My JVC DLA-RS2 review will be posted on the Widescreen Review subscriber's website Tuesday 1/29 at noon (Pacific Time). I'll hang out for a couple of hours after it is posted to respond to any questions or comments. I think you will find this one interesting, and I suspect there will be a few questions and comments. Please do not post questions here before the review is posted on the website (I will have to ignore those questions - simply so that doesn't happen).

I would suggest that you test your access to the WSR subscriber's website this week, and call WSR if you have any access problems that need fixing. They are going to be very busy preparing the next issue on Monday - they are pushing this review posting up a few days earlier than normal for you. They typically get hit with last minute calls for web subscriptions when the more popular reviews are posted.

As usual the review is copyrighted material from Widescreen Review and it should NOT be reposted anywhere. WSR will stop posting my reviews early if they get reposted. So please don't spoil these opportunities to read the reviews in advance of the print edition.

I look forward to reading the review even though I just bought a VW60. You rerview was essential in my descision. The good news is that the RS2 is out of my price range so I will not likely have any regrets.

A few weeks ago I subscribed to the web subscription. It took almost a week before I had access! I don't think they understand the whole internet concept of have it now. I guess compared to- "allow 6-8 weeks for deivery" -one week is to be considered fast.

~Jay

A few weeks ago I subscribed to the web subscription. It took almost a week before I had access!That's why I suggested anyone wanting to read the review on Tuesday should get everything worked out this week. WSR is a small operation compared to the big publishing companies that have lots of magazines, etc. There are times while preparing a new issue that things get really busy. I think Monday will be a busy day there because they will be closing a new issue.

Thanks Greg. I can't wait (be it good or bad news for the RS2).

That's a very wise bit of advice too, about ensuring subscription access before-hand. I'll do that.

Rich

I can't wait for this.

No doubt it will stir things up around here once more!

My guess is that the conclusion will be that it is a mixed bad: some things better (motorized lens, stretch, gamma controls), some worse (dimmer), while most remains unchanged over the RS1 (inaccurate color).

Will the review make us more or less neurotic?


.

It's a bit of fun guessing about greg's reviews. Aside from the standard, thorough technical/subjective descriptions what, in particular, will be (in greg's words) "interesting" about the RS2 review?

Guesses: Perhaps dimmer than suspected light output compared to RS1?
Change in ANSI contrast?
Difference in image sharpness (unexpected, but certainly would be "interesting" if greg finds the RS2 any sharper).

Will the review make us more or less neurotic?


.

Yes!

It's a bit of fun guessing about greg's reviews. Aside from the standard, thorough technical/subjective descriptions what, in particular, will be (in greg's words) "interesting" about the RS2 review?

Guesses: Perhaps dimmer than suspected light output compared to RS1?
Change in ANSI contrast?
Difference in image sharpness (unexpected, but certainly would be "interesting" if greg finds the RS2 any sharper).

He still seemed to rank it superior to RS1 so I figure that is what will be most interesting.

Tom. Shame on you. The answer is it depends on who the us are! For example, could anything make Tryg more neurotic than he already is? Same for you and me.

I tend to stay at a fairly high neurotic state. On occasion something cool comes along and it can totally increase the neurosis.

Maybe what's needed is a definitions page.

Like when he says something is "good"... what does that really mean?

Maybe what's needed is a definitions page.

Like when he says something is "good"... what does that really mean?

See, I was right, it's already made him more neurotic!!! :D Are there no limits?

tstites
Did you provide the new processor for evaluation together with the new RS2?

Mattias,

No, Greg did not review the unit with the processor as the processor is still undergoing some tweaks and not quite ready. I believe we have agreed to send a processor and projector for follow-up review once it is done.

Not trying to vague, but our product manager is the one working directly with Greg on this, not me.

Cheers,

Tryg. You are bad, man! And that means GOOD!

Then again you are so GOOD, you're BAD!

Tryg. You are bad, man! And that means GOOD!

Then again you are so GOOD, you're BAD!

Well said

One more review for all of us. Not as good as Gregs but I know people want to know more...
http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/hdtvs/2687/jvc-dla-hd100-d-ila-front-projector.html

I installed another one recently at a client. have an issue with macrovision from a sony dvd tv recorder in YUV (not other connections possible to the jvc for now as the cabling has to be run in a nightmarish existing under wood floor tiny tube and the jvc refuses the signal from hdmi over cat 5, so YUV high res cable it is.). perhaps a soft upgrade can tackle the macrovision issue sensitivity ? the JVC are sensitive machines (hdcp, synch etc but it accepts hdmi 1080p over 45ft cables if the sce can output it).

anyway, the contrast ratio indeed goes beyond the HD1/RS1. I'd say a black room is needed to really gp to the 25000:1. then it's amazing how it can remind a CRT on off ratio, to some extent. night scenes of a "naturally filmed movie" like SILVERADO were amazing (it's easy to have good night scenes in Transformers which is so processed).
the zoom focus could have been directly accessible. but it's now easy with eyes on the screen to pinpt the focus till you see the red grid.
at another client i installed an HD100 at very close range to maximize brigthness, screen is curved 330CM scope wide, ultra microperf (no moiré; thanks to dila liliputian screendoor). punchy image and it's in eco mode but the pj is at about 390cm only
from the screen. this is important when you want to maximize lumens. this is where the SILVERADO night scenes were inky black;
Also some guys have pushed their HD1 to 4000hrs of lamp use and not much reduced luminosity: the lamp can last long if you turn on the pj for several hrs of use vs 3 times a day. probably the same witht the RS2/HD100.

Bump - tomorrow

Don't tease us! I thought you going to say it got posted early :)

~Jay

Will the review make us more or less neurotic?


.

Both!:)

Also some guys have pushed their HD1 to 4000hrs of lamp use and not much reduced luminosity: the lamp can last long if you turn on the pj for several hrs of use vs 3 times a day. probably the same witht the RS2/HD100.

Wow! Maybe the Mack bulb warantee was a waste of money! :eek:

Aaagh! I was so waiting forward to reading the review. I meant to check my log-in on the WSR site and only got around to it today. Wouldn't you know it: it won't let me on! Looks like I have to renew or something! And it says renewal takes up to 3 days!

Doesn't it figure....!

EDIT: Call to the office solved the problem.

Good to take Greg's advice.

Aaagh! I was so waiting forward to reading the review. I meant to check my log-in on the WSR site and only got around to it today. Wouldn't you know it: it won't let me on! Looks like I have to renew or something! And it says renewal takes up to 3 days!

Doesn't it figure....!

I just checked mine today and it worked. I had not logged in for a couple years but I update my subscription for the magazine. I always look forward to this magazine coming in the mail.

Ron

Greg,

Looking forward to the RS2 review posting. How far down the line is the 11S2? 8)

So, is there any way to get this review if you are not a subscriber to WSR?
Will I be able to see it if I just get the next print issue or is it only available on line?

Craig

You can buy the print version when it hits the stands in a few weeks. Or you could take the radical step of actually subscribing--that is if you can afford $20.00 a year.

So, is there any way to get this review if you are not a subscriber to WSR?
Will I be able to see it if I just get the next print issue or is it only available on line?

Craig

You can buy the print version when it hits the stands in a few weeks. Or you could take the radical step of actually subscribing--that is if you can afford $20.00 a year.

Thanks for the help. ;)

Craig

Greg,

Looking forward to the RS2 review posting. How far down the line is the 11S2? 8)I don't know. Only Dan would know. :) I haven't got the 11S2 yet.

Greg,

Are you taking questions in this thread or elsewhere?

Greg,

Are you taking questions in this thread or elsewhere?Right here.

Once again you have given us an excellent (and surprising) review and will no doubt have stirred the pot around here and I look forward to the discussions that will follow.

My first question follows.

With respect to your comments in the review on image depth and how it relates to a higher gamma setting, you have commented on how you wished the RS1 had a higher gamma setting in your review of that projector. As I now own an RS1, would I be better off investing in a video proccessor that would permit a higher gamma setting or would I benefit more from just getting an RS2? I suspect that many people would be interested your answer.

Why do I always feel my wallet opening after I read one of your reviews?

Greg,
Thanks for another very informative review. I have the RS1 which I purchased largely based upon your review. The RS2 seems to be a nice upgrade over the RS1 in many regards, the one notable exception being light output. You measured a higher light output for the RS1 than the RS2. Does the greater native on-off contrast and the higher gamma option of the RS2 make typical images appear just as bright as they do with the RS1?

Another terrific review Greg!

I think some RS2s will be sold today. :D

Personally I plan on buying the RS2 and, if I don't have the funds immediately for a Lumagen Radiance (w. CMS), I'll just see if the colors bother me or not first.

Since I love horror, mystery and sci-fi movies, a projector like the RS2 with it's deep black levels seems virtually designed for me. Which brings me to my question:


Since you seemed impressed with the RS2 black levels on the 1.3 gain screen it would seem to imply they'd hold up at around 1.4 too (which is the gain of the Carada screen I intend to use...I've been ringing my hands over switching my decision from a neutral gain screen to a 1.4 gain screen, in terms of black levels). But...this brings in the question of the room.

Do you think one has to have a "bat-cave" - i.e. fully light controlled, fully dark non-reflective surfaces - in order to enjoy the benefits of the RS2's contrast/black levels over the RS1? Or might a fully light controlled room with generally dark surfaces (e.g. mid to low mid tones, matte, dark ceiling, dark rug) be able to realise a good portion of the performance available in the RS2?

Thanks. And thank you again for your great professionalism in your reviews!

Second, and I think, final question.

Your review suggests that LCOS, with less than half the mANSI contrast of the best DLP projectors, is now essentially on par with those DLP projectors in image depth on high contrast scenes. You seem to atribute this to the higher gamma setting on the RS2.

To me this really suggests that many of us that use the term ANSI contrast interchangeably with the phrase intrascene contrast are mistaken.

Do you have any ideas on how we can reduce the intrascene contrast measurement to an easily measurable, easily understandably, specification. Is that even possible?

With respect to your comments in the review on image depth and how it relates to a higher gamma setting, you have commented on how you wished the RS1 had a higher gamma setting in your review of that projector. As I now own an RS1, would I be better off investing in a video proccessor that would permit a higher gamma setting or would I benefit more from just getting an RS2? I suspect that many people would be interested your answer.

Why do I always feel my wallet opening after I read one of your reviews?I definitely think a higher gamma with the RS1 will improve it (although you can't go quite as high on gamma as I would like), but the combination of the higher gamma and the higher contrast ratio (lower black level) is what really makes the RS2 excel and allows me to use "CRT" in the same sentence. So for my money, I'd go with the RS2.

Do you think one has to have a "bat-cave" - i.e. fully light controlled, fully dark non-reflective surfaces - in order to enjoy the benefits of the RS2's contrast/black levels over the RS1? Or might a fully light controlled room with generally dark surfaces (e.g. mid to low mid tones, matte, dark ceiling, dark rug) be able to realise a good portion of the performance available in the RS2?
I absolutely do NOT think you need a bat cave to benefit from the RS2's improved contrast/black level over the RS1. I've seen that written a lot, and it is just untrue. You should have a fully dark room (no incoming light) but you don't need totally non-reflective surfaces to see the large additional benefit of the RS2.

Awesome, thanks Greg. Your enthusiasm for BladeRunner on the RS2 is palpable, which is great because for me that movie alone is reason enough to motivate my home theater. I'm a film fan, but when I dream about movies on the big screen in my home that's the one I tend to anticipate most.

Greg,

I would appear from your writings that the RS2 lens has not been improved from the RS1. There's been much discussion about the RS2's lens possibly providing a sharper image over the RS1 but nothing definitive. I suspect this was discussed with JVC's marketing product manager who Tom Stites indicated was working directly with you, anything to add?

Oh, and why's the sky blue?:D

Second, and I think, final question.

Your review suggests that LCOS, with less than half the mANSI contrast of the best DLP projectors, is now essentially on par with those DLP projectors in image depth on high contrast scenes. You seem to atribute this to the higher gamma setting on the RS2.

To me this really suggests that many of us that use the term ANSI contrast interchangeably with the phrase intrascene contrast are mistaken.
I write a lot about image depth in this review because that is a key performance parameter to me, and because I believe that a lot of people don't realize that the image depth of a CRT projector comes from its higher gamma and not its ANSI contrast (which is quite low compared to the RS2 and even lower compared to some DPL projectors). Image depth results from a combination of factors which are mostly related to contrast in one form or another. However, one must be very careful about what is meant by contrast, and how various types of contrast relate to image depth. Gamma is an important variable in the actual contrast between different signal levels that are neither 0% or 100% luma. ANSI or m-ANSI contrast is measured between 0% and 100% levels (and therefore ignores gamma), but it also directly affects real intra-image contrast. So DLP projectors benefit from their high m-ANSI contrast but suffer from having to have lower gamma levels (because they have relatively low full-field contrast), while the RS2 benefits from its higher gamma (which it can have because of its higher full-field contrast) but suffers from its lower m-ANSI contrast (the RS2 is more like a CRT projector in that way). What I'm saying in the review, is that the RS-2 image depth is now subjectively close to par with DLP projectors that have higher m-ANSI CR, but they get there in different ways. Another factor that is important for image depth is the MTF (modulation transfer function) which is just another kind of contrast measured at higher spatial frequencies (and so it affects images with greater detail).

Do you have any ideas on how we can reduce the intrascene contrast measurement to an easily measurable, easily understandably, specification. Is that even possible?Characterizing intra-image contrast is much more complex than one might think. There are competing (I don't want to say contrasting :)) issues that must be taken into consideration, otherwise the characterization can be misleading (IMO). However, for various reasons I don't want to discuss ways to characterize intra-image contrast anymore on this forum.

Awesome, thanks Greg. Your enthusiasm for BladeRunner on the RS2 is palpable, which is great because for me that movie alone is reason enough to motivate my home theater. I'm a film fan, but when I dream about movies on the big screen in my home that's the one I tend to anticipate most.I consider myself a film fan. For many, many years I went to the cinema to see over 100 films per year. That's what got me into home theater.

You can buy the print version when it hits the stands in a few weeks. Or you could take the radical step of actually subscribing--that is if you can afford $20.00 a year.

But in my experience, I would not expect online subscription to give you access immediately. I have been waiting two weeks. Of course they had plenty of time to charge my CC, but I guess not enough to actually send me the online account info (even after emailing a reminder request).

Greg,

As compared to the RS1, the RS2 has a much higher on-off contrast, the option for a higher gamma setting, and lower light output.

Does the RS2 seem as bright as the RS1 on typical program material given its higher on-off contrast and higher gamma setting?

Greg,

I would appear from your writings that the RS2 lens has not been improved from the RS1. There's been much discussion about the RS2's lens possibly providing a sharper image over the RS1 but nothing definitive. I suspect this was discussed with JVC's marketing guy who Tom Stites indicated was working close with you, anything to add?

Oh, and why's the sky blue?:DI didn't discuss the RS2 lens vs the RS1 lens with anyone from JVC. I think the color correction on the RS2 lens that I reviewed was very slightly better than it was on the RS1 lens that I reviewed, but not enough better to make me think it was anything other than unit to unit variation.

But in my experience, I would not expect online subscription to give you access immediately. I have been waiting two weeks. Of course they had plenty of time to charge my CC, but I guess not enough to actually send me the online account info (even after emailing a reminder request).

My experience exactly.:mad::mad:

Greg,
Humor me a bit. Thought of a really good original test. Instructions are included at the link. Can you add this chart to the display tests and objectively report the line with the smallest resolvable detail?
It looks very sharp on my computer monitor. Thanks! :)
http://www.mdsupport.org/images/snellen_chart.jpg
http://www.mdsupport.org/snellen.html

Great wallet opening review As always you set the standard

I thought the ANSI contrast might improve as the on/off contrast improved because I had one theory which proposed that the ANSI contrast of the LCOS display was due to the chromatic response of the liquid crystal. Clearly that theory was wrong. Now I think it is Crosstalk

Whats your theory?


I think big problem with projection lenses at wider field points is lateral chromatic aberration : changes in magnification as a function of wavelength as opposed to axial chromatic aberration which is a change in focus as a function of wavelength. Designing and manufacturing a lens with a low enough lateral chromatic distortion AFTER ASSEMBLY which will not effect the image quality is extremely difficult and expensive. This is Why I think the Zonal convergence option in the Sony VW-200 is a major advance in image sharpness for all projectors both single chip and 3 chip>

Whats your opinion?

I wish JVC had not made the design decision to go with a wider color gamut but they did. it does not bother me as much as some people but it does bother me so I may be buying the external processor. I know the primaries ,Optically are set by the centerline of the bandpass on the color filters So I wonder why they didn't just change the centerline when they Narrowed the bandpass. so how does the processor work. does it just mix the green primary with the red and blue to pull it in making a secondary primary?

Could you comment on how a large dynamic range in Luminance response as reflected by the on/off contrast ratio effects color quality

Also on this forum and not among professionals you will see people claim that ANSI contrast is more important than ON/off contrast. I think they are both important?
Do you have an opinion what would have a greater effect on image improving m ANSI contrast from say 300 to550 or on/off from 5000 to 30,000?

Do you think there is such a thing as the LCOS look and is it more film like?

Thanks for the review. It was quantitative, detailed and precise and was obviously done with great care and it sure helped me decide ,as a film lover, what projector I will buy next.

Well I was already leaning towards upgrading to the RS2 from my RS1 but this review has me sold since I value what Greg says. What I really liked reading was how the cyan/red outlines on things like official shirts or jersey stripes seems to be lessened to the point of not being an issue. That to me is very important because that stuff annoys me on the RS1.

I also like the description of the image depth and that to me is exciting. Now if only I can unload my Rs1...

Thanks for the review Greg.

Greg,

As compared to the RS1, the RS2 has a much higher on-off contrast, the option for a higher gamma setting, and lower light output.

Does the RS2 seem as bright as the RS1 on typical program material given its higher on-off contrast and higher gamma setting?"Subjective brightness" is a bit of an elusive concept. Luminance is the closest measure we have to "subjective brightness" and the luminance is directly related to lumens and those measurements are what they are (i.e. the RS1 is "subjectively brighter"). But, if you are asking me which image I like better, the RS2 wins in a walk. Perhaps there is some screen size where the small brightness advantage of the RS1 would make a difference, but that would seem to be an edge case.

Greg, you state in the review and here that the very high on/off CR of the RS2 allows it to use a higher gamma, which in turn provides greater image depth. I get the relationship between image depth and higher gamma, but the relationship between high on/off CR and high gamma is not clear to me. Could you explain this? The downside of higher gamma is poorer shadow detail. How does a very high on/off CR solve that?

I have to ask one final question that the lawyer in me can't resist asking.

When you write that the RS2 provides a viewing experience that, until now, had only been possible with a fine CRT projector, you appear to be saying that the RS2 is the finest digital projector that you have ever seen.

Is this true?

Awesome review.

I've always been bothered by the fact that CRT's had great image depth with poor ANSI yet great ANSI was the reason given for DLP's high image depth. Your explanation is what I needed to reconcile those two seemingly contradictory views.

Anyway, do you think higher ANSI CR would bring even more benefit to the image this projector produces? or would it be very noticeable? Do you think the inclusion in the RS-2 of the higher gamma is because the on/off was improved enough to make it feasible? What gamma would you recommend with the RS-1.

Thanks.

What I really liked reading was how the cyan/red outlines on things like official shirts or jersey stripes seems to be lessened to the point of not being an issue. That to me is very important because that stuff annoys me on the RS1.That "Fine Line Color Artifact" was much reduced on the RS2 while viewing moving test patterns and I couldn't see it on films or the NFL officials' shirts. The stripes on the NFL officials are actually fairly broadly spaced so I tried to look at them at various distance shots so they would be more closely spaced, and I still didn't see the FLCA on those shirts. There's probably some closer spaced black and white striped shirts on other officials that would be worth checking, but time did not permit finding anything else to evaluate. Nevertheless, the test patterns should have been pretty much worse case, and they certainly indicate the problem was dramatically reduced.

Greg, you state in the review and here that the very high on/off CR of the RS2 allows it to use a higher gamma, which in turn provides greater image depth. I get the relationship between image depth and higher gamma, but the relationship between high on/off CR and high gamma is not clear to me. Could you explain this? The downside of higher gamma is poorer shadow detail. How does a very high on/off CR solve that?

Would this be because a higher gamma allows more distance between brightness levels in higher APL frames but the RS2 has a great enough dynamic range that the resultant smaller distance between brightness levels in low APL scenes does not significantly harm the picture?

That "Fine Line Color Artifact" was much reduced on the RS2 while viewing moving test patterns and I couldn't see it on films or the NFL officials' shirts. The stripes on the NFL officials are actually fairly broadly spaced so I tried to look at them at various distance shots so they would be more closely spaced, and I still didn't see the FLCA on those shirts. There's probably some closer spaced black and white striped shirts on other officials that would be worth checking, but time did not permit finding anything else to evaluate. Nevertheless, the test patterns should have been pretty much worse case, and they certainly indicate the problem was dramatically reduced.

One scene I noticed this on is the zebra like tie on one of the other club owners in Cassablanca. I haven't checked this since the 1080p24 update for HD DVD's so don't know if sending a 1080p signal will fix it.

That "Fine Line Color Artifact" was much reduced on the RS2 while viewing moving test patterns and I couldn't see it on films or the NFL officials' shirts. The stripes on the NFL officials are actually fairly broadly spaced so I tried to look at them at various distance shots so they would be more closely spaced, and I still didn't see the FLCA on those shirts. There's probably some closer spaced black and white striped shirts on other officials that would be worth checking, but time did not permit finding anything else to evaluate. Nevertheless, the test patterns should have been pretty much worse case, and they certainly indicate the problem was dramatically reduced.

Sounds great Greg. I am glad you spent time looking at this as other RS2 viewers/owners who upgraded from the RS1 either didn't know what this issue was on the rs1 or simply couldn't see it so they they didn't give info on whether it was improved on the rs2. This was the biggest issue I figured I'd still have if I upgraded so it is nice to know that it is most likely a non-issue now.

Greg, when you do your reviews:

Do I assume correctly that the reviews are done in a dark, light controlled room?

All reviews using the same 87" wide 16:9 1.3 gain screen?

How many hours do the projectors generally have on them when you measure D65 lumens and footlamberts? By the time you do this measuring, on the average how much light output has the projector lost from when it was new, and roughly how much more light output may the projector lose by the time the bulb fully burns-in?

I ask this to better understand this and all of your projector reviews. Thanks.

Greg, you state in the review and here that the very high on/off CR of the RS2 allows it to use a higher gamma, which in turn provides greater image depth. I get the relationship between image depth and higher gamma, but the relationship between high on/off CR and high gamma is not clear to me. Could you explain this? The downside of higher gamma is poorer shadow detail. How does a very high on/off CR solve that? To keep it simple (so I don't have to write too long an explanation) the higher the full-field contrast ratio, the lower the black level (for a given reference white level). A lower black level allows you to see the shadow detail which is pushed lower by a higher gamma. Conversely, a lower full-field contrast ratio produces a higher relative black level that obscures the shadow detail so you must use a lower gamma to raise the shadow detail higher above that black level. So, the higher the full-field contrast ratio, the higher the gamma that you can use and still see the shadow detail.

You state it is "extremely important to adjust the focus very carefully for best sharpness" but neglect to tell us exactly what procedure to follow. Can you take the time here?

I use a two step method consisting of a Nikon Traveler anti-shake ($400) 10x binoculars to adjust for the best horizontal and vertical sharpness of the inter-pixel gap (dark lines between the pixels). Both the vertical and horizontal lines must be equally resolvable over the screen. I then confirm the focus being optimal by a second and very close (1 foot) examination.
What method do you use?

I have to ask one final question that the lawyer in me can't resist asking.

When you write that the RS2 provides a viewing experience that, until now, had only been possible with a fine CRT projector, you appear to be saying that the RS2 is the finest digital projector that you have ever seen.

Is this true?

Counselor I object; you are leading the witness. Other vendors have to make a living too.

I use a two step method consisting of a Nikon Traveler anti-shake ($400) 10x binoculars to adjust for the best horizontal and vertical sharpness of the inter-pixel gap (dark lines between the pixels). Both the vertical and horizontal lines must be equally resolvable over the screen. I then confirm the focus being optimal by a second and very close (1 foot) examination.
And people say projector enthusiasts are picky! :p

Thanks for the good idea.

Counselor I object; you are leading the witness. Other vendors have to make a living too.

Who doesn't want to hear the answer to that question?

The RS-1 had a test pattern that showed a grid pattern where the lines would have a 2" section of green, a 2" section of red and a 2" section of blue (lengths just guesses) which was useful for adjusting the focus for individual colors.

I have to ask one final question that the lawyer in me can't resist asking.

When you write that the RS2 provides a viewing experience that, until now, had only been possible with a fine CRT projector, you appear to be saying that the RS2 is the finest digital projector that you have ever seen.

Is this true?As the defendant I believe I have the right to refuse to take the stand? Or can I just testify that I "don't recall"? That one seems pretty popular. :)

The RS2 images are the most CRT-like images that I have seen on a lamp-based projector. Some people would say that is the ultimate goal of a lamp-based projector, but some people would disagree and look for other criteria. So unless you define the criteria that constitute "the finest digital projector" (and weight those qualities) there is really no way to answer your question.

Hi Greg. Great review, thanks.
How do you think a RS1 with ND2 filter and stand alone processor to give it a higher Gamma fare against the RS2. The former combo would probably reduce black level simular to the RS2 and for smaller screens brightness shouldnt be an issue. I appreciate the higher native of the RS2 but from my experience its the black floor level that is more important that the white ceiling.

Any thoughts ?

I've always been bothered by the fact that CRT's had great image depth with poor ANSI yet great ANSI was the reason given for DLP's high image depth. Your explanation is what I needed to reconcile those two seemingly contradictory views.I hoped some people would find that discussion in the review interesting.

Anyway, do you think higher ANSI CR would bring even more benefit to the image this projector produces? or would it be very noticeable? Do you think the inclusion in the RS-2 of the higher gamma is because the on/off was improved enough to make it feasible? What gamma would you recommend with the RS-1.
I do think a higher m-ANSI CR would benefit the RS2. Every time I used to predict that some CR level would reach diminishing returns I was wrong. It I look at the difference in image depth between projectors that have m-ANSI CR around 300:1 vs 850:1 using the same gamma, the differences are very significant. Every time the full-field CR has doubled the differences are very significant. So yes, I would still like to see the RS2 get an m-ANSI improvement in the future.

I would like to think the inclusion of the higher gamma in the RS2 was because I asked for it in the RS1 review. :) But I'm sure the JVC engineers realized this opportunity without needing to hear it from me.

Great review for RS2 owners like me! :D

I didn't see anything mentioning a comparison between the RS1 and RS2 regarding the behaviour of overall black level rising when the overall picture gets brighter. Before you had mentioned that this was somewhat of a "haze" effect. I see some of this on my RS2, but how does it compare to the RS1?

I hope this makes sense.

Thanks!

The 473 lumens and 30,900:1 contrast ratio is another milestone achievement for the industry.
Most impressive JVC! :cool:

What happens if we wait until next year?

And sadly, will there be another knock-down of the top projector here?

Greg, when you do your reviews:

Do I assume correctly that the reviews are done in a dark, light controlled room?
Of course.


All reviews using the same 87" wide 16:9 1.3 gain screen?
I actually just changed from a 85.33" wide StudioTek to a new 87" wide StudioTek G3.


How many hours do the projectors generally have on them when you measure D65 lumens and footlamberts? By the time you do this measuring, on the average how much light output has the projector lost from when it was new, and roughly how much more light output may the projector lose by the time the bulb fully burns-in?
I calibrate the projector very early (after just an hour or two), but don't take lumen measurements, to get a first look to see if I want to review the product. Then after about 10-15 hours I calibrate it again and take the lumen measurements. By the time the lamp is fully burned in it may lose 40%-50% of its brightness.

As the defendant I believe I have the right to refuse to take the stand? Or can I just testify that I "don't recall"? That one seems pretty popular. :)



Not had the chance to read the review yet, but will soon. Have you provided, or did you obtain, a uniformity performance figure.

Thanks.

Hi Greg. Great review, thanks.
How do you think a RS1 with ND2 filter and stand alone processor to give it a higher Gamma fare against the RS2. The former combo would probably reduce black level simular to the RS2 and for smaller screens brightness shouldnt be an issue. I appreciate the higher native of the RS2 but from my experience its the black floor level that is more important that the white ceiling.

Any thoughts ?

Thought I would repost my question just in case you missed it :D

By the time the lamp is fully burned in it may lose 40%-50% of its brightness.

With the 2 i used recently the new one was at 420 lumen and the other that had a some decent hours was producing 260 lumen for 9fl on an 8ft wide 1.3 gain screen. 10ft yielding 6fl.

Hi Greg. Great review, thanks.
How do you think a RS1 with ND2 filter and stand alone processor to give it a higher Gamma fare against the RS2. The former combo would probably reduce black level simular to the RS2 and for smaller screens brightness shouldnt be an issue. I appreciate the higher native of the RS2 but from my experience its the black floor level that is more important that the white ceiling.

Any thoughts ?
The absolute black level can be important to your perception of a fade to black image and "black" letterbox bars in extremely dark scenes. An ND filter can be used to lower the absolute black level. It can also be used to reduce the maximum brightness levels when they are too high. But it does nothing to allow you to use a higher gamma because it lowers ALL brightness levels by the same percentage.

Thought I would repost my question just in case you missed it :DI didn't miss, I'm just trying to catch up.

Great review for RS2 owners like me! :D

I didn't see anything mentioning a comparison between the RS1 and RS2 regarding the behaviour of overall black level rising when the overall picture gets brighter. Before you had mentioned that this was somewhat of a "haze" effect. I see some of this on my RS2, but how does it compare to the RS1?

I hope this makes sense.

Thanks!I think you are talking about the m-ANSI contrast effect. It is virtually the same from the RS1 to the RS2.

You claim that the depth of field is better due to setting a higher gamma because of higher contrast.
You also state that you are using the new 87-inch wide, 16:9 Stewart Filmscreen StudioTek G3 screen.

Stewart claims "to that end, both the GrayHawk RS G3 and StudioTek 130 G3 provide greater depth, contrast and color saturation than previous versions."

So how much of the improvements you are observing is due to the projector, the new screen or both? How do you objectively test a projector screen?
I'm really clueless so please due tell. Thanks! :)

For large screens (say 139") do you recommend even higher gain such as the Da-lite HP screen? (Even the RS1 owners here at AVS report being uniformly happy with this selection).

Thanks Greg in advance for answering these important questions in such an impartial manner! :)

http://www.stewartfilmscreen.com/press_releases/cedia_g3_pr07.pdf

I think you are talking about the m-ANSI contrast effect. It is virtually the same from the RS1 to the RS2.

OK cool. I was wondering. I have noticed it with the RS2. It really isn't that big of a deal really.

Not had the chance to read the review yet, but will soon. Have you provided, or did you obtain, a uniformity performance figure.

Thanks.Yes, they were excellent. I caution that historically there has been considerable unit to unit variation in flat field uniformity in LCoS (and LCD) projectors so there is no way to know if a sample of one indicates a change in factory process or calibration, or just statistical good fortune. But the review unit had virtually no bright corners (which bothered me a lot in my RS1 review sample) and the flat field brightness and color uniformity was excellent across the grayscale range. Hopefully, these improvements were a result of more careful factory calibration and/or technology process changes.

I haven't measured mine, but visually the uniformity is excellent.

You claim that the depth of field is better due to setting a higher gamma because of higher contrast.
You also state that you are using the new 87-inch wide, 16:9 Stewart Filmscreen StudioTek G3 screen.
Why did you switch from a white screen to a grey screen especially given the JVC's remarkable contrast and blacks dynamic range? Isn't the original milky grey reason long since gone?

Stewart claims "to that end, both the GrayHawk RS G3 and StudioTek 130 G3 provide greater depth, contrast and color saturation than previous versions."

So how much of the improvements you are observing is due to the projector, the new screen or both? How do you objectively test a projector screen?
I'm really clueless so please due tell. Thanks! :)

For large screens (say 139") do you recommend even higher gain such as the Da-lite HP screen? (Even the RS1 owners here at AVS report being uniformly happy with this selection).

Thanks Greg in advance for answering these important questions in such an impartial manner! :)

http://www.stewartfilmscreen.com/press_releases/cedia_g3_pr07.pdf

Studiotek is a white screen. The grayhawk is gray.

coldmachine
Uniformity was good and you can read the figures when your access comes through.

gregr
A very interesting review.
You have asked for a CMS so lets hope that is something for the future.
Can you please ask JVC to throw in some lasers and perhaps change the lens and we should see substantial improvement in MTF performance. If mlang46´s latest theory is cross talk this should be the way to go. Until then I hope JVC sells enough RS2s to make RS3s and RS4s.

For large screens (say 139") do you recommend even higher gain such as the Da-lite HP screen? (Even the RS1 owners here at AVS report being uniformly happy with this selection)

If thats diagonal and 16:9, a mature bulb will yield itro 4-5fl. Some gain would be needed there.

Hope this helps.

Hi greg,

I haven't read the review yet.

I bought the RS1 and was able to compare it directly to my Sharp XV-Z20000. Image depth was one of the factor that make me keep the Sharp. I did use higher gamma on the RS1 trying to get better depth (using my Anthem processor) but found out that it didn't improve that much but it the mean time I was loosing a lot of shadow details. Shadow details was the best improvement of the RS1 vs the XV-Z20000.

Now it's seem that increase on:off is enought that I can get both. Am I understanding this correctly? I had 20000:1 on the RS1 I was on the impression that I would need more than 30000:1 to compensate. Is the MtF of the RS2 way better than the RS1? How much better? Would that explain the difference in image depth between the RS1 and RS2?

Bruno

Yes, they were excellent. I caution that historically there has been considerable unit to unit variation in flat field uniformity in LCoS (and LCD) projectors so there is no way to know if a sample of one indicates a change in factory process or calibration, or just statistical good fortune.

One of ours was good (90%) the other was bad, as shown below. Some pink edging, as seen by others, was present in white flat field tests. Does your review include a figure or id it observational.

Seems you were fortunate. Are you aware if your test unit was selected.

Ours were user units.

The screen wasn't a factor in the image depth improvement of the RS2.

One of ours was good (90%) the other was bad, as shown below. Some pink edging, as seen by others, was present in white flat field tests.

Seems you were fortunate. Are you aware if you unit was selected. Ours were user units.

hot damn. I was wondering how long it was going to take coldmachine to post that pic. Thanks for showing us that again coldmachine.

I stated:
Why did you switch from a white screen to a grey screen

Please remove your mistake. :)

Care to explain how going from a white Studiotek to a newer white Studiotek is going from a white screen to a grey screen?

hot damn. I was wondering how long it was going to take coldmachine to post that pic. Thanks for showing us that again coldmachine.

Just being objective. It also impacts CR readings and ANSI in particular as it was at a steady brightness level. I need to post the pink edging images too as this has been requested and noticed by other users.

I happen to think, on balance, its a good machine. Im interested to see how the results compare to my own, and they are broadly similar.

As Greg stated in the first post he is here to answer questions about his RS2 review.
Can give Greg the courtesy to let him speak for himself? We just might learn something! :)

Thanks guys!

I didn't answer the question, nor would I. The question was regarding his recommendation.

I provided additional information that sensible objective users will find useful.:)

Care to explain how going from a white Studiotek to a newer white Studiotek is going from a white screen to a grey screen?
I re-read the press release with a fine comb and yes the Studiotek is still white. :)
Its a terrible press release in that it lacks clarity as they mix the two up repeatedly . I will update my posts.
Thanks!

I bought the RS1 and was able to compare it directly to my Sharp XV-Z20000. Image depth was one of the factor that make me keep the Sharp. I did use higher gamma on the RS1 trying to get better depth (using my Anthem processor) but found out that it didn't improve that much but it the mean time I was loosing a lot of shadow details. Shadow details was the best improvement of the RS1 vs the XV-Z20000.

Now it's seem that increase on:off is enought that I can get both. Am I understanding this correctly? I had 20000:1 on the RS1 I was on the impression that I would need more than 30000:1 to compensate. Is the MDF of the RS2 way better than the RS1?You picked the image depth champion (Sharp 20K) which has both a significantly higher full-field contrast ratio and a higher m-ANSI contrast ratio than any other DLP projector I have measured, plus it has an excellent MTF. I said in the RS2 review that its image depth was "close to parity" with "DLP projectors". The Sharp 20K has the best image depth of those DLP projectors, so if that's one of your key performance parameters, you will want to do your own comparisons to see exactly how you perceive the Sharp's advantage.

How was noise? There is a mixed consensus with the RS1/HD1, so numbers would be helpful (if available), especially compared to the VW50/60.

Also, do you feel the "offset" control is sufficient long-term to handle aging of the lamp? You seemed to indicate so in the review, but one could also read it as that is what the control is for, but not necessarily whether it will be effective (e.g., an offset control does not help with runout).

Thanks!!

Bill

The screen wasn't a factor in the image depth improvement of the RS2.
I read into the line and understand completely! Score a big one for Greg:cool:

One of ours was good (90%) the other was bad, as shown below. Some pink edging, as seen by others, was present in white flat field tests. Does your review include a figure or id it observational.

Seems you were fortunate. Are you aware if your test unit was selected.

Ours were user units.The review includes the same field uniformity values that I usually publish. They are helpful to get a general sense of the uniformity, but they are more descriptive for DLP projectors (or CRT projectors) than they are for LCoS (or LCD) projectors. It would take hundreds (or even thousands) of parametric values (which I don't have the time or inclination to measure) to characterize the spatial field uniformity across the grayscale range for LCoS (or LCD) projectors, so alternatively you also need some subjective description so I added - "The color variations were smoothly distributed across the screen and not noticeable in any films."

I don't know if my review unit was selected or not. If it was, they apparently had much better units to select from than they did for my RS1 review.

The review includes the same field uniformity values that I usually publish. They are helpful to get a general sense of the uniformity, but they are more descriptive for DLP projectors (or CRT projectors) than they are for LCoS (or LCD) projectors. It would take hundreds (or even thousands) of parametric values (which I don't have the time or inclination to measure) to characterize the spatial field uniformity across the grayscale range for LCoS (or LCD) projectors, so alternatively you also need some subjective description so I added - "The color variations were smoothly distributed across the screen and not noticeable in any films."

I don't know if my review unit was selected or not. If it was, they apparently had much better units to select from than they did for my RS1 review.

Thanks Greg.

How was noise? There is a mixed consensus with the RS1/HD1, so numbers would be helpful (if available), especially compared to the VW50/60.

Also, do you feel the "offset" control is sufficient long-term to handle aging of the lamp? You seemed to indicate so in the review, but one could also read it as that is what the control is for, but not necessarily whether it will be effective (e.g., an offset control does not help with runout).

Thanks!!

BillThe noise numbers are in the review. I believe (without going back to look at this moment) that they were about the same as my RS1 review.

Good question about the offset controls. Yes, I did mean that is what they are intended for. I don't have any way of knowing yet if there really is sufficient range for long term aging. However, there are multiple sets of USER controls including the Offset controls, the Color Temperature adjustments, AND the new Custom Gamma controls. So hopefully, between the three sets there is enough range for long term aging. If "runout" above means grayscale tracking, did you notice that I used the Custom Gamma controls to rather easily get the grayscale within 1 dE from 5% to 100%.

Should potential buyers wait for LEDs or laser light sources or accept the fact that todays projectors will continue to offer the best performance and price?

Non scanning laser systems are performance limited by comparison to scanning. Scanning systems are a long way away. The non scanning source shown a few weeks back was real damp squib. LEDs, especially if using adaptive matrices are far closer and are capable of a quantum leap in performance.

I personally wouldn't wait as there are plenty of good PJs out there atm.

Hope this helps.

Of course.


I actually just changed from a 85.33" wide StudioTek to a new 87" wide StudioTek G3.


I calibrate the projector very early (after just an hour or two), but don't take lumen measurements, to get a first look to see if I want to review the product. Then after about 10-15 hours I calibrate it again and take the lumen measurements. By the time the lamp is fully burned in it may lose 40%-50% of its brightness.

Greg, thanks for the info.

And people say projector enthusiasts are picky! :p
Thanks for the good idea.
A big step up from the RS1, as Greg states the RS2 has remotely controlled zoom and focus adjustments, replacing the manual adjustments of the RS1.

I thought the ANSI contrast might improve as the on/off contrast improved because I had one theory which proposed that the ANSI contrast of the LCOS display was due to the chromatic response of the liquid crystal. Clearly that theory was wrong. Now I think it is Crosstalk

Whats your theory?
I really try to avoid speculation about the technical reasons a particular performance parameter improves (or possibly degrades) from one product to the next, unless it is obvious (in which case it isn't speculation). I've been an engineer for 35 years and I know from experience that only the engineers that are actually responsible for a particular part of a product's design truly have ALL of the information necessary to fully understand the details and tradeoffs of a complex design. That said, I really appreciate that you take time to post your thoughts on these issue, and do some speculation. It a great way for people to learn about the technologies. But if I speculate on something today it will get reposted next week that I said it was a fact.

I think big problem with projection lenses at wider field points is lateral chromatic aberration : changes in magnification as a function of wavelength as opposed to axial chromatic aberration which is a change in focus as a function of wavelength. Designing and manufacturing a lens with a low enough lateral chromatic distortion AFTER ASSEMBLY which will not effect the image quality is extremely difficult and expensive. This is Why I think the Zonal convergence option in the Sony VW-200 is a major advance in image sharpness for all projectors both single chip and 3 chip>

Whats your opinion?
In this case it isn't speculation. I see both the effects of lateral chromatic aberration and a change in focus with wavelength. However, as I mentioned in one of the earlier answers, the latter was reduced in my sample of the RS2 compared to my sample of the RS1, but that may be only unit to unit variation. I like what Sony did with the zonal convergence, but it has side effects too.

I wish JVC had not made the design decision to go with a wider color gamut but they did. it does not bother me as much as some people but it does bother me so I may be buying the external processor. I know the primaries ,Optically are set by the centerline of the bandpass on the color filters So I wonder why they didn't just change the centerline when they Narrowed the bandpass. so how does the processor work. does it just mix the green primary with the red and blue to pull it in making a secondary primary?
Essentially yes, but "virtual primaries" can be created with matrix conversions or the color space can be remapped with 3-D look up tables (LUTs).

Could you comment on how a large dynamic range in Luminance response as reflected by the on/off contrast ratio effects color quality
It affects color accuracy, particularly in darker regions, because a low full-field contrast ratio essentially adds a "black level" color component to all other colors.

Also on this forum and not among professionals you will see people claim that ANSI contrast is more important than ON/off contrast. I think they are both important?
Do you have an opinion what would have a greater effect on image improving m ANSI contrast from say 300 to550 or on/off from 5000 to 30,000?Obviously, the inference from this review is to go with the higher full-field contrast ratio, which allows you to take advantage of a higher gamma. But without the higher gamma, I can't say without more thought because I certainly didn't view the RS2 in that mode.

Do you think there is such a thing as the LCOS look and is it more film like?
Intrinsically no. Two years ago the LCoS look was poor black levels. Today the JVC LCoS look is unprecedented (for lamp-based projectors) native black levels. So I don't see any value to labeling technologies in that way when the characteristics of each technology can change that fast.

Guys, it's 5 pm so I've been here for 5 hours. Time to quit. Thanks for participating. Thanks for your questions, thanks for your comments. I hope you enjoyed the review, and I hope my responses were helpful.

Oh by the way. There's a tiny piece of information, that some AVS members seem to enjoy speculating about, sort of buried in one of my answers today. :)

Hey Greg,

Ive been gone all afternoon and havent had a chance to read your review or your responses here, but I will do both. Looking forward to some good reading tonight.

Hopefully youll be back on here tomorrow. 8)

Oh by the way. There's a tiny piece of information, that some of you seem to care about, sort of buried in one of my answers today. :)
Is this it?
"I like what Sony did with the zonal convergence, but it has side effects too"
Yes we agree again as it removes 1:1 pixel mapping and therefore reduces resolution. In my book anything that causes pixels to overlap will automatically soften the picture.

In thinking about possible future upgrades, the quality of the RS2, and its price point, makes it really questionable (to me, anyway) as to whether the top dlp's, and their much higher price, makes any sense.

"I think big problem with projection lenses at wider field points is lateral chromatic aberration : changes in magnification as a function of wavelength as opposed to axial chromatic aberration which is a change in focus as a function of wavelength. Designing and manufacturing a lens with a low enough lateral chromatic distortion AFTER ASSEMBLY which will not effect the image quality is extremely difficult and expensive."

Won't extra low dispersion ED glass elements lead to improve color quality and tighter focus? Camera lens have used ED glass for decades. Many members would no doubt pay a good price for a Nikon or Canon lens upgrade option.

"Chromatic Aberration occurs when different wave lengths of light (red, green and blue) are not focused at the same point by the lens. The result is color fringing, usually seen in highlight details. The use of Extra-low Dispersion glass (ED elements) allows the wave lengths to be focused at the same point and prevent the fringing from occurring. Chromatic Aberration is usually a problem with telephoto lenses when shooting film, which is why until very recently, ED glass elements were only seen on telephoto zoom and prime lenses. However, with the increasing popularity of digital cameras being used by professionals and well-heeled amateurs, new problems specific to digital capture arose that also created chromatic aberration and ugly color fringing in images (green and purple being the most common). It is my belief that lens makers have chosen to use ED elements in as many new lenses as possible so as to minimize the fringing due to ED glass being better able to focus light tightly for digital capture. A few people scratched their heads wondering why Nikon would incorporate ED elements in such lenses as the 17-35mm AFS, 18-35mm, and 28-70mm AFS lenses when the predecessor lenses did not and showed no problems on film. Nikon was thinking ahead with the research done on digital capture and its specific lens requirements."

"I think big problem with projection lenses at wider field points is lateral chromatic aberration : changes in magnification as a function of wavelength as opposed to axial chromatic aberration which is a change in focus as a function of wavelength. Designing and manufacturing a lens with a low enough lateral chromatic distortion AFTER ASSEMBLY which will not effect the image quality is extremely difficult and expensive."

Won't extra low dispersion ED glass elements lead to improve color quality and tighter focus? Camera lens have used ED glass for decades. Many members would no doubt pay a good price for a Nikon or Canon lens upgrade option.

"Chromatic Aberration occurs when different wave lengths of light (red, green and blue) are not focused at the same point by the lens. The result is color fringing, usually seen in highlight details. The use of Extra-low Dispersion glass (ED elements) allows the wave lengths to be focused at the same point and prevent the fringing from occurring. Chromatic Aberration is usually a problem with telephoto lenses when shooting film, which is why until very recently, ED glass elements were only seen on telephoto zoom and prime lenses. However, with the increasing popularity of digital cameras being used by professionals and well-heeled amateurs, new problems specific to digital capture arose that also created chromatic aberration and ugly color fringing in images (green and purple being the most common). It is my belief that lens makers have chosen to use ED elements in as many new lenses as possible so as to minimize the fringing due to ED glass being better able to focus light tightly for digital capture. A few people scratched their heads wondering why Nikon would incorporate ED elements in such lenses as the 17-35mm AFS, 18-35mm, and 28-70mm AFS lenses when the predecessor lenses did not and showed no problems on film. Nikon was thinking ahead with the research done on digital capture and its specific lens requirements."

I have actually developed products with Nikon and all the ed glass will help but the real problem after assembly is centering. You can never perfectly center the lenses so after fabrication the lens will have a edge thickness which will vary. this means the individual lens elements are power elements plus a very thin prism. In the JVC lens you have 16 elements so you will have a certain statistical yield where some lenses may have very low lateral color and others will have a lot depending on the tolerances. On assembly you can take it out by rotating the individual elements but that is a very tedious and expensive process. since lateral color can be thought of as an angular aberration obviously a camera lens with a 20 to 50 mm focal length will not have to have as tight a tolerance as a projection lens which focuses light as much as 20 ft.

I do not know what glass JVC is using but since most of these telecentric projections lenses come from the film projection world, I would guess that they don,t use ED glass.

I use to like designing superapochromat triplets using a strong flint like SF58 and floride crown. the glass is extremely hard to work with and when I gave it to a German Optician i would get a phone call and the language that man used would embarrass a marine

some of the camera lenses make superapochromats using plastic or glass etched diffractive optical elements. I never got a chance to design with these new elements but although I think they are great for camera lenses , I think they would have to much scatter for projector lenses.

The 140 zone convergence correction in the Sony VW-200 will be the ultimate solution.

super review as always, the very nr one best worldwide as usual.

me thinks JVC should double ansi contrast if they can and TI produce a chip that does natively 30.000:1 :)

I have actually developed products with Nikon and all the ed glass will help...

some of the camera lenses make superapochromats using plastic or glass etched diffractive optical elements. I never got a chance to design with these new elements but although I think they are great for camera lenses , I think...
The 140 zone convergence correction in the Sony VW-200 will be the ultimate solution.
Ok, so ED lens elements are overdue and superapochromats may help too. What is stopping the industry from moving forward?

The Sony's 140 convergence correction is the traditional solution for an analog (crt) based projector, but is far from optimal in a digital projector. There is a loss of picture information/resolution when adjacent discrete pixels (of the same primary color) are merged rather than offset. Why not just buy a 1280 projector and save your money?
All of this is why 4K projectors are pretty hard to take seriously as their optical errors are just to large to effectively control and meet their specified panel resolution.

Guys, it's 5 pm so I've been here for 5 hours. Time to quit. Thanks for participating. Thanks for your questions, thanks for your comments. I hope you enjoyed the review, and I hope my responses were helpful.

Oh by the way. There's a tiny piece of information, that some AVS members seem to enjoy speculating about, sort of buried in one of my answers today. :)

There has been a lot of speculation about what Greg's favorite projector is.

I don't know what it was before he saw the RS2, but I have a good idea what it is now because I suspect that he believes that the ultimate goal of lamp based projectors is to emulate CRT.

Am I right Greg, or won't you say?.

Has the review been pulled off the website? I could not find the review for the RS2.

Doug

its still there. on the left hand side of the screen. called "The Rogers Report".

Gregr,

First of all -- thanks for a very informative review. I regret that I was unable to participate in the Q&A session.


Regarding this subject:

Oh by the way. There's a tiny piece of information, that some AVS members seem to enjoy speculating about, sort of buried in one of my answers today. :)

It should be obvious to anyone who has followed gregr's posts regarding the RS2 -- that the "tiny piece of information that some AVS members seem to enjoy speculating about sort of buried in one of my answers today" -- is this excerpt in his reply to mlang46 (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=12972599#post12972599):

I wish JVC had not made the design decision to go with a wider color gamut but they did. it does not bother me as much as some people but it does bother me so I may be buying the external processor. I know the primaries ,Optically are set by the centerline of the bandpass on the color filters So I wonder why they didn't just change the centerline when they Narrowed the bandpass. so how does the processor work. does it just mix the green primary with the red and blue to pull it in making a secondary primary?


Essentially yes, but "virtual primaries" can be created with matrix conversions or the color space can be remapped with 3-D look up tables (LUTs).

As many of us know, several months ago there was much discussion regarding a reasonably-priced, non-HDCP, CMS solution for the RS2 that gregr intimated (and only intimated) he might be willing to be involved in. During that time, there were also suggestions from JVC that a reasonably-priced CMS solution (from another party) might become available sometime around CEDIA or Q1. If I am not mistaken, I believe gregr might have been waiting to see if that effort materialized before committing himself to a "home grown" CMS solution.

If I am not mistaken, the 3rd party product discussed by JVC is either not-ready-for-primetime -- or has disappeared entirely. Consequently, those of us who care about CMS are left with two rather expensive options (Lumagen and a soon-to-be-released JVC product).

I am not making any assumptions regarding the fabrication of any possible CMS device -- I am only suggesting that I suspect that gregr's reference has to do with this topic.

Ok, so ED lens elements are overdue and superapochromats may help too. What is stopping the industry from moving forward?

The Sony's 140 convergence correction is the traditional solution for an analog (crt) based projector, but is far from optimal in a digital projector. There is a loss of picture information/resolution when adjacent discrete pixels (of the same primary color) are merged rather than offset. Why not just buy a 1280 projector and save your money?
All of this is why 4K projectors are pretty hard to take seriously as their optical errors are just to large to effectively control and meet their specified panel resolution.

From your remarks and Greg Rogers , I am beginning to believe that the Sony solution which I thought would take the pressure off the optics design might have its limitations. Right now with the JVC, you have a Nyquist cutoff in spatial frequency of around 56lp/mm and all the projector lenses I see don't have any where near the MTF at all field points to transfer the chip image to the screen without any degradation. You go higher than that and you really in trouble unless you let the chip grow in size.

Part of the problem is quantity. One Japanese manufacturer told me that they will not do a custom design unless they can sell a million units. For cameras thats typical but for projection lenses for the home doubtful

Finally, your eye's resolution degrades rapidly as the field widens going from 2 milliradian at the center of the field to larger than 6 milliradians at 10 degrees.
so most projector lenses which are designed for the theater take advantage of that fact and let the field go to hell.

The best thing for home projector manufacturers can do to improve performance is to tighten the specifications on the lenses they accept and test them when they come in house.

From your remarks and Greg Rogers , I am beginning to believe that the Sony solution which I thought would take the pressure off the optics design might have its limitations.

I have some info i need advice on, Ill pm you, if you don't mind. I

'll also give some info on the Zone based MC and how it is derived. I found it to be a serious issue that created major problems.

JVC's idea to work on the panels-optics rather than going with automatic iris is the best approach. it's massive the achievement they reached on on-off contrast ratio.
now up to them to work on intra image contrast. ansi contrast

its still there. on the left hand side of the screen. called "The Rogers Report".

Thanks. It sure is. :)

I hit the link to equipment reviews and searched before looking at the page.

Best Regards,
Doug

There has been a lot of speculation about what Greg's favorite projector is.

I don't know what it was before he saw the RS2, but I have a good idea what it is now because I suspect that he believes that the ultimate goal of lamp based projectors is to emulate CRT.

Am I right Greg, or won't you say?.My favorite projector changes fairly often as new projectors are introduced. There are several performance factors that are most important to me (other people will favor different factors, or at least a different weighting of factors), so as new projectors push performance ahead in different areas my personal projector preference changes. For instance, I was quite clear that the Yamaha DPX-1300 was my favorite projector at one time because of its color accuracy (it had a great CMS) and its contrast (which was the best at the time). But when 1080p projectors were introduced I went with a Marantz projector at that point because the improvement in resolution and sharpness was simply too great to ignore and it had a minimum number of negative factors. (I can't ignore uncorrectable negative factors because they may rule out a projector that I would otherwise choose.) So the point I'm trying to make is that there are multiple factors that are most important to me, and I weigh them to pick which projector I want at any point in time. That doesn't mean the projector that I want for myself is the best choice for everyone else.

I think a lamp-based projector should emulate the best performance parameters of a CRT projector, but should exceed other CRT parameters (such as sharpness, m-ANSI contrast ratio, switchable and accurate color gamuts, full-field lumens, convergence, quietness, mounting options [lens shift, zoom lens], etc, etc.

Having said all of that, the bottom line answer to your question is in the "tiny" bit of information "sort of buried" (but I think perfectly clear when read carefully) in one of my previous answers. (Please forgive me for having a little fun with this :))

coldmachine
I don´t want to go to much off topic but any alignment optimization system zoned or not zoned can be turned off, it as an option. It is a feature that you can chose to use or not to use. The naive hope is naturally that no manufacturer thinks electronic convergence is replacement for good physical/optical convergence.

I think that means he likes the Sharp.

Having said all of that, the bottom line answer to your question is in the "tiny" bit of information "sort of buried" (but I think perfectly clear when read carefully) in one of my previous answers. (Please forgive me for having a little fun with this :))

Well, I would have to say that this quote handily derails the theory I proposed several posts ago. Oh well, seemed on-target at the time.

coldmachine
I don´t want to go to much off topic but any alignment optimization system zoned or not zoned can be turned off, it as an option. It is a feature that you can chose to use or not to use. The naive hope is naturally that no manufacturer thinks electronic convergence is replacement for good physical/optical convergence.

Thats true, but zone based causes issues you don't get with an overall phase based solution.

I actually had no need of it

I always meant to ask, what PJ do you use?

Having said all of that, the bottom line answer to your question is in the "tiny" bit of information "sort of buried" (but I think perfectly clear when read carefully) in one of my previous answers. (Please forgive me for having a little fun with this :))
The RS2 is the first digital projector to really match CRT picture quality.

"Some members speculate endlessly on what parameters increase image depth:
RS1 will improve it (image depth), but the combination of the higher (static) gamma and the higher (static) contrast ratio (lower black level) is what really makes the RS2 excel and allows me to use "CRT" in the same sentence."

I inserted the word static twice as a dynamic iris and gamma interfere with our depth perception. Like drinking the bitter chemical aftertaste of a diet soda. It’s not the real thing. The RS2 is.

Having said all of that, the bottom line answer to your question is in the "tiny" bit of information "sort of buried" (but I think perfectly clear when read carefully) in one of my previous answers. (Please forgive me for having a little fun with this :))

Why do I feel like I am seeking to unravel the Da Vinci Code?

Perhaps it will be obvious in retrospect, but I am stumped.

I definitely think a higher gamma with the RS1 will improve it (although you can't go quite as high on gamma as I would like),

My RS1's low gamma is an issue for me and imo the biggest detriment of this pj. Over the hours the gamma has actually morphed from an already low but steady 1.9-2.0 to a declining gamma from 1.9 in the low end and ends up at 1.5 up top, the only method to flatten it out and maintain 1.9 or so is to reduce contrast to -15 which obviously gimps contrast. It's like the panels are slowly overdriving themselves as the hours increase, weird. Anyways, when you say you can't go quite as high as you like with the RS1 it appears you are alluding to an outboard box for this adjustment, which outboard box are you using for these adjustments?

Although the black level is slightly higher than a properly calibrated CRT projector, or the highest contrast dynamic iris projector, there is no significant veiling or spatial (brightness or color) non-uniformity in the darkest scenes, and more importantly, the intra-image contrast greatly exceeds those products.

Could this sentence from a prior review provide the answer?

You picked the image depth champion (Sharp 20K) which has both a significantly higher full-field contrast ratio and a higher m-ANSI contrast ratio than any other DLP projector I have measured, plus it has an excellent MTF.
Are there any new DLP projectors that you have not measured yet? Do you expect any of them to have better contrast ratios than the 20K?

Yeah I guess I am too stupid to figure it out by re-reading his statements.

My guess is the RS2 is tops as the whole "CRT" comments fall in line with that. He does say good things on the sharp 20K, but my gut feel is that he is saying that the RS2 comes out on top as his benchmark is a good CRT.

I am totally with him on the recreate CRT look thing. The first time I saw a properly calibrated Sony G90 with a good VP, changed my life. No kidding.

My guess is the RS2 is tops as the whole "CRT" comments fall in line with that.
Your desire for the RS-2 to be "on top" is clouding your ability to read objectively...:) This sentence pretty much tells the story:
I think a lamp-based projector should emulate the best performance parameters of a CRT projector, but should exceed other CRT parameters (such as sharpness, m-ANSI contrast ratio, switchable and accurate color gamuts, full-field lumens, convergence, quietness, mounting options [lens shift, zoom lens], etc, etc.
Greg's last 2 projectors of choice were single chip DLPs (Yamaha and Marantz), though based on his review of the RS-2 and the fact that he has constructed his own CMS box, maybe the RS-2 is his current favorite, though I wonder if he has seen any of the newer Sim2 models yet.

Greg's review of the RS-2 is most encouraging, and coupled with a Radiance would make it a strong contender at a reasonable price point.

I was under the impression he had seen them, but just didnt review them, Bob.

Is that right, Greg?

Speaking of reviews, we still havent seen your measurements on your now several months old HT380, Bob. 8)

Im still very interested in seeing your analysis.

I am still 'agnostic' wrt technolgoy: in a year or two when I'm ready to upgrade, it might be to a RSn, or to a Sim or Marantz dlp.

But one thing that did strike me was Greg comments that going from 15000:1 to 30000:1 o/f CR (i.e., from RS1 to RS2) made such a noticeable difference even in a good, but 'non black hole' room, one w/o black velvet on all the surfaces (e.g., maybe something like mine!) The fact that the best dlp's still have o/f CR of only ~ 8000:1 or so (is that about right?)--even if their ANSI CR is very good--makes me wonder how their 8000:1 compares to 15000 or 30000:1.

I would REALLY like to see a RS2, Sim2 HT380, and Marantz 11S2 and 15S1 side by side!

Greg's comments about being able to appreciate the difference in CR in a room that is not a bat cave should not be surprising.

Look at it this way...if you are in a room with no light whatsoever, it doesn't make any difference what color the walls are...they could be gloss white or black velvet...no light, no difference.

When is the difference in CR going to be most apparent...when you fade to black or have a very low APL...it is at those times, the room reflectivity is going to have the least effect on the image CR, because you're putting very little light energy into the room to be reflected back on the screen.

Please be clear tho that I'm talking about a room that is otherwise effectively light-controlled where essentially all the light illuminating the screen/room comes from the projector, not other sources in the room. As you have more ambient light to deal with, the advantage of the higher contrast will obviously be reduced, tho not completely eliminated if ambient levels are kept to typical theater levels.

Cheers,

Look at it this way...if you are in a room with no light whatsoever, it doesn't make any difference what color the walls are...they could be gloss white or black velvet...no light, no difference.

When is the difference in CR going to be most apparent...when you fade to black or have a very low APL...it is at those times, the room reflectivity is going to have the least effect on the image CR, because you're putting very little light energy into the room to be reflected back on the screen.

Please be clear tho that I'm talking about a room that is otherwise effectively light-controlled where essentially all the light illuminating the screen/room comes from the projector, not other sources in the room. As you have more ambient light to deal with, the advantage of the higher contrast will obviously be reduced, tho not completely eliminated if ambient levels are kept to typical theater levels.

Cheers,

Thanks, Tom; very clear.

Why do I feel like I am seeking to unravel the Da Vinci Code?.
OK. Thanks for letting me have a little fun, with a question I seldom answer. :)

I was asked a question about the Offset controls.
My answer was:

"I don't have any way of knowing yet if there really is sufficient range for long term aging."

The "tiny" bit of information is the tiny word "yet". There was no reason to include the word "yet" unless I expect to watch an RS2 long enough that I will eventually be able to answer the aging question.

Just to amplify, it is ANSI contrast that room reflections hammer, ie in a scene with bright whites and dark blacks, the reflections from the brighter portions can skid around the walls and back onto the screen.

boo ya

Anyways, when you say you can't go quite as high as you like with the RS1 it appears you are alluding to an outboard box for this adjustment, which outboard box are you using for these adjustments?The RS1 gamma curves were limited to a gamma of about 2.20. I said in the RS1 review that I would have liked to go higher. I didn't have an RS1 after that review so I didn't use an outboard processor with it.

"Ok, so ED lens elements are overdue and superapochromats may help too. What is stopping the industry from moving forward?"

It's already has, if you spend enough.

Greg reviewed a pj awhile back (IIRC a Projection Design or Digital Projection) that I believe he said had essentially perfect optics.

Could this sentence from a prior review provide the answer?I've given you the answer already, but I did not use that projector for my own viewing because of its higher than normal color separation artifacts.

Greg reviewed a pj awhile back (IIRC a Projection Design or Digital Projection) that I believe he said had essentially perfect optics.Marvelous optics, but very costly. Some Runco projectors have had equivalent optics, but also very expensive. Marantz has excellent optics that are not so expensive.

Greg's comments about being able to appreciate the difference in CR in a room that is not a bat cave should not be surprising.

Look at it this way...if you are in a room with no light whatsoever, it doesn't make any difference what color the walls are...they could be gloss white or black velvet...no light, no difference.

When is the difference in CR going to be most apparent...when you fade to black or have a very low APL...it is at those times, the room reflectivity is going to have the least effect on the image CR, because you're putting very little light energy into the room to be reflected back on the screen.

Please be clear tho that I'm talking about a room that is otherwise effectively light-controlled where essentially all the light illuminating the screen/room comes from the projector, not other sources in the room. As you have more ambient light to deal with, the advantage of the higher contrast will obviously be reduced, tho not completely eliminated if ambient levels are kept to typical theater levels.

Exactly!

I was under the impression he had seen them, but just didnt review them, Bob. Is that right, Greg?
Are there any new DLP projectors that you have not measured yet? Do you expect any of them to have better contrast ratios than the 20K?

I haven't seen any DLP's with DC-4 chips yet. Hopefully they will meet or exceed the XV-Z20K contrast ratios.

Greg's last 2 projectors of choice were single chip DLPs (Yamaha and Marantz)There was another one after the Marantz and before the RS2.

Thanks, Greg.

Assuming that your sample was, as coldmachine suggests, cherry picked, could you ask Tom Sites to send you another one just like it and then send it on to me?

I pay cash under the table.

Thanks, Greg.

Assuming that your sample was, as coldmachine suggests, cherry picked, could you ask Tom Sites to send you another one just like it and then send it on to me?

I pay cash under the table.

LG I didnt suggest, I asked. Its common practice and human nature. Users even do it via dealers, sometimes for a fee.

I may be a bit delayed getting to pm you as Im pushed for time and what time i do have one here atm seems to be spent defending my observations, to the point that its actually becoming impossible to share them in a non hostile environment. Im sorry, but will get to you when I can. I look forward to exchanging views.:mad:

LG I didnt suggest, I asked. Its common practice and human nature. Users even do it via dealers, sometimes for a fee.

I may be a bit delayed getting to pm you as Im pushed for time and what time i do have one here atm seems to be spent defending my observations, to the point that its actually becoming impossible to share them in a non hostile environment. Im sorry, but will get to you when I can. I look forward to exchanging views.:mad:

To be absolutely fair, we need to ask this question about the Marantz as well as the Sharp unit which was reviewed by Greg in the past. Unfortunately, as an end user, this can always happen but fortunately the spread in quality of modern projectors are not too bad. I would also question some of the higher end projectors like the Sim2, if they were hand picked to be sold to end users these manufacturers know will review the product here. We must always be skeptical.

To be absolutely fair, we need to ask this question about the Marantz as well as the Sharp unit which was reviewed by Greg in the past. Unfortunately, as an end user, this can always happen but fortunately the spread in quality of modern projectors are not too bad. I would also question some of the higher end projectors like the Sim2, if they were hand picked to be sold to end users these manufacturers know will review the product here. We must always be skeptical.

That is totally true. If that last part is directed at me, then its a valid comment and i accept that totally.

Your desire for the RS-2 to be "on top" is clouding your ability to read objectively...:) This sentence pretty much tells the story:

Greg's last 2 projectors of choice were single chip DLPs (Yamaha and Marantz), though based on his review of the RS-2 and the fact that he has constructed his own CMS box, maybe the RS-2 is his current favorite, though I wonder if he has seen any of the newer Sim2 models yet.

Greg's review of the RS-2 is most encouraging, and coupled with a Radiance would make it a strong contender at a reasonable price point.

Well I guess you were right on my desire and ability to read objectively, but I was still right. :D

The RS2 still isn't absolutely perfect for me, but it should serve me well for a good while methinks. Plus it was the best I could do for what I was willing to spend. Therefore, my vision is somewhat myopic for the range of projectors that I am interested in. Plus it is a lot smaller than a quad stack of Sony G90s.

Greg: I always look forward to your reviews. I have had quite a few projectors ( not as many as CM though ):D and now have a sharp 20k along with a temporary RS2.

I always hear about the 20k being used as a 'reference' for CR and image depth ( which I agree with ) for DLP models. Not getting to far off topic here but what is it in your opinion that makes the 20k so well noticed among the other models?

I have spent the last 6 weeks with both the RS2 and the 20k and can conclude that the sharp has an image quality to it that the LCOS machine just does not have.

The new marantz lineup which I just adore still has an iris system which pales to the sharp.

Greg: I always look forward to your reviews. I have had quite a few projectors ( not as many as CM though ):D and now have a sharp 20k along with a temporary RS2.

I always hear about the 20k being used as a 'reference' for CR and image depth ( which I agree with ) for DLP models. Not getting to far off topic here but what is it in your opinion that makes the 20k so well noticed among the other models?

I have spent the last 6 weeks with both the RS2 and the 20k and can conclude that the sharp has an image quality to it that the LCOS machine just does not have.

The new marantz lineup which I just adore still has an iris system which pales to the sharp.

The 20k is indeed a great machine. Bob Sorel swapped one for the 380 and got almost identical results but with double the lumens. Give Bob a pm, hes a good guy. Its hard to quantify but i feel that the combination of very high ANSI and good MTF is very potent

As to why, outside being the designer its actually impossible to say fully. There are so many factors with compromise and interaction that engineering decisions cant always be discerned. If a company also writes its own software its even more of a struggle, in fact its actually impossible without full access.

Here we go again.

Here we go again.

what does that mean?

Greg: I always look forward to your reviews. I have had quite a few projectors ( not as many as CM though ):D and now have a sharp 20k along with a temporary RS2.

I always hear about the 20k being used as a 'reference' for CR and image depth ( which I agree with ) for DLP models. Not getting to far off topic here but what is it in your opinion that makes the 20k so well noticed among the other models?

I have spent the last 6 weeks with both the RS2 and the 20k and can conclude that the sharp has an image quality to it that the LCOS machine just does not have.

The new marantz lineup which I just adore still has an iris system which pales to the sharp.I'd be happy to discuss other projectors in another thread, but it seems to me that this thread should be about insight into the operation or performance of the RS2, and it's gotten off topic far enough already. If there's nothing else to discuss about the RS2 perhaps it should be closed, and then other threads can be used to debate/promote projector alternatives.

Here we go again.
Yes, infomercials mixed with science. Now its down to "anyone who buys our competing product is nice guy". This sales pressure is so ruthless, its spoiling the thread. :mad:

In the meantime I'd like to thank Greg too for still reporting contrast measurements in his reviews. :)

Yes, infomercials mixed with science. Now its down to "anyone who buys our competing product is nice guy". This sales pressure is so ruthless, its spoiling the thread. :mad:

In the meantime I'd like to thank Greg too for still reporting contrast measurements in his reviews. :)

So now you have a sideways sweep at Bob again. Your hounding of him is quite unnatural. The only time I've ever seen its like was a case of unrequited man-love. It would seem to share its physical origin with the fawning idolatry displayed in recent threads.

Please don't put quotes on something that wasn't said

You've already had many posts removed recently for your vile attacks, move on.

For the consumer it always interesting to read several reviews of a product and compare the reviewers observations.

Here we compare the RS2 screen choices:
"There is sufficient contrast on this projector to forego the high contrast gray screens unless there is a lot of reflected light from walls, ceilings, and carpets in the viewing room. In a room where walls and surfaces are darkened and non-reflective, we prefer the white screens. In viewing on both the Stewart Grayhawk RS (a 0.9 gain high contrast gray screen) and the Stewart Studiotek 130 (a 1.3 gain white screen), the latter produced the more vibrant and satisfying image with the RS2 as it did with the RS1."

It great that PC and WSR/Greg both recommend the exact same 1.3 white screen. In addition, many AVS members report being just as happy with the DA-Lite HP. All are excellent screens. Choose the one which matches your budget and brightness preference.

So now you have a sideways sweep at Bob again. Your hounding of him is quite unnatural. The only time I've ever seen its like was a case unrequited man-love. It would seem to share its physical origin with the fawning idolatry displayed in recent threads.

Please don't put quotes on something that wasn't said

You've already had many posts removed recently for your vile attacks, move on.
Whew! If you expect me to respond you'll need to quit changing your posts. It's difficult to understand someone who is so angry too. :confused:

I'll repeat what I wrote recently: Bob is a nice guy. I'm glad we agree and I hope you still have a nice day. :)
Can we take the high road now? Please lets get back to the RS2 review? Thank you!

Can we take the high road now? Please lets get back to the RS2 review? Thank you!

Agreed.

I look forward to sharing views and information in the future

Good Luck

PS. I'm actually never angry, except when at work

LG I didnt suggest, I asked. Its common practice and human nature. Users even do it via dealers, sometimes for a fee.

I may be a bit delayed getting to pm you as Im pushed for time and what time i do have one here atm seems to be spent defending my observations, to the point that its actually becoming impossible to share them in a non hostile environment. Im sorry, but will get to you when I can. I look forward to exchanging views.:mad:

It was just what I thought was a good-natured a joke and I didn't think it was at your expense.

I know what you meant because I actually read what you wrote.

It was just what I thought was a good-natured a joke and I didn't think it was at your expense.

I know what you meant because I actually read what you wrote.

I know you didn't LG. I didn't take offense at all. :)

I think the brevity of forum communication is frequently a facilitator of confusion.

Effective and accurate communication is vital to both our respective professions

Greg - there have been a few posters recently who have complained about motion blur on the RS-1. Is this something you noticed on the RS-2 and how does it compare to the RS-1?

Thanks,
Noah

I only saw one poster Mankite complaining about motion blur. You would think if it were a common problem, more RS1 users would be complaining about it.

Perhaps motion blur was not an accurate description of whatever he was seeing.

I only saw one poster Mankite complaining about motion blur. You would think if it were a common problem, more RS1 users would be complaining about it.

Perhaps motion blur was not an accurate description of whatever he was seeing.
Actually, there was a thread dealing with it, you might want to do a search in this forum if you are more interested.

I only saw one poster Mankite complaining about motion blur. You would think if it were a common problem, more RS1 users would be complaining about it.

Perhaps motion blur was not an accurate description of whatever he was seeing.
Until recently some Toshiba HD-DVD players suffered from judder which might be confused with blur. The latest firmware update corrects it.

There was a thread with 8 posts about motion blur on LCD pjs. Not really any useful information in there and nothing related to the RS-1 or 2. Mostly people saying that they had motion blur on their LCD.

Judder is easily discerned from blur.

Sony have tried, partially successfully, to address this issue with their newest machines.

Its particularly noticeable with sports.

Greg - there have been a few posters recently who have complained about motion blur on the RS-1. Is this something you noticed on the RS-2 and how does it compare to the RS-1?

Thanks,
NoahI'm not sure what you are referring to as motion blur (I don't like the term because it is ambiguous). Are you referring to slow panel response or are you referring to the "blur" (abrupt loss of resolution during movement) from motion-adaptive deinterlacing? I don't see any significant effect from the former. The latter is a fact of life with any motion-adaptive deinterlacing (used only for original interlaced video sources - not film sources, but the Gennum is better than some other motion-adaptive deinterlacing solutions (Sharp, Sony, etc.).

Greg, do you recall if the RS2 allows for vertical image shift (without physical lens shifting) with HDMI?

Greg, do you recall if the RS2 allows for vertical image shift (without physical lens shifting) with HDMI?As I recall, without going to check, it is only available for HDMI when the V-Stretch mode is used.

Greg,

Have you had a chance on getting in your hands JVC's VP box to fix the primary colors?

Rob,

There is a picture position control in the menu that allows for a limited adjustement range, but it's not really useable for shifting a 2.35 image to the top or bottom of the 16:9 image area.

Cheers,

Rob,

There is a picture position control in the menu that allows for a limited adjustement range, but it's not really useable for shifting a 2.35 image to the top or bottom of the 16:9 image area.

Cheers,


Thanks Tom for the info. I normally use a shift of only about half of the lower black bar on a 2.35:1 image (for masking my electric screen). Does it appear that the picture position control allows for anywhere near that amount? Is it the same as the RS1? I'm trying to get around not having the remote lens shift of the VW60.

Until recently some Toshiba HD-DVD players suffered from judder which might be confused with blur. The latest firmware update corrects it.

Judder doesn't look anything like blur...

Greg, do you recall if the RS2 allows for vertical image shift (without physical lens shifting) with HDMI?
I know it does with component. I assume it will also with HDMI. The image shift is very limited though compared to my last projector, a G11. That has a huge range.

I'd have to confirm, but I think the vertical range was only plus or minus 5 on the RS2.

Chris

I normally use a shift of only about half of the lower black bar on a 2.35:1 image (for masking my electric screen). Does it appear that the picture position control allows for anywhere near that amount?
I don't think it will. I remember trying to do just that when I was setting up my RS2 and there was not enough range.

I'm not sure what you are referring to as motion blur (I don't like the term because it is ambiguous). Are you referring to slow panel response or are you referring to the "blur" (abrupt loss of resolution during movement) from motion-adaptive deinterlacing? I don't see any significant effect from the former. The latter is a fact of life with any motion-adaptive deinterlacing (used only for original interlaced video sources - not film sources, but the Gennum is better than some other motion-adaptive deinterlacing solutions (Sharp, Sony, etc.).

Thanks Greg. I have never noticed it myself but assume people were talking about slow panel response. I haven't noticed the blur during movement as I rarely watch tv in the theater (Gaming, HD DVD, bluray and the occasional standard DVD are pretty much all I watch on the big screen). I was under the impression that the panels had a response time of 4ms which would seem to preclude motion blur caused by panel response.

Greg,

Have you had a chance on getting in your hands JVC's VP box to fix the primary colors?No, I've been told it's not ready yet.

gregr
When does JVC expect VP2 to be ready?

About blur
madshi has written alot about the sample and hold effect that you get with any constantly on technology such as LC-based technology. The too abrupt change from frame n to n+1 causes the brain to introduce perception of blurring. With dlp and crt the change between frames works differently. Sony is trying to "calm" the brain down by inserting a resting period inbetween frames.

gregr
When does JVC expect VP2 to be ready?

About blur
madshi has written alot about the sample and hold effect that you get with any constantly on technology such as LC-based technology. The too abrupt change from frame n to n+1 causes the brain to introduce perception of blurring. With dlp and crt the change between frames works differently. Sony is trying to "calm" the brain down by inserting a resting period inbetween frames.I'll let Tom respond to questions about the VP.

I have no comment about flicker emulation, and I've never seen inter-frame interpolation work well. I expect inter-frame interpolation to require full motion-compensation to work well, and even then (based on what I have actually seen in professional equipment) it still hasn't worked well. (I'm referring here to "single-ended" inter-frame interpolation.)

As I recall, without going to check, it is only available for HDMI when the V-Stretch mode is used.I just checked and my memory was correct. When you use HDMI signals the electronic vertical positioning is only available when you also use the V-Stretch mode (i.e. an external anamorphic lens).

About blur
madshi has written alot about the sample and hold effect that you get with any constantly on technology such as LC-based technology. The too abrupt change from frame n to n+1 causes the brain to introduce perception of blurring. With dlp and crt the change between frames works differently. Sony is trying to "calm" the brain down by inserting a resting period inbetween frames.

Actually this aspect of motion blur is related to the display and hold process when LCD is drawing the image. Unlike a CRT for example that light each portion of the phosphore during a fraction of a scan.This artifact can't be captured by a camera but our eyes clearly perceive it as motion blur.
Simply put, the eye integrates all lights captured by the retina for a specific interval of time, then send the sum to the brain. And unfortunatly for LCD The brain is not synced with its refresh rate :D. There are many threads addressing this particular topic in the flat panels forum.

A few members report that the JVC DILA panels appear emphasize noise, artifacts and even blur. Can we discuss why?

Personally, when using well master high-definition discs, I don’t see any of these anomalies. I primarily feed the RS1 HD discs with 1:1 pixel mapping at 24 Hz.

We know the liquid crystal itself responses (at least partially) in an analog manner. Is an excellent clean system ground essential? Does adding additional components in the chain increase noise and distortion by potentially degrading the ground? Especially for high speed digital signals such as HDMI?
Do video processors degrade the noise and distortion of the signal in varying levels depending upon the type of processing?

These are some of the reasons why I find proper setup (isolation, shielding and grounding) to be essential. The less processing on the playback side, the better. (These principles hold true for audio signals too).

To repeat, the JVC installed in my system has vanishing low noise, no perceptible blur or distortion. Therefore it has a squeaky clean and highly transparent PQ which lives up to the findings of Dr. Raymond Soneira study of several years ago.

I wish there were a way to help out owners of systems afflicted with noise, artifacts and blur. Can you and WSR help these people out? :)

2 months with the RS2 has never revealed anything that ever resembled blur-judder-accentuated grain. Just a respectable image.

Judder is easily discerned from blur.

Sony have tried, partially successfully, to address this issue with their newest machines.

Its particularly noticeable with sports.

I didn't realize there was a lot of sports shot at 24p then telecined to create judder.

Hey Greg, now that the RS2 is out of the bag .. what was your PJ in between the Marantz and the RS2? 8)

Throw your guys a bone. 8)

I didn't realize there was a lot of sports shot at 24p then telecined to create judder.

The focus of the comment, and previous posts was blur, not judder. I thought it clear that it was to that I referred. If not, i apologize for my tardy communication. On reflection I may have been unclear.

I was merely referencing the discernibility, rather than commenting on whether it was endemic.

Thanks for pointing that out.

Hey Greg, now that the RS2 is out of the bag .. what was your PJ in between the Marantz and the RS2? 8)

Throw your guys a bone. 8)


VW60?

Im thinking that he liked that one a lot, too. Probably not as much as that Jessica Biel pic you threw up in Scotts thread, though, Rob. 8)

Im thinking that he liked that one a lot, too. Probably not as much as that Jessica Biel pic you threw up in Scotts thread, though, Rob. 8)


This one? http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/4554/1jbkk0.th.jpg (http://img138.imageshack.us/my.php?image=1jbkk0.jpg) the Chunky But Funky Jessica Biel pic?

Hey Greg, now that the RS2 is out of the bag .. what was your PJ in between the Marantz and the RS2? 8)

Throw your guys a bone. 8)Sony VW60. The Sharp 20K is also an excellent projector with color accuracy and image depth advantages that are important to me, but the color separation artifacts were too much (they don't bother some people nearly as much as they did me). So as you can see that's 4 manufacturer's, 2 DLP & 2 LCoS projectors for my last four personal choices.

Off the thread topic a bit and out of curiosity, considering you have had an extended opertunity to use the VW60, do you think the Sony is closer in performance to the RS1 or RS2?

Yeah, but which one did you live with for a year?

Wait, you don't have to answer that... ;)

Yeah, but which one did you live with for a year?

Wait, you don't have to answer that... ;)The one with the best lens and fewest uncorrectable negative issues (at that time), Dan. :)

gee... vp11S1?

gee... vp11S1? Of course.

Dan, have you already sent the man an 11S2? 8)

No to get to off topic Gregr, How would you rate the best to worst 1080P DLP's you have for RBE?

Also do you get Eyestrain from watching any of them?

No to get to off topic Gregr, How would you rate the best to worst 1080P DLP's you have for RBE?This thread is for discussing the RS2. I'll be happy to discuss other issues in other threads. No more off topic discussion or answers from me here. If the off topic stuff continues then I think it's time to close this thread and discuss those things in other threads.

Greg,
Can you please post your adjustments made to the RS2 out of the box (your settings)?

Thank you in advance.

Greg,
Can you please post your adjustments made to the RS2 out of the box (your settings)?
No, there is no value in using settings from one projector in another projector. The lamps are different and they change significantly as they age.

Greg,

There have been some on these forums who have insisted that the lens on the RS1 (and now the RS2) is inadequate and that these projectors would benefit greatly from "expensive glass."

You have commented previously in your reviews of the RS1 and RS2 about the color correction in the lens used. Resulting CA appears to vary from unit to unit. For instance I have only very slight blue fringing on the corners of my RS1 while others have reported worse fringing issues.

I am inclined to believe that color correction issues are defects that are shared by most projectors, even those touted for having expensive lenses, although the extent of it will vary from unit to unit (I would imagine, for instance, that those Marantz models where the lens is hand picked should avoid the issue because of this selection process).

I have considered this really to be a non-factor because the image from any reasonable seating distance is sharp, even with small computer text displayed.

I concede that all things being equal, a 1 chip dlp solution should be sharper. In practice, I have seen little, if any, practical difference in sharpness, resolution, or really any other image quality factor that can be observed from any reasonable seating distance.

Can you tell me in what ways, other than the obvious color correction issue that you observed, that an RS2 might benefit from "expensive glass"?

Greg,

There have been some on these forums who have insisted that the lens on the RS1 (and now the RS2) is inadequate and that these projectors would benefit greatly from "expensive glass."

You have commented previously in your reviews of the RS1 and RS2 about the color correction in the lens used. Resulting CA appears to vary from unit to unit. For instance I have only very slight blue fringing on the corners of my RS1 while others have reported worse fringing issues.

I am inclined to believe that color correction issues are defects that are shared by most projectors, even those touted for having expensive lenses, although the extent of it will vary from unit to unit (I would imagine, for instance, that those Marantz models where the lens is hand picked should avoid the issue because of this selection process).

I have considered this really to be a non-factor because the image from any reasonable seating distance is sharp, even with small computer text displayed.

I concede that all things being equal, a 1 chip dlp solution should be sharper. In practice, I have seen little, if any, practical difference in sharpness, resolution, or really any other image quality factor that can be observed from any reasonable seating distance.

Can you tell me in what ways, other than the obvious color correction issue that you observed, that an RS2 might benefit from "expensive glass"?

Splitting the zoom range with, say 2 lens options would help too. It would mitigate some of the issues that afflict ALL pjs.

If that happened with some other changes that could have been made, I'd buy one instantly.

LG,

There is no doubt that a better lens could improve the image quality of the RS1 or RS2 somewhat, but the cost of doing so gets very high and we're already at the point of diminishing returns. The current lens will resolve a single pixel, white/black checkerboard across the entire screen with fairly high MTF, tho granted there is some production variation and some will look better than others.

95% of the purchasers of this projector (AVS junkies notwithstanding) are happy with the price/performance factor of these products and I doubt many would want to see the price of the projectors double just to get a nominal improvement in ANSI CR or a reduction in CA at the corners.

The cost of developing a new, super high quality lens series that would only be amortized over a few hundred units a year is just insane...not to mention the cost to manufacture the lens to very critical tolerances.

If some of you would like to pool your resources (Mark, Mlang) and build a few lenses, I know some lens mfr's who would love to work with you...just be prepared to drop $100K+ for the first prototype.

Cheers,

Tom,

Thanks for this answer.

Not that I want you to take swipes at any competitors (God forbid) but some manufacturers that brag about lens quality (no identities will be revealed) would also be faced with similar choices based on cost, volume sold, and amortization.

Granted that many of those projectors are more expensive (2 or 3 times moreso) than an RS1 or RS2, but presumably their volumes are also a lot less.

How do they do it (assuming that they do)?

Lawguy:

Email me and I'll explain it. I don't want to hijack this thread.

Never mind.

Dan Miller has convinced me that Marantz's optics are exceptional, not that I needed any convincing in that regard.

I don't think that he'll mind if I post his explanation to me. I don't share his fears about hijacking this thread (that's the way I roll). Here it is:



And that was when $3,500 was a lot of money.

This will also be addressed comprehensively in something I've been preparing for you, since our recent introduction.

Lawguy:

Email me and I'll explain it. I don't want to hijack this thread.

Hi Dan - could you PM me your explanation? I'm very curious about the subject as well.

LG,

Unfortunately, due to changes in the basic design of the optical path and chip size, we don't have the luxury of a long amortization period for any sort of lens we might design. The optical design is more complicated with an unusually long back-focus distance...there are no off-the-shelf lens designs that can be easily adapted to our needs.

Minolta has been building lenses for 3 and 1 chip DLP engines for a number of years and they have the opportunity to spread the basic development cost over a large number of manufacturers with a sizeable yearly volume, even if the lenses might not be exactly identical.

There are trade-offs in every product design and the challenge is finding the right balance of features vs cost that provide the greatest ROI, for us and our dealers...I believe we have done that. Dealers and end-users alike love the fact that this projector has the most offset and the widest zoom range of just about anything on the market that doesn't rely on interchangeable lenses...if you can't fit these projectors in a room where you want to, you likely can't fit anything in there.

There is no perfect projector, not the RS2 or anything else, but as Greg and others have stated, we've raised the bar in some very important areas...more work to be done, you bet...gotta get back to work!

Cheers,

Well the RS2 is an awesome proj.

Tom,

Is there any way that you can get us access to more RS232 codes for the RS2? We are missing RS232 for zoom and focus and VStretch. It would be nice if there is an IR code to toggle VStretch too.

Please help. pretty please with sugar on top.

Thanks!

Cameron,

Here's the deal with the missing RS232 codes...they're missing, the were not included when the protocol code was put together and it will take a firmware upgrade to add them. I feel your pain and find it rather embarassing that they were overlooked.

I will be in meetings with factory reps next week and that is a topic of discussion. If you would like to voice your concern about this oversight, please forward me an email at my JVC account...my nickname here at JVC dot com (trying to outsmart the spammers).

Cheers,

LG,

There is no doubt that a better lens could improve the image quality of the RS1 or RS2 somewhat, but the cost of doing so gets very high and we're already at the point of diminishing returns. The current lens will resolve a single pixel, white/black checkerboard across the entire screen with fairly high MTF, tho granted there is some production variation and some will look better than others.

95% of the purchasers of this projector (AVS junkies notwithstanding) are happy with the price/performance factor of these products and I doubt many would want to see the price of the projectors double just to get a nominal improvement in ANSI CR or a reduction in CA at the corners.

The cost of developing a new, super high quality lens series that would only be amortized over a few hundred units a year is just insane...not to mention the cost to manufacture the lens to very critical tolerances.

If some of you would like to pool your resources (Mark, Mlang) and build a few lenses, I know some lens mfr's who would love to work with you...just be prepared to drop $100K+ for the first prototype.

Cheers,

I agree with you Tom and as I have already explained in another forum, the Japanese and German lens manufacturers would not consider a complex custom lens design , of which I have done many, for a camera lens unless they could sell over 100,000 and preferably one million lenses. Projector manufacturers do not make anywhere near that volume of front projectors.

If you have a lens manufacturer who can get a 16 element custom zoom lens which I have designed into production for only 100,000 , I would like to know who they are.

In 2006 at Cedia I thought that the RS1 was the best projector at Cedia regardless of price and so did the senior Stewart film screen engineer who sent me off site to view the projector.

After viewing the RS2 and reading Greg Rogers review I will be purchasing a RS2 for my own use because I believe it is the best projector for viewing films currently on the market . Is it perfect NO! It is the cheapest NO! Do I wish you had stayed within the standard color space? YES but still believe it is the best value if your primary use is watching films and many people who work in the film industry agree with me.

Maybe its my imagination but I think LCOS images are more film like, and produce less strain on the eyes than single chip DLP projectors. In high APL scenes, greater than 60 percent , I think DLP is sharper but my random measurements have shown me that, 80 percent of movie scenes are under 50 percent APL so 80 percent of the time the JVC will produce a superior image. If I watched a lot of game shows on tv my choice would have been different but I don't watch game shows. I watch movies.

I am fully aware of how small volume limits what you can do practically and my speculation on how the optics could be improved was just that, just speculation and was not meant to be a criticism of the engineers at JVC who have done what I consider to me an amazing job and have produced a great product

and anyway this is just an enthusiast forum , not a professional design review so speculation should be allowed.

Cameron,

Here's the deal with the missing RS232 codes...they're missing, the were not included when the protocol code was put together and it will take a firmware upgrade to add them. I feel your pain and find it rather embarassing that they were overlooked.
Thanks for explaining the reason why we don't have access to those codes. It is difficult at best having to implement a long macro to do a very simple switch.

Add me to the list. ;) I shall forward an email as well.

Chris

As an impending RS2 owner, add me to the list too, please.

Tom

I am waiting for mine (HD100) to arrive as well so please add me to the list.

If a firmware upgrade is offered, will it be end user friendly or will the projector have to be sent in?

Send those emails, guys. This would be a great thing to have.

Tom said it well, it is a little embarassing having your guests have to see 10 plus actions on a menu screen to switch into something they don't even have a clue about in the first place. Have you ever tried to explain stretch modes and/or anamorphic lenses to a female? :D

Chris

Tom, I remember a statement you made a while ago... wait a second... here it is:

GP,

Yes, I did mention that we had adapted some 150CL series lenses to the HD2K as an engineering exercise and with the 1:1 lens we measured close to 3000:1 on/off CR. ANSI was also improved considerably, but I don't recall the exact numbers. Part of the reason for the increase is that the lens has a smaller aperture (higher f number)...you do lose some light output though.

As to your question about adapting the longer throw lens from the 150CL to the HD2K, yes, it can be done...just requires access to a basic machine shop, some common sense and a willingness to void the warranty on a $30K projector...:-)

Cheers,

__________________
Tom Stites
"Speaking only for myself...."

assuming one would be willing to hack the chassis and let a machine shop do the necessary work, would that be, at least in principle, an option for the HD100? Are these lenses better in quality?

Thanks.

Peter,

We did end up providing a large number of the 1:1 lenses and HD2KU projectors to a simulation customer and they worked out great. That particular lens was one of the best we've made, pincushion less than 1/4 pixel vertically at the sides.

Unfortunately, we changed the entire optical design of the projector and the lenses from the older series will not work on the latest designs...the devices are smaller and the back-focus changed quite a bit. The lenses are also out of production.

Cheers,

gregr,

Thanks again for the great review.

You mention that you measured 603 lumens (26.4 fL) at 12.8 feet in the High Lamp mode. You also mentioned that you measured 502 lumens at the same throw distance while in the Normal Lamp mode. Is my assumption of an equivalent of 20.41 fL in the Normal Lamp mode correct?

Also, I've been following this recent thread (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=984992) with interest, and even though it is a completely subjective topic, I was wondering what your fL preference was and what your preferred throw distance is for the RS2 in your screening environment.

Finally, regarding the RS2, do you have any insight regarding the progressive loss of lumens during the usable lifespan of the bulb and how that might impact one's decision to mount the projector at the shorter end of the throw range? I guess I'm wondering if the initial disadvantages of lower CR in the shorter throw range -- ultimately pays dividends during the latter part of the bulb's life -- when more lumens are hitting the screen than if the projector was mounted further back -- and when the option of switching the projector into High Lamp mode might also offset end-of-life light output.

Thanks


edit: Additional Question

gregr,

Thanks again for the great review.

You mention that you measured 603 lumens (26.4 fL) at 12.8 feet in the High Lamp mode. You also mentioned that you measured 502 lumens at the same throw distance while in the Normal Lamp mode. Is my assumption of an equivalent of 20.41 fL in the Normal Lamp mode correct?
26.4 fL * 502/603 = 22.0 fL

Also, I've been following this recent thread (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=984992) with interest, and even though it is a completely subjective topic, I was wondering what your fL preference was and what your preferred throw distance is for the RS2 in your screening environment.Let me answer the last part first, since it is easiest. I'd initially mount that RS2 at the highest practical throw ratio to maximize its full-field contrast ratio since I don't need to worry about insufficient brightness. I use a screen (87.2" wide) that is probably smaller than most people on the forum want to use.

My optimum choice for fL is more complex to explain. As I mentioned earlier in this thread I consider myself a film enthusiast as well as a home theater enthusiast. There are quite a few films that I like to see and experience as closely as possible to what the director or cinematographer would have seen in an optimum screening room. That argues for around 12-16 fL. If you get much brighter (say 20-30 fL) I believe scenes have a different look. (There are technical reasons that film screening rooms can't be brighter - but what's important is they aren't, not why they aren't.)

Another variable is video compression vs screen size vs brightness. MPEG-2 is not good enough to support large screen sizes and bright images. The bit rate is too low on DVDs for large screen sizes and the MPEG-2 artifacts get more visible the brighter the image. MPEG-2 artifacts vary from one SD DVD to another, but with an 87" wide screen I definitely don't want to go over 20 fL, and 15 fL max would be better. Better (non-MPEG-2) compression systems on high-definition DVDs support brighter images on my screen size. I'm generally ok for those compression artifacts up to 20 fL.

Then there is the issue of color wheel color-separation artifacts. Individual's sensitivity varies with color wheel design, speed, and image brightness. In my case, I would generally prefer to keep the brightness below 15 fL with most single-chip DLP projectors.

Anyway, to keep this from getting any longer, I would say my optimum preference is 12-15 fL, but I can tolerate about 10-20 fL in many situations.

Finally, regarding the RS2, do you have any insight regarding the progressive loss of lumens during the usable lifespan of the bulb and how that might impact one's decision to mount the projector at the shorter end of the throw range? I guess I'm wondering if the initial disadvantages of lower CR in the shorter throw range -- ultimately pays dividends during the latter part of the bulb's life -- when more lumens are hitting the screen than if the projector was mounted further back -- and when the option of switching the projector into High Lamp mode might also offset end-of-life light output.

Lamps age rapidly (perhaps 20% in the first 100 hours), and eventually decline more slowly over a 40%-50% range (or even lower) so my ceiling mount system (sort of a track system) allows me to change the throw distance over a wide range, which in addition to changing lamp power allows me to regulate brightness as the lamp ages.

Greg,

What's your viewing distance?

How well the RS2 does with standard definiton sports channels ie soccer through satellite. As a CRT owner I always enjoyed watching soccer on big screen although when I watched it with digital projectors ie HD2k was pretty dissapointing. Is dlp better or is it vprocessor dependent and how RS2 performs on this regard. Your input will be greatly appreciated as I am on the market for a projector up to 30k.

Greg,

What's your viewing distance?About 13 feet.

About 13 feet.

It's great to know your level of acuity. Aside from knowing what you're looking at you must also have a decent set of eyes.

gregr,

Thanks for that comprehensive reply.

Coincidentally, sitting 13' back from an 87" ST130 -- with the RS2 mounted at around 19' to 20' is exactly the configuration I am installing. Could you please clarify your reference to the 473 lumens at the maximum throw ratio? Was that measurement taken with the lamp set to Normal or High -- and what were the lumen measurements for the setting that was not represented at that maximum throw ratio?

In your review, you mention that the Offset adjustments are useful during initial setup and compensating for lamp shifting. I realize that it is too early for you to comment on the utility of this feature -- although it would certainly be sweet if it had the necessary range. However, given your fL preference (which is very similar to mine), I'm curious to know if you think you'll be able to leave the RS2 at its maximum throw distance through the entire life of the bulb -- or if you already know that it will be necessary to move the projector forward to compensate for reduced lamp brightness. I ask because I am trying to make some final decisions regarding my projector location and mounting system -- and I'm trying to get a sense of whether or not I will be able to permanently mount it at the maximum throw distance -- or if I should be thinking about solutions that will allow me to move it towards the screen over time in order to maintain the desired brightness.

Finally, your "sort of a track system" ceiling mount sounds ingenious -- and is probably a necessity in your line of work. If you had it to do all over again, what kind of track system would you have installed to perfect your current setup. Anything commercially available -- that might be adaptable to this application?

Thanks very much.


edit: Clarification

Greg,

Do you have any pictures of your sliding projector mount system? It sounds like a really good idea.

Greg....can you tell us what spectral shift we might experience as the bulb ages and when it might need recalibration? i presume this would apply to all projectors including the vw60 and rs2.

No, there is no value in using settings from one projector in another projector. The lamps are different and they change significantly as they age.

????
Where did I say I wanted to use your settings --- I was interested in what you used. Sorry if I was not clear one way or the other.

I also didn't realize the JVC used different lamps in each RS2 projector -- why would they do that?

????
Where did I say I wanted to use your settings --- I was interested in what you used.

I also didn't realize the JVC used different lamps in each RS2 projector -- why would they do that?

He's talking about natural bulb-to-bulb variances.

Greg,
You stated that the higher gamma 2.4-2.5 gave a better, more CRT like picture, without black crush. Art Feierman at ProjectorReviews said that he found a gamma higher than 2.1 caused black crush. Was there anything other than the typical calibration adjustments you did to avoid black crush at gammas above 2.1?

About 13 feet.

for HD or SD ? that's 1.72 the width
i like to sit at 6.5 from 4meters scope screen

i hope JVC finally releases an HD200 with 1200lumens with those 40000:1 panels
and ansi 500:1 :)

the lamp on the RS1 can last much longer than 2000hrs
some people in europe have reached 4000hrs with still good brigthness
because they don't turn on and off their pjs 4times an evening...

Greg,

Do you have any pictures of your sliding projector mount system? It sounds like a really good idea.It's just two long Unistrut channels bolted to the ceiling. The projector mount hangs from the Unistrut using threaded rods. You can easily move a couple of light weight lamp-based projectors anywhere along the channels. Unistrut is overkill for light weight lamp based projectors. I originally put it in for hanging heavy CRT projectors. I'm sure there's more info about using Unistrut in the CRT forum.

I understand Greg's explanation for how he could use the higher gamma on the RS2 due to it's expanded black level. But I'm still unclear on why exactly raising the gamma increases perceived image depth on a display. I know it does, because I've seen it myself in playing with display calibration. I'm just not perfectly clear on why.

To expand on that: having experimented endlessly with picture settings on my plasma I'd noted the effects of the brightness control (which like most displays affects the black level). Of course I'd calibrated to retain as deep black levels as I could as well as the best white levels while crushing detail in neither region. But when I experimented in turning down brightness drastically it really blew me away the effect it had on the image depth in the midrange. Looking at an actor's face as I plunged the brightness control downward, I could see how the tone of his face became deeper, but more amazing was the sense of solidity and sculptural 3D quality increased. I got some truly dimensional-looking images that way (especially when fully masked by black). So I can see how Greg got more depth out of brighter images in using the higher gamma. But of course in my case it meant that any remotely challenging dark scenes had significant losses in detail, which had been plunged below black by the lowered brightness setting. In the end, as neat as the effect was I couldn't live with the unevenness of detail and so went with my normal brightness setting. But "if only I could get both."

As I understand it a gamma control should do this. It's supposed to control mainly for the mid tones. So you can calibrate contrast/brightness for the proper black/white levels, then play with gamma to get the mid-tones where you want them. Unfortunately on my plasma display in playing with the gamma I experienced the same sort of problems as when I played with brightness: I could either get the extra 3D effect in the mid tones and loose detail in the black areas, or visa versa.

So it seems that Greg was able to get the best of both worlds on the RS2 which is very intriguing.

But back to my question: I'm still not sure on why this increased image depth occurs in the mid tones when you raise the gamma. What exactly is causing the increased depth effect? My sense in looking at an actor's face when adjusting brightness or gamma is that the shadow details, from the finest lines in his skin to the shadow his nose casts on his face, becomes deeper with more pronounced contrast - essentially increasing the contrast between shadow areas and brighter areas, hence an increased dimensionality.

Is that it?

Rich,

I think it's simple that in a brightish scene, the brighter parts are made even brighter and the darker parts darker; IOW, it actually is increasing contrast between objects in the image.

"As I understand it a gamma control should do this. It's supposed to control mainly for the mid tones."

I believe that strictly speaking gamma is an exponent, and choosing it completely defines the full range of video level/IRE values.

Well guys,

I went to demo a bunch of digitals. Having owned a 9" CRT for 6 years (marquee 9501LC), I was nervous about the demo, wanting the beast to come down, but not wanting to give up much in doing so.

After going through a demo of the sim2 D80 and C3X (720p) and epson on a 110" diagonal 16:9 130 studiotek and being thoroughly unimpressed, I asked for the rs2. My dealer told me not to bother because the colors are so off that there was no way I was going to like it. I asked him to open the box and throw a quick image just to humor me. Once he sets it up, he admits that he has never seen an rs2 (aside from tradeshows) , just a bunch of rs1's he installed.

After 10 minutes an image is thrown and all we could ALL say (me, salesperson and installer) was WOW!!! 4 or 5 movie demos later the pj was boxed up and in my car. I installed it today using my screen (same as dealer) I can tell you with confidence that I am never going back to CRT. I dont miss it one bit. The improvement in brightness, detail, contrast etc is just unbelievable.

The RS2 is a very special projector that I can be happy with for a looooong time. I would have never thought that I would be so happy not to have my CRT hanging from my ceiling. Is is by far the best picture my theater has seen. Darks nearly as dark as my CRT but superior in every other aspect!!!

Thanks JVC, jason, and all the contributors to this forum!!!

Look at the gamma on a log graph and as it increases , you will see the slope of the line change and you will see that the ratios for the same ire values increase thus the contrast will increase.

I understand Greg's explanation for how he could use the higher gamma on the RS2 due to it's expanded black level. But I'm still unclear on why exactly raising the gamma increases perceived image depth on a display. I know it does, because I've seen it myself in playing with display calibration. I'm just not perfectly clear on why.Several people have already answered this. It's simply that a higher gamma increases the contrast between any two signal levels. More contrast increases the perception of depth.

Mathematically - If the gamma curve is a simple power function, then the contrast between any two input signal levels is simply:

Contrast = (in2/in1)^gamma

(This assumes the black level is zero, i.e. full-field contrast is infinite, and ANSI contrast is infinite, so the image contrast is entirely determined by the gamma curve.)

So for instance, suppose that the input signal levels on two sides of an image edge are 80 IRE and 20 IRE, or 20 IRE and 5 IRE, then in both cases the input signal ratio is 4. If the display gamma is 2.2 the contrast ratio is 4^2.2 = 21.1. But if the gamma is 2.5, then the contrast ratio is 4^2.5 = 32.0, which is 52% higher contrast across that edge in the image. In areas of the image that have higher contrast the differences are even larger. Suppose, the input signal levels have a ratio of 8:1, then the contrast ratio for a gamma of 2.2 is 97, but if the gamma is 2.5 the contrast ratio is 181, about 87% higher.

Greg,
You stated that the higher gamma 2.4-2.5 gave a better, more CRT like picture, without black crush. Art Feierman at ProjectorReviews said that he found a gamma higher than 2.1 caused black crush. Was there anything other than the typical calibration adjustments you did to avoid black crush at gammas above 2.1?Obviously, you must be sure to re-check the Brightness control for the correct black level when changing gamma. The RS-2 also allows you to use the custom gamma adjustments to correct the grayscale near black, so you must be sure that you don't mess up the gamma near black when adjusting the grayscale. You will note in the review that I easily adjusted the grayscale for 1 dE or less deviation from D65 from 5% to 100% luma using the custom gamma controls.

"Crush" is a subjective term, so I've learned to avoid it as much as possible. I wouldn't speculate about what someone else saw or means, if they say they saw "black crush". I looked at very dark films, and I also carefully looked at 1%-10% 10-step grayscale test patterns. I liked what I saw, which is very CRT-like. Is a 1% window visible above black? Yes. Is it very dark? Yes. Are the 1%-10% steps clear and well differentiated? Absolutely. If someone really thought they were "crushed" they could simply raise their brightness (lower the gamma around 5% luma) with the custom gamma control.

Greg states that the HDMI input will accept up to 1280x1024 (60Hz) PC signals....

I assume my technical knowledge is letting me down as usual...I use a HTPC... obviously you need to output 1920x1080p from the PC... am I right in assuming that by "PC Signals" he means something else?

At the moment I'm outputting 1920x1080p@60Hz to a HD2K... with the RS2 I assume outputting 1080p@24p is the way to go....not even sure my card can do 24p...powerstrip?

I think he is talking about a standard DVI 1280x1024 rgb pc signal which is different than 1920x1080p. It is actually nice to have PC compatability for some applications/games.

I'm not sure how to properly do 24p with a HTPC. It seems like your PowerDVD or the like would need to support that output also. Not sure though. Haven't run my theater with a HTPC for over 3 years. Life has been better. :)

I think he is talking about a standard DVI 1280x1024 rgb pc signal which is different than 1920x1080p. It is actually nice to have PC compatability for some applications/games.
Definitely nice to have that. I haven't had a chance to play around with using 1 of the HDMI inputs as a pc input yet, but I'm hoping there will be no glitches.

Chris

So does the RS2 easily beat the VW60 in everything but fan noise?

How have previous JVC PJ's done over the long haul in terms reliability?

So does the RS2 easily beat the VW60 in everything but fan noise?

How have previous JVC PJ's done over the long haul in terms reliability?


As to your first questions...having read the entire thread which indicates that Greg went from the VW60 to the RS2 tells me that the RS2 is overall -- at least in Greg's environment -- the better projector...

Knowing Greg the little that I do -- e-mail exchanges and the odd telephone conversation -- I know him to be very exacting so I would conclude that it would be the better choice...now, factor in the cost differential as only you can decide whether the extra money is well spent...

HTH :)

So does the RS2 easily beat the VW60 in everything but fan noise?

How have previous JVC PJ's done over the long haul in terms reliability?

I think they do decent over the long haul. I had a G15 get the optical block replaced because a dust blob got in it. It was taken care of under warranty.
I haven't seen many complaints for long-term issues. It seems like if there is an issue, it is that way out of the box and can be replaced.

Greg, or anyone for that matter:

Can you speak a little more to the brightness of the RS2, especially in comparison to the brighter DLP's. I currently have the Infocus IN82. The picture is spectacular and the ability to throw a bright picture in my all purpose bar/HT/Man Room during sports and TV programming is great. But the RBE is really bad on it and 60+% of my viewing is movies. I purchased it with the long term plans to do a CIH set up by year's end using a 54x127 screen.

So my question is, is the RS2 going to be bright enough for someone like myself in a CIH setup? I've always been a DLP fan (IN 7200 previously) and have been wary of the LCos projectors and what I had seen in the previous Sony models as a soft picture that I did not like. Unfortunately there is no way to see an RS2 in the Northern Va/DC area that I can find. I'm about ready to pull the trigger on the RS2 but am still on the fence between it and the new BENQ 20000 coming out.

I hope I kept this on topic enough. By all accounts the RS2 is one of the best out there but I am concerned with it's lower lumens and the large 235:1 screen I plan to use.

Thanks
Randy

Cameron
I have not heard about those dust blobs in a while, is it becuase the LCOS panels were not sealed properly?

Yes. They were not sealed properly. If you get dust blobs in your DILA, it is a manufacturing defect.