or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP › Official InFocus Sp8602 owners thread.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Official InFocus Sp8602 owners thread. - Page 59

post #1741 of 1992
Quote:
Originally Posted by conan48 View Post

Thanks for the info!!

Great to hear about the rainbows being less noticeable. I've had a love hate relationship with DLP for years. I've gone from the Sony VW90 (very good motion, ALMOST as good as DLP) to the JVC RS50 which is OK for motion.

Recently my RS50 bulb exploded so I powered up my little acer 720p beamer and still the difference in motion and that looking out a window effect is better on a 500.00 projector than a 6000.00 one

I've only gotten that looking out a window effect from plasma and DLP, and that's whats pushing me back to DLP even though I will lose some black levels from LCOS that effect of being there and not just "watching" a film is nice. Not to mention Planet earth type programming which I don't think anybody would argue is better on a DLP.

How much are lamps?

Our resident Mr.Neverbicker has a load of them! You can just replace the bulb in the housing and save. Here's a link http://www.tkis.com/sp8602/ .
post #1742 of 1992
Quote:
Originally Posted by conan48 View Post

Thanks for the info!!
I've gone from the Sony VW90 (very good motion, ALMOST as good as DLP) to the JVC RS50 which is OK for motion.

Recently my RS50 bulb exploded so I powered up my little acer 720p beamer and still the difference in motion and that looking out a window effect is better on a 500.00 projector than a 6000.00 one

I've only gotten that looking out a window effect from plasma and DLP

The RS-50 has major calibration issues without an external processor so I have heard, and you almost need to have one. The RS-40 and RS-45 can be dialed in a bit better so I have heard into defaults.

I agree about the sharpness and window effect, but one thing should be noted, the JVC's have typically increased sharpness a tiny bit each year, and although HD-content will look better, the differences aren't always hugely noticeable on LCOS. The main thing is letting our eyes re-adjust back to a slightly softer image with LCOS.

Both me and JoesYah are in similar positions, we both have liked DLP better than the other techs say in 80% of the scenes, but there just isn't much new happening in DLP, it's the same old story, we have the sp8602 still leading the pack and no-one threatening to bump it off.

Although the Mits hc7800 may give it a nice run for the money in some ways.

I haven't seen an sp8602, but I full well know the sharpness of the DLP's and that round-3D-face looking pop-off-the-screen looking through a window effect, and I did see a Runco from a distance though but didn't get to play with it as they were closing up the room...

I think many of you'd be surprised how good the Mits hc4000 is, in some ways I found it beat an $8000 Sony LCOS projector. I still have my doubts that a Benq w6000 would overall be better than the Mits hc4000, in dark scenes sure, in everything else almost surely not. The Mits by many calibrators is in the top 10 most accurate "calibratable" projector over the past 3 years, and there is no question the Mits produces the cleaner image with better color and a much higher native contrast than the Benq w6000, even if the Benq is sharper and has the IRIS to produce a much higher dynamic contrast. The Mits's native contrast just barely trails behind the Infocus sp8602, it approaches 4000:1 at farthest throw. There would be advantages to the Benq for some stuff, but the Mits has double the native contrast ratio, and Mits is between the Benq and Infocus in sharpness, the Mits is sharper than the Infocus from what someone that has seen both has told me (not that we need it any sharper anyways). The problem with the Benq has always been noise in the image in bright scenes, a somewhat radical IRIS, and in general with DC 2 not as clean of a picture. The Mits hc4000 has DC 3 and no IRIS, so it is a trade-off either way.

OK, so now me and JoesYah are getting RS-45's, we both favor DLP, hopefully we won't hate ourselves when we see the image. Actually I'm pretty sure I'll like it, it might not be a DLP, but it has some other bonuses.
post #1743 of 1992
Coming from my RS1 to the 8602 has changed my view on the "holy grail" of the often raved about black levels of Lcos.

Yes I really enjoyed my RS1, it was my first projector. But on my 122" wide scope screen with masking for 16x9, JVC just does not have the light output. The "new" lamp design of the 40,50,60 series was a bust, read the posts. The 8602 smokes the JVC in this environment.

Being able to actually see and enjoy the picture with suitable room lighting is amazing on the 8602, Lycos need not apply. Maybe it is the difference in technology between dlp and Lycos in how the light is captured and reflected. But with the JVC I had to live in a "bat cave" to simply enjoy the image.

Different things for different people. Lycos needs to employ better and more stable light sources to win me back, but I will never say never to either technology. Buy what makes you happy, that is what really counts.
post #1744 of 1992
I hope the RS45 can show me more than I saw in last years RS50, a week ago. Put it this way, if I hadn't commented to selling my Infocus earlier that same day. There's no way you could have given me the RS50 on display! In that room the Infocus would wipe the floor with it in clarity.

The difference in contrast, which isn't huge as people may think, wasn't enough to make me want the RS50 either.

My biggest fear is having a contrasty image that is flat. I want DEPTH!! And a sh@t load of it.
post #1745 of 1992
I use a high power screen, the early best mode reports of the JVC RS-45 put it at 950 to 1050 lumens, that is one of the highest, if not the highest best mode that any JVC has ever obtained.

With an HP screen mounted on a shelf mount, I will get the equivalent of 2100 lumens, lol...

I'm not worried about brightness, I'm worried about depth, like JoesYah.

I agree about the sp8602 being the sh**, I am sure because I've seen some of the problems an LCOS picture can exhibit first hand next to a DLP projector. The reason I don't want the sp8602 is entirely different and not related to its weaknesses or strengths, it's more because I need the JVC experience, if I am going to start doing "REAL" reviews eventually, then the JVC should close my gap. I'll have had experience calibrating almost every best selling home theater projector except the Panny's, which I am not too concerned about for now.

Also, I trust ART a lot in his reviews from ProjectorReviews.com, he has been the best source of information despite his occassional slip ups, he has OPENLY admitted this entire time that DLP produces a slightly better picture in HD stuff. Never has he used FAN-BOY mechanisms like others claiming how one projector does everything the best, so I like his opinions.

My hope and I'm sure JoesYah's too, is maybe we can enjoy those darker scenes for a little while at least, until we sell the RS-45 and end up with something else (if we do). Maybe we can take Art's appreciation for it and learn to love it like DLP, it's an experiment for us...

Actually, let's not pre-judge, let's see how it goes
post #1746 of 1992
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post

I use a high power screen, the early best mode reports of the JVC RS-45 put it at 950 to 1050 lumens, that is one of the highest, if not the highest best mode that any JVC has ever obtained.

With an HP screen mounted on a shelf mount, I will get the equivalent of 2100 lumens, lol...

I'm not worried about brightness, I'm worried about depth, like JoesYah.

I agree about the sp8602 being the sh**, I am sure because I've seen some of the problems an LCOS picture can exhibit first hand next to a DLP projector. The reason I don't want the sp8602 is entirely different and not related to its weaknesses or strengths, it's more because I need the JVC experience, if I am going to start doing "REAL" reviews eventually, then the JVC should close my gap. I'll have had experience calibrating almost every best selling home theater projector except the Panny's, which I am not too concerned about for now.

Also, I trust ART a lot in his reviews from ProjectorReviews.com, he has been the best source of information despite his occassional slip ups, he has OPENLY admitted this entire time that DLP produces a slightly better picture in HD stuff. Never has he used FAN-BOY mechanisms like others claiming how one projector does everything the best, so I like his opinions.

My hope and I'm sure JoesYah's too, is maybe we can enjoy those darker scenes for a little while at least, until we sell the RS-45 and end up with something else (if we do). Maybe we can take Art's appreciation for it and learn to love it like DLP, it's an experiment for us...

Actually, let's not pre-judge, let's see how it goes

LMAO..yeah you got it.
I'll give it a shot. My GF had to talk me out of cancelling the order after the RS50 episode. The entire time I viewed this unit, I was wondering what the hoopla was about, I was also wondering had any of those fellas claiming it as being supreme seen the SP8602?

I don't know what the special ingredient is the Infocus uses. It something I haven't seen often.

As the fellow who bought my unit stated about the Benq w6000. He said "I could have lived with the Benq, if I hadn't already experienced the 8602".

The Iris on the SP8602 must some how still be at play when in automatic on the brightest scenes?
It looks like you're watching a plasma TV viewing shows like CSI Miami or anything else for that matter.
post #1747 of 1992
Well Art thought very highly of the sp8602, in some ways he liked it better than the JVC's. I am trying to figure out why ART loves the JVC's so much, yah the black levels I know I know, but I mean let's see if there isn't something else to it.

I will say this about the Sony vw70, there were times I felt like it had an advantage in color and depth in certain scenes, the problem was consistency, the projector was just so inconsistent and the sharpness was lacking a bit too much. The picture was really good at times, and real almost milky at other times, I don't know if soft is the right word, more like undefined non-delineated.

I don't care about the motion thing much, that's something your eyes adjust to. The poster is right about it not being as smooth as DLP in motion for sure, but you won't notice that after about 8-16 hours your eyes do adjust and it becomes a non-issue. You only notice it when going back and forth or trying to think about it.

The RS-45 is extremely bright, is sharper than the Sony hw30 (and a quite a bit sharper than the Previous Sony I owned), and it has 30,000:1 Native.

We will get blacks darker than the Infocus even if the Infocus IRIS is maxed, because IRIS algorithms are not linear, the IRIS does not completely close on most scenes, it is halfway a lot of time.

Blacks are overrated, but the RS-45 is potentially in the top 3 of the sharpest LCOS's made, and the full pixel-shift can improve the convergence a bit. If it is as sharp as the Sanyo z4000 or sharper, I expect not a huge loss in PQ due to sharpness.

More worried about the digital LCD'ish look, but we'll see...
post #1748 of 1992
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post


More worried about the digital LCD'ish look, but we'll see...

And that my friend is the million dollar question! Because it can have all that you listed above, this is what will get it out of my room the quickest.
post #1749 of 1992
Hope you guys like motion blur

You can get used to (sample and hold effect), but DLP is way ahead in this department. Just don't do a side by side or you will see how much better DLP is for motion.

I would advise you guys to take a look at the upcoming Sony vw95 instead, and forget the JVC. The Sony has higher ANSI then the JVC and better motion which when combined with it's FI and Dark Frame Insertion creates motion that is very much like a DLP.
post #1750 of 1992
Quote:
Originally Posted by conan48 View Post

Hope you guys like motion blur

You can get used to (sample and hold effect), but DLP is way ahead in this department. Just don't do a side by side or you will see how much better DLP is for motion.

I would advise you guys to take a look at the upcoming Sony vw95 instead, and forget the JVC. The Sony has higher ANSI then the JVC and better motion which when combined with it's FI and Dark Frame Insertion creates motion that is very much like a DLP.

You're scaring me!! lol
Have you seen the Mits 9000? How does it compare?
I saw terrible motion on an Epson with movies. I didn't see it with movies on the JVC or Sony.
post #1751 of 1992
Quote:
Originally Posted by conan48 View Post


I would advise you guys to take a look at the upcoming Sony vw95 instead, and forget the JVC. The Sony has higher ANSI then the JVC and better motion which when combined with it's FI and Dark Frame Insertion creates motion that is very much like a DLP.

I have compared a DLP next to an LCOS, the Mits hc4000 vs. the Sony vw70.

I do not like the way Sony processes things, among other issues. There are tons of fan-boys of projector models on all sides, you can't trust a lot of the findings in these forums. I am watching a terribly old Sanyo z5 at the moment, I have seen 20+ projectors, so I am confident that motion is the most overblown issue in this entire forum. The z5 has horrible motion compared to newer projectors, as bad as it gets as this is a 60hz projector with a high processing delay.

I didn't buy the JVC to watch sports or play FPS.

The vw95 is more than I want to spend and isn't in the same price range as the RS-45, I'm guessing it's like a $3500+ to $4500+ price range.

DLP definitely wins in motion, but I've not seen LCOS's exceed in motion anyways, and comparing the hc4000 which has near silky smooth motion next to a Sony vw70 that had semi blurry motion, well that was still the last thing I would base a projector purchase on unless I were a sports fan or big gamer. I game occasionally, but not enough to care that much.
post #1752 of 1992
Also, I have yet to see FI make thinks look like DLP, these are two entirely different things. One is actual reaction time and pixel speed as related to the true intent of the content, and one is a cheat that inserts actual frames and alters the true intent of the motion. I have never been impressed with the Sony programmers and processing algorithms going back to the Sony a3000 TV I owned. The noise filtering also left a lot to be desired, and it looked almost identical on the TV I owned and the Sony vw70, the picture was not clean like a DLP or even a Sanyo z4000 unfortunately. The Sony image looks underly processed and unnatural, I think DLP is the only super-natural looking picture I have seen. We all see different things in the image, so we'll see what I think of the JVC.

I am not BIAS'd, I give my true opinion, I have no purchase justification and will get rid of a projector like a hot pancake, heck I've done it to 6+ projectors already

I'm not saying that the new Sony's still look like this to me, but they've had some of these same processing features going back 3+ years now, and I'm not going to try it again, as I've already not liked it twice.
post #1753 of 1992
Coderguy. Not to be rude but it seems like your confusing a bunch of things together. Jittery motion is not motion blur that results from sample and hold effect. That's usually because of 24fps that movies are filmed with. This can result in "judder" in the motion.

The motion was the same between my Sony VW90, and RS50, and Benq w5000, if that is what you constitute as motion blur.

Motion blur to me is the DETAIL that you see when things are in motion. On a DLP, when the picture is moving or standing still. You still see all the detail in the picture. On LCD and LCOS, you'll notice the image gets softer with movement. I have confirmed this easily with the FPD motion benchmarks.

Also, please don't bring in a freaking 4 year old vw70 and try to compare it to the vw90/95 for motion. There are so many things wrong with that, that it's not even funny (new panels, faster refresh, higher fill factor, etc, etc)

I've tested every technology and the Sony IS 100% the best for motion after a DLP. If you don't believe me, do some research and LISTEN to what EVERY one says in their review. The Sony is better for motion then the JVC. The only thing I haven't seen is the new 480hz Panny, so can't say as to how it compares.

And yes FI reduces blur because it's adding frames to lessen the effect of S and H, and no it will not be as good as a DLP ever, but if you read what I said about the Sony (FI with DFI to get the best motion) DFI is Dark Frame Insertion and this creates a flicker to help eliminate the S and H effect. The Sony is the only projector that allows FI and DFI at the same time.

I will say that the JVC is not bad for motion and much better then the RS25 series before it.

Bottom Line is DLP>SXRD>DILA>LCD for motion (LCD may go up a spot if the new D9 panels make a difference)
post #1754 of 1992
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joesyah View Post

You're scaring me!! lol
Have you seen the Mits 9000? How does it compare?
I saw terrible motion on an Epson with movies. I didn't see it with movies on the JVC or Sony.

The Mits is great. Supposedly a little sharper and also better FI then the Sony, but the 3D isn't as good, and the DI is not very good either.

If I'd been a long time owner of a DLP, there is no way I could go to an LCOS or LCD. Even if your not sensitive to motion blur, your still going to get much lower ANSI contrast, sharpness (not much lower, but still softer), etc.

I owned a DLP for 3 months when I had the Benqw5000, but with it's slow color wheel speed, the rainbows annoyed me to much and I got rid of it. That was a 3x seed, 4 segment. I'm hoping the Infocus has much less. But just owning the Benqw5000 for those few months left a lasting impressions. Also had the Optoma 8300 for a month while my JVC was in service because of it's wonderful lamp problems (3 duds, in a row)

Sorry, no looking out a window effect with the Sony or JVC. You get a nice I'm looking at a great film like image with deep blacks and deep rich colors on a nice SCREEN.
post #1755 of 1992
The judder contributes to the effect of the way our eyes perceive blur. In fast moving jittery images, I can still see MORE apparent motion blur on non-DLP, the judder effect on DLP is less apparent even when there are fewer frames, and it looks smoother. The two are directly related when they correspond together, they play off each other. That is motion resolution and judder are not mutually exclusive in all scenarios to our eyes, at least not to my eyes. There are many tricks that come together between these two issues. I do not agree that all technologies look the same at 24 fps.

I am fully aware of what motion resolution is, which is what you are referring to. When things start to move the pixels become blurred as opposed to judder which is not enough frames. The worst (best) example of motion resolution was on very old LAPTOPS the LCD monitors they used, the entire screen would blur into nothingness as you scrolled it.

I am just saying I keep hearing how much better the Sony motion is, same things were said about the TV when I bought it, every time I get it, I don't see it with my eyes. Remember, we all see things differently, but frame tricks do not change some inherent pixel response times even if the refresh rates of the panels are much much higher.

I didn't say the Sony was not better at motion, I never said it wasn't, I'm just saying it doesn't look like DLP, those same comments are made every single year and I've yet to see it. It's not the refresh rate that makes it so much better, it's the panel driver or something like that.
post #1756 of 1992
Quote:
Originally Posted by conan48 View Post


Sorry, no looking out a window effect with the Sony or JVC. You get a nice I'm looking at a great film like image with deep blacks and deep rich colors on a nice SCREEN.

I was really hoping you weren't going to say that..damn it!!
This is exactly how my eyes interpreted the RS50.

Well if you were enamored by the Benq, the Infocus will blow you away!!!
You get this baby up to 400 hours and the image just gets richer and the black levels/contrast get deeper.
post #1757 of 1992
Someone always has an opinion, not that he is wrong or right, but I will see it for myself and then make my own personal judgement. Someone is always quick to try to explain the basic principles of imaging to me because I disagree with them

The problem is we all see things differently, that statement truly applies in the sense that our eyes actually work differently.

Whether or not we can configure the RS-45 to give us a bit of DLP POP or not, I don't know, but there are scenes I saw even on a Sanyo z4000 that popped just like DLP at times and gave me a window effect.

One instance was a closeup of a face, the Sanyo had that 3-D DLP look identical to the DLP, the main time I lost the DLP POP so to speak, was when the sharpness issue shows up, like if the water is splashing against rocks into tiny particles. Other times the loss of the window effect occurred randomly, to say there is never a window effect, nah, that's not right. I can even see it on LCD at times, any projector can give you a window effect, it's just not as consistent or maybe as pronounced. I have seen other LCD's that almost completely lacked that effect though, depends...

Note that I spent what 500 hours comparing the Mits hc4000 to the Sanyo z4000, much of that using a split screen trick with retro-reflective to keep the ANSI contrast in tact.
That's a LONG time.
post #1758 of 1992
I know exactly what causes blur and why. It's just hard to explain without going into 10 pages of details. So you do know the difference between 24 judder and motion blur, but don't compare an old vw70 to a vw90 which is completely different (again, processing, panels, fill factor, response time, refresh rate, etc.)

You've should really read up on the Sample and Hold effect to know know LCOS or LCD can never ever match a DLP. Even if an LCD was 0.00001ms, because of S and H it would still be perceived as having blur because LCD's don't refresh until their state changes. If you look at a still paused image of an LCD, it's refresh at 0 times per second as the pixels are all aligned and not in a state of change.

DLP on the other had refreshes 2000 times per second. Faster then Plasma. They can't even measure ms on a DLP because it's so fast.

Not sure where you got your crazy 700:1 number for the sanyo. LOL. LCD max out at about 450:1, and some DLPs go to 800:1 and I believe a Sharp went to 1000:1.

I know your trying to convince yourself that the motion will be great on the JVC because you preordered it, but whatever you do, don't run motion tests from any benchmark disc between the two. You will be unpleasantly surprised.

If your going to get the JVC, then get it for the right reasons because every technology has it's plus and minuses. I'm not sure why I'm even posting all this and wasting my time as I have nothing to gain. I basically have the same projector your getting right now (even though the lamp exploaded because JVC uses POS lamps in thier latest projectors) and It's not as good as the Sony for 2D (check the reviews, especially for motion and sharpness)

If rainbows don't bother you, then by God man stick to DLP!! I used to hate people who weren't bothered by rainbows as I had DLP envy :-] or wait for the Mits 7800.

BTW, the JVC has digital pwm noise in the image and doesn't produce as clean as an image as a good DLP. Sorry
post #1759 of 1992
I never said you didn't understand motion, sounds like you know more than me about it, but technical data and our eyes work differently. I'm getting middle-aged, I don't even know if I can see the full motion response anymore like I used to.

First, let me say again, I know the SONY is better than motion at the JVC. It is ....... X better, I don't know how much exactly, but I am watching a terribly old Sanyo z5, and although the motion is bothering me a tiny bit, the JVC will be better then this at least. LCD's don't max out at 450:1, the Epson 8700ub's measurements were anywhere from 500:1 to 600:1, the Sanyo number I got from a review site, but was confirmed somewhat by another source. It's very hard to measure ansi contrast reliably, the real numbers are almost always measured too low. BTW, the Mits hc4000 measured over 800:1 at some places, 600:1 at others, 780:1 yet at others.

Again, I have always said the JVC has a weakness in motion, dude I have at least 500 posts about it, defending it both ways in the other JVC RS45 vs. Panny thread.

I am buying things for the right reason, I compare these projectors on the side for fun. I said in a disclaimer that I don't know if the same principles apply to the new Sony's, did I not?

I was just giving my opinion. I did like the Sony vw70, I just had a few issues with it. So far I have had issues with almost every projector, and motion hasn't been really a factor on any of them for me (a little with this 6-year old Z5 which I am only back to because I wanted to wait until this year to buy a new one).

Me and JoesYah are experimenting, we will sell the RS-45 if we do not like it, I need the JVC experience, I am building a review site, and writing computer programs for projectors, so I'm not doing it just because it was my only pick. Plus we got a great price.

I originally was going to buy the Mits hc7800, because I am a DLP fan just like you, but I just never got a chance as it has been delayed, and the JVC price was a one-time deal!
post #1760 of 1992
Quote:
Originally Posted by conan48 View Post


DLP on the other had refreshes 2000 times per second. Faster then Plasma. They can't even measure ms on a DLP because it's so fast.

BTW, the JVC has digital pwm noise in the image and doesn't produce as clean as an image as a good DLP. Sorry

Wow thanks for the info, I knew there was more to it. I just didn't know how to quantify it.

The noise that you speak of, this was very prevalent on the RS50. Not only I but the GF noticed it as well. I appreciate your honesty!

Coder looks like we're in for a ride my friend! Damn
post #1761 of 1992
I just wish to see it before hearing all this negative talk about it. I don't like being brainwashed or influenced before I make my own decision, it puts like a talking guy next to my ear saying "hey look at all the noise in that image".

It's not that I believe or don't believe him, or that I think he doesn't have credibility either, it's just to me it's just another opinion of a person telling me something. So whether or not he is wrong or right, isn't really the point, I am going to see the JVC one way or another.

What you have to understand is not everyone sees things the same way, he is obviously blasting the JVC and basically touting the superiority of DLP, not that I disagree, but the most balanced info that I have read at places like www.projectorreviews.com seems a bit more "averaging" of what most people see, rather than what bothers one person.

I think what he fails is to understand is that we literally don't see images the same way from one person to another, so telling someone your choice sux or it's wrong, or you bought it for the wrong reason, that in itself is a bit too much IMO.

I have to discount those opinions. He started telling me I bought the JVC for motion superiority, come on --- really, when did I ever say that???

If he gave me a long explanation of how he tested a JVC vs. some other projector and what he found in a more non-BIAS tone, then I'd be quicker to believe it. Not that I think he is wrong or right, I just think the tone is a little "pushy"...

I'm just trying it out. There are plenty of experts that prefer the JVC, plenty plenty plenty, they can't all be morons.
post #1762 of 1992
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post

I just wish to see it before hearing all this negative talk about it. I don't like being brainwashed or influenced before I make my own decision, it puts like a talking guy next to my ear saying "hey look at all the noise in that image".

It's not that I believe or don't believe him, or that I think he doesn't have credibility either, it's just to me it's just another opinion of a person telling me something, just as I am another person telling you something. I do plan to do tests on this thing, only our eyes can determine the entire experience of what we will see, not a measuring device. The JVC does have advantages, it is sharper than the Sony's, and sharpness has bothered me MUCH MUCH more than motion has.

Now when I look at the JVC, I'm already going to expect a similar image to the Sony vw70, not as clean as the DC 3 Mits hc4000. So whether or not he is wrong or right, isn't really the point, I am going to see the JVC one way or another.

I'm sure we can get rid of it if we have to...

Hey go for it bro, I'm still game at the moment.
I may have to hunt a second demo to make sure what I saw was an anomaly. Something in the back of my mind tells me it wasn't.

Because you plan on doing reviews, it would be great for you to experience as many projectors as possible.

Before its done I would encourage you to grab a good dlp that uses an Iris. Nope, none of them are absolute perfect, what is?

It will give you an opportunity to see just how great DLPs can be at contrast and blacks levels.

Oh ..I am kicking myself for selling the SP8602!!
post #1763 of 1992
I do agree DLP's probably have a cleaner image than the JVC, but I doubt it's a huge difference, I hope not anyhow. I mean the Sanyo LCD had a very clean image, so if LCD can be that clean, I'm hoping a JVC can be as well.

It's hard to post opinions in the forum, because people are quick to attack your opinion. That's why if I post more reviews, I'll just have to learn how to ignore the people that don't agree that wish to dispute the validity of it.

Plus just because my eyes see something, doesn't mean someone else has to see the same thing. Some of the people in here literally will hold a gun to your head, be sweating beads, and instead of asking for your wallet, they simply want you to acknowledge the superiority of their knowledge on their own preferences of equipment.

The whole thing at times gets old, even if someone is right, it doesn't mean that's the right way to go about it.
post #1764 of 1992
The JVC has strengths and weakness. I would not have owned a projector that I thought sucked for almost a year. It's great for what it does but my 500.00 acer is better at quite a few things then a projector that costs 8500.00.

No the JVC noise does not come from excess sharpness, it's from the way it drives the panels which is digital. They use Pulse Width Modulation and that caused some excessive noise that was measured by kraine, and Ekki from cine4home.

I'm not trying to be a prick and I'm not going to argue anymore. I'm done posting in this thread until I end up getting an 8602 if everything works out.

YOU REALLY GOTTA DO SOME RESEARCH before you say a lot of nonsense. EVERY SINGLE REVIEW AND PERSON WHO HAS OWED BOTH THE SONY AND JVC HAVE SAID THE SONY IS SHARPER.

Read JoeRods review, read Kraines review, read Zombie10ks review, read Dogones review, etc, etc.

JVC advantages are Best in class black level, smooth Film Like image (but more noisy then last years models) great depth to the color, great color saturation. I'm sure You'll like the rs45 as I have liked the rs50, but the weaknesses are there and aren't going away. You'll never get the "pop" of a DLP on LCOS. It's good to experiment, so have fun.
post #1765 of 1992
I think you will be happy with the JVC. Check out this video comparing the 8602 and a lesser lcos, as well as a lcd.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fu3nN...layer_embedded
post #1766 of 1992
Quote:
Originally Posted by conan48 View Post

YOU REALLY GOTTA DO SOME RESEARCH before you say a lot of nonsense. EVERY SINGLE REVIEW AND PERSON WHO HAS OWED BOTH THE SONY AND JVC HAVE SAID THE SONY IS SHARPER.

This is not true at all. I do lots of research. It is obvious to me you are more concerned about being a "tech bully" than you are about giving advice to others in a respectable fashion. If I post something incorrect, I don't mind being corrected, but you have not even seen a JVC RS-45 yet, the RS-50 had calibration issues and some stuff that the RS-40 didn't even have, so you're jumping the gun.

The Sony wasn't even as good of an option for either of us at its price, both JoesYah and likely would have bought a DLP if we didn't get the JVC at an absurd price, and the DLP pickings are so slim right now.

I didn't ask for your opinion on my purchase, for all you know I am buying 10 different projectors to compare with, are you going to correct me on every purchase? ....

I go by a few select sources of information that I trust, that I know to have been accurate in the past, not by people that typically already favored the Sony from the start. You have also put words in my mouth several times (like the motion thing, claiming I said the JVC was better). You have a right to post opinions, but you need to tone it down a bit, your posts are too aggressive which doesn't add credibility to them, it detracts credibility.

My "excess sharpness" comment was about him seeing a DEMO to make sure the controls are setup correctly, not about what causes the problem. When you have any noise in the image, artificial sharpness increases it, so if it starts out a little more noisy, there are ways to clean it up sometimes.

First, Mike Huffman, a designer of calibration software who's expertise level on this particular issue is much greater than those people you mentioned, and has never stared me wrong on sharpness comparisons, and has seen hundreds more projectors, has said their is a mild focus uniformity issue with the Sony. He doesn't just see one example unit, he sees many. He calibrated a JVC and a Mits hc9000d not long before he saw this projector. People from AVS that I trust and have seen both projectors said the JVC's are sharper, they said it's really mild, but the JVC is sharper. Another source is there are people in the actual Sony hw30 thread that see the uniformity issue and reported about it that are owners themselves and have no reason for bias.

Sharpness is partly convergence luck, so you have to take multiple sources.

Furthermore, nearly every single JVC vs. Sony review from professional sources (like PR or others, even Cine4 sometimes) I've read when comparing low-end JVC's to low-end Sony's going all the way back to the RS-20, the JVC is almost always reportedly sharper. When did Cine4 say the Sony is sharper, I do not believe he said that, and if he did, well then he probably just got an abnormally sharp unit from a basis of luck, it happens.

I have seen multiple units of any model that was NOT SHARP because it had bad convergence, convergence applies in this situation. That is why it is hard to make the comparison. LCOS and LCD are based partly on convergence luck, the pixel correction abilities are not 100% resolute in solving the issue. That is why you have to really be careful about comparing one unit to another, you need multiple sources.

Low-end Sony's are typically reported to be a little softer. This hasn't changed over the last few years.

Measuring sharpness differences between two projectors is not really a simple thing always, but there is a lot of BIAS in this forum tilted one way or another. Some of it is accidental, when someone favors a projector overall they tend to see things that are not really there.

This is why I'll wait to see the projector for myself and make my own conclusions.

I also completely disagree with your comment about other technologies cannot provide the window effect, I have seen it for myself, DLP certainly seems to be the master at this so far, but I'm reserving judgment until after I see the RS-45, and I definitely wouldn't say other technologies can never provide this effect. I have myself noted that LCD lacks this effect at times, although I did see it on the Sanyo several times, and furthermore the RS-45 is not an LCD.
post #1767 of 1992
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post

This is not true at all. I do lots of research. It is obvious to me you are more concerned about being a "tech bully" than you are about giving advice to others in a respectable fashion. If I post something incorrect, I don't mind being corrected, but you have not even seen a JVC RS-45 yet, the RS-50 had calibration issues and some stuff that the RS-40 didn't even have, so you're jumping the gun.

The Sony wasn't even as good of an option for either of us at its price, both JoesYah and likely would have bought a DLP if we didn't get the JVC at an absurd price, and the DLP pickings are so slim right now.

I didn't ask for your opinion on my purchase, for all you know I am buying 10 different projectors to compare with, are you going to correct me on every purchase? ....

I go by a few select sources of information that I trust, that I know to have been accurate in the past, not by people that typically already favored the Sony from the start. You have also put words in my mouth several times (like the motion thing, claiming I said the JVC was better). You have a right to post opinions, but you need to tone it down a bit, your posts are too aggressive which doesn't add credibility to them, it detracts credibility.



Sharpness is partly convergence luck, so you have to take multiple sources.

Furthermore, nearly every single JVC vs. Sony review from professional sources (like PR or others, even Cine4 sometimes) I've read when comparing low-end JVC's to low-end Sony's going all the way back to the RS-20, the JVC is almost always reportedly sharper. When did Cine4 say the Sony is sharper, I do not believe he said that, and if he did, well then he probably just got an abnormally sharp unit from a basis of luck, it happens.

I have seen multiple units of any model that was NOT SHARP because it had bad convergence, convergence applies in this situation. That is why it is hard to make the comparison. LCOS and LCD are based partly on convergence luck, the pixel correction abilities are not 100% resolute in solving the issue. That is why you have to really be careful about comparing one unit to another, you need multiple sources.

Low-end Sony's are typically reported to be a little softer. This hasn't changed over the last few years.

Measuring sharpness differences between two projectors is not really a simple thing always, but there is a lot of BIAS in this forum tilted one way or another. Some of it is accidental, when someone favors a projector overall they tend to see things that are not really there.

This is why I'll wait to see the projector for myself and make my own conclusions.
.

JVC uses the same lens on all three models. Sony utilizes a lesser lens on the 30, but, the lens on the 90/95 is of higher optical standards than any of the JVC's.
The pixel shift on the new JVC's may help sharpness.
I'd like to see anyone pick out the sharper projector during a movie.
Depth of image comes from black levels, grey scale, contrast, and color, more so than sharpness.
post #1768 of 1992
I can pick it out because of visual training, but I agree a regular person that doesn't look for these flaws would have trouble on most content. I agree once you get to a point sharpness does not help all that much, but still added sharpness contributes to the overall look a little.

Besides the cheat test of using text or convergence patterns,
it is easiest to see the sharpness issue upon very fine detail like when water hits a rock and breaks into small particles. Another time you can tell is if you look at someone's beard or very fine hair, things like that. Not something people do too much in a movie obviously.

Added:
This was in comparing a DLP to an LCOS or a DLP to an LCD, comparing one LCOS to another LCOS, I seriously doubt you can spot it, since the difference would be much less in sharpness.

BTW:
Sharpness does matter a lot for HTPC though

Also, the problem is if you get focus uniformity issues + convergence, the edge of the focus uniformity can combine with the convergence and potentially actually hurt the image, I'm not saying this happens with Sony's, I'm just saying it is possible. The Sony was never an option, we got a special price on the JVC, and I've always wanted to play around with a JVC. The JVC has more native contrast, but it won't make much difference given the Sony starts out high enough with a very good IRIS.
post #1769 of 1992
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Gleave View Post

I'd like to see anyone pick out the sharper projector during a movie.
Depth of image comes from black levels, grey scale, contrast, and color, more so than sharpness.

I tend to agree up to a certain point. There's something else going on other than the aspects you've listed that gives a projector pop and depth. Especially during those scenes with a lot of motion.

I can see the sharper display during movies, if comparing LCOS,LCD to DLP. The image is crispier, details stay more intact during movement.

By the way, that video is useless.
post #1770 of 1992
Not all DLPs are that close in regard to "window" effect. The SP8602 gave me my first true impression of a window effect after upgrading from the IN83. They're both DLP. The SP8602 (DC3) had no picture noise or jitters which was what gave me the window effect that I wasn't expecting coming from the IN83 (DC4 and supposedly better lens etc).
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP › Official InFocus Sp8602 owners thread.