Personally, I have only seen both these fine projectors on three separate occassions rather than being able to compare them one after the other or side by side. If my memory serves me, I preferred the C3X 1080 for better three dimensionality, transparency and brightness. With the powerful brightness, the blacks seemed as deep although in reality, they are a lighter grey compared to the RS-2.

These projectors were auditioned in a light controlled room on a 1.2 gain 106inch wide screen seated 1.8 screen widths away. Both projectors gave an excellent smooth image with first class processing and stunning colors. Whilst I preferred the C3X, I did not think it was 4x better than the RS-2 which came close in some aspects of the performance.

The vexed issue of brightness and ANSI contrast. I bring this up because I am aware of a thread here on AVS that attempted to explore the performance of the RS-2 on a high power screen. Knowone on that thread seemed able to report on a comparison between the RS-2 on high power and the C3X 1080p on a 1.2/3 gain screen. The question therefore remains open. Does high power combined with the RS-2 bring this projector closer to the stellar performance of the Sim2 C3X 1080p on a low gain screen or is there something else going on based on the mysteries of ANSI contrast that no high gain screen can compensate for?

My own investigations into high power are wofully inadequate. As an experiment, we blew up the size (not the projector :eek:) of the RS-2 to 11ft and lowered a 7ft wide high gain screen into position in front of of the wider 1,2 gain screen. The increased brightness was very noticable along with increased detail in bright scenes revealed on this patch of high gain. Surprisingly enough, blacks were only slightly compromised compared to the blacks falling on the lower gain screen directly behind the high gain frame. This became even less of an issue when the image was shrunk back to 106 inches on the lower gain screen. The purpose of this exercise was to judge the RS-2's performance on a large 11ft high power screen. This screen material is quite excelent and well suited to the JVC RS-2 for larger screen sizes in my opinion. Of course with greater brightness, it also revealed more noise in some of the source material. If you shine a brighter light through the window, you see more of the dirt. I have a feeling that this is still not enough to boost the image to quite the same three D and transparency of the C3X 1080p. However, I have nasty feeling it gets indecently closer than its third of its price with high power would suggest. Your thoughts and observations would be welcome.

Regards,

Paul H

The purpose of this exercise was to judge the RS-2's performance on a large 11ft high power screen.

...

I have a feeling that this is still not enough to boost the image to quite the same three D and transparency of the C3X 1080p.

Hi Paul,

nice thought bringing up a high power screen in order to compensate for the obvious vastly superior light power of the C3X 1080 versus the RS2/HD100.

As you know I currently have both projectors side by side, however I do not have a high power screen. I too doubt that this is the whole story, i.e. only the lack of light power distiguishing the C3X.

OTOH: I still have the feeling that there is at least one department the HD100 scores against the C3x i.e. the fill factor (obvious). Making the picture even more smooth. I do not believe in the astronomical figures concerning contrast and black level as this is overrated when you start watching movies. Never once was I thinking something like: Wait, the RS2/HD100 has better black level (what the ...). The clarity, 'punch' effect, 3-Dimensionality and 'being there' feeling of the C3X is simply outstanding (tested various Blu-Rays and HD-DVDs also broadcast HD-material etc.).

In the end there really is no 'competition' anyways as the price difference is just too vast so that most people considering the HD100 may not have the possibility to think about the C3X at all.

Just for a short subjective summary so far: Of course I'd choose the C3X if money did not matter ;)

Hi Christoph,

Thanks for your reply and analysis and I too would take the C3X in a heart beat if money was no object. For a minuite there I thought this thread was sinking faster than the Titanic. I know that Alan Gouger uses a high gain screen and he may be able to shed further 'light' on this issue.

Another factor is the quality of the lens and I'm guessing the C3X has the advantage here contributing perhaps to a more resolved image. I realise this discussion is probably academic for many people due to the high cost of the C3X but there is value in considering the qualities that make for excellence in video quality and in ways of getting close without mortgaging the grandmother. Happy New Year Guys.

Best Wishes,

Paul H

WOW only two guys discusing in this thread. with gobs of insight from seeing both!!
When you talk of fill factor what exactly what do you mean. I know that sometimes on my 1080p single chip dlp I have an unnatural look to skin tones almost as if there is some glare. I was hoping to maybe jump technologies DLP to LCOS or LCD for a while before I go probably go back to my CRT (9inch):eek: I am just not up to remounting it in a new dedicated theater.
So I thought I would test the waters with the new digitals.

Joey

The lens assemblies on the marantz and sharp 1080p dlp models are among the best if not the best I have ever come across. The konica minolta assemblies are a overlooked component in the eyes of many projector manufacturers.

Believe it or not the sim2 brands do NOT have the same quality in this department.

Hi Joey,

The fill factor is based on the distance between the edge of each pixel. I think LCOS and DILA have smaller distances between the boundaries of each pixel with DLP not far behind. Christoph is suggesting that the greater smoothness in the DILA image he noticed is the result of the bettter fill factor from the JVC. Hope this helps,

Regards,

Paul H

I know that Alan Gouger uses a high gain screen and he may be able to shed further 'light' on this issue.


Best Wishes,

Paul H

I thought that Alan was using SMX?

Cliff

Hi Cliff,

You could well be right. I do remember a time when Alan used high power and thought highly of the material. Is it possible he has both?

Regards,

Paul H