Originally Posted by giomania
Does that mean it comes with the glasses and the emitter? I don't recall seeing that in the press release.
Usually different for the UK and US. UK models initially come with emitter and glasses. US models don't. They aren't free though, as the price is higher in the UK.
Originally Posted by mark haflich
I am being rough here and obviously we must talk about brightness per sq ft or at least some unit of area. But lets take for purposes of discussion , a screen of say 33 1/3 sq ft in area. Without considering screen gain, that gives us about 3 ft lamberts for every 100 ANSI lumens. So let's fire up that light canon and put out a blazing 100 ANSI Lumens and we get 3 ft lamberts. Pretty dim. So let's double those ANSI lumens. Now we get 6 ft lamberts. Quite a bit brighter but still dim. Let's go crazy and burn the bulb hot and get a blazing 400 ANSI out. Now we have 12 ft lamberts. To our eyes, the scientific literature says quadrupple the brightness for ones eyes to perceive it as being twice as bright.
4 times to double or the square root of the multiplier. Let's double those 400 ANSI and now use 800. Now we get 24 ft lamberts. Does it now look twice as bright? How much brighter? About the square root of 2 or 1.414, or 41.4% brighter. Let's increase it by another 400 ANSI. Now we get 36 ft lamberts for peak white. That full screen white 100 IRE frame. From the 800 ANSI, we now have increased the brightness increase to our eyes by a little more than 7%, the sq root of 49 being 7 exactly. Now let's add that 100 ANSI more of the cheaper JVC. 100 ANSI is 8.333 % of 1200. So even if you don't grasp or believe the sq root stuff, its only about 8% more light and if one believes the scientific literature, your eyes would perceive this as about a 3% increase in brightness. Increases to ones eyes depends on the starting base. If you have little light to start with, adding a little more helps a great deal. Going from 100 to 400, is a quadrupple increase and is to your eyes twice as bright. To do it again, you would need 1600 lumens Want it twice as bright to your eyes again, you would need 6400 lumens for our mythical screen.
Moah. I`ll let you google the quadruppling to one eyes bit to perceive twice as bright.
I couldn't care less about 100 extra lumens in the specs. The only thing I know is:
1) if the two models (rs46 and rs48) have the same on/off specs (50000:1) but don't have the same lumens specs, it means that either the rs46 has higher black levels, or the rs48 has lower black levels. It would be silly to raise the black level of the rs46, so let's hope it's the second reason. Irrespective of the way they would lose these lumens (don't believe it's eshift 2, could be the CMS), as the rs48 doesn't have the dual iris or the new grid polariser, the way they achieve the same contrast with a lower max output has to be by changing the way the single iris is tuned (think "static dynamic iris").
2) Irrespective of the specs, the models with the higher lumens are usually significantly brighter in 3D (at least this was the case with the rs45/rs55). This used to mean less crosstalk. Many people don't care about 3D, but I do. The rs45 was also significantly brighter at D65/rec709. So I will take all the brightness I can, because it means more usable brightness and on/off as the lamp declines. With the new lamp - if it delivers all its promises - and the improvements in 3D, all this might change, but it's still a question mark at this stage which is why I'm trying to assess which light engine is in which model, rather than worrying for 100 lumens difference in the specs.
So this issue isn't only about knowing whether a model has x% more max light on a 100% white pattern in a unusable mode as per the specs. It is about knowing whether there is a point testing the rs48 (for me). If it gives me less usable on/off and less max brightness at D65/rec709 and in 3D than my rs45, I'm unlikely to consider it. If it gives me lower black levels and same or more brightness at D65/rec709 and in 3D, I'll welcome it warmly:). The same light engine as the rs46 with eshift2 made it immediately interesting to me, especially as eshift2 seems to reduce the 10-15% loss in ANSI contrast there was with eshift1. If it's not the same light engine, then it calls for closer scrutiny as far as I'm concerned.
I still suspect there is something wrong with the specs because it doesn't make sense. Usually you had to choose between more brightness and less on/off (rs45) and less brightness and more on/off (rs55). The rs48 sits between the rs46 and the rs56 in a way that is not clear at the moment as you get less brightness than the rs46 and less on/off than the rs56.
GaryB said he will double check.