or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP › First Pics from the new JVC HD 350/JV HD 750 and specifications
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

First Pics from the new JVC HD 350/JV HD 750 and specifications - Page 85

post #2521 of 3703
"I'd done separate comparisons: I'd played with the JVC on it's own, in it's own dedicated projection room."

I forgot about that. The mystery remains.

"Side by side is dream comparison, anything less lends a little guesswork...So I disagree somewhat with your statement."

As do many others, but IMO the reasoning is flawed, unless you intend to always run two pj's side by side.

The problem is that the perceived difference is not there in isolated viewing.

Try the comparison I suggested; it doesn't need to be a HP, any gain screen compared to a matte screen sample will work.

It's like when you put one hand in hot water, the other in cold water, and then both in room temp water.

One hand tells you it's cold, the other tells you it's hot, and they're both wrong.
post #2522 of 3703
[quote=noah katz;14961784
The problem is that the perceived difference is not there in isolated viewing.
[/QUOTE]
Just to expand on this a bit, the brighter pj makes your pupils clamp down, reducing the perceived brightness of the less bright pj. If you allow your pupils to open up by viewing the less bright pj in isolation, it will look much the same as the brighter one... but only to a point.
post #2523 of 3703
Maybe the RS 2 has been running for 12 hours a day for 10-12 months,(1000's of hours V/S the other pj with a couple hundred hours with a new calibration. Or like someone said "focus v/s soft focus? I don't know.My wife,son in-law and I saw the HD100 with a panamorph on a steward 130,130inches wide curved with power mask (145 hours on the bulb) in Seattle last winter with JVC engineer/designer Alex K. from Japan.We spent an hour plus with many Blu-rays(each of witch I have bought since!)with a PS3, from Tony Bennet's birthday to live free or die whatever and even Viva lost wages with the king of R&R..Each BR looked great sharp,brite enough,great contrast ratio the only hold up was how much output would it have at 1000 plus hours on the bulb? So I'm in on the first-wave pre-order with a smaller sized 120" wide smx "AT" curved (hopefully) with a panamorph or used ISCO III. I have no doubts that the RS20 will fill my needs with the new improvements( it is a totally new machine from the RS2\\HD100,just look at its shape) Alex kept talking about the importance of a pj's light-path. I can't wait... THANKS Jason T. AVS!!!!Alex liked my questions, thanks to all my fellow avs' ers.
post #2524 of 3703
Side by side demos can be both enlightening and deceiving. It's hard for the eye not to be drawn to the brighter image. But in isolation and over a larger variety of source material, the display with the bright image may actually disappoint more than the display with the dimmer image (so long as the dim image isn't too dim, but only seems dim when compared to the super bright image).

If you know what to you are looking for and use the appropriate image tests, then side by side comparisons can move more into the "helpful" column rather than the "deceiving" column.

For instance, I have compared plasma to LCD flat panels more times than I care to remember. Side by side comparisons under controlled lighting conditions, using a range of source material was always enlightening. Often an LCD would be blaringly bright and look punchier with daylight scenes, especially if the room lighting was brighter. But with room lights controlled and dimmed - my preferred way to watch movies - on darker scenes the preference would actually go to the plasma which did much deeper black levels. In darker scenes it was the LCD that looked flat and washed out, whereas the plasma looked punchier and sharper. What was revealed in side-by-side comparison was brought home especially when viewing the screens in isolation.

When not compared directly to the plasma, the LCD looked great in bright scenes, but
the deficiency in darker scenes were readily apparent and intrusive, even without a plasma to compare it with.

Whereas, without a super-bright LCD on beside it, the plasma looked plenty bright and fully satisfying, but unlike the LCD it also continued to look great throughout dark scenes too. So I realised that since I'd be viewing whatever screen I chose in isolation at home, it made sense to choose the display that looked great across most material when viewed on it's own, vs a display that looked great only in bright scenes.

I have the same attitude for projectors and screens: I'm trying to choose the projector/screen combo that, in isolation, will give me an excellent impression over a broad range of source material, not one that looks great on some stuff but whose limitations will be readily apparent even without direct comparison to another set up.

It seems these criteria can be fairly subjective. I'm one of those who notices a lack of decent black levels as robbing an image of any convincing quality. So a display that does good black levels but isn't blazingly bright is overall more convincing and rewarding to me. Whereas some others find if an image isn't really bright that is what pulls them out of the experience, and they are less bothered by raised black levels.
post #2525 of 3703
Something else that might be going on...

The other projectors have an exaggerated luminance curve which causes them to reproduce mid range APL scenes brighter than the more natural luminance curve offered by the JVC's greater native contrast dynamics.

The other projectors have proper LOW APL and HIGH APL reproduction, but somewhere in the middle there is compression of the luminance range, squeezed to fit their shallower dynamics. Kinda like the compression used for broadcast radio. You can't go above or below certain signal levels, but everything in between is subject to aesthetic manipulation, and there is great art in the compression. Thus the viewer, like the radio listener, might believe they are experiencing a better performance when they are really being cheated out of the full dynamic range of the source programming.



Just a thought.
post #2526 of 3703
From what Rich is saying, the Epson is worth a look before making the plunge on a RS20, especially if the projector has to drive a larger screen.
post #2527 of 3703
Which Epson model you guys talking about?
post #2528 of 3703
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Dallas View Post

Which Epson model you guys talking about?

The one Rich has seen and was impressed with is the 1080 UB
post #2529 of 3703
Rich,

I think you're jumping the gun here . We're in the hype stage of the rs20 life cycle. Give it 2 months and the commuity will rip it apart.
post #2530 of 3703
I haven't kept up with the Epson posts in this thread, but I'm skeptical to say the least that it can compete with an RS20. It has native contrast of something like 4,000:1 but a dynamic contrast of 50,000:1. That's a lot of dynamic range to try and squeeze out of a relatively low native which would lead me to believe that a person could spot the artifacts (BC and inconsistent black levels).

A side by side demo would be a good test. It would be pretty easy to ignore the brightness differences between the two and eyeball just the intra-image contrast differences. In other words look at the darkest parts of each scene and then compare it to the brightest part of the same scene. The huge native contrast of the RS series is what gives it so much depth in dark scenes. Not all dark scenes but contrasty scenes that contain small amounts of bright material. An example might be light reflecting off of perspiration on an actors forehead in a dark tunnel for example.

If there are any AVS'ers in the SoCal area that have an Epson I'd love to host a shootout with the RS20. So please PM me if you have one and are interested.
post #2531 of 3703
Quote:
Originally Posted by rabident View Post

Rich,

I think you're jumping the gun here . We're in the hype stage of the rs20 life cycle. Give it 2 months and the commuity will rip it apart.

How true. It takes at least a few weeks of heavy use to really setup and get to know a new projector. It's after those first few weeks that all of the flaws start to become obvious and once seen you'll see them often after that.
post #2532 of 3703
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Petersen View Post


A side by side demo would be a good test. It would be pretty easy to ignore the brightness differences between the two and eyeball just the intra-image contrast differences. In other words look at the darkest parts of each scene and then compare it to the brightest part of the same scene. The huge native contrast of the RS series is what gives it so much depth in dark scenes. Not all dark scenes but contrasty scenes that contain small amounts of bright material. An example might be light reflecting off of perspiration on an actors forehead in a dark tunnel for example.

That's what freaked me out. I'd just come from demoing the RS2, playing with the picture controls to get as dimensional an image as I could get. The RS2 looked "ok" in bright scenes, although somewhat lacking in punch an apparent contrast, but it looked terrific in those scenes that are supposed to be it's strength, for instance night scenes from the Transformers Blu ray, and in I Am Legend the very dynamic looking flash-back scenes to W. Smith evaculating his family in the helicoptor. Terrific scenes for showing off a native high contrast. And they did look quite dynamic on the RS2.

So I was taken aback to view the Epson/Firehawk combo directly afterword
and see what looked like an even more dynamic image, on the same scenes in Transformers, in all the ways that the RS2 should have looked better.
All the light beams swishing through the night air, the helicopter search lights, the brilliant shining metal of the robots, any lights cutting through the darkness...all looked stupendous on the Epson. I'd never have guessed if I didn't know it that the Epson had less native contrast than the RS2.

And as mentioned, the same held for the RS2 projecting in the same room next to the Epson. Even on the Panasonic in the same room there was a brilliance and contrast to how light sources cut through dark areas that looked more dynamic than the RS2 in that room.

Still, I wish I could do a truly controlled side by side. Jason, who has experience with both the RS2 and the Epson said there's no way he thinks the Epson is better than the RS2.

Anyway, that's enough o' that I figure....
post #2533 of 3703
Isnt the epson 7500 the new model? The rs20 needs to be compared to that one or which ever is the latest from them along with the Panny 3000, and the rs10 for that matter.
post #2534 of 3703
Quote:
Originally Posted by kutlow View Post

Isnt the epson 7500 the new model? The rs20 needs to be compared to that one or which ever is the latest from them along with the Panny 3000, and the rs10 for that matter.


Here it is.
http://www.hemagazine.com/node/epson...cinema_7500_UB
post #2535 of 3703
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

That's what freaked me out. I'd just come from demoing the RS2, playing with the picture controls to get as dimensional an image as I could get. The RS2 looked "ok" in bright scenes, although somewhat lacking in punch an apparent contrast, but it looked terrific in those scenes that are supposed to be it's strength, for instance night scenes from the Transformers Blu ray, and in I Am Legend the very dynamic looking flash-back scenes to W. Smith evaculating his family in the helicoptor. Terrific scenes for showing off a native high contrast. And they did look quite dynamic on the RS2.

So I was taken aback to view the Epson/Firehawk combo directly afterword
and see what looked like an even more dynamic image, on the same scenes in Transformers, in all the ways that the RS2 should have looked better.
All the light beams swishing through the night air, the helicopter search lights, the brilliant shining metal of the robots, any lights cutting through the darkness...all looked stupendous on the Epson. I'd never have guessed if I didn't know it that the Epson had less native contrast than the RS2.

And as mentioned, the same held for the RS2 projecting in the same room next to the Epson. Even on the Panasonic in the same room there was a brilliance and contrast to how light sources cut through dark areas that looked more dynamic than the RS2 in that room.

Still, I wish I could do a truly controlled side by side. Jason, who has experience with both the RS2 and the Epson said there's no way he thinks the Epson is better than the RS2.

Anyway, that's enough o' that I figure....

Interesting thoughts. I have to think that there was something going on with the RS20 setup. Also you mentioned viewing "I Am Legend" which is a terrible movie as far as gauging dark content (the black level is raised throughout most of the movie which is very noticeable even on my RS1). With the right low APL content the difference between the two projectors should be night and day. In bright scenes I have a hard time differentiating between most projectors. Overall imho, it's the dark scene performance of the RS2 and RS20 that justifies the price premium.

But like I said, I'm very intrigued by your comments and would like to audition the Epson. I've spent very little time with LCD projectors in general because they are only now getting the performance up to compete in the high-end so I'd like to see what it has to offer.
post #2536 of 3703
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post


Still, I wish I could do a truly controlled side by side. Jason, who has experience with both the RS2 and the Epson said there's no way he thinks the Epson is better than the RS2.

Anyway, that's enough o' that I figure....

Art Feierman also says no contest with the RS2, so I wouldn't spent too much time speculating about what went wrong.
Projector reviews:
I am not going to claim that the Home Cinema 1080UB matches the RS1, let alone the RS2. But, I must emphasize, that it comes extremely close to the RS1 (which has been my own home theater projector for the last 10 months). Closer, in fact, than any other projectors I've reviewed, with the possible exception of the Sony VW50 and VW60.
post #2537 of 3703
Yesterday I was checking out the 1080UB and RS1 and my local Theater Xtreme.

IRobot and Mission to Mars were the clips., both showing on 12' Stewart 130 screens.

They were very close. The differences were:

- 1080UB showed pixel structure at a farther distances, while the RS1 required getting pretty close to the screen. It actually looked like the RS1 have some pixel hiding tweaks happening, because even up close the pixel edges mere merged and overlapping.

- the RS1 needed some gamma tweaks because while the black levels were better, the shadow detail was lacking. In this regard the Espon almost looked better because gamma was dialed in better. I could see where the novice might prefer the 1080UB unless the RS1 is set up better.

- Brightness felt the similar, although the a daylight outdoor scene felt more real on the RS1.

- colors: the RS1 felt more vibrant.
post #2538 of 3703
Bytehoven,

Thanks.

What picture modes did you use with the projectors?

I think one thing that I mentioned before in this thread, and which I have forgotten to remind everyone: that the Epson I have seen was being shown in "Daytime Cinema" mode (or whatever they call it). I think this puts out something like 900 lumens, an obvious advantage for lighting up the 120" wide Firehawk screen. We briefly put it into
a dimmer "cinema" mode and the brightness and punch did drop visibly. But as I mentioned before, the image was so compelling in it's brighter daylight mode that it felt worth whatever trade off in ultimate accuracy. (From brief viewing with only one Blu Ray though...)
post #2539 of 3703
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

What picture modes did you use with the projectors?

I don't know. I should go back and ask if I can go thru some of the image presets. Sometimes they are a little funny about that, not letting their master control pad out of their hands.
post #2540 of 3703
One thing I found a bit frustrating in the cine4home preview of the JVC HD750 is that I couldn't get a handle on the image sharpness issue, from reading that report.

It has been such a big topic of discussion, how the re-design might/should increase image clarity and sharpness, and with plenty of people thinking they saw improvements at CEDIA in that regard. Cine4home actually had a pre-pro model to test and I didn't get any sense of whether the new model has a sharper image or not.
They seem to rate both HD100 and HD 750 as "sharp" so I don't know if that means they don't see any difference.

The HD100 doesn't have a reputation for being particularly sharp (and from the samples I've seen the image wasn't as sharp as a number of other projectors), so if Cine4home doesn't see any difference with the new HD 750 that could be cause for some...maybe minor...disappointment given the higher hopes.
post #2541 of 3703
I am beginning to become skeptical too. I mean is it worth 2500 more than a panny 3000? Who the heck knows. I think a smart person would let the first wave of PJ'S hit the homes and then see what everyone says. Does anyone know what the lumens AND THE CR is on the rs2 at D65??????

Thanks.
post #2542 of 3703
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

Hey, didn't cine4home say they were going to have the revised HD 750 report early this week?


Yes, the updated tables are online now...

Regards,
Ekkehart
post #2543 of 3703
where at? link
post #2544 of 3703
Thank you Ekkehart!

Could you comment on the sharpness of the HD 750? Maybe it's the German to English translation but I can't quite understand the "Sharpness and Signal Processing" part of your cine4home report. It seems like you haven't made a final judgement (and I'm not sure why). Is that correct? Or can you tell us whether you perceive any advantage in image sharpness in the new HD 750 vs the HD100?

Thanks.
post #2545 of 3703
post #2546 of 3703
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

Thank you Ekkehart!

Could you comment on the sharpness of the HD 750? Maybe it's the German to English translation but I can't quite understand the "Sharpness and Signal Processing" part of your cine4home report. It seems like you haven't made a final judgement (and I'm not sure why). Is that correct? Or can you tell us whether you perceive any advantage in image sharpness in the new HD 750 vs the HD100?

Thanks.


We will comment sharpness once we get the final production unit with finished signal processing. The HD350/750 have a sharpness control + a detail enhancement control. We want to figure both out before we can comment. And unfortunately, we did not have the time by now.

End of the week, we will publish first measuring charts of the THX mode. By the way: The HD350 will NOT have such a THX mode. This is confirmed by now.

Regards,
Ekkehart
post #2547 of 3703
Quote:
Originally Posted by kutlow View Post

where at? link

http://translate.google.com/translat...-8&sl=de&tl=en
post #2548 of 3703
Thank You Steve.

Now I will be the first to admit that I know nothing about gamma, D65 ETC. I just know how to mount it and turn it on.lol. But to me it looks like we have a winner here!
post #2549 of 3703
My suggestion is NOT to pay attention to specs alone. They only tell a small portion of the story.
post #2550 of 3703
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Turk View Post

My suggestion is NOT to pay attention to specs alone. They only tell a small portion of the story.

Very true. That being said, holy Cr^P! Batman! 580 lumens in iris -6 position with 36,700:1 on/off (long throw). Even the min aperture setting will yield 230 lumens at 48,000:1. Very impressive and definitely a step above the RS2 in both lumens and contrast. For RS2 users wondering if the RS20 will be much of an upgrade I think that the new lens, CMS, added brightness and contrast will all make it worthwhile.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP › First Pics from the new JVC HD 350/JV HD 750 and specifications