Originally Posted by DavidHir
Correct me if I am wrong: but if you are not using the DI on the 2014 JVC, the blacks are fairly close from the RS40 all the way up to the top of the line 2014 JVC.
Correct. They are all fairly close. Somewhere between ~20000-25000:1 between the models when the aperture is fully open.
Originally Posted by R Harkness
I agree the new JVCs are simply a refinement of previous models, not some big pq improvement across the board, which is par for the course.
That said, for me the type of refinements, in particular the DI (and better 3D, better CMD, Clear Black etc) add up to significant or "big" subjective improvements. I'm just amazed how satisfying this projector has been, even given my typical upgraditus.
That's the problem with subjective assessments: one person's tiny improvement will be another's big improvement. AVS members, videophiles and such are enthusiasts who scrutinize images for improvements and place importance on them in a way that would leave non-enthusiasts scratching their heads (if the non-enthusiasts even would notice the improvements in the first place). So it's kind of typical of enthusiasts to make mountains out of mole-hills, that's the nature of "enthusiasts" to begin with. My wine-loving pals make a big ado about differences I can barely notice, or care about, in wine. But I realize that to them it's a big deal because once you are focused on the differences they become perceptually bigger.
That's why it's so difficult whenever anyone asks "how much better" is a new display? And it's why actual objective measurements are so valuable, as well as careful comparisons when possible. And yet, to the degree a difference does exist (objectively, measurably, perceptually) then we still get stuck with "how big a difference is it?" To some, it's huge in a very "real way" because of how attuned they are and demanding they are to that difference - to others, nothing at all.
You're right about everyone having a subjective thought on how small things can change your viewpoint on a product. I think what I was talking about before isn't the same things others are talking about. When I say "picture quality" I'm talking about a culmination of things and each individual part gets points in a point system, so to speak, in my head. I usually break it down to a few simple categories like sharpness, motion handling, contrast (both on/off and ANSI), brightness, uniformity (both color a white field), typical convergence one can expect, excess noise in the image, color qualities (how close ootb, how close after calibration, saturation, ect), and then effects of software enhancements available to you in the menus that can change the image and how much they affect the image positively and negatively.
So when I look at all of those qualities and only the amount of contrast between two models has changed in an obvious amount, I say the image looks remarkably similar, not "definitely much better". There hasn't been any kind of obvious change in image sharpness, color characteristics, ANSI contrast, motion handling, motion resolution, color/white field uniformity, convergence tolerances, and even depending on what model you look at brightness isn't a whole lot higher (though it is on the X500). There have been small refinements in some of those areas but none that I would quantify as huge. This is why I make the argument that I do. The DI is definitely worth the price if you watch a lot of movies. Most movies do have darker scenes and the DI does make those scenes look appreciably better. But would I say switching from the X90 or even the X55 has changed the image as a whole (when taking into account all of those other characteristics I just mentioned)? No, it doesn't. But if you're someone who sees those darker scenes as being handled better and want to tell someone the picture as a whole because of that is better, go ahead, even though I think that remark is just a tad disingenuous.