'Sony VPL-VW90ES review' - Page 4 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-10-2010, 08:56 AM
AVS Special Member
 
thrang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 4,219
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 136 Post(s)
Liked: 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by conan48 View Post

Ekkehart, since you have seen all three projectors that Im considering (Epson LCOS, Sony Vw90, JVC RS40) what are your "initial" impressions? I know that you have only seen preproduction models for JVC and Epson, but If you had to pick a favourite now, which would it be?

Also have you noticed an improvement on the JVC in regards to the red fringing on high contrast edges? I also use the projector for lots of gaming and sports and many people have complained about red fringing/trailing on some scenes. Ex, hockey players black helmet over white ice will show red trails on the edge of the helmet, or for football when the ref runs you see red trails on his jersey.

thanks.

+10 very interested in this. I think in the JVC thread, there was some comment about a moving white box pattern on the new JVCs that exhibited something akin to the trailing color issue, so not sure if it's the same as this "zebra stripe" issue as it has been called, or if it is apparent on actual content - I could not keep my HD750 because of this, even though it was fantastic for movies.
thrang is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 11-10-2010, 06:49 PM
 
dogone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cine4Home View Post
No(!) model we have seen so far was always 100% free of crosstalk with all material. No matter what brand (JVC, Sony, LG, Mitsubishi).

Regards,
Ekkehart
So, are you seeing the excessive cross talk on the JVC 40/50 that the other reviewer (pteittinen) is seeing?
dogone is offline  
Old 11-10-2010, 06:55 PM
Toe
AVS Addicted Member
 
Toe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 13,333
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 266 Post(s)
Liked: 559
Quote:
Originally Posted by dogone View Post
So, are you seeing the excessive cross talk on the JVC 40/50 that the other reviewer is seeing?

That was because he pulled out of the default 3d setting and went from high to low lamp.........when going back to the high lamp setting, the ghosting was not excessive.

JVC 3D: Been there, done that, bought a DLP
Toe is online now  
Old 11-10-2010, 06:56 PM
 
dogone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post
That was because he pulled out of the default 3d setting and went from high to low lamp.........when going back to the high lamp setting, the ghosting was not excessive.
Yeah, but it still looked pretty bad to me.
dogone is offline  
Old 11-10-2010, 07:01 PM
 
dogone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Toe...I should have phrased it differently. I should have said, Does the Sony look as bad with ghosting as the JVC when it also is in a lower lamp mode...
dogone is offline  
Old 11-10-2010, 09:05 PM
Toe
AVS Addicted Member
 
Toe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 13,333
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 266 Post(s)
Liked: 559
Quote:
Originally Posted by dogone View Post
Toe...I should have phrased it differently. I should have said, Does the Sony look as bad with ghosting as the JVC when it also is in a lower lamp mode...
That would have been better However, I dont think it was quite as simple as a lamp adjustment in Petris case..........I suspect when he put the JVC into low lamp that it knocked out some other 3d optimized settings as well. It sounds like the Sony has this taken care of though with the low/mid/high brightness setting for 3d so you should be good I have to say though, I dont see any way you would not use high all the time considering the relatively low lumens this machine (and the JVC) will put out for 3d...........seems like kind of a pointless adjustment to me.

JVC 3D: Been there, done that, bought a DLP
Toe is online now  
Old 11-10-2010, 09:10 PM
Toe
AVS Addicted Member
 
Toe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 13,333
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 266 Post(s)
Liked: 559
Quote:
Originally Posted by dogone View Post
Yeah, but it still looked pretty bad to me.
It looked very bad, but that was because (I would bet) he dropped it from high to low and it then knocked out the other 3d optimized settings as well.

The other thing is, like cine4home said, some material is better for ghosting on the JVC some on the Sony........there does not seem to be a clear leader/winner between the 2 machines as far as this goes from what Ekkehart has said so far.

JVC 3D: Been there, done that, bought a DLP
Toe is online now  
Old 11-11-2010, 12:33 AM
Advanced Member
 
Drexler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 947
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post

That would have been better However, I dont think it was quite as simple as a lamp adjustment in Petris case..........I suspect when he put the JVC into low lamp that it knocked out some other 3d optimized settings as well. It sounds like the Sony has this taken care of though with the low/mid/high brightness setting for 3d so you should be good I have to say though, I dont see any way you would not use high all the time considering the relatively low lumens this machine (and the JVC) will put out for 3d...........seems like kind of a pointless adjustment to me.

Apparently the 240Hz mode is only working in the low brightness mode for 3D with the Sony. (Which makes sense considering the additional light loss due to twice as many black frames and the shutters being closed for additional time in 240Hz). Putting it in high brightness automatically switches it to 120 Hz. So if one is sensitive to crosstalk and flickering which are more predominant at 120Hz, I can see why the low brightness setting could be better...
Drexler is offline  
Old 11-11-2010, 04:15 AM
 
dogone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drexler View Post

Apparently the 240Hz mode is only working in the low brightness mode for 3D with the Sony. (Which makes sense considering the additional light loss due to twice as many black frames and the shutters being closed for additional time in 240Hz). Putting it in high brightness automatically switches it to 120 Hz. So if one is sensitive to crosstalk and flickering which are more predominant at 120Hz, I can see why the low brightness setting could be better...

Ekkehart ....

Could you comment on this please. I would think the 240Hz would work in all lamp settings.
dogone is offline  
Old 11-11-2010, 08:32 AM
Toe
AVS Addicted Member
 
Toe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 13,333
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 266 Post(s)
Liked: 559
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drexler View Post

Apparently the 240Hz mode is only working in the low brightness mode for 3D with the Sony. (Which makes sense considering the additional light loss due to twice as many black frames and the shutters being closed for additional time in 240Hz). Putting it in high brightness automatically switches it to 120 Hz. So if one is sensitive to crosstalk and flickering which are more predominant at 120Hz, I can see why the low brightness setting could be better...

That is a bummer........but that does make sense. However, I can see the benefit of the high low setting in light of that, but I would think anyone with a decent size screen who is not using something like a high power would choose the additional brightness over 240hz since there will be no light to spare.........but as you say if someone is very sensitive to flicker/crosstalk, maybe the better choice would be 240hz.......compromise either way.........gotta love first gen 3d

Maybe this is also why so many reports were made on how dim the Sony was (Cedia, IFA, etc....).......I bet they were using the 240hz mode. Just speculation though.

JVC 3D: Been there, done that, bought a DLP
Toe is online now  
Old 11-11-2010, 09:00 AM
Advanced Member
 
Drexler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 947
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by dogone View Post

Ekkehart ....

Could you comment on this please. I would think the 240Hz would work in all lamp settings.

It's not the lamp setting. It's a brightness setting in the 3D menu. I would image you could still switch between low and high lamp in 240 Hz.
Drexler is offline  
Old 11-11-2010, 11:32 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Cine4Home's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,111
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drexler View Post

It's not the lamp setting. It's a brightness setting in the 3D menu. I would image you could still switch between low and high lamp in 240 Hz.



Exactly!!



Regards,
Ekkehart
Cine4Home is offline  
Old 11-11-2010, 03:30 PM
Senior Member
 
omicronian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 368
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
If the sony glasses are less transmissive than the JVC, it would be interesting to test the xpand universal glasses with the vw90es
omicronian is offline  
Old 11-11-2010, 03:55 PM
AVS Special Member
 
W.Mayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,786
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cine4Home View Post

No(!) model we have seen so far was always 100% free of crosstalk with all material. No matter what brand (JVC, Sony, LG, Mitsubishi).

Regards,
Ekkehart

that is wrong.
my barco pr. have not any visible crosstalk als not when
you look at parts where it should be visible.


but its a cinema dlp pr.

RealD CE 4 shutter together with this cinema dlp is the only display
so far that can do this and its the only display that
can do it in the cinema 3d frame rate at 2x 72 hz
to get flimmer and judder free 3D.

more you can read here in the digital cinema section:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1283741
W.Mayer is offline  
Old 11-11-2010, 04:36 PM
 
dogone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cine4Home View Post

Exactly!!



Regards,
Ekkehart

So you "can" have 240Hz while in the high lamp mode...Correct?
dogone is offline  
Old 11-12-2010, 09:45 AM
Senior Member
 
omicronian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 368
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Sorry for the stupid question, but I'll ask anyway, does anamorphic mode works in 3D too ?
omicronian is offline  
Old 11-12-2010, 11:20 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Raul GS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,194
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by W.Mayer View Post

that is wrong.

Not to be picky here, but he clearly states that they have seen which could easily exclude the projector you are using.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence, than it does knowledge. Charles Darwin
Raul GS is offline  
Old 11-13-2010, 09:01 AM
Senior Member
 
omicronian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 368
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I will probably get a VW90 instead of a JVC. I made a table with pros and cons, and after removing ties and taking the winner of each feature, I ended up with this summary in the end.

JVC Winning features:
Great On/Off Contrast without iris artifacts
Can take advantage of the polarization with a special screen
RS50 has much better CMS
RS40 (+2 glasses, emitter) cost 3k$ less than either RS50 or VW90
No degradation of contrast over years based on anecdotes ??

VW90 Winning features:
Better ANSI contrast
Better on/off contrast with iris ??
No lag caused by the Video Processor (required for gaming)
High 3D refresh rate (no 96Hz flickering)
No motion color fringing, banding, dithering, noise ??
Sub-pixel zone convergence
3D Pupil Distance adjustment
Sharper lens ??
3rd party glasses compatibility
Available next week
No handshake issues with the latest nvidia cards ??
No lamp out-gassing problem every 100h ??

Many assumptions denoted by "??"
omicronian is offline  
Old 11-13-2010, 09:29 AM
 
dogone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I should have mine this coming week, so I'll donate my 2 cents. I am no expert, but Ill offer what I can...
dogone is offline  
Old 11-13-2010, 10:15 AM
AVS Special Member
 
conan48's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Igloo
Posts: 2,234
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 123 Post(s)
Liked: 245
Im starting to lean toward the Sony also. I think the Sony will have less issues then the JVC. Dogone, could you also buy the Acer (only 500.00) from a place that does refunds and compare it with the Sony?

The JVC seems to suffer from: Motion induced contouring, Red fringing, dithering, noise, etc. I believe that the Sony does not have any of these motion issues (can anyone confirm please) and the Sony has much higher ANSI contrast. I think someone measured the Vw85 at 490:1 which is DLP territory.

Also, does the vw90 still have Black frame insertion? Another great feature is that you can use Frame Interpolation in 3D mode. This should be great for sports and animated stuff which will enhance the 3D effect to an even greater level.
conan48 is online now  
Old 11-13-2010, 12:36 PM
Senior Member
 
omicronian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 368
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I found a graph of the sxrd 240Hz timing, the shutters are still at 120Hz, and the scan cannot even complete in the 240Hz timing, it looks really bad when taking into account the ridiculously short "open" time of 3ms per eye in a cycle of 16ms. If that is accurate, we'd get something like 60 lumens in 3D without ghosting (low brightness 3D setting?) Also, in the high brightness setting, the ghosting would be very strong in the top and bottom parts of the image.

I would bet the 3d glasses settings could be:
- low setting 3ms : 60 lumens
- medium setting 5ms : 100 lumens
- high setting 7ms: 150 lumens

http://img.article.pchome.net/00/48/62/79/3.jpg
omicronian is offline  
Old 11-13-2010, 01:44 PM
Advanced Member
 
Drexler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 947
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by omicronian View Post

I found a graph of the sxrd 240Hz timing, the shutters are still at 120Hz, and the scan cannot even complete in the 240Hz timing, it looks really bad when taking into account the ridiculously short "open" time of 3ms per eye in a cycle of 16ms. If that is accurate, we'd get something like 60 lumens in 3D without ghosting (low brightness 3D setting?) Also, in the high brightness setting, the ghosting would be very strong in the top and bottom parts of the image.

I would bet the 3d glasses settings could be:
- low setting 3ms : 60 lumens
- medium setting 5ms : 100 lumens
- high setting 7ms: 150 lumens

http://img.article.pchome.net/00/48/62/79/3.jpg

Wow. Looking at that graph it seems like the shutters are open for a ridiculously short amount of time with a huge hit on brightness as a consequence. Of course, having them open longer would cause significant ghosting due to the slow response time of the panels. I'm guessing the LCOS engineers compromise and allow some ghosting to get more brightness and that's why we see reports of ghosting on these machines. No wonder DLPs have an inherent advantage being able to keep the shutters open much longer without any bleed-through.
Drexler is offline  
Old 11-13-2010, 01:57 PM
Advanced Member
 
Drexler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 947
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Hmmm, according to that graph it seems like that the 240 Hz mode is brighter though.

Let's do a quick and dirty calculation:

With a non-polarization preserving screen 50% of the light is immediately lost in the glasses. The 120 Hz mode keeps each eye open 2 out of 16 frames in the graph, the 240 Hz mode 3 out of 16. That puts the total light loss at 100-(100*0.5*2/16)= 93.75% and 100-(100*0.5*3/16)=90.625% for 120 and 240 Hz respectively. I.e. the brightness you see corresponds to 6.25% and 9.375% of the projector output. Not much left even if you start with a 1000 lumens...
Drexler is offline  
Old 11-13-2010, 02:10 PM
Senior Member
 
omicronian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 368
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Yeah I agree, DLP seems to have some major advantages here, it would also explain why Plasma is so good with 3D.

I look at the ghosting screenshots from the JVC, and it is perfectly even, which suggests JVC doesn't "scan" like the Sony, they put the image all at once. The upcoming reviews and actual measurements will be very interesting

Btw, I calculated the 3ms brightness with a shortcut : Active glasses specs are 17% with each eye at 8ms, so 3ms/8ms*17% = 6%. You would get 9% with ideal 50% glasses, but real glasses are 35% so 9% * 35/50 is also 6%.

60 lumens is unusable.
omicronian is offline  
Old 11-13-2010, 02:15 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Cine4Home's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,111
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 54
Ok, now for some real world results:

Both machines (Sony & JVC) end up with 150 - 200 lumen in 3D...

Sony loses the brightness thru the glasses only, JVC loses brightness about 30% on the screen / 70% though the glasses.

Regards,
Ekkehart
Cine4Home is offline  
Old 11-13-2010, 02:22 PM
Advanced Member
 
Drexler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 947
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cine4Home View Post

Ok, now for some real world results:

Both machines (Sony & JVC) end up with 150 - 200 lumen in 3D...

Sony loses the brightness thru the glasses only, JVC loses brightness about 50% on the screen / 50% though the glasses.

Regards,
Ekkehart

Regards,
Ekki

So, with a polarization preserving screen you could potentially double the brightness for the JVC?..

How does the 120 and 240 Hz modes compare for the Sony?

(I'm guessing all results are at short throw, high bulb, open iris? JVC at 8000K?)
Drexler is offline  
Old 11-13-2010, 02:34 PM
Senior Member
 
omicronian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 368
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Thank you Ekkehart !
Was that with the high brightness 3D setting on the Sony ?
omicronian is offline  
Old 11-13-2010, 02:36 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Cine4Home's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,111
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 54
Why would you think that a polarization preserving screen could increase brightness?

Regards,
Ekkehart
Cine4Home is offline  
Old 11-13-2010, 02:46 PM
Advanced Member
 
Drexler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 947
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cine4Home View Post

Why would you think that a polarization preserving screen could increase brightness?

Regards,
Ekkehart

I was assuming the light coming from the PJ is polarized in the same direction as the glasses. By preserving this polarization twice as much light would pass the glasses polarization filters compared to a screen that jumbles up the polarization completely. How else can the screen induce additional light loss in 3D mode compared to 2D?

Edit: Ah, I see. It's not the screen that creates the light loss it's the 3D setting in the PJ itself?
Drexler is offline  
Old 11-13-2010, 04:14 PM
Senior Member
 
Xavier1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 388
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cine4Home View Post

Why would you think that a polarization preserving screen could increase brightness?

Regards,
Ekkehart

Ekkehart, not to question your knowledge on the matter, but what about the digital drive that JVC is touting, allowing the shutters to remain open for significantly longer? That along with a brighter image to begin with should yield a brighter 3D image, no? And all who have seen the Sony say it is dim, but most are satisfied with JVC, only question is reducing artifacts.

And what about the Sony OB degrading? Have they overcome that to your knowledge? I own a Sony SXRD TV and I'm just waiting for it to fail on me, won't buy another Sony because of this.
Xavier1 is offline  
 
Thread Tools


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