JVC RS40 vs Epson 21000 - Page 3 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #61 of 151 Old 10-07-2010, 03:03 PM
 
bobbijean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 102
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by stereomandan View Post

I must have missed it, but all I saw was the greyscale menu. It looks like the RGBCMY menu is highlighted, but he didn't enter into it.

Can this Epson 21000 adjust saturation, hue and brightness of the three primary and three secondary colors?

Also, any firm confirmation on the RS40 re. CMS?

Confirmed, There is no CMS in the RS40
bobbijean is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #62 of 151 Old 10-07-2010, 03:12 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
stereomandan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Michigan
Posts: 1,298
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Thank you Bobbi. That's too bad. No CMS is a deal breaker for me. Having a fully functional CMS and custom gamma control now with my Epson 1080UB I can't go back to not having this much control over color accuracy. As my bulb ages, I need to adjust greyscale and the color gamut in order to keep the color accurate. Without the CMS, this isn't possible.

It is amazing how far these projector have come in the last few years. I still love my Epson 1080UB (which I paid $2800 for back in the day), and it only has 3100:1 native contrast! in the mode I use it in (natural, without the dynamic iris).

Looking a the price of this new Epson and the entry level JVC's with native contrast performance above 25,000:1 with no dynamic iris is just amazing.

Dan
stereomandan is offline  
post #63 of 151 Old 10-07-2010, 03:26 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ericglo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Just below the US in South Florida
Posts: 9,467
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2159 Post(s)
Liked: 1045
Quote:
Originally Posted by mandarax View Post

I am going to see the 31000 and 21000 next Wednesday .. I may bring my demo unit RS35 if timing allows it. Epson is telling me I am going to be blown away.

It would be nice if you could bring your JVC. I think the JVCs and Epsons are going to be very competitive in the $2500 to $7k category. I think the JVCs have a slight edge, but the Epsons do have some features that the JVCs don't. Hopefully, you can get some good test time with the pjs. I am not sure if you have it, but it would be nice to see how well the Epsons handle motion resolution with the FPD disc.
Quote:


And Hello Eric.. I didnt really go anywhere. For a while I just got sick of the my projector is better than your projector. The fit is always relative to peoples own budgets and tastes and really how their own theaters evolution is taking place. Timing is important as well. The tenure of use plays more into the equation and how much the projector is valued at on the resale market after the desired tenure.


I know what you mean and totally agree. It is all about what criteria are important to you and which pj fits your criteria the best.

Current projector - JVC RS25 and Marantz VP15S1
Future projector - pre-ordered new JVC from AVScience
Ericglo is online now  
 
post #64 of 151 Old 10-07-2010, 07:13 PM
Senior Member
 
wohlstad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: MD
Posts: 325
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fat Dave View Post

I'm confused by your interpretation of Epson's technology as a "half-step". Other than Epson stating they're using "Quartz" (Silicon Dioxide) instead of stating "silicon" as a substrate (both are substrates), the technologies appear very similar.

There is a big difference. By using Si substrate, the LCOS pixel electronics uses high-quality Si-based transistors located behind the pixel array. That's why they have the high fill factor, and also tend to be brighter for a given light source. There are other benefits such as ability to scale up to higher resolutions, and potentially higher panel speed since transistors can be made much faster compared to the poly-Si on glass.

Epson uses glass substrate like a typical LCD, so the transistors are still low quality poly-Si, and located along side the pixels, so the fill factor is lower; brighness tends to be lower too since the actual optical area of the pixel is smaller - unless some other optics tricks are played such as micro-lense arrays, etc.

I would expect Epson to have fill factor comparable to the LCD, not the 90%+ of the LCOS.

So with Epson you get ~ 50% of the benefit: the increased ON/OFF, but not the rest of the LCOS goodies.
wohlstad is offline  
post #65 of 151 Old 10-07-2010, 10:01 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Wizziwig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: SoCal, USA
Posts: 2,599
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1336 Post(s)
Liked: 948
Quote:
Originally Posted by mandarax View Post

I am going to see the 31000 and 21000 next Wednesday .. I may bring my demo unit RS35 if timing allows it. Epson is telling me I am going to be blown away.

Is that a private showing or is anyone else in the LA area invited?
Wizziwig is online now  
post #66 of 151 Old 10-07-2010, 10:09 PM
Advanced Member
 
Fat Dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 590
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Wohlstad, I believe the Epson literature and presentations answered most of your claims already.

Epson has a widely publicized ~90% fill rate for their reflective panels (a reported 40% increase over their transmissive HTPS technology). As with "pure" LCoS, Epson's panels utilize a reflective aluminum electrode ON TOP of the TFT (not beside, as you state), thus the ability to reflect 90-ish percent of the incident light. So neither fill rate nor brightness are affected in the ways you postulate. In this way, the technologies are virtual twins.

Epson has also indicated that their reflective panels net a 75% speed boost over their current transmissive HTPS panels. There are no relative comparisons between JVC's panels and Epson transmissive panels, so only reviews will tell us if this is sufficiently speedy. All else is conjecture.

The difference inherently is in growing the active elements on silicon versus a polysilicate, and potentially a speed difference, though this has not been determined. Otherwise, the technologies are quite similar.

As an aside, I'm buying the (baby) JVC, so I have no agenda in pumping Epson. I think that Epson has made a great leap with their technology, and though I speculate they won't match JVC's current generation, I believe their technology is as much in the ballpark as SXRD (perhaps moreso).

So I would say a far sight more than a "half step".
Fat Dave is offline  
post #67 of 151 Old 10-08-2010, 01:24 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Grubert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 7,935
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by stereomandan View Post

I must have missed it, but all I saw was the greyscale menu. It looks like the RGBCMY menu is highlighted, but he didn't enter into it.

Can this Epson 21000 adjust saturation, hue and brightness of the three primary and three secondary colors?

Good question. Maybe mandarax can verify it when he demoes it next week.

Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four
Grubert is offline  
post #68 of 151 Old 10-08-2010, 06:09 AM
Senior Member
 
18628239's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Elysium
Posts: 405
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbijean View Post

Confirmed, There is no CMS in the RS40

Wasn't it about a week ago that Jason confirmed the RS40 did have CMS?

"What we do in life echoes in eternity." General Maximus Decimus Meridius
18628239 is offline  
post #69 of 151 Old 10-08-2010, 06:56 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ron Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: SW Florida
Posts: 6,907
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 916 Post(s)
Liked: 934
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18628239 View Post

Wasn't it about a week ago that Jason confirmed the RS40 did have CMS?

....but he had to later retract that statement as it was due to incorrect information he initially received from JVC.

Ron Jones
Blog + Reviews + Articles: projectorreviews.com
Ron Jones is offline  
post #70 of 151 Old 10-08-2010, 08:16 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
stereomandan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Michigan
Posts: 1,298
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Honestly, I don't care how Epson or JVC's panels are constructed. The proof will be in the performance, and we are all speculating at this point. I'm just happy with the large leaps in native contrast of these projectors, at these price levels, in just the last 2-3 years. The brightness also keeps creeping up. Great stuff!

...and as a side note, I could care less about 3D, so these lower end models with the low cost but hopefully very good 2D performance are going to be huge hits.

Dan
stereomandan is offline  
post #71 of 151 Old 10-08-2010, 09:57 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Raul GS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,230
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wizziwig View Post

Is that a private showing or is anyone else in the LA area invited?

I think the CA in his address stands for Canada, not California, although I think he may have also have a business in Vegas, Nevada.

Dunning–Kruger effect - a cognitive bias where individuals exhibiting poor ability suffer from an illusion of superiority, due to their mistaken assessment of their cognitive ability. That is, a high level of incompetence prevents such individuals from cognitively recognizing their own ineptitude. - Yes I know, I can remember many of my past posts.
Raul GS is online now  
post #72 of 151 Old 10-08-2010, 10:11 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ericglo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Just below the US in South Florida
Posts: 9,467
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2159 Post(s)
Liked: 1045
I just looked at that and had to laugh. I can see how you would make the mistake. Until I went to 29 Palms around twenty years ago, I never knew there was an Ontario in Cali. I bet most people still don't know that. Anyway, yes he is in Canada.

Current projector - JVC RS25 and Marantz VP15S1
Future projector - pre-ordered new JVC from AVScience
Ericglo is online now  
post #73 of 151 Old 10-08-2010, 10:23 AM
Senior Member
 
wohlstad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: MD
Posts: 325
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fat Dave View Post

Wohlstad, I believe the Epson literature and presentations answered most of your claims already.

Epson has a widely publicized ~90% fill rate for their reflective panels (a reported 40% increase over their transmissive HTPS technology). As with "pure" LCoS, Epson's panels utilize a reflective aluminum electrode ON TOP of the TFT (not beside, as you state), thus the ability to reflect 90-ish percent of the incident light. So neither fill rate nor brightness are affected in the ways you postulate. In this way, the technologies are virtual twins.

Epson has also indicated that their reflective panels net a 75% speed boost over their current transmissive HTPS panels. There are no relative comparisons between JVC's panels and Epson transmissive panels, so only reviews will tell us if this is sufficiently speedy. All else is conjecture.

The difference inherently is in growing the active elements on silicon versus a polysilicate, and potentially a speed difference, though this has not been determined. Otherwise, the technologies are quite similar.

As an aside, I'm buying the (baby) JVC, so I have no agenda in pumping Epson. I think that Epson has made a great leap with their technology, and though I speculate they won't match JVC's current generation, I believe their technology is as much in the ballpark as SXRD (perhaps moreso).

So I would say a far sight more than a "half step".

My observation was based on Epson's own description
http://global.epson.com/newsroom/2010/news_20100831.htm
"The new reflective HTPS panels are based on the proven, reliable structure used for transmissive HTPS panels. The main structural difference is that reflective panels have a reflective electrode instead of a transparent electrode on the TFT substrate. The C2 Fine technology that enabled high contrast ratios in transmissive HTPS panels has been optimized for the reflective HTPS panels, and Epson's unique planarization technology is used to make the reflective layer almost perfectly flat so as to control the scattering of light. The result is panels that offer a device-level contrast ratio of 100,000:1 or higher."


this does not say that they place the active devices behind the pixels. If they do, then obviousely the fill factor will go up. So it will be a 75% step. Can you provide a link to this and the 90% fill factor? I haven't seen it.
wohlstad is offline  
post #74 of 151 Old 10-08-2010, 12:59 PM
Senior Member
 
18628239's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Elysium
Posts: 405
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by wohlstad View Post

My observation was based on Epson's own description
http://global.epson.com/newsroom/2010/news_20100831.htm
"The new reflective HTPS panels are based on the proven, reliable structure used for transmissive HTPS panels. The main structural difference is that reflective panels have a reflective electrode instead of a transparent electrode on the TFT substrate. The C2 Fine technology that enabled high contrast ratios in transmissive HTPS panels has been optimized for the reflective HTPS panels, and Epson's unique planarization technology is used to make the reflective layer almost perfectly flat so as to control the scattering of light. The result is panels that offer a device-level contrast ratio of 100,000:1 or higher."


this does not say that they place the active devices behind the pixels. If they do, then obviousely the fill factor will go up. So it will be a 75% step. Can you provide a link to this and the 90% fill factor? I haven't seen it.

Exactly how can one make a claim of observation if its based on a description by someone else? Was it there observation in which they described and you borrowed? What if their description was not based on their own observation?

I would base my own observation on my eyes looking at something like the projected image from the projector.

"What we do in life echoes in eternity." General Maximus Decimus Meridius
18628239 is offline  
post #75 of 151 Old 10-08-2010, 01:51 PM
Advanced Member
 
Ranger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Hotlanta, GA
Posts: 845
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by wohlstad View Post

My observation was based on Epson's own description
http://global.epson.com/newsroom/2010/news_20100831.htm
"The new reflective HTPS panels are based on the proven, reliable structure used for transmissive HTPS panels. The main structural difference is that reflective panels have a reflective electrode instead of a transparent electrode on the TFT substrate. The C2 Fine technology that enabled high contrast ratios in transmissive HTPS panels has been optimized for the reflective HTPS panels, and Epson's unique planarization technology is used to make the reflective layer almost perfectly flat so as to control the scattering of light. The result is panels that offer a device-level contrast ratio of 100,000:1 or higher."


this does not say that they place the active devices behind the pixels. If they do, then obviousely the fill factor will go up. So it will be a 75% step. Can you provide a link to this and the 90% fill factor? I haven't seen it.

I saw the 31000 demo at CEDIA. There's no way the fill factor at 75% like LCDs. Watching Alice in wonderland demo the picture is so smooth and film-like. You cannot see any pixels at all like the LCDs so the fill factor is definitely closer to 90%. I was very impressed with the new LCOS Epsons.
Ranger is offline  
post #76 of 151 Old 10-08-2010, 02:19 PM
Member
 
johnmn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 57
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I'm wondering if the JVC or the Epson technology is more likely to produce better--and longer-term--color uniformity. I ditched LCD some years ago. My old Panny PT-AE300 started out good, but after only a few months it developed worse and worse color uniformity--red on one side, blue on the other. I even changed the blue polarizer, but there was no improvement; I'm quite sure that the problem was slow, little-by-little heat damage to the LCDs (even though the temp gauge showed no overheating). I still read complaints about this for the Panny 4000, so the new inorganic LCDs don't seem to be any better.

I've been a DLP guy ever since, and I've been happy--but I have a small room and need a short throw and lens shift, virtually impossible to find with current DLPs. So when I finally replace my 720p Optoma (HD7100) I'm thinking of trying the new reflective Epson or the JVC. Thus my question: which (Epson? or JVC?) will be less likely to bring back those old headaches (bad color uniformity--oh, dust blobs too) that chased me away from LCD?
johnmn is offline  
post #77 of 151 Old 10-08-2010, 02:30 PM
Member
 
The_Preacher1973's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 57
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by wohlstad View Post


this does not say that they place the active devices behind the pixels. If they do, then obviousely the fill factor will go up. So it will be a 75% step. Can you provide a link to this and the 90% fill factor? I haven't seen it.


Quote:


How is this new technology different from conventional HTPS LCD? What's changed is that polarized light rays do not pass through the panel, but are reflected back out the way they came in, albeit at a different angle. This is the same way that LCoS imaging works - the light enters and exits the panel at different angles.

While this approach makes for a more complex polarized beam splitter to combine the individual red, green, and blue images, it also places the controlling semiconductors out of the optical path, behind the individual pixels. That, in turn, means each pixel's aperture, or available imaging area, is enlarged.

As a result, the portion of each pixel actually used for imaging - its fill factor - also increases. Indeed, the pitch' of each pixel on these new chips is about 8.5 um (micrometers), larger than that found on the company's latest D7 HTPS chips. In fact, Epson is claiming an improvement of 40% in fill factor with this new technology, which is also supposed to handle fast motion with less blurring.


http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/columns/...reflective.php

Cine4home also quote 90% fill factor but I can't find it in a press realease from Epson.
The_Preacher1973 is offline  
post #78 of 151 Old 10-08-2010, 06:59 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Stereodude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Detroit Metro Area
Posts: 14,130
Mentioned: 29 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3393 Post(s)
Liked: 2483
Quote:
Originally Posted by wohlstad View Post

There is a big difference. By using Si substrate, the LCOS pixel electronics uses high-quality Si-based transistors located behind the pixel array. That's why they have the high fill factor, and also tend to be brighter for a given light source. There are other benefits such as ability to scale up to higher resolutions, and potentially higher panel speed since transistors can be made much faster compared to the poly-Si on glass.

Epson uses glass substrate like a typical LCD, so the transistors are still low quality poly-Si, and located along side the pixels, so the fill factor is lower; brighness tends to be lower too since the actual optical area of the pixel is smaller - unless some other optics tricks are played such as micro-lense arrays, etc.

I would expect Epson to have fill factor comparable to the LCD, not the 90%+ of the LCOS.

So with Epson you get ~ 50% of the benefit: the increased ON/OFF, but not the rest of the LCOS goodies.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Please stop spreading mis-information.
Stereodude is online now  
post #79 of 151 Old 10-08-2010, 07:01 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Stereodude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Detroit Metro Area
Posts: 14,130
Mentioned: 29 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3393 Post(s)
Liked: 2483
Quote:
Originally Posted by wohlstad View Post

My observation was based on Epson's own description

And your observations are wrong and show a fundamental misunderstanding of LCOS technology.
Stereodude is online now  
post #80 of 151 Old 10-09-2010, 02:04 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Grubert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 7,935
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by wohlstad View Post

So with Epson you get ~ 50% of the benefit: the increased ON/OFF, but not the rest of the LCOS goodies.

Wrong.

Instead of assuming stuff, just watch the video of the Epson IFA press conference (recorded by kraine) and skip to 4:00.

Quote:


3LCD REFLECTIVE PANEL TECHNOLOGY

-Contrast
Up to 1,000,000:1

-Response
Quick response time

-Aperture
Increased pixel ratio


-Gamut
Wider colour gamut


Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four
Grubert is offline  
post #81 of 151 Old 10-09-2010, 09:18 AM
Senior Member
 
wohlstad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: MD
Posts: 325
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grubert View Post

Wrong.

Instead of assuming stuff, just watch the video of the Epson IFA press conference (recorded by kraine) and skip to 4:00.

OK, looks like Epson has increased the fill factor, so probably they used the TFTs behind the mirrors. I'm glad they took a more advanced step. Still, RLCD is not LCOS, which is more advanced. But perhaps for the current generation, the difference may not be dramatic, though JVC does have notably better ON/OFF.
wohlstad is offline  
post #82 of 151 Old 10-09-2010, 09:23 AM
Senior Member
 
wohlstad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: MD
Posts: 325
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grubert View Post

Wrong.

Instead of assuming stuff, just watch the video of the Epson IFA press conference (recorded by kraine) and skip to 4:00.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stereodude View Post

And your observations are wrong and show a fundamental misunderstanding of LCOS technology.

Stereodude,

I replied to you in the other thread. Read it if you wish, or not. Your ingnorance of semiconductor technology is only matched by your arrogance.
wohlstad is offline  
post #83 of 151 Old 10-09-2010, 10:06 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Stereodude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Detroit Metro Area
Posts: 14,130
Mentioned: 29 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3393 Post(s)
Liked: 2483
Quote:
Originally Posted by wohlstad View Post

Stereodude,

I replied to you in the other thread. Read it if you wish, or not. Your ingnorance of semiconductor technology is only matched by your arrogance.

First of all I'm not ignorant of semiconductor technology or processes. Second of all you're missing the point. SXRD, D-ILA, & RLCD are all very similar technologies. They all have transistors behind a reflective layer that has Liquid Crystal fluid on top of it. They are all very similar. The key difference in them is the substrate on which the transistor are made and the process to make the transistors. Two use Silicon wafers and use a CMOS process (conventional CMOS semiconductor process). One uses a glass substrate and uses a HTPS process (conventional LCD semiconductor process for smaller panels). How you've magically assumed two to be superior to the 3rd is beyond me. If we go by native contrast performance achieved with them, D-ILA would be the apparent leader, RLCD would be second and SXRD would be lagging way behind in 3rd. They're all going to be about equal for fill rate.

So, exactly how do you support your conclusion that RLCD is an inferior technology?

Why does the substrate matter? Why does the process to make the transistors matter? Do you have evidence that a CMOS process on a Si wafer yields a better transistors for controlling a LCD pixel on a reflective layer than those made by a HTPS process on a Glass substrate?

If your argument was correct, RLCD would be a mess behind SXRD but that doesn't seem to be the case. Further, they both make extensive use of Silicon. You do know what Glass is right? It's SiO^2. So, now how are they both not Liquid Crystal on Silicon?
Stereodude is online now  
post #84 of 151 Old 10-09-2010, 05:55 PM
Senior Member
 
wohlstad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: MD
Posts: 325
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stereodude View Post

First of all I'm not ignorant of semiconductor technology or processes. Second of all you're missing the point. SXRD, D-ILA, & RLCD are all very similar technologies. They all have transistors behind a reflective layer that has Liquid Crystal fluid on top of it. They are all very similar. The key difference in them is the substrate on which the transistor are made and the process to make the transistors. Two use Silicon wafers and use a CMOS process (conventional CMOS semiconductor process). One uses a glass substrate and uses a HTPS process (conventional LCD semiconductor process for smaller panels). How you've magically assumed two to be superior to the 3rd is beyond me. If we go by native contrast performance achieved with them, D-ILA would be the apparent leader, RLCD would be second and SXRD would be lagging way behind in 3rd. They're all going to be about equal for fill rate.

So, exactly how do you support your conclusion that RLCD is an inferior technology?

Why does the substrate matter? Why does the process to make the transistors matter? Do you have evidence that a CMOS process on a Si wafer yields a better transistors for controlling a LCD pixel on a reflective layer than those made by a HTPS process on a Glass substrate?

If your argument was correct, RLCD would be a mess behind SXRD but that doesn't seem to be the case. Further, they both make extensive use of Silicon. You do know what Glass is right? It's SiO^2. So, now how are they both not Liquid Crystal on Silicon?

Stereodude,

I never said that RLCD was a mess; the fact that Epson is able to get 100K ON/OFF at the panel level is a tribute to their engineering, no doubt based on decades of LCD production. It's just that making panels on glass and using TFTs is a legacy technology.

RLCD is not LCOS. I can see that you can't tell a difference between silicon dioxide - which is an insulator, and silicon, which is a semiconductor, but you can trust that no one has ever made a transistor out of an insulator, which is why people have been working to perfect LCOS for quite some time. Glass is the material for making large-area panels, and Epson no doubt used it because they could take advantage of the existing LCD production lines. They pretty much say that in the RLCD announcements. If you don't understand the benefits of Si substrate - you can read the literature, or not.

By the way, I check this forum to exhange information and to learn. So I learned from other members that Epson has taken a larger step with fill factor than I expected based on their annoucements. Unfortunately there was nothing informative in your rants other than arrogant statements showing quite a bit of ignorance. So I'm done with this conversation.
wohlstad is offline  
post #85 of 151 Old 10-09-2010, 06:18 PM
Advanced Member
 
SED <--- Rules's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Sarasota, FL
Posts: 938
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 84 Post(s)
Liked: 76
The only reason I'm considering getting the Epson 21000 over the JVC RS40 is the memory lens feature. I know that the RS40 will probably have the better picture quality but why the hell can't JVC put the lens memory in? I don't have money growing on trees so, anamorphic lenses are out of the question, and I do like to have the immersion of a scope screen...but I like to have the best picture quality possible...arghhh
SED <--- Rules is offline  
post #86 of 151 Old 10-09-2010, 06:30 PM
Advanced Member
 
Fat Dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 590
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by SED <--- Rules View Post

The only reason I'm considering getting the Epson 21000 over the JVC RS40 is the memory lens feature. I know that the RS40 will probably have the better picture quality but why the hell can't JVC put the lens memory in? I don't have money growing on trees so, anamorphic lenses are out of the question, and I do like to have the immersion of a scope screen...but I like to have the best picture quality possible...arghhh

+1. It seems like a glaring omission to not include a lens memory. I have a cinemascope setup, so I'll be doing the zoom/shift by remote each time I switch formats. Inconvenient to say the least, and really unnecessary.

With the Epson, you also gain the automatic iris, and a CMS. Two more things that could've EASILY been included in the baseline product for a very modest cost. Particularly for a "Reference Series" product.

I'm still in line for the JVC, but I'd have been happier had they thrown in these extras. I think Epson has done the projector world a huge favour by showing what sort of features SHOULD be included at this price point.
Fat Dave is offline  
post #87 of 151 Old 10-09-2010, 06:39 PM
Toe
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Toe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 15,640
Mentioned: 58 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1898 Post(s)
Liked: 2182
I would also have loved it if JVC would have included lens memory. Of course the Epson does not have 3d...........pros and cons as with any comparison. Between the 2, I would rather have 3d. Overall though, the RS40 IMO will be the better projector no doubt about it. Oh, the lack of DI on the 40 is a non issue for me since I would just shut this off most likely on the Epson if I had it..........I have never seen a non-noticable DI that was not distracting/annoying and the Epson will be no different I am sure. Having said all that, if DIs dont bother you and you have no interest in 3d, the Epson would definitely be in the running

I really think the better comparison is between the 21000/31000 and HD250. Between those 2, I would grab the Epson most likely.
Toe is online now  
post #88 of 151 Old 10-09-2010, 08:29 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Stereodude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Detroit Metro Area
Posts: 14,130
Mentioned: 29 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3393 Post(s)
Liked: 2483
Quote:
Originally Posted by wohlstad View Post

So I'm done with this conversation.

We'll miss you and your misinformation!
Stereodude is online now  
post #89 of 151 Old 10-09-2010, 08:53 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Stereodude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Detroit Metro Area
Posts: 14,130
Mentioned: 29 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3393 Post(s)
Liked: 2483
Quote:
Originally Posted by wohlstad View Post

It's just that making panels on glass and using TFTs is a legacy technology.

So? CMOS is an even older "legacy technology". Big deal..
Quote:


RLCD is not LCOS. I can see that you can't tell a difference between silicon dioxide - which is an insulator, and silicon, which is a semiconductor, but you can trust that no one has ever made a transistor out of an insulator,

You don't say! SiO^2 is the substrate not the material the transistors are made out of. I never said the transistors were made out of SiO^2.
Quote:


If you don't understand the benefits of Si substrate - you can read the literature, or not.

Oh, so now you understand it's a substrate and that the transistors aren't made from SiO^2. Cause just a second ago...

You still haven't given any factual information on why one is superior to the other in a reflective projector application. That was the crux of your argument right?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wohlstad View Post

There is a big difference. By using Si substrate, the LCOS pixel electronics uses high-quality Si-based transistors located behind the pixel array. That's why they have the high fill factor, and also tend to be brighter for a given light source. There are other benefits such as ability to scale up to higher resolutions, and potentially higher panel speed since transistors can be made much faster compared to the poly-Si on glass.

Epson uses glass substrate like a typical LCD, so the transistors are still low quality poly-Si, and located along side the pixels...

So you were wrong on several accounts. They both have transistors behind the pixels. HTPS RLCD doesn't have them next to the pixels. They both have similar fill factors. And High Speed? As in 240Hz max? That's not even close to fast for a transistor. Maybe you can make higher performance transistors with a CMOS process, but for switching Liquid Crystal fluid at a few hundred hertz (or less) it doesn't make one iota of difference. And, on top of that HTPS and LTPS are the high performance LCD transistors. Amorphous Silicon has the lower performance transistors in LCD land.

So, this bring us all the way back to the original question. How is Epson's RLCD inferior to Sony's SXRD & JVC's D-ILA "more advanced" technology?
Stereodude is online now  
post #90 of 151 Old 10-10-2010, 05:46 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Chris Dallas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada & Malibu California.
Posts: 1,273
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stereodude View Post

So, this bring us all the way back to the original question. How is Epson's RLCD inferior to Sony's SXRD & JVC's D-ILA "more advanced" technology?

We don't know that it is but, Sony and JVC have been at this for quite a few years now so they are in late stages of the game and have proven a great product whereas Epson is just releasing these new panels and it will take time and viewing from many of us on these forums to report back with pros and cons so it's a gamble at the moment and from what I've been reading here, many others have reported their customer service is not very good either fwiw.

Cheers
Chris

Sony VPL-VW500ES, 16.25 Feet Wide 2.35:1 screen, Proud owner of 1 of 399 Enzo Ferrari's in the world, a gorgeous yellow Ferrari 599GTB, + a 1970 Road Runner see it here
Chris Dallas is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP

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