Official JVC DLA-RS46 / DLA-X35 owners thread - Page 55 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1621 of 2391 Old 12-21-2013, 07:50 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Kelvin1965S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Berkshire, UK
Posts: 3,255
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by fightclub View Post

if I want to put RS46/x35 on a board, it need 50cm*50cm or 60cm*60cm?Thanks.

50cm x 50cm would be big enough. My floating shelf is a bit bigger than that to allow room in front to fit my Isco lens when required:


Zooming: Been there, done that, bought the lens...
Kelvin1965S is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #1622 of 2391 Old 12-21-2013, 08:12 AM
Member
 
fightclub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 123
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelvin1965S View Post

50cm x 50cm would be big enough. My floating shelf is a bit bigger than that to allow room in front to fit my Isco lens when required:


Kelvin, many thanks!!
i will follow you as 50*50 and i think this size shall allow these cables of HDMI?
BTW, how high is your shelf from the floor? my screen is 120 inches and i want to put the shelf a little higher.
fightclub is offline  
post #1623 of 2391 Old 12-21-2013, 09:07 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Kelvin1965S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Berkshire, UK
Posts: 3,255
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 48
My shelf is about 6' 2" off the floor. You might need a few extra cms behind to allow for the cables,perhaps another 5 cms depending what cables you use.

A better view of it from here (just added the new white MK S150T side surrounds, hence the photo):


Zooming: Been there, done that, bought the lens...
Kelvin1965S is offline  
post #1624 of 2391 Old 12-21-2013, 10:00 AM
Member
 
lee eiseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Boston
Posts: 129
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Excellent results with Da-Lite HP 2.8 and table mounted projector- except for slighly bright corners during fadeout- iris se5t to minus 8- screen size 8ft wide
lee eiseman is offline  
post #1625 of 2391 Old 12-21-2013, 10:04 AM
Member
 
stevelup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Swindon, UK
Posts: 78
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazy4daisy View Post

Like you said, "as the director intended", he didn't.

A mixed AR film is clearly intended to have some scenes in scope and others filling the available screen area.

How is showing the whole thing in scope closer to the original intention than leaving the AR changes in place?
stevelup is offline  
post #1626 of 2391 Old 12-21-2013, 10:12 AM
AVS Special Member
 
curttard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,368
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 46 Post(s)
Liked: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevelup View Post

A mixed AR film is clearly intended to have some scenes in scope and others filling the available screen area.

How is showing the whole thing in scope closer to the original intention than leaving the AR changes in place?

I think he meant that the director never intended for any of the scenes to be shown in 16:9. It was supposed to alternate between 2.35 and (I think) 1.4. In non-IMAX theaters where 1.4 wasn't an option, Nolan had it shown entirely cropped to 2.35 rather than flipping between 2.35 and 16:9 as would certainly have been possible. So I think the poster was arguing that keeping the whole movie at 2.35 is closer to how the director intended it, since that's how the director had it shown in non-IMAX theaters.
curttard is offline  
post #1627 of 2391 Old 12-21-2013, 10:27 AM
Senior Member
 
jjcook's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 261
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 54 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevelup View Post

You can use the built-in masking feature to achieve the same without a Lumagen.

I was under the impression that JVC does not have an electronic masking feature for e.g. scope format but just a uniform minor masking for overscan(?) as shown in the manual. Don't have my 4910 yet to investigate further myself.

For Sale: Navitar SSW065 short throw conversion lens

WTB: PSA XS15 or XS15se, PM me.

Small HT: JVC RS4910, Mits HC7900DW, Falcon 2.35:1 100-wide, Marantz SR7008, Triad Gold Omni SE & Silver Surrounds, PSA XS15-base, Oppo 103D, Tivo Mini, HTPC
jjcook is offline  
post #1628 of 2391 Old 12-21-2013, 10:33 AM
Member
 
stevelup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Swindon, UK
Posts: 78
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Yeah, you're right... Just tried it. The maximum amount is about 10% - not enough to mask 16:9 into scope.

It's a silly restriction - the GUI would just need more range on it, the hardware is clearly capable of doing it.

Sorry everyone... I'll go back to sleep now!
stevelup is offline  
post #1629 of 2391 Old 12-21-2013, 10:45 AM
Member
 
nezil's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Northern California - SF Bay Area
Posts: 117
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 31
CIH screens work best if your viewing distance is closer than most would consider normal for home use. Consider the amount of your field of view that a theatre screen takes up, and this makes more sense...

We see in a very thin, wide aspect ratio, and therefore a scope (or even wider) screen will seem more immersive, and so long as you don't go to big in terms of screen height, will fill more of your field of view.

My screen is relatively small at 115" 2.35:1 (~92" when zoomed and masked at 16:9); this is equal to a CIH of 45". My viewing distance however is 2H or 2 screen heights at 90" from the screen. When viewed this close, even the 92" 16:9 image fills a lot of my field of view vertically, and I wouldn't want to go much bigger. Switching to scope (for movies that allow it) only expands sideways, to further fill my field of view horizontally.

If you're unable to fill your field of view vertically with your 16:9 image, (or you're un-happy with the vertical screen height that you have), then a CIH scope screen may not be for you.

SMPTE recommends viewing distances of between 2.0 and 4.0 screen heights, and THX recommends a furthest viewing distance of 3.68 screen heights. There is a reason that SMPTE and THX recommend viewing distances in terms of screen heights, and I would suggest that if you're beyond 4.0 screen heights (and in my personal opinion, probably beyond about 3.0 screen heights), you'll not appreciate the true benefits of a CIH scope screen.
nezil is offline  
post #1630 of 2391 Old 12-21-2013, 04:09 PM
Advanced Member
 
FilmReverie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Grid
Posts: 652
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by nezil View Post

CIH screens work best if your viewing distance is closer than most would consider normal for home use. Consider the amount of your field of view that a theatre screen takes up, and this makes more sense...

We see in a very thin, wide aspect ratio, and therefore a scope (or even wider) screen will seem more immersive, and so long as you don't go to big in terms of screen height, will fill more of your field of view.

My screen is relatively small at 115" 2.35:1 (~92" when zoomed and masked at 16:9); this is equal to a CIH of 45". My viewing distance however is 2H or 2 screen heights at 90" from the screen. When viewed this close, even the 92" 16:9 image fills a lot of my field of view vertically, and I wouldn't want to go much bigger. Switching to scope (for movies that allow it) only expands sideways, to further fill my field of view horizontally.

If you're unable to fill your field of view vertically with your 16:9 image, (or you're un-happy with the vertical screen height that you have), then a CIH scope screen may not be for you.

SMPTE recommends viewing distances of between 2.0 and 4.0 screen heights, and THX recommends a furthest viewing distance of 3.68 screen heights. There is a reason that SMPTE and THX recommend viewing distances in terms of screen heights, and I would suggest that if you're beyond 4.0 screen heights (and in my personal opinion, probably beyond about 3.0 screen heights), you'll not appreciate the true benefits of a CIH scope screen.

I agree with everything except for the final sentence. Three screen heights is reference and is more or less perfect.
FilmReverie is offline  
post #1631 of 2391 Old 12-21-2013, 04:21 PM
AVS Special Member
 
fierce_gt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 4,677
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 918 Post(s)
Liked: 1000
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazy4daisy View Post

It works perfect with a scope screen if you use a lens or a Lumagen so there are no black bars zoomed off the screen. If you use the zoom method for scope then yes it doesn't work. I actually feel sorry for 16.9 screen owners because they are the ones that see every aspect ratio change (Dark Knight Rises has over 100 AR changes) which would drive me nuts. With a lens or a Lumagen the whole movie stays in 2.35 mode and you wouldn't even realise the scenes that are in Imax.

so you crop the 'imax' scenes? I'm torn, on one hand I hate cropping, I always feel like I'm missing something. on the other hand, it is insanely annoying, and more and more directors seem to be dabbling in this.

no way i'll ever spend money on a lumagen or an a lens(personal choice, let's not debate) but I'm sure I could manipulate some settings on my HTPC to crop a 16:9 image into scope and keep it that way. so I'd still be zooming to get scope for the whole movie, but the HTPC would crop off the top and bottom so it's not showing parts of the 'imax' shots on the wall.

still, I wish these directors would get over themselves. oh, 16:9 is too small, we'll do 2.35:1. now 2.35:1 is too small, let's do it in IMAX. what do you mean IMAX is 16:9? don't be silly, it's totally different... rolleyes.gif

Displays: Samsung PN64F8500/JVC X35
AVR: Pioneer VSX-1018AH, 5.1 audio
Sources: HTPC(Mediabrowser), PS3, XBOX360, Wii, Sony DVP-CX995V
Control: Harmony One
fierce_gt is online now  
post #1632 of 2391 Old 12-21-2013, 04:36 PM
Member
 
nezil's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Northern California - SF Bay Area
Posts: 117
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmReverie View Post

I agree with everything except for the final sentence. Three screen heights is reference and is more or less perfect.

You're absolutely right that 3H is reference, and I did put 'in my opinion'. I personally prefer a closer viewing distance, and think that CIH screens make more sense the closer you are, up to a point.

I'm not disagreeing with you at all, I just prefer to view closer wink.gif
nezil is offline  
post #1633 of 2391 Old 12-21-2013, 05:09 PM
Member
 
crazy4daisy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 198
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevelup View Post

Yeah, you're right... Just tried it. The maximum amount is about 10% - not enough to mask 16:9 into scope.

It's a silly restriction - the GUI would just need more range on it, the hardware is clearly capable of doing it.

Sorry everyone... I'll go back to sleep now!

Hence why I said an A-lens or Lumagen or similar is required.

Don't worry about it, you aren't the first and you won't be the last person to shoot their mouth off claiming something as a fact even though they haven't actually tried it or researched it.

Collingwood Magpies 2010 AFL Premiers
crazy4daisy is offline  
post #1634 of 2391 Old 12-21-2013, 05:28 PM
Member
 
crazy4daisy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 198
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by curttard View Post

I think he meant that the director never intended for any of the scenes to be shown in 16:9. It was supposed to alternate between 2.35 and (I think) 1.4. In non-IMAX theaters where 1.4 wasn't an option, Nolan had it shown entirely cropped to 2.35 rather than flipping between 2.35 and 16:9 as would certainly have been possible. So I think the poster was arguing that keeping the whole movie at 2.35 is closer to how the director intended it, since that's how the director had it shown in non-IMAX theaters.

Yes that is exactly what I was trying to convey, thank you.

In this day and age you'd think they could just include alternate versions in the bluray pack, eg. original movie with alternating AR, original movie but constant 2.35 AR (IMAX scenes cropped) original movie but constant 16.9 AR (2.35 cropped), that would allow the home viewer to decide what version they prefer, but as if the studio/director would want that, they want to portray their vision, we are but just the paying customer and whom the entire industry relies upon haha!

Back on topic and my X35 has passed the 1000hrs lamp mark, can't tell any difference in brightness etc, happy days smile.gif

Collingwood Magpies 2010 AFL Premiers
crazy4daisy is offline  
post #1635 of 2391 Old 12-21-2013, 06:37 PM
AVS Special Member
 
fierce_gt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 4,677
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 918 Post(s)
Liked: 1000
Quote:
Originally Posted by nezil View Post

You're absolutely right that 3H is reference, and I did put 'in my opinion'. I personally prefer a closer viewing distance, and think that CIH screens make more sense the closer you are, up to a point.

I'm not disagreeing with you at all, I just prefer to view closer wink.gif

I would agree with this. I find the image 'too big' vertically before I find it too wide. you would never notice this unless you were close enough to the screen that 16:9 content started to overwhelm you.

I downsized my 120" 16:9 screen because it was overwhelming me. but shortly afterwards I installed some hangers so I could still put it up to use for scope movies. that screen width is very comfortable for me, but the height of a full 16:9 image is not. I have done the math or measured, but using the 120" 16:9 screen for scope movies sure looks like it's about the same height as my 100" 16:9 screen showing 16:9 content. for me, CIH is definitely the best option if my room can support it. that is, if I can get a scope screen large enough(tall enough) that 16:9 content still looks impressively large on it.

Displays: Samsung PN64F8500/JVC X35
AVR: Pioneer VSX-1018AH, 5.1 audio
Sources: HTPC(Mediabrowser), PS3, XBOX360, Wii, Sony DVP-CX995V
Control: Harmony One
fierce_gt is online now  
post #1636 of 2391 Old 12-22-2013, 01:55 AM
Member
 
stevelup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Swindon, UK
Posts: 78
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazy4daisy View Post

Don't worry about it, you aren't the first and you won't be the last person to shoot their mouth off claiming something as a fact even though they haven't actually tried it or researched it.

No need to be a complete asshat about it...
stevelup is offline  
post #1637 of 2391 Old 12-22-2013, 02:26 AM
Member
 
fightclub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 123
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelvin1965S View Post

My shelf is about 6' 2" off the floor. You might need a few extra cms behind to allow for the cables,perhaps another 5 cms depending what cables you use.

A better view of it from here (just added the new white MK S150T side surrounds, hence the photo):


fabulous! my height will be similar as 6'3" off the floor. hope to be higher but it is said the lens shift will have negative impact on the focus and quality?
fightclub is offline  
post #1638 of 2391 Old 12-22-2013, 03:28 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Kelvin1965S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Berkshire, UK
Posts: 3,255
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 48
It very much depends on the amount of zoom you need to apply: For me the amount of shift I have applied actually helps PQ because you tend to get better ANSI contrast with some shift applied as it stops the lens reflections directly back into the projector. I've compared sharpness with the shift centred (obviously half the image drops off my screen) but didn't find it any different. Again I believe it's due to me not using any zoom on the projector: I've seen 3 different X55 with quite a bit of zoom applied and they don't look as sharp (with Eshift turned off for a fair comparison), so I think the amount of zoom makes a big difference.

This is why I'm not keen on the idea that they should be installed at the short throw end of zoom just to gain the extra brightness. I have more than enough brightness (measured 14fL) at min zoom, low lamp and iris set low, so I benefit from a sharper image and more contrast due to this long throw. If you are at the short throw end then it may well be different especially regarding the amount of shift you can get away with. However, I recently saw a Sony VW50ES for the first time and the only criticism I could make would be that it didn't look as sharp when we were viewing a computer desktop. Otherwise I felt the picture had more punch, better motion and the blacks didn't seem inferior to me.

Zooming: Been there, done that, bought the lens...
Kelvin1965S is offline  
post #1639 of 2391 Old 12-22-2013, 07:47 AM
Member
 
fightclub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 123
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelvin1965S View Post

It very much depends on the amount of zoom you need to apply: For me the amount of shift I have applied actually helps PQ because you tend to get better ANSI contrast with some shift applied as it stops the lens reflections directly back into the projector. I've compared sharpness with the shift centred (obviously half the image drops off my screen) but didn't find it any different. Again I believe it's due to me not using any zoom on the projector: I've seen 3 different X55 with quite a bit of zoom applied and they don't look as sharp (with Eshift turned off for a fair comparison), so I think the amount of zoom makes a big difference.

This is why I'm not keen on the idea that they should be installed at the short throw end of zoom just to gain the extra brightness. I have more than enough brightness (measured 14fL) at min zoom, low lamp and iris set low, so I benefit from a sharper image and more contrast due to this long throw. If you are at the short throw end then it may well be different especially regarding the amount of shift you can get away with. However, I recently saw a Sony VW50ES for the first time and the only criticism I could make would be that it didn't look as sharp when we were viewing a computer desktop. Otherwise I felt the picture had more punch, better motion and the blacks didn't seem inferior to me.

i think you are talking about HW50ES not VW50ES? yes, others also talk about the minor focus issue for this HW50ES for some units.

currently i plan to buy JVC x35/RS46, the throw distance is 17 feet and near the mid point of JVC x35. i may need use the vertical lens shift.
fightclub is offline  
post #1640 of 2391 Old 12-22-2013, 07:50 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Kelvin1965S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Berkshire, UK
Posts: 3,255
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 48
Sorry yes, I got the VW bit from the 500ES and 1000ES mixed up with the HW50ES.

Zooming: Been there, done that, bought the lens...
Kelvin1965S is offline  
post #1641 of 2391 Old 12-22-2013, 02:54 PM
Senior Member
 
Dreamliner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 419
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 48 Post(s)
Liked: 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazy4daisy View Post

The director intended TDKR to be viewed on an IMAX screen not a 16.9 screen, and if it wasn't shown on an IMAX screen then it was shown in scope during its theatrical run. If the director had intended it to be shown in 16.9 it would have screened in 16.9 in the theatres worldwide, it didn't. Same for all the other AR changing films (transformers, TDK, etc).

They are filmed in a way so they look just as good as if they were filmed entirely in scope. Comparing watching them in scope to cropping the sides off a scope movie is just an argument by those that don't understand this concept.
I wish the RS46 would group the scope bars at the bottom and the digital masking would extend enough to watch changing aspect movies on my 2.35:1 screen with no overspill. :P

Alternatively, I'd prefer a ginormous 16x9 screen with H+V motorized masking...but that's not happening.
Dreamliner is offline  
post #1642 of 2391 Old 12-22-2013, 06:33 PM
AVS Special Member
 
fierce_gt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 4,677
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 918 Post(s)
Liked: 1000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelvin1965S View Post

It very much depends on the amount of zoom you need to apply: For me the amount of shift I have applied actually helps PQ because you tend to get better ANSI contrast with some shift applied as it stops the lens reflections directly back into the projector. I've compared sharpness with the shift centred (obviously half the image drops off my screen) but didn't find it any different. Again I believe it's due to me not using any zoom on the projector: I've seen 3 different X55 with quite a bit of zoom applied and they don't look as sharp (with Eshift turned off for a fair comparison), so I think the amount of zoom makes a big difference.

This is why I'm not keen on the idea that they should be installed at the short throw end of zoom just to gain the extra brightness. I have more than enough brightness (measured 14fL) at min zoom, low lamp and iris set low, so I benefit from a sharper image and more contrast due to this long throw. If you are at the short throw end then it may well be different especially regarding the amount of shift you can get away with. However, I recently saw a Sony VW50ES for the first time and the only criticism I could make would be that it didn't look as sharp when we were viewing a computer desktop. Otherwise I felt the picture had more punch, better motion and the blacks didn't seem inferior to me.

agreed. I have my x35 mounted near its longest throw, and I also have maxed out my lens shift(combo of vertical and horizontal) and I'm thrilled with the image. good contrast, no issue with focus/sharpness for me. I have not experimented much to compare to though.

Displays: Samsung PN64F8500/JVC X35
AVR: Pioneer VSX-1018AH, 5.1 audio
Sources: HTPC(Mediabrowser), PS3, XBOX360, Wii, Sony DVP-CX995V
Control: Harmony One
fierce_gt is online now  
post #1643 of 2391 Old 12-23-2013, 09:04 AM
Advanced Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 986
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 73 Post(s)
Liked: 70
I was under the impression Nolan had input on The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises home video presentation. Unless that is incorrect, the Director did wish for the movies to be presented as they are. When I used a lens I still watched the films in 16:9 mode simply because it felt wrong to me to crop information out. Another reason I couldn't bring myself to simply scale the movie to scope is that theatrical scope presentation was not simply cutting off the top and bottom of the Imax scenes, there were artistic choices about where the picture information was taken from. Having said that I can see where you would prefer it this way. The AR change seems gimmicky and takes me out of the film some. It's really to bad they don't release a scope cut of the film on Blu Ray for the CIH crowd. Or start releasing projectors with 21:9 panels.

As far as the short throw/long throw. My projector is just under 16' from the screen. No issues with sharpness and I get no lens reflections on the screen. I'm using vertical lens shift. Before going with this projector, I was able to demo an RS45 in another members home using a short throw. I didn't see any issues with sharpness, but I did notice that even with the iris stopped down, the black floor was not as low (screen material is probably a factor too).

jeahrens is offline  
post #1644 of 2391 Old 12-23-2013, 03:53 PM
AVS Special Member
 
curttard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,368
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 46 Post(s)
Liked: 27
Quote:
Before going with this projector, I was able to demo an RS45 in another members home using a short throw. I didn't see any issues with sharpness, but I did notice that even with the iris stopped down, the black floor was not as low (screen material is probably a factor too).

Are you saying the JVC's blacks were not as good? That's surprising even with a shorter throw. I was not especially wowed by the blacks of the Epson, and that's coming from a Mits HC4000 at a shorter throw than the Epson.
curttard is offline  
post #1645 of 2391 Old 12-24-2013, 07:11 AM
Member
 
fightclub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 123
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Comparing with SONY HW50/55, JVC x35/RS46 is not so bright. however, in this thread, seems like no one is complaining about the brightness of JVC? This is because all JVC user has very good light control and dedicated AV room?
fightclub is offline  
post #1646 of 2391 Old 12-24-2013, 08:00 AM
Advanced Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 986
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 73 Post(s)
Liked: 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by curttard View Post

Are you saying the JVC's blacks were not as good? That's surprising even with a shorter throw. I was not especially wowed by the blacks of the Epson, and that's coming from a Mits HC4000 at a shorter throw than the Epson.

I was saying there were not as good when compared to the RS46 in a long throw. The blacks on the RS45 were quite good (that setup convinced me to go with the RS46). But the RS46 further back in my setup does get blacker. Which is a plus for a longer throw in my opinion. I did not see any sharpness issues on either setup. The screen material in the RS45 setup was probably a factor as well (I think it was a 1.1 gain DIY). The black level on the JVC is excellent and I doubt you would be disappointed by it. We watched the Christmas Story just the other day and on the fade to black I could see spots on the negatives during the "solid" black transition. Something I had never seen in countless viewings.

jeahrens is offline  
post #1647 of 2391 Old 12-24-2013, 08:13 AM
Advanced Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 986
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 73 Post(s)
Liked: 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by fightclub View Post

Comparing with SONY HW50/55, JVC x35/RS46 is not so bright. however, in this thread, seems like no one is complaining about the brightness of JVC? This is because all JVC user has very good light control and dedicated AV room?

I think that 3D has changed what we consider bright. A few years ago, most of these projectors would be considered very bright. We don't have excellent light control in our setup (which is something I will be working on) and our scope screen is a neutral gain (1.0). But we comfortably run the projector in low lamp with the iris stopped down for both scope and 16:9 content. Is the brightness within "spec"? No idea. We adjust it to where it is comfortable and enjoy it. Even with the iris at -10 and the projector zoomed for scope we have plenty of pop. Bright scenes don't make you squint, but they come close.

About the only time brightness seems to be borderline is with 3D on large screens. People posting in here seem overall to be satisfied with their 3D performance. The wife and I have no interest in 3D, so I can't comment on it.

jeahrens is offline  
post #1648 of 2391 Old 12-24-2013, 05:10 PM
AVS Special Member
 
fierce_gt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 4,677
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 918 Post(s)
Liked: 1000
Quote:
Originally Posted by fightclub View Post

Comparing with SONY HW50/55, JVC x35/RS46 is not so bright. however, in this thread, seems like no one is complaining about the brightness of JVC? This is because all JVC user has very good light control and dedicated AV room?

just my 2cents.

my eyes can easily adjust to a brighter or dimmer image within the range of say 400-1000 lumens(just guessing from experience). I know with my jvc, when I open up the iris, and wait 5mins I enjoy the image. when I clamp down the image and wait 5mins, I enjoy the image. the difference in brightness between those two settings is completely irrelevant after my eyes adjust.

now when I first switch from iris open to the iris closed, the image looks dim and unimpressive. like when you come inside from a bright sunny day and you can't see cause it's all dim inside.

further, my theory is that what's most important is your reference black and reference white. this is more with flat screens, but I don't see why it wouldn't apply here as well...
I see a HUGE difference in blacks because in a dark room I have 'reference black' that is essentially black. the black walls in a dark room with no lights shining on it definitely looks black, and usually blacker than what on screen. because of this my eyes notice that black on-screen isn't quite black. with a flat screen, turning on the lights makes my reference black in the room rise above what is black on screen, and now on screen black looks totally black(this obviously doesn't work with a white projection screen).
as far as brightness/whites goes, it's the same thing. in a dark room, my reference white is whatever the brightest image on screen is, because there's nothing in my room even close to that brightness. so even a dim white on screen looks bright to me. if I turn on the lights(again this applies more to flat screens) I'm now presented with a brighter room, but it needs to be REALLY bright before it's brighter than 'white' on screen.

based on these two things, it's been my experience that basically any reasonable brightness for 'white' will be the brightest light in my room, and therefore look 'white' to me. on the flip side, since almost all my viewing is in the dark, I have a very dark reference black level, and even the best displays are still brighter, so any improvement in black levels will be noticed, and is significant.

ok, maybe that was 4cents worth... I guess to sum it up, I think it's easier for our eyes to adjust to a dimmer image and still find it pleasant, as long as you don't have a brighter image right beside it to compare to.

Displays: Samsung PN64F8500/JVC X35
AVR: Pioneer VSX-1018AH, 5.1 audio
Sources: HTPC(Mediabrowser), PS3, XBOX360, Wii, Sony DVP-CX995V
Control: Harmony One
fierce_gt is online now  
post #1649 of 2391 Old 12-25-2013, 05:52 AM
Member
 
fightclub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 123
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeahrens View Post

I think that 3D has changed what we consider bright. A few years ago, most of these projectors would be considered very bright. We don't have excellent light control in our setup (which is something I will be working on) and our scope screen is a neutral gain (1.0). But we comfortably run the projector in low lamp with the iris stopped down for both scope and 16:9 content. Is the brightness within "spec"? No idea. We adjust it to where it is comfortable and enjoy it. Even with the iris at -10 and the projector zoomed for scope we have plenty of pop. Bright scenes don't make you squint, but they come close.

About the only time brightness seems to be borderline is with 3D on large screens. People posting in here seem overall to be satisfied with their 3D performance. The wife and I have no interest in 3D, so I can't comment on it.

thanks and very helpful. i am more comfortable now.
fightclub is offline  
post #1650 of 2391 Old 12-25-2013, 05:53 AM
Member
 
fightclub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 123
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by fierce_gt View Post

just my 2cents.

my eyes can easily adjust to a brighter or dimmer image within the range of say 400-1000 lumens(just guessing from experience). I know with my jvc, when I open up the iris, and wait 5mins I enjoy the image. when I clamp down the image and wait 5mins, I enjoy the image. the difference in brightness between those two settings is completely irrelevant after my eyes adjust.

now when I first switch from iris open to the iris closed, the image looks dim and unimpressive. like when you come inside from a bright sunny day and you can't see cause it's all dim inside.

further, my theory is that what's most important is your reference black and reference white. this is more with flat screens, but I don't see why it wouldn't apply here as well...
I see a HUGE difference in blacks because in a dark room I have 'reference black' that is essentially black. the black walls in a dark room with no lights shining on it definitely looks black, and usually blacker than what on screen. because of this my eyes notice that black on-screen isn't quite black. with a flat screen, turning on the lights makes my reference black in the room rise above what is black on screen, and now on screen black looks totally black(this obviously doesn't work with a white projection screen).
as far as brightness/whites goes, it's the same thing. in a dark room, my reference white is whatever the brightest image on screen is, because there's nothing in my room even close to that brightness. so even a dim white on screen looks bright to me. if I turn on the lights(again this applies more to flat screens) I'm now presented with a brighter room, but it needs to be REALLY bright before it's brighter than 'white' on screen.

based on these two things, it's been my experience that basically any reasonable brightness for 'white' will be the brightest light in my room, and therefore look 'white' to me. on the flip side, since almost all my viewing is in the dark, I have a very dark reference black level, and even the best displays are still brighter, so any improvement in black levels will be noticed, and is significant.

ok, maybe that was 4cents worth... I guess to sum it up, I think it's easier for our eyes to adjust to a dimmer image and still find it pleasant, as long as you don't have a brighter image right beside it to compare to.

yes, i need watch movie only at night.
fightclub is offline  
Reply Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP

Tags
Jvc Dla X35 3d Hd Front Projector , Jvc Dla Rs46 Projector , Panasonic Viera Ty Er3d4mu Active Shutter 3d Eyewear , Samsung Ssg 4100gb 3d Active Glasses 2012 Model , Optoma Hd72 720p Dlp Home Theater Projector
Gear in this thread - 4100gb by PriceGrabber.com

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