Originally Posted by Dionyz
Same here. I have now watched several 3D movies, including Hugo and Avengers, with no ghosting issues.
I am using the JVC RF glasses. My un educated guess is that the brightness through the glasses drops 25%
My set up is a total light controlled bat cave, with black ceiling and very dark brow/maroon walls.
I am projecting onto a 150"
Cinewhite 1.1 EliteScreene Lunette, from about 16', projector centered on screen.
I have not measured the lumens, but the projector is so bright that my calibration allowed me to close the lens aperture to -15 in cinema mode.
Also, this projector has very unifom focus accross the whole screen, no bright corners. It also, had almost perfect panel alignment - only adjusted the red panel horizontally by 1/2 pixel.
For 3D I do not have to put it in 3D mode (which is lamp on high) - I get sufficient brightness with stage mode on low lamp.
And again this is on a 150" screen. And no ghosting.
Thus I have plenty of room to raise brightness as the lamp ages.
I really do not see what people are talking about when complaining about lack of lumens in 3D with this projector.
3D is much, much brighter than in movie theaters.
The complainers either do not have light control in their HT or they want to see Best Buy type, uncalibrated cranked -up plasma like brightness, that is completely in-accurate.
Great projector for both 2D and 3D (plenty bright and no ghosting)
First of all, all that really matters is that YOU are happy with your setup. If you are truly happy with what you are seeing for 3d, more power to you and enjoy! The ultimate goal for all of us is to be happy with our setups whatever we deem that to be. Having said that............
The great thing about the Zombie threads is they take posts that are largely subjective like the one quoted above and put it into perspective. Terms like "so bright", "sufficient brightness", etc.........are VERY subjective comments. I would also point out that issues like ghosting and flicker become harder to see the dimmer the image gets. In the above quoted scenario, 3d brightness is so low that I am betting these type of issues could easily go unnoticed to the untrained eye especially. I mean no disrespect by that, it is just the facts if we actually broke down what kind of brightness behind the glasses Dionyz is getting in his setup. This is not to suggest that JVC has NOT made gains as far as reduced ghosting goes, but that has come at some expense which is well documented at this point.
To throw out another scenario with some subjective thoughts to show why subjectivity is largely useless I will use my own setup. Right now I am using a BenQ W7000 for 3d in a HP 2.8 setup where I am getting ~2.4 real world gain. I am squeezing every bit of brightness I can out of the projector and would still welcome more if I had it on tap. Compared to the setup above, I am running a smaller screen (~126" 1.78 image to fill my 2.35 screen vs 150"), MUCH more screen gain (1.1 vs ~2.4) and with the way we are both running our projectors, I am getting somewhere around 2.5x-3x (going off the fact that the 7000 is putting out ~1100 high lamp lumens in 3d and the 4810 ~560 in high lamp, but the poster above is running low) the light output from the projector alone. If you add all this up, I am getting a MUCH, MUCH brighter image and subjectively I would say my image is "pretty bright" and "bright enough", but I would absolutely welcome another ~1000 lumens before the glasses to play with. Some of these lumens I would use right off the bat and some I would love to have in the tank for reserve as the lamp ages. In light of all this, there is absolutely no way I could be satisfied with the type of brightness that Dionyz is getting. What he is calling "sufficient brightness", I would no doubt be VERY disappointed with compared to what I am used to. This large swing of subjective interpretation as far as what is "bright enough" is EXACTLY why things like lumens measurements, through the glasses shots, etc........are SO valuable as they take this large degree of subjective swing from one user to another out of the equation.
We also have to remember that we are in the comparison thread where we break all these units down good and bad to really understand what they are doing vs one another. There is no perfect projector that does both 2d AND 3d the "best". As far as the JVCs go this year, it is obvious they have improved ghosting, but it has come at the expense of light output, contrast and detail from the tests posted. The fact is that the 4810 is putting out almost 1/2 of what the Sony is in 3d, IS putting out 1/2 the 7000 3d lumens and the Epson is literally 2.5x brighter (!!!) in comparison at 1400 lumens. Those are not small differences. Factor in crosstalk, flicker and motion and everyone can come to their own conclusions, but it is pretty obvious from my perspective that JVC is OVERALL bringing up the rear yet again as far as 3d goes. 2d is a different story.
I absolutely love my RS45 for 2d just like my RS40 and RS1 before it, but 3d needs a major overall in the JVCs when you start comparing these units to the competition. What JVC has done this year is not a fix, but a workaround squeeze another year out of the 3d band aid approach and a lot of us owners who have been on board the last two years are just not impressed (myself included). I really thought this would be the year that JVC did that overhaul going off their every 2 year history of making significant changes to their projectors, but apparently not. I would have to think that the models announced at Cedia this year WILL get that much needed overhaul, but time will tell.
Originally Posted by Stuntman_Mike
I don't think anyone, in good conscience, could complain about the VW1000ES
If someone wants to send me one, I am sure I will find something I dont like. There is no perfect projector at ANY price. Just like there is no perfect screen, speaker, etc.............