Offical JVC DLA-RS4810 Owners Thread - Page 25 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #721 of 1856 Old 01-08-2013, 01:23 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Schwa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,929
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 206 Post(s)
Liked: 260
Same thing here on my 4810...although I'm not sure I'd describe it as distortion. It looks to me like the 4810 is just less aggressive in smoothing out the individual pixels. In movies where aliasing effects are less pronounced, it seems like this would equate to slightly better sharpness on the eshift2 machines.
Schwa is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #722 of 1856 Old 01-08-2013, 01:33 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Geof's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Eden NY
Posts: 6,007
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 33
well you guys can take pot shots at me but as far as I'm concerned eshift1 is better than eshift2. Perhaps for the reason Zombie's photo clearly shows. With shift 1 I could see an improvement even at my 1.6 SW seating distance. With eshift2 I have to crank up the controls to see it but then it looks over processed to me.

Geof
Geof is offline  
post #723 of 1856 Old 01-08-2013, 04:24 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Schwa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,929
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 206 Post(s)
Liked: 260
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geof View Post

well you guys can take pot shots at me but as far as I'm concerned eshift1 is better than eshift2. Perhaps for the reason Zombie's photo clearly shows. With shift 1 I could see an improvement even at my 1.6 SW seating distance. With eshift2 I have to crank up the controls to see it but then it looks over processed to me.
Nope, I can understand that. From zombie's picture it looks like eshift1 is "doing more."
Schwa is offline  
post #724 of 1856 Old 01-08-2013, 04:39 PM
AVS Special Member
 
zombie10k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,438
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 136 Post(s)
Liked: 280
I studied this closely when I had them in a direct A/B (4810 / RS55). I expected to see the MPC differences, but didn't expect the actual e-shift process would look different at the pixel level.

if you apply MPC sharpening to those edges, I see how it could look overdone trying to match the naturally smooth appearance of the e-shift 1. I'd like to know what's actually happening to make it appear that way, since they are identical when it's turned off.

RS55 on top, RS4810 on the bottom

e-shift2.jpg
zombie10k is online now  
post #725 of 1856 Old 01-08-2013, 07:38 PM
Newbie
 
dchandwani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Houston
Posts: 13
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
What is the optimum screen size to seating distance ratio specifically for 4810 for 1.78:1 ?
dchandwani is offline  
post #726 of 1856 Old 01-08-2013, 07:55 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Geof's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Eden NY
Posts: 6,007
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombie10k View Post

I studied this closely when I had them in a direct A/B (4810 / RS55). I expected to see the MPC differences, but didn't expect the actual e-shift process would look different at the pixel level.
if you apply MPC sharpening to those edges, I see how it could look overdone trying to match the naturally smooth appearance of the e-shift 1. I'd like to know what's actually happening to make it appear that way, since they are identical when it's turned off.
RS55 on top, RS4810 on the bottom
e-shift2.jpg
Nice job on the comparison shots. I couldn't put my finger on the reason for my discontent but I think you may have shown it with the photo's. It's too bad they didn't include an eshift1 mode....

Geof
Geof is offline  
post #727 of 1856 Old 01-08-2013, 08:16 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Schwa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,929
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 206 Post(s)
Liked: 260
Quote:
Originally Posted by dchandwani View Post

What is the optimum screen size to seating distance ratio specifically for 4810 for 1.78:1 ?
There's no screen size recommendation for the RS4810 specifically, but here's a pretty good calculator. I sit 1.5 screen widths from my screen and, although perfectly comfortable, even with my non-eshift projector, I feel like I could've been closer without any problem. With eshift, I could sit even closer without seeing pixel structure. I think max comfortable seating distance for me would be around 1.3 screen widths.
Schwa is offline  
post #728 of 1856 Old 01-11-2013, 06:31 AM
Member
 
wildcard011's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 49
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Last night I finally reached 100 hours on my 4810. Since I had played with the setting quite a bit during this time, I decided to do a Reset to the Film Mode. Then I went into the OPPO-95 settings and changed sharpness and contrast to +1

The picture that is being projected now is just beyond all my expectations. Watched Cars2 with the family last night and everyone kept commenting on how good and balanced the overall picture was. The sharpness is just right and the screen just pops with beautiful colors and contrast.

Not sure if this is what Darbee does but by tweaking these settings on the OPPO and leaving the RS4810 to the default Film mode I'm one happy camper.

BTW HDMI1 on the OPPO is set to video only and is connected directly to the 4810 bypassing the receiver. HDMI2 on the oppo goes to the receiver and is used for Audio.

If anyone has a similar setup, its worth a try.
wildcard011 is offline  
post #729 of 1856 Old 01-11-2013, 08:28 AM
Advanced Member
 
Jedi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 797
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombie10k View Post

I studied this closely when I had them in a direct A/B (4810 / RS55). I expected to see the MPC differences, but didn't expect the actual e-shift process would look different at the pixel level.

if you apply MPC sharpening to those edges, I see how it could look overdone trying to match the naturally smooth appearance of the e-shift 1. I'd like to know what's actually happening to make it appear that way, since they are identical when it's turned off.

RS55 on top, RS4810 on the bottom

e-shift2.jpg


...Can you tell us what modes of MPC were used in each of the two examples displayed? By modes, I mean "Film", "HD", etc. This mode selection makes for big differences in appearance on my 4810.

Are Eleven Channels Really Enough?

Jedi is offline  
post #730 of 1856 Old 01-11-2013, 07:34 PM
AVS Special Member
 
RonF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sunny SoCal
Posts: 1,678
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Just popping in to comment on the new lamp again for this year's models. It seems to be really, really good. Can fluctuate up to 10 or so center, peak lux during course of watching for several hours, but it seems to reach its brightest points after several hours on. I have 8.5' wide 16x9 screen. At less than 1 hour, for that size screen, on low lamp with the projector about 2/3 of the way back to long throw, I got 180 for the reading. I am just hitting 190 hours with a calibration thrown in as well at 100 hours. Just measured a little while ago the highest reading I have seen in about a week...... 179.6 lux. Dayam!! That is unlike any lamp I have ever owned. It just keeps chugging along with extremely low brightness loss.
RonF is offline  
post #731 of 1856 Old 01-11-2013, 07:54 PM
AVS Special Member
 
zombie10k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,438
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 136 Post(s)
Liked: 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jedi View Post

...Can you tell us what modes of MPC were used in each of the two examples displayed? By modes, I mean "Film", "HD", etc. This mode selection makes for big differences in appearance on my 4810.

the RS55 was in it's only e-shift mode (either on or off) + MPC @ 2, the RS4810 was in the film mode with the default settings.

The HD setting will be more obvious than the film mode setting since there is a more aggressive form of sharpening being applied.

I couldn't match the RS55 e-shift image with any of the modes in this specific test.
zombie10k is online now  
post #732 of 1856 Old 01-11-2013, 08:19 PM
Advanced Member
 
Crabalocker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 760
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 25
My calibration will be done tomorrow. My Eshift settings are film:60-50-50 with my Darbee at 35%. WoW, I love the picture with this combo and my eye calibration! I'm a little nervous that the pro calibration won't look any better since it looks so good right now!

RonF, sounds good so far. It looks like you'll get to 500 hours before me. I'd love to hear about the readings then, fingers crossed.
Crabalocker is online now  
post #733 of 1856 Old 01-11-2013, 08:52 PM
AVS Special Member
 
RonF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sunny SoCal
Posts: 1,678
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 28
An hour later it dropped to 173 while I'm watching Lakers. Weird with the fluctuations but it seems to stay always within 10 of the original lux reading. You should like your calibration. Anyone known here doing it?
RonF is offline  
post #734 of 1856 Old 01-11-2013, 11:22 PM
Advanced Member
 
Crabalocker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 760
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 25
No, just a guy I found in my area (I'll ask tomorrow if he's on the forum). Just hoping it makes a difference; to get the best out of the JVC.

anyone over 500 hours? If so, how's the new lamp holding up?
Crabalocker is online now  
post #735 of 1856 Old 01-12-2013, 12:58 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Kelvin1965S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Berkshire, UK
Posts: 3,230
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crabalocker View Post

My calibration will be done tomorrow. My Eshift settings are film:60-50-50 with my Darbee at 35%. WoW, I love the picture with this combo and my eye calibration! I'm a little nervous that the pro calibration won't look any better since it looks so good right now!

RonF, sounds good so far. It looks like you'll get to 500 hours before me. I'd love to hear about the readings then, fingers crossed.

I thought that when I first set up my X35 as I just put in settings that I thought would be about right (mainly Standard colour space and 6500K, 2.3 gamma). Turned out it wasn't bad, but a little too warm, so after calibration mine ended up brighter than this initial setting (94 Lux to about 102 Lux). The gamma was flatter too (thanks to my Lumagen, but a Pro should be able to set up the JVC's internal gamma just as well, if taking a bit more time) so the image has more depth in bright scenes and slightly better shadow detail too. It wasn't such a massive change as calibrating my old HD350 plus Lumagen (due to the very oversaturated colour gamut) but worthwhile and certainly an improvement...I'm sure you'll feel the same. smile.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by RonF View Post

An hour later it dropped to 173 while I'm watching Lakers. Weird with the fluctuations but it seems to stay always within 10 of the original lux reading. You should like your calibration. Anyone known here doing it?

I'm at nearly 90 hours now and my reading has started to settle the last couple of viewings. Like you I measure after it's been on a while and I've now dropped 2 Lux from 102 to 100 now. It seems to be a consistent reading (bar the lower reading during the first 30-60 minutes of perhaps 92-95 Lux). I can live with this sort of dimming as I'm running low lamp at -15 for 16:9 and -9 for 2.35:1 so have plenty in hand.

Zooming: Been there, done that, bought the lens...
Kelvin1965S is offline  
post #736 of 1856 Old 01-12-2013, 06:31 AM
Senior Member
 
buddhamus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Australia, Melbourne
Posts: 216
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Hi guys,

I actually just noticed only recently that my PJ has dimmed considerably.

At first I had the PJ on high lamp and IRIS on -9 and then just recently I found that way to dim...so I put on high lamp and Iris at -6 and it seemed better.

But I just bought a light meter recently and checked the settings...I have done a calibration and on high lamp and Iris on 0 I am only getting 92LUX and only 10.3FL and On low lamp on any setting I was struggling to break 7.4FL!!!...........my PJ is about 4m from the screen and its a 100 inch screen and 1.1 gain screen. i know some of your guys are hitting 16-20FL's!!!! lol.

I spoke to my retailer and he is organising for me to take it to the service centre to get it checked out. I hope it is just the lamp and not the PJ itself as the PJ's convergence is pretty much spot on!.

Does this sound like a faulty lamp issue?

Thanks guys smile.gif
buddhamus is offline  
post #737 of 1856 Old 01-12-2013, 07:19 AM
AVS Special Member
 
RonF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sunny SoCal
Posts: 1,678
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by buddhamus View Post

Hi guys,

I actually just noticed only recently that my PJ has dimmed considerably.

At first I had the PJ on high lamp and IRIS on -9 and then just recently I found that way to dim...so I put on high lamp and Iris at -6 and it seemed better.

But I just bought a light meter recently and checked the settings...I have done a calibration and on high lamp and Iris on 0 I am only getting 92LUX and only 10.3FL and On low lamp on any setting I was struggling to break 7.4FL!!!...........my PJ is about 4m from the screen and its a 100 inch screen and 1.1 gain screen. i know some of your guys are hitting 16-20FL's!!!! lol.

I spoke to my retailer and he is organising for me to take it to the service centre to get it checked out. I hope it is just the lamp and not the PJ itself as the PJ's convergence is pretty much spot on!.

Does this sound like a faulty lamp issue?

Thanks guys smile.gif


Is that a 100" diagonal or width on a 16x9 screen? Are you just taking center, peak lux readings at the screen with the meter facing toward the projector I assume? I definitely seems very dim. I have roughly same size in width, if that was your measurement. If that is a diagonal then your screen is even smaller. My projector is back also a bit over 13 feet, similar distance as yours and as mentioned the peak lux when new was 180 in center on low lamp, and over 220 on high. Now varies between 165 low reading and 174 usually, sometimes spikes higher if on several hours. Definitely get at least the lamp checked it would seem. Good luck! Let us know what you find out.
RonF is offline  
post #738 of 1856 Old 01-12-2013, 07:25 AM
Senior Member
 
buddhamus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Australia, Melbourne
Posts: 216
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by RonF View Post

Is that a 100" diagonal or width on a 16x9 screen? Are you just taking center, peak lux readings at the screen with the meter facing toward the projector I assume? I definitely seems very dim. I have roughly same size in width, if that was your measurement. If that is a diagonal then your screen is even smaller. My projector is back also a bit over 13 feet, similar distance as yours and as mentioned the peak lux when new was 180 in center on low lamp, and over 220 on high. Now varies between 165 low reading and 174 usually, sometimes spikes higher if on several hours. Definitely get at least the lamp checked it would seem. Good luck! Let us know what you find out.

Cheers mate,

Yes it's 100" diagonal and a 16x9 screenl.....The highest reading I can get on the meter with the IRIS fully open and lamp on high is 105lux lmao!.........something is definetly up. Hopefully it will just be the lamp as my unit has very good convergence and wouldnt want to exchange it for another one with worse convergence.
buddhamus is offline  
post #739 of 1856 Old 01-12-2013, 09:27 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Kelvin1965S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Berkshire, UK
Posts: 3,230
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by buddhamus View Post

Cheers mate,

Yes it's 100" diagonal and a 16x9 screenl.....The highest reading I can get on the meter with the IRIS fully open and lamp on high is 105lux lmao!.........something is definetly up. Hopefully it will just be the lamp as my unit has very good convergence and wouldnt want to exchange it for another one with worse convergence.

Not wishing to add to confusion, so I should just remind that I have the X35, but when I'm set for 16:9 my size is approx 100" diagonal at minimum zoom and -15 iris and I'm getting 100 Lux in low lamp. Even allowing that the X35 is supposed to be about 8% brighter (1300 lumens verses 1200) something sounds a bit wrong in your case.

How many hours have you done on it (I'm at about 90 now).

EDIT: Back up to 103 Lux tonight just before switch off after maybe 4 hours viewing.

Zooming: Been there, done that, bought the lens...
Kelvin1965S is offline  
post #740 of 1856 Old 01-12-2013, 05:07 PM
Senior Member
 
buddhamus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Australia, Melbourne
Posts: 216
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelvin1965S View Post

Not wishing to add to confusion, so I should just remind that I have the X35, but when I'm set for 16:9 my size is approx 100" diagonal at minimum zoom and -15 iris and I'm getting 100 Lux in low lamp. Even allowing that the X35 is supposed to be about 8% brighter (1300 lumens verses 1200) something sounds a bit wrong in your case.

How many hours have you done on it (I'm at about 90 now).

EDIT: Back up to 103 Lux tonight just before switch off after maybe 4 hours viewing.

Hi Kelvin,

I have only 61hrs on the lamp so far. Any setting on low lamp is pretty much 7.3fls or 85lux-92lux frown.gif
buddhamus is offline  
post #741 of 1856 Old 01-12-2013, 08:28 PM
Advanced Member
 
Crabalocker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 760
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 25
Had mine calibrated today and initial test showed 9fl in low lamp and 14fl in high lamp (153" diagonal 16x9).
Crabalocker is online now  
post #742 of 1856 Old 01-13-2013, 05:16 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Kelvin1965S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Berkshire, UK
Posts: 3,230
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Not much in hand there then Crabalocker, though if the lamp is like mine maybe it'll maintain that level for many hours. I wouldn't want it to drop any lower though. I just checked my old HD350 (RS10) as I sold it this morning. At full iris, minimum zoom and high lamp it was putting out 140 Lux (400 hours on the lamp) or 70 Lux mid iris (so the iris steps seem much more severe on the older model).

Zooming: Been there, done that, bought the lens...
Kelvin1965S is offline  
post #743 of 1856 Old 01-13-2013, 05:46 AM
Senior Member
 
buddhamus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Australia, Melbourne
Posts: 216
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelvin1965S View Post

Not wishing to add to confusion, so I should just remind that I have the X35, but when I'm set for 16:9 my size is approx 100" diagonal at minimum zoom and -15 iris and I'm getting 100 Lux in low lamp. Even allowing that the X35 is supposed to be about 8% brighter (1300 lumens verses 1200) something sounds a bit wrong in your case.

How many hours have you done on it (I'm at about 90 now).

EDIT: Back up to 103 Lux tonight just before switch off after maybe 4 hours viewing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RonF View Post

Is that a 100" diagonal or width on a 16x9 screen? Are you just taking center, peak lux readings at the screen with the meter facing toward the projector I assume? I definitely seems very dim. I have roughly same size in width, if that was your measurement. If that is a diagonal then your screen is even smaller. My projector is back also a bit over 13 feet, similar distance as yours and as mentioned the peak lux when new was 180 in center on low lamp, and over 220 on high. Now varies between 165 low reading and 174 usually, sometimes spikes higher if on several hours. Definitely get at least the lamp checked it would seem. Good luck! Let us know what you find out.

Well looks like a problem with the particular brand meter I had...it was a cheap one but had a friend who uses it and it gives readings pretty close. I changed the meter twice thinking it was the meter and then I thought it must of been the PJ.

I have personal good friend of mine who is a HAA/ISF specialist and he was able to come past my house today with his expensive Sencore equipment and do a checkout on the Foot Lamberts....low and behold.......I was getting on High Lamp and IRIS at 0. 10.3FL on my meter but on his meter I was actually getting 28.5FL!!!!!! LOL!............he said the PJ was plenty bright and it looks like I was just perceiving it that way....now everything looks and feels normal!........The mind is a very baffling thing!!!. Thank god nothing is wrong with the PJ or the Lamp!!!.

Thanks for the help guys!...the meter I brought it going back for a refund. Any good meters out at the moment that are rather accurate?...I live in AUS BTW.
buddhamus is offline  
post #744 of 1856 Old 01-13-2013, 07:04 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Kelvin1965S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Berkshire, UK
Posts: 3,230
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Thanks for the feedback on that meter. Someone on the UK based AVforum was recommending that meter and I wondered if it might be a bit too cheap/insensitive at the ranges that we need to measure. I'll link back to this thread and let them know. smile.gif

EDIT: It might be that this meter doesn't detect the particular wavelengths that we need to measure for projector use, or it could just be that the lower range isn't very sensitive.

Zooming: Been there, done that, bought the lens...
Kelvin1965S is offline  
post #745 of 1856 Old 01-13-2013, 07:17 AM
Member
 
johnchalt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 29
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 10
28fl in a 100 in. Screen ?wow...very bright
..
johnchalt is online now  
post #746 of 1856 Old 01-13-2013, 08:05 AM
AVS Special Member
 
RonF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sunny SoCal
Posts: 1,678
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 28
It seems odd that if you did have over 28FL on Low or High lamp.....whichever..... that to your eyes it looked dim. With a Hi Power 2.8 screen at slightly larger size as mentioned above, when my calibration was being done we were at 9 clicks down on the iris on low or normal lamp setting. He was reading off the screen right around 30FL. This was my request for the sports I watch and other source material in addition to bluray movies. Plus I like a bright image. No way does that 30FL give any impression of the image being "dim" or having something wrong on a new lamp.
RonF is offline  
post #747 of 1856 Old 01-13-2013, 08:42 AM
Advanced Member
 
Crabalocker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 760
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 25
Mine at 14fl on a 153" screen looks bright. I think the mind and your eyes can adjust fairly well to to different light levels as buddhamus bum meter proved. The mind is funny. Even when my bulb dims to 9fl, the picture will still be acceptable for viewing movies. The wife and I watched Star Trek (2009) last night in low lamp and the picture looked fantastic.

As for my calibration: Mike spent a few hours doing the grey scale and gamma which is now spot on (I had a pretty good red push both at the low and high end of the grey scale). He also set the gamma to 2.3 and did a custom gamma fix to a few points along the line. The darkest grey had a bit of a blue push as well which his gamma tweaks fixed rather well. My gamma is now measured at 2.2.

Since the colouring, with my settings, looked rather good to my eye already, the calibrated colours didn't look all that different/better to me. More accurate yes but not a huge difference. Having the proper grey scale and gamma makes the picture come to life and it's here where I find the biggest and most noticeable benefits to this calibration (I'm sure the accurate colours help as well).

Overall I'm really happy with his calibration. Let's hope the lamp stays fairly stable....oh well, the price I have to pay for having that theater look and feel.

note: the fl were pre-calibration (-7 on the iris) and will have to wait for his report to get the final numbers. I forgot to ask him post-calibration.
Crabalocker is online now  
post #748 of 1856 Old 01-13-2013, 09:24 AM
Advanced Member
 
seanbryan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Knowhere
Posts: 538
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 15
What "picture mode" are most using?

I know that the "standard" color profile is reportedly relatively close to 6500k, but what difference does the picture mode make?

Can anyone explain why someone would choose "film" vs. "natural", etc... ?
seanbryan is offline  
post #749 of 1856 Old 01-13-2013, 09:51 AM
Advanced Member
 
Crabalocker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 760
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 25
Custom slot built off of the 'Standard' colour profile. I'm not sure what mode, film- natural etc, it was profiled after.
Crabalocker is online now  
post #750 of 1856 Old 01-13-2013, 09:51 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Kelvin1965S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Berkshire, UK
Posts: 3,230
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Standard colour space is close to rec 709 colour gamut, not 6500K at least on my X35 and from what some others have reported. I found that 6500K colour temp was actually a little too warm on my X35, so 7000K was actually closer. However, I did a calibration soon after anyway (which I'm sure will have drfited as I'm at nearly 100 hours now). Of course it all depends on the screen, room and tolerances in the projector.

Zooming: Been there, done that, bought the lens...
Kelvin1965S is offline  
Reply Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP

Tags
Jvc , Jvc America , Jvc Dla Rs4810 3d Home Theater Projector
Gear in this thread

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