direction.

I for one would love to see your expertise and involvement in the project, which would lead to a more effective tool.

Please, let’s not throw out the baby with the bath water by just dismissing the project, lets try to improve it.This is why I vowed not to comment on those graphs again.

I've read several times in this thread that a projector's contrast performance was related to APL. The people who said it referred to those graphs as their reason for saying it. It is NOT true. So are the graphs a big step in the right direction when they mislead people to think something that is not true? I would say that is exactly the wrong direction.

This is not new information. I made this absolutely clear the first time I ever wrote about the graphs and that entire project. I provided examples of measurements to prove what I wrote. That input was ignored. It is misleading to label the axis of the graph as APL, because it infers a relationship between APL and contrast, and there is no such relationship. That doesn't say there is no value in the project or in the data. But when you label the graphs in a way the misleads a reader into a wrong conclusion I believe (and have said several times) that is a problem that should be corrected, and it eventually was.

I fail to see how my posting to correct the misconception created in this thread by that graph is equivalent to dismissing that project, or throwing the baby out with the bath water. But this makes it clear why I vowed not to comment on those graphs again. I hereby return to my vow of silence on this sacred cow and everyone can just step down whatever path you deem to be the right direction.

Hey Greg,

What projectors do you have on your list for review next?

Hey Greg,

What projectors do you have on your list for review next?The Marantz VP-15S1 will be in next month's WSR, mailing out about Dec 15. The JVC RS-2 and Sony VPL-VW200 should also be along shortly.

Woohoo, nice reviews coming up. Cant wait to read them all!

Greg:

You obviously have a history with all of this that I am completely unaware of. I came into this very late only to add some extra data to a project that had been going on for quite a while in a thread that I hadn't participated in or even read, except to skim. I am simply not aware of the "examples of measurements to prove what I [you] wrote" that were apparently ignored.

If it doesn't violate your vow of silence on the subject, could you at least provide a link so I and others can read up on what you refer to? Because as it stands, it is absolutely clear that you think this approach is terribly wrong-headed, but it just isn't clear (to me anyway) just why.

What particularly interests me is the more general question of the value of test patterns and their ability to predict real-world performance. Why would some test patterns (checkerboard and full on/off for example) be useful and others not? What accounts for the difference?

This is why I vowed not to comment on those graphs again.

I've read several times in this thread that a projector's contrast performance was related to APL. The people who said it referred to those graphs as their reason for saying it. It is NOT true. So are the graphs a big step in the right direction when they mislead people to think something that is not true? I would say that is exactly the wrong direction.

This is not new information. I made this absolutely clear the first time I ever wrote about the graphs and that entire project. I provided examples of measurements to prove what I wrote. That input was ignored. It is misleading to label the axis of the graph as APL, because it infers a relationship between APL and contrast, and there is no such relationship. That doesn't say there is no value in the project or in the data. But when you label the graphs in a way the misleads a reader into a wrong conclusion I believe (and have said several times) that is a problem that should be corrected, and it never has.

I fail to see how my posting to correct the misconception created in this thread by that graph is equivalent to dismissing that project, or throwing the baby out with the bath water. But this makes it clear why I vowed not to comment on those graphs again. I hereby return to my vow of silence on this sacred cow and everyone can just step down whatever path you deem to be the right direction.

Greg, since you reviewed and spent considerable time with both units being compared in this thread, would you please give us your take on the intra-image contrast performance between these two units?

Thanks! ....as always!

Edit: I know that Greg posted this info elsewhere in the forum a while back, but only someone like jigesh is capable of finding it...:)

I think Greg mentioned lower intra-image contrast of RS1 (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=10837696&postcount=263) as one of the top three negative points. On the other hand, he liked the image depth and intra-image contrast of Sharp as quoted here from his WSR review (http://archive2.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9048109&&#post9048109). This review was prior to his RS1 review, though he still seemed to prefer image depth of Sharp compared to RS1 (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=10132171#post10132171).

On a side note, for image depth, in addition to the intra-image contrast, (http://archive2.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9048428&&#post9048428) Greg also thinks many other factors including sharpness and resolution (http://archive2.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9064139&&#post9064139) play roles.

...I fail to see how my posting to correct the misconception created in this thread by that graph is equivalent to dismissing that project, or throwing the baby out with the bath water...You are underestimating your influence.:):)

You have in the past, been very clear about your issues with the AVS Contrast Project. I believe that objectively characterizing a projector's intra-image contrast over a range, from very dark scenes to very bright scenes, is a very worthy goal. If the current project is not a step forward, maybe you might find the time to initiate a more effective direction.

The Marantz VP-15S1 will be in next month's WSR, mailing out about Dec 15. The JVC RS-2 and Sony VPL-VW200 should also be along shortly.

Can't wait for the reviews!

BTW Greg, you seem to be one of the few folks who could answer this question about ANSI/Contrast and the upcoming JVC RS2. It seems to me that the manner in which JVC improved the contrast to 30,000:1 from 15,000:1 should also, in theory, benefit ANSI contrast in the new RS2. Unless...and here is my question...I'm missing some feature that affects ANSI.

As I understand it the prime culprit in lowering ANSI contrast, and the whole "white fog" problem that LCOS has struggled with in particular, has to do with light scatter. It seems to me this is just the area in which JVC claims improvement, allowing for the deeper blacks from the same chip:

FROM JVC PRESS RELEASE ON THE RS2:

The projectors’ new 0.7-inch 1920 x 1080 D-ILA devices reduce stray light caused by the dispersion and diffraction of reflected light. JVC decreased orientation irregularities by reducing the gaps between pixels, adopting improved liquid crystals and other innovative technologies, enabling the device itself to achieve a contrast ratio of 40,000 to 1.

The enhanced optical engine dramatically improves the precision of light polarization, helping to prevent light leakage into the projection lens and allowing for true black level reproduction.

Are these not the types of factors that have lowered ANSI contrast in previous models? Shouldn't we expect some level of improvement in ANSI contrast in the new RS2, due to the above factors?

Or, are there some other technical factors that limit LCOS ANSI that I am not aware of (meaning ANSI won't necessarily be improved on the new JVC).

Thanks.

.If it doesn't violate your vow of silence on the subject, could you at least provide a link so I and others can read up on what you refer to? Because as it stands, it is absolutely clear that you think this approach is terribly wrong-headed, but it just isn't clear (to me anyway) just why.
I already said more than I should have. I don't want to rehash this subject again. It will only turn ugly, again. (I don't even want to tell you what parts of it I like and what parts I don't like, but I appreciate the effort that went into it and I wouldn't characterize it as terribly wrong-headed.)

What particularly interests me is the more general question of the value of test patterns and their ability to predict real-world performance. Why would some test patterns (checkerboard and full on/off for example) be useful and others not? What accounts for the difference?It's a matter of realizing what a test pattern can tell you and what it can't tell you. How you can use the data and how you can't. The full-field (on-off) contrast ratio basically tells us the minimum possible black level as a function of the reference white level. It has both a quantitative value and a qualitative value for assessing performance. The ANSI or my m-ANSI contrast ratio is just a figure of merit based on one specific test pattern (you could define many other equally suitable/poor test patterns for the same purpose). It only has qualitative value (but perhaps with a lot more related data and some extraordinary mathematical manipulation it might have quantitative value). There is no way to combine only those two measurements to calculate the thousands or millions of actual contrast ratio's that occur in a real image.

I think that if each of us reads Greg's reviews closely, you can find the information that you seek. He refers in each of his reviews to the same scenes in the same movies. I suspect that these scenes have been chosen based on a criteria: some are dark, some are mixed in varying degrees of light and dark and some are bright. He charcterizes them in these ways. If you want to find out how, for instance, the RS1 compares to the Sharp 20k in these different kinds of scenes, just compare these paragraphs in his reviews.

If I read Greg correctly, he believes that the RS1 does a better job in darker scenes but, to use the phrase that we have, the tipping point is what he refers to as "moderate to high brightness scenes". Examples of these kinds of scenes are Luke practicing with the light saber from Star Wars and the Leeloo jump scene from the Fifth Element. In summary, he writes:

The RS1 was the clear choice in the darkest scenes, even when there were bright highlights present. As a rule of thumb, whenever a scene appeared dark, the better full-field contrast ratio dominated over the better ANSI contrast ratio.

To those who think that there is some quasi-scientific way of characterizing these phenomena, please tell me what kind or kinds of test patterns would you propose to use to measure the differences in these projectors, which vary from scene to scene? Isn't Greg's approach really telling us all we need to know? I don't feel the need to have numbers tell me what words are capable of telling me.

As to the value, or lack thereof, of test patterns. I think we all got carried away with these measurements, particularly what the meaning is of the ANSI measurement. At best, it seems, that these figures can be used to suggest what kind of performance we can expect. Greg's approach of watching the same scenes on different projectors and then telling us what he saw seems infinitely better than reducing performance to a number. Ideally his reviews would have photographs that demonstrate these differences, but I suspect that it would be difficult to accomplish this.

Edit: I also thought I would add that it is obvious to me that Greg is right on the money. Having spent time with both the RS1 and the 20k, it is quite apparent that there is a tipping point as scenes move from dark to light after which the advantage shifts from the RS1 to the 20k. I think that the 20k begins to dominate in moderately bright scenes that have no large dark elements. This advantage continues until a scene become very bright at which time contrast on both suffers.

Nice job Jigesh on your detective work!

Many thanks again, jigesh! :)

For those who don't want to bother clicking on jigesh's links, here are Greg's words:
Compared to best single-chip 1080p DLP projectors:

My Top 3 Reasons not to buy a JVC DLA-RS1 -

1. Color accuracy - Oversaturated primaries, particularly green
2. Image Depth - Lower intra-image contrast in moderately bright to bright scenes
3. Variability - Color uniformity, brightness uniformity, and convergence are "Luck of the Draw"

My Top 3 Reasons to buy a JVC DLA-RS1 -

1. High full-field contrast ratio - Best shadow detail and lack of haze in dark scenes, plus no brightness compression from a dynamic iris
2. Brightness/contrast - Excellent combination of brightness and high full-field contrast
3. Price

Individual sensitivity issue - Color separation artifacts in DLP projectors vary from projector model to projector model, as does individual's sensitivity/tolerance for them. RS-1 avoids them completely.

Unknown to me - Current state of bug fixes for RGB color processing
"no previous projector has quite matched the image depth produced by the XV-Z2000U in the high contrast scenes aboard the Death Star" and "the projectors unprecendented intra-image contrast, along with its 1080p resolution, provides layers of depth that are simply amazing to see in a home theatre".
I know it seems like I'm avoiding a direct answer, but it really does come down to what qualities you prefer and how lucky you are. LCoS and 3-panel/chip technologies introduce a set of a variables that introduce luck into the equation. The 3 panel/chip technologies are going to have variable unit-to-unit misalignment, and LCoS adds the possibility of color/brightness uniformity issues. Single-chip DLP is simply more consistent in image quality.

Then you have to weigh the specific advantages of the technology used by each projector. The Gennum processing gives the RS1 and VP-11S1 an advantage over the Sharp. But you can use an external processor for all three. The VP-11S1 has a spectacular lens, excellent image depth, and almost no rainbow artifacts. The XV-Z20K has accurate color (with proper calibration), tremendous ANSI contrast and image depth, and excellent native contrast. But it has rainbow artifacts. The RS1 has even better native contrast, but may have some color uniformity and corner brightness issues that could bother you. But it has no rainbow color separation artifacts. If you value dark scene performance over bright scene performance, the RS-1 has the edge, if its color accuracy doesn't bother you. But the image qualities of the Sharp and Marantz are likely to be more predictable.
When viewing standard-def, I would agree that intra-image contrast (measured with ANSI-like measurement processes) is normally the most important parameter for image depth in relatively bright (or brighter) scenes. But brightness compression from a dynamic iris is also a problem that reduces image depth in those scenes, even when it doesn't appear to reduce bright detail discrimination, because it reduces the dynamic range within the image. For dark scenes full-field contrast is more important. For high-def sources, sharpness and resolution also play a major role in the perception of depth.
Sharpness and resolution also play a major role in image depth for high definition sources, and the Ruby comes up short in those categories as well. The dynamic iris reduces the peak brightness levels in many scenes and that also has a major effect in reducing the perception of depth in most scenes (but increases image depth in dark scenes by reducing haze compared to projectors with limited full-field contrast ratios). I can't stress enough that the perception of image depth is dependent on multiple factors, and the scene content itself determines the relative degree to which each of those factors contributes to the perception of image depth.

...To those who think that there is some quasi-scientific way of characterizing these phenomena, please tell me what kind or kinds of test patterns would you propose to use to measure the differences in these projectors, which vary from scene to scene?There are certainly scientific benchmarks that could be developed which would characterize projector intra-image performance more effectively than does the ANSI CR benchmark.

Less we forget, at one time there was 1 contrast benchmark, on/off. The industry after much turmoil eventually came up with the ANSI CR metric! :D
...Isn't Greg's approach really telling us all we need to know? I don't feel the need to have numbers tell me what words are capable of telling me...What should we do for pjs which are not reviewed by gregr? What about if gregr chooses to retire to a mountain top!

Will both projectors do 1080p / 24 ? I seem to recall the RS1 doubling to 48 and the Sharp outputting at 60hz and thereby getting a lot of judder unlike the RS1. I could be wrong if any experts care to comment.

Less we forget, at one time there was 1 contrast benchmark, on/off. The industry after much turmoil eventually came up with the ANSI CR metric! :D
What should we do for pjs which are not reviewed by gregr? What about if gregr chooses to retire to a mountain top!

Or God forbid if Greg's subjective opinion/memory wasn't 100% calibrated on any given day. I understand where you're coming from, and I also respect Greg's opinion, but it's nice to have something that's quantifiable rather than always relying on a subjective opinion from one person. I know how we love to place Greg on a pedestal at this site (and he deserves respect), but there's just no way he can possibly remember everything in perfect detail to compare one PJ to another over the span of months or even years, never mind hours.

There's no perfect test for this, but at least these guys are working towards something that can truly be measured. Until the perfect test comes along (likely never), I'll use both quantitative data and subjective opinion.

There are certainly scientific benchmarks that could be developed which would characterize projector intra-image performance more effectively than does the ANSI CR benchmark.

Less we forget, at one time there was 1 contrast benchmark, on/off. The industry after much turmoil eventually came up with the ANSI CR metric! :D
What should we do for pjs which are not reviewed by gregr? What about if gregr chooses to retire to a mountain top!


Both points are well taken but I still have to ask why this amount of work would be necessary? What need are we tying to address?

I believe that the only reason that these standards exist at all is because one fine day a TV manufacturer produced a TV that had better on/off CR than its rival's and thought that quoting this fact would help it sell more TVs. ANSI contrast was probably created by another manufacturer when it had to find a way to justify why its set, which did not have as good on/off, was better than its rival's.

At heart, aren't these things nothing more than marketing tools?

We find value in them for things other than marketing because we want to know with certainty how a particular display will deal with any given scene before we ever see it. It seems odd that we feel the need to judge things that have the intended use of being seen by some metric other than viewing them. Other patterns could suggest things about a display other than ANSI or on/off. Why not just come to agreement on some set of "typical" scenes (much like greg has) and find out what makes each display tick with respect to each. At least we are judging something other than test patterns.

Greg may one day retire to a mountaintop. I suppose that we all ought to start preparing for that day.

Will both projectors do 1080p / 24 ? I seem to recall the RS1 doubling to 48 and the Sharp outputting at 60hz and thereby getting a lot of judder unlike the RS1. I could be wrong if any experts care to comment.

From the first post on the RS1 owner's thread (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=813550):

How does the RS1/HD1 display 1080p24 and 1080i60 signals?

The HD1/RS1 frame doubles 1080p24 to 1080p48 and this is displayed internally at 96Hz. 1080i60 is deinterlaced to 1080p60 and displayed internally (with 3:2 progressive frame cadence) at 120Hz. (posted by MikeSRC)

The RS1 does accept a 1080p24 signal via HDMI.

As for Sharp, see TheLion's thread (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=790059). From his this post (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=10709646&postcount=63):

1080p24 input displayed at a 48Hz rate -> therefor avoiding 3:2 pulldown judder.

That confused me because of this post at the end of that thread from the last few days about the sharp.

"...I tried again to confirm if new firmware supports 48hz output.
Not yet find any added item on Menu, if so, Auto-48hz output when 24hz input? Nope. It's not 48Hz, but 60Hz definitely. I had long test using HDG3000 pattern generator, Joe Kane's DVE(HD-DVD), AVIA DVD(24hz output by DVDO VP50 processor), and many titles including many Ending Credit, camera panning scenes, slow zoom-in/zoom-out scenes, diagonally moving camera scenes...

Everything I have tested is exactly same as old version. Old version also receives 24hz input, but sometime shows white-noise bug. The bug is gone in new version. But no more change. So I think new firmware has not 48hz output function. Frankly I hope I am wrong."

This guy seemed to be having some issues so maybe he was just not doing something to get it working.

Can't wait for the reviews!

BTW Greg, you seem to be one of the few folks who could answer this question about ANSI/Contrast and the upcoming JVC RS2. It seems to me that the manner in which JVC improved the contrast to 30,000:1 from 15,000:1 should also, in theory, benefit ANSI contrast in the new RS2. Unless...and here is my question...I'm missing some feature that affects ANSI.

As I understand it the prime culprit in lowering ANSI contrast, and the whole "white fog" problem that LCOS has struggled with in particular, has to do with light scatter. It seems to me this is just the area in which JVC claims improvement, allowing for the deeper blacks from the same chip:

FROM JVC PRESS RELEASE ON THE RS2:

The projectors’ new 0.7-inch 1920 x 1080 D-ILA devices reduce stray light caused by the dispersion and diffraction of reflected light. JVC decreased orientation irregularities by reducing the gaps between pixels, adopting improved liquid crystals and other innovative technologies, enabling the device itself to achieve a contrast ratio of 40,000 to 1.

The enhanced optical engine dramatically improves the precision of light polarization, helping to prevent light leakage into the projection lens and allowing for true black level reproduction
.

Are these not the types of factors that have lowered ANSI contrast in previous models? Shouldn't we expect some level of improvement in ANSI contrast in the new RS2, due to the above factors?

Or, are there some other technical factors that limit LCOS ANSI that I am not aware of (meaning ANSI won't necessarily be improved on the new JVC).

Thanks.

Dang, I can't seem to get an answer for this no matter who I ask. :(

That confused me because of this post at the end of that thread from the last few days about the sharp.

"...I tried again to confirm if new firmware supports 48hz output.
Not yet find any added item on Menu, if so, Auto-48hz output when 24hz input? Nope. It's not 48Hz, but 60Hz definitely. I had long test using HDG3000 pattern generator, Joe Kane's DVE(HD-DVD), AVIA DVD(24hz output by DVDO VP50 processor), and many titles including many Ending Credit, camera panning scenes, slow zoom-in/zoom-out scenes, diagonally moving camera scenes...

Everything I have tested is exactly same as old version. Old version also receives 24hz input, but sometime shows white-noise bug. The bug is gone in new version. But no more change. So I think new firmware has not 48hz output function. Frankly I hope I am wrong."

This guy seemed to be having some issues so maybe he was just not doing something to get it working.

There is no download site for Sharp's firmware and neither are there any clear instructions from Sharp on how to update it. As a result, some were not able to update firmware properly. The original poster of that thread, TheLion, was able to obtain it from someone at Sharp. The best way is to contact Sharp and ask them this question; or PM TheLion and see what he has to say. Sharp owners might chime in...

There is no download site for Sharp's firmware and neither are there any clear instructions from Sharp on how to update it. As a result, some were not able to update firmware properly. The original poster of that thread, TheLion, was able to obtain it from someone at Sharp. The best way is to contact Sharp and ask them this question; or PM TheLion and see what he has to say. Sharp owners might chime in...

He said he got the new firmware installed v. 1.1.5 but that it wasn't actually outputting at 24, 48, 96 but was instead outputting 60 despite showing 24 on the menu. Maybe there's a newer version than 1.1.5 for the firmware that he doesn't have but it looks like that's the newest one on that thread.

Just as there are no "official" firmware releases for the RS-1 to address bugs and provide upgrades, there are no "official" firmware releases for the Z20k. Neither company wants ANYONE loading or updating the firmware that came with the unit, though both companies have made revisions and load their newest units with the latest firmware. In the latest firmware from Sharp 1080p24 is supported and output at 48 hz, and the JVC firmware corrects some of its earlier color decoding bugs.

So there is a different firmware than the version 1.1.5 this guy is using? Maybe it's something about the asian home market version?

We find value in them for things other than marketing because we want to know with certainty how a particular display will deal with any given scene before we ever see it. It seems odd that we feel the need to judge things that have the intended use of being seen by some metric other than viewing them. Other patterns could suggest things about a display other than ANSI or on/off. Why not just come to agreement on some set of "typical" scenes (much like greg has) and find out what makes each display tick with respect to each. At least we are judging something other than test patterns.

Greg may one day retire to a mountaintop.
I wish we had test patterns that would "completely characterize" the performance of a display. In this case "completely characterize" would be defined as quantitatively measuring all of the visual stimulus factors that determine our perception of images. I currently spend about 80-100 hours doing each projector review. If we had a complete and perfect set of test patterns I could vastly reduce this time by eliminating the viewing portion of each review, and I wouldn't need to make any direct comparisons between projectors. Ideally, each test pattern would produce a single value that quantified a particular perceptual characteristic. We could simply measure image depth as 76 on one projector and 82 on another. But since it isn't likely that we will have such an ideal set of test patterns, I'm still forced to watch a great deal of actual video and characterize a projector's image depth with a description in words. I would never try to assign numerical values such as 76 or 82 to the image depth based on my perceptual assessment (although some people do - regardless of how absurd that is). But based on knowing exactly what I am looking for in a variety of repeatable scenes, some knowledge, some experience, and usually having multiple products from past reviews still available if needed - I choose some words to describe image depth (in this example) in a way that I have confidence will withstand full scrutiny and review by others that would make an impartial and unbiased assessment of the same characteristic. But would I prefer to simply measure a test pattern? ... of course.

While it may seem obvious that a test pattern produces a more accurate representation of any particular characteristic, that really isn't true when we try to model perception and the human visual system. We can accurately measure physical phenomena based on a test pattern (the CIE x,y coordinates or luminance of a color for instance) but it is much more problematic to measure perception. Just determining a measure of our perception of color differences has occupied the CIE for about 80 years and that problem is far from being solved. Trying to quantify other perceptual characteristics associated with displays is much more complex.

Imagine trying to produce a test pattern to measure image depth. Suppose (just as a thought experiment) that we decided that image depth is solely a function of brightness, saturation, and the distribution of the color green (just 3 made up, fictional parameters) in an image. So we invent a series of test patterns that contain small patches of a particular green color (characterized by its CIE x,y coordinates) that each have a different green luminance. We could plot the results from that series of test pattern measurements as image depth vs luminance. We could then compare projectors by how well they perform on plots of those measurements. But since we knew that image depth was a function of the distribution of the green colors, we would be ignoring how the ability of the projector to resolve fine detail of green color was perhaps the key factor in image depth. At best our test pattern results are incomplete, at worst they may be misleading as to which projector produces the best image depth in real images that contain a variation in luminance but more importantly a variation in green detail resolution. We may have been better off to just measure the modulation depth on a single green resolution test pattern (at one particular resolution), and also realize that the image depth in images with little detail are more dependent on a simple contrast measurement. So there would be crossover region in projector image depth performance depending on a projector's contrast performance vs its resolution curve (modulation depth vs spatial frequency) that was too complex to calculate for real images. Could we modify the test patterns (convert the patches to fine lines with a different pitch in each test pattern to capture the resolution dependency of image depth) to make them provide a better representation of the projector's actual image depth performance? Yes, but remember that we assumed (in this simple made up thought experiment) that the image depth was also dependent on the brightness and saturation of green. So the test patterns must now also have different colors (different x,y values for saturation) and different luminance's in addition to different resolutions. We now need perhaps hundreds of test patterns to measure and 4-dimensional plots (image depth vs luminance vs saturation vs resolution). That's the basic problem trying to quantify perceptual characteristics. There are usually so many variables that ultimately we have to discard devices like multi-dimensional plots and turn to weighted combinations of variables to arrive at simpler representations of the characteristic performance. Then we spend the rest of eternity arguing about which factors are included, how they are measured, and their relative weights. My point is, that sometimes it's just easier (and ultimately more accurate) to simply say that projector A has better image depth in bright scenes and projector B has better image depth in dark scenes. Somewhere in between they cross over, and I prefer B for most movies.

BTW, I retired to the mountain top (although a modest height by Oregon standards), but I'm still kicking out reviews for a while yet.

Isnt Greg already retired to a moutaintop? Dont Marantz, JVC, Sony and a few other companies make their "yearly" pilgrimages to visit him at least 2x a year? 8)

Of course should Greg ever stop taking projectors in to review then there will always be Tom Huffman's honest opinion!

My point is, that sometimes it's just easier (and ultimately more accurate) to simply say that projector A has better image depth in bright scenes and projector B has better image depth in dark scenes. Somewhere in between they cross over, and I prefer B for most movies.

Anyone care to rebut?

There is no denying that if a particular path is both easier and more accurate than others, then that is the path to be on.

I am sold.

Greg is not the only one who is cabable of doing this in the event that he truly retires.

Greg is not the only one who is cabable of doing this in the event that he truly retires.I agree. Plus I will then have more time to hang out here and annoy my critics. :)

Anyone care to rebut?.The point seems to have moved from should we develop an intra-image benchmark which is more informative than ANSI to should we rely on gregr's reviews and opinions? Are those two options, opposing viewpoints?

Does gregr's opinion as the "objective metric" now also apply to colorimetry? :D

I find myself in a strange position of defending a benchmark, when initially I was one of the more vocal critics. Mark has made modifications which IMO better classify DI projectors.

I suspect that over time we will see for intra-image CR, something similar to the software industry professional graphics benchmarks such as Viewperf, that is, a series of 5 to 10 simplified/measurable “typical" scenes representing canonical images from dark scenes to bright scenes.

PS. I have no problems using gregr's reviews as the objective standard. I am likely the post prolific poster of gregr review quotes on the forum. :D

Greg is not the only one who is cabable of doing this in the event that he truly retires.Who else will you nominate to be the "objective metric"? Evan from PC? :eek:

On the RS1 vs 20K topic, forget both and get a Black Pearl instead! :) :)

On the RS1 vs 20K topic, forget both and get a Black Pearl instead! :) :)I definitely think people should consider that option depending on their specific needs and preferences.

Who else will you nominate to be the "objective metric"? Evan from PC? :eek:

Why do we need an objective metric for projectors when we don't have one for anything else that we buy?

Should ones be created for washers and dryers?

Personally, I read a lot of reviews and and opinions of people I feel I can trust and then make my decision. That strategy has not steered my wrong so far.

It is less useful, however, for the purpose of convincing all those who purchased other projectors that they made a bad decision. It is for this purpose that most of the so-called objective data is put to use.

The point seems to have moved from should we develop an intra-image benchmark which is more informative than ANSI to should we rely on gregr's reviews and opinions? Are those two options, opposing viewpoints?You understand I hope, that I am not opposed to trying to develop a better intra-image contrast figure-of-merit, or a set of standard scenes (often used for subjective display evaluation in professional video circles but a pain to maintain over time), or measurable intra-image benchmark test patterns. I tried to illustrate the complexity of the general problem of quantifying perceptual characteristics above, but that doesn't mean it can't be done. It's just extremely difficult to do successfully.

Does gregr's opinion as the "objective metric" now also apply to colorimetry? :D


Here we go talking about color again. :)

I agree. Plus I will then have more time to hang out here and annoy my critics. :)

It is fun being a plain civilian that feels no need to be objective.

One day you too can enjoy the thrill of joining the masses in the projector bubble inflation/deflation cycles around here.

It is fun being a plain civilian that feels no need to be objective.
I know you are joking, but seriously I feel a responsibility to not push my personal preferences on other people, since every person's needs and preferences can be quite different. But some day watch out .... :)

On the RS1 vs 20K topic, forget both and get a Black Pearl instead! :) :)

I definitely think people should consider that option depending on their specific needs and preferences.

Greg, I really think you should consider going into politics!

;)

Greg,

Do you already have your hands on the RS2 and the VW200? I think your "fanboys" have left you off the hook quite a bit, here. 8)

Any teasers on the 15s1 or those other "two"s (RS"two" and VW"two"hundred 8)) that you feel up to letting out? 8)

Do you already have your hands on the RS2 and the VW200?
I am very anxious to read about the Marantz 15S1 and the Sony VW-200, but personally the interest in the RS-2 will only be casual to see if JVC made the colors worse or better (I am predicting worse). What I am really curious about is to know if Greg has any Sim2 units in the pipeline. While I realize that every model is different, Sim2 seem to be fairly innovative with new technology in their high end products and then they let it trickle down to their lower priced units. As such I would like to see a review of ANY of the current Sim2 models.

I'll be doing my own sidewalk comparison between the Sharp Z20k and the Sim2 HT-380 very soon...:)

I would love to see Greg make an assessment on an HT380 or an HT3000e as well. 8)

Im curious to see your comparisons, too, Bob. They BETTER be sending you a good unit. Check that CA and that colorwheel before they send it to Jason or we will hear about it. 8)

Greg,

Do you already have your hands on the RS2 and the VW200? I think your "fanboys" have left you off the hook quite a bit, here. 8)

Any teasers on the 15s1 or those other "two"s (RS"two" and VW"two"hundred 8)) that you feel up to letting out? 8)I have a VW200 pre-production unit, but I haven't had an RS-2 yet. I'm waiting for production units of both to review. The VP-15S1 review will be done in about a week. I suspect it will be published in advance on the WSR website, so I should be able to discuss it pretty soon.

I would love to see Greg make an assessment on an HT380 or an HT3000e as well. 8)Not likely to happen.

Originally Posted by HoustonHoyaFan
On the RS1 vs 20K topic, forget both and get a Black Pearl instead!

Originally Posted by gregr
I definitely think people should consider that option depending on their specific needs and preferences.

Greg, I really think you should consider going into politics!

;)
Rob, what do you think I should have said differently?

The VP-15S1 review will be done in about a week. I suspect it will be published in advance on the WSR website, so I should be able to discuss it pretty soon.

Look forward to this review.

As per the Sim2 the fact that you will not review them makes me wary of the brand.

I have renewed my WSR online subscription in preperation for the VP-15S1 review.

Rob, what do you think I should have said differently?

People want you to say "Projector X is the best projector for all people and purposes." I suspect that that has not yet ever been a true statement so you haven't said it.

I'll be doing my own sidewalk comparison between the Sharp Z20k and the Sim2 HT-380 very soon...:)

I'm looking forward to this!

You understand I hope, that I am not opposed to trying to develop a better intra-image contrast figure-of-merit, or a set of standard scenes (often used for subjective display evaluation in professional video circles but a pain to maintain over time), or measurable intra-image benchmark test patterns...I appreciate the complexity of such an undertaking, which is why I will continue to be a PITA and suggest/insist/plead that you lead and or participate in any such effort. Your industry expertise is essential to creating a more effective benchmark. I am sure you will get an army of 813 light meter wielding AVS weekend warriors who would be happy to beta test whatever patterns you develop on their personal pjs. :D

Mark has put an incrediable amount of effort into the project, simply for the benefit of the AVS community. I am an old school East Coast Liberal so I will also continue to hope that you, Mark, and WM can combine efforts. After all, Egypt and Israel are now friends. :D

Has WM been around anywhere? I havent seen him post since right before the RS1 was released. I thought he said he was working on the Meridian version of it.

Or are we talking about a different WM?

BTW Greg, you seem to be one of the few folks who could answer this question about ANSI/Contrast and the upcoming JVC RS2. It seems to me that the manner in which JVC improved the contrast to 30,000:1 from 15,000:1 should also, in theory, benefit ANSI contrast in the new RS2. Unless...and here is my question...I'm missing some feature that affects ANSI.

As I understand it the prime culprit in lowering ANSI contrast, and the whole "white fog" problem that LCOS has struggled with in particular, has to do with light scatter. It seems to me this is just the area in which JVC claims improvement, allowing for the deeper blacks from the same chip:

FROM JVC PRESS RELEASE ON THE RS2:

...

Are these not the types of factors that have lowered ANSI contrast in previous models? Shouldn't we expect some level of improvement in ANSI contrast in the new RS2, due to the above factors?

Or, are there some other technical factors that limit LCOS ANSI that I am not aware of (meaning ANSI won't necessarily be improved on the new JVC).

Thanks.I missed this post a few days ago. I don't know how much improvement in the ANSI contrast ratio to expect. It just depends on what has been done to further lower the full-field contrast ratio and what has specifically limited the ANSI contrast previously. If the ANSI contrast has been limited by the lens itself (I rather doubt that), then I expect there would be little improvement from the full-field contrast ratio improvements (although the RS-2 may also have a new lens). If the previous limitations were more related to the panels or the light path prior to the lens, then the improvements could affect both the full-field and ANSI contrast ratios. We shall just have to wait and see. Sorry I don't have a better answer.

Is there a reason you don't review Sim2?

People want you to say "Projector X is the best projector for all people and purposes." I suspect that that has not yet ever been a true statement so you haven't said it.I don't think it has ever been true "for all people and purposes". Just consider the light output requirements for a screen size 80" wide vs 120" wide, or insert your own width requirement. Obviously, at some point some projectors simply don't have enough light output regardless of how good they might be otherwise. But if we remove light output as variable (basically accept whatever picture size a projector can actually support) I truly don't think there is a best 1080p projector right now. Of the projectors I've already reviewed (and the reviews have been published) the Sharp, the RS-1, and the VW60 each have some very specific advantages and disadvantages that depending on what characteristics you value the most should lead you to buy one over the other, as it did me. I don't believe that was true at the end of the 720p projector era. I think the Yamaha DPX-1300 was the best 720p projector available at that time (again ignoring the screen size/light output variable) and I said so in its review (for those that think I never pick a winner). I still consider it a great loss that Yamaha was driven out of the front projector market (by aggressive competitor's pricing) before they made a 1080p projector.

Is there a reason you don't review Sim2?I have reviewed a Sim2 projector and WSR has published Sim2 reviews. I believe the last Sim2 review that WSR published was written by Bill Cushman, who is exceptionally knowledgeable about front projectors.

I still consider it a great loss that Yamaha was driven out of the front projector market (by aggressive competitor's pricing) before they made a 1080p projector.

I suspect that you have a lot of perspective on this.

My thinking (as someone who has advised some clients in this area) is that the real way for a company to succeed in a given market is through selling in volume, even if margins ultimately decrease.

Yamaha, for example, apparently was not prepared for the undertaking of competing in a market that big players like Sony were committing to.

My thought is that volume has had a profoundly good impact on the home theater projector market even while it has caused much pain through out traditional channels of distribution.

The old model of regional dealers or local dealers selling in their community appears to have been overtaken, except in the bleeding edge high-end area. The three projectors that you mention as contendors to the throne, the Sharp, JVC and Sony are (with the possible exception of the Sharp) designed for the mass market, or at least more of a mass market than had ever been the case in home theater.

What are your thoughts on this?

I have reviewed a Sim2 projector and WSR has published Sim2 reviews. I believe the last Sim2 review that WSR published was written by Bill Cushman, who is exceptionally knowledgeable about front projectors.


Greg

Is there a reason you/WSR won't be reviewing the HT380 and/or HT3000 ?

D

I suspect that you have a lot of perspective on this.

My thinking (as someone who has advised some clients in this area) is that the real way for a company to succeed in a given market is through selling in volume, even if margins ultimately decrease.

Yamaha, for example, apparently was not prepared for the undertaking of competing in a market that big players like Sony were committing to.

My thought is that volume has had a profoundly good impact on the home theater projector market even while it has caused much pain through out traditional channels of distribution.

The old model of regional dealers or local dealers selling in their community appears to have been overtaken, except in the bleeding edge high-end area. The three projectors that you mention as contendors to the throne, the Sharp, JVC and Sony are (with the possible exception of the Sharp) designed for the mass market, or at least more of a mass market than had ever been the case in home theater.

What are your thoughts on this?I agree. I would add that major capital-intensive technological change (such as development of DLP or LCoS technology) requires high volume (at some point in the technology's lifetime) or it simply won't happen. It is clear that TI DLP and Sony SXRD LCoS volumes (the latter particularly supported by RPTV sales) support the capital investment. I'm actually a bit surprised that JVC can afford their continued investment in the LCoS, but they have made amazing technical progress in the last few years so let's hope they can keep up the investment. On the other hand, companies can make money with relatively small volume, very high performance, high-priced products when there is a market for higher-performance products and when they can leverage the cost of development off their own higher volume products that use the same base technology (e.g. SXRD) or off an outside high volume technology (e.g. DLP). (I had 27 years of experience mostly doing the former and only once doing the latter to produce some of the highest performance test and measurement products on the planet.) The problem with producing high-priced, high performance products based on an outside technology is that it is not a technological barrier to entry by other, larger, more efficient (in a particular product type) companies that drive down the price without excessively sacrificing performance. If the market accepts slightly lower performance at much lower prices (as it usually does), the less efficient companies are driven out of the market regardless of their remaining edge in performance. That first affects larger companies that have only a small division devoted to that type of product, but expect that division to produce profits consistent with the goals of the larger corporate entity. i.e. it ain't good to be a small fish in a large corporate pond unless you dominate the small fishing market. But ultimately, the small specialty companies (which at first may be able to survive on lower profit margins) eventually get sucked under too.

I wrote about this right after Sony introduced the Ruby (and again after they introduced the Pearl) and basically redefined the price structure of the front projection market. I predicted they would drive some high-performance projector companies out of the front projection market and while consumers would benefit from the lower pricing in the short term, it would eventually slow the refinement of projector performance (because that refinement is often the result of smaller players finding ways to differentiate the performance of their products at some price premium.) I believe that prediction is still happening, but I didn't anticipate JVC would introduce another major technological advancement and do it within the new market pricing structure. I expect that will continue to reduce (or even accelerate the reduction of) the number of players in the market, but JVC's technological advances have so far masked any slowing in the refinement of projector performance.

Greg

Is there a reason you/WSR won't be reviewing the HT380 and/or HT3000 ?

DI said it was unlikely that I would be reviewing those projectors, not that I won't. Or perhaps Bill Cushman will.

I said it was unlikely that I would be reviewing those projectors, not that I won't. Or perhaps Bill Cushman will.

Thanks for clarifying. :)

D

I predicted they would drive some high-performance projector companies out of the front projection market and while consumers would benefit from the lower pricing in the short term, it would eventually slow the refinement of projector performance (because that refinement is often the result of smaller players finding ways to differentiate the performance of their products at some price premium.) I believe that prediction is still happening, but I didn't anticipate JVC would introduce another major technological advancement and do it within the new market pricing structure. I expect that will continue to reduce (or even accelerate the reduction of) the number of players in the market, but JVC's technological advances have so far masked any slowing in the refinement of projector performance.

I share your concern, particularly about DLP products. In the TV world, DLP has been reduced to almost the cellar because people prefer flat panels. TI appears to be feeling this and it is unclear how they are reacting and whether they will continue to invest the money necessary to advance the technology. Front projection has undoubtedly benefited from TI's investment in DLP technology. But, now it appears that DLP advancement has really stalled. I am not sure that the projection market, standing alone, is big enough at this point to attract the kind of money that it would take to make the kinds of advances that we would like to see.

Companies like Panasonic are coming on strong in the under $3,000 market and that is a very good thing because it broadens the base of projector owners. I would love to see JVC (or another) bring LCOS to the under $3000 segment and leverage success there into better (and higher margin) units on the high end.

Back on topic:

I prepared a list of my personal observations about the 2 projectors, having owned and spent considerable time with both of them:

1. Color accuracy - Big win for the Sharp, but only after calibration. Out of the box on my unit it appeared as if Sharp was trying to compete with JVC by oversaturating the colors in a similar fashion. I was able to correct the color points, decoding, and grayscale using the Sharp's excellent CMS. If you wish to correct the colors on the JVC, it must be done externally - right now the Radiance (in beta) and the Crystalio 2 (to a lesser degree) are the only solutions. The RS-1's out of box color decoding and grayscale was excellent.
2. On/off contrast - Slight to big win for the JVC (depending on actual measurements of both units). The JVC has been reported to range anywhere from about 9k:1 up to 20k:1 depending on the individual unit tested. I don't know the range of the Sharp, but mine measured ~7.5k:1, while my RS-1 measured ~9.7k:1, so the difference was not huge, but if you get a "good" RS-1, then the difference can be considerable.
3. ANSI contrast - Big win for the Sharp. I am not qualified to measure ANSI, so I will just report Greg's numbers - 305:1 for the RS-1 and 845:1 for the Sharp, almost a 3:1 difference.
4. Light output at max contrast - Big win for the JVC. Most people have reported around 600 - 700 lumens for the JVC (depending on throw) as compared to ~250 lumens for the Sharp. Again this varies from unit to unit. My JVC measured 424 lumens while my Sharp measured 200 lumens - still a big win for the RS-1.
5. Black level - Needs to be calculated based on light output and on/off contrast of particular units. Take the lumens number and divide it by the on/off CR and you will get the black level. As an example, if the RS-1 is roughly twice the brightness and twice the contrast, then that would mean that the black levels would be the same. Increase the brightness = increase the black level. Increase the contrast = lower the black level.
6. Sharpness - Slight win for the Sharp (assuming a well converged RS-1). Single panels are always sharper than 3 panels aligned - you can't defeat the physics. The larger the screen, the more noticeable is the difference in sharpness.
7. Shading (uniformity) - Big win for the Sharp. the uniformity of the Sharp is amazing. The RS-1 varies from unit to unit, but even at its best is no match for the Sharp, or at least from the units I have seen.
8. Processing - No comment. I use a video processor to feed either unit at 1080p, so processing was untested.
9. Noise (physical) - Big win for the JVC - This again varies from unit to unit, but I was lucky in that both units were quiet. The JVC at its best is considerably quieter than the Sharp.
10. Noise (video) - Big win for the Sharp - For reasons unknown to me, the JVC exacerbates source noise/grain far more than any other projector I have owned or seen. Some people feel that it is more "revealing", but I disagree. The Sharp Z20k, the Ruby, the Sharp Z12k, and most any other projector I have owned all appear much cleaner to me than the RS-1...YMMV.
11. Optics - Big win for the Sharp - The optics quality of the Sharp lens is very high - nice and sharp with no visible CA - great corner to corner focus. The RS-1 lens is not bad, but it isn't as good as the Sharp lens.
12. Image depth in medium to bright scenes - Big win for the Sharp. I guess this is one of those things that goes into the subjective category, but in my view it is no contest at all - the Sharp just provides far more intra-scene contrast and image depth in medium to bright scenes. To me this is not a subtle, but rather a "slap you in the face" kind of difference. Others will (and have) disagree.
13. Image depth in dark scenes - Slight win for the RS-1. Again, maybe this was due to the lower on/off CR of my particular RS-1, but I didn't notice much difference at all between the Sharp and the JVC even in very dark scenes, but I would pick the JVC by a slight margin anyway. If you get an RS-1 with higher on/off CR, the difference might be greater.

Other factors particular to each unit:

Sharp Z20k:

1. Rainbows - It goes with the technology. If you are sensitive to rainbows, then it makes the Sharp a non starter regardless of how well it performs in other areas.
2. Firmware - Excellent CMS, lots of preset color temps and colors, custom gamma controls, plenty of control and flexibility.

JVC RS-1:

1. Firmware - lacks CMS, sparse calibration controls.
2. Color separation artifact - Under certain conditions (referees striped shirts moving, for example) the RS-1 displays some sort of color separation artifact.
3. Poorly mounted lens - In my theater the lens would shake badly during heavy bass tones if my audio system was turned up.
4. Bright corners - This was not a problem on my unit, but I have since seen a few other RS-1's with bright corners.
5. Convergence - Variable again from unit to unit. Mine was very good, but I have seen others that were not as good.

I tried to think of as many comparison points as possible, but I'm sure I must have forgotten something along the way. For me the Sharp is the hands down winner, as I am generally not susceptible to rainbows, although I can occasionally see one here and there. The oversaturated colors and noise/grain exacerbation of the RS-1 made for an unenjoyable viewing experience, while I found myself relaxing and enjoying the Sharp picture to a much greater degree. The only real weakness of the Sharp is its low light output at max contrast and that is why I am going to audition the Sim2 HT-380 soon.

Its funny to me that the thing that drew me to the RS1 was its brightness but that I am now using an ND4 filter so that the image it throws reminds me of my old Sharp, only with much better performance in mid to low light scenes. The funny thing is that I was never unhappy with the blacks on the Sharp 12k until I saw what the RS1 could do.

My unit has a slight bright corners issue in fade to blacks but uniformity otherwise is excellent and much better than I expected it to be. I don't see this video grain/noise that people speak of. I suspect that it just a function of brightness.

Bob did a good job of objectively summarizing the pros and cons of each, but it looks like he had an RS1 whose contrast was a little off. There appears to be some variability in LCOS PJs that DLPs don't seem to have, at least not to the same degree. One thing that I always felt with my Sharp 12k was that it was "bullet proof" and had no real weaknesses. It may not have been the best at everything, but it did everything very well. I think the 20k is the same in that respect. The only real weakness that you can say the 20k has is brightness, and only then if you have a large screen.

I am interested to see what Bob makes of the HT-380.

I would only add one point of clarification to Bob's excellent summary of the Sharp.

The Sharp offers six settings, each of which provides a different mix of lumens, contrast, and fan noise. Of these only four are, IMHO, suitable for home theater use. The figure he quoted was for dimmest of the four, Iris High Contrast, Lamp Eco+Quiet. The other three settings offer higher lumens but also with higher fan noise and/or somewhat lower contrast.

Back on topic:

I prepared a list of my personal observations about the 2 projectors, having owned and spent considerable time with both of them: [Excellent list ]An excellent job Bob. I do think you got an RS-1 that had considerably worse contrast/brightness compared to what I reviewed and what I have seen. That would push a few of the "slight" RS-1 advantages to "significant" RS-1 advantages. Someone (not me - no time now) should do a similar list for the VW60. I don't remember why the original topic of this thread was limited only to the Sharp and the RS-1, although I suspect the original poster is long gone from the thread.

Thanks heaps for the great post bob. It really helping me to decide which way to go.

I would only add one point of clarification to Bob's excellent summary of the Sharp.

The Sharp offers six settings, each of which provides a different mix of lumens, contrast, and fan noise. Of these only four are, IMHO, suitable for home theater use. The figure he quoted was for dimmest of the four, Iris High Contrast, Lamp Eco+Quiet. The other three settings offer higher lumens but also with higher fan noise and/or somewhat lower contrast.

Tom,

I am not so sure of your conclusion that the Sharps high brightness mode is not suitable for HT. My freind has the 20K matched to his 123 inch Stewart Ultramat 150 screen and he uses high brigtness mode with the fan on low. This particular combination in my view delivers a nice balance that achieves more than adequate brightness while simultaneously bringing the black levels down to where they are comparable to the black levels I get on my own 96 inch 1.3 Carada screen using high contrast or medium modes.

Everytime I read where the Sharp is not bright enough for a larger screens, although I understand why based conventional wisdom, Sharp's specs.etc, this is a logical conclusion. I know first hand that it can be done and done extremely well. The consensus here seems to be that for larger screens with the 20K PJ a HighPower is mandatory. I would suggest that users also consider and/or compare a lower gained screen like the 1.5 Stewart Ultramat for this type of application. The depth, pop and 3d quality of a 20K on my friends large screen makes me shake my head everytime I see it, and wish that my room was a little bigger to accomodate a larger screen.

The Sharp offers six settings, each of which provides a different mix of lumens, contrast, and fan noise. Of these only four are, IMHO, suitable for home theater use. The figure he quoted was for dimmest of the four, Iris High Contrast, Lamp Eco+Quiet. The other three settings offer higher lumens but also with higher fan noise and/or somewhat lower contrast.
Good point, Tom. All of my comments were based on Sharp's best contrast and low lamp modes, something that I neglected to mention.
I do think you got an RS-1 that had considerably worse contrast/brightness compared to what I reviewed and what I have seen. That would push a few of the "slight" RS-1 advantages to "significant" RS-1 advantages.
Yes, Greg, I agree that my RS-1 could/should have been better, but to be honest, even if it had all the contrast in the world it would not be enough to compensate for its inaccurate color rendition. I am anxious to see how many of its shortcomings I can overlook once I see an RS-1 with proper colorimetry (I will get that chance once the Radiance CMS is finished and Shawn has his RS-1 properly calibrated).

I'll make one short comment about color accuracy and then leave it alone - I often read of RS-1 owners claiming that their projector is "revealing" of source problems, when in many cases I feel it is the cause of them. People watch movie X and claim that the transfer is bad or that the colors are off or that the director purposely created a grainy image, but when I view the exact same movie on a color correct projector like the Sharp Z20k or Z12k those faults are either much less apparent or disappear entirely. I'm not saying that the RS-1 creates source problems, but in my opinion it exaggerates them. For example, for the longest time I simply thought that all of the older HDNet Movies were just old and terrible transfers with bad colorimetry until I started watching them on the Sharp projectors. Even with 1155 hours on my Z12k, to this day I am still amazed at the picture quality I am getting from these so-called "bad transfers". Enough said.
I am not so sure of your conclusion that the Sharps high brightness mode is not suitable for HT.
I can't speak for Tom, but in my opinion the high brightness mode simply does not have enough contrast and a low enough black level to please me. I am very happy with the medium contrast and high contrast modes, though there is a significant hit in brightness that comes with them. With less than 100 hours on my Z20k, I am able to obtain plenty of brightness on my 131.6" X 56" 2.35:1 High Power.
Thanks heaps for the great post bob. It really helping me to decide which way to go.
No problem. It really is a matter of preferences and needs and what you can live with for problems and what you can not.

Though I have not yet seen the Sony VW-60 (I owned a Ruby and have spent considerable time with the VW-50), based on Greg's review of it that should be a top contender to audition also. The VW-60 offers yet another combination of features, strengths, and weaknesses that may or may not work better in your particular situation and address your particular set of needs/wants.

I missed this post a few days ago. I don't know how much improvement in the ANSI contrast ratio to expect. It just depends on what has been done to further lower the full-field contrast ratio and what has specifically limited the ANSI contrast previously. If the ANSI contrast has been limited by the lens itself (I rather doubt that), then I expect there would be little improvement from the full-field contrast ratio improvements (although the RS-2 may also have a new lens). If the previous limitations were more related to the panels or the light path prior to the lens, then the improvements could affect both the full-field and ANSI contrast ratios. We shall just have to wait and see. Sorry I don't have a better answer.

Thanks Greg. I'll certainly be curious about your measurements of the RS2 vs RS1.

Rich

I am very happy with the medium contrast and high contrast modes, though there is a significant hit in brightness that comes with them.I never thought the medium contrast mode was very useful since you take a very large hit in contrast with very little improvement in brightness. The low contrast mode provides a lot more brightness for sports and the high contrast mode would be my choice for movies, but I don't see where the medium contrast mode fits. I would say the same about the Marantz VP-15S1 which has 3 similar in function iris modes, if I could talk about it yet. :)

...Though I have not yet seen the Sony VW-60 (I owned a Ruby and have spent considerable time with the VW-50), based on Greg's review of it that should be a top contender to audition also. The VW-60 offers yet another combination of features, strengths, and weaknesses that may or may not work better in your particular situation and address your particular set of needs/wants.The VW60 is where I am leaning, pending gregr's VW200 review.

I never thought the medium contrast mode was very useful since you take a very large hit in contrast with very little improvement in brightness.
Actually I use the high contrast mode exclusively. The only use I would have for the medium contrast mode would be for attaining a somewhat usable brightness/contrast combination on an aging lamp. It provides a way of getting a few more hours out of the lamp while you are waiting for the new one to arrive...:)

I'll commend Bob on trying to write a somewhat balanced comparo, although his clear dislike for the RS1 does still seep through, just as my approval of the RS1 I'm sure would come through in anything I write. Outside of the rainbow issue killing it for me the most recent thing I've learned about the XVZ20k was almost as bad for me personally, that the unit is made in China, really the nail in the coffin for me. It may be irrational but I can't imagine spending more than $999 on anything made in China let alone a precision piece of gear like an HD projector.

I'd also agree that the Black Pearl should be on the list, probably before the Sharp due to its ability to fill a larger screen like the RS1. If the VW60 had been around when I got my RS1 it might have been a very tough choice given the price, which also kind of kills the Sharp compared to the JVC and Sony. CMS color controls and being able to pay an ISF calibrator to get my PJ to match up to REC709 are not important to me I have to admit. In natural mode with some minor adjustments I think the RS1 is very pleasing to the eye without being off, although I'm reading here that the Sony is an improvement over the RS1 on color.

Thats not a bad list, Bob. If you factor in that you did appear to get an underperforming, in contrast and brightness, RS1 it is pretty fair.

I agree with you and Greg that medium mode is pretty useless to me, too, on my 15S1, although some "industry professionals" seem to prefer the image in medium mode (despite the obvious reduction in CR) because for some reason it appears more real to them. Although to be honest, iris 3, looks pretty damn good, too, though the blacks are noticeably brighter - as you would expect from the 2.5 times increase in brightness - definitely not my cup of tea.

I guess thats a good enough reason to have the middle mode in place. It really is subjective as to what makes a good picture for folks.

Thanks for the teasers on the 15S1, Greg. 8)

I'll commend Bob on trying to write a somewhat balanced comparo, although his clear dislike for the RS1 does still seep through
I call them as I see them good or bad. When I bought my RS-1, I was predisposed to believe that this would be the best projector ever, especially with all of the accolades that were given to it. It was its own performance in my own theater that slowly revealed its flaws, and even to this day I do not "hate" it...I simply don't think it is the pinnacle of performance that many other people believe it to be. Like I said, I would really like to see how much better the RS-1 looks when it is color accurate....Bad colorimetry is as much of an evil to me as rainbows are to you.
If you factor in that you did appear to get an underperforming, in contrast and brightness, RS1 it is pretty fair.
Even with my underperforming unit, brightness and contrast were not a problem in the least (and I didn't complain about them in my comparison). The things that I dislike about the RS-1's picture are in other areas of performance...;)

Even with my underperforming unit, brightness and contrast were not a problem in the least (and I didn't complain about them in my comparison). The things that I dislike about the RS-1's picture are in other areas of performance...;)

They weren't a problem but they didn't help either. Some things, when done really well, make you forget about other things.

They weren't a problem but they didn't help either. Some things, when done really well, make you forget about other things.
And then again, sometimes they don't. Did you read my earlier post (3rd post back in response to Greg)?

Once again, it is all a matter of preferences and priorities, and each person's will be different.

...Someone (not me - no time now) should do a similar list for the VW60...Anybody? Is Ran the only person who has had all 3 in their theater?

This thread is a good read for me, as I am in the market for a new projector and these are on my short list. I currently have an HD1 DLP (Runco CL-700) projecting on a 92" 16x9 (80"x45") Goo Systems CRT White screen in a totally light-controlled room.

I plan on widening the screen 28" for a 2.40 setup. That will give me an 117" diagonal screen. I'm pretty sure the Sharp will be bright enough in HC mode, especially since I'll be using a VC lens. I occasionally see rainbows with my Runco, but they don't distract me enough to give up on DLP.

Hopefully I'll make the projector shootout and see for myself.

Thanks for the excellent information in this thread. I'll keep reading.

Went to see the sharp and jvc. And I don't think they both calibrated but they both look the same on pciture apart from dark scenes with white in seems to be better on sharp. I can clearly see more details on mixed scenes (dark and other colors)on sharp.

While I was there they turn the projector on and after a few minutes loud noise and lamp gone!!. Makes me wonder what hell happend there. Definitly got me thinking about it. Is it normal for a pj to blow a lamp with loud noise?

Anybody? Is Ran the only person who has had all 3 in their theater?Maybe this should be done by group contribution. I have very little time today, so I will start but be very brief (just off the top of my head) - and just qualitative comments. Maybe that will encourage others to carry on with more details and expand the list.

Parameter - Ranking (best to worst)

Brightness (best contrast mode) - Sony, JVC, Sharp (distant 3rd)
Color - Sharp (full CMS), Sony (good where most important), JVC (distant 3rd - but can use external CMS)
Convergence/color fringing - Sharp, Sony (moderately adjustable - depends less on luck than JVC), JVC (distant 3rd depends on luck)
White field uniformity - Sharp, Sony (depends on luck, but service adjustable), JVC (depends on luck)
Full field contrast (max brightness/min black level) - JVC, Sony, Sharp (subjectively better than numerical comparison because brightness is low)
m-ANSI contrast - Sharp (far ahead), Sony/JVC
Color Separation Artifact (Rainbows) - Sony/JVC (none), Sharp (distant 3rd - 5x speed color wheel)
Fine Line Color Artifact - Sharp (none), Sony, JVC (distant 3rd)
Noise (Sound) - Sony, JVC, Sharp (distant 3rd)

Maybe this should be done by group contribution. I have very little time today, so I will start but be very brief (just off the top of my head) - and just qualitative comments. Maybe that will encourage others to carry on with more details and expand the list.

Parameter - Ranking (best to worst)

Brightness (best contrast mode) - Sony, JVC, Sharp (distant 3rd)
Color - Sharp (full CMS), Sony (good where most important), JVC (distant 3rd - but can use external CMS)
Convergence/color fringing - Sharp, Sony (moderately adjustable - depends less on luck than JVC), JVC (distant 3rd depends on luck)
White field uniformity - Sharp, Sony (depends on luck, but service adjustable), JVC (depends on luck)
Full field contrast (max brightness/min black level) - JVC, Sony, Sharp (subjectively better than numerical comparison because brightness is low)
m-ANSI contrast - Sharp (far ahead), Sony/JVC
Color Separation Artifact (Rainbows) - Sony/JVC (none), Sharp (distant 3rd - 5x speed color wheel)
Fine Line Color Artifact - Sharp (none), Sony, JVC (distant 3rd)
Noise (Sound) - Sony, JVC, Sharp (distant 3rd)

Thanks for the list Greg. Where would the Marantz fit in there (both the 11S1 you have and the 15S1 you reviewed?)

Thanks for the list Greg. Where would the Marantz fit in there (both the 11S1 you have and the 15S1 you reviewed?)
(Who says I use a VP-11S1 today?)

Added VP-11S1 to the list, VP-15S1 review hasn't been published yet

Parameter - Ranking (best to not the best :))

Brightness (best contrast mode) - Sony, JVC, VP11/Sharp (distant 4th)
Color - Sharp (full CMS), Sony (good where most important), VP11, JVC (distant 4th - but can use external CMS)
Convergence/color fringing - VP11/Sharp, Sony (moderately adjustable - depends less on luck than JVC), JVC (distant 4th depends on luck)
White field uniformity - VP11/Sharp, Sony (depends on luck, but service adjustable), JVC (depends on luck)
Full field contrast (max brightness/min black level) - JVC, Sony, Sharp, VP11 (distant 4th) (Sharp, VP11 subjectively better than numerical comparison because brightness is low)
m-ANSI contrast - Sharp, VP-11, Sony/JVC
Color Separation Artifact (Rainbows) - Sony/JVC (none), VP11 (6x speed color wheel), Sharp (distant 4th - 5x speed color wheel)
Fine Line Color Artifact - VP11/Sharp (none), Sony, JVC (distant 4th)
Noise (Sound) - Sony, JVC, VP11, Sharp (distant 4th)

I hope other people will now add to the list, or argue with the rankings.

(Who says I use a VP-11S1 today?)

Added VP-11S1 to the list, VP-15S1 review hasn't been published yet.


Thanks Greg for updating the list. What projector do you use today? Look forward to the 15S1 review (is it looking like next week when it will be online?).

Can you add a Video Processing parameter to the list? My Guess- (Marantz 11S1, Sony, Sharp, JVC)

This belongs in it's own thread. Does the forum software support a multi choice ranked poll?

I would add SD processing, HD processing, sharpness, dark scene contrast, mid scene contrast, bright scene contrast, and mixed scene contrast to the categories

Thanks Greg for updating the list. What projector do you use today?

The one in the list that ranks the best based on my preferences/priorities for the performance parameters (shown in no particular order in the list). It probably isn't that hard to figure out. Fredric March in Inherit the Wind said, "I do not think about things I do not think about". When I'm watching movies I do not want to think about things other than the movie. It's projector weaknesses (more than strengths) that I think about, that I don't want to think about.

Look forward to the 15S1 review (is it looking like next week when it will be online?).
Not if I keep posting in this thread. :) Actually, the review won't be finished until next week. It will probably get posted before WSR mails in mid-Dec.

Can you add a Video Processing parameter to the list?I could, but it is too complex to add easily or quickly.

It probably isn't that hard to figure out.

Since you ruled out the 11S1 which you owned it is for me, as I remember you placed the mansi high on your personal list which the Sharp has but remember you saying it wasn't bright enough for you in its highest contrast mode. It isn't the 15S1 as its not on the list. Maybe someone else will figure it out :confused:

...I could, but it is too complex to add easily or quickly.IIRC in another thread, you indicated a rank of 11S1, VW60, and 20K for 1080i video processing as far as resolution pumping is concerned.
...
As far as resolution pumping is concerned, I'd rank them for that characteristic as Gennum, Sony, Sharp in that order
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=11848094#post11848094
If that still holds, we should add it to the list.

When I'm watching movies I do not want to think about things other than the movie. It's projector weaknesses (more than strengths) that I think about, that I don't want to think about.


That's exactly my feeling as well. It's very tempting when deciding on a display to be drawn by the single thing that one projector does very well, taking a hit on other areas that may end up bothering you.

That is also one reason that I'm cautious of side-by-side comparisons. Those can certainly make clear the differences between two displays. But at the same time if on has a particular strength (e.g. sharpness, or brightness) it tends to stick out and overwhelm the other display. But when you watch a display in isolation satisfaction can change when it's weaknesses become as apparent as it's strength.

So for me I like to determine more via weaknesses, to a degree. When watched in isolation (not shoot-out style) what weakness won't stick out to me and what weaknesses will?

Obviously this is a personal thing that will vary among viewers. As I wrote before, I believe I've determined that, while I'm blown away by the Sharp and some other DLPs, the JVC projectors - likely the RS2 - will be the sweet spot for me.

This is because, while I can note the advantage in ANSI contrast in the Sharp's image when viewing that projector, it's not something that sticks out at me, not something I glaringly miss, when viewing the JVC projectors. Viewed in isolation, the bright scenes look wonderful on the JVC to me. And now even if I start noticing color saturation issues, at least there is a fix for that (albeit expensive).

And then, being a black level fanatic, I get those nice deep black levels I want. Because to me, higher black levels are something that "pulls me out" of the suspension of disbelief more than the lack of high ANSI contrast (because black levels that aren't deep enough make the image suddenly look see-through, like a shadow on a screen, instead of a solid image. Mid to bright scenes retain that solid look on most projectors, even if the high ANSI projectors do the best job of sculpting even more dimensionality).

And then there is the rainbow aspect - an artifact that would always be grating at me on a single chip DLP.

Although, it seems some have made comments that the new Marantz isn't as "rainbowy" as the Sharp. I'd love to see one too.

IIRC in another thread, you indicated a rank of 11S1, VW60, and 20K for 1080i video processing as far as resolution pumping is concerned.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=11848094#post11848094
If that still holds, we should add it to the list.OK. That applies to 1080i original video-source motion-adaptive deinterlacing. Since those were my ratings I guess I should update my earlier list. Keep in mind if you use an external processor (as I do) you could do the 1080i deinterlacing in the external processor and just send 1080p60 (for original video sources) to the projector.

Parameter - Ranking (best to not the best )

Brightness (best contrast mode) - Sony, JVC, VP-11/Sharp (distant 4th)
Color - Sharp (full CMS), Sony (good where most important), VP-11, JVC (distant 4th - but can use external CMS)
Convergence/color fringing - VP-11/Sharp, Sony (moderately adjustable - depends less on luck than JVC), JVC (distant 4th depends on luck)
White field uniformity - VP-11/Sharp, Sony (depends on luck, but service adjustable), JVC (depends on luck)
Full field contrast (max brightness/min black level) - JVC, Sony, Sharp, VP-11 (distant 4th) (Sharp, VP-11 subjectively better than numerical comparison because brightness is low)
m-ANSI contrast - Sharp, VP-11, Sony/JVC
Color Separation Artifact (Rainbows) - Sony/JVC (none), VP-11 (6x speed color wheel), Sharp (distant 4th - 5x speed color wheel)
Fine Line Color Artifact - VP-11/Sharp (none), Sony, JVC (distant 4th)
Noise (Sound) - Sony, JVC, VP-11, Sharp (distant 4th)
1080i Motion-Adaptive Resolution Pumping - VP-11/JVC, Sony, Sharp

I hope other people will now add to the list, or argue with the rankings.

Isnt it obvious? He now owns a Marantz VP15S1. 8) He cant talk about that yet, because he hasnt published his review yet. 8)

Well, it seems to me its either that or the RS1 .. Im thinking because he likes to watch movies and elevated blacks do tend to get you out of the movie. 8)

Isnt it obvious? He now owns a Marantz VP15S1. 8) He cant talk about that yet, because he hasnt published his review yet. 8)

Well, it seems to me its either that or the RS1 .. Im thinking because he likes to watch movies and elevated blacks do tend to get you out of the movie. 8)

I don't believe it is the VP-15S1 as it isn't in the list. The investigation continues :D

Its not on the list because the review hasnt been released yet. I believe he will add it to the list once his review is published. 8)

Oh, OK, I reread his statement, Spizz. I put $ on RS1. 8)

If you assign a 5, 3,2,1 system which biases first place:
Sony 34, Marantz 32, Sharp 31, JVC 26.

If you assign a 5,4,3,1 system which penalizes last place:
Sony 40, Marantz 36, Sharp 32, JVC 28.

Sony's strenght, 6 second place vote vs only 1 last (M-ANSI)!

Totalling first places
Sharp 5, Marantz 4, JVC/Sony 3

Totalling last place votes:
JVC 5, Sharp 3, Marantz 2, Sony 1

I am feeling pretty good about my Black Pearl or 20K choice. :D

I will research 1080i line twitter and add to the list.

If you assign a 5, 3,2,1 system which biases first place:
Sony 34, Marantz 32, Sharp 31, JVC 26.

If you assign a 5,4,3,1 system which penalizes last place:
Sony 40, Marantz 36, Sharp 32, JVC 28.

Sony's strenght, 6 second place vote vs only 1 last (M-ANSI)!

Totalling first places
Sharp 5, Marantz 4, JVC/Sony 3

Totalling last place votes:
JVC 5, Sharp 3, Marantz 2, Sony 1

I am feeling pretty good about my Black Pearl or 20K choice. :D

I will research 1080i line twitter and add to the list.

I like the way you operate :) I think we are closing in :p

I like the way you operate :) I think we are closing in :pWhat are we closing in on?

On what Greg owns.

On what Greg owns.IMO, the 4 1080P pjs in the last are all very good. His requirements and budget are likely very different from mine! I am having a hard enough time figuring out what to get, much less worring about what gregr is using at the moment. Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays I am getting the Black Pearl. Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays I am getting the Sharp 20K. Sundays it is the VW200! :D

gregr, why is the dVision 1080 not on the list?

HHF get them both!

IMO, the 4 1080P pjs in the last are all very good. His requirements and budget are likely very different from mine! I am having a hard enough time figuring out what to get, much less worring about what gregr is using at the moment. Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays I am getting the Black Pearl. Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays I am getting the Sharp 20K. Sundays it is the VW200! :D

gregr, why is the dVision 1080 not on the list?Lot's of heat, noisy, fairly low brightness at maximum contrast (relative to heat & noise), m-ANSI contrast low for DLP, high cost for those performance levels. VP-11S1 more attractive price with fewer issues unless you need the maximum light output of the dVision. Oversaturated green & red primaries would also be an issue for some people without an external CMS.

The one in the list that ranks the best based on my preferences/priorities for the performance parameters (shown in no particular order in the list). It probably isn't that hard to figure out. Fredric March in Inherit the Wind said, "I do not think about things I do not think about". When I'm watching movies I do not want to think about things other than the movie. It's projector weaknesses (more than strengths) that I think about, that I don't want to think about.
Ok, I'll take a stab at it. Projector weaknesses as applied to Greg's priorities:

JVC - Color accuracy, white field uniformity, m-ANSI contrast, convergence, fine line color artifact
Sharp - Brightness, rainbows, fan noise, 1080i pumping, full field contrast
Sony - m-ANSI contrast, 1080i pumping, fine line color artifact
Marantz - Brightness, color accuracy, fan noise, full field contrast

IIRC, Greg has a 92" diagonal ST130, so that means that the Sony and JVC are too bright for him, and I don't think he would ever use an ND filter. Greg also has built his own CMS box, so he can fix the color accuracy of ANY of the projectors. I don't think that the full field contrast is really an issue with any of the projectors in question, so it comes down to which PJ has the least amount of flaws for him to notice. The big question mark I have is whether or not Greg has a video processor in his system, as that would make a big difference in his choice.

If I were to assume that Greg was not using any extra boxes to help the situation (CMS, VP), then I would say that the Sony would be his choice...It is quiet, color accurate, no rainbows, sufficient full field and m-ANSI contrast, and has adjustable white field uniformity and convergence, and maybe he toned down the brightness by mounting it at max throw and using low lamp.

Second choice would be the Marantz, as it is noisy and somewhat color inaccurate, but depending on where he mounted it he could overcome the noise, and if he used his CMS then he could dial in the colors, or the colors are not inaccurate enough to bother him (I have never seen a Marantz).

Third and fourth choices would be the RS-1 and Sharp (I don't know in which order), but either of those PJs has too many weaknesses to overcome.

Final answer - Greg owns the Marantz or he is still using CRT.

I bet the Sony VPL-vw60.

Can a consumer level projector ever be too bright assuming a low black ref level at that brightness The Sony is certainly no light cannon.

It's projector weaknesses (more than strengths) that I think about, that I don't want to think about.
BTW, I agree with that philosophy. Right now the only weakness of the Sharp for my set of priorities is the brightness. The fan noise is a non issue as my projector is mounted on a shelf in a small room at the back of my theater, essentially creating a hush box. Rainbows are a total non issue for me, and I use a video processor, so the Sharp's processing doesn't matter. My screen is very large, so I need more lumens...that's its only weakness in my theater. The on/off contrast, though not as good as the JVC, is *sufficient* enough as to not be distracting as a weakness.

I bought the Sharp instead of the Marantz 11S1 because of the large difference in price - $7k versus $20k. I did not choose the new Marantz 15S1 because of the oversaturated primaries - if I am not mistaken they are much more oversaturated than the primaries in the 11S1.

What in the world is the "fine line color artifact"?

The one in the list that ranks the best based on my preferences/priorities for the performance parameters (shown in no particular order in the list). It probably isn't that hard to figure out. Fredric March in Inherit the Wind said, "I do not think about things I do not think about". When I'm watching movies I do not want to think about things other than the movie. It's projector weaknesses (more than strengths) that I think about, that I don't want to think about.

Ok, I'll take a stab at it. Projector weaknesses as applied to Greg's priorities:
Weaknesses, more than strengths, are the keys to my priorities. Which is why I made the quoted comment above.

IIRC, Greg has a 92" diagonal ST130

Actually, I'm now using (and will use for reviews following the VP-15S1) a 100" diagonal, 16:9, new Stewart StudioTek 130 G3 (non-perf) screen. (It was 98" [16:9] diagonal, older ST130. That was just too darn small. :))

The big question mark I have is whether or not Greg has a video processor in his system, as that would make a big difference in his choice.
Several. I especially like the Lumagen and Crystallio II.

I thought it was rather a waste of time for anyone to try and figure out my preferences and priorities, but perhaps the exercise will help someone on the fence about what projector they should buy figure out their own priorities?