AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP › Jvc dla-hd990/950/550
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Jvc dla-hd990/950/550 - Page 7

post #181 of 1602
8/9/09 at 10:12am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot View Post

Joel Silver is recommending 20fL for HD material only, and less for SD due to it's limitations. He also suggests you have a different set up for SD for that reason

Given some of the misinformation that has come out from people who are teachers for ISF or have been in the past I wonder if Joel Silver understands the relevance of on/off CR and how it relates to the above. Put another way, I wonder if he recommends that people just lower the Contrast setting for their display to get to the lower ft-lamberts or if he recommends doing it in a way that doesn't hurt the on/off CR.

Although he might accidentally get to something that works as the lower on/off CR for SD might help hide some artifacts too.

I would be interested in seeing more detail on how he recommends people get to the lower ft-lamberts and why he prefers that method.

--Darin
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #182 of 1602
8/9/09 at 10:12am
Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp2 View Post

Very much so. The technology exists to go better than we can get, but it just belongs to 2 (or more) different companies. I appreciated where JVC has taken things, but combine JVCs high native CR with Sony's DI implementation with maybe some modifications and I think things would be even better. For the most part 3x-4x or so from native on/off CR to dynamic on/off CR is about the limit I've seen for DIs without causing too much harm, but with JVCs high native on/off CR to begin with they could be less aggressive on the top end and more aggressive on the bottom end or maybe just go more aggressive on the bottom end. They might even have enough native on/off CR to begin with to be able to go to complete blackouts (or block enough of the light that people couldn't see the screen for minutes if their room wasn't lighting it up). They would likely have to go to an iris that would shut all the way or also add a shutter for more light blocking than the closed down iris.

It seems that over the last couple of years some people have been confused and thought that the advantage JVC had over Sony was that JVC didn't have a DI, when the advantage JVC has had is the higher native on/off CR. That wasn't from not having a DI as JVC has an iris, they just don't move it during video. If Sony didn't have a DI they would be even further behind JVC in the whole on/off CR department to most people (since I think most people use the DI on the Sony because they prefer their projectors with it enabled instead of disabled).
Sorry, but that isn't rational. Why would you avoid buying a product because it had a feature you didn't have to use? The weakness point of the Sony's isn't the DI. That makes no sense. The DI can be turned off. The weakness point of the Sony's is the lower native on/off CR.

And JVC can't obtain the same on/off CR and dynamics without a DI as they could with a good DI. What JVC does is impressive, but not as impressive as the same projector with a DI could be. JVC can show their deepest black and higher light white simultaneously in the same frame because they have limited their deepest black to something more gray by not using a DI. You make it sound like having the more gray black than could be available for many scenes is a good thing.

Also, JVC can only do their deepest black and brightest white in the same scene for one iris position. Given that the manual iris has to be shut down in order to get to get their deepest black (and also higher on/off CR) they can't do their brightest white and their deepest black at the same time, only those for a single iris position. People have to go to lower lumens for peak white for the highest on/off CR and deepest blacks. With a DI system people could have the iris open for the brightest scenes for the rated lumens and get the deepest black the projector is capable of for the darkest scenes (depending on implementation, like where they might allow the iris to start partway closed).

Aside from the point of people being able to disable a DI, when things blackout in movies why would I want my screen to be visible unless making it invisible (or at least invisible for longer) couldn't be done without me seeing artifacts from that?

If JVC goes to LEDs and then doesn't allow them to be used a dynamic way I will figure they most likely either have irrational thoughts about dynamic systems or they figure they can get people with marketing bragging about how they don't use a dynamic system.

If JVC includes a dynamic system in the future people should be able to try the projector with it enabled versus it disabled and see what they think. I think it pretty much goes without saying that if JVC adds a dynamic system anytime soon they will allow the user to choose whether it is enabled or not.

I would probably pay a couple grand extra for a good DI with one of these JVCs if I had that option and I would be considering the next Sony less if JVC had all else like it is except also a good DI. As it is I want to see whatever Sony comes up with too (assuming the model Mark has talked about shows up) and compare the frame interpolation modes between them. If Sony's is way better in that department it could sway me that direction, but would be less likely to than if Sony didn't have a good DI or JVC did.

I hope somebody else like Panasonic will step out with basically a zoned DI (like a 4 panel system with one panel defocused), but I'm not counting on it.

--Darin

A nice concise, articulate and insightful post.
Reply
Reply
post #183 of 1602
8/9/09 at 10:37am
I have been advocating a 4th panel for JVC to increase their ANSI contrast which is the main defect in their projectors. They have already done it in prototypes obtaining contrast ratios of 150,000 to one and those prototypes were built 2 years ago. There native on/off contrast is greater than most projectors with DI. The biggest performance improvement will come when they improve their ANSI contrast or more accurately when they decrease the optical crosstalk from optical scattering.
Reply
Reply
post #184 of 1602
8/9/09 at 10:45am
Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp2 View Post

Given some of the misinformation that has come out from people who are teachers for ISF or have been in the past I wonder if Joel Silver understands the relevance of on/off CR and how it relates to the above. Put another way, I wonder if he recommends that people just lower the Contrast setting for their display to get to the lower ft-lamberts or if he recommends doing it in a way that doesn't hurt the on/off CR.

Although he might accidentally get to something that works as the lower on/off CR for SD might help hide some artifacts too.

I would be interested in seeing more detail on how he recommends people get to the lower ft-lamberts and why he prefers that method.

--Darin

Hi Darin,

Good point.

He didn't give details in that repect, but did mention that with the difference in SD source material being quite variable he did suggest that the really poor quality material would probably be better left to smaller displays - any deficiencies would be shown up on a display set for HD material (SD was based on a 1939 standard designed for small screens so should probably be displayed that way!). I've a feeling (and this is purely speculation on my part) that Joel has left SD behind and is moving forward purely with HD.

Personally I'm happy with cinema levels of reflectance so I'd use that for everything, especially as I still have a lot of DVDs in my collection..

Gary
Reply
Reply
post #185 of 1602
8/9/09 at 10:50am
Darin and Andrew are absolutely right.

Given the high native contrast of the JVC, it would be possible to implement a DI, which works without sideffects and increases the On / Off contrast easily to 200,000:1.

With a good realtime gamma correction, the Intra-Scene contrast would be improved by a very high margin also, especially for Scenes with lower APL.

But I doubt we will ever see that. The engineers seem to have that "we do not need a DI because DILA is so great anyway" attitude, which is unfortunate. If I was an engineer, I would use the current leap and improve it even more to leave all other technologies far, far behind.

Regards,
Ekkehart
Reply
Reply
post #186 of 1602
8/9/09 at 10:59am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cine4Home View Post

Darin and Andrew are absolutely right.

Given the high native contrast of the JVC, it would be possible to implement a DI, which works without sideffects and increases the On / Off contrast easily to 200,000:1.

With a good realtime gamma correction, the Intra-Scene contrast would be improved by a very high margin also, especially for Scenes with lower APL.

But I doubt we will ever see that. The engineers ssem to have that "we do not need a DI because DILA is so great anyway" attitude, which is unfortunate. If I was an engineer, I would use the current leap and improve it even more to leave all other technologies far, far behind.

Regards,
Ekkehart

but what would a DI do for mixed APl scenes and high apl scenes. Would they get more improvement increasing their native Ansi contrast from 250 -300/1 to 600-700/1 or using a DI and increasing their on/off from 50.000/1 to 200,000/1.
Reply
Reply
post #187 of 1602
8/9/09 at 11:11am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mlang46 View Post

I have been advocating a 4th panel for JVC to increase their ANSI contrast which is the main defect in their projectors.

How would they increase the ANSI CR (at least in a significant way) with that? Are you saying that the 4th panel needs to be last? If it was first I don't see how it would have a big impact on ANSI CR. If the 4th panel is last, how does it affect pixel structure on the screen (including that the other 3 panels might not be converged perfectly)? Is that panel defocussed?

--Darin
Reply
Reply
post #188 of 1602
8/9/09 at 11:25am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mlang46 View Post

I have been advocating a 4th panel for JVC to increase their ANSI contrast which is the main defect in their projectors. They have already done it in prototypes obtaining contrast ratios of 150,000 to one and those prototypes were built 2 years ago.

Why only 150,000:1? I would have thought that a 4th panel would increase on/off contrast much more than that. I mean in theory the 4th panel should square the native on/off contrast, shouldn't it?
Reply
Reply
post #189 of 1602
8/9/09 at 12:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mlang46 View Post

but what would a DI do for mixed APl scenes and high apl scenes. Would they get more improvement increasing their native Ansi contrast from 250 -300/1 to 600-700/1 or using a DI and increasing their on/off from 50.000/1 to 200,000/1.


Obviously high APL scenes would improve more by doubling the ANSI contrast. On the other side, with a DI you can get more light out compatred to the static Iris the JVCs have at the moment.

I did not say, that a higher ANSI is not worth it for optimized rooms, but a DI would be good also.


Regards,
Ekkehart
Reply
Reply
post #190 of 1602
8/9/09 at 1:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mlang46 View Post

but what would a DI do for mixed APl scenes and high apl scenes.

I'll give you something, but it is due to the unique nature of the JVC RS20 and I hope they have this fixed in the new models. Besides the factor that Ekkehart mentioned with being able to get more light for bright scenes by having the iris open for them than closing the manual iris now to get more on/off CR, there is another factor too since with the RS20 the ANSI CR goes down as the iris is closed down (at least in did on mine). So, having a DI could provide more ANSI CR for a person who cares about blacks in general by allowing them to combine the highest ANSI CR with the highest on/off CR. Something that wasn't possible with my RS20.

On/off CR can also affect bright scenes even where it seems like it wouldn't be a factor. The reason is that it can affect the gamma that a person feels is reasonable overall and then that gamma can affect the higher APL scenes if the projector is trying to keep the same general gamma curve (which is how things normally are). The gamma can change the contrast ratio between 80% video level objects and 20% video level objects with the higher gamma providing the higher contrast ratio between those, but the difference for those between 2.4 gamma and 2.5 gamma isn't that big. This is more of a factor between things like 2.2 gamma and 2.4 gamma.

Increasing the ANSI CR from say 300:1 to 700:1 would be great though, especially if they increased MTF at full resolution or close to full resolution a large amount too.

--Darin
Reply
Reply
post #191 of 1602
8/9/09 at 2:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawguy View Post

Will there be a review coming from you Mark? I enjoy your site! Keep it up.

Thanks for the kind words LG. I hope to do a review of the new JVC at some point, but the question will be when. Ekkhart will satisfy all of the early questions and I'm not sure when I can get my hands on one after that. I am working on it though

Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp2 View Post

Very much so. The technology exists to go better than we can get, but it just belongs to 2 (or more) different companies. I appreciated where JVC has taken things, but combine JVCs high native CR with Sony's DI implementation with maybe some modifications and I think things would be even better. For the most part 3x-4x or so from native on/off CR to dynamic on/off CR is about the limit I've seen for DIs without causing too much harm, but with JVCs high native on/off CR to begin with they could be less aggressive on the top end and more aggressive on the bottom end or maybe just go more aggressive on the bottom end. They might even have enough native on/off CR to begin with to be able to go to complete blackouts (or block enough of the light that people couldn't see the screen for minutes if their room wasn't lighting it up). They would likely have to go to an iris that would shut all the way or also add a shutter for more light blocking than the closed down iris.

I'm not going to hold my breath for a DI on a JVC. JVC seems to have become the anti-DI company, at least that's how they market it, and as we have agreed to disagree in the past, I can see some logic in that marketing plan.

If I were going to hope for a DI though, I'd love to see them add a DI like the Planar's. Something not very agressive when bright whites are present, but more agressive with mid whites. Imagine what AVP: Requiem would look like with 80K:1 native and the more agressive boost in most of those scenes The results could easily be the equivalent of 2x the native 80k:1 on/off.
Reply
Reply
post #192 of 1602
8/9/09 at 4:36pm
Could JVC not using a DI be a patent problem? If it costs JVC both the cost of the DI hardware plus a licensing fee then they could reasonably claim the additional cost isn't worth the contrast gain.

One more thing as many are discussion huge contrast ratios at very low light levels. The human eye can only perceive about 64 levels of gray at one time. That is why a white wall can look black when a bright light is projected on it. Our standard 8-bit displays are 4 times the limit of most people's eyes when viewing a full range image. I think this is one of the reasons there has not been a big push for 12-bit or 16-bit displays because no one could really take advantage of them. There is a huge advantage of recording in higher bit-depth. Also current HD specs only allow 8-bit grayscale so even though HDMI can support 12-bit, Bluray cannot. An 80000:1 contrast ratio for a picture with 0 to 30 IRE is a bit overkill at this time.

Personally I would like to see 12 bit displays become the norm because I believe there is a visible although subtle improvement in the final image and definitely when the image is mostly dark. The biggest impediment to true high quality images is the reduced color space. If they could ever create a display technology that is 12-bit and cover the entire color space of human eyes then we would effectively have perfection. The only thing that would be missing is the full dynamic range of human eyes from bright sunlight to near total darkness but that probably isn't very useful for displaying movies.
Reply
Reply
post #193 of 1602
8/9/09 at 4:58pm
Judging by the sheer number of other manufacturers using DIs, I'd suspect there is no problem getting a reasonable license to the extent one may be necessary under one or more party's patents. Of course, there may be a cost and I will not speculate on how JVC views the ROI with respect to their projectors. As JVC is one of the few (if only) not using DI, perhaps they view this as a marketing advantage.
Reply
Reply
post #194 of 1602
8/9/09 at 8:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dbbarron View Post

As JVC is one of the few (if only) not using DI, perhaps they view this as a marketing advantage.

Yeah that's my take on it too, although I just looked at the JVC Pro website and the slightly negative DI verbiage that I remember reading during the RS20 launch seems to have been removed.
Reply
Reply
post #195 of 1602
8/9/09 at 9:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cine4Home View Post

But I doubt we will ever see that. The engineers seem to have that "we do not need a DI because DILA is so great anyway" attitude, which is unfortunate.

Is it the engineers? If so then I think that is unfortunate too. As an example, if the on/off CR at 50k:1 speced was so great with the RS20 that a DI wouldn't have made the images better overall to a lot of people then why should anybody spend extra money to get JVC's new model for the 80k:1 on/off CR? If they were holding back on purpose because they knew a good DI would improve the images, but didn't want to give people too much at one time so they could get them to upgrade later, or if there wasn't time to implement one right, then I could understand them not doing it for those business reasons. But if they didn't do it because they thought it wouldn't improve the images even if they did a good implementation, then to me that is pure ignorance and the fact that they are upping their native on/off CRs proves that they knew they hadn't already gotten to no room for improvement to their absolute black levels.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Petersen View Post

If I were going to hope for a DI though, I'd love to see them add a DI like the Planar's.

If JVC did a DI I would expect it to be at least as good as Planar's. While a lot of expertise went into Planar's, they also had to start from something like 3k:1 native on/off CR. I think it would be much easier to start with 30k:1 or higher.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Petersen View Post

Imagine what AVP: Requiem would look like with 80K:1 native and the more agressive boost in most of those scenes

Especially since AVP:R doesn't seem to have anything above around 70-75% video level in general from what I've checked. Even things like a bright planet on a dark background don't even come close to 100% video level and so leave extra room for a DI to do its thing. BTW: I would love to see a shootout of the new RS20 replacement with the Samsung A900B that included chapter 13 of the unrated version of AVP:R. That is a scene where a Predator is fighting Aliens down in a sewer where it is very dark. The Samsung would likely show some advantages in bright scenes, but in a side-by-side it could look pretty washed out compared to a newer JVC (like the RS20 or its replacement) in this area, especially if the Samsung was used without its DI.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dbbarron View Post

As JVC is one of the few (if only) not using DI, perhaps they view this as a marketing advantage.

Could be. They might be banking on it being a complicated enough subject that people won't figure out that their projectors would be even better to most people who care about this area with a good DI on top of what they already bring to the table, or figure it is complicated enough that even if they improved their projectors with a DI it would be hard to explain to people why theirs was better and have it stick. Or maybe they don't know enough themselves and their marketing is basically what they believe, misguided or not. I wonder how many people who are involved in this for JVC would disable the iris on the higher end Sony if they were forced to live with it for a year and got to see the images that result with the DI disabled or the DI enabled. Or would disable a DI all the time on the JVC if it had a good one and they were using it at home.

I think it is too bad that nobody else has really stepped up and competed well enough to force JVC's hand here. I have to give JVC credit for doing so well in getting their native on/off CRs up and it isn't their fault that others haven't competed well enough against them, but I would still like to see somebody else do it. Like a 4 panel projector or Sony getting their native on/off CR up much higher and combining that with their DI. The first LED DLP doesn't seem like it has had the best decisions backing it in this area to compete better with the JVCs and unfortunately TI just hasn't even stayed in the same ballpark as JVC for native on/off CR over the last few years after being ahead of JVC in this area back then.

--Darin
Reply
Reply
post #196 of 1602
8/9/09 at 10:01pm
I'm interested in the HD950 (as a Panny 200 owner, an upgrade is long over due).

However, from reading the recent posts in this thread, I have doubts as to whether the projector would be bright enough for me.

Question:
In a true batcave (all lights/leds are taped over), with a throw of 19'-10", and with the center of the lens 13" above the center of a 159" HP screen, what would be the fl with a HD950 set to maximum brightness ???

What would the fl be with the current RS20 ???

Would the InFocus 8602 or the BenQ W6000 (DLPs) be the only projectors bright enough for my HT (under 10K) ??? TIA
Reply
Reply
post #197 of 1602
8/9/09 at 10:15pm
As far as what JVC has accomplished as far as native on/off CR versus what TI has accomplished with their manufacturers, I was thinking about it some more and decided to look back at what each was doing at certain points in the last few years.

In December of 2003 I believe the best native on/off CR going from actual performance with a DLP was a little over 4000:1 (from the Sharp 12k) and the best native on/off CR with a DILA was around 700:1 (from the HX1U). Now I think the best from a DLP is around 10k:1 (Marantz 11S2) and the best from a released DILA is around 40k:1 or a little higher (from the RS20).

So, in 5 years the DLPs have improved their best native on/off CR by about 150%, while JVC has improved theirs about 5600%, not even counting their upcoming models.

And it looks like the first LED DLP is going to go backwards, with native on/off CR at maybe 3k:1, unless they do something to improve it. Yes, it has a dynamic system, but so far it has less native on/off CR than I was getting in 2003 with my Sharp 11k (Japanese version of the 12k).

And what about the last 3 years? As of 3 years ago JVC hadn't released the RS1 and their highest native on/off CR was maybe 2400:1 or so with the HD2K or HD10K, IIRC. The Marantz 11S1 was out at that time according to projectorcentral.com and the rating was 6500:1 on/off CR, but I think it was probably more like 5000:1 calibrated (I don't remember the numbers from mine). And part of the CR improvement from the 11S1 to the 12S1 was from things Marantz did. It doesn't seem like the Darkchip2, Darkchip3, and Darkchip4 from TI are that much different as far as native on/off CR and the 1080p Darkchip2 seems like it has been out for quite a while. Maybe 4 years. Not sure if that is right, but seems like it and I think it must have been out by 3 years ago. In the time from the Darkchip2 to now TI might have improved the native on/off CR from the chips 50% and some of their manufacturers have added a little bit themselves. But they can only do so much with the chips that TI provides.

In the last 3 years JVC has gone from around 2400:1 being their best native on/off CR to around 40k:1 and now it looks like they will go even higher very soon. If they go to 60k:1 that would be about 2400% improvement in that time in that area.

I hope TI shows up with something new at the chip level. I think the Darkchip4 was introduced 2 years ago and really wasn't that big a step at that.

--Darin
Reply
Reply
post #198 of 1602
8/9/09 at 10:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elkhunter View Post

I'm interested in the HD950 (as a Panny 200 owner, an upgrade is long over due).

However, from reading the recent posts in this thread, I have doubts as to whether the projector would be bright enough for me.

Question:
In a true batcave (all lights/leds are taped over), with a throw of 19'-10", and with the center of the lens 13" above the center of a 159" HP screen, what would be the fl with a HD950 set to maximum brightness ???

What would the fl be with the current RS20 ???

We don't know how bright the new one will be and it depends on where you seating positions are. But, going with the information you have, your screen is about 75 square feet if it is 16:9. You would be more toward the shorter end of the throw for the projector, so the brighter end. Ignoring screen gain for a second, if you could get 600 real lumens your ft-lamberts would be 600/75, or about 8 ft-lamberts. If you were sitting in a real good spot a little under the projector you might get 2.4 gain, giving you 8*2.4 or 19.2 ft-lamberts to that viewing position.

You might want to close the iris down some until the bulb dims.

Of course, if you are sitting at a lower gain position like 1.5 gain you would be looking at 8*1.5, or 12 ft-lamberts with the above assumptions.

--Darin
Reply
Reply
post #199 of 1602
8/9/09 at 10:30pm
Last year I advocated and hoped and speculated that the RS20 would have a DI. Most shouted me down.

I bitched continually about the crappy lens in the RS1 and RS2 and the lack of a CMS to tame the over saturated colors. From what I hear the shame of having a few of us post that the three primary colors could not be put in focus at the same time including one prominant reviewer was instrumental in getting them to fix the lens problems by going toa cheaper supplier who supplied a much better lens for the same bucks. God bless the Chinese and God save the Japenese. Masive public criticism here and in England pushed them into a CMS and eventually getting it to work.

Most consumers haven`t a clue about DIs or the lack of them. Its a numbers game in marketing. The only way to get them to add a DI is public pressure and that is hard for us to accomplish because its omission is not a glaring fault in the machines. Its just something that we who are so much smarter than them want so badly because it would result in a quantum jump in performance. But we have no abillity to shame them into doing it and from what I suspect our JVC friends here in the US have no ability to get the Japanese to do it and to say it would be a good thing would no be politically correct with JVC marketing. Just my rambling thoughts.
Reply
Reply
post #200 of 1602
8/9/09 at 10:40pm
Nice summary Darin. But its stil lso troublesome re all the baby steps when JVC could so easily and cheaply add a DI and give us a giant step. Also there are polarizers out there which while very costly (something like $2000 for 3 in large quantities) with no other chages could gives a HUGH increase in performance.
Reply
Reply
post #201 of 1602
8/10/09 at 2:33am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot View Post

The SONY DI tends to be invisible in operation and better than the others IMHO which as you say, are often visible.

Gary

Sorry, not agree
I see the DI on Sony, both VW200 and VW80 ( I tested them in several sessions ... ) , this was one of the reason I renew my thrust in JVC and upgraded my old HD100 with my actual RS20
DI ?? No Party !!
Reply
Reply
post #202 of 1602
8/10/09 at 2:52am
I think JVC is hoping to have leds or lasers ready before the market conditions forces them to go with a dynamic mechanical iris. JVC has listened I think when they gave us an adjustable iris and a CMS. If they can provide DI functionality from controling leds ar lasers I think that is what they prefer.

We know that JVC is playing with lasers and 4-panels. I am hoping they can implement either or both in a product. Going with lasers and DI could give us what we need and 4-panels is possible not necessary since it as not just an advantage.
Reply
Reply
post #203 of 1602
8/10/09 at 2:53am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cine4Home View Post

......
Given the high native contrast of the JVC, it would be possible to implement a DI, which works without sideffects and increases the On / Off contrast easily to 200,000:1.

This is the point !!
I Cannot believe it can be done with absolutely FREE from SideEffects ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cine4Home View Post

........
But I doubt we will ever see that. The engineers seem to have that "we do not need a DI because DILA is so great anyway" ..

Completely agree with JVC !
Hope too they never do a DI ... It's one of their FLAG and Arrows in the Bag to Advice in Advertizing !!
"WE DO BETTER WITHOUT THE NEED OF ANY DI "
Reply
Reply
post #204 of 1602
8/10/09 at 3:01am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Petersen View Post

.....

I'm not going to hold my breath for a DI on a JVC. JVC seems to have become the anti-DI company, at least that's how they market it, and as we have agreed to disagree in the past, I can see some logic in that marketing plan.
......

Completely agree with you and with JVC choices and philosofy
Reply
Reply
post #205 of 1602
8/10/09 at 3:08am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohlson View Post

We know that JVC is playing with lasers and 4-panels. I am hoping they can implement either or both in a product. Going with lasers and DI could give us what we need and 4-panels is possible not necessary since it as not just an advantage.

What disadvantage do you see in 4 panels (apart from higher cost, obviously)?
Reply
Reply
post #206 of 1602
8/10/09 at 3:25am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohlson View Post

I think JVC is hoping to have leds or lasers ready before the market conditions forces them to go with a dynamic mechanical iris. JVC has listened I think when they gave us an adjustable iris and a CMS. If they can provide DI functionality from controling leds ar lasers I think that is what they prefer.

We know that JVC is playing with lasers and 4-panels. I am hoping they can implement either or both in a product. Going with lasers and DI could give us what we need and 4-panels is possible not necessary since it as not just an advantage.

Again.. Completely Agree
That's the WAY !!
Reply
Reply
post #207 of 1602
8/10/09 at 3:27am
Hi,

Here, there are a thread about On/Off contrast, Ansi Contrast link to APL Contrast (IMO, same thing as intra-scene contrast), with or without DI and the DI effect's measures :

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=781060

Sorry,

mistake, see the post after :
Reply
Reply
post #208 of 1602
8/10/09 at 3:50am
Sorry,

I don't use the update :

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=852467
Reply
Reply
post #209 of 1602
8/10/09 at 4:27am
I feel the same way about a Dynamic Iris as I do about FI: I would be glad to have it but I doubt that I would use it. I say this, of course, without having seen how it might work so I admit it might be better than I expect, understanding that a DI functions best when on/off is natively high.

My theory is that JVC's path for model improvements is clear and that JVC engineers are already confident that they can boost on/off CR (either through polarizer improvements, laser modulation or something else) to astronomical levels without the use of a traditional DI. If this is so, why would JVC spend the time to develop a DI? Furthermore, without real competition on this spec, why would JVC do anything other than just roll its improvements out slowly? This is why we need legitimate competition in this area of the market.

I also find it funny that people are complaining about improvements being necessary to a projector with a native on/off spec of 80k:1.
Reply
Reply
post #210 of 1602
8/10/09 at 5:16am
Hi LG. I think there is a difference between speced native on\\off and useable on\\off. With the RS20 for example, while 50,000 was obtainable with the iris set toits smallest opening, most could not do this without making the picture too dim. Nevertheless,usuable on\\off on the RS20 is high enough to reach a gammma of 2.5 without crush.Ref blacklevels still have a way to go with fade to blacks still looking quite gray.

Raising native to 80,000, might result in a usuable on\\off in the 60,000 to 70,000 area. Unfortunately this will not result in much visable improvement. While gamma could be raised, historical testing has shown that things get too contrasty once gammas get much higher than 2.5. Remember using a gamma of 2.5 is clearly a viewer preference. Some like it, others prefer a lower gamma. but clearly, once gamma gets above 2.6, things will be too contrasty to look real.

The real benefit here of raising the on\\off above RS20 levels is the inherent lowering of the black ref level.. In this area, we have a long way to go and a useable on\\off of even 80,000 doesn`t get us there.

I am sorry but those who rant about the deficiencies of a DI and applaud JVC for not offering the choice of using one are . . . . As long as the user can switch a DI off, they would not suffer if JVC included one.doing so would not be very expensive and I think would lead to very increased sales because JVC would trample the 3 chip market.

Condoning the metered improvement, heh heh, will give em 30,000 more this year when for a few bucks we could give them say 200,000 more is a travisty.

i have more to say but there is little point in saying it. A DI from JVC is not going to happen and that`s a shame for many of us.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home

AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP › Jvc dla-hd990/950/550