AVS Forum banner

JVC 55/65U - needs anamorphic lens or no?

13K views 144 replies 27 participants last post by  Christian Bergh 
#1 ·
I am looking into getting either the JVC 55U or 65U for my new home theater room that is under construction. This is my first journey into the land of projectors, and am a little confused on one thing: do I need an anamorphic (panamorph) lens for the new JVC projector, or no? From what I understand, and please correct me if I am wrong, you can do the 2.35 wide format without it, but it will zoom in and lose brightness? How noticeable is the quality?


I am not against spending an extra bit to get the anamorphic lens, but I'm just wondering if it's worth it. If money was no real issue (hey, we can dream, right?), would you get the separate lens?


Thanks.
 
#77 ·
I have a solution for subtitles for those without the necessary Bluray. Going on the same basic premise as the E-Shift, you pay me to stand next to your projector. During the movie I rapidly move the whole unit up and down such that it appears the titles are in the image.


You only have to sit back, and coordinate your eyes to blink in staggering sequence during each movement. I only charge $150 and hour and I need a bedroom to stay in. I do clean up after myself, though and I can cook and bake. Any takers?
 
#78 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drexler /forum/post/21707607


That has to be the brightness advantage you see. A/B two identical images where one is brighter and everyone will choose the brighter image as being better. A and B with high or low lamp and ask which they prefer. If it's not the brightness, you should be able to photograph a close-up with the same camera settings adjust for brightness and still see a difference.

Im not sure how you know its a "brighness advantage" when you are not in my HT to see the results???


The image is exactly the same brightness to my eyes, with and without the lens in place.


Im not making this up you know!
 
#79 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cam Man /forum/post/21713499


I could find no visible degradation to the image with the A-lens on. When I get the chance again, I want to study if the A-lens provides a benefit of smoothing that last hint of remaining texture left after E-shift.

Well said!

I find when I use my lens it does smooth out the last bits that e-shift doesnt, it makes the image fantastic with the lens in place in conjuction with e-shift turned on.


Let me put it this way:

1. When I zoom the image up for scope, it is great but does take on a "video" look.


2. With the lens in place and e-shift its very smooth and looks much more like the 16:9 image "film"
 
#80 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Highjinx /forum/post/21715037


What is a positive contributor other than brightness in A-Lens use is on/off Cr is maintained between a 16:9 image and a 2.35:1, where as in zooming the on/off CR will be degraded from 16:9 to the larger/wider 2.35:1 image. Is this degradation seen by the human eye.......?

Agreed. I think this is a less talked about advantage of using an A-lens. Essentially you are using a longer throw ratio which results in higher on/off contrast. So the combination of a little more brightness and a little higher on/off could be bringing out more detail compared to zooming.


That said, I'm really enjoying my zoomed RS55 sitting at 1.0xSW. The e-shift images are sharp, smooth and detailed enough that I'm not too worried about what I'm missing with an A-lens. In fact, I sometimes pull up a chair even closer for a more immersive experience. Sure you lose a little sharpness as you get closer, but resolving even more fine detail with no visible pixel structure is very cool.
 
#82 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drexler /forum/post/21712893


An a-lens can never give you more detail or better color or what not.

Who ever said it could? Only you so far. And neither can e-shift.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drexler /forum/post/21712893


What an a-lens can do is:


1) increase brightness

2) reduce the vertical pixel size by 33%.

As explained in detail earlier; brightness gain with a lens will vary with from set up to set up, and isn't always as big a factor as it could be. It might be nice to have, but isn't the main reason people choose a lens.


Another point which negates your claim of brightness being the reason people like A lenses fails again when you consider the set up I mentioned with 3 chip DLP - the owner can not sit in his front row without the lens because he sees pixels and has to move to the back row before the image becomes acceptable. With the A lens in place he can sit closer - by your reckoning the brighter image is all that attracts him, yet the pixels are now no longer as visible so he can sit in the front row. So clearly the reduction in pixel size is the real reason why he needs a lens.


Extra brightness increases SDE visibility, not reduces it.


You've also chosen to ignore my other points about image brightness meaning that according to you people should prefer the brighter 16:9 image in a CIH set up, and therefore would stick with CIW.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drexler /forum/post/21713597


Yes, I also feel it has been regurgitated a couple of times too much. However, from the responses I get I don't feel my points came across. That's why I continued.

Your points came across but unfortunately you seemed to disregard the responses from people with plenty of experience and still say it's a brightness/placebo effect without actually doing any relevant testing yourself. How can you know better than they?


You seem to want a lens to be something that it isn't and will use any argument, real or otherwise to make your point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drexler /forum/post/21713597


Of course! But it's not OK in my book if a newbie comes in and asks if he will will need to buy a lens to get the most out of his RS55 and several people say yes. He might get some benefit from it depending on his setup, but they can't know that. Most likely he wouldn't.

How many people have said yes apart from the one who has actually done the testing?


In your book it seems that it's OK for you to 'give advice' based on no experience and plenty of assumption, but not for those people who have done plenty of testing and give advice based on (in some cases years of) experience.


You're also saying "they can't know that", but you can I suppose? The guy that has done the testing knows better than anyone but you say he's wrong - and you weren't even there!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drexler /forum/post/21713597


I don't trust subjective perception when it goes against science (without blinded tests). But I think I made that statement several times already.

You keep saying that things go against science yet earlier you've already admitted an A lens gives you more pixels per screen area which makes them harder to see, so you're contradicting yourself. That seems like a sound piece of science right there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drexler /forum/post/21713597


It will be interesting to see, but I feel it's more of an academic point - how close can you comfortably view anyways?

SMPTE closest is 2 x screen height which is around where 4K has a benefit. Vertical viewing angle is also an important consideration.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Drexler /forum/post/21713597


I really do believe people think they are getting better images. But I won't take anybody's word for it until they do a blind test where the images have equal brightness and the viewers do not know if they are looking at a zoomed or anamorphically expanded image.

I've already given you a perfect example, but you choose to ignore it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drexler /forum/post/21713597


Why is that? Because there shouldn't be any theoretical difference and I know how easy it is to fool yourself. Even though you are an expert and believe you are completely sincere you are unknowingly biased. This will have an effect on the result - for sure! The only way to avoid this is to do a blind test where you cant tell which of the images is which.

There is a very real practical difference - more pixels. It's not a theory! As for a blind test, when pixels or even SDE is visible from your preferred seating distance it's not hard to spot the difference between the two. Of course, some technologies benefit more than others, but in real terms smaller pixels are are harder to see.


You say I'm an expert, but if you believe that, why are you arguing about it, especially when you have no experience of A lenses?


As for being biased - I don't have a projector set up at the moment so I can make a choice, but when I do, I will go with what will give me the best image and viewing experience in my set up. From experience, I would tend to go for a lens set up and a scope screen from a preferred seating distance, but who knows what will be around next year.


I've seen good and bad lenses over the years, so I don't automatically expect to see an improvement. Test patterns are also a good guide to lens performance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drexler /forum/post/21713597


Just look at the examples with the wine experts. ALL of them rated the more expensive labelled bottle as being superior even though it was the same wine. You expect to see a better image with the lens so you do. Add the brightness difference into the mixture and I am not at all surprised that people "see" image improvements with the lens.

Again you're ignoring the facts that there are real visible differences because the pixels are smaller but keep to your same inaccurate assumptions. You're starting to sound like another troll tbh....


You also assume we're all idiots with no idea or experience and think you're telling us something we didn't know. Which is quite strange coming from someone who doesn't seem to understand what's happening in real terms and hasn't seen any A lenses in order to make an informed contribution other than guessing.


Gary
 
#83 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by 5mark /forum/post/21716228


Agreed. I think this is a less talked about advantage of using an A-lens. Essentially you are using a longer throw ratio which results in higher on/off contrast. So the combination of a little more brightness and a little higher on/off could be bringing out more detail compared to zooming.

From a distance, contrast can give the perception of more sharpness, but from closer distances, the higher res will look sharper.


Not sure if the small amounts here would be that visible though (if extrapolated out it should be larger):

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...si+prismasonic


It would be interesting to see how much the on/off would be in real terms when measuring the likes of the JVCs. Probably a bit more than found in Ansis tests. Maybe we should ask him back for a retest?



Gary
 
#84 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot /forum/post/21710427



As I told you, one JVC owner found that when measuring the lumens of a zoomed image to an A lens, there was no real difference in his set up (long throw) which surprised him, but he preferred the lens to the zoomed image. In his case brightness played no part in what he saw. You keep ignoring that and keep saying it's down to a brightness advantage. It isn't.

Drexler is not ignoring such examples; the point is they do not meet the criteria Drexler keeps bringing up: Blind Testing.


Did that person do a blind (even better, double-blind) test of the lens? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you've said that this person performed a blind test.


Yes Drexler has mentioned that brightness changes will tend to skew preferences to the brighter image. But that's not the only point he's making.


The point Drexler keeps making is that, especially when it comes to a comparison of the E-shift images with/without an A-lens, BARRING brightness advantages (if there is no brightness difference) then theoretically, given the pixel density of a E-shifted image from any normal viewing distance (it's hard to see pixels at all with a nose to the screen!), there is no reason to expect an advantage to making the pixels even smaller via an A-lens.


It is entirely rational to be deeply skeptical of such a claim. (I am).


And at such a point of diminishing returns, if you really want to be careful and rigorous about such a claim, or about finding out if there REALLY is a detectable difference, then blind testing becomes very wise. The fact that brightness is constant between the A-lens and the zoomed image is great, but in no way does that negate the very well known problem of our bias.


Keep everything utterly the same in an audio system, but show an audiophile that you are switching the AC cords or switching speakers cables, and many of them will swear they hear an obvious difference in the sound, despite the theoretical impossibility. Then, do it blind-tested with them, and suddenly they can't tell between the two. Placebo. And all the "experience" an audio professional or audio dealer has in the world does not guard against this bias problem - they'll fall to the same problems (as has been shown a number of times).


And the placebo/bias effect is hardly confined to audio - it happens everywhere - it's a fact of life.


It is great to hear reports from owners trying various things, to be sure. But Drexler's skepticism is, I think, quite warranted and he's not being simply stuffy or recalcitrant for simply pointing out very real problems in how people are going about their comparisons.


One might be tempted to say "Well, great, should we all just stop posting our experiences unless we do nothing but blind testing?"


No. Of course there are many times in which visual differences are going to exist, uncontroversially. Most of the types of visual differences we discuss between products fall well in line with what it expected and possible, given our visual system and the differences in contrast/color/brightness etc of various systems. But when you get into more controversial claims...time to remember our skeptical tools.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot /forum/post/21710427



Placebo suggests people have no clue and are buying something based on hype.

It does no such thing! The differences may be real, someone may have a "clue," or not, or be very experienced with AV equipment. It doesn't matter - the placebo effect doesn't distinguish, we all have to be on guard for it. That's why the most experienced scientists appeal to blind/double-blind protocol.
 
#86 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cam Man /forum/post/21716644


Hey Rich
...


And who would we regard as qualified participants in such a blind test? It really should be professionals from film and video: colorists, cinematographers, maybe even engineers from video projector manufacturers and the like. Joe Six-Pack and his pal, Joe Bagadonuts, and probably most of us are just not going to provide reliable data.

Actually I'm not sure specialists are needed per se, in the same way "golden ears" are not needed in blind audio testing. Often in these threshold tests "regular people" seem to be fine. You don't even have to express the difference you see; you only have to reliably detect "A" over "B" in blind testing to suggest there are detectable differences.


I can think of some reasons why someone experienced in looking for artifacts may be better than a regular person. But, as in scientifically controlled audio blind testing, often there is a period of "training" of the subject, and testing, to see if they can first reliably pick up subtle differences that "really exist" (are there technically, and expected to be detectable), and then it's on to the specific comparison being tested.


So...I dunno for sure...


I used to review audio gear and after a while I started employing some blind and double-blind testing. It was very sobering. Utterly obvious sonic differences (so I thought) would sometimes disappear utterly when I didn't know which product was which. I chose only to review loudspeakers as there was quite well known, well studied, uncontroversial, gross differences (objectively and subjectively) between speakers. I didn't have the heart to review cables and perhaps have people spending money because I simply thought I heard differences that were likely not there.


So I'm naturally cautious about threshold-level claims and I like to become more careful.


That's why I gave the caveats when I reported what I see comparing the E-shift effects. I'm not 100 percent sure I would still see them in more rigorous testing, and I'm still not sure what to attribute to the "more solid look" I seem to see. (Could be some effects of processing used to upscale, differences in contrast etc).


Cheers!
 
#87 ·
BTW,


(A reminder that I have a 130" wide, 67" tall screen, viewed from about 10 feet, and I vary my image size to taste with 4 way masking...)


I'm still fascinated by the "closer-is-better" school of thought that so many people seem to be engaging in, especially with the new JVC and Sony projectors. For me, pixel visibility and density is typically much less of an issue than source limitations - the variability of the clarity and detail between various HD sources. I'm not finding E-shift per se some paradigm-changing addition in terms of pixel smoothness and viewing angle, because enlarging the image still has the issue of enlarging any and all defects in the source material. Even a lot of HD material, I find, really starts to suffer (looking softer, less dense, less contrasty, less smooth in terms of noticing digital and analog artifacts, etc). A denser pixel structure does nothing to help these issues, IMO. So I'm not necessarily making my images bigger due to the E-shift.


What DOES seem to make me more happy with bigger images is the apparently more punchy contrast of the RS55 over my RS20. As I enlarged images on my RS20 I tended to note a drop in image tightness and contrast. But the RS55 maintains better contrast, richness and dimensionality at larger image sizes.


1080p is excellent at it's best, but I find myself quite aware of it's limitations as well, and not only on my projection set up. Standing near flat screens I often find myself noting that, yeah its clear, but there are still lots of details that just aren't being rendered in the 1080p resolution. The industry moving to 4K may be a bit of a pipe dream at this time, but I would certainly welcome higher resolution.
 
#88 ·
Well, you might have something there. It would be interesting to test both groups of people, but really make the tests comprehensive testing many times so that you arrive at good data.


On your closer is better chat...and back to my question about thoughts on the RS55, and A-lens (or not), and an AT screen. We are seeing the new "4K" AT screens arriving. It seems to me that this is uniquely a home theater phenom...and because we not only don't want to have 4k moire, but because people are going to sit closer and closer, and therefore be close enough to start to see weave or microperfs by the time we would see artifacts. I suspect that the folks who want to use an AT screen will be able to do fine with a number of 2K screens if their rooms and screens are bigger, and their sitting distance farther. I'm hoping that some folks with all these variables will post their experiences and impressions.
 
#89 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cam Man /forum/post/21717308


On your closer is better chat...and back to my question about thoughts on the RS55, and A-lens (or not), and an AT screen. We are seeing the new "4K" AT screens arriving. It seems to me that this is uniquely a home theater phenom...and because we not only don't want to have 4k moire, but because people are going to sit closer and closer, and therefore be close enough to start to see weave or microperfs by the time we would see artifacts. I suspect that the folks who want to use an AT screen will be able to do fine with a number of 2K screens if their rooms and screens are bigger, and their sitting distance farther. I'm hoping that some folks with all these variables will post their experiences and impressions.

I'm using a 140" AT scope screen (not 4K) with the RS65 and a Schneider A lens. I have three rows of four seats, the front row is 10ft from the screen, and I see no moiré, weave, holes, or artifacts from the front row. In fact it is the row with the best image for detail with E-shift turned on and the "A" lens in place, yet the best row still is the one behind (middle row) for sound.


My screen fabric is turned 30deg to the frame, this eliminates any moiré. I have been told by a screen manufacturer who makes 4K AT screens that they are really not a necessity when using a 4K projector.


I don't know what the Sony may look like in this situation, but if you do see the pixels on that machine I'm still sure they are too small to see at 10ft.
 
#90 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by RapalloAV /forum/post/21717491


I'm using a 140" AT scope screen (not 4K) with the RS65 and a Schneider A lens. I have three rows of four seats, the front row is 10ft from the screen, and I see no moiré, weave, holes, or artifacts from the front row. In fact it is the row with the best image for detail with E-shift turned on and the "A" lens in place, yet the best row still is the one behind (middle row) for sound.


My screen fabric is turned 30deg to the frame, this eliminates any moiré. I have been told by a screen manufacturer who makes 4K AT screens that they are really not a necessity when using a 4K projector.


I don't know what the Sony may look like in this situation, but if you do see the pixels on that machine I'm still sure they are too small to see at 10ft.

Sounds like an awesome theater. Thanks for the sharing the specifics and your impressions.
 
#91 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cam Man /forum/post/21715500


Would you consider what E-shift is doing the same; a negative? Just curious what people think about this subject.

No I don't. What E-Shift appears to be doing is shifting things diagonally and adding more pixels to the same overall area, it's not softening the pixels, just making them appear smaller.....but because the pixels are constantly moving they dissapear, like fan blades in motion. However the image they carry linger.


It will be interesting to see how the image looks with a true 4k input with each frame displayed with two rapid flashes, JVC does this with one of their 8k units.

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rc...xL2yqWAdtfHJaw
 
#93 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness /forum/post/21716451


Drexler is not ignoring such examples; the point is they do not meet the criteria Drexler keeps bringing up: Blind Testing.


Did that person do a blind (even better, double-blind) test of the lens? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you've said that this person performed a blind test.

I'm not sure. I do know that he was zooming and bought a second hand ISCO II just to see what the effect was. He intended to sell it on afterwards because he didn't think it would make a difference but instead found that it did. He was sceptical and thought he'd be selling the lens on. In his case he was biased the other way so would have been looking at a reason to not want to keep it.


Unfortunately people don't tend to do blind testing when the results seem pretty conclusive.


If you don't know what to look for you won't necessarily see the difference. 4:2:0 vs 4:4:4 can be difficult to see for example. Poor scaling, poor contrast/brightness settings are another. There are plenty of others. If you're Joe Public you're likely to not know but most people here can spot stuff like that quite quickly.


I was at an event where a JVC and a Titan 3 chip DLP were on view in separate dedicated rooms, and both were using A lenses. The Titan had less contrast capability than the JVC but I could see the blacks were crushed. I asked the guy hosting the event if that was deliberate to give the impression of more contrast to compete with the JVC but ended up getting balled out, with him talking about below black and completely missing the point. I didn't reply back because, as a guest, I didn't want to have a public argue at such an event. Later, when we were back in the room, he then pointed out that I had spotted that the source player was set at the wrong settings (PC/Video) and changed it back. VoilÃ*, black detail was restored. The point I'm making is that Joe Bloggs probably wouldn't have seen that. Even the guy from the company didn't, so I think from an experience point of view, I'm not exactly clueless.


Just because a double blind test isn't done, doesn't mean the results aren't visible. Sometimes the results are so obvious that blind testing isn't required. I give Art Sonneborns CIH set up with 3 chip DLP as an example and that he can see pixels in his preferred seating position if he zooms, but with a lens he rarely sees them except in very bright scenes (he's at 2 x SH). In a blind test that would be very obvious wouldn't you say?


If there were two identically proportioned cars in front of you, and one was 4 feet tall, and the other 6 feet tall, do you think you might be able to tell which was which, even in a double blind test?


When I used a 720 pj, I had exactly the same problem. I went from a 7ft wide 16:9 screen to an 8ft wide 2.35 screen and I zoomed. If I sat at the same seating distance ratio for scope (3 x SH) I could see pixels/SDE and the image became very chunky looking. I tried defocussing a little but that didn't work, it just made the image softer and look out of focus. I then looked at getting an A lens. The first one (borrowed) was a very basic prism lens and made the image soft. Knowing there were better lenses out there, I then bought a Prismasonic lens with anti CA and coated lenses and a 14 day returns policy should it not work for me. That was much better lens, so I kept it. If it wasn't, I would have got my money back. I did plenty of testing to make sure but the benefits were very obvious - I no longer saw pixels/SDE at 3 x SH. A few months later a used ISCO II came up on this forum and out of interest I bought it, just to compare. I didn't think it would make a difference but with testing, initially using test patterns, it was obviously sharper, and that was unexpected to me at the time. It was harder to tell with moving images but it was still perceptible. I then sold the Prismasonic.


Of course with 1080 and smaller pixels, the need for a lens would be less, but Art still needs a lens or he couldn't sit in the front row of his theatre. I bet he would easily pass a double blind test. You'll have to ask him.


All anecdotal I know, but 1080 vs 817 pixels is a very different physical difference wouldn't you say?


Now, you might say I didn't do blind testing, but the difference between zooming and a lens was so obvious it it wasn't necessary. Between a Prismasonic and an ISCO I agree it would be interesting to do the blind testing with moving images (because test pattern comparisons were obvious), but I think people here would still manage to tell the difference. I wonder if GetGrey (Scott) could do something like that for us?


Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness /forum/post/21716451


Yes Drexler has mentioned that brightness changes will tend to skew preferences to the brighter image. But that's not the only point he's making.

Well it is, he keeps saying its brightness and placebo, ignores the extra pixels and says it defies physics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness /forum/post/21716451


The point Drexler keeps making is that, especially when it comes to a comparison of the E-shift images with/without an A-lens, BARRING brightness advantages (if there is no brightness difference) then theoretically, given the pixel density of a E-shifted image from any normal viewing distance (it's hard to see pixels at all with a nose to the screen!), there is no reason to expect an advantage to making the pixels even smaller via an A-lens.

I'm sceptical because you still have to zoom them 33% larger for CIH. I tend to think that if you zoom something 33% larger, it physically gets bigger. What do you think?


It's also quite possible that e-shift it works very well and it nullifies the use of an A lens but when I hopefully get the kit for my room next year, I'll know for sure.


Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness /forum/post/21716451


It is entirely rational to be deeply skeptical of such a claim. (I am).

That wasn't his point. The point I'm addressing is that it's not brightness or placebo, it's pixel density.


And I'm always sceptical.


I've seen it said that we can only see something like 200:1 contrast 'at once', but I did some testing to prove otherwise (was a few years back and I posted it here because I wanted to see other peoples input).


The advantage of an A lens is the extra pixels you can use to keep pixel size smaller than zooming would allow. In theory an e-shift image should be able to do without the need for an A lens since it's doing something similar by rapidly shifting the panel to replicate having more pixels which by overlapping appear smaller. Where the sceptic in me comes out is that you still have to make the pixels 33% larger to zoom for CIH, and I'm curious to see how visible that is when zooming. If it is, then an A lens may still be necessary. I've not been able to test that for myself, but it's something I'm curious about.


Not everyone believes marketing hype until they've proved it to themselves. However, by all accounts e-shift seems to work very well indeed. I'd still like to see it and do some testing vs an A lens. Someone here already has but some people don't want to believe him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness /forum/post/21716451


And at such a point of diminishing returns, if you really want to be careful and rigorous about such a claim, or about finding out if there REALLY is a detectable difference, then blind testing becomes very wise. The fact that brightness is constant between the A-lens and the zoomed image is great, but in no way does that negate the very well known problem of our bias.

I agree that blind testing is sometimes completely necessary, especially when there are no means to test the claim (audio cables, power leads etc). With video it's easier to see differences when you know what to look for, but you must be aware of the placebo effect. As you say, it's a very real issue. Like I said before, I misread a magazine article and almost convinced myself I was seeing what I thought I should be seeing, but I wasn't convinced. After re-reading the article and slapping myself on the forehead (I misread a word), I now make a point of not believing anything until I've seen it for myself. A lenses included.


A Sony rep told us at a demo once how good the scaling was of one of the top end amps that was being used as a video switch (like many do), but I quickly started noticing glitches here and there. If I wasn't sceptical, I'd have believed him and seen what he told me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness /forum/post/21716451


Keep everything utterly the same in an audio system, but show an audiophile that you are switching the AC cords or switching speakers cables, and many of them will swear they hear an obvious difference in the sound, despite the theoretical impossibility. Then, do it blind-tested with them, and suddenly they can't tell between the two. Placebo. And all the "experience" an audio professional or audio dealer has in the world does not guard against this bias problem - they'll fall to the same problems (as has been shown a number of times).

Yup, seen it so many times now it's funny. Same thing for power leads. I tried those as well but I can't hear a difference.


Many years ago I bought some new speakers for my old cinema room and thought I'd try them in my lounge, temporarily replacing the existing ones. I tried a movie I was used to and thought I was hearing things I'd not heard before. I then tried the old speakers back and found I could hear all those sounds I thought I hadn't heard before. So the new speakers weren't reproducing anything the old speakers weren't, it's just what I thought I would hear. I wonder how many people buy new speakers and swear they hear more detail but don't recheck the old ones.


The trouble with audio is that it's very hard to know what we're hearing is true or not. With video, it's less difficult but still subject to error so we have to make sure, by testing, that we're seeing what we think we're seeing. I agree that blind testing is good if you're not sure.

Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness /forum/post/21716451


And the placebo/bias effect is hardly confined to audio - it happens everywhere - it's a fact of life.

Absolutely, and something I'm more than aware of from experience.

Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness /forum/post/21716451


It is great to hear reports from owners trying various things, to be sure. But Drexler's skepticism is, I think, quite warranted and he's not being simply stuffy or recalcitrant for simply pointing out very real problems in how people are going about their comparisons.


One might be tempted to say "Well, great, should we all just stop posting our experiences unless we do nothing but blind testing?"


No. Of course there are many times in which visual differences are going to exist, uncontroversially. Most of the types of visual differences we discuss between products fall well in line with what it expected and possible, given our visual system and the differences in contrast/color/brightness etc of various systems. But when you get into more controversial claims...time to remember our skeptical tools.

Yup, and I'm more sceptical than yourself since you were convinced of the e-shift hype before you'd seen it and were arguing how it would replace A lenses (which it might, but I pointed out to you that it still doesn't get away from the 33% increase in the 1080 pixels that are being shifted). I remember saying to you even then that until we'd seen it and tested the differences, it wasn't a foregone conclusion that it would replace an A lens (it might for many people though). I think I'm pretty sceptical nowadays of any claims and I like to see for myself. I think I said that many times.


Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness /forum/post/21716451


It does no such thing! The differences may be real, someone may have a "clue," or not, or be very experienced with AV equipment. It doesn't matter - the placebo effect doesn't distinguish, we all have to be on guard for it. That's why the most experienced scientists appeal to blind/double-blind protocol.

To suggest that everyone is unaware and falling for the placebo effect isn't an accurate assumption either, and it does reduce with awareness. Especially if we question a lot of what is going on with the technology and the claims that are being made about it.


Placebo only really works if you're told or expect a difference and believe that's what you're going to get. If you're not told that or don't believe it and need proof, then placebo doesn't have any real effect.


Don't forget that Placebo was originally a medical ploy to tell patients their treatment would make them better (usually an inert pill used as a control with other patients given a genuine pill that would give medical treatment). If you told a patient that they were given an inert pill, they would expect no difference and have no psychological or even physiological improvements.


Gary
 
#94 ·
One thing not mentioned here, and one of the things I personally strongly prefer and would find hard to live without is this. Speed, accuracy and repeatablity of aspect changes. My system changes from 1.78 to 2.35 in one second. It is perfect every time. There is not fiddling with zoom, focus or shift when an auto mechanism gets it a little wrong. Ever. Always 100% perfect, almost instant aspect changes. Over and over, as many as needed, one button press on my programmable remote.


Typical scenario, BRD with 1.78 trailers, press Lens off, one second, I'm at 1.78. Next trailer in 2.35, press lens off, one second, I have 2.35. Menu starts. The boneheads that encode these things never match the menus to the movie aspect, so it's in 1.78 and you can't see the menu options. Guess what? One button press, 1 second, I can see the menu selection items that were previously pushed off the bottom of the screen. I choose my menu option. press 2.35 button and I'm back to cinemascope, one second. No waiting on anything to zoom, shift and refocus.


Another common example, middle of movie I have to "take a break". Press pause. Again, encoders encoded all the pause graphics in the black bar area so you can't see them. Press 1.78, poof I am back to 1.78, can see the pause graphics, tell how much time is left on movie, etc. No waiting on unzoom, unshift and refocus. (Some people even program their remotes to issue a lens off command when a pause command is sent).


Want to go back to main menu and pick a different scene? Almost always in the black bar area.


You get the point. After having had the convenience of almost instant aspect changes, without losing a single pixel to alternative ways of doing same, I could never go back.
 
#95 ·
(Just a note: we tend to be using the "Placebo effect" as a catch-all for various biase effects - expectation bias, distinction bias etc)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot /forum/post/21720800



Just because a double blind test isn't done, doesn't mean the results aren't visible. Sometimes the results are so obvious that blind testing isn't required.

First: The bias/placebo effect very often results in the subject thinking "the difference is so obvious no blind testing is needed." That's what almost all the audiophiles who trumpet about the different sound of AC and speaker cables say. So the mere claim of obviousness is not good enough when we are talking about true threshold (limits of our perception) differences.


Ad we're not talking about instances in which differences are so obvious (and expected within what we know about human visual perception), that no blind testing is needed. Again, we are talking about seeing things - pixel size/visibility reduced even more than provided by E-shift - that would seem to be on the threshold of our perception. With your nose to the screen, pixels are essentially gone with E-shift. The claim that reducing the pixel size/increasing pixel density would make a visual difference (given the same source) is therefore made quite dubious.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot /forum/post/21720800



Well it is, he keeps saying its brightness and placebo, ignores the extra pixels and says it defies physics.

No, he's not saying it IS placebo effect; he's saying it COULD be placebo, and without having taken steps to ensure it is not it's wise to not just take people's word for it. He (and I) have made that distinction a number of times. Drexler and I have never "ignored" the idea of extra pixels; just the opposite, the contention has been that it is DUBIOUS that extra pixels (via A-lens/processing) will make a visible difference from straight E-shift.


I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand this position.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot /forum/post/21720800



I'm sceptical because you still have to zoom them 33% larger for CIH. I tend to think that if you zoom something 33% larger, it physically gets bigger. What do you think?

But if you then chop those pixels into smaller pieces, resulting in 4 times the number of pixels in place of the original larger pixel, then no, you haven't made them larger, you've made them smaller.


In fact, you've made them smaller than you would have if you'd used an A-lens/anamorphic processing instead of E-shift!


I'm baffled why you seem to keep ignoring this.
(And ignoring it is precisely what your question above does).


Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot /forum/post/21720800


It's also quite possible that e-shift it works very well and it nullifies the use of an A lens but when I hopefully get the kit for my room next year, I'll know for sure.

So you seem happy to voice your caution and skepticism about E-shift, not having used it, but you have a problem with others who might have skepticism about an A-lens over E-shift, not having an A-lens. (Though, Drexler I believe has used an A-lens, and I've seen plenty of A-lenses, including on my own projector, in various locations).



Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot /forum/post/21720800



Yup, and I'm more sceptical than yourself since you were convinced of the e-shift hype before you'd seen it and were arguing how it would replace A lenses (which it might, but I pointed out to you that it still doesn't get away from the 33% increase in the 1080 pixels that are being shifted).

That misrepresents my attitude in those previous threads, presenting me as being sold-by-hype and incautiously leaping to conclusions. Which is wrong. I was constantly re-asserting caveats, saying IF the E-shift technology works as advertised and IF initial eye-witness reports supporting that it did work were true, THEN it may be that one advantage purported for A-lenses - reducing pixel visibility/increasing pixel density, can be had using the JVC E-shift. And I NEVER said E-shift would replace A-lenses, as I pointed out advantages some may still find with an A-lens (e.g. possible increase in brightness/greater convenience).


I didn't just jump on the bandwagon proclaiming it fact. And look at my posts on my JVC RS55: Even OWNING the unit and playing with it's E-shift, I remain cautious and skeptical about my own observations. So, please don't try to paint me as someone incautiously won over by hype.


As it turns out, it seems those initial eye-witness reports were on the money: pixel visibility essentially disappears with the E-shift.


Further, here you are still repeating the "but it makes 1080 pixels bigger" line, and for some reason never taking in that simply doesn't represent what E-shift is actually doing. E-shift doesn't leave those pixels that size - E-shift ends up MAKING VISIBLY MORE, SMALLER PIXELS from those 1080 pixels. It's a physical fact of the technology. What is so hard to understand about that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot /forum/post/21720800



Placebo only really works if you're told or expect a difference and believe that's what you're going to get. If you're not told that or don't believe it and need proof, then placebo doesn't have any real effect.


Gary

That's a misunderstanding of the placebo effect (and here I'm talking about placebo/bias/expectation effects that plague our perception).


You don't need to expect a difference or be told there is a difference per se.

You can go into a test having NO EXPECTATIONS of perceiving any differences between A and B. But you will often experience them anyway (taking, again, for example differences between wires). Because we are wired to look for differences, to think we perceive them. It just naturally happens when you start trying to see IF you can perceive a difference between A and B. You'll naturally do it, even if A and B are the same.


The misunderstanding you just gave is very often used by audiophiles to justify hearing sonic differences between amplifiers, cables etc. It's one of the most common retorts "Look, I wasn't even EXPECTING to hear a difference between the two, but I did, so it wasn't the placebo effect." That is just to be ignorant of how our perception and bias works: even when you aren't expecting differences, often you'll think you perceive them, hence...blind and double-blind testing is employed when we are at our most careful on these issues.


(I fell for this problem myself. I was deeply skeptical about the claims for AC cables making an audible difference in audio systems. I received a selection of expensive AC cables from probably the most lauded-of-the-time audiophile AC cable manufacturer, ranging in price from about $300/cable to about $3,000 per AC cable. I EXPECTED I'd hear no difference. And I didn't hear a difference with most of the AC cables supplied. Until I put in the most expensive cable. Then it seemed to me my system had changed it's sonic character quite obviously, becoming smoother but "rolled off and darker." It was so "obvious" it didn't seem to need blind testing. And since I didn't go into this with expectations of hearing any difference, I could have thought that the bias effect wasn't in play. But then I blind tested it against a standard $15 military grade AC cable and, guess what? Need I tell you the results and whether I could tell which was which any more?)
 
#97 ·
Well, it (in Rich's case) could very well be placebo - or a new bulb making the difference. However, he's not making a controversial claim. JVC has upped its contrast and brightness between the two models within what should be visible to the naked eye.


The improvement an a-lens can make to an e-shifted image is another thing entirely. You have an image that zoomed out to 2.35:1 has a pixel structure that is so fine that it can't be perceived even if you sit uncomfortably close. Then you add an a-lens to the mix to increase the vertical pixel count of the already invisible pixels by another 33% and claims it visibly improves the image quality.


Why is it so hard to see why we are skeptical about this claim? Especially since we know how bias and brightness can skew results and that no steps were taken to remove these potential error sources from the comparison.
 
#98 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cam Man /forum/post/21717638


Sounds like an awesome theater. Thanks for the sharing the specifics and your impressions.

The cinema was completed about 2 months ago, the build took almost 12 months, take a look at the CIH scope screen. Auto masking for 4:3, 16:9 and scope.

 
#99 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by GetGray /forum/post/21723518


One thing not mentioned here, and one of the things I personally strongly prefer and would find hard to live without is this. Speed, accuracy and repeatablity of aspect changes. My system changes from 1.78 to 2.35 in one second. It is perfect every time. There is not fiddling with zoom, focus or shift when an auto mechanism gets it a little wrong. Ever. Always 100% perfect, almost instant aspect changes. Over and over, as many as needed, one button press on my programmable remote.


Typical scenario, BRD with 1.78 trailers, press Lens off, one second, I'm at 1.78. Next trailer in 2.35, press lens off, one second, I have 2.35. Menu starts. The boneheads that encode these things never match the menus to the movie aspect, so it's in 1.78 and you can't see the menu options. Guess what? One button press, 1 second, I can see the menu selection items that were previously pushed off the bottom of the screen. I choose my menu option. press 2.35 button and I'm back to cinemascope, one second. No waiting on anything to zoom, shift and refocus.


Another common example, middle of movie I have to "take a break". Press pause. Again, encoders encoded all the pause graphics in the black bar area so you can't see them. Press 1.78, poof I am back to 1.78, can see the pause graphics, tell how much time is left on movie, etc. No waiting on unzoom, unshift and refocus. (Some people even program their remotes to issue a lens off command when a pause command is sent).


Want to go back to main menu and pick a different scene? Almost always in the black bar area.


You get the point. After having had the convenience of almost instant aspect changes, without losing a single pixel to alternative ways of doing same, I could never go back.

BINGO!

You said it perfectly Getgrey, I would hate to go back to those old days without my lens. 1sec and it all happens perfectly and acurate, all the ratios I want, black masking and all. I used lens memory for years on the Panasonics, its a great trick but there are better options if you want to take scope further.
 
#101 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by GetGray /forum/post/21723518


One thing not mentioned here, and one of the things I personally strongly prefer and would find hard to live without is this. Speed, accuracy and repeatablity of aspect changes. My system changes from 1.78 to 2.35 in one second. It is perfect every time. There is not fiddling with zoom, focus or shift when an auto mechanism gets it a little wrong. Ever. Always 100% perfect, almost instant aspect changes. Over and over, as many as needed, one button press on my programmable remote.

That's completely understandable, given your criteria, and that is a nice advantage for those who do CIH systems.


On the other end: Having lived with the ability to zoom an image easily to any size my heart desires, always perfectly masked, I could never settle for the limitations of a fixed width or fixed image height system.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top