Sorry if this comparison has been done to death, but I just wanted to quickly get feedback from owners and enthusiasts that have had experience with both projectors to get their feedback.

My brother is in the midst of building a new house and he's looking to build a home theater room and is considering these two projectors. He has PJ budget of $5-6K, so price differences aside, which one would be the better choice?

Also, the house won't be ready until around Christmas time, so he still has about 6 months before he really needs to purchase the projector. Are there any new 1080p digital projectors on the horizon that he should wait and look out for?

Thanks very much in advance for your feedback.

I've seen both and unless he would like to save about a grand then the RS1 hands down is the projector of choice.

There are a lot of other factors though in regards that you have to consider like environment (light control), screen, sound, etc.

Make sure he buys no less than 3 extra bulbs with the projector.

An "AVS MEET bulb", the "neighbors are coming over to watch the game bulb", and "his own personal bulb that he wont mind being degraded over time and watching content at 1K hours!" It's the best of all three worlds! ;)

Seriously though, the RS1 is much better than the Pearl.

Better blacks, better contrast, better convergence, better firmware, and just over all better. The only drawback is better=more money........

Cliff

Seriously though, the RS1 is much better than the Pearl.

...

Cliff


Sure, if you like watching a grainy image, and before the flames begin let me tell you that I had the RS1, saw lot of film grain,artifacts, tested it in two seperate theaters, verified with two other forum members,sent it back to jason because I felt it must have been bad, jason called it good and sent it back, Im keeping my 11S1 and addding a pearl which shows none of the artifacts seen on the jvc

Sorry if this comparison has been done to death, but I just wanted to quickly get feedback from owners and enthusiasts that have had experience with both projectors to get their feedback.

My brother is in the midst of building a new house and he's looking to build a home theater room and is considering these two projectors. He has PJ budget of $5-6K, so price differences aside, which one would be the better choice?

Also, the house won't be ready until around Christmas time, so he still has about 6 months before he really needs to purchase the projector. Are there any new 1080p digital projectors on the horizon that he should wait and look out for?

Thanks very much in advance for your feedback.

KryDawn

I've lived with both the Pearl and JVC for several hundred hours of viewing in the same light controlled HT environment.

Going for a demo of the these PJ's is a good starting point but it's only when you've lived with them that you begin to really appreciate the differences in performance. Both are good PJ's and both have areas that could be improved.

In short based on my experience of the JVC it produces the better overall image in my HT. In fact it was like watching a different movie in some instances. It's worth mentioning that performance can vary by unit and I owned several Pearls for one reason or another.

Anyway that's my opinion based on owning and living with both for several months. The JVC is more expensive and you can't apply the percentage price difference directly into percentage performance improvement. But given the choice based on my experience I would pay the extra for the JVC without hesitation. :)

Dazzer

Sure, if you like watching a grainy image, and before the flames begin let me tell you that I had the RS1, saw lot of film grain,artifacts, tested it in two seperate theaters, verified with two other forum members,sent it back to jason because I felt it must have been bad, jason called it good and sent it back, Im keeping my 11S1 and addding a pearl which shows none of the artifacts seen on the jvc

I also notice lots more "detail" including source artefacts in SD material and the JVC can be pretty ruthless if your using a high gain screen. For some SD material I simply set the Gennum DNR option to higher than the 0 default (range 0-30) in the image menu. The result are very good with most of the SD artefacts and grain being eliminated without any real loss of detail or softening unless you max out the setting. I also set "sharpness" at -12 on HD material as I find this the best balance to my eye. :)

I've also observed atrefacts (1080i related) on the Pearl even on HD sources that don't appear on the JVC and I could not fix those via the settings. :(

Dazzer

Sure, if you like watching a grainy image, and before the flames begin let me tell you that I had the RS1, saw lot of film grain,artifacts, tested it in two seperate theaters, verified with two other forum members,sent it back to jason because I felt it must have been bad, jason called it good and sent it back, Im keeping my 11S1 and addding a pearl which shows none of the artifacts seen on the jvc

Everybody is welcome to their own opinion. That's what this forum is all about. :)

Cliff

Anyone who wants a fantastic all-around experience should go with the Pearl. The convenience factors of powered lens shift etc and superior processing make it the safer bet.

The 1080i processing on the Pearl (which is how most of your important HD shows/games/etc. are going to be delivered) and its Color Accuracy are at least a notch above the JVC.

I would only recommend the RS1 to nerd friends that want brag about CR. (over the Sony Pearl that is - the RS1 is a great PJ)

Ken

The 1080i processing on the Pearl (which is how most of your important HD shows/games/etc. are going to be delivered) and its Color Accuracy are at least a notch above the JVC.
Ken

I found the Pearl to have some issues with 1080i processing. As a simple test try MI3 HD DVD or BD at 1080i to the Pearl and the same to the JVC. The Pearl shows severe moire artefacts in the Vatican wall scene the JVC does not. Same source same 1080i signal :)

Here are a couple of library images showing the scene with and without moire in the wall brickwork.

I agree the JVC would be even better with a CMS.

Dazzer

Anyone who wants a fantastic all-around experience should go with the Pearl. The convenience factors of powered lens shift etc and superior processing make it the safer bet.

The 1080i processing on the Pearl (which is how most of your important HD shows/games/etc. are going to be delivered) and its Color Accuracy are at least a notch above the JVC.

I would only recommend the RS1 to nerd friends that want brag about CR. (over the Sony Pearl that is - the RS1 is a great PJ)

Ken


Yikes, arent you in the HT business? 8)

Unless you are a nerd who needs to have accurate colors, or make money selling services to get accurate colors, over mostly accurate enough you wont mind at all the lack of pinpoint color controls on the RS1. Most people wont notice that the colors arent "accurate". After you turn the color setting down to compensate for oversaturated colors the RS1 doesnt lack in perceived color accuracy, but the better image (from native CR/lens,or whatnot) is obviously noticeable.

The processing on the Pearl is inferior to the processing on the Ruby and is certainly inferior to the Gennum processing on the RS1. Unless you are feeding the RS1 480i over HDMI you shouldnt have to worry about the RS1, versus the pearl, in this regard.

Ive owned the Ruby, which is the Pearl's bigger brother, and spent a lot of time looking at the Pearl and Sharp 20k before I was lucky enough to get my hands on an HD1.

The Pearl is a nice projector, I almost bought one when it seemed that I would have to keep waiting to get my hands on the RS1. Ironically enough, funlvr was the one who kept talking me off the ledge (on buying the Pearl, the BenQ, or the Sharp). He convinced me to wait for the RS1/HD1 which thankfully, to him, I did. 8)

Like I told Wayne, I dont doubt at all that he, Jeremy, and Rob, saw what they saw when they compared the RS1 to the 11s1 and the BenQ. Its my understanding though, that the higher gain screens (and brighter projectors, too) like the highpower are even less forgiving to noise and artifacting than their lesser counterparts.

A screen that is optimized for a Sharp, BenQ, or a Marantz projector in their best contrast modes would not be as good a match for the RS1 just as a screen that is matched for the RS1 will not be as good a match for the much dimmer PJs.

Its my understanding that if you factor in that the RS1/HD1, because of native CR/brightness/lens (whatever), is already unforgiving in regard to extra detail and noise and put that on a screen that is supposed to compensate for another projectors lack of brightness - which makes it even more unforgiving - you are going to see a LOT more noticeable detail and noise.

Arguments aside the Sony is going to throw a great image and be more convenient with powered focus/zoom/shift.

Sony Pearl is my short answer for most "normal" people. The long answer will take you a minimum of weeks or even months of research.

Either PJ would most likely be a fine choice. You're really choosing between great and great.

Ken

More convenient because of powered zoom/shift for how long? After the PJ is setup, usually once - maybe twice, in its lifetime?

Sure its a nice feature to have, but the manual shift zoom isnt really that difficult (turning a knob), and after setting my PJ up I dont have to use them anymore.

Arguments aside the Sony is going to throw a great image and be more convenient with powered focus/zoom/shift.

Sony Pearl is my short answer for most "normal" people. The long answer will take you a minimum of weeks or even months of research.

Either PJ would most likely be a fine choice. You're really choosing between great and great.

Ken

Ken

I found having to remove the Pearls lens bezel and loosening four screws a little incovenient for the very small amount of horizonal shift that is available. :(

Dazzer

I'm also trying to decide between Pearl and HD1.

Powered zoom/shift is a non issue for me - you'd have to be pretty lazy to begrudge doing this manually. What I do want is the best projector at around this price for Blu-ray/HDDVD and HD gaming. I plan on watching the odd old dvd, so sd viewing does apear on the list of priorities, just pretty near the bottom.

Brightness is the other issue. I haven't seen the Pearl in the flesh, but the JVC does sound like it clearly has the advantage here.

The reason powered vertical shift/zoom/focus is so nice is that in practice your pj's manual controls are probably not easy to get to.

With source Aspect Ratios all over the place - 4:3, 16:9, 2.35:1. It's nice to be able to easily adjust the image size to suit your likes and the source AR.

My friend has a Pearl and he said the Power Adjustments were not a big deal - AT FIRST. Now he mentions it all the time how nice it is.

Ken

I'm also trying to decide between Pearl and HD1.

Powered zoom/shift is a non issue for me - you'd have to be pretty lazy to begrudge doing this manually. What I do want is the best projector at around this price for Blu-ray/HDDVD and HD gaming. I plan on watching the odd old dvd, so sd viewing does apear on the list of priorities, just pretty near the bottom.

Brightness is the other issue. I haven't seen the Pearl in the flesh, but the JVC does sound like it clearly has the advantage here.

I found with the remote focus, zoom etc a bit frustrating. I either ended up over or under shooting by keeping the button pressed for a short time or having to press the button many times because the increments are so small. :( I guess if your PJ is difficult to access and you make changes very often this may be a benefit but for me it is not.

Cine4home.com measured both and published the results in each PJ's review for min/max zoom , D65 cal, normal/high lamp settings etc. They also include measured contrast. :)

Dazzer

The reason powered vertical shift/zoom/focus is so nice is that in practice your pj's manual controls are probably not easy to get to.

With source Aspect Ratios all over the place - 4:3, 16:9, 2.35:1. It's nice to be able to easily adjust the image size to suit your likes and the source AR.

My friend has a Pearl and he said the Power Adjustments were not a big deal - AT FIRST. Now he mentions it all the time how nice it is.

Ken

I guess some manufacturers see this as a key selling point and some don't. IIRC some of the most respected current products such as the Marantz VP-11S1, Sharp 20k have manual lens adjustment. :)

Dazzer

Well, I'm looking hard at these two myself for my next generation HT, to be installed in our Mexico house. The bad news about that is that the HT room is VERY small. We're talking 11.5' from your eyeballs to the screen!

This setup is so tight I'm not sure it even makes sense to spend the money on 1080 except that the 1080's seem to have much better CR than the 720's. I'm ready for a setup that has high CR and black.

Based on a 30-35 degree viewing angle, that room size seems to dictate a screen width of 80-84". So I don't think I need to worry too much about brightness but are thinking to use a 1.4 gain white screen because I really like that POP that higher FLs bring.

We will be able to control outside light very well but less so reflected light within the HT. So maybe I need to stick with a screen with high ambient rejection.

I'm looking to simplify as well, would like to eliminate the VP and just go with satellite TV HD and an Oppo DVD player hooked directly into the projector.

The other big consideration is service and lamp life. If the projector stops running, it will be quite a pain in the butt to get it fixed. May have to actually carry it out of Mexico on one of our trips and have it fixed in the DFW area where our office building is.

Decisions, decisions. . . :eek:

Dan,

I know what you're used to looking at. :)

Table/Shelf mount a Pearl with a HP screen then crank down the manual iris until the brightness suits you. The HP with an adjustable iris would give you so much range depending on source, and goal. (latest Hollywood drama or the big game)

My friend has this setup except he uses one of the Auto iris modes.

When you watch 4:3 you'll be able to zoom/shift to get it just how you like.

I think you definitely need 1080p if you're going to be in close quarters.

Of course RS1 would be awesome as well. Most likely moreso on the right material.

Just not as flexible.

Ken

I know what you're used to looking at. :)

Hey, compared to Joe House's home theater/sun tanning booth, my Canon setup is el dimmo! :D

I looked at the HP but feel that there will be too much drop off with the narrow viewing cone. Plus I'd worry about hot spotting at this short throw and viewing distance. Thinking Carada Brilliant White at this point.

Do you feel the on-board processing of the Pearl is good enough to negate the need for a VP? Not only is the room for the seating and projection tight, so is the room for the equipment so I want to keep it really simple.

Hey, compared to Joe House's home theater/sun tanning booth, my Canon setup is el dimmo! :D

I looked at the HP but feel that there will be too much drop off with the narrow viewing cone. Plus I'd worry about hot spotting at this short throw and viewing distance. Thinking Carada Brilliant White at this point.

Do you feel the on-board processing of the Pearl is good enough to negate the need for a VP? Not only is the room for the seating and projection tight, so is the room for the equipment so I want to keep it really simple.

Dan,

How far will the PJ be from the screen?

In my theater the first row is about 12.5 feet from an almost 8 foot wide HP screen. It was very nice with the Pearl, which I had set up at about 14 feet from the screen. High lamp was very bright. Low lamp was bright. Bulb was new, of course. No hotspotting.

The power zoom and focus would have been really nice for CIH, but doesn't really matter, IMHO for a setit up and forget it installation.

Best Regards,
Doug

Doug,

I cant wait to hear your thoughts/comparisons on your new RS1 when you get it. Like we discussed in our PMs, Im fair game for having some kind of revolving monthly or bi-weekly HT meet for those in the Austin area, or nearby.

My house is good after the weekend of the 7th. I know rmlowz and a few others are game, too.

Does the Pearl and the JVC require a specific screen and what is the maximum distance from the screen that the pj is optimal? I'm building a house and my HT room is approximately 18' wide by 24' deep. I've had my carpenter install 2"X12" boards between each ceiling joist starting at 16' from wall and continuing to 20' from the wall. If I placed the Pearl or JVC at 18', what would be the best screen size and type of screen for either of these projectors? I looked at projectorcentral for the screen size but it seems others in the forum are using bigger screens with adequate results.

Sorry if this comparison has been done to death, .

Yes the comparison has been done to death but it seems like a favorite topic. :)

Go get the June issue of Home Theater Mag and read the comparison of the Sony Pearl, JVC RS1 and Mitsu HC5000 1080p projectors.

You may also want to read this recent thread:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=859911

...
Do you feel the on-board processing of the Pearl is good enough to negate the need for a VP? Not only is the room for the seating and projection tight, so is the room for the equipment so I want to keep it really simple.

From what I've seen, I'd be happy with the on-board. Although I admit most of the material I've viewed personally is HD.

I'd try it and see how I like it. I think you would be pleased.

You can always add a processor later.

Ken

Also considering the above comparison. I'm eventually going with a 2.35:1 screen so this will play a huge part in my purchase decision.

What are the options out there with regards to setting these pjs up for widescreen viewing and how do they compare in performance?

Cheers,
JD

Yes the comparison has been done to death but it seems like a favorite topic. :)

Go get the June issue of Home Theater Mag and read the comparison of the Sony Pearl, JVC RS1 and Mitsu HC5000 1080p projectors.

You may also want to read this recent thread:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=859911


These also cover several 1080 PJ's and compare the JVC and Sony :)

http://www.projectorreviews.com/Best1080pProjectors042007/index.php
http://www.projectorcentral.com/1080p_summaries.htm

This thead also has feedback following a local meet comparing a calibrated Pearl and JVC in the same environment. Several AVS members brought their own source material and were free to compare any aspect of the two over several hours.

http://www.avforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=460012&highlight=MI3+moire

Dazzer

More convenient because of powered zoom/shift for how long? After the PJ is setup, usually once - maybe twice, in its lifetime?

Sure its a nice feature to have, but the manual shift zoom isnt really that difficult (turning a knob), and after setting my PJ up I dont have to use them anymore.

Just a note as a Pearl owner...

I do have to state, the powered zoom, shift, and focus are more of a PITA than I would like. I much preferred the manual options on my PTAE700 as I had complete control over what went where. It was also quicker to say that, yes, it is focused rather than hitting a remote button that may or may not be doing anything.

I still love my Pearl, but if there was one feature that could have been cut, it would be that.

Ed

Just a note as a Pearl owner...

I do have to state, the powered zoom, shift, and focus are more of a PITA than I would like. I much preferred the manual options on my PTAE700 as I had complete control over what went where. It was also quicker to say that, yes, it is focused rather than hitting a remote button that may or may not be doing anything.

I still love my Pearl, but if there was one feature that could have been cut, it would be that.

Ed

When I had my Pearl, I would try to get an even "out of focus" on each side of focus and then go to the middle.

IIRC, it was pretty quick and easy to get to a point where 10 clicks would bring me from out of focus in one direction, to equally out of focus in the other direction. Then I would just back up five clicks and call it focused.

To each his own. Just sharing what worked OK for me.

Best Regards,
Doug

Hi everyone. Thanks to all for sharing their comments and opinions and links. It's been very helpful indeed. I think myself and my brother have a good idea of what both projectors can do, and it seems the final test would be for him to get a demo of both PJs to make the final decision. Seems like he can't go wrong with either PJ, but it's about whether he wants to spend the extra money to get additional performance of the JVC.

Thanks again everyone, you've been a big help.

Hey, compared to Joe House's home theater/sun tanning booth, my Canon setup is el dimmo! :D

I looked at the HP but feel that there will be too much drop off with the narrow viewing cone. Plus I'd worry about hot spotting at this short throw and viewing distance. Thinking Carada Brilliant White at this point.

Do you feel the on-board processing of the Pearl is good enough to negate the need for a VP? Not only is the room for the seating and projection tight, so is the room for the equipment so I want to keep it really simple.

The HP doesn't hotspot.

I've found the Pearl's processing to be pretty decent... you could certainly do without an external processor.

One thing I can comment on is that I have a Sony HS10 that I bought 4 years ago, and it had the automated lens zoom and focus, and also the "Side-Shot". I found it quite handy, actually, especially the focus function since I could get right up next to the screen and focus it via the remote.

Out of curiosity, does the Pearl have the "Side-Shot" function? I doubt my brother will need it, but I'm considering the Pearl to upgrade my HS-10 and in the smaller space I have here in Hong Kong, the "Side-Shot" function does come in handy. Also, would I be able to use the short-throw lens for my HS-10 with the Pearl?

One thing I can comment on is that I have a Sony HS10 that I bought 4 years ago, and it had the automated lens zoom and focus, and also the "Side-Shot". I found it quite handy, actually, especially the focus function since I could get right up next to the screen and focus it via the remote.

Out of curiosity, does the Pearl have the "Side-Shot" function? I doubt my brother will need it, but I'm considering the Pearl to upgrade my HS-10 and in the smaller space I have here in Hong Kong, the "Side-Shot" function does come in handy. Also, would I be able to use the short-throw lens for my HS-10 with the Pearl?

How far off center does your projector have to be?

Using the optical offset, it can be placed 15% of the screen height under to 15% of the screen height over the top of the screen (but it must be hung upside to go that high).

So if the height of your screen is 100 cm, then you can anywhere from 15 cm below to 15 cm above the top of the screen. At 150 cm, you could go 22.5 cm above or 22.5 cm below the screen, or anywhere in between.

Using the optical offset in teh side direction, you have to loosen some screws and move the lens and then retighten the screws. You only get 5% of the width, if i remember correctly, and that is from the center of the screen.

For example, a 100 cm tall screen would be about 178 cm wide, and you could adjust the manual opitcal offset about 9 centimeters from teh center line of the screen. The 150cm wide screen would allow you to move the projector about 13 cm from the centerline toward either side of the screen.

I do not think that you can get both the full 5% in one direction and the full 15% in the other direction at the same time.

That is, if you go 15% above the top of the image, you might not be able to go the full 5% to the left or right of the image.

If you cannot place the projector in teh right spot using optical offsets, then you should probably look to another projector that allows more flexibility, rather than use digital keystone correction, which is what I believe the Side-Shot is.

Best Regards,
Doug

Why don't you look around and try to find the many Ruby's that are offered by people who moved on to something else.

You can get them cheaper then a new HD 1. It is better then the Pearl , and ifferent from the HD 1 (more cine -ma like versus CRT).

Why don't you look around and try to find the many Ruby's that are offered by people who moved on to something else.

You can get them cheaper then a new HD 1. It is better then the Pearl , and ifferent from the HD 1 (more cine -ma like versus CRT).

Thanks for the suggestion. Well it's my brother that's deciding between the two, but the expensive $1,000 Xenon replacement lamp for the Ruby is a bit of a turn-off for him. He's building a home theater from scratch so I think he wants all new equipment, and since the Ruby is so similarly priced with the RS1/HD1, if he was going to spend that amount of money he would probably go with the JVC. Basically the Pearl's attaction to him is the high performance, but lower cost.

On this note, we've read some rumors of the Sony VW60 which supposedly rivals the RS1 and will be coming out later in the year. As my brother's house won't be ready until at least Christmas, he's anxiously waiting for news on this PJ as it might be a better choice for him than the Pearl or the RS1.

How far off center does your projector have to be?

Using the optical offset, it can be placed 15% of the screen height under to 15% of the screen height over the top of the screen (but it must be hung upside to go that high).

So if the height of your screen is 100 cm, then you can anywhere from 15 cm below to 15 cm above the top of the screen. At 150 cm, you could go 22.5 cm above or 22.5 cm below the screen, or anywhere in between.

Using the optical offset in teh side direction, you have to loosen some screws and move the lens and then retighten the screws. You only get 5% of the width, if i remember correctly, and that is from the center of the screen.

For example, a 100 cm tall screen would be about 178 cm wide, and you could adjust the manual opitcal offset about 9 centimeters from teh center line of the screen. The 150cm wide screen would allow you to move the projector about 13 cm from the centerline toward either side of the screen.

I do not think that you can get both the full 5% in one direction and the full 15% in the other direction at the same time.

That is, if you go 15% above the top of the image, you might not be able to go the full 5% to the left or right of the image.

If you cannot place the projector in teh right spot using optical offsets, then you should probably look to another projector that allows more flexibility, rather than use digital keystone correction, which is what I believe the Side-Shot is.

Best Regards,
Doug

Hi Doug, thanks for all the great info. Actually, I would only be upgrading my projector when I more apartments next year so I don't know now what kind of space I would be working with. However, right now, the "side-shot" has proved advantageous as it can tilt up to 55 degrees, or 35 degrees with the short-throw lens, which is the current setting I have it in. If the Pearl could do that, that would be great.

However, at the same time, I'm hoping that the room will allow me to not use the "side-shot" function at all, as there is a tiny perceivable image distortion that I can tell, and also I don't like the strange tilt-angled shadow that it throws outside the "screen" area. But just in case the room will not allow me to have a dead center for the PJ, the "side shot" feature is a convenience.

Why don't you look around and try to find the many Ruby's that are offered by people who moved on to something else.

You can get them cheaper then a new HD 1. It is better then the Pearl , and ifferent from the HD 1 (more cine -ma like versus CRT). (emphasis mine)

The Ruby is different than the Pearl, but catagorically better is up for debate. Examples:

- Ruby has RCP controls the Pearl does not have
- Pearl has more advanced dynamic iris algorithms than Ruby
- Ruby has Xenon bulb vs. Pearl's UHP
- Pearl accepts 24p via HDMI
- Ruby rated 800 lumens vs. Pearl's 900
- etc...

So it really depends on your criteria to determine which is "better".

For me, slightly brighter, 24p HMDI, and essentially no brightness compression made the Pearl the superior machine for my needs.

Hi Doug, thanks for all the great info. Actually, I would only be upgrading my projector when I more apartments next year so I don't know now what kind of space I would be working with. However, right now, the "side-shot" has proved advantageous as it can tilt up to 55 degrees, or 35 degrees with the short-throw lens, which is the current setting I have it in. If the Pearl could do that, that would be great.

However, at the same time, I'm hoping that the room will allow me to not use the "side-shot" function at all, as there is a tiny perceivable image distortion that I can tell, and also I don't like the strange tilt-angled shadow that it throws outside the "screen" area. But just in case the room will not allow me to have a dead center for the PJ, the "side shot" feature is a convenience.

You're welcome.

Then the short answer is that the Pearl can go just 5% maximum left or right from the middle of the screen. Really just enough to accommodate a slightly off center mount.

Best Regards,
Doug