Jvc dla-hd990/950/550 - Page 9

If you can, read Greg Roger's review of the Planar in which he describes how its DI works. It is similar to how you describe.

How likely do you guys think it is that JVC will have led (or laser, which I think is less likely) illumination implemented next year? That, to me, would be the only new development that will re-awaken the upgrade bug.

I am hoping that this new higher end JVC that will be released is laser powered but I think that the chances are small that it will be.

By 'next year' I meant coming out in the fall of '10, i.e., a year from the upcoming CEDIA.

Yeah ...
I too, think that first we will pass through 1 or 2 generation of LED machine before to have a JVC Laser machine ...

I dont see JVC as leader in technology. Its not a negative at all, some companies like to be the first one to rush out with a technology and others like to see it more perfected before they release it.

My "bird" told me not before 2011 ...

Shure

Maybe VW300 could be a surprise with some news .....

Going back to the 80k with an iris vs 120k without question that was posted, I put this image together which will hopefully explain things better for people that are completely opposed to the idea of a dynamic iris.

The dimmer the brightest pixel is in the scene below 85% grey, the greater the contrast difference between the two projectors would be.



If the contrast of the projectors are the same (e.g. a JVC at 80k:1 with an iris vs one without) you're already gaining 11% contrast when the brightest pixel in the scene is only 95% grey. By 75% grey you have doubled the contrast at 2.22 gamma.



I don't think anyone here would disagree that a higher native on/off contrast ratio is better than the same contrast ratio achieved with an iris. Native on/off CR is far better than contrast achieved with the use of an iris.

My argument is that any projector, no matter how high its native contrast ratio is, would benefit from the use of a dynamic iris.

80,000:1 contrast is great, but there's still plenty of room for improvement beyond that.

It may make sense for JVC to milk us customers by slowly raising CR year after year and making us all upgrading all the time. But you and I are not JVC employees and we probably don't have JVC stock, either (at least I don't). So I'm having trouble understanding your point of view. What makes sense for JVC or not is not of much interest to me. I want 1 million to 1 native CR. Now. For free. No, seriously. Of course it's great that JVC is improving native CR all the time! But adding a DI on top would make the JVC projectors even more attractive to me (quite a lot).


Great! So why would such a DI result in what you described as: "it is the things that you never get to see or see but with less intensity" ?

Of course if you compare:
(1) a projector with 10k/50k native/dynamic CR
(2) a projector with 50k native CR

It is obvious that (all else being equal) the projector (2) will produce a better image. But that is *not* what we're talking about here. We're talking about comparing:

(a) a HD950 with 80k:1 native CR
(b) a HD950+ with 80k/200k:1 native/dynamic CR

If you compare (a) and (b), why would there by any scene in any movie where there are things that you never get to see with projector (b) which you do see with projector (a), or with less intensity? I don't understand that...

This is why we need strong competition! If you like lots of on/off CR where else are you going to go? I don't view this as a positive. To the contrary.

I think you misunderstand my point of view which is: a DI is fine so long as it doesn't divert resources from achieving higher native CR.

As for what the problem is with your proposed DI, I suspect that it doesn't work that well because, for instance, with the Planar "a peak level must occupy a sufficient number of pixels before it is used as the control level, otherwise, small bright pinpoints of light in a star field would elevate the black level. As a consequence, small bright features can be clipped if a signal level below the absolute peak level is used as the control level." I think the conscious choice has been made to disregard a certain amount of detail for the expense of blacker blacks.

Theory versus reality.

LG. Come on. You can't be serious about JVC worrying that the market might perceive them as giving up on improving native. You are acting like a desperate lawyer trying to justify what not doing something is the right thing to do. It would really really be great for most consumers if JVC added a DI. People would see a hugh improvement over the competition and it would advance the state of bang for the buck. Going from 80,000 using say a 3x multiplyer would yield about 250,000 to one. It would be simply fantastic.

Where did you get that from what I wrote? I wrote that I would be afraid that JVC hit the wall, not that JVC would be afraid of it.

Sony has had a DI for a long time now. Still they work on increasing native CR all the time. So I think your point is moot.


Well, let them elevate the black level. The DI I have in mind would set the brightest pixel as the control level, even if it's only 1 pixel. As simple as that. The Planar DI may have to do compromises to achieve a reasonable black level with such space scenes because the Planar's native CR is just too low. JVC doesn't need that. So as I said before, it should be possible for JVC to design a DI which has virtually *no* negative side effects at all. Obviously if the DI is designed that way, the potential CR increment is likely lower compared to a Planar-type DI. But I could live with that. The Planar DI does about 4x improvement? Even if a side-effect-free DI would only do 2x, it would still be a 2x improvement in certain dark scenes. I'll take 160k:1 for dark scenes over 80k:1 every day...

When will Sony have something to show for all this work that you speak of? (you walked right into that one).

Your proposed DI sounds fine to me, even if I wonder how useful it would be. Again, provided that it doesn't keep JVC from improving native contrast.

I hope the "VW90" (or whatever its name will be) will be great. Even if it only serves to put more pressure on JVC. We'll have to wait and see. But what I meant was that going from VW50 to VW60 to VW70/80, native CR has improved. So having a DI hasn't stopped Sony from improving their native CR.

Nice chart and explanation. Thanks.

There is a line between increasing performance because it provides a visibly improved image and chasing a spec simply to get a better spec. The former is worthwhile. The latter is little more than a technological fetish.

Please convince me that going from a 0.0002fL black level to a 0.00006fL black level (that's from 80,000:1 to 250,000:1, assuming a 16fL peak output) would be meaningful--much less visible--with real program material. A 0.0002fL black level is already one-fifth the luminance of the 9th generation Kuro plasmas. The RS20 offers a profound performance bump over the RS2, but in my opinion that improvement is due much more to the better optics, brighter lamp, and much improved calibration controls than it is to the higher on/off CR, which was very high (19,000:1 or so) to begin with.

I suppose there are a few ways in which the RS20's performance could be improved (higher tolerances for panel alignment, higher checkerboard contrast, and a better--that is, more expensive, lens--come to mind), but yet even higher on/off contrast would be way down my list of priorities. The existing black level is already so low it is difficult to measure and it is better by a large margin than what I have seen in any commercial theater.

I also suppose that the realities of the commercial world dictate that manufacturers must keep coming out with new and improved models each year. However, the current RS20 is so good that any further improvement will be, I think, only at the margins. We have just about gotten to the point PCs arrived at years ago where increases in chip speed, more RAM, and faster hard drives and buses result in very little in the way of perceived performance increases in the vast majority of applications.

"Alexander looked before him and wept, for there were no further lands to conquer."

Shurely ! Because both Sony and others cannot delivery high CR without DI

All the brands didn't have the technology to delivery NATIVE high CR and MUST USE, Are forced to Use DI and compromise with artifacts generated by DI ...

JVC is a "white fly" in the Market who didn't Need a DI by it's highest CR performing without any "external" tricks generating artifacts or drawbacks ;9

We must be Glad to that ...

Darin:

Thanks for the reply, Darin.

The screen is a 16:9, and my seating distance is 12'-8" (152").

It doesn't look like the JVC's will work for me with 20+ fl being ideal, and with the lamp dimming 50% or so at 800-1,000 hours (as a lumens freak, I agree with the 20+ fl spec that was posted in this thread).

Looks like the W6000 or the 8602 (not ideal with the HP due to the 8602's +105-+130 offset), is the one for me. The 83's offset won't work for me, otherwise, I would have purchased one last fall.

I remember walking north thru the parking lot last Friday, on my way to lunch.

The brilliant white of a truck's tailgate, illuminated by the noonday sun, stopped me in my tracks. I thought to myself "this is how I want the bright scenes of a movie to look in my HT (e.g. the sacrifice scenes of Apocalypto....one of my favorite movies).

I realize that the blacks with D65/ISF calibration is the No.1 reason why members in this thread purchased/will purchase a JVC.

For me, its lumens-sharpness-saturated colors (with no red push in the skin tones)-blacks, in that order. I had an ISF calibration done on a 57" CRT, years ago. Too dim with washed out colors for me.

Again, thanks for your expertise.

We're not there yet, Tom.

JVC's blacks may be hard to measure, but they aren't hard to see, assuming our eyes have enough time to adjust.

I mostly don't feel a compelling need for more on/off. My biggest priority would be to see what more ANSI contrast does to the picture.

quite a while ago, in 2007, Cine4home published an article about "on-screen" contrast: http://www.cine4home.de/Specials/ANS...NSIvsONOFF.htm (as always in german, which is a great language)

in essence, it compared different types of image constellations, and which part ANSI and on/off played in measured contrast on screen. When I read that article, i was quite surprised to notice that on/off plays a big deal on "on-screen" contrast. The on/off seemed to get into play whenever large blobs of similar light levels on screen, which is usually the case with movies.

With the 80k:1 contrast of the JVC, with even the same ANSI as the RS20, wouldn't it be possible that on-screen contrast be better than the RS20? (i'd love for ekkehart to give his opinion ). Even then, if the 950 had higher ANSI contrast, that'd be true icing on the cake, and it'd be my choice for my homecinema.

Less light throughput is one of the possible things.

That would cause pumping artifacts with some material. Less than with smaller native on/off CR, but I'm sure there would still be some. It makes more sense to kind of smooth the rough edges out, so to speak. A single pixel doesn't need to be as bright as possible. In fact, a single pixel could look brighter at a lower level if it is sitting on a deeper black. Sony has pushed things to where small white objects look dimmer at times, but with the higher native on/off CR of the JVCs I'm not sure they would have to do that much if they took Sony's approach, but tuned to their projector.

I think it is maybe 50%. Depends on what other companies show at this CEDIA somewhat though. If another non-DLP manufacturer has an LED projector maybe it will indicate that they would work well for JVC and/or put some pressure on JVC to go to them.

--Darin

Thanks. I've updated that image now with an outline of the panels to make things even clearer:



I should probably have added in a step to illustrate the contrast being stretched, but I think this explains it well enough.

I look at those gray bars and feel like a kid with money in his pocket pressing his nose against the window of closed candy store and all I can hear in the back ground is an Italian and a New York lawyer yelling I should thank God that the store is closed.

And from one of them, if the store ever opened at the hours that work best for you he would stop going there at the hours that work best for him.

If Highlander_AVS woke up tomorrow and found out there was a special sequence on the remote that he could push with his projector that would enable a DI (but where he didn't need to push those special keys), I wonder if he would then sell it. He sure seems intent on trying to make sure other people don't get something that would improve the images for them as he threatens to never buy another JVC if they make them just as good for him, but include a feature he wouldn't use.

Should people who don't like primaries that are outside REC.709 refuse to buy any projector where it is possible to set them up for more saturated primaries, even if they can get correct REC.709 primaries?

--Darin

andrewfee,
I don't think your chart shows in the best way what really happens. The way your chart shows the data, it appears that the 80K projector has a brighter 85% gray than the 120K one but that shouldn't be true assuming they both have the same lumen output and have been calibrated. I think the charts should always line up on the right-hand side and cover an identical screen brightness scale, some arbitrary max brightness to max brightness / 120K. To show the difference in the first graph, you need to have the brightest parts be the same and follow the same gray level but have the 120K projector keep going blacker (farther to the left) as that is what happens in reality. Whites aren't brighter, blacks are darker for the 120K projector or are you saying that 50 IRE is brighter on the 80K projector because it will block less light? I thought 85% gray is measured from peak white and not from 85% light transmission of the projector's contrast range.

Try a Lumis and a 106" wide 1.1 gain 16:9 screen then. I love that scene with mine!!

That is pretty funny, as I was thinking the same thing. If JVC lost ten sales to those who refused to buy a DI pj but sold two hundred more, then would they be better off?

In fairness, I think there is some mischaracterization of what was written going on.