Preliminary results of my mini RS1 VW60 shootout - Page 4 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 112 Old 05-20-2008, 05:18 PM
AVS Special Member
 
HoustonHoyaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 3,964
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by pchemist View Post

...The VW60's, which shifts in fractions of a pixel, does so by dimming/brightening adjoining pixels -- it doesn't actually correct the alignment of the panels. So it can't give you back the resolution you lose by misalignment (in fact, I understand that use of this feature actually reduces sharpness). But since the JVC's panel alignment feature, by contrast, only allows for whole-pixel increments it could, at least in principle, electronically re-map the entire blue panel EXACTLY (by just shifting the blue panel pixel addresses by +2 vertically, for instance). Anyone know if this is true?

The VW60 does sub pixel mapping which is similar to how a a 1080p Blu Ray is displayed on a 720p projector. Integer pixel shifts on the Sony should be similar to the JVCs electronic shift.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pchemist View Post

...you just have to put up one of these single-pixel-width patterns, and look for the same crispness you see on a flat-panel LCD. If you've got this, you know that the video image will be sharp.

Just like the old CRTs, LCD pixels are never aligned, they are ...|R|G|B|R|G|B... !!!

From my personal comparisons, supported by several reviews, the VW60 is sharper than the RS1.
HoustonHoyaFan is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 112 Old 05-20-2008, 06:21 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Cameron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Kaysville, UT
Posts: 2,954
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by rsnyder005 View Post

I have never seen the RS1/2 and the only JVC proj. I ever owned was the G1000. When watching Nardia on my VW60 using a Panasonic 30 blu-ray through the Yamaha RX-Z11 receiver and using a Dalite HP 133" screen(no anam. lens-just masking), I was completely blown away by the picture and just wonder can it get much better than this? Could an anamorphic lens make an improvement? just some observations, Ron

Well having had several lenses, I can say that they do improve some things and degrade others. It all depends on what you need. For a CIH setup, it solves a lot of problems and you have a big bright image, but you lose some ansi contrast and depending on the lens there might be some ca, and there is some pincusion also.

-- Well I have really blown my budget now. --
Cameron is offline  
post #93 of 112 Old 05-21-2008, 12:29 AM
Member
 
pchemist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 166
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by reincarnate View Post

You are one very astute individual ...

Hey, who you calling astute?!!

Seriously, thanks for the compliment
pchemist is offline  
post #94 of 112 Old 05-21-2008, 12:34 AM
Member
 
pchemist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 166
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdputnam View Post

The RS1 can have miss-aligned panels too, and the amount can vary between machines, some will be better aligned than others. Here is Mark Peterson's explanation on how to get the sharpest focus on the RS1.

Thanks for your reply. Yes, as I mentioned in my post, the RS1 I viewed did have a misaligned blue panel. But one of the nice things about this particular projector is that it needed no focus adjustment, as all the panels were focused simultaneously.

The link you supplied will be useful should I end up with PJ that isn't as good in this dept. as this RS1 one was. I'm not sure, though, why Mr. Peterson suggests going to the bother of using a white pattern, misconverging to check focus, and then reconverging. Unless I'm missing something, it seems it would be simpler and more straightforward to instead use an R/G/B pattern like those I showed in my pics to check the relative focus of the three panels. I also think it would be easier to adjust convergence with these patterns: instead of minimizing fringing on a white line, which requires a good eye and lots of judgement, with an RGB pattern you just try to make the alternating color segments line up straight.
pchemist is offline  
post #95 of 112 Old 05-21-2008, 12:46 AM
Member
 
pchemist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 166
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonHoyaFan View Post

Integer pixel shifts on the Sony should be similar to the JVCs electronic shift.

Thanks for the reply. Interesting, and you may be right, but that's a big "should" . It would mean the Sony shifts between two very different modes (dimming to remapping) when going from subpixel to integer. If you could provide a reference for your statement, that would be great.


[quote=HoustonHoyaFan;13911042]

Just like the old CRTs, LCD pixels are never aligned, they are ...|R|G|B|R|G|B... !!!
[/QUOTE

Yes, I can see the color-striping offsets on my LCD. But that's not misalignment in the same sense, I think. I.e., you might conclude that the colors on LCD flat panels are inherently mis-aligned by 1/3 pixel horizontally because of this, but I will argue that effect is different from having whole-pixel misalignments of 1/3 pixel, as we would see in a PJ. The difference is that the former causes no loss of resolution, while the latter does. To put this in practical terms: with an LCD panel, even with the color-striping, one-pixel-width white-on-black lines are displayed as being exactly one pixel wide (with your eye doing the integration of the three diff. colors), while with a PJ with blue and red each misaligned by 1/3 pixel relative to green, your one-pixel-width white-on-black line is instead displayed as 1 2/3 pixels wide.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonHoyaFan View Post


From my personal comparisons, supported by several reviews, the VW60 is sharper than the RS1.

There are certainly several opinions on this. In Tom Norton's recent review of the VW60, he finds the RS1 a bit sharper than the VW60, but says that may be attributable to higher peak brightness levels in the RS1 (he finds the VW200 sharper than both). Mark Haflich, a perceptive guy, finds the VW60 sharper. Jason Turk, a perceptive guy, finds the RS1 sharper. But likely these are all from viewing video images. Hence my interest in hearing if someone has done a comparison that more directly checks the attributes that determine sharpness, using RGB patterns in the way I described.

Of course they may all be right, for the PJ's they were looking at -- we may simply be seeing the results of inter-sample variation.
pchemist is offline  
post #96 of 112 Old 05-21-2008, 03:10 AM
AVS Special Member
 
reincarnate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,989
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonHoyaFan View Post

The VW60 does sub pixel mapping which is similar to how a a 1080p Blu Ray is displayed on a 720p projector.

This is an excellent example of blind band-name loyalty.
Were discussing ultimate sharpness and some are espousing downsampling from 1080 to 720! Can we turn the boat around in the other direction please?
Projector factory panel registration tolerances are quit large (and non-published) so the amount of misonvergence error can vary from sample to sample. To minimize getting stuck, never buy from the first production run (JVC RS1 and Epson UB come to mind) and get an excellent return policy. Its better to spend a bit more to ensure quality here.

Manufactures also limit sharpness to reduce anti-aliasing and reconstruction artifacts. For instance it irks me to see the flashing of moving single-line detail in film based sources.
reincarnate is offline  
post #97 of 112 Old 05-21-2008, 07:41 AM
AVS Special Member
 
HoustonHoyaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 3,964
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by pchemist View Post

...It would mean the Sony shifts between two very different modes (dimming to remapping) when going from subpixel to integer. If you could provide a reference for your statement, that would be great...

I am not sure what you mean by "dimming". The Sony uses a standard sub pixel mapping function. Each pixel is transformed into a 10x10 virtual pixel matrix. The shifting is done in this virtual pixel grid. The resulting shifted pixels are then downsampled into the real pixel grid.
HoustonHoyaFan is offline  
post #98 of 112 Old 05-21-2008, 07:59 AM
Member
 
AKuan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Plano, TX, USA
Posts: 137
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by pchemist View Post

Thanks for the reply. Interesting, and you may be right, but that's a big "should" . It would mean the Sony shifts between two very different modes (dimming to remapping) when going from subpixel to integer. If you could provide a reference for your statement, that would be great.


[

Does it make any difference between "dimming 100% current pixel and brigthening 100% next pixel" and "turning off current pixel and turning on next pixel"?
There should be no difference between them assuming its DSPs have enough computation power to handle it without slowing down any other tasks.
I do however believe that it does both remapping and dimming. You can actuall cleanly shift pixels up to two pixels distance.
AKuan is offline  
post #99 of 112 Old 05-21-2008, 09:07 PM
Member
 
pchemist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 166
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonHoyaFan View Post

I am not sure what you mean by "dimming". The Sony uses a standard sub pixel mapping function. Each pixel is transformed into a 10x10 virtual pixel matrix. The shifting is done in this virtual pixel grid. The resulting shifted pixels are then downsampled into the real pixel grid.

As Greg Roger's explains in his review of the Sony VPL-VW60 (excerpt pasted below), suppose your red pixels are .3 pixels to the right of the green pixels (due to misalignment). With the subpixel adjustment, if you wanted to display a single-pixel width white line, the Sony, instead of illuminating the native red pixel at a value of, say, 1.0, would illuminate two red pixels, one with a value of .3 and the other with a value of .7, to give a total illumination of 1.0, whose luminosity-weighted center would be at the center of the green pixel. This will reduce color fringing, but at the obvious expense of sharpness (as Mr. Rogers points out), since a single-pixel width red feature is now illuminated using two red pixels! The effect of this subpixel adjustment is qualitatively different from that of the address remapping that, as I understand it, the RS1 (and, it would appear, the VW60 also*) does to compensate for integer-pixel misalignment. For instance, if you have exactly one pixel of misalignment, with integer pixel remapping your resolution is increased to the level it would have been at had there been zero misalignment. By contrast, if you have, say, 0.3 pixels of misalignment, using the subpixel adjustment to correct this actually decreases your resolution to below what it would be without the use of that feature.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AKuan View Post

Does it make any difference between "dimming 100% current pixel and brigthening 100% next pixel" and "turning off current pixel and turning on next pixel"?
There should be no difference between them assuming its DSPs have enough computation power to handle it without slowing down any other tasks.
I do however believe that it does both remapping and dimming. You can actuall cleanly shift pixels up to two pixels distance.

*Roger's description of how the VW60's alignment correction works supports HoyaFan's contention that, when one pixel of adjustment is needed, the VW60 does the same simple remapping as the RS1: i.e., if you need one pixel of adjustment, the two pixels are illuminated to values of 0 and 1.0, which is equivalent to simple address remapping. So yes, Akuan and HoyFan, you are correct, in this case there would be then no difference between the Sony and JVC for integer-pixel remapping. But my concern about the deleterious effects of the VW60's subpixel remapping upon sharpness remain. In line with what reincarnate points out, Sony knows well the concerns people have with panel misregistration are not only for color fringing, but also loss of sharpness. Yet they offer this subpixel adjustment feature without explaining that it helps one at the expense of the other.

If there is an error in Roger's description of Sony's subpixel mapping or (more likely) my understanding of it, please let me know.


Excerpt from Greg Roger's review of the Sony VPL-VW60, Widescreen Review, Issue 125, November, 2007:


"It is easy to electronically shift an image by single pixel
increments on a projector’s red or blue display panels to
improve convergence; Sony and other manufacturers have provided
that feature on other products. But since panel misalignment is a
mechanical tolerance, the red and blue images really need to be
shifted in sub-pixel increments to match the green image and fully
correct convergence. Since the panel’s native pixels are fixed in
place and can’t be moved electronically, Sony uses two native pixels
to represent each adjusted pixel, and varies the brightness of the two
pixels to make it appear as though the adjusted pixel is located
between the native pixels. For instance, if the adjusted pixel needs to
be halfway between two native pixels, both of the native pixels are
illuminated to the same brightness. By varying the brightness of two
native pixels, the adjusted pixels appear to move between native pixels
in 0.1-pixel increments. Sony apparently expects to hold the
mechanical panel-mounting tolerance to 2 pixels because that is the
adjustment range they have provided in 0.1-pixel increments.
Because single pixel blue and/or red lines are spread out across
two pixels when the Panel Alignment feature is used, some color
fringing remains unless the image position is moved by exactly one
or two pixels. However, the color fringing is much less than it would
have been without correction, since one of the two pixels will have
much lower brightness than the unadjusted single pixel. The worse
case occurs if you adjust the positioning by 0.5 pixel or 1.5 pixels,
since the two “new” pixels have equal brightness. I adjusted the red
image by 0.2 pixels vertically to optimize convergence, and the color
fringing went from just noticeable at my normal viewing distance to
not noticeable.
Most of our perception of sharpness and detail comes from the
green image, which isn’t altered by the Panel Alignment function. But
perceived sharpness and color detail may be reduced, and that will
vary based on whether you apply correction to both the red and blue
images, whether you use both horizontal and vertical correction, and
the precise amount of correction as discussed above. Since the panels
were exceptionally well aligned in the review projector, I only had
to apply 0.2 pixels of vertical correction to the red panel. That was
perceived as a slight reduction in sharpness standing close to the
screen, but it was nearly insignificant from my normal viewing position.
But it is impossible to estimate how much the sharpness and
detail would have been affected if I had needed other levels of correction
in both directions and on both panels."
pchemist is offline  
post #100 of 112 Old 05-22-2008, 08:44 AM
Member
 
AKuan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Plano, TX, USA
Posts: 137
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I don't see your point. You are splitting hairs here. There is some usefullness in the panel aligment features in the Sony. You can simply limit yourself to make full bit re-mapping if the side effect of pixel dimming bothers you. My unit has exact 0.2 pixel horizontal red missaligment and don't even bother to make correction. I can bet that you won't be able to tell difference from seating distance a 0.2 red pixel correction, I can't.
AKuan is offline  
post #101 of 112 Old 05-22-2008, 06:48 PM
Member
 
pchemist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 166
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by AKuan View Post

I don't see your point. You are splitting hairs here. There is some usefullness in the panel aligment features in the Sony. You can simply limit yourself to make full bit re-mapping if the side effect of pixel dimming bothers you. My unit has exact 0.2 pixel horizontal red missaligment and don't even bother to make correction. I can bet that you won't be able to tell difference from seating distance a 0.2 red pixel correction, I can't.

If you don't understand my point, how do you know I'm splitting hairs ?

My point, for what it's worth, is this: suppose your misalignment is, say, 0.5 pixels, and your concern is the loss of resolution attendant with this. You might think that Sony's subpixel adjustment would enable you to mitigate against this decrease in resolution. Yet using this feature has the opposite effect: it makes the resolution even worse. You may disagree but, IMHO, this an important thing to be aware of.

And this knowledge certainly has practical implications for a VW60 owner. For instance, suppose your red is 0.8 pixels to the right of green. Without knowing the above, you might think the best way to correct this would be to use the subpixel adjustment to move the red 0.8 pixels to the left. And you'd be wrong. It would be far better to move it a full pixel to the left, which would give you a perfect remapping that leaves you with only 0.2 pixel misalignment (which, as you say, may be barely noticeable) and that, importantly, avoids the loss of resolution that accompanies the use of the subpixel remapping feature.
pchemist is offline  
post #102 of 112 Old 05-23-2008, 01:17 PM
Senior Member
 
ninjanki's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 238
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Your point being that the remap is actually good, as long as you know how to use it and what are the drawbacks of certain configs... Well, the same could be said about most video adjustments on video projectors and monitors. Most users don't know how to use the controls properly, and most vendors don't explain it properly either. Hence why Joe Kane and others can sell DVE, AVIA and other discs that explain how to do it and also offer the proper signals to do it.

To me, having a full pixel remap is enough(something the Sony does!). The sub-pixel is something I would not use but I can appreciate that some people will rather have lower total resolution instead of misalignment. I am just not one of them. Now that we have established that Sony is no better at explaining how it's features work than most vendors, I guess we can discuss other stuff related to the comparison between the RS1 and the Sony.

Allan

ps. I really enjoyed this thread, since it gave me some perspective on what to expect from my VW60 when it arrives...(I wanted the RSX1, but could not get it here in Brazil...the Sony was the closest second)
ninjanki is offline  
post #103 of 112 Old 05-23-2008, 03:40 PM
AVS Special Member
 
HoustonHoyaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 3,964
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by pchemist View Post

...And this knowledge certainly has practical implications for a VW60 owner. For instance, suppose your red is 0.8 pixels to the right of green. Without knowing the above, you might think the best way to correct this would be to use the subpixel adjustment to move the red 0.8 pixels to the left. And you'd be wrong. It would be far better to move it a full pixel to the left, which would give you a perfect remapping that leaves you with only 0.2 pixel misalignment (which, as you say, may be barely noticeable) and that, importantly, avoids the loss of resolution that accompanies the use of the subpixel remapping feature.

Exactly how much "resolution" would be lost in your example.

Here is what we currently know:

Correction of 1 pixel misalignment is exactly the same on both the RS1 and the VW60.

Correction of 0.5 pixel misalignment is the worse case on both. The RS1 has no solution, the Sony would removing fringing, but may create a slight loss of sharpness which may not be noticable from normal viewing distance.

Correction of < 0.5 pixel misalignment, Sony has a solution, the RS1 has none. Note that gregr in his WSR review did apply a 0.2 pixel red adjustment which AFAIK improved the image from his normal viewing distance!

The good news is that the VW60s reported on this forum have had << 0.5 pixel misalignment. Owners have the option of trying the subpixel adjustment, and deceiding if the benefits out weigh any potential issues!
HoustonHoyaFan is offline  
post #104 of 112 Old 05-23-2008, 03:45 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Cameron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Kaysville, UT
Posts: 2,954
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Yeah I wish the JVC units had that feature. You aren't forced to use it.

-- Well I have really blown my budget now. --
Cameron is offline  
post #105 of 112 Old 05-26-2008, 12:31 AM
Member
 
pchemist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 166
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Well, lest we keep going around in circles here, I don't think the Sony is worse because it provides this extra adjustability -- rather, I think it is important to point out that this adjustability comes with a liability -- a liability that, I believe, may of you were unaware of before I'd mentioned it. So I'd like to think I provided a service. But if you wish to give me a hard time for bringing this to your attention, so be it.

As to the integral-pixel adjustment on the Sony being the same as that of the JVC, that was something I was unaware of. So I learned something as well. Though let me point out to those who say we "know" it's the same as that on the JVC, I would say instead we "have good reason to believe" its the same. We don't know its the same until we see some documentation from Sony -- none of which has been offered here.

And more broadly, if you re-read my original post you will see that the issue I raised concerning the subpixel adjustability in the Sony was not my major point (though that's what has elicited most of the discussion here). Indeed, it was only one paragraph out of ten. My main point, which I would have liked to see discussed, but which was not, was that the best way to most directly, most clearly, and most objectively assess the relative sharpness of different 3-chip PJ's is to use single-pixel width patterns that simultaneously display R, G, and B colors --- and the reason such a tool is optimal is because what's particularly critical for sharpness is the ability to display sharp pixels of all three colors with simultaneous focus (which is exactly what this type of pattern enables one to assess).
pchemist is offline  
post #106 of 112 Old 05-26-2008, 02:07 AM
AVS Special Member
 
MarkH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Perth, Australia formerly Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,180
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by pchemist View Post

Well, lest we keep going around in circles here, I don't think the Sony is worse because it provides this extra adjustability -- rather, I think it is important to point out that this adjustability comes with a liability -- a liability that, I believe, may of you were unaware of before I'd mentioned it. So I'd like to think I provided a service. But if you wish to give me a hard time for bringing this to your attention, so be it.

As to the integral-pixel adjustment on the Sony being the same as that of the JVC, that was something I was unaware of. So I learned something as well. Though let me point out to those who say we "know" it's the same as that on the JVC, I would say instead we "have good reason to believe" its the same. We don't know its the same until we see some documentation from Sony -- none of which has been offered here.

And more broadly, if you re-read my original post you will see that the issue I raised concerning the subpixel adjustability in the Sony was not my major point (though that's what has elicited most of the discussion here). Indeed, it was only one paragraph out of ten. My main point, which I would have liked to see discussed, but which was not, was that the best way to most directly, most clearly, and most objectively assess the relative sharpness of different 3-chip PJ's is to use single-pixel width patterns that simultaneously display R, G, and B colors --- and the reason such a tool is optimal is because what's particularly critical for sharpness is the ability to display sharp pixels of all three colors with simultaneous focus (which is exactly what this type of pattern enables one to assess).


Well Im lost - so which do you "prefer"?

MY HT BUILD BLOG

http://www.soundadvice.net.au/MarkH

MY THEATRE ROOM, LIVING ROOM and BEDROOM SYSTEMS THREAD

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1105927
MarkH is offline  
post #107 of 112 Old 05-26-2008, 05:41 PM
Member
 
pchemist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 166
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkH View Post

Well Im lost - so which do you "prefer"?

I assume you're asking which PJ I prefer. If so:

That's something I'm struggling with myself. I'll likely purchase a used/refurb RS1 with a Lumagen HDP (to give gray scale/gamma adjustment, and some color correction) (together about the same price as a new VW60). Let me first list the generally-accepted pros and cons, and then list the areas of controversy:

Category: Who Wins

Quietness: Sony
Colors: Sony (Sony has CMS, JVC doesn't; though Sony's CMS, while good, is incomplete (can't exactly dial in hue and saturation of primaries while maintaining equal luminosities)
Bright corners: somewhat less (better) on Sony

Gray scale/gamma: Not sure; I believe Sony over RS1, since can't adjust gamma with RS1 (unless use external processor); RS1x has gamma adjustability, but not sure how it compares with the Sony's

Contrast: JVC (similar on/off, but JVC does it without an iris, and thus can provide much better within-scene contrast, and less brightness compression). I believe ANSI contrasts are similar.
Brightness: JVC (JVC is as bright in low lamp mode as Sony is in high).


Features: Sony has electronic focus; JVC has "real" horizontal lens shift (Sony has only a tiny bit of horizontal lens shift, which is accessed mechanically)

What's left: Sharpness!

The latter will be, for me, the deciding factor. Because of the Sony's better colors and quietness, if I thought the VW60 were as sharp as the RS1 I'd go for the Sony. However, I think the RS1 is much sharper. But I don't know for sure. Here is what I do know: In looking at one RS1 and one VW40 (which is reportedly the same as the VW60 in sharpness), the RS1 was clearly sharper. And I believe the guys at AVScience find the RS1 sharper, and that carries a lot of of weight with me. Not because I think that those who think otherwise are any less competent, but rather because there's a lot of inter-unit variation in these PJ's, and Jason at AVS is the only individual I know of who has pattern-tested many units of both VW60's and RS1's for sharpness. I.e., he's the only one who has examined a decent sample size (that means N > 1 !).

As a post-script, I will argue that these forums, being driven by expert opinions from the calibrators, emphasize the attributes the calibrators emphasize. And the calibrators naturally emphasize what they can adjust: color and contrast. But in looking at PJ's myself, I'd rank sharpness above both of these. Here's my personal ranking of attributes:

1. sharpness/optical quality.
2. absence of optical artifacts (video noise/SDE/SSE)
3. contrast
4. color

Here's the analogy I'd make: If I had to go through the day wearing a pair of glasses that were either tinted (causing colors to be artificial), reduced contrast, or were blurry, which would bother me the most and least? Answer: the blurry glasses would bother me the most; the tinted ones the least.
pchemist is offline  
post #108 of 112 Old 05-26-2008, 08:54 PM
AVS Special Member
 
HoustonHoyaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 3,964
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by pchemist View Post

...The latter will be, for me, the deciding factor. Because of the Sony's better colors and quietness, if I thought the VW60 were as sharp as the RS1 I'd go for the Sony. However, I think the RS1 is much sharper. But I don't know for sure. ...

CW is that the VW60 is sharper than the RS1! I suspect that individual unit configurations and variations may also play a role.


see http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...ea+manuti+vw60
HoustonHoyaFan is offline  
post #109 of 112 Old 05-27-2008, 12:07 AM
Member
 
pchemist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 166
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonHoyaFan View Post

CW is that the VW60 is sharper than the RS1! I suspect that individual unit configurations and variations may also play a role.


see http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...ea+manuti+vw60

Interesting -- thanks for the link to that thread. From those pics, the VW60 appears (at least on my monitor) to be noticeably sharper than the RS1. But a few screenshots do not CW make! Can you reference any reviewers that say that VW60 is sharper than the RS1?

I haven't found anywhere that gregr directly compared the two. This is what he said about the RS1 in issue 120 of WSR (in comparison the VW50, i.e., sub-$10k LCoS PJ's) (VW60 had not yet been released):

"The RS1 provided significantly sharper images than other sub-
$10,000 LCoS projectors that I have reviewed [VW50 was reviewed in issue 115]. Images were only
slightly less sharp than the best single-chip 1080p DLP projectors. If
the RS1 projection lens had better color correction, it may have
rivaled those DLP projectors in sharpness."

And this is what he said about the VW60 (vs. the VW50):

"The AccuPel HDG-4000 1080i and 1080p overscan patterns were
displayed with no overscan, but there were 2 to 3 pixels of extremely
faint outlining along vertical lines and edges even when the
Sharpness control was set at minimum. That indicates some slight
edge enhancement is being applied, and hence the 1080i and
1080p signals were not technically “pixel perfect.” However, the outlining
was so faint that it was negligible while watching real images.
The multiburst test pattern demonstrated that the projector
resolves the maximum 1920 pixels-per-picture-width resolution of the
1080i and 1080p video formats with better contrast depth than the
VPL-VW50. The edges of lines and objects were sharper, and the
gaps between the individual 1080p pixels seemed more visible,
which suggests that something more than edge enhancement contributed
to the improved definition."

So it seems he's saying the RS1 is significantly more sharp than the VW50, but that the VW60 is merely somewhat more sharp than the VW50. But that's reading between the lines. Anyone seen gregr make a direct comparison between the two?

But what's not reading between the lines is gregr's statement that, on the RS1, "Images were only
slightly less sharp than the best single-chip 1080p DLP projectors." This means, of course, the best single-chip DLPs that he's seen. But this includes the Marantz VP11S1 (which he reviewed in WSR issue 112) and the $30K Digital Projection dVision 1080p (which he reviewed in WSR issue 109). Here's what he said about the latter projector (so he's saying the RS1 is only "slightly less sharp" than this):

"I can’t think of a superlative to adequately express how clearly and detailed those images were displayed. The dVision 1080p and VIP 1000 rendered the video from the high-definition studio cameras with amazing depth and stunning clarity. Strands of hair, guitar strings, threads in suits and ties—everywhere I looked there was unprecedented clarity. But I was most surprised by the image depth and astonished by the realism that it brought to the screen. There were moments when you could almost believe that you were standing on stage next to the camera, or that you could reach out and feel the texture of the suede on a couch."

That gregr thinks the RS1 is only "slightly less sharp" than what's described above, is pretty compelling, no?

Of course, as you point out, "individual unit configurations and variations may also play a role."
pchemist is offline  
post #110 of 112 Old 05-27-2008, 01:12 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Steve Dodds's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: San Francisco, now Australia
Posts: 2,886
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 17
When I had the VW60 and the RS1 side by side I didn't notice any obvious difference between the two. I'm also not a stickler for color accuracy.

I am, however a sticker for black levels and contrast, and brightness is nice.

The VW60 has slightly better blacks than my RS1 when showing really dark scenes, and slightly better uniformity. The RS1 is obviously brighter and, after living with the VW60's variations in contrast due to the iris, has better contrast.

It's most noticeable on the black bars for 2.35 when I don't mask. The VW60 has considerable fluctuation, the RS1 much less so.
Steve Dodds is offline  
post #111 of 112 Old 06-10-2008, 07:11 PM
Member
 
AKuan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Plano, TX, USA
Posts: 137
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I just got my AEMC CA813 light meter and took some measurements.
My is screen is a Carada BW 118" and projector is set at 14' 7" throw distance.

Brightness and contrast measurements were made using calibrated custom 3 color temp and iris in off mode.

638 Lumens with high lamp mode
398 Lumens with low lamp mode
On/Off Contrast 3050 in high lamp mode
On/Off Contrast 2720 in low lamp mode (163fc/0.05)

I took contrast reading by moving meter close enough to projector to get enough number of digits reading at 0 IRE which read 0.06fc (with some 0.05fc readings) and obtained 183fc at 100 IRE.
The light meter is not sensitive enough to measure 0 IRE level with auto iris engaged even when sensor is pointed just inches away from projector lens.

These are certainly very decent performance numbers.
I always found this projector to be bright and sharp which contradict some of reports about this projector as being not sharp or bright enough.
The lamp hours was 156 when I took these reading.
AKuan is offline  
post #112 of 112 Old 06-10-2008, 07:41 PM
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: 5,375
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 339 Post(s)
Liked: 318
Quote:


But what's not reading between the lines is gregr's statement that, on the RS1, "Images were only
slightly less sharp than the best single-chip 1080p DLP projectors." This means, of course, the best single-chip DLPs that he's seen. But this includes the Marantz VP11S1 (which he reviewed in WSR issue 112) and the $30K Digital Projection dVision 1080p (which he reviewed in WSR issue 109). Here's what he said about the latter projector (so he's saying the RS1 is only "slightly less sharp" than this):

"I can’t think of a superlative to adequately express how clearly and detailed those images were displayed. The dVision 1080p and VIP 1000 rendered the video from the high-definition studio cameras with amazing depth and stunning clarity. Strands of hair, guitar strings, threads in suits and ties—everywhere I looked there was unprecedented clarity. But I was most surprised by the image depth and astonished by the realism that it brought to the screen. There were moments when you could almost believe that you were standing on stage next to the camera, or that you could reach out and feel the texture of the suede on a couch."

I can vouch for that review - my dVision is tack sharp! But having seen the RS1, it has a nice picture too. I didn't think it was " as sharp ", but these days it's really a matter of splitting hairs. It throws a pretty good picture - especially for the price. I really think it has more to do ( for me ) with LCoS having a different look that this long time DLP guy perceives as " less sharp " because it's not as edgy!

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  
Reply Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP

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