Official JVC DILA-X500R / RS49U / RS4910U Owners Thread - Page 85 - AVS | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Baselworld is only a few weeks away. Getting the latest news is easy, Click Here for info on how to join the Watchuseek.com newsletter list. Follow our team for updates featuring event coverage, new product unveilings, watch industry news & more!


Forum Jump: 
 406Likes
Reply
Thread Tools
post #2521 of 4221 Old 10-13-2014, 03:40 PM
Senior Member
 
jjcook's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 390
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 119 Post(s)
Liked: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhartman67 View Post
No you are correct. I tilted the projector to line up the image and then used keystone correction.

I think I should have just used the lens shift to bring the image down?

I think that is what you are saying??
Yes, it is best to use the lens shift and not use the keystone correction (which digitally distorts the output image to "correct" for keystone).

For Sale: Panamorph DC1 anamorphic lens - $2800 or best offer
WTB: Lumagen 2xxx, Triad InWall Bronze SlimSub/4, InCeiling/InWall Gold Omni SE or InCeiling Silver MiniMonitors
Small HT: JVC RS4910, Mits HC7900DW, Falcon 2.35:1 100-wide, Triad Gold Omni SE & Silver Surrounds, PSA XS15-base, Marantz SR7008, Oppo 103D, Tivo Mini, HTPC
jjcook is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2522 of 4221 Old 10-13-2014, 03:51 PM
AVS Special Member
 
blee0120's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Merillville, IN 46410
Posts: 3,832
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 167 Post(s)
Liked: 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjcook View Post
I haven't really A/B the Mits HC7900DW with my JVC RS4910 yet (due in part to the calibration difficulties on the JVC and also lack of tinker time), so I'll just give some pros and cons about the Mits as a complement to my JVC.

Pros:
+ low lag (without impacting image quality!)
+ frame interpolation, with various levels
+ reasonably quiet, much better than the W1070 and HD26 but louder than JVC low lamp
+ image offset+shift up to about 45% above image, which I needed for my setup
+ 10 pt gamma, full CMS
+ price/perf
+ supposedly good 3D with FI

Cons:
- black level and on/off contrast
- poor dyn iris implementation, I keep this off as I get a shadow during low APL with max lens shift. This is what the JVC is for anyways

I had the HC8000, it was really good. I could live with that projector until 4K comes for cheap. I thought it was that good.
blee0120 is offline  
post #2523 of 4221 Old 10-14-2014, 09:55 AM
Member
 
Xer0dIn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 61
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Thanks Bhartman, that screen looks incredible with all the lights on! That's a very nice setup.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhartman67 View Post
Xer0dIn

I am at 18' throw distance.
I really like the constant height.
I am effectively a 114" Diagonal when I project 16:9.

The LED light kit is AWESOME as it makes the zero edge float off the wall.

The wife said I was wasting $500 on the LED kit, then she saw it and said OMG!

She won't watch TV without the LED's on.

http://www.screeninnovations.com/too...jector-wizard/

Use the projector wizard. at 15' throw you can have a :
139" (2.39) Diagonal or (54x128) Max - 2X Zoom.
  • 147" (16.9) Diagonal or (72x 128) Max - 2X Zoom.

I was equally worried about hot spots/ sparkles. I haven't seen anything. I think it is minimized with the JVC on low lamp.
The ambient light rejection which eliminates any washout on the screen more than makes up for any perceived hot spots.
When you combine the deep black of the JVC and the light rejection of the SI I think you have the best picture possible even far beyond this price range.

I watched the Giants game yesterday with the windows wide open and the lights on full blast. But I don't think there is any technology that could make a 27-0 beating look good. LOL.
Xer0dIn is offline  
post #2524 of 4221 Old 10-14-2014, 10:10 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Craig Peer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: In my home theater ( when I'm not rock climbing, cycling or kayaking ) - Sacramento CA area
Posts: 6,837
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 932 Post(s)
Liked: 665
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhartman67 View Post
No you are correct. I tilted the projector to line up the image and then used keystone correction.

I think I should have just used the lens shift to bring the image down?

I think that is what you are saying??

Try to not use keystone correction - it's much better to use lens shift !

Craig Peer, AV Science Sales. Call me on my direct line - 585-671-2972, 8:30am - 4:30pm PST, Monday - Friday
Email me at craig@avscience.com http://shop.avscience.com/
Yes, we sell Home Theater gear right here at AVS !!
JVC, Sony, Epson, DPI, SIM2, SV Sound, Martin Logan, RBH, and many more!
Craig Peer is online now  
post #2525 of 4221 Old 10-14-2014, 10:52 AM
Member
 
Bhartman67's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 39
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Question Which signal to send to the RS4910U?

I have mostly 1080p devices (DVD, PS4, Apple TV) and a Verizon FIOS (720p) cable box.

I have all the devices tied into my Marantz SR7007.


Marantz has the ability to upscale all the inputs to 1080p, 1080p 24frames or 4K.
I am finding that scaling to 1080p or passing through the signal at 1080p and allowing the JVC to "e-shift" the picture yield a good image.

Do you have any other thoughts or recommendations?
Bhartman67 is offline  
post #2526 of 4221 Old 10-14-2014, 11:26 AM
Senior Member
 
jjcook's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 390
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 119 Post(s)
Liked: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhartman67 View Post
I have all the devices tied into my Marantz SR7007.

Marantz has the ability to upscale all the inputs to 1080p, 1080p 24frames or 4K.
I am finding that scaling to 1080p or passing through the signal at 1080p and allowing the JVC to "e-shift" the picture yield a good image.

Do you have any other thoughts or recommendations?
I have the SR7008. As I understand it is unfortunately all or nothing with the 1080p/60 and 1080p/24 setting, i.e., 1080p/24 will be converted to 1080p/60, and vise-versa on the other setting. It is important for the projector to receive 1080p/24 or 1080p/60 original signal rate particularly if you are using the frame interpolation (CMD).

In my setup I use my Marantz to pass the signal unfettered besides overlaying the volume, etc. The Oppo 103D to always output 1080p (24 & 60), which leaves Bluray unfettered, DVD and built-in apps upscaled to 1080p as necessary, and the TiVo Mini 720p/1080i signal upscaled to 1080p. This setup also allows me to use the 103D's built-in Darbee processing on all the video sources.

I have not tinkered with 4K upscaling on the Marantz too much as my HDMI connection is flaky at that bandwidth. As I input the Oppo into the Marantz I do not use the 4K upscale on the Oppo either. I input into the Marantz to get the volume and input/output audio signal overlays.

I wish there was an out-of-band method for devices to send overlays to a display device. I also wish I could turn off the 4K resolution in the Marantz without forcing 1080p/60 or 1080p/24.

For Sale: Panamorph DC1 anamorphic lens - $2800 or best offer
WTB: Lumagen 2xxx, Triad InWall Bronze SlimSub/4, InCeiling/InWall Gold Omni SE or InCeiling Silver MiniMonitors
Small HT: JVC RS4910, Mits HC7900DW, Falcon 2.35:1 100-wide, Triad Gold Omni SE & Silver Surrounds, PSA XS15-base, Marantz SR7008, Oppo 103D, Tivo Mini, HTPC
jjcook is online now  
post #2527 of 4221 Old 10-16-2014, 09:01 AM
Newbie
 
charker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 14
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Hi

I have a 4910 and everything is fine except it never detects 3d side-by-side when set to auto. So i always have to switch manually. Is this normal?

A similar setting on my plasma works fine

Charker
charker is offline  
post #2528 of 4221 Old 10-18-2014, 08:07 AM
Newbie
 
shaboyi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 2
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 0
DLA-4910 Image size problem

Hi - hoping someone can help me here!

I am installing a DLA 4910 and have run into a strange problem where the image is not square. No amount of adjustments seem to work. Here are the basics:

92" inch screen16:9
throw = 137"
ceiling mount, front. Projector is above screen, but totally within shift limits


When I use the lens control to adjust the image, the image box is not square. We did every adjustment possible with both lens control and the ceiling mount. We doubled checked to make sure there was not a manufacturing defect with the screen (it's right - 45 x 80, level, etc).

finally we measured the actual image outline in the lens control (the green lines used for focus, shift and zoom). We found that the left and right vertical lines (outer box) are not the same height - they are off by 1/2" . so facing the screen, the right hand side is 1/2" longer (lower) than the left hand side. Consequently there is no way to fit the image precisely in the 92" screen. we can get the top right, but then the bottom corner is way low, etcf.

I have contacted JVC support, and should get more info from them on Monday when there expert is in, but thought I'd post this on the chance that someone else has encountered this and it's a something simple. We did mess with the keystone setting, but it doesn't address the issue.

thanks for any help.
shaboyi is offline  
post #2529 of 4221 Old 10-18-2014, 09:24 AM
Advanced Member
 
seanbryan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Knowhere
Posts: 590
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 41 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by shaboyi View Post
Hi - hoping someone can help me here!

I am installing a DLA 4910 and have run into a strange problem where the image is not square. No amount of adjustments seem to work. Here are the basics:

92" inch screen16:9
throw = 137"
ceiling mount, front. Projector is above screen, but totally within shift limits


When I use the lens control to adjust the image, the image box is not square. We did every adjustment possible with both lens control and the ceiling mount. We doubled checked to make sure there was not a manufacturing defect with the screen (it's right - 45 x 80, level, etc).

finally we measured the actual image outline in the lens control (the green lines used for focus, shift and zoom). We found that the left and right vertical lines (outer box) are not the same height - they are off by 1/2" . so facing the screen, the right hand side is 1/2" longer (lower) than the left hand side. Consequently there is no way to fit the image precisely in the 92" screen. we can get the top right, but then the bottom corner is way low, etcf.

I have contacted JVC support, and should get more info from them on Monday when there expert is in, but thought I'd post this on the chance that someone else has encountered this and it's a something simple. We did mess with the keystone setting, but it doesn't address the issue.

thanks for any help.
The screen may be level in the vertical plane, but what about in the horizontal plane? If the right side of the screen is slightly further back than the left side of the screen (relative to the projector lens) the right side of the image would be bigger.

What if you physically twist the projector to throw it more to the left then use lens shift to bring the image back to the right? Maybe if you play with that kind of adjustment it might help?
seanbryan is offline  
post #2530 of 4221 Old 10-18-2014, 09:38 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
AV Science Sales 5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: A beautiful view of a lake
Posts: 10,392
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1766 Post(s)
Liked: 931
Quote:
Originally Posted by shaboyi View Post
Hi - hoping someone can help me here!

I am installing a DLA 4910 and have run into a strange problem where the image is not square. No amount of adjustments seem to work. Here are the basics:

92" inch screen16:9
throw = 137"
ceiling mount, front. Projector is above screen, but totally within shift limits


When I use the lens control to adjust the image, the image box is not square. We did every adjustment possible with both lens control and the ceiling mount. We doubled checked to make sure there was not a manufacturing defect with the screen (it's right - 45 x 80, level, etc).

finally we measured the actual image outline in the lens control (the green lines used for focus, shift and zoom). We found that the left and right vertical lines (outer box) are not the same height - they are off by 1/2" . so facing the screen, the right hand side is 1/2" longer (lower) than the left hand side. Consequently there is no way to fit the image precisely in the 92" screen. we can get the top right, but then the bottom corner is way low, etcf.

I have contacted JVC support, and should get more info from them on Monday when there expert is in, but thought I'd post this on the chance that someone else has encountered this and it's a something simple. We did mess with the keystone setting, but it doesn't address the issue.

thanks for any help.
Most likely (90%) this is a setup problem, not a projector problem. Screen may not be perfectly in one plane and/or the projector may not be aligned with the screen perfectly. A picture with the projected image about a 1/2" smaller than the screen would help us to see what the problem is. From what I am reading above, it sounds like the projector is not aligned with the screen. If the right side vertical line is longer than the left, then the projector lens needs to be rotated toward the left side of the screen, just slightly, then lens shifted back to the right.

Always make the image slightly smaller than the screen, so that you can see the relationship of the image to the screen frame and knowing how to read that, tells you what to do with the projector. Generally you swing the lens, toward the small side.

Mike Garrett, AV Science Sales Call Me: 585-671-2968
Email Me: Mike@AVScience.com
Brands we sell: http://avscience.com/brands/ 
Call for B-stock projectors
Sony, JVC, Stewart, Seymour, SE, SI, Falcon, DNP & more.
RBH, Martin Logan, Triad, Atlantic Tech., MK Sound, SVS & Def Tech, Denon, Marantz, Yamaha & MiniDSP.
AV Science Sales 5 is online now  
post #2531 of 4221 Old 10-18-2014, 09:43 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Monkey_Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: East Lansing, Michigan
Posts: 1,259
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 58 Post(s)
Liked: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by AV Science Sales 5 View Post
Most likely (90%) this is a setup problem, not a projector problem. Screen may not be perfectly in one plane and/or the projector may not be aligned with the screen perfectly. A picture with the projected image about a 1/2" smaller than the screen would help us to see what the problem is. From what I am reading above, it sounds like the projector is not aligned with the screen. If the right side vertical line is longer than the left, then the projector lens needs to be rotated toward the left side of the screen, just slightly, then lens shifted back to the right.

Always make the image slightly smaller than the screen, so that you can see the relationship of the image to the screen frame and knowing how to read that, tells you what to do with the projector. Generally you swing the lens, toward the small side.
Mike is right on. Any chance your screen wall isn't plumb or out of square with the room?
Monkey_Man is offline  
post #2532 of 4221 Old 10-18-2014, 10:06 AM
AVS Special Member
 
ScottJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posts: 1,596
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 167 Post(s)
Liked: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by shaboyi View Post
finally we measured the actual image outline in the lens control (the green lines used for focus, shift and zoom). We found that the left and right vertical lines (outer box) are not the same height - they are off by 1/2" . so facing the screen, the right hand side is 1/2" longer (lower) than the left hand side. Consequently there is no way to fit the image precisely in the 92" screen. we can get the top right, but then the bottom corner is way low, etcf.
Reset the keystone settings to neutral. You need to yaw left and roll left, then use lens shift to re-center.

This is projector alignment 101, though I've never seen a good visual explanation of it.
ScottJ is offline  
post #2533 of 4221 Old 10-18-2014, 10:28 AM
Newbie
 
shaboyi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 2
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 0
thanks for the replys. I'm not at the site now, but the horizontal plain of the screen is level (ie, putting a level on the bottom of the screen when down). I guess it is possible that the entire recessed box is skewed (front right of box a bit back relative to the left side). I think that is what you Mike is suggesting. It's possible and I will certainly check that. Let's assume that is the case. the ceiling is done. so adjusting the recessed box is not really an option. I take it then I would need to adjust the ceiling mount to align it better with the skewed box. I am using a Peerless PRG-Unv mount. Did try various adjustments with no luck. (it should be the roll adjustment - but will certainly try again)

But if this is the problem, and the mount adjustments are insufficient, is it safe to assume that in the worse case I can reposition the entire mount by rotating it slightly to the right (right side of the projector front is a tad closer to the screen)?

thanks again. very helfpful
shaboyi is offline  
post #2534 of 4221 Old 10-19-2014, 03:32 PM
AVS Special Member
 
asoofi1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: South Riding, VA
Posts: 1,431
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 729 Post(s)
Liked: 283
Official JVC DILA-X500R / RS49U / RS4910U Owners Thread

2:35 > 16:9 > IMAX scene shift question

For those using a 2:35 screen, during a movie like Dark Knight Rises where a scene in the movie shifts from 2:35 to 16:9 (to fit IMAX shot), how does the 4910 resolve this? Does the zoom stay locked at the full 2:35 width and crop the 16:9 image, zoom in to display a full 16:9 image, or stay at 2:35 and not zoom to let the 16:9 image spill off top and bottom? Or something else?

---------------------------------------------------------------
current gear: lcr JTR 212HT ~ quad JTR 8LP ~ dual JTR Orbit Shifters LFU ~ Elemental Designs eD6c ~ Marantz SR7008 ~ PT-AE8000U ~ Elite 176" 2.35 ATS
asoofi1 is online now  
post #2535 of 4221 Old 10-19-2014, 03:46 PM
AVS Special Member
 
ScottJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posts: 1,596
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 167 Post(s)
Liked: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by asoofi1 View Post
2:35 > 16:9 > IMAX scene shift question

For those using a 2:35 screen, during a movie like Dark Knight Rises where a scene in the movie shifts from 2:35 to 16:9 (to fit IMAX shot), how does the 4910 resolve this? Does the zoom stay locked at the full 2:35 width and crop the 16:9 image, zoom in to display a full 16:9 image, or stay at 2:35 and not zoom to let the 16:9 image spill off top and bottom? Or something else?
The PJ doesn't know or care what the aspect ratio is. It only zooms when you tell it to. In this case it will spill off the top and bottom.

One way to resolve this is to use a video processor like a Lumagen Radiance to add a mask to the top and bottom of the picture so you won't see that extra part of the image. That's expensive and complicated.

Another way is to get an anamorphic lens, which will always crop the top and bottom automatically.

Another way is to watch the movie in 16:9 mode. That kinda sucks.

Another way is to rip the disc and re-encode the video to crop it to 2.35:1.

None of these are great solutions.
asoofi1 likes this.
ScottJ is offline  
post #2536 of 4221 Old 10-19-2014, 07:12 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
DavidHir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 11,152
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 547 Post(s)
Liked: 639
Quote:
Originally Posted by asoofi1 View Post
2:35 > 16:9 > IMAX scene shift question

For those using a 2:35 screen, during a movie like Dark Knight Rises where a scene in the movie shifts from 2:35 to 16:9 (to fit IMAX shot), how does the 4910 resolve this? Does the zoom stay locked at the full 2:35 width and crop the 16:9 image, zoom in to display a full 16:9 image, or stay at 2:35 and not zoom to let the 16:9 image spill off top and bottom? Or something else?
I have a scope screen and just suffered with the spilling of the image when watching the last two Dark Knight movies. My walls are black so it wasn't horrific, but I certainly didn't like it. I wish Nolan would have re-thought the shifting AR before releasing this as I found it annoying even on a flat panel.

DavidHir is online now  
post #2537 of 4221 Old 10-19-2014, 07:41 PM
AVS Special Member
 
asoofi1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: South Riding, VA
Posts: 1,431
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 729 Post(s)
Liked: 283
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottJ View Post
The PJ doesn't know or care what the aspect ratio is. It only zooms when you tell it to. In this case it will spill off the top and bottom.

One way to resolve this is to use a video processor like a Lumagen Radiance to add a mask to the top and bottom of the picture so you won't see that extra part of the image. That's expensive and complicated.

Another way is to get an anamorphic lens, which will always crop the top and bottom automatically.

Another way is to watch the movie in 16:9 mode. That kinda sucks.

Another way is to rip the disc and re-encode the video to crop it to 2.35:1.

None of these are great solutions.
Thanks for confirming my fears. I started to question my decision to get a 2:35 screen and now wondering if I have to 'settle' for a 16:9.

So even when zoomed out for a 2:35 screen and movie is entirely 2:35, will the 4910 still be projecting black bars? Besides having to use an anomorphic lens, is there a way to maximize resolution/projection of just the 2:35 area?

---------------------------------------------------------------
current gear: lcr JTR 212HT ~ quad JTR 8LP ~ dual JTR Orbit Shifters LFU ~ Elemental Designs eD6c ~ Marantz SR7008 ~ PT-AE8000U ~ Elite 176" 2.35 ATS
asoofi1 is online now  
post #2538 of 4221 Old 10-19-2014, 08:21 PM
AVS Special Member
 
ScottJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posts: 1,596
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 167 Post(s)
Liked: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by asoofi1 View Post
So even when zoomed out for a 2:35 screen and movie is entirely 2:35, will the 4910 still be projecting black bars? Besides having to use an anomorphic lens, is there a way to maximize resolution/projection of just the 2:35 area?
Yes and no, respectively.

This really doesn't have anything to do with the 4910 specifically; you're likely to get much more discussion and better answers posting in the CIH forum.
ScottJ is offline  
post #2539 of 4221 Old 10-19-2014, 08:24 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Paulidan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,020
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 54 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by asoofi1 View Post
Thanks for confirming my fears. I started to question my decision to get a 2:35 screen and now wondering if I have to 'settle' for a 16:9.

So even when zoomed out for a 2:35 screen and movie is entirely 2:35, will the 4910 still be projecting black bars? Besides having to use an anomorphic lens, is there a way to maximize resolution/projection of just the 2:35 area?
You won't have black bars unless the content is actually 2.40 or 2.55 (like Ben Hur)
Most is around 2.35...and the black bars on a 2.55 movie on a 2.35 screen are negligible imo.

There is no way to maximize true pixel res except with an anamorphic lens. But that kind of set up introduces it's own little quirks and demands.

What you would be able to do is to switch on the e-shift, which gives you a faux 4K resolution. In reality, it will smooth out the pixel structure when you are blowing up something that large. You can further add a Darbee for about $300 into the chain which will sharpen the image a little without introducing too many unwanted artifacts. But Frankly, the on board controls in the e-shift menu allow for some enhancement in the display and most people find that sufficient.
Paulidan is offline  
post #2540 of 4221 Old 10-20-2014, 10:53 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Craig Peer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: In my home theater ( when I'm not rock climbing, cycling or kayaking ) - Sacramento CA area
Posts: 6,837
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 932 Post(s)
Liked: 665
Quote:
Originally Posted by asoofi1 View Post
Thanks for confirming my fears. I started to question my decision to get a 2:35 screen and now wondering if I have to 'settle' for a 16:9.

So even when zoomed out for a 2:35 screen and movie is entirely 2:35, will the 4910 still be projecting black bars? Besides having to use an anomorphic lens, is there a way to maximize resolution/projection of just the 2:35 area?

Why settle for either one. Get both a 2.35:1 and 16:9 screen like I did.




Lens memory and power zoom / focus work great with 2 screens !
curlyjive, asoofi1 and giogt600 like this.

Craig Peer, AV Science Sales. Call me on my direct line - 585-671-2972, 8:30am - 4:30pm PST, Monday - Friday
Email me at craig@avscience.com http://shop.avscience.com/
Yes, we sell Home Theater gear right here at AVS !!
JVC, Sony, Epson, DPI, SIM2, SV Sound, Martin Logan, RBH, and many more!
Craig Peer is online now  
post #2541 of 4221 Old 10-20-2014, 02:47 PM
AVS Special Member
 
asoofi1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: South Riding, VA
Posts: 1,431
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 729 Post(s)
Liked: 283
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Peer View Post
Why settle for either one. Get both a 2.35:1 and 16:9 screen like I did.




Lens memory and power zoom / focus work great with 2 screens !
Not a bad idea, but I need an AT screen...two of those would get costly with at least one having to be electric. Directors using two formats in one movie really like messing with our heads!

So how many 4910 owners are using just a 2:35 screen on here? Is the image format switching in Nolan's films noticeable and/or annoying?

---------------------------------------------------------------
current gear: lcr JTR 212HT ~ quad JTR 8LP ~ dual JTR Orbit Shifters LFU ~ Elemental Designs eD6c ~ Marantz SR7008 ~ PT-AE8000U ~ Elite 176" 2.35 ATS
asoofi1 is online now  
post #2542 of 4221 Old 10-20-2014, 02:57 PM
AVS Special Member
 
asoofi1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: South Riding, VA
Posts: 1,431
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 729 Post(s)
Liked: 283
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulidan View Post
You won't have black bars unless the content is actually 2.40 or 2.55 (like Ben Hur)
Most is around 2.35...and the black bars on a 2.55 movie on a 2.35 screen are negligible imo.

There is no way to maximize true pixel res except with an anamorphic lens. But that kind of set up introduces it's own little quirks and demands.

What you would be able to do is to switch on the e-shift, which gives you a faux 4K resolution. In reality, it will smooth out the pixel structure when you are blowing up something that large. You can further add a Darbee for about $300 into the chain which will sharpen the image a little without introducing too many unwanted artifacts. But Frankly, the on board controls in the e-shift menu allow for some enhancement in the display and most people find that sufficient.
I haven't read up enough on Darbee yet...I was considering getting an oppo 103 if I can get it to play iso files...would the 103d be worth it?

---------------------------------------------------------------
current gear: lcr JTR 212HT ~ quad JTR 8LP ~ dual JTR Orbit Shifters LFU ~ Elemental Designs eD6c ~ Marantz SR7008 ~ PT-AE8000U ~ Elite 176" 2.35 ATS
asoofi1 is online now  
post #2543 of 4221 Old 10-20-2014, 10:54 PM
Advanced Member
 
DuaneAA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Austin, MN
Posts: 708
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 79 Post(s)
Liked: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by asoofi1 View Post
Thanks for confirming my fears. I started to question my decision to get a 2:35 screen and now wondering if I have to 'settle' for a 16:9.

So even when zoomed out for a 2:35 screen and movie is entirely 2:35, will the 4910 still be projecting black bars? Besides having to use an anomorphic lens, is there a way to maximize resolution/projection of just the 2:35 area?
In my previous house I had a 16:9 screen for seven years. I just got my home theater up and running in my current house about two weeks ago. This time I went for a 2.35 screen in combination with the 4910 projector. I am extremely happy with this combination. Using the zoom approach, the 4910 will switch between 2.35 and 16:9 with the pushing of 2 buttons and it only takes about 20 seconds. I spent about $50 to buy a couple of pieces of 1/4" plywood that I covered with black cloth that I hang over the outer ends of the screen when I am displaying 16:9 content. It takes about 30 seconds to take down or put up these panels so the total time to rezoom the projector and put up the panels is less than one minute. Many evenings I may start with something in 16:9 off cable then switch to a wide screen movie and then later switch back to cable. In three or four hours of watching the projector I may spend two minutes switching formats, so the time and effort is so trivial I don't think twice about doing it.

I think for this conversation using varying screen widths, seating distance as a function of the screen height is key. My screen is 49" tall whether I am doing 16:9 or 2.35. My first row of seats is at about 9.5 feet or 114" for a 114/49 =2.33 ratio. At least at this ratio, even though you are not using the full resolution of the projector panels for 2.35, the limitation on picture quality is more based on the source material than by the fact you are only utilizing 817 out of 1080 rows of pixels. I was watching Iron Man 3 on blu-ray a couple of nights ago and the picture quality was absolutely amazing. The picture was smooth without a hint of grain. It is the closest I have seen to the 'looking out a window' effect people talk about. On the other hand when I watched my personal favorite movie 'The Rocketeer' the graininess/pixelization or whatever you want to call it was so noticeable, I almost moved back to the second row of seats for the greater apparent sharpness extra distance gives. Anyway, my point is that I don't believe going to the hassle of an additional lense to utilize the full panel for 2.35 material is going to make a significant difference as the quality of the source material is already the limiting factor.

As far as your question specifically about the batman movies, I haven't tried them so I don't know what is the best solution. But I certainly wouldn't let it drive my screen selection. Those couple of movies are the only ones I know of with the changing aspect ratio issue. Even if you watch them a couple of times a year, you are only talking about 10 hours of usage. I expect I will put close to 2000 hours on my projector in the first 12 months. I certainly wouldn't compromise the other 1990 hours for those 10 hours.

With my old system I put up masks along the top and bottom of the screen when I was watching 2.35 so it was smaller than 16:9. Now that I have a setup where 2.35 is bigger than 16:9, I would never go back.

Hope this helps,
Duane
asoofi1 likes this.
DuaneAA is offline  
post #2544 of 4221 Old 10-21-2014, 09:30 AM
Senior Member
 
mntwister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 441
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Wow this thread is so educating there is so much information. But in reading for several days, I can't find anything on the following issue. Does anyone know if there is a thread related to this or if it was covered in this thread?

I am thinking about purchasing a 4k upscaling Blu-ray player. I am familiar with how e-shift works, but now I understand we can connect a 4k signal to the 4910 and other models from last year, but I also know it won't project actual 4k. I am wondering if anyone has tried upscaling Blu-rays using a 4k upscaling Blu-ray player with this projector? How does it compare with just using e-shift? Is there a noticeable improvement? Any information would be appreciated.
mntwister is offline  
post #2545 of 4221 Old 10-21-2014, 09:37 AM
AVS Special Member
 
curlyjive's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Abington, PA
Posts: 1,413
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 154 Post(s)
Liked: 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by asoofi1 View Post
I haven't read up enough on Darbee yet...I was considering getting an oppo 103 if I can get it to play iso files...would the 103d be worth it?
If considering a Darbee and Oppo 103 the 103D is a no brainer. The Darbee implantation is MUCH better and trouble free than the stand alone box.
curlyjive is online now  
post #2546 of 4221 Old 10-21-2014, 09:40 AM
AVS Special Member
 
curlyjive's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Abington, PA
Posts: 1,413
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 154 Post(s)
Liked: 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by mntwister View Post
Wow this thread is so educating there is so much information. But in reading for several days, I can't find anything on the following issue. Does anyone know if there is a thread related to this or if it was covered in this thread?

I am thinking about purchasing a 4k upscaling Blu-ray player. I am familiar with how e-shift works, but now I understand we can connect a 4k signal to the 4910 and other models from last year, but I also know it won't project actual 4k. I am wondering if anyone has tried upscaling Blu-rays using a 4k upscaling Blu-ray player with this projector? How does it compare with just using e-shift? Is there a noticeable improvement? Any information would be appreciated.
You're probably better of sending 1080p to the pj and letting it do the 4k upscaling. You could try it both ways, though you may run into HDMI bandwidth issues depending on your setup and cabling. From reading this thread, most preferred using the eshift or found no difference. Some said the Oppo 103 upscaling was better, but didn't really say how.
curlyjive is online now  
post #2547 of 4221 Old 10-21-2014, 09:42 AM
AVS Special Member
 
curlyjive's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Abington, PA
Posts: 1,413
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 154 Post(s)
Liked: 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by DuaneAA View Post
In my previous house I had a 16:9 screen for seven years. I just got my home theater up and running in my current house about two weeks ago. This time I went for a 2.35 screen in combination with the 4910 projector. I am extremely happy with this combination. Using the zoom approach, the 4910 will switch between 2.35 and 16:9 with the pushing of 2 buttons and it only takes about 20 seconds. I spent about $50 to buy a couple of pieces of 1/4" plywood that I covered with black cloth that I hang over the outer ends of the screen when I am displaying 16:9 content. It takes about 30 seconds to take down or put up these panels so the total time to rezoom the projector and put up the panels is less than one minute. Many evenings I may start with something in 16:9 off cable then switch to a wide screen movie and then later switch back to cable. In three or four hours of watching the projector I may spend two minutes switching formats, so the time and effort is so trivial I don't think twice about doing it.

I think for this conversation using varying screen widths, seating distance as a function of the screen height is key. My screen is 49" tall whether I am doing 16:9 or 2.35. My first row of seats is at about 9.5 feet or 114" for a 114/49 =2.33 ratio. At least at this ratio, even though you are not using the full resolution of the projector panels for 2.35, the limitation on picture quality is more based on the source material than by the fact you are only utilizing 817 out of 1080 rows of pixels. I was watching Iron Man 3 on blu-ray a couple of nights ago and the picture quality was absolutely amazing. The picture was smooth without a hint of grain. It is the closest I have seen to the 'looking out a window' effect people talk about. On the other hand when I watched my personal favorite movie 'The Rocketeer' the graininess/pixelization or whatever you want to call it was so noticeable, I almost moved back to the second row of seats for the greater apparent sharpness extra distance gives. Anyway, my point is that I don't believe going to the hassle of an additional lense to utilize the full panel for 2.35 material is going to make a significant difference as the quality of the source material is already the limiting factor.

As far as your question specifically about the batman movies, I haven't tried them so I don't know what is the best solution. But I certainly wouldn't let it drive my screen selection. Those couple of movies are the only ones I know of with the changing aspect ratio issue. Even if you watch them a couple of times a year, you are only talking about 10 hours of usage. I expect I will put close to 2000 hours on my projector in the first 12 months. I certainly wouldn't compromise the other 1990 hours for those 10 hours.

With my old system I put up masks along the top and bottom of the screen when I was watching 2.35 so it was smaller than 16:9. Now that I have a setup where 2.35 is bigger than 16:9, I would never go back.

Hope this helps,
Duane

If I had the room and budget, I would get a 16:9 screen large enough to meet my 2.35:1 needs and using an auto masking solution. Not gonna happen for a long time an a different house!
curlyjive is online now  
post #2548 of 4221 Old 10-21-2014, 02:35 PM
Member
 
twinturboaudi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 166
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 27 Post(s)
Liked: 16
I was very intrigued by the e shift but after a few weeks on using it, I noticed it adds a tons of "noise/artifacts." I initially thought this was a screen problem. Then I stood next to the screen and could actually see what looks like the shifting back and forth. Once I turned it off, everything was gone and the picture stabilized. At this point with the pixel grid being so small, I see no reason to turn it on again. It really degrades the picture.
twinturboaudi is offline  
post #2549 of 4221 Old 10-22-2014, 08:06 AM
AVS Special Member
 
curlyjive's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Abington, PA
Posts: 1,413
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 154 Post(s)
Liked: 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by twinturboaudi View Post
I was very intrigued by the e shift but after a few weeks on using it, I noticed it adds a tons of "noise/artifacts." I initially thought this was a screen problem. Then I stood next to the screen and could actually see what looks like the shifting back and forth. Once I turned it off, everything was gone and the picture stabilized. At this point with the pixel grid being so small, I see no reason to turn it on again. It really degrades the picture.
Did you try eshift with the enhancements dialed down from their defaults? Those can create ALOT of noise and you can back them off...even down to 0 and get the benefit of eshifts pixel fill and smooth appearence.
curlyjive is online now  
post #2550 of 4221 Old 10-22-2014, 08:11 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Kris Deering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Pacific Northwet
Posts: 7,480
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 552 Post(s)
Liked: 647
Quote:
Originally Posted by curlyjive View Post
If I had the room and budget, I would get a 16:9 screen large enough to meet my 2.35:1 needs and using an auto masking solution. Not gonna happen for a long time an a different house!
I hear this a lot and don't understand why one doesn't just get the biggest screen they can get and forgo aspect ratio all together. Everyone ends up butting up against a limitation of width and/or height and then try to figure out 2.35:1 or 16x9 but what's the point? Just make the screen as wide and tall as you can (not worrying about aspect ratio) and then use the lens memories to fill it appropriately. Then you could enjoy the most height possible for 16x9 material with bars on the sides and the most width possible with bars on the top and bottom. I don't understand why so many are willing to compromise one for the other when they can have both if they want them.
mariob33 likes this.

My Theater Room

Technical Editor/Writer

Sound and Vision

Last edited by Kris Deering; 10-22-2014 at 08:15 AM.
Kris Deering is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP

Tags
Jvc

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