CIH ALERT: NEW JVC PROJECTORS W. 4K simulation and Lens Memory! - Page 7 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #181 of 201 Old 09-18-2011, 07:20 PM
AVS Special Member
 
coolrda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Posts: 1,007
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot View Post

Thanks for sharing your findings, I think they jive with what most lens users have found.

Are you saying that you have to sit a little further back using the zoom method compared to where you'd sit if you used the lens? If so, that was my experience too, or at least, I couldn't happily sit as close.

Gary

Yes, I would have to sit back further and the light loss of 15 percent was something one would get used to if you had to do without the lens. This was from 2.0x zoom or about the middle. Despite that though, from my permanent seat the Lens was preferred. If you can't get max width of screen without using a lens then the advantage grows up to the max of 33 percent with pixel density and light. With the RS40 and my throw of 17ft. I'm able to get a Zoomed image of 12ft wide max. With the lens its 16ft. or close to a 1:1 ratio with my projector. So as you get closer to the 1.4 max zoomed side the lens really starts to distance itself from zooming. Even at max zoom of 1.4 the Isco 3L takes the full panel with plenty of room to spare.
coolrda is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #182 of 201 Old 09-18-2011, 10:18 PM
AVS Special Member
 
coolrda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Posts: 1,007
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
4K is a big deal to me only because of my view distance. Optimal 1080p distance is 3xSH, 4k would be half that. Pixel density improves and that's it. All the other advantages of having a lens that applies to 2K would apply to 4K. If you want to know what a 4k version of your projector looks like just double your view distance.
coolrda is offline  
post #183 of 201 Old 09-19-2011, 06:00 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
HogPilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Good Ol' US of A
Posts: 2,869
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolrda View Post

Pixel density improves and that's it. All the other advantages of having a lens that applies to 2K would apply to 4K.

I still question how we are any more certain of this than we are that 4K will allow zoom-based CIH setups to become much more prevalent. Some real-world reports are definitely going to be necessary before definite declarations can be made one way or another.

There are 10 types of people: those who understand binary, and those who don't.

HogPilot is offline  
post #184 of 201 Old 09-19-2011, 10:50 PM
AVS Special Member
 
coolrda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Posts: 1,007
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolrda View Post

Max refresh is 120hz, so with 2 frame wobulation it will show a simulated 4k at 60 hz. 3D needs the refresh at 96hz(2 24hz frames refreshed at 48hz)to show frame packed 1080x1920(2205x1920 or something) to have full resolution hd. Essentially you can choose from 3 modes that all need 120hz, smooth frame, 3D or simulated 4K.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HogPilot View Post

I still question how we are any more certain of this than we are that 4K will allow zoom-based CIH setups to become much more prevalent. Some real-world reports are definitely going to be necessary before definite declarations can be made one way or another.

I think I stated very clearly here the pros and cons of both ways. Are you saying that somehow 4k will make up brightness or eliminate the need to zoom with bars projected offscreen or that ILM will be able to instantly zoom, shift and focus? Are you saying that a zoomed 4k will be brighter than an A lenses 4k? Will 4k somehow enable a wider picture per given room depth than a lens? These are all ways in which a 4k and a 2k are identical. More than likely a 4k chip will be considerably larger the the .65 chips used today. That can cause more issues. Now if the 4k projector has blanking, shrinking and awesome scaling ratios that would in effect make it a 2.35 chip, then of course it would change the playing field. I seen every 4k display out and they are 16x9. All the same parameters apply to 1080p/2k, apply to 4k. Just 4x the pixels.
coolrda is offline  
post #185 of 201 Old 09-20-2011, 04:24 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
HogPilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Good Ol' US of A
Posts: 2,869
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolrda View Post

I think I stated very clearly here the pros and cons of both ways. Are you saying that somehow 4k will make up brightness or eliminate the need to zoom with bars projected offscreen or that ILM will be able to instantly zoom, shift and focus? Are you saying that a zoomed 4k will be brighter than an A lenses 4k? Will 4k somehow enable a wider picture per given room depth than a lens? These are all ways in which a 4k and a 2k are identical. More than likely a 4k chip will be considerably larger the the .65 chips used today. That can cause more issues. Now if the 4k projector has blanking, shrinking and awesome scaling ratios that would in effect make it a 2.35 chip, then of course it would change the playing field. I seen every 4k display out and they are 16x9. All the same parameters apply to 1080p/2k, apply to 4k. Just 4x the pixels.

Pixel density and light output are the primary reasons that we use lenses in the first place. I've already very clearly stated that light output would still be a reason to use a lens with a 4K projector. The other reasons you just listed comprise a very small portion of total CIH lens users' reasons for using one. If the zoomed black bars are one's primary concern, masking is a much cheaper alternative than is using a lens. If available throw to obtain a desired screen size is an issue, using a lens to obtain a larger screen comes with the tradeoff of more (and most likely noticeable) geometric distortion due to the short throw as someone pointed out earlier.

My point is that the number of people who use a lens to solely address the problems of throw and black bar overspill comprise a very small portion of total lens users. Thus with pixel density being one of the primary reasons for using a lens, I'm saying that the jury is still out on how zooming a 4K image for CIH will affect image fidelity, if at all.

There are 10 types of people: those who understand binary, and those who don't.

HogPilot is offline  
post #186 of 201 Old 09-20-2011, 11:21 AM
Advanced Member
 
ilsiu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 867
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by HogPilot View Post

I still question how we are any more certain of this than we are that 4K will allow zoom-based CIH setups to become much more prevalent. Some real-world reports are definitely going to be necessary before definite declarations can be made one way or another.

The impact of 4k (true 4k, not e-shift) can be simulated right now. Whatever your preferred viewing distance from your current 1080p image (2x screen height? 1x?), just double it. If you can still see pixellation/jaggies, then you probably still need a lens.
ilsiu is offline  
post #187 of 201 Old 09-20-2011, 11:56 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
HogPilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Good Ol' US of A
Posts: 2,869
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilsiu View Post

The impact of 4k (true 4k, not e-shift) can be simulated right now. Whatever your preferred viewing distance from your current 1080p image (2x screen height? 1x?), just double it. If you can still see pixellation/jaggies, then you probably still need a lens.

Has anyone actually done this? I would volunteer except my theater is non existent at the moment.

There are 10 types of people: those who understand binary, and those who don't.

HogPilot is offline  
post #188 of 201 Old 09-20-2011, 03:15 PM
AVS Special Member
 
coolrda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Posts: 1,007
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by HogPilot View Post

Has anyone actually done this? I would volunteer except my theater is non existent at the moment.

I have and posted that result here earlier in this and other threads here.
coolrda is offline  
post #189 of 201 Old 09-20-2011, 03:26 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
HogPilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Good Ol' US of A
Posts: 2,869
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolrda View Post

I have and posted that result here earlier in this and other threads here.

If you're talking about your comparison of zooming and using a lens, I must have missed in your post where you doubled your seating distance to simulate watching a 4K projector.

**Edit: I'm not trying to sound flippant with my reply, only expressing my confusion regarding how your assessment in the aforementioned post applies to a simulation of zooming with a 4K PJ.

There are 10 types of people: those who understand binary, and those who don't.

HogPilot is offline  
post #190 of 201 Old 09-20-2011, 04:25 PM
AVS Special Member
 
coolrda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Posts: 1,007
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by HogPilot View Post

My point is that the number of people who use a lens to solely address the problems of throw and black bar overspill comprise a very small portion of total lens users. Thus with pixel density being one of the primary reasons for using a lens, I'm saying that the jury is still out on how zooming a 4K image for CIH will affect image fidelity, if at all.

I agree with that, even though we can't know for sure. We don't even know the ratio of A lens to zoomers there is or how many CIHer's there is. In my case, I have gone almost as big as my wall height will allow. When I zoom, light is projected on my ceiling and center speaker/subs. I absolutely can not do with anything less than instant aspect changes. Too many these two reasons are a big deal and reason enough. Going to a 4k projector is less of an upgrade than going from a 480P to a 1080P. That sucks about no theater, HP. I was without mine for 8 months only a month after getting my Isco.

Personally, if and when 4k is available at a four figure price, I have to have a 2.35 mode, not ILM. I had an Optoma that was 768x1280 or 720x1280 by turning off the pixels, thus making a 16x10 into a true 16x9. If this feature was available then I would consider ditching the lens. I would lose light but pixel density would be fine. Then again I may like the picture with the lens and full panel better. I've heard the comparison between 4k and 8k were astounding as the 8k loses the digital look completely so that curved surfaces look truly curved, with no pixel stairstepping. So, putting pixel density aside, Theres is other important reasons for me retaining the lens use.
coolrda is offline  
post #191 of 201 Old 09-20-2011, 06:16 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
HogPilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Good Ol' US of A
Posts: 2,869
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolrda View Post

I agree with that, even though we can't know for sure. We don't even know the ratio of A lens to zoomers there is or how many CIHer's there is. In my case, I have gone almost as big as my wall height will allow. When I zoom, light is projected on my ceiling and center speaker/subs. I absolutely can not do with anything less than instant aspect changes. Too many these two reasons are a big deal and reason enough. Going to a 4k projector is less of an upgrade than going from a 480P to a 1080P. That sucks about no theater, HP. I was without mine for 8 months only a month after getting my Isco.

Personally, if and when 4k is available at a four figure price, I have to have a 2.35 mode, not ILM. I had an Optoma that was 768x1280 or 720x1280 by turning off the pixels, thus making a 16x10 into a true 16x9. If this feature was available then I would consider ditching the lens. I would lose light but pixel density would be fine. Then again I may like the picture with the lens and full panel better. I've heard the comparison between 4k and 8k were astounding as the 8k loses the digital look completely so that curved surfaces look truly curved, with no pixel stairstepping. So, putting pixel density aside, Theres is other important reasons for me retaining the lens use.

Well I can certainly understand your reasons for wanting to use a lens with 4K too I saw the reports of the Sharp 8K LCD and wish I could have seen it in person, it sounded like the image was amazing - the video that I saw zoomed in on the screen as much as it could without losing focus, and I couldn't believe how much detail kept revealing itself without showing any pixel structure whatsoever. Maybe some day...

And yes, I hate not having a theater - moving relatively frequently has that drawback. Thankfully I found a place that has a finished basement with ample space - in fact, way more space than my last theater, where I left my CIW Masquerade because it was only 84" wide. It will be quite a while before I can re-aquire a screen and masking system, but at least it will give me time to read the reviews on all the new units before choosing one. I'm also considering a Sim2 with my Isco 3, which won't compete with an RS55 contrast-wise, but has some other amazing image attributes and can put out enough light to support a larger screen. I'm sure either would yield a great picture.

There are 10 types of people: those who understand binary, and those who don't.

HogPilot is offline  
post #192 of 201 Old 09-20-2011, 08:06 PM
Advanced Member
 
ilsiu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 867
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by HogPilot View Post

Has anyone actually done this? I would volunteer except my theater is non existent at the moment.

I'd volunteer, but I use a Panny w/smoothscreen, so I already don't see pixellation at ~2.5x screen height. Hey, maybe that's why I'm satisfied with zooming
ilsiu is offline  
post #193 of 201 Old 12-08-2011, 08:51 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 11,859
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 244
Well, looks like I'm gonna be one of the guinea pigs for this projector. I pick my RS55 (4K-lite) projector up on Friday!

Higher pixel density here I come...:-)
R Harkness is offline  
post #194 of 201 Old 12-08-2011, 10:22 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
HogPilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Good Ol' US of A
Posts: 2,869
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

Well, looks like I'm gonna be one of the guinea pigs for this projector. I pick my RS55 (4K-lite) projector up on Friday!

Higher pixel density here I come...:-)

Definitely looking forward to seeing your impressions!

There are 10 types of people: those who understand binary, and those who don't.

HogPilot is offline  
post #195 of 201 Old 12-08-2011, 02:03 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 11,859
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 244
I guess it's too bad I don't own an A-lens so I could report here the difference between the JVC 4k-lite and an A-lens. But I'll let you know what I think otherwise. Reports from JVC RS55 owners describe the effects of the 4k-lite combined with the re-processing/upscaling of the image as producing a picture that is both smoother (no pixels) and distinctly sharper and more detailed. Sounds promising.
R Harkness is offline  
post #196 of 201 Old 12-08-2011, 02:50 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
HogPilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Good Ol' US of A
Posts: 2,869
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

I guess it's too bad I don't own an A-lens so I could report here the difference between the JVC 4k-lite and an A-lens. But I'll let you know what I think otherwise. Reports from JVC RS55 owners describe the effects of the 4k-lite combined with the re-processing/upscaling of the image as producing a picture that is both smoother (no pixels) and distinctly sharper and more detailed. Sounds promising.

I live in the DC area and would be willing to bring my Isco 3 to throw in front of someone's RS55 for a comparison Unfortunately Toronto is just a bit too far!

There are 10 types of people: those who understand binary, and those who don't.

HogPilot is offline  
post #197 of 201 Old 12-16-2011, 12:11 PM
Senior Member
 
5mark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Posts: 465
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
If anyone is wondering how well eshift can work in a CIH setup, I just posted this in the RS55 thread:

As far as the eshift, it is working exactly as advertised. It completely takes away the digital look(provided a good source) and brings out more visible detail. The MPC setting seems perfectly designed to adjust the detail level to taste. Settings 1 and 2 have worked the best depending on the material. My biggest OMG moment happened last night and was only made possible by the eshift. I put in How to Train Your Dragon and pulled up a chair just over 8ft away from my 125" wide scope screen. I was completely blown away by the sharpness, smoothness and extraordinary level of detail. Just simply amazing that the PQ could remain so good from that close. Obviously this is a pristine source and the eshift can't work miracles on a poor transfer, but wow, what a lot of potential...
5mark is offline  
post #198 of 201 Old 12-22-2011, 09:05 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 11,859
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 244
Another perspective:

I have the RS55 at the moment, comparing to my RS20.

At this point I'm not noting any particular advantage in PQ due strictly to added pixel density (4K mode). As I've said before, added pixel density (via lens or otherwise) seemed to be to be at least in my case a solution for a problem I don't have. I've never been bothered by noticing pixels with my RS20, even though I sometimes have the image very large, so adding more pixels per se doesn't seem to do anything.

But...I'm still in early stages of testing.
R Harkness is offline  
post #199 of 201 Old 12-22-2011, 01:23 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Mike_WI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: SE Wisconsin
Posts: 2,507
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

Another perspective:

I have the RS55 at the moment, comparing to my RS20.

At this point I'm not noting any particular advantage in PQ due strictly to added pixel density (4K mode). As I've said before, added pixel density (via lens or otherwise) seemed to be to be at least in my case a solution for a problem I don't have. I've never been bothered by noticing pixels with my RS20, even though I sometimes have the image very large, so adding more pixels per se doesn't seem to do anything.

But...I'm still in early stages of testing.

Very interesting.
As an RS20 owner I look forward to your comparisons.

Mike
Mike_WI is offline  
post #200 of 201 Old 12-23-2011, 04:13 PM
Advanced Member
 
Glenn Baumann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Long Island, NY, USA
Posts: 742
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike_WI View Post

Very interesting.
As an RS20 owner I look forward to your comparisons.

Mike

I also look forward to your subjective comparison!

I wanna hear it all... brightness, motion, sharpness, contrast, noise level, etc!


...Glenn
Glenn Baumann is offline  
post #201 of 201 Old 12-23-2011, 06:58 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 11,859
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 244
Well in probably the most important areas, contrast, image clarity, detail, brightness, smoothness (no pixels even on huge image size) it's a very, very impressive projector.
I'm definitely seeing images in terms of life-like contrast and image detail like I've never seen before in either my set up (with my previous RS20) or anywhere else!

But I'm still comparing it to my RS20.....
R Harkness is offline  
Reply 2.35:1 Constant Image Height Chat

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off