Offical JVC DLA-RS4810 Owners Thread - Page 52 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1531 of 1839 Old 09-27-2013, 02:59 PM
Member
 
Isantus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 92
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Is it possible when selecting a different lens memory (1.78 or 2.35) to have the video (current movie) remain active rather than switching to the green outlines and boxes?
Isantus is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #1532 of 1839 Old 09-27-2013, 03:23 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Seegs108's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Schenectady, New York
Posts: 3,737
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 96 Post(s)
Liked: 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isantus View Post

Is it possible when selecting a different lens memory (1.78 or 2.35) to have the video (current movie) remain active rather than switching to the green outlines and boxes?

Yes. if you go into the menu under "Lens Control" there is an option to turn that screen off when making adjustments like Focus, Lens Shift, and Zoom. I would imagine turning that setting off would disable that screen for the lens memory feature too.
Seegs108 is online now  
post #1533 of 1839 Old 09-27-2013, 03:25 PM
AVS Special Member
 
ScottJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posts: 1,389
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 41 Post(s)
Liked: 54
Is there a way to do "blue channel only" so I can set the color control without using a blue filter? I searched the manual, no luck.
ScottJ is offline  
post #1534 of 1839 Old 09-27-2013, 03:30 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Seegs108's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Schenectady, New York
Posts: 3,737
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 96 Post(s)
Liked: 144
I haven't looked through the test patterns on this unit yet, but many times projectors include one. Try cycling through the test patterns to see if JVC has included one.
Seegs108 is online now  
post #1535 of 1839 Old 09-27-2013, 03:33 PM
AVS Special Member
 
ScottJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posts: 1,389
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 41 Post(s)
Liked: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seegs108 View Post

I haven't looked through the test patterns on this unit yet, but many times projectors include one. Try cycling through the test patterns to see if JVC has included one.

Hmm...I don't think a built-in test pattern is what I need. I want to view the test patterns on the S&M disc to be sure I'm calibrating the entire video chain. I just want to turn off the red & green panels in the PJ. My Samsung plasma has this feature so I assumed it was becoming more commonplace.
ScottJ is offline  
post #1536 of 1839 Old 09-27-2013, 03:35 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Seegs108's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Schenectady, New York
Posts: 3,737
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 96 Post(s)
Liked: 144
Unless there is a feature in the service menu to do this, the feature you're looking for isn't available.
Seegs108 is online now  
post #1537 of 1839 Old 09-27-2013, 05:28 PM
Member
 
Isantus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 92
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seegs108 View Post

Yes. if you go into the menu under "Lens Control" there is an option to turn that screen off when making adjustments like Focus, Lens Shift, and Zoom. I would imagine turning that setting off would disable that screen for the lens memory feature too.

I saw that feature and for some reason it didn't click for me that it was what I was looking for. Thanks a ton! Just got my new 2.35 screen and enjoy watching the picture being zoomed rather than the green test pattern.
Isantus is offline  
post #1538 of 1839 Old 09-30-2013, 10:48 AM
Member
 
gskinusa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Downingtown, PA
Posts: 182
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Hi
I have a quick question regarding using Lumagen Radiance mini 3d with JVC. I saw a video highlighting that Lumagen can do stretching of the video to match a 2.35:1 aspect ratio without using the anamorphic lens or the lens zoom. I am planning on using the lens zoom method and as I understand I will be losing some brightness due to that. I was wondering whether using Lumagen based stretching will be advantageous in terms of brightness when compared to using 4810's lens zoom. Can anyone provide some thoughts on it.

Just for ref: I am planning on using the 4810 with a 160" wide enlightor 4k screen. I won't be utilizing the entire 160" width and probably would be using 130" width of it. So I am looking to maximize the brightness as much as I can without running the projector on High Lamp mode as that is really loud.

Anyway, your thoughts would be appreciated.
Thanks
-Sen
gskinusa is offline  
post #1539 of 1839 Old 09-30-2013, 10:53 AM
Member
 
gskinusa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Downingtown, PA
Posts: 182
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by seanbryan View Post

It's under the advanced settings. I believe it's called lens aperture if I'm not mistaken.
Thank you
-Sen
gskinusa is offline  
post #1540 of 1839 Old 09-30-2013, 11:39 AM
AVS Special Member
 
ScottJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posts: 1,389
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 41 Post(s)
Liked: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by gskinusa View Post

Hi
I have a quick question regarding using Lumagen Radiance mini 3d with JVC. I saw a video highlighting that Lumagen can do stretching of the video to match a 2.35:1 aspect ratio without using the anamorphic lens or the lens zoom. I am planning on using the lens zoom method and as I understand I will be losing some brightness due to that. I was wondering whether using Lumagen based stretching will be advantageous in terms of brightness when compared to using 4810's lens zoom. Can anyone provide some thoughts on it.

I assume you're referring to its ability to scale 1.78 (16:9) video down to fit into a 2.35:1 frame. You zoom the lens to fit the width of a 2.35 screen, then leave it there. This is good for PJs that don't have a motorized lens or lens memory, but the drawback is loss of both brightness and resolution for 1.78 material.

Since the JVC has a motorized zoom, you don't need this capability. You can set up two lens memories: one for 2.35, one for 1.78, and easily switch between them.
gskinusa likes this.
ScottJ is offline  
post #1541 of 1839 Old 09-30-2013, 12:11 PM
Member
 
gskinusa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Downingtown, PA
Posts: 182
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottJ View Post

I assume you're referring to its ability to scale 1.78 (16:9) video down to fit into a 2.35:1 frame. You zoom the lens to fit the width of a 2.35 screen, then leave it there. This is good for PJs that don't have a motorized lens or lens memory, but the drawback is loss of both brightness and resolution for 1.78 material.

Since the JVC has a motorized zoom, you don't need this capability. You can set up two lens memories: one for 2.35, one for 1.78, and easily switch between them.

Yup, I was referring to the 16:9 to fit 2.35:1. So based on your answer, whether I use Lumagen based scaling or the projector based zoom, I would not have any advantage in terms of brightness improvement. Is that a current inference?.

Thanks
-Sen
gskinusa is offline  
post #1542 of 1839 Old 09-30-2013, 12:22 PM
AVS Special Member
 
erkq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,519
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by gskinusa View Post

Yup, I was referring to the 16:9 to fit 2.35:1. So based on your answer, whether I use Lumagen based scaling or the projector based zoom, I would not have any advantage in terms of brightness improvement. Is that a current inference?.

Thanks
-Sen

Projector based lens scaling would deliver more light to the screen in 16:9 mode and you would still have 1:1 pixel mapping, a good thing. This is because the 16:9 image would use the entire height of the output panels instead of scaling the image shorter (and narrower) to fit.
ScottJ likes this.
erkq is offline  
post #1543 of 1839 Old 09-30-2013, 12:37 PM
AVS Special Member
 
ScottJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posts: 1,389
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 41 Post(s)
Liked: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by gskinusa View Post

Yup, I was referring to the 16:9 to fit 2.35:1. So based on your answer, whether I use Lumagen based scaling or the projector based zoom, I would not have any advantage in terms of brightness improvement. Is that a current inference?.

Thanks
-Sen

I have no idea how you came to that conclusion as I expressly stated that there is a loss of both brightness and resolution when downscaling 1.78 material.
ScottJ is offline  
post #1544 of 1839 Old 09-30-2013, 01:14 PM
Member
 
gskinusa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Downingtown, PA
Posts: 182
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by erkq View Post

Projector based lens scaling would deliver more light to the screen in 16:9 mode and you would still have 1:1 pixel mapping, a good thing. This is because the 16:9 image would use the entire height of the output panels instead of scaling the image shorter (and narrower) to fit.

Thank you. This answers the questions I had.
-Sen
gskinusa is offline  
post #1545 of 1839 Old 09-30-2013, 01:18 PM
Member
 
gskinusa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Downingtown, PA
Posts: 182
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottJ View Post

I have no idea how you came to that conclusion as I expressly stated that there is a loss of both brightness and resolution when downscaling 1.78 material.

You know what, I am not sure either why I interpreted it that way. I re-read that and it did answer my question clearly.

Thank you for your answer and it helped me make the decision (and save money by not buying Lumagen for this purpose).

Thanks
-Sen
gskinusa is offline  
post #1546 of 1839 Old 10-01-2013, 01:33 AM
Member
 
timhet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 34
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Hi all,

I'm looking to buy a projector mount for an X35. I've read some comments here about Peerless and I've also read that you should aim for the lens to be at least equal with the top of the image.

I've got a 122" scope screen. The question I have is whether I should get a mount that allows the lens to be at the top of the screen or will it be sufficient for it to be at the top of the overscanned image (where the top black bar is)? When viewing 16:9, the top of the image will obviously be at the top of the screen.

The higher the projector is the more practical it is (so people don't bump their heads on it).

The ceiling is approx 2.59m high. The top of the scope screen will be about 2.25m high. That is approx 30-34cm from the ceiling.

Which of the following should I go?
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/525470-REG/Peerless_Industries_PRG_UNV_PRG_UNV_Precision_Gear_Projector.html
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/661862-REG/Peerless_Industries_PAG_UNV_HD_PAG_UNV_HD_Heavy_Duty_Arakno.html
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/593184-REG/Peerless_Industries_PRG_EXA_PRG_EXA_Adjustable_Projector_Ceiling_Wall.html

I'm assuming all three will work with an X35.

Cheers,
Tim
timhet is offline  
post #1547 of 1839 Old 10-01-2013, 02:26 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
mark haflich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: brookeville, maryland, usa
Posts: 19,282
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 114 Post(s)
Liked: 313
Tim. The second choice is for a much heavier projector than you have. The basic differences between the first and the third, is that the third comes with an extension pole. All the mounts identified have universal arms for attaching the projector to mount via a quick disconnect.

I would recommend that you purchase a Chief mount instead and one that has a dedicate mounting plate instead of spider arms. Cleaner and more tight A Chief RPA281 or RPMA281 will do the job. You will need a ceiling flange plate to attach the mount to your ceiling which connects to the mount by a length of threaded pipe. The ceiling flange has a socket for a 1 1/2 inch NT threaded pipe. You can buy one at Home depot in the plumbing section for about $4 or you can buy various ones, occupying more ceiling area , prettier for about $30. CMS115 etc. The only issue here is how long a pipe do you need. Chief sells pipes, threaded at both ends that are either fixed length or of adjustable length. These pipes are relatively expensive but you can buy threaded fixed length pipes at home depot (1 1/2 inch NT threaded), The minimum length is a no length piece which is just threads with no pipe unthreaded visable. This length will allow the tightest fit to the ceiling and in your case place the projector as high as you can go practically. The reason for using the pipe instead of bolting the mount to the ceiling directly with a flange or flange plate and a piece of pipe is that it allows you to rotate the mount slightly to get perfect alignment to your screen. The longer the pipe the lower the projector will be. I would suggest buying several pieces from home depot, and they come in black, their black gas pipes, of various lengths. Just threads, 2 inches, 4 inches, 6 inches, three inchesand experiment with your set up. At the end return the lengths you don't need. a piece of the pipe, short lengths of pipe threaded at both ends, are called pipe nipples. Pieces are cheap and cst increases as you increase the length. But we are talking maybe $5. Generally projector lenses perform best when the lens center is no higher than screen top. The JVCs will let you shift the image to accommodate higher lens center but this does cause a small lost in sharpness for the portions of the image farther away from lens center and will increase CA errors. Many people say I use more lens shift and things are fine. No they aren't they just don't know what to look for. Let's call them somewhat blind. No competent industry professional will mount higher than lens center at screen top unless the customer insists But you can experiment and see what you see looking carefully at edge extremities and for CA errors on grid patterns. Give Mike or Craig a call at AVS. They stock the mounts and can explain all this to you and present options including getting a short adjustable pole. Hope this helps...

Mark Haflich
markhaflich@yahoo.com
call me at: 240 876 2536
mark haflich is offline  
post #1548 of 1839 Old 10-03-2013, 08:01 PM
Member
 
MALIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Sonoma County CA
Posts: 121
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 25
What would be the largest screen size to use ( approx) with this pj? In my case would be using 1.2 gain AT screen . Black ceiling and screen wall with dark paint on walls and full light control. Ceiling mount at any distance up to 20 ft. Based on what I've read would want to use this in low lamp mode due to fan noise.

Thx

Sony HW50ES | Denon X4000 | Rocket RS850s | Rocket RS200 | Rocket RS750s | Rocket RS250s | Quad Stereo integrity 18" d4 sealed subs | Inuke nu46000 | MiniDSP | Oppo 103D

My Build http://www.avsforum.com/t/1510721/the-bass-for-the-98-diy-build
MALIX is offline  
post #1549 of 1839 Old 10-03-2013, 08:56 PM
Senior Member
 
Dionyz's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Atlanta GA
Posts: 336
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by MALIX View Post

What would be the largest screen size to use ( approx) with this pj? In my case would be using 1.2 gain AT screen . Black ceiling and screen wall with dark paint on walls and full light control. Ceiling mount at any distance up to 20 ft. Based on what I've read would want to use this in low lamp mode due to fan noise.

Thx

I have 100% light controlled HT, with same cooler scheme as you.
I have 150" 16:9 Elite Screens Lunette, with Cinewhite.
The throw distance is about 16' 6", mounted on a shelf on the back wall, centered on the screen.
When I calibrated it I set the lamp to low and iris to -15, where it is stil today.
This gave me the brightness I liked with proper calibration.
High lamp mode is too bright for my liking.
Dionyz is offline  
post #1550 of 1839 Old 10-04-2013, 05:11 AM
Member
 
balinton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 69
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by MALIX View Post

What would be the largest screen size to use ( approx) with this pj? In my case would be using 1.2 gain AT screen . Black ceiling and screen wall with dark paint on walls and full light control. Ceiling mount at any distance up to 20 ft. Based on what I've read would want to use this in low lamp mode due to fan noise.

Thx

Take a look at the following screen size calculator to help you determine the best size for your room.

http://myhometheater.homestead.com/viewingdistancecalculator.html

Thanks,
Brandon Linton
Mini Penn Cinema HT Build 1.0
balinton is offline  
post #1551 of 1839 Old 10-04-2013, 01:02 PM
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 MALIX View Post

What would be the largest screen size to use ( approx) with this pj? In my case would be using 1.2 gain AT screen . Black ceiling and screen wall with dark paint on walls and full light control. Ceiling mount at any distance up to 20 ft. Based on what I've read would want to use this in low lamp mode due to fan noise.

Thx

...my situation is throwing onto a 130" (screen width), 2.35 aspect ratio, SMX acoustically transparent 1.16 gain screen. Projector is pole mounted inverted about 22' back (approaching max dist). Environment is dedicated theater room, dark browns and dark gray decor, with an all black immediate screenwall area. My settings are film mode, -10 iris, -4 contrast, -7 brightness, and am using low lamp mode. These conditions yield around 7.5 Ft-L in normal 16:9 mode and around 5.2 Ft-L in zoom mode. Only in what is a totally dark viewing environment, do I find this satisfactory. All measurements using CA813 light meter in peak mode, reading from lens at screen, using Sp&Mun 100% Field image. I have found no significant brightness loss since first measuring at 180 hrs, lamp now at 730 hrs.

Are Eleven Channels Really Enough?

Jedi is offline  
post #1552 of 1839 Old 10-04-2013, 08:12 PM
Member
 
MALIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Sonoma County CA
Posts: 121
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jedi View Post

...my situation is throwing onto a 130" (screen width), 2.35 aspect ratio, SMX acoustically transparent 1.16 gain screen. Projector is pole mounted inverted about 22' back (approaching max dist). Environment is dedicated theater room, dark browns and dark gray decor, with an all black immediate screenwall area. My settings are film mode, -10 iris, -4 contrast, -7 brightness, and am using low lamp mode. These conditions yield around 7.5 Ft-L in normal 16:9 mode and around 5.2 Ft-L in zoom mode. Only in what is a totally dark viewing environment, do I find this satisfactory. All measurements using CA813 light meter in peak mode, reading from lens at screen, using Sp&Mun 100% Field image. I have found no significant brightness loss since first measuring at 180 hrs, lamp now at 730 hrs.

Thank you so much for this information. It helps a lot to gauge what this projector's capabilities are. From what I gather seems at 130" you are close to the limit of what the machine can do?

Sony HW50ES | Denon X4000 | Rocket RS850s | Rocket RS200 | Rocket RS750s | Rocket RS250s | Quad Stereo integrity 18" d4 sealed subs | Inuke nu46000 | MiniDSP | Oppo 103D

My Build http://www.avsforum.com/t/1510721/the-bass-for-the-98-diy-build
MALIX is offline  
post #1553 of 1839 Old 10-04-2013, 11:13 PM
AVS Special Member
 
erkq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,519
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by MALIX View Post

Thank you so much for this information. It helps a lot to gauge what this projector's capabilities are. From what I gather seems at 130" you are close to the limit of what the machine can do?

At low lamp mode and -10 iris there seems to be a lot left.
erkq is offline  
post #1554 of 1839 Old 10-05-2013, 09:25 AM
Member
 
MALIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Sonoma County CA
Posts: 121
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by erkq View Post

At low lamp mode and -10 iris there seems to be a lot left.

Yes , sorry i forgot to qualify the statement. but for me high lamp mode in a nonstarter. Althought I don't know how much brightness opening up the iris would have or its effect, if any, on pq. Still 5 to 7 foot lamberts sounds like its on the low end of acceptable compared to the 16 that's considered as the ideal target.

Sony HW50ES | Denon X4000 | Rocket RS850s | Rocket RS200 | Rocket RS750s | Rocket RS250s | Quad Stereo integrity 18" d4 sealed subs | Inuke nu46000 | MiniDSP | Oppo 103D

My Build http://www.avsforum.com/t/1510721/the-bass-for-the-98-diy-build
MALIX is offline  
post #1555 of 1839 Old 10-07-2013, 11:53 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 erkq View Post

At low lamp mode and -10 iris there seems to be a lot left.

....I am obviously sacrificing brightness for picture quality. Different settings, a non-AT higher gain screen etc. would deliver different results.

Are Eleven Channels Really Enough?

Jedi is offline  
post #1556 of 1839 Old 10-08-2013, 07:16 PM
Member
 
gskinusa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Downingtown, PA
Posts: 182
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Hi
I have a convergence question. I was just using the test patterns and I noticed the horizontal lines had blue shift on the top and red on the bottom for every line as shown in the picture below.


I used the pixel adjust to attempt to correct this and I got the line set up like below.


The question I have is, is this accurate or I have to adjust more.

Note: I turned off eshift before doing the changes.

Thanks
-Sen
gskinusa is offline  
post #1557 of 1839 Old 10-08-2013, 07:25 PM
Member
 
gskinusa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Downingtown, PA
Posts: 182
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 16
BTW, this projector is amazing with Darbee. Once I corrected the convergence as much as I can, I refocussed it and then turned on the eshift. After that took some sample pictures. I could see the difference using darbee with the mis-convergence and after correction of mis-convergence. I see some amount of difference in the picture quality. I guess convergence does impact how well Darbee can act on the picture quality.

Anyway, some samples: (pardon for using my cellphone to capture these).


gskinusa is offline  
post #1558 of 1839 Old 10-11-2013, 11:03 PM
Senior Member
 
nflguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 276
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
When I use the lense memory to switch back and forth from 16x9 content to 2:35 content I noticed it doesn't work 100%

It will get the image close to what it was previously set at but not exact, I have noticed several times after using lense memory that I had to adjust the picture again because of bleed over on the top, bottom of the screen frame.

I had assumed that once you saved a lense memory for 16x9 content and a lense memory for 2:35 content that anytime you selected one of them that the Image would fit the screen as it did when you saved the settings. Kind of a PIA.
nflguy is offline  
post #1559 of 1839 Old 10-13-2013, 12:58 PM
Advanced Member
 
seanbryan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Pen's Woods
Posts: 532
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Yep. I hope that they have improved on this for the 2014 line.
seanbryan is offline  
post #1560 of 1839 Old 10-13-2013, 05:29 PM
AVS Special Member
 
dropzone7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 4,098
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 65
Well after a lot of troubleshooting it appears I have a flaky HDMI 1 port on my unit. I only have about 60 hours on it and have started having problems locking onto a signal with 1080p60 and 480p material. Strangely enough it does not seem to happen with 1080p24 material. I have tried different sources and taken my scaler out of the chain to make sure it was not the problem. I'm still testing but changing to the HDMI 2 port on the projector seems to fix it. Not what I was hoping for but at least I think I have isolated the problem.
dropzone7 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

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