Sony VPL-VW1000ES vs. JVC DLA-X90R shoot out - Page 3 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #61 of 198 Old 02-07-2012, 11:48 AM
AVS Special Member
 
pteittinen's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Finland
Posts: 3,790
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
If I declared I'm not the least bit envious of all the VW1000 owners, would anyone believe me?

Please, feel free to call me by my first name, Petri.
pteittinen is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #62 of 198 Old 02-07-2012, 02:22 PM
 
HiFiFun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 2,209
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
[quote=Sesshoumaru;21610670There is no, and I mean really no, visible pixel structure on my screen (185") - projection distance 9m.

Awesome. I'am really impressed.[/QUOTE]
If the panels were perfectly magnified should an observer see the same pixel structure when viewing the raw panel with a low power microscope?

I guess it will take time to sort this out. Why are the specifications on the 1000 lens?

Note: the pixel structure is also unresolvable with the 2K Sony 30ES and the 95ES.
HiFiFun is offline  
post #63 of 198 Old 02-07-2012, 02:25 PM
 
HiFiFun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 2,209
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by pteittinen View Post

If I declared I'm not the least bit envious of all the VW1000 owners, would anyone believe me?

Move over please! I want to see a 4K alternating single line white/black line test pattern.
This simple step response tells a great deal.
HiFiFun is offline  
post #64 of 198 Old 02-07-2012, 07:07 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Owen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Sydney Australia
Posts: 2,773
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post

OK, I've got to ask some questions, for my own education.

Let me ask you this, MTF is an additive/cumulative function, I'll probably be wrong on the math here, but if you had say a camera with 50% MTF at Nyquist, scanner with 50% MTF at Nyquist, and then displayed by a display with 50% at Nyquist, you end up with a system with about 12.5% MTF at Nyquist (drastically oversimplified).

Why is it not appropriate to isolate just the display/projector with an artificially generated test pattern with perfect 100% MTF all the way up to Nyquist? Why should we evaluate any individual component's MTF performance with test content already hindered by another device's imperfect MTF?

Sorry for the slow reply, been busy. Yes MTF is cumulative through the system from camera lens to screen, although the distribution of performance is quite different to your example as the dominant pole in the system is imposed by the pixel format chosen for output. For the 1920x1080 square pixel format the Nyquist limit is at 1080 lines per picture height, MTF must fall to almost zero at Nyquist to ensure that out of band high spatial frequencies are excluded. Since its not possible to have a filter with infinite cut off, lower frequencies in the pass band below 1080 lines per picture height are unavoidable attenuated.
What this means is that no matter how we capture the image the final video can never have the visible resolution the pixel format suggests. Response must always fall to almost zero at Nyquist for the delivery pixel format.
Put simply 2k can not resolve 2k and 4k cannot resolve 4k. The advantage of 4k video is better response at 2k and lower.

If you look at the very useful link provided by HoustonHoyaFan to Matt Cowans slide pack and refer to slide 26 "Effect of Different MTF" you will see an MTF graph on the left with three responses plotted, to the right are visual representations of the plotted responses. As can be seen all three have the same limiting resolution and therefore the same MTF at high spatial frequencies, only the mid band is different. Its clear from the visual representation that the sharpest images are created by the highest mid band MTF.
If these responses where for projectors all three would look the same at the pixel level or when examining the pixel sharp edges of PC generated test patterns but quite different when viewing real world video.

Since high mid band MTF is whats important for sharp video images its appropriate to use suitable tests to evaluate that area of performance and not concentrate on pixels. The projector with the sharpest pixels may not have the highest mid band MTF and therefore provide the sharpest video images.




Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post

I'm curious, have you seen Mark P's measurements with a line scan camera?
http://www.videovantage.com/?p=819

Yes I have and the article that preceded it, they show that implementation and lens quality dominate performance not the underlying technology. The JVC LCoS projectors have improved significantly over time and now seem at least as good as high end DLP projectors for MTF at high spatial frequencies so neither technology seems to have an intrinsic advantage.
Owen is offline  
post #65 of 198 Old 02-07-2012, 07:39 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Owen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Sydney Australia
Posts: 2,773
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp2 View Post

Sorry if you've already posted this, but have you checked actual content on DVDs or BDs to see if the encodings of the pixels levels themselves actually don't go above 10% MTF in small areas (or do you have a link to an article with values from actual encodings of video/film content on DVD of BD)?

I haven't read all the posts here, but I brought up this issue with Joe Kane when he was presenting his A900B projector and talking about how sharp it is at the pixel level. IIRC, I mentioned that video shouldn't have black pixels right next to white pixels and his response was basically that there isn't an enforcement of the levels only changing so quickly between adjacent pixels in the encodings.

He was using a scene with a tweed jacket from Seven Years in Tibet to demonstrate how good his A900B is and talking about how much better it is than the JVCs, which couldn't do that scene right and shouldn't have been called 1080p projectors according to Joe. I later tried an A900B I owned against a friend's RS20 with splitscreen and honestly couldn't see much difference at all from reasonable viewing distance with that detail n the jacket, but didn't have any trouble at all finding scenes where the on/off CR advantage of the JVC seemed pretty obvious. So I quickly sold the A900B.

To be clear, I'm not saying Joe was right, but I am curious about whether these limitations really end up being there in the final encodings in all cases. I think it would be interesting to see the levels for that tweed jacket. One of these days I should run it through my Panasonic AE1000 and use the waveform monitor to see if I can figure out approximately how fast the levels change in the encoded values from pixel to pixel there.

It seems like when I have looked at the actual stars in starfields they rarely or never are encoded to completely drop-off from near-white or white to black pixel-to-pixel, which would support limited encoded MTF at full resolution even in those scenes.

Thanks,
Darin

Encoding is not really the limitation, the pixel format chosen sets the limits. No matter what the format is spatial frequencies greater than Nyquist for the chosen pixel "resolution" must be filtered out. Unfortunately in band frequencies are ALWAYS affected and response should fall to zero or close to zero at spatial frequencies equal to Nyquist in any properly designed digital imaging system and this is particularly important for moving images where inter line flicker on high contrast fine detail can be a problem.

The conversion to 4:2:0 color and subsequent compression introduces a block structure that did not exist in the uncompressed 4:4:4 image, these blocks can have a greater difference in level than 10% but its all distortion and not something we want to faithfully reproduce if picture "quality" is our goal.
Owen is offline  
post #66 of 198 Old 02-07-2012, 10:04 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Owen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Sydney Australia
Posts: 2,773
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by HiFiFun View Post

Owen James Cameron is moving to New Zealand. Perhaps you could drop by and see him to put things into perspective. Ask him if he is going back to NTSC or PAL?

No one is suggesting we go back to lower resolution video formats but understanding the limits of what we have and how to best display it is useful.


Quote:
Originally Posted by HiFiFun View Post

Seriously people look at computer data screens just as much as we look at video. Did you forget this aspect?

I have used a HTPC as my only playback system for 12 years and for 6 of those used triple gun CRT projection for display. The CRT was the only display attached to the PC so it was used for everything. CRT was far from ideal for PC text but that did not stop it producing good video images.
Even cheap low res data projectors work great for PC use but they leave a lot to be desired for video. Current 1080 home cinema models dont seem to have any problems with PC text and graphics.


Quote:
Originally Posted by HiFiFun View Post

The competition (flat panels) have no lens to soften the image quality or three panels with all sorts of added (and easily observable) alignment distortions. Projection system should be transparent as possible or else consumers will naturally switch over. This means the optical path should be of camera quality.

When I view a flat panel TV at the sort of viewing angle I do a projection screen I don’t like what I see at all. Those perfectly sharp pixels and poor fill factor give the image a harsh digital look that I find objectionable.
Video is very dirty and distorted at the pixel level so sharper at the pixel level is definitely not better in my book.


Quote:
Originally Posted by HiFiFun View Post

Any softening of the image should be left to the engineers. The transmission, storage or reproducing display system should in in no way alter the image.

That depends on whether you prefer a clean smooth analogue looking image that better represents the source or a harsh distorted digital looking one.


Quote:
Originally Posted by HiFiFun View Post

HD camera and mastering techniques are constantly evolving. Most of us can see the result of improved MTF/contrast in every stage of the capturing and mastering chain. Thank you James Cameron for raising the standards.

No doubt cameras and mastering techniques will evolve, however the limits imposed by digital sampling and its required low pass filtering will remain.


Quote:
Originally Posted by HiFiFun View Post

Audio went through a similar evolution. Digital filters improved greatly over time and are able today to capture high frequencies close to the Nyquist limit. Again, its the mastering engineer who selects to add low level dither or increase bit depth.
Consumer audio systems should not be adding noise, distortion or resample. Realizing just how bad mp3 degraded a generation of listener enjoyment, Steve Jobs was planning to go to 24 bits. These are the leaders who are making our lives more enjoyable.

The distortions the human ear can perceive at 20KHz after being reproduced by a speaker are very different to what the human eye perceives when looking at HD video projected on a large screen. Problems that would go unnoticed in audio are very noticeable with video.
Resampling or more accurately oversampling has been used for CD audio for years to improve perceived quality, so has upscaling for SD video. Upscaling HD video is also beneficial, although the improvements are less obvious than with upscaled SD, we don’t gain any resolution but we can get a cleaner more analogue looking image.
A similar result can be achieved with double scaling, first up with sharpening and then back down to 1920x1080 for output.


Quote:
Originally Posted by HiFiFun View Post

This is what high fidelity or high technology is all about. People will pay for the best quality experience. Hopefully the very expensive Sony 4K display will resolve 4K resolution. (the less expensive Sony projector have issues resolve 1080. see Kris Deering's review of the 95ES). If not 80-90" flat panels will - and for much less.

A 4K projector does not guarantee a better quality viewing experience. Unless your viewing angle is large enough for the pixel structure of 1920x1080 to be visible more pixels are of little benefit other than bragging rights, other aspects of performance will dominate.

The Sony will likely resolve 4k with good MTF but 4k video will offer much less improvement over current 2k than people think and virtually all of the improvement will be in greater MTF below 2k.
Owen is offline  
post #67 of 198 Old 02-08-2012, 05:11 AM
AVS Special Member
 
d.j.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Denmark
Posts: 1,243
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by pteittinen View Post

If I declared I'm not the least bit envious of all the VW1000 owners, would anyone believe me?


No, but Im in the same boat as you


dj
d.j. is offline  
post #68 of 198 Old 02-08-2012, 08:11 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Ericglo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Just below the US in South Florida
Posts: 6,166
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 38 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Owen View Post



I have used a HTPC as my only playback system for 12 years and for 6 of those used triple gun CRT projection for display. The CRT was the only display attached to the PC so it was used for everything. CRT was far from ideal for PC text but that did stop it producing good video images.
Even cheap low res data projectors work great for PC use but they leave a lot to be desired for video. Current 1080 home cinema models dont seem to have any problems with PC text and graphics.

I am confused. Are you saying CRT didn't produce good video images, but acceptable PC text?

My new favorite game is Save The Titanic

Ericglo is offline  
post #69 of 198 Old 02-08-2012, 10:03 AM
Newbie
 
Sesshoumaru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 5
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
@HiFiFun: I owned the 95ES previously and there WAS a visible pixel structure. You would have to go right before the screen - but with 10cm distance I saw it clearly. With the VW1000ES is saw nothing, even with 1cm away (was hard to get this close!).

Unfortunaltly I have no black/white pattern video at hand. I only can say that without any pixeling, homogenous high brightness and very precise color renderint the video was just awesome.
Sesshoumaru is offline  
post #70 of 198 Old 02-08-2012, 05:58 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Owen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Sydney Australia
Posts: 2,773
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ericglo View Post

I am confused. Are you saying CRT didn't produce good video images, but acceptable PC text?

LOL, funny how the omission of one little word can totally change the meaning.

I have edited my post to correct the stuff up.
Owen is offline  
post #71 of 198 Old 02-26-2012, 06:06 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
javry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Doha, Qatar
Posts: 2,517
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by pteittinen View Post

If I declared I'm not the least bit envious of all the VW1000 owners, would anyone believe me?

I'll be a little more polite and say that judging by the photos I just saw, it is does not appear to be a clear winner in all cases. I'll have to see it up close and personal next to get a better feel for it.
javry is offline  
post #72 of 198 Old 02-26-2012, 08:02 AM
 
AV Science Sales 4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,440
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sesshoumaru View Post

@HiFiFun: I owned the 95ES previously and there WAS a visible pixel structure. You would have to go right before the screen - but with 10cm distance I saw it clearly. With the VW1000ES is saw nothing, even with 1cm away (was hard to get this close!).

Unfortunaltly I have no black/white pattern video at hand. I only can say that without any pixeling, homogenous high brightness and very precise color renderint the video was just awesome.

The easiest way to get this close is to use rear projection.

I don't see this fascination with getting extremely close and trying to get a fix on differences. I wouldn't advocate examining a pixel on a screen with a magnifying glass or a microscope but we also could do this by using rear projection.

Video is an illusion, nothing more or less. Films whatever its all about fooling our eyes. One trick after another.

Bottom line to me for film is what total look did the director intend us to see. He is the artist and his work is what we are attempting to clearly see. Let's make it err better than he/she intended. I don't think so. Let's make it it different than he/she intended. We do that all the time in our HTs and pride ourselves on doing that. Bitch slap ourselves.

In watching video vs film, my standard of judgement, pure and simple, is what takes me closer to reality. Not what the camera and the transmission system captured, not what a microscopic examination of a display pixel shows, but what takes me closer to real life viewing of the scene being captured. What fools me into thinking I am there. What screen makes itself not add to the picture. What screen disappears and what projector makes me forget there is a projector in the chain.

And then I will ask but not answer. Is it is the JVC or the Sony for those who have done an A/B. Does one do a better job of fooling your eyes?
AV Science Sales 4 is offline  
post #73 of 198 Old 02-27-2012, 07:09 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
javry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Doha, Qatar
Posts: 2,517
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sesshoumaru View Post

I'am actually owning the VPL-VW1000ES since last friday.
And I only can say, that is as the most impressiv black level I have ever seen so far, the brightness is awsome and the 3D performance sets a new standard for shutter technology. There is no, and I mean really no, visible pixel structure on my screen (185") - projection distance 9m. Also its absolutly quite, you have to stand right beside it to hear it wisper .

Awesome. I'am really impressed.

Can you try a BD movie with a regular 1080p PJ and then compare it to the same BD movie using the 1000ES and give us a full breakdown of what you saw?
javry is offline  
post #74 of 198 Old 05-10-2012, 07:02 AM
AVS Special Member
 
whitetrash66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,049
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 20
It's been a while since this thread has been updated. Anybody have any new opinions on this?

The Sony looks amazing, but costs the same as 2 RS65 and almost 3 RS55s.
The Sony does native 4K, but theres nothing out yet, and it sounds like it may be a while.

The JVC has better contrast and faux k, but much more crosstalk and lag for gaming.
whitetrash66 is offline  
post #75 of 198 Old 05-10-2012, 07:23 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
millerwill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Berkeley, CA
Posts: 11,358
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by whitetrash66 View Post

It's been a while since this thread has been updated. Anybody have any new opinions on this?

The Sony looks amazing, but costs the same as 2 RS65 and almost 3 RS55s.
The Sony does native 4K, but theres nothing out yet, and it sounds like it may be a while.

The JVC has better contrast and faux k, but much more crosstalk and lag for gaming.

I think the 1000 makes sense (if the cost doesn't make for financial hardship!) for persons with a large screen and like to sit relatively close (~ 1.0 to 1.3 SW). The high quality upconversion from 1080p to 4K is a significant enhancement in this case, and especially the higher brightness. These, to me, are its two most imp attributes.
millerwill is online now  
post #76 of 198 Old 05-10-2012, 07:25 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 11,913
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 50 Post(s)
Liked: 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by whitetrash66 View Post

It's been a while since this thread has been updated. Anybody have any new opinions on this?

The Sony looks amazing, but costs the same as 2 RS65 and almost 3 RS55s.
The Sony does native 4K, but theres nothing out yet, and it sounds like it may be a while.

The JVC has better contrast and faux k, but much more crosstalk and lag for gaming.

I posted this on the JVC X70 owners thread:

AVforums just put up their review of the Sony VPL-VW1000E 4K projector.

http://www.avforums.com/reviews/Sony...95/Review.html

They compared it directly to the JVC RS55. In a nutshell:

Sony: brighter.
JVC: Better black levels.
JVC: Better color (due to being able to calibrate better).
Sony: better 3D
Motion: essentially the same (that was interesting).

Perhaps the take home for JVC owners, after comparing the Sony to the JVC, they stated:

"In terms of 2D performance the X70 remains our reference projector"


Probably due to better color and leading black levels. But for those of us most interested in 2D movie watching with an appropriate screen set up, that's quite a nice price/performance ratio.
R Harkness is online now  
post #77 of 198 Old 05-10-2012, 08:04 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
javry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Doha, Qatar
Posts: 2,517
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
I remain surprised that the Sony isn't running away with the show. OTOH, I do plan to audition one as soon as I get back to the states.
javry is offline  
post #78 of 198 Old 05-10-2012, 08:05 AM
AVS Special Member
 
JustMike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Silicon Valley, CA
Posts: 2,231
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 19
They actually said that the lack of CMS was the only thing keeping me from giving it a "Reference" badge.

Mike Kobb
(Formerly "ReplayMike". These opinions are mine alone, and in no way reflect the opinions of employers past or present!)
"Mike's Money Pit" Build Thread
JustMike is offline  
post #79 of 198 Old 05-10-2012, 08:36 AM
AVS Special Member
 
zombie10k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,382
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 95 Post(s)
Liked: 263
I think many were surprised by the lack of the CMS considering the one built into the VW95 works fairly well. Some of the reports of the banding and uniformity issues are a little nerve-wracking at that price point. I would think that each one would be Q/A'd to the Nth degree before they ship to avoid expensive swaps - some multiple per owner.

JVC has spent years mastering the black floor on LCOS panels and increasing the native contrast each year. I'm not surprised that they haven't been overshadowed yet, even with the expensive VW1000.

kudos to AV forum for actually doing an A/B test with identical sources, both projectors calibrated in the same environment and covering each lens for comparison viewing at seating distance. Too many reviewers compare projectors days, weeks or even months apart.
zombie10k is online now  
post #80 of 198 Old 05-10-2012, 08:36 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
millerwill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Berkeley, CA
Posts: 11,358
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustMike View Post

They actually said that the lack of CMS was the only thing keeping me from giving it a "Reference" badge.

I had a JVC RS20 and used its CMS (with ChromaPure) to calibrate it, and was fairly satisfied. I was intrigued, though, with the autocal feature of CP if one used a video processor, so I did buy a Radiance Mini. I find the calibration results I get with it to be much better than what I could do 'by hand', and am very happy with the purchase.

And now that I have a Sony 1000, having the RadianceMini is icing on the cake.
millerwill is online now  
post #81 of 198 Old 05-10-2012, 10:59 AM
AVS Special Member
 
HoustonHoyaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 3,963
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombie10k View Post

kudos to AV forum for actually doing an A/B test with identical sources, both projectors calibrated in the same environment and covering each lens for comparison viewing at seating distance. Too many reviewers compare projectors days, weeks or even months apart.

However, turning off the DI on the Sony is not a fair comparison of it's dark scene performance!
HoustonHoyaFan is offline  
post #82 of 198 Old 05-10-2012, 12:05 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
millerwill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Berkeley, CA
Posts: 11,358
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonHoyaFan View Post

However, turning off the DI on the Sony is not a fair comparison of it's dark scene performance!

I agree! The DI certainly makes up much of the difference of the JVC's higher o/f CR.
millerwill is online now  
post #83 of 198 Old 05-10-2012, 12:06 PM
AVS Special Member
 
zombie10k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,382
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 95 Post(s)
Liked: 263
so they clamped the iris down since it was a new lamp in dark room. I'd do the same test to see how it fairs with native vs. native. The iris is only going to help so much with my dark sci-fi movies.

The AV review was quite complementary of the VW1000, I don't see what all the fuss is about his comments. These are his observations. If folks object, they can get both projectors and run the same tests to counter.

"Well I compared the two directly and can only report what I see and with 2D 1080p content, there really was little to distinguish the two images. I'm not saying the X70 is better but I am saying that you can get equally as good 2D images for a lot less money. Of course if I had £17,000 I think I would buy the VW1000 because I thought the 3D performance was amazing and I'd also be future proofed."

"However the native blacks on the JVC were noticeably darker than the Sony."
zombie10k is online now  
post #84 of 198 Old 05-10-2012, 12:12 PM
AVS Special Member
 
adidino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 4,207
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombie10k View Post

so they clamped the iris down since it was a new lamp in dark room. I'd do the same test to see how it fairs with native vs. native. The iris is only going to help so much with my dark sci-fi movies.

The AV review was quite complementary of the VW1000, I don't see what all the fuss is about his comments. These are his observations. If folks object, they can get both projectors and run the same tests to counter.

"Well I compared the two directly and can only report what I see and with 2D 1080p content, there really was little to distinguish the two images. I'm not saying the X70 is better but I am saying that you can get equally as good 2D images for a lot less money. Of course if I had £17,000 I think I would buy the VW1000 because I thought the 3D performance was amazing and I'd also be future proofed."

"However the native blacks on the JVC were noticeably darker than the Sony."

On a seperate note. The reviewer clarified for me that he was referring to images on a typical screen size. He agreed that the Sony would have a big the advantage on a large screen.

The issue here is if you plan to use the Sony with a 100 inch (or so) diag screen, there would be no point in making the investment. I purchased the Sonyto light up my 120 inch wide 2.35 which the JVC would not be bright enough to handle. Not to mention 3D on the JVC was a mess.
adidino is offline  
post #85 of 198 Old 05-10-2012, 12:28 PM
AVS Special Member
 
zombie10k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,382
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 95 Post(s)
Liked: 263
Tony, no arguments on the 3D, they need some help here. With the RS55, I run a 142" 2.8 high power and @ ~800 lumens D65 I can crank the iris to -13 for great contrast and is still very bright with HP. Obviously I couldn't do this with a screen this big that was low gain.

if the AV reviewer clamped the iris on the 1000 vs. the X70, I don't have a problem with that test since I'd want to know how they compare native vs. native. I'm a big sci-fi movie fan and looking for the best possible black floor.
zombie10k is online now  
post #86 of 198 Old 05-10-2012, 01:19 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Joesyah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: GA
Posts: 2,174
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
What I don't understand is why it is such a surprise when it comes to comparing native contrast of theses projectors? Really?.. There's already reviews out with measurements. Going strictly on native contrast, it's no contest. 2372:1 isn't exactly world shattering native contrast if you know what I mean.

On those Dark Sci-fi movies...native is where its at no matter how you slice it.
I thought everyone knew JVC does this better than anyone out there?
Do they have flaws? Sure..black levels/contrast aren't one of them.
Joesyah is offline  
post #87 of 198 Old 05-10-2012, 02:47 PM
AVS Special Member
 
blee0120's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Merillville, IN 46410
Posts: 3,533
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombie10k View Post

Tony, no arguments on the 3D, they need some help here. With the RS55, I run a 142" 2.8 high power and @ ~800 lumens D65 I can crank the iris to -13 for great contrast and is still very bright with HP. Obviously I couldn't do this with a screen this big that was low gain.

if the AV reviewer clamped the iris on the 1000 vs. the X70, I don't have a problem with that test since I'd want to know how they compare native vs. native. I'm a big sci-fi movie fan and looking for the best possible black floor.

Did u watch the new underworld movie yet? It was a great dark movie
blee0120 is online now  
post #88 of 198 Old 05-10-2012, 03:40 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 11,913
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 50 Post(s)
Liked: 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by adidino View Post

On a seperate note. The reviewer clarified for me that he was referring to images on a typical screen size. He agreed that the Sony would have a big the advantage on a large screen.

The issue here is if you plan to use the Sony with a 100 inch (or so) diag screen, there would be no point in making the investment. I purchased the Sony to light up my 120 inch wide 2.35 which the JVC would not be bright enough to handle. Not to mention 3D on the JVC was a mess.

Yes the brighter Sony helps with bigger screens.

However, there is a tenor to the posts by people raving or owning the Sony that doesn't just stick with "it's brighter," but rather it's like a new paradigm for image quality - that there is some inherently better image quality put out by the Sony than available from other projectors. (If that weren't so, it would be routinely acknowledged that one could stick with a much cheaper JVC projector and just buy a higher gain screen, if brightness were the only advantage for the Sony).

Now, I've never seen the Sony so I don't know if it's true, or what I'd think. But it's interesting that at least in this review, when looked at strictly for PQ considerations other than sheer brightness, the JVC remained their reference for 2D images.
R Harkness is online now  
post #89 of 198 Old 05-10-2012, 04:27 PM
Member
 
KRGM1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 161
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Since screen size was not considered, the JVC should have been compared to a 3D Titan and a 3D Lumis Solo or Duo. I'm sure the JVC would have won because of the black level.
KRGM1 is offline  
post #90 of 198 Old 05-10-2012, 04:55 PM
AVS Special Member
 
adidino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 4,207
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by KRGM1 View Post

Since screen size was not considered, the JVC should have been compared to a 3D Titan and a 3D Lumis Solo or Duo. I'm sure the JVC would have won because of the black level.

Actually the Sony compared to the Lumis or Titan would be a little more interesting.
adidino is offline  
Reply Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP

Tags
Sony Vpl Vw1000es Projector , Jvc Dla Rs66
Gear in this thread

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