Official JVC RS40/X3 Owners Thread - Page 37

Congrats dude! Looks like the AVS floodgates have now unleashed for the RS40/50. By this weekend we will probably have at least a dozen more owners posting here too

I feel like this must be discussed in advance before everyone starts chiming in with their HP vs Low Gain screen impressions about brightness in 3D, just so there is no confusion about brightness expectations. We must put things into perspective, because we're already starting to see people complain about a possibly dim 3D image EVEN BEFORE they got their own RS40/50 which is so wrong because there has been a half dozen new RS40 owners raving about how good and adequately bright the 3D image is on their low/mid gain screens, while one HP 2.8 owner is saying it's just the right brightness.


The fair conclusions and abservations about 3D brightness should be as follows:

1. If you are happy with the 2D brightness you are getting out of your current screen in 2D? Then chances are you will be just as happy when you fire up a 3D bluray using the 3D preset on the same type of screen, whether it's 2.8 or 1.x.
   
2. If you already have an HP 2.8 or 2.4 screen, then what I see and describe on my 1.1 gain screen will ABSOLUTELY be dim for your likings. Why wouldn't it be? You've been staring at a high performance screen giving you almost TRIPLE the gain of your outgoing lumens, why would you want to downgrade to a 1.x gain screen?
   
3. The same will apply for someone who who is more than content with their 1.1 gain screen because maybe it serves another purpose (i.e. Acoustic Transparency). If those people were to switch to an HP screen that will triple their rexisting 1.x gain, they will most definitly not be prepared for the brightness they are about to experience, and may or may not like it because they had been used to looking at a moderate gain screen for years. Personally, I've already taken down the aperture to -5 and sometimes even -8 on my 1.1 gain 9 to 11 ft wide screen, so do the math, if I were to use a an HP 2.8 screen, I would initially be uncomfortable with the brightness that I would probably close the aperture almost all the way down to -10 or even -15

I guess what I am trying to convey here is that it all comes down to PERSONAL preference and taste, and not whatever someone wants people to think is acceptable. That's also in addition to what your eyes had gotten used to the past few years which will ultimately set the level of brightness expectation in 3D, and even 2D. So HP owners will NOT notice a significant boost in 3D brightness, nor will the low gain 1.x owners after you activate the 3D glasses, but at the same time they should expect the same adequately acceptable level of brightness they have gotten used to experience on the same screen.

Adam, this might be debatable because my Oppo93 and even the Denon 4311 can stretch SOME, but not all 3D scope movies. Have you been successful in every single 3D disc you played? You can still try to stretch 1.78:1/1.85:1 just to check if the v-stretching works. I was unable to stretch Avatar and Open Season in 3D, but I was able to stretch My Bloody Valentine 3D. So go figure...

You are the second person who'd said that since I read the Bluray.com review, where they said the 3D effect was more depressed and was more about being naturally dimesional versus the whole in your face or "up to the nose" effect and that they missed out on many shots where 3D could have benefited from. Oh well, I am getting this one for free plus it's a great movie too.