Originally Posted by Seegs108
Depends on your screen size. From my normal seating distance of about 12 feet back on a ~8 foot wide image, I could make the posterization out, especially on faces and when there was banding it was easier to see as it took up larger portions of the screen. Big swaths of banding.
So you had a bad unit. I don't think Sony would have sold many units, or gotten the stellar reviews it did, if there was such a perverse, pervasive, and obvious error. Why can't you get it that sharp-eyed, reasonable people don't see any projector induced issues to any sufficient level of visibility or enjoyment degradation in regards to this issue?
What's hilarious is when there's is conversation on the JVC thread about all the convergence issues and color fringing when looking at the screen from a few feet away, the remarks are generally don't bother with convergence unless you notice it from your seated position. Here, we will soon start to see the use of electron microscopes to identify gross deficiencies...
And back to my original photos. Yes seegs, you identified the Sony image. Most would look at your random circles and say, 'what?'
Beyond that my earlier speculation was that the relative softness of the JVC could hide source artifacts.
So look at TC's eyebrow hairs, and the fine hairline wrinkles to the right of his eye in the Sony image. Notice the greater details in the Sony image vs the JVC? ( you will now claim its some artificial enhancement I suppose so why do I bother to ask...) now look at those areas on the JVC shot. Much less detail. Other areas of the image will also show this.
So is it possible that some source compression artifacts, which are well known to occur with variable compression bit rates used to fit a movie on a single blu Ray disc, are revealed on the Sony while softened/obscured on the JVC?
I know your answer, but I'll leave it for more fair minded people to consider.
There is not one projector that I've seen that doesn't have limitations and issues, the Sony included. But when looking at live playback from both projectors, it is clear that the Sony produced a much cleaner, calmer, and sharper image. It's not as bright, and the JVC has better native contrast.
JVC image processing is average, as it has been for years, as most of the features must be disabled (including DI to stop the micro fluctuations of brightness). Motion is average, and that's something that is orders of magnitude more obvious from a seated distance than any minutiae being paddled around here. There's more 24p judder on the JVC as well. Which poison do you want to drink?
Finally, projectors are a totality of qualities, as viewed from a normal seated distance. This is like doing an anal probe to investigate a small itch on your pinky.
Having said all this, I still have both projectors here, as I want to be completely fair and explore all positives and negatives under a variety of scenarios.