Originally Posted by zombie10k
no cinematic offense intended - this was mainly in the context of comparing those movies to something like Oblivion which has a pristine source/transfer. With the JVC's you can turn off the MPC processing / e-shift and still end up with very good results with older content. With Sony, your stuck with the RC, turning scaling off altogether or a 3rd party scaler like a Lumagen or HTPC. That shouldn't have been necessary for a 25K MSRP projector.
Mad Max Road Warrior BD is a good example. Very gritty but nice sharp transfer. It looked better IMO on the JVC vs. the 1100 even with RC turned all the way down. The RC is just too aggressive and was always hoping they were going to fix this. I resorted to using an HTPC with MadVR to avoid the Sony processing.
I've had the Panasonic 4000 and 8000 here. I personally don't like Smoothscreeen technology. Why cripple a great video transfer with that technology? I understand it makes sense for those other films and it's great that it exists for the films you mentioned. But I wouldn't be watching a current BD on it vs. the other models we're discussing. The 8000 was a bit a mess with color uniformity issues, average - below average contrast, average 3D, etc. I don't think we'll see Panasonic back in the HT market.
have you tried an HTPC or Lumagen for your sources vs. the built in Sony processing?
No worries and thanks for the clarification.
One thing to remember is that this all relative. The word "cripple" is a bit too strong.
The Panny still puts out a relatively sharp image for digitally acquired flicks.
Back in 2007/08 the AE2000 was used by Technicolor Corp. for digital grading for a Hollywood studio(s).
The great cinematographer, Vilmos Zvigimond, who photographed Close Encounters Of The Third Kind, had the AE2000 as his projector of choice.
I have AB'd Oblivion on the Panny and Sony.
No doubt the Sony is sharper although the digital noise(intrinsic to digital photography) in low lit scenes is more apparent on the 1000es.
Maybe it's just me but i am very wary of shots with shallow depths of field that look overly sharpened.
It was the main reason I swayed away from the JVC HD1(despite having better black levels) in 2008 after ABing it with AE2000. The AE2000 just rendered the images in a more cinematic way relative to the HD1.
The Sony does have options(MPEG NR ect) to soften the images but they tend to yield artificial results as opposed to the "natural" softness that Panny's SmoothScreen applies(to the appropriate material). I am aware of uniformity issues and such forth in the 8000 series. If I remember correctly(I might be wrong on this) someone somewhere on this forum ABd the 8000 to the 2000 and despite lesser brightness and a bit less contrast , the 2000 turned out to be a better performer with uniformity and color reproduction.
Something else to consider is that as of 2016, the vast majority of flicks are still derived from 35mm sources(with optical duping).Anything predating the early 2000's still had photochemical processing(which is basically the first 100 years of movie flicks) Vs the last 10 years worth of 2K DIs.
So unless your movie collection ONLY consists of flicks which were made in the last 10-15 years you may find the Panny to be the better fit.
That has been the case with me...and I have an eclectic collection(2/3rds older flicks--1/3rd newer stuff)
Don't get me wrong I love my 1000es(even if it MAY have lost contrast)especially now I have it paired with an ISCI 1.25 anamorphic lens.
But sharpness is not everything when it comes to producing a palatable image.