AVS Forum

AVS Forum (http://www.avsforum.com/forum/)
-   2.35:1 Constant Image Height Chat (http://www.avsforum.com/forum/117-2-35-1-constant-image-height-chat/)
-   -   JVC X75R and X95R (http://www.avsforum.com/forum/117-2-35-1-constant-image-height-chat/1463485-jvc-x75r-x95r.html)

michaeldip 03-15-2013 01:39 PM

Hi i am looking at getting one of theses projectors. With my current system running a prismasonic h5000R. if i got the x75 or 95 is the lens worth keeping or ditching and using the zoom method. running a 115inch scope screen at 4.2meters/14ft from screen

If I keep the lens I have to go with a x55


thanks

John Schuermann 03-16-2013 10:30 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by michaeldip View Post

Hi i am looking at getting one of theses projectors. With my current system running a prismasonic h5000R. if i got the x75 or 95 is the lens worth keeping or ditching and using the zoom method. running a 115inch scope screen at 4.2meters/14ft from screen

If I keep the lens I have to go with a x55


thanks

I have never seen the Prismasonic lens in action, so can't comment about quality. However, it is my understanding that it is a good lens from the comments here on the Forum.

Is the reason you would need to go with an X55 because you were counting on selling the lens and using the $$$ to make up the difference on the projector pricing? Otherwise I would have suggested that you try the projector with and without the lens and make up your own mind.

The lens image will be noticeably brighter, and, depending on how far you are sitting from the screen, smoother looking due to the higher pixel density. However, your screen size is small enough that the zoom method will give you adequate brightness. It also depends on how distracted you will be with the black bars and DVD / Blu-ray menus being projected on to the wall.

Is your room totally light controlled, with dark walls and ceiling? If not, I doubt you would see most of the contrast difference with the higher end projectors.

michaeldip 03-16-2013 04:54 PM

room is light controlled and not a very large room. will the jvc have a enough zoom to fill a 115 scope screen from 4.0m/13.5ft.

maybe keep the lens and go for the x75

thanks

michaeldip 03-16-2013 09:24 PM

if anyone with the jvc x35/x55x/x75 has tried with lens and without

crazy4daisy 03-17-2013 06:00 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by michaeldip View Post

if anyone with the jvc x35/x55x/x75 has tried with lens and without

Yep I've got an x35 and have tried both. Won't go into details but I also had an x55 which I tried with both.

Long story short my initial plan was to use the x35 without a lens and sell the lens to recoup some money for the projector upgrade. After zooming for 2 weeks and then trying with the lens it was a no brainer, the picture with the lens is "better" and the convenience of a one button press on the jvc remote for either scope or 16.9 content beats hands down waiting for the zoom method to kick in. Even though I have a black front wall the zoom method still caused the bars to be visible and variable aspect films such as TDK were no fun at all.

Kelvin1965S 03-17-2013 06:10 AM

Had to check I hadn't posted that: I tried exactly the same thing before getting my X35 as I thought I could get the X55 and sell my Isco II. To me a zoomed X55 doesn't look as sharp as my (very long throw, minimum zoom) X35 using the lens.

I sort of thought that I should sell the lens while they still had some value, but when I thought about it I lost more than 3 x what I paid for the Isco II in depreciation on my last HD350 and will probably lose another 2 x the lens cost while I own the X35. Therefore if my next projector is a 4K model and the Isco II proves not to be good enough/not necessary then it doesn't really matter that I'll only get a pittance back for it by then compared to the depreciation of the projectors over the years.

EDIT: I did set up a zoomed 2.35:1 lens memory setting just for occasions where I've watched a whole film without the lens (1.85:1 content) and the don't want to bother lifting the lens back in place if we watch something else that is 2.35:1. As expected the result isn't as good as the lens solution, so it is only for less critical viewing (ie late at night when I've had a few drinks and don't want to risk dropping my lens eek.gif putting it in place since it's on a stand smile.gif ).

michaeldip 03-17-2013 06:44 AM

do you think the x35 will do me ? because the x35, x55 seen very similar. the x75 got a alot more fruit

also with the jvc can i leave the lens in front and switch between 16x9 and 2:35 without moving lens??

because the moment i have to change the lenes to 16x9 to 2:35 i rather do it with the projector

Kelvin1965S 03-17-2013 07:11 AM

I don't know: I already owned the Isco II lens, a Darbee DVP and a Lumagen Mini3D before I bought the X35.

Therefore quite a lot of the X55's advantages are already taken care of:

1. A better CMS/ 21 point greyscale/gamma (and better upscaling too for that matter), than the JVC solution plus the option of automatic calibration (only an option on the dearer JVCs and even then the sensor isn't really all that great IMHO. Plus 125 point CMS verses 8 point.

2. Pixel density improved by using the lens. Though not '4K' obviously, but in the vertical there is less difference than you might think between a zoomed X55 and a lens X35 for 2.35:1 since 810 x 2 = 1620 (X55 zoomed) verses 1080. Both are upscaled rather than extra pixels in the source of course.

3. To a lesser degree Eshift covered by the Darbee.I wasn't that impressed with EShift 2 and I imagine I'd end up turning to minimum.

However, the biggest thing is that in the UK the X55 is twice the price of the X35 so any slight (IMHO having seen 3 X55s now) improvement off the X55's '4K' effect isn't worth the cost for me.

The X35 is pretty close colour wise in Standard mode,plus you need to calibrate the X55 to get the advantage of the CMS anyway so there is less reason to worry about having a CMS.

Having said all the above, I know that in the USA the price difference is pretty small anyway, so it almost doesn't need thinking about.

EDIT: You can leave the lens in front since the JVC has the required squeeze mode for 16:9 viewing with the lens in place. Personally I prefer to remove my lens (and use the zoom memory to slightly zoom for 1.85:1 to full fill my screen height.

michaeldip 03-17-2013 08:29 AM

what about the x75?

crazy4daisy 03-17-2013 08:46 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by michaeldip View Post

also with the jvc can i leave the lens in front and switch between 16x9 and 2:35 without moving lens??

because the moment i have to change the lenes to 16x9 to 2:35 i rather do it with the projector

My lens is always left in place. I just press the anamorphic button on the remote - A for scope or B for 16.9

Can't be any easier than that.

Kelvin1965S 03-17-2013 10:31 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by michaeldip View Post

what about the x75?

A slightly different argument since the X75 has much more contrast as well, which may well make all the difference, but probably only in a properly dedicated room. Again UK prices make the X75 too expensive for a 'stop gap' projector as in my case. Plus I know that in 3 years time it will be worth next to nothing, so for my non dedicated room it just doesn't make financial sense. YMMV of course. Ironically, some of the price difference in the UK will go towards building a more dedicated room in the future which would probably give me a better picture from an X35 than an X75 in a poor room. Maybe by then I'll consider whatever the X75's equivalent is once I have a room to take best advantage of it.

Yes, it's much easier to leave the lens in place, which I do when the film is 2.35:1 and I can change aspect instantly (using my Lumagen rather than the JVC for scaling) for menus and trailers. However, I prefer to have all the pixels in use for 1.85:1 content and I even have a separate calibration setting on my Lumagen for non lens use as there is a difference in the colour temp settings required: It just depends how picky you are of course and how much 1.85:1 content you watch: Since I made some simple black velvet side masks I've found myself watching more 1.85:1 content especially things recorded on my HD PVR.

michaeldip 03-17-2013 02:30 PM

My room is totally black when watching now you making think maybe go with a x35, get a darbee and lumagen rather and spend on the projector and upgrade the projector 3 years

Kelvin1965S 03-17-2013 02:42 PM

Just take into account that I've already owned the Mini3D and my calibration equipment for 2 years: If you buy one now, when you replace your projector for a 4K one in 3 years time, the Mini3D is only 1080p so would need to be replaced for a 4K path. Also, unless you are going to calibrate then the Mini3D isn't going to be much help, so you have to take that into account as well.

The Darbee is worth buying anyway IMHO and cheap enough that it doesn't really matter what it's worth in 3 years time. FWIW you can use a Darbee with an X55 as well, so it's more of a universal accessory.

When you say that your room is black, if you mean the walls and ceiling then fair enough, but if you just mean that you can make it dark, but your walls are light then that is my current situation, so you won't get the best out of it. I've seen an uncalibrated X35 in a really good all black room and it looked way better than mine purely down to the room.

michaeldip 03-17-2013 02:47 PM

Ok thanks because no matter what I do it going he better than what I running now

X35 with darbee the front wall and ceiling painted stage black

Because prob not worth the extra for contrast

clrv 03-18-2013 03:07 PM

Sorry I have not been able to post sooner. I should be back in town tuesday and I will write more. I was going through a similar process as you. I purchased the RS65 and used it for about 2 weeks before I purchased the Prismasonic. It's hard to explain the difference between zooming and A-lens but I would have a hard time going back to the zooming after the A-lens. Also I really needed the A-lens to help with the brightness drop a got from zooming to 136"

michaeldip 03-18-2013 03:41 PM

Ill be keeping the lens now now just stuck on which model do I got for x35,x55.x75 or go for a older model x90

John Schuermann 03-18-2013 04:00 PM

Since you mentioned that your walls and ceiling are painted stage black, I think you would see a definite improvement in contrast by moving up the JVC line.

michaeldip 03-18-2013 04:15 PM

The screen and ceiling is painted with rosco black velvet paint 6003 I haven't painted the side walls as yet but can if there a problem

John Schuermann 03-18-2013 04:21 PM

Side walls are just as important - in fact, much more important than the screen wall.

michaeldip 03-18-2013 04:22 PM

Ok that easy thanks

Kelvin1965S 03-18-2013 04:23 PM

Yes, side walls and ceiling make the most difference: Screen wall is more a distraction if a light colour rather than any direct impact on picture quality since the light can't reflect back to the screen from the screen wall.

michaeldip 03-18-2013 04:43 PM

Ok will do also I never realize when zooming you see the black bars so will be keeping lens

TK Doom 03-18-2013 08:11 PM

I'm getting an X75 or 95 in the next couple weeks.

The comments in this thread make me wonder if the X95 is worht the extra $3k.

As far as I can tell, they both output the same light, right?

So you are just getting contrast, and since my room is light controlled (dark walls/curtains, everything), it is probably more financially smart to go with the X75.

Hmmm....

John Schuermann 03-18-2013 08:28 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by TK Doom View Post

I'm getting an X75 or 95 in the next couple weeks.

The comments in this thread make me wonder if the X95 is worht the extra $3k.

As far as I can tell, they both output the same light, right?

So you are just getting contrast, and since my room is light controlled (dark walls/curtains, everything), it is probably more financially smart to go with the X75.

Hmmm....

The more light controlled the room, the better the *potential* contrast on screen, and the greater the benefit of the X95. If you had light colored walls and ceiling, reflections from those surfaces would wash out the deep blacks that the X95 is capable of. In that case, you are better off with one of the lower priced models since the contrast benefit would be lost to "light pollution." If you have a true light controlled cave (and it's important to point out that a true light controlled room has dark surfaces), you will see the benefit of the X95 over the X75, the X75 over the X55, etc.

michaeldip 03-18-2013 10:35 PM

Thanks for in put painting whole room now hoping to keep the wife happy 😀😀

TK Doom 03-19-2013 10:15 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Schuermann View Post

The more light controlled the room, the better the *potential* contrast on screen, and the greater the benefit of the X95. If you had light colored walls and ceiling, reflections from those surfaces would wash out the deep blacks that the X95 is capable of. In that case, you are better off with one of the lower priced models since the contrast benefit would be lost to "light pollution." If you have a true light controlled cave (and it's important to point out that a true light controlled room has dark surfaces), you will see the benefit of the X95 over the X75, the X75 over the X55, etc.

Ceiling and walls are both dark blue, really dark blue.

only light colors are the baseboards.


I was also thinking along the lines of a much better and cost effective 4k solution in the next few years...

John Schuermann 03-19-2013 10:25 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by TK Doom View Post

Ceiling and walls are both dark blue, really dark blue.

only light colors are the baseboards.


I was also thinking along the lines of a much better and cost effective 4k solution in the next few years...

I understand your thinking. Personally, I would probably go with the X75 since beyond that you get into the law of diminishing returns. It does sound like you would get the benefit of the X95 in your particular room, it's just a subjective thing as to whether the contrast improvement is worth the extra 3K. The X75 is so good that, for me, it is not worth it. If I had an extra 3 grand lying around I did not know what to do with, I would probably jump on the X95 smile.gif

The only issue with waiting for the next "better and cost effective" projector is that there will always be a much better and cost effective projector down the road, not matter when you buy. wink.gif

RapalloAV 03-19-2013 02:16 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by TK Doom View Post

I'm getting an X75 or 95 in the next couple weeks.

The comments in this thread make me wonder if the X95 is worht the extra $3k.

As far as I can tell, they both output the same light, right?

So you are just getting contrast, and since my room is light controlled (dark walls/curtains, everything), it is probably more financially smart to go with the X75.

Hmmm....

I have the X95 in my light controlled cinema, black ceiling, burgundy walls, the X95 in these conditions will always be better than the X75.

michaeldip 03-19-2013 03:26 PM

Have you got any pics of the room

TK Doom 03-19-2013 08:29 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by RapalloAV View Post

I have the X95 in my light controlled cinema, black ceiling, burgundy walls, the X95 in these conditions will always be better than the X75.

OH DARN YOU!!! *shakes fist*

My plan was then to get X75 and a Lumagen...

maybe the Lumagen will wait..and i'll get the 95...

my screen should get here next week...waiting for fabric to cover the stage...


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:26 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.