Projector Mini-Shootout Thread 2013-2014 - Page 211 - AVS Forum
First ... 209  210  211 212  213  ... Last
Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP > Projector Mini-Shootout Thread 2013-2014
Thaal's Avatar Thaal 07:41 AM 02-03-2014

Contrast numbers... means so little now... It's like the x700 has double the contrast of the x500 if you play with iris and at the cost of brightness.

BTW it's Kraine's review, so you can compare his contrast numbers on the vw1100 with also his numbers on the x700. There have been lots of discussions around his measurement methods, but even if we don't all agree to how he does it, he is consistent. So comparison within his own reviews/numbers can still mean something ^^



Deja Vu's Avatar Deja Vu 08:35 AM 02-03-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

I'm on my iPhone and don't see the link to the review so I'm not sure where its from. But the native contrast of the top jvc projectors have been measured as far higher than those Sony numbers you just posted (e.g. over 100,000:1 native contrast ratio by Cine4home) So I'm not sure why you think the Sony now beats the jvcs. (That was also the case when AV forums measured the contrast of the VW 1000ES Sony versus the JVC projector of that time).

Don't shot the messenger! You can take this up with Kraine at the French site. Apparently the VW1100ES is a big improvement over the VW1000ES. So now all those who are obsessed with numbers will have to dump their Sony 1000s and upgrade to the 1100ES. biggrin.gif Bottom line everyone here claims their new projectors are great. If that's so then why the rush to upgrade 12 months later and that continues for some year after year after year? This place is a nut house -- I should know since I have OCD. wink.gif

It's getting really hard to take any of this stuff seriously. Do you guys ever listen to yourselves? And, no this isn't your wife speaking through me. biggrin.gif
Mr. Hatcher's Avatar Mr. Hatcher 10:22 AM 02-03-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombie10k View Post

also after seeing the 4910 last night, I would have harder timing picking the HW50/HW55 if the price was similar, the contrast gap is even furthered. It's more naturally sharp and the 3D has definitely caught up. I was using the new Optoma RF emitter + Optoma glasses from the HD91 and they are much better than my original MV3D transmitter / glasses. They must have changed something in the timing. Monster Vs. Aliens bridge scene was more impressive than I was expecting. Now with CMD in 3D, there is no real advantage to the Sony 3D in this generation vs. the JVC.

I feel the same way. I could not recommend the HW55 over the 4910 at this point. My X700 (X500 should be pretty similar) is pretty much equal to or better than all of the HW55's strong points, and has none of it's weaknesses. There's a few little items one could quibble about, but that would be unfair as such small annoyances should not determine one over the other as a clear winner. What I do know is that 2D on the JVC is in another league v/s the Sony, and that is what really matters (to me).

Aside from gaming (input lag), which I haven't tried yet on the JVC, that is the only area I would declare the Sony a W over the JVC (~34ms v/s ~80ms).

And the Sony is a little bit brighter (~1300 lumens v/s ~900 lumens) and as such is a little bit more forgiving with some lights on, but doesn't look as good in it's brightest mode than the JVC does.
mbroder's Avatar mbroder 10:43 AM 02-03-2014
Isn't the JVC 4910 $1000 more than the Sony 55es? For many people that need to stay within a budget (WAF;)) this isn't an option... $3500 was my max, so I chose the sony over the JVC x35 or the Epson 6030
Mr. Hatcher's Avatar Mr. Hatcher 11:02 AM 02-03-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andreas21 View Post

The difference in very low APL scenes ( where on/off contrast is most important) is quite big between the Sony and JVC, but movies with such dark scenes is very rear, in lov APL scenes that is very commom in most films the difference is not big and the Sony is on par or even better in most scenes and in lighter scenes the Sony is also better. If the difference was in favor of the JVC in low APL and even middle dark scenes I would replace my Sony this year because I find such scenes to be very important for the movie experience, but so far (even after two years on the market) the VW1000 the only scenes the JVC is better are so rear that I don´t think about it. I also have quite a large screen (3m wide 2.35:1) and I like the punch the VW1000 can give in lighter scenes (most films has alot more middle dark to light scenes compared to very dark) that the JVC can´t. When I tested the X500 against the VW1000 it had the same lightoutput with a new lamp in high as the VW1000 had with about 850h on its lamp also in high, the difference was 3 lux in favor of the JVC. So with new lamps the difference will be huge, I think my friends lamp has dimmed about 40% in these 850 hours. And to me light scenes is as important as dark scenes and intrascene/ansi contrast is as important or even more importent than on/off as long as you have decent on on/off, as I think the combination of the two is very important. The JVC this year seems to have higher ansi/intrascene contrast (i did not measure and I don´t have a good enough lightmeter to measure) than the earlier models and this is very positive for them, I think a JVC with a little higher ansi/intrascene contrast and some more lumens the coming JVC will be the PJ´s will be the ones to beat, it has been 5 years since I last owned a JVC and I welcome it back when the time is right.smile.gif

And you can post science stuff as much as you like, I know what I see and I think that is most important.

I would love to be able to demo one of these Sony's (especially the new 1100), but unfortunately it would be wayyy out of budget so even if I liked it better, I could not afford it. I believe the Sony would be better than the JVC in all but the darkest scenes (as it should).

Hopefully by the time I'm ready to upgrade my projector in a few years I won't have such a strict budget. I had 20K to spend on an entire theater room this go round (furniture, light control, and A/V gear) so I had to allocate wisely. smile.gif

And you know I had to post some data to back my argument so I didn't seem like I was making false claims. I would believe my eyes over what science and math says I "should" see as well. tongue.gif
Andreas21's Avatar Andreas21 11:07 AM 02-03-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deja Vu View Post

Don't shot the messenger! You can take this up with Kraine at the French site. Apparently the VW1100ES is a big improvement over the VW1000ES. So now all those who are obsessed with numbers will have to dump their Sony 1000s and upgrade to the 1100ES. biggrin.gif Bottom line everyone here claims their new projectors are great. If that's so then why the rush to upgrade 12 months later and that continues for some year after year after year? This place is a nut house -- I should know since I have OCD. wink.gif

It's getting really hard to take any of this stuff seriously. Do you guys ever listen to yourselves? And, no this isn't your wife speaking through me. biggrin.gif

According to Sony the VW1100 is just a VW1000 with a new motherboard with HDMI 2.0 and some other features, so people saying the VW1100 is a much better machine don´t know what they are talking about. After the upgrade the VW1000 even says VW1100 in the menu.
Andreas21's Avatar Andreas21 11:14 AM 02-03-2014
I have just taken a quick look at the VW500 and what I see at once is that the RC is not as agressive as the VW1000 and the blacklevel is not as low as the VW1000, I will test more during the evening and week and then I will test more side by side with the 1000.
Mr. Hatcher's Avatar Mr. Hatcher 11:15 AM 02-03-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbroder View Post

Isn't the JVC 4910 $1000 more than the Sony 55es? For many people that need to stay within a budget (WAF;)) this isn't an option... $3500 was my max, so I chose the sony over the JVC x35 or the Epson 6030

You just gotta search around long and hard and make offers. These pj's can be had for "much" less than MSRP. Instead of Manufacturers Suggested Retail Price it should be Major Suckers Retail Price. tongue.gif

Or hit up one of the AVS guys for assistance. wink.gif
darinp2's Avatar darinp2 11:48 AM 02-03-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thaal View Post

Contrast numbers... means so little now...
Actual on/off CR still matters IMO, just like it always did. Specs have never been what actually mattered.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thaal View Post

BTW it's Kraine's review, so you can compare his contrast numbers on the vw1100 with also his numbers on the x700. There have been lots of discussions around his measurement methods, but even if we don't all agree to how he does it, he is consistent. So comparison within his own reviews/numbers can still mean something ^^
I generally respect Kraine's opinions, but when somebody doesn't understand what they are doing with respect to one thing I don't care so much if they are consistent. And what happens if somebody who didn't understand one aspect correctly (as Kraine clearly didn't with respect to on/off CR and light colored rooms IMO) does at some point start understanding it and doing things correctly? Should you still use the reviews before and after for comparison for that area?

Comparing between those reviews could mean something or it could be misleading. Based on what I believe about what what these projectors are capable of for on/off CR I would little to no stock in somebody's measurements who measures the Sony as having more native on/off CR, regardless of whether it can be said that they are consistent since they are from the same person.

--Darin
jerrodshook's Avatar jerrodshook 11:56 AM 02-03-2014
Man, I walk away from this thread for a while and it's well over 6,000 posts! eek.gif

I am so in the market for a new projector and am really disappointed that the lower price range JVC's didn't get upgraded. Buying a JVC now just doesn't feel right because it's old technology.

I haven't given the Sony's (specifically the HW55ES) much thought because of the manual focus and zoom. That and the JVC's "better contrast" always bring me back that way. I've also considered the Epson 6030 but don't like the fact I have to get it from a specific dealer and the much higher cost. In my current setup I just leave my lens in front of the projector so 16:9 material is stretched sideways... I just deal with it.

Would appreciate advice from anyone on what I should be looking at... I have a 120" (2:35) screen, Panamorph lens, dedicated room (14' x 20') and roughly a $4,000 budget.
zombie10k's Avatar zombie10k 12:00 PM 02-03-2014
Jerrod - are you considering the RS4910? The addition of the iris is a great feature this year.
zombie10k's Avatar zombie10k 12:01 PM 02-03-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andreas21 View Post

I have just taken a quick look at the VW500 and what I see at once is that the RC is not as agressive as the VW1000 and the blacklevel is not as low as the VW1000, I will test more during the evening and week and then I will test more side by side with the 1000.

your first observations are similar to mine, i thought VW600 RC was less aggressive and the black floor was not quite as low as the 1000.

One scene that really stands out here (Sony 600 vs. JVC 57) was the original Spiderman @ 29:00. It's a relatively low APL scenes and I thought the JVC looked much more convincing than the 600. I haven't gone back to see how the 1000 looks in this scene.
Kris Deering's Avatar Kris Deering 12:03 PM 02-03-2014
Only one lower range JVC didn't get upgraded? Literally the lowest model. Everything else has been updated. The X500 and 4910 are anything but old technology, aside from a native 4K panel (which isn't going to happen at this price point anyways) where are they lagging exactly?? Even the "old" X35 competes quite well with the HW55 except for brightness. The 55 is brighter, the 35 has better contrast. The JVC also has a much better lens and lens operating system (powered in all regards).
Brian Hampton's Avatar Brian Hampton 12:09 PM 02-03-2014
My projector is many generations old (maybe 3 to 5 years now) and I'm beginning to think about something new. I'm most inclined to get a newer Sony projector (as most of my past projectors have been Sony's with the exception of an Electrohome.)

So, I appreciate the detailed reporting.


However, I can't believe that someone with access to these great projectors and such an eye for detail is playing with a Darbee though. To me that's simply noise. There's signal and noise. No amount of toying with the settings to make the noise more appealing makes any sense to me.
AlexanderDelarg's Avatar AlexanderDelarg 12:11 PM 02-03-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by jerrodshook View Post

Man, I walk away from this thread for a while and it's well over 6,000 posts! eek.gif

I am so in the market for a new projector and am really disappointed that the lower price range JVC's didn't get upgraded. Buying a JVC now just doesn't feel right because it's old technology.

I haven't given the Sony's (specifically the HW55ES) much thought because of the manual focus and zoom. That and the JVC's "better contrast" always bring me back that way. I've also considered the Epson 6030 but don't like the fact I have to get it from a specific dealer and the much higher cost. In my current setup I just leave my lens in front of the projector so 16:9 material is stretched sideways... I just deal with it.

Would appreciate advice from anyone on what I should be looking at... I have a 120" (2:35) screen, Panamorph lens, dedicated room (14' x 20') and roughly a $4,000 budget.

 

The Epson 6030 costs $3,499 which is $1,000 more than the 5030, but one does get the extra year on the warranty for a total of three years, an extra bulb, a ceiling mount, 2 3D glasses, a black projector instead of white (big for me since my room is dark chocolate from floor to ceiling and a cable cover. It really puts out an outstanding picture in both 2D and 3D and for much less than most of the projectors being mentioned in this thread. Projector Central gave it the nod over the Runco X-200-i which runs $15,000.  Just wanted to throw my .02 out there. 


stanger89's Avatar stanger89 12:15 PM 02-03-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Hampton View Post

However, I can't believe that someone with access to these great projectors and such an eye for detail is playing with a Darbee though. To me that's simply noise. There's signal and noise. No amount of toying with the settings to make the noise more appealing makes any sense to me.

Have you seen one in action? Or are you just going off some screenshots? Or some philosophical opposition? The screenshots are almost always overcooked since it's very hard to see the differences in a still image without applying "too much" Darbee. Regardless the Darbee is certainly not noise, too high settings certainly do result in unpleasant, unwanted artifacts, but there's nothing random about it. It's a localized contrast enhancement algorithm, with similar effects to the "Clarity" control in Adobe Lightroom.

Now I'm not saying you should like it, if you've seen it and don't like it, I can certainly appreciate it, but it's inaccurate to call it "noise".
R Harkness's Avatar R Harkness 12:17 PM 02-03-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombie10k View Post

your first observations are similar to mine, i thought VW600 RC was less aggressive and the black floor was not quite as low as the 1000.

One scene that really stands out here (Sony 600 vs. JVC 57) was the original Spiderman @ 29:00. It's a relatively low APL scenes and I thought the JVC looked much more convincing than the 600. I haven't gone back to see how the 1000 looks in this scene.

When I was deciding between spending a lot more for the Sony 600 over this year's JVC, I could always rationalize it both ways. In favor of the Sony I would think: Most movie scenes, aside from the very darkest/low APL, would likely favor the strengths of the Sony. So why not go for the projector that will make most scenes look their best? And, anyway, though my current RS55 has better black levels than the Sony 600, they still aren't perfect either and I can kvetch about wanting them deeper in my "bat cave" room. So, what the hell, for now at least, throw in the towel in this quest for lower black levels and get all the good things a much brighter image (Sony) will bring to the table.

But then...JVC introduces a Di for the first time, shaking things up. Then it was like "but hold on...I've been wanting better black levels for so long, JVC has FINALLY done something more significant in adding a DI to this year's model. Don't I
at least have to give this a try to see if it will address one of my main issues? And it's cheaper.

Ultimately the JVC RS57 won out in my mental battle for various reasons. So far, after viewing tons of movie material over several days, it seems like just the right choice for me this year. It seems to have brought a new level of contrast/immersion to my home theater. Plus, hey, it comes with a new bulb so it's also brings tons of brightness. I find I'm actually getting BOTH the black levels I was hoping for AND some of the image pop I was hoping for in getting a Sony - especially as with the DI I can leave the iris set brighter, and the DI will always ensure the best performance for dark scenes. As I mentioned on the RS57 owners thread, I'm sure the Sony in a side by side would show it's advantages. But lacking a side-by-side, I'm super impressed with the image I'm getting with the JVC on all material so far, bright scenes are bright and vivid, mixed scenes look amazing, and black levels have reached new depths. It feels like a complete package.
mbroder's Avatar mbroder 12:19 PM 02-03-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Hatcher View Post

You just gotta search around long and hard and make offers. These pj's can be had for "much" less than MSRP. Instead of Manufacturers Suggested Retail Price it should be Major Suckers Retail Price. tongue.gif

Or hit up one of the AVS guys for assistance. wink.gif

I understand that...The Sony lists for $3995 and I paid significantly less than that from an authorized dealer. The JVC would have to be nearly 35% off of sticker to get into the range I paid. I doubt that would be available.
blee0120's Avatar blee0120 12:27 PM 02-03-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deja Vu View Post

Don't shot the messenger! You can take this up with Kraine at the French site. Apparently the VW1100ES is a big improvement over the VW1000ES. So now all those who are obsessed with numbers will have to dump their Sony 1000s and upgrade to the 1100ES. biggrin.gif Bottom line everyone here claims their new projectors are great. If that's so then why the rush to upgrade 12 months later and that continues for some year after year after year? This place is a nut house -- I should know since I have OCD. wink.gif

It's getting really hard to take any of this stuff seriously. Do you guys ever listen to yourselves? And, no this isn't your wife speaking through me. biggrin.gif

Haha, that's how it works even though its no noticeable difference
Brian Hampton's Avatar Brian Hampton 12:29 PM 02-03-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post

Have you seen one in action? Or are you just going off some screenshots? Or some philosophical opposition? The screenshots are almost always overcooked since it's very hard to see the differences in a still image without applying "too much" Darbee. Regardless the Darbee is certainly not noise, too high settings certainly do result in unpleasant, unwanted artifacts, but there's nothing random about it. It's a localized contrast enhancement algorithm, with similar effects to the "Clarity" control in Adobe Lightroom.

Now I'm not saying you should like it, if you've seen it and don't like it, I can certainly appreciate it, but it's inaccurate to call it "noise".

Well, I haven't actually seen one. I suppose I object to anything with such a quality slider ... Here's how it looks with 30% darbee distortion. It's like you say, "Philosophical".

My goal has always been cleanly and accurately as possible seeing the signal.

Back when I played guitar I used effects pedals and such and so I know how adding to the signal can change it's characteristics and there is pretty types of noise.

I'll always see the Darbee as this type of distortion pedal... unless, maybe I do see a demo...

Id be the first to admit I shouldn't judge something I only know about in a theoretical way but talk about applying "too much" Darbee... Just makes me think anyone resorting to tweaking with one of these isn't trying to accurately reproduce the content.

I do have first hand experience with things like Static and Dynamic Iris and I must say I can't stand either.. I do my best to set the correct black level I don't want to juke it in response to what's on the screen like someone who constantly adjusts the volume of a soundtrack... (or like those Dolby Volume range reducing algorithms...night mode and so on.) When you have to resort to any such thing quality has been lost.

If you mostly listen to MP3's though... you don't care either way.

-Brian
bralas's Avatar bralas 12:31 PM 02-03-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thaal View Post
 

Contrast numbers... means so little now...   

The 21" Samsung LCD monitor I'm using right now (PC) boldly states 50,000:1 Dynamic Contrast. It's much less impressive then my 37" Samsung rated at 3,000:1:)  


blee0120's Avatar blee0120 12:34 PM 02-03-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Hampton View Post

Well, I haven't actually seen one. I suppose I object to anything with such a quality slider ... Here's how it looks with 30% darbee distortion. It's like you say, "Philosophical".

My goal has always been cleanly and accurately as possible seeing the signal.

Back when I played guitar I used effects pedals and such and so I know how adding to the signal can change it's characteristics and there is pretty types of noise.

I'll always see the Darbee as this type of distortion pedal... unless, maybe I do see a demo...

Id be the first to admit I shouldn't judge something I only know about in a theoretical way but talk about applying "too much" Darbee... Just makes me think anyone resorting to tweaking with one of these isn't trying to accurately reproduce the content.

I do have first hand experience with things like Static and Dynamic Iris and I must say I can't stand either.. I do my best to set the correct black level I don't want to juke it in response to what's on the screen like someone who constantly adjusts the volume of a soundtrack... (or like those Dolby Volume range reducing algorithms...night mode and so on.) When you have to resort to any such thing quality has been lost.

If you mostly listen to MP3's though... you don't care either way.

-Brian

It has never added noise to me. It improves the picture. Many has stated that they would not like it, then they turned around to like it
jerrodshook's Avatar jerrodshook 12:35 PM 02-03-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombie10k View Post

Jerrod - are you considering the RS4910? The addition of the iris is a great feature this year.

Honestly, I haven't looked much at it because of the $4,999 price tag. I realize it can probably be had but it's really above my wife's.... uh, I mean my price point. I'll have to give the AVS guys a call to see what pricing is on it right now.

I thought only the 57 and 67 were upgraded and didn't realize the 49 is as well. So my bad when I stated otherwise.

My projector right now is so old, so bad, I'm embarrassed to even say what it is. Have needed a new one for a long and finally got approval.
jerrodshook's Avatar jerrodshook 12:38 PM 02-03-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kris Deering View Post

Only one lower range JVC didn't get upgraded? Literally the lowest model. Everything else has been updated. The X500 and 4910 are anything but old technology, aside from a native 4K panel (which isn't going to happen at this price point anyways) where are they lagging exactly?? Even the "old" X35 competes quite well with the HW55 except for brightness. The 55 is brighter, the 35 has better contrast. The JVC also has a much better lens and lens operating system (powered in all regards).

Kris, the X35 is what I am calling "old" and I thought the 500/4910 were in the same boat upgrade wise. If I bought a year ago the X35 would of been my choice..... unless I can splurge for the 500/4910 I am compared the X35 to the newer projectors from Epson, Sony, etc.

Here's to wishing I had more $$$ to throw around.... biggrin.gif
jerrodshook's Avatar jerrodshook 12:40 PM 02-03-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexanderDelarg View Post

The Epson 6030 costs $3,499 which is $1,000 more than the 5030, but one does get the extra year on the warranty for a total of three years, an extra bulb, a ceiling mount, 2 3D glasses, a black projector instead of white (big for me since my room is dark chocolate from floor to ceiling and a cable cover. It really puts out an outstanding picture in both 2D and 3D and for much less than most of the projectors being mentioned in this thread. Projector Central gave it the nod over the Runco X-200-i which runs $15,000.  Just wanted to throw my .02 out there. 

$0.02 is more than I had previously..... I understand all of that. I'm not into 3D and feel the novelty will wear off quickly. I demo'd the 6020 last year and it had a nice picture. For the price, I'd probably take the JVC X35 over it.... but that's where I got into my "old" technology thought.
little_donkey's Avatar little_donkey 12:49 PM 02-03-2014
I have a JVC RS15 (hd550) right now, but I'm selling it for a Sony HW55 (screen base 130inch 2:35:1)
Good choice or not?
darinp2's Avatar darinp2 12:55 PM 02-03-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Hampton View Post

I do have first hand experience with things like Static and Dynamic Iris and I must say I can't stand either.
I don't recall anybody else who dislikes static irises. Why do you dislike static irises? The only reason I can think of for somebody disliking them is that their opinion is that brighter is always better (kind of like louder is better), but maybe you have a different reason I haven't thought of. Of course, dynamic irises are a different issue.

--Darin
Mr. Hatcher's Avatar Mr. Hatcher 12:56 PM 02-03-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbroder View Post

Isn't the JVC 4910 $1000 more than the Sony 55es? For many people that need to stay within a budget (WAF;)) this isn't an option... $3500 was my max, so I chose the sony over the JVC x35 or the Epson 6030

Quote:
Originally Posted by mbroder View Post

I understand that...The Sony lists for $3995 and I paid significantly less than that from an authorized dealer. The JVC would have to be nearly 35% off of sticker to get into the range I paid. I doubt that would be available.

Do some research, ask around for quotes, and make some offers. Some guys may have ordered bulk on pre-order sales and had some customers back out on them, now they're sitting on stock that isn't moving so they will take less than they originally wanted just to offload what they have. And check the classifieds. I would recommend the X35 over the HW55 if black levels and contrast are really important. But an X500 would be my choice if you can swing it.
Brian Hampton's Avatar Brian Hampton 01:15 PM 02-03-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp2 View Post

I don't recall anybody else who dislikes static irises. Why do you dislike static irises? The only reason I can think of for somebody disliking them is that their opinion is that brighter is always better (kind of like louder is better), but maybe you have a different reason I haven't thought of. Of course, dynamic irises are a different issue.

--Darin

Right,... I just came back to take out the part about static iris.

I'm being 100% honest with the things I write and when I mention these things It's just the way I see it.

In the case of my projector (old now... VW60) the manual (static) iris simply reduces the contrast ratio. I prefer to work with it off and then setup the white and black level carefully....

But, I don't really object to the "concept" of a static iris... it's not something that reacts and changes response the way the dynamic modes do.

It's like all the controls on my SLR camera that let me make a better picture... the shutter speed,... the lens aperature....,... these help create a better picture.. If a director uses filters, effects or whatever this is also "fine" thats simply production.... I'm just out to re-create what's there (the video signal on a blu ray for example) more than out to try to just have an impressive picture via tweaks.

edit - In the case of my projector-> brighter is better... it's not a light cannon... it's actually a bit contrast challenged or I wouldn't be thinking about every replacing it at all.
R Harkness's Avatar R Harkness 01:25 PM 02-03-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Hampton View Post

Right,... I just came back to take out the part about static iris.

I'm being 100% honest with the things I write and when I mention these things It's just the way I see it.

In the case of my projector (old now... VW60) the manual (static) iris simply reduces the contrast ratio. I prefer to work with it off and then setup the white and black level carefully....

But, I don't really object to the "concept" of a static iris... it's not something that reacts and changes response the way the dynamic modes do.

It's like all the controls on my SLR camera that let me make a better picture... the shutter speed,... the lens aperature....,... these help create a better picture.. If a director uses filters, effects or whatever this is also "fine" thats simply production.... I'm just out to re-create what's there (the video signal on a blu ray for example) more than out to try to just have an impressive picture via tweaks.

edit - In the case of my projector-> brighter is better... it's not a light cannon... it's actually a bit contrast challenged or I wouldn't be thinking about every replacing it at all.

You've got it the wrong way around; contrast ratio actually increases when you use a manual iris to close down and decrease image brightness. It helps reduce the stray light that reduces image contrast: leaving your iris fully open allows more stray light in the system to lower image contrast.

What I believe you are seeing is simply the effects of a brighter image, which looks more vivid and in that sense can appear to have more contrast in many images.

(Though, you might be increasing ANSI contrast a bit by opening the iris too).
Tags: Benq W7000 Home Projection System , Jvc Dla Rs55 Bundle , Jvc Dla Rs45 Home Theater Projector 1080p Hdmi , Epson V11h502020 Powerlite Home Cinema 3020e 2d And 3d 1080p Wireless Home Theater Projector , Sony Vpl Hw50es 3d Projector , Epson 5010 Powerlite Home Cinema 3d Front Projector , Epson Powerlite Home Cinema 3010 2d And 3d Projector V11h421020 , Panasonic Ptae8000u Hd Projector , Mitsubishi Hc7900dw Home Theater 3d Projector , Mitsubishi Hc8000dbl Dlp 3d Home Theater Projector With Spare Lamp 1300 Ansi 12 6 Lbs , Darbeevision Darblet Hdmi Video Processor , Epson 5020ub Powerlite Home Cinema 3d Front Projector
First ... 209  210  211 212  213  ... Last

Up
Mobile  Desktop