AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP › Official JVC RS40/X3 Owners Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Official JVC RS40/X3 Owners Thread - Page 216

post #6451 of 9660
4/26/11 at 9:55am
I have a Harmony 900 remote. With my old projector I had the base station on top of the projector (ceiling mounted) with a transmitter fastened just above the IR receiver on the projector. I would like to have this same kind of setup but I am noticing some issues with my remote connecting to the base station. My thinking is that the 3D IR transmitter (which is now on top of my RS40 near the base station) is interferring with my base station receiving a signal. I am wondering if anyone else has experienced interferance with their 3D immiter and their remotes.
Reply
Reply

Gear mentioned in this thread:

post #6452 of 9660
4/26/11 at 9:57am
Still not seeing any hands on feedback regarding Philips PTA03 3D glasses. Pictures the Philips ads seem to have a green tint instead of JVC's bronze.

I have a couple JVC glasses and would like to know how the Philips glasses compare regarding: comfort/fit, tint, sync, etc?
Reply
Reply
post #6453 of 9660
4/26/11 at 10:10am
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolplazma View Post

Still not seeing any hands on feedback regarding Philips PTA03 3D glasses. Pictures the Philips ads seem to have a green tint instead of JVC's bronze.

I have a couple JVC glasses and would like to know how the Philips glasses compare regarding: comfort/fit, tint, sync, etc?

Comfort, fit, sync is 10% the same as they share the same frame and electronics.

Only when your screen retains polarisation than there is a benefit from the JVC glasses being slightly brighter.

I have 2 pairs of JVC and 2 pairs of Philips glasses and for me they perform nearly the same. No reason to pay more than double the price for the JVC ones with my AT screen.
Reply
Reply
post #6454 of 9660
4/26/11 at 10:23am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph Potts View Post

Greetings,

If your Samsung 3D player isn't directly connected to the projector or fed through a receiver/AV processor that is HDMI 1.4 then you will get this error message.

Regards,

The same 3d player worked with Samsung Tv with the same receiver (onkyo 708) which can pass 3d.

I will try the sequence suggested to start first projector first.
Reply
Reply
post #6455 of 9660
4/26/11 at 10:34am
Quote:
Originally Posted by stepmback View Post

I have a Harmony 900 remote. With my old projector I had the base station on top of the projector (ceiling mounted) with a transmitter fastened just above the IR receiver on the projector. I would like to have this same kind of setup but I am noticing some issues with my remote connecting to the base station. My thinking is that the 3D IR transmitter (which is now on top of my RS40 near the base station) is interferring with my base station receiving a signal. I am wondering if anyone else has experienced interferance with their 3D immiter and their remotes.

YES - just about everyone is having the JVC IR emitter block their other IR remotes where the IR receiver (e.g., in the AVR, BD player, etc.) is located where it picks the IR signal from the emitter, including the emitter's reflected IR signal off of the projection screen. I have an IR repeater receiver located just below my screen and when I'm feeding an 3D signal to my RS40 the repeater is useless. In my case the equipment rack is at the back of the room, behind the seating, and when displaying 3D I have to point my Harmony remote directly toward the equipment rack in order to control my AVR, BD player, Directv, etc.
Reply
Reply
post #6456 of 9660
4/26/11 at 10:51am
I have been planning on a 110" or 106" HP screen for this Projector but am starting to second guess that decision. The throw will be right at the minumum from about 12' and viewing distance is 3 theater chairs 8.5' to 9' eye to screen. Will this screen be too bright?/Or would I be better off getting somthing closer to the 1.3 gain to maximize black levels? Sitting that close to the screen, does that put me outside the viewing cone when sitting on one of the end chairs? Thanks for the advice!
Reply
Reply
post #6457 of 9660
4/26/11 at 11:33am
Quote:
Originally Posted by nobuyersremorse View Post

I have been planning on a 110" or 106" HP screen for this Projector but am starting to second guess that decision. The throw will be right at the minumum from about 12' and viewing distance is 3 theater chairs 8.5' to 9' eye to screen. Will this screen be too bright?/Or would I be better off getting somthing closer to the 1.3 gain to maximize black levels? Sitting that close to the screen, does that put me outside the viewing cone when sitting on one of the end chairs? Thanks for the advice!

Just curious but are you going to have this in a dedicated theater or a room with bad ambient light conditions?

benny
Reply
Reply
post #6458 of 9660
4/26/11 at 11:39am
Quote:
Originally Posted by nobuyersremorse View Post

I have been planning on a 110" or 106" HP screen for this Projector but am starting to second guess that decision. The throw will be right at the minumum from about 12' and viewing distance is 3 theater chairs 8.5' to 9' eye to screen. Will this screen be too bright?/Or would I be better off getting somthing closer to the 1.3 gain to maximize black levels? Sitting that close to the screen, does that put me outside the viewing cone when sitting on one of the end chairs? Thanks for the advice!

I now have 100 hours on my 40 and also understand your screen choosing agony lol. I tried all the da-lite samples and was hoping to go with the HP but my room didn't allow for anything other than ceiling mount, so I ended up choosing the 1.3 as I was out of the cone for the HP. This is my first projector coming from most recently a Samsung 58 plasma. With bright blu-ray source material I find it just okay, and most times am using high lamp. Brightness is subjective, but damn I wish I could have used the HP. The 1.3 is great with 3d however using the JVC glasses with the correct polarization. On another topic completely - I find the ghosting is fantastic on the projector compared to my plasma 10 fold. Finally my money was well spent on 3d after wasting boat loads in recent years on both legacy and new plasmas. Really fun 3d for bluray (other formats and games possibly excluded because of ghosting, but even with worst ghosting, still better than the sammy pn58c8000)

Re: Benito's reply, I have (and like most times), some ambient light from dimmed pot lights. Still find I need high lamp sometimes in bat cave mode depending on source material.
Reply
Reply
post #6459 of 9660
4/26/11 at 12:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by LarryChanin View Post

Even if I really connected directly to the projector (without the switch) and it worked, it wouldn't help me since my other sources (HD DVD, Blu-ray) would no longer be connected.

True, but at least you would know whether getting 3D off of the Tivo is possible. If you connect it directly, and it still doesn't work, then you know not to waste more time trying to figure out why your switch and/or preamp aren't passing the 3D signal. If it does work directly, but stops working as soon as you put in the switch and/or preamp, then you know where the culprit is.

I would start simple (Tivo -> RS40), and make sure it works, then start adding more devices in the chain one step at a time.
Reply
Reply
post #6460 of 9660
4/26/11 at 12:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by nobuyersremorse View Post

I have been planning on a 110" or 106" HP screen for this Projector but am starting to second guess that decision. The throw will be right at the minumum from about 12' and viewing distance is 3 theater chairs 8.5' to 9' eye to screen. Will this screen be too bright?/Or would I be better off getting somthing closer to the 1.3 gain to maximize black levels? Sitting that close to the screen, does that put me outside the viewing cone when sitting on one of the end chairs? Thanks for the advice!

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmyj2 View Post

I now have 100 hours on my 40 and also understand your screen choosing agony lol. I tried all the da-lite samples and was hoping to go with the HP but my room didn't allow for anything other than ceiling mount, so I ended up choosing the 1.3 as I was out of the cone for the HP. This is my first projector coming from most recently a Samsung 58 plasma. With bright blu-ray source material I find it just okay, and most times am using high lamp. Brightness is subjective, but damn I wish I could have used the HP. The 1.3 is great with 3d however using the JVC glasses with the correct polarization. On another topic completely - I find the ghosting is fantastic on the projector compared to my plasma 10 fold. Finally my money was well spent on 3d after wasting boat loads in recent years on both legacy and new plasmas. Really fun 3d for bluray (other formats and games possibly excluded because of ghosting, but even with worst ghosting, still better than the sammy pn58c8000)

Re: Benito's reply, I have (and like most times), some ambient light from dimmed pot lights. Still find I need high lamp sometimes in bat cave mode depending on source material.

A word of caution about short throw setup... watch out for hotspotting. Typically > 1.3 gain will start to hotspot IF your PJ is in close. Screens like the HP need mid-throw or more to avoid that.

Assuming you guys mean the Da-lite Cinema Vision 1.3... I just hung my 110" diag (96"W) a few days ago. My PJ is currently at 21.5ft throw and 220hrs on the bulb. Subjectively, we find the 2D very bright - even with some lights turned on in adjacent rooms. The 3D is adequate. I intend to have the PJ moved to 12ft throw in our new cinema room. I have some metering gagets being delivered over the next couple days, so the brightness values will be more qualified soon.

A big thing we noticed with the new screen is how much sharper and detailed the picture is. Not surprising it was an improvement over shooting onto a textured wall, but very surprising to the eye. However with the sharpness comes a observation of ghosting with SbS 3D content (DirecTV). BD content looks great.

Using a Panasonic BDT110 player to convert 2D-to-3D works to some degree but IMO probably not worth the bother of wearing glasses and using up the bulb in high lamp (3D) mode. Meaning that unless a visitor wants to see the effect on their favorite non-3D movie I wouldn't bother with it. I didn't find anything "offensive" with the conversion, the picture in 3D looks fine and has the subtle 3D effects added in. I'll play with this more in the future (the player has depth adjustments to tweek). Advantage of this conversion is that any DVD or BD can be played as "3D" content, so you get a lot more mileage out of that investment with this option added to the AV setup. Not a lot of 3D movie (drama) content out their yet.
Reply
Reply
post #6461 of 9660
4/26/11 at 12:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolplazma View Post

A word of caution about short throw setup... watch out for hotspotting. Typically > 1.3 gain will start to hotspot IF your PJ is in close. Screens like the HP need mid-throw or more to avoid that.

Assuming you guys mean the Da-lite Cinema Vision 1.3... I just hung my 110" diag (96"W) a few days ago. My PJ is currently at 21.5ft throw and 220hrs on the bulb. Subjectively, we find the 2D very bright - even with some lights turned on in adjacent rooms. The 3D is adequate. I intend to have the PJ moved to 12ft throw in our new cinema room. I have some metering gagets being delivered over the next couple days, so the brightness values will be more qualified soon.

A big thing we noticed with the new screen is how much sharper and detailed the picture is. Not surprising it was an improvement over shooting onto a textured wall, but very surprising to the eye. However with the sharpness comes a observation of ghosting with SbS 3D content (DirecTV). BD content looks great.

Using a Panasonic BDT110 player to convert 2D-to-3D works to some degree but IMO probably not worth the bother of wearing glasses and using up the bulb in high lamp (3D) mode. Meaning that unless a visitor wants to see the effect on their favorite non-3D movie I wouldn't bother with it. I didn't find anything "offensive" with the conversion, the picture in 3D looks fine and has the subtle 3D effects added in. I'll play with this more in the future (the player has depth adjustments to tweek). Advantage of this conversion is that any DVD or BD can be played as "3D" content, so you get a lot more mileage out of that investment with this option added to the AV setup. Not a lot of 3D movie (drama) content out their yet.

Thank you for your feedback, I ordered the same screen (Cinema Vision 1.3) 114" diagonal. I'm planning to have a through distance of 11.15ft. I was a bit worry about the brightness & 3D performance, I guess I'll be fine
Reply
Reply
post #6462 of 9660
4/26/11 at 2:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by cannga;203579642. Da-Lite HP that retains polarization (hypothetical version).
While (1) would be more compatible with more glasses; [B View Post

*if* you are looking for absolute max brightness[/b], it would be number 2, and pairing it with JVC glasses (anyone corrects me as needed pls).

I suppose that it might. The xpands and JVCs will both lose ~40-50% of unpolarized light from a HP screen. That said, the plates are not perfect polarizers...ie they will also have some losses with plane polarized light even at a perfect angle. Just eyeballing with test patterns with my glasses as filters for the PJ light directly VS reflected from the HP screen I would guess that you are getting slightly less...but similar losses with plane polarized light. Its so insignificant to my eye its hard to tell.

The other disadvantage to this is that any tilt in the glasses will cause further losses if we go with a non-depolarizing screen and JVC.

Quote:


I wonder if screen manufacturers will in the near future release "PC" :-) versions of their screens (PC=polarization correct)? For example, I was looking to replace my Stewart Greyhawk with a Stewart Studiotek 130 G3, but now will probably wait to see if Stewart will release a G4 version aimed specifically for projectors similar to these JVC's.

Don't the silverstar screens retain polarization? I thought those had even higher gain than HP as well.
Reply
Reply
post #6463 of 9660
4/26/11 at 2:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ana_moo_ana View Post

Thank you for your feedback, I ordered the same screen (Cinema Vision 1.3) 114" diagonal. I'm planning to have a through distance of 11.15ft. I was a bit worry about the brightness & 3D performance, I guess I'll be fine

Yes, moving the PJ 9.5ft closer (to 12ft distance) should give us another ~25% boost from the light level we currently have. That should be good enough to get us to at least a 1000 lamps hours per bulb
Reply
Reply
post #6464 of 9660
4/26/11 at 2:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike infinity View Post

I suppose that it might. The xpands and JVCs will both lose ~40-50% of unpolarized light from a HP screen. That said, the plates are not perfect polarizers...ie they will also have some losses with plane polarized light even at a perfect angle. Just eyeballing with test patterns with my glasses as filters for the PJ light directly VS reflected from the HP screen I would guess that you are getting slightly less...but similar losses with plane polarized light. Its so insignificant to my eye its hard to tell.

The other disadvantage to this is that any tilt in the glasses will cause further losses if we go with a non-depolarizing screen and JVC.

When using reversed Real3D glasses for testing screen polarization levels, those seem to perform on/off very well... polarized screens go from very bright to very dark, where as the active shutter glasses are nowhere near as absolute with rejection.

PS: investigate using "plain"
Reply
Reply
post #6465 of 9660
4/26/11 at 3:31pm
I just received a follow up phone call from JVC regarding my defective lamp. They called to ask me additional questions regarding my experience with the dimming and eventual failure. It does appear that they are actively engaged in trying to identify and remedy the problem. At this point, it is clear that they are still not sure which is the causitive agent. Is it simply the bulb prematurely failing or is the projector doing something (outside of spec) to cause the bulb to fail? I am afraid, unfortunately, that they may find it to be a little of both.
Reply
Reply
post #6466 of 9660
4/26/11 at 3:36pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolplazma View Post

When using reversed Real3D glasses for testing screen polarization levels, those seem to perform on/off very well... polarized screens go from very bright to very dark, where as the active shutter glasses are nowhere near as absolute with rejection.

I'm not sure I understand the test. Can you explain it to me?

Quote:


PS: investigate using "plain"

Well it may be 'plain' old light coming from the RS40, but it is also "plane" polarized.
Reply
Reply
post #6467 of 9660
4/26/11 at 3:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike infinity View Post

I'm not sure I understand the test. Can you explain it to me?



Well it may be 'plain' old light coming from the RS40, but it is also "plane" polarized.

The light coming from the JVC projectors is horizontally polarized. All 3D liquid crystal shutter eyeglasses include a polarizing element within each lens. If the projection screen you use retains any significant amount of the polarization then using 3D glasses with horizontal polarizing elements will give you a brighter image than if you use 3D glasses that have the incorrect (i.e., vertical) orientation for their polarizing element. So far the only glasses that are compatible with the JVC's IR sync. signal and also have a horizontal polarizing element to match the JVC projector's projected image are the JVC 3D glasses. However, if you use a projection screen that does not retain the orientation of the polarization of the light coming from the projector, ie. the screen reflects light with a random polarization, then the orientation of the polarizing element within the 3D glasses will make so difference thus allowing a equally bright image with eiether the JVC 3D glasses or the compatible universal 3D glasses such as the Xpand X103. More info can be found in the "3D Displays" area of the AVS forum under the sticky thread on "Screens for 3D Projection."
Reply
Reply
post #6468 of 9660
4/26/11 at 4:04pm
It is a dedicated HT with black walls and no windows. My main concern is there are three seats that equal the width of the screen with a 9' screen to eye viewing distance. Would the two seats on the ends be outside the viewing cone? And would minimum throw 12' to a 110" or 106" screen be too bright when using the HP screen? I would also like to have the deeper black levels of a lower gain screen but no at the expense of a dim image.
Reply
Reply
post #6469 of 9660
4/26/11 at 6:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Jones View Post


The light coming from the JVC projectors is horizontally polarized. All 3D liquid crystal shutter eyeglasses include a polarizing element within each lens. If the projection screen you use retains any significant amount of the polarization then using 3D glasses with horizontal polarizing elements will give you a brighter image than if you use 3D glasses that have the incorrect (i.e., vertical) orientation for their polarizing element. So far the only glasses that are compatible with the JVC's IR sync. signal and also have a horizontal polarizing element to match the JVC projector's projected image are the JVC 3D glasses. However, if you use a projection screen that does not retain the orientation of the polarization of the light coming from the projector, ie. the screen reflects light with a random polarization, then the orientation of the polarizing element within the 3D glasses will make so difference thus allowing a equally bright image with eiether the JVC 3D glasses or the compatible universal 3D glasses such as the Xpand X103. More info can be found in the "3D Displays" area of the AVS forum under the sticky thread on "Screens for 3D Projection."

I am aware of these facts Ron. I was referring to the test with the real3d glasses. Take a look at my past few posts on this thread for context.
Reply
Reply
post #6470 of 9660
4/26/11 at 6:28pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike infinity View Post

I suppose that it might. The xpands and JVCs will both lose ~40-50% of unpolarized light from a HP screen. That said, the plates are not perfect polarizers...ie they will also have some losses with plane polarized light even at a perfect angle. Just eyeballing with test patterns with my glasses as filters for the PJ light directly VS reflected from the HP screen I would guess that you are getting slightly less...but similar losses with plane polarized light. Its so insignificant to my eye its hard to tell.

The other disadvantage to this is that any tilt in the glasses will cause further losses if we go with a non-depolarizing screen and JVC.

The strangest thing about this polarization issue is this: I am surprised that screens that don't retain polarization like the HP work well at all for 3D.
In other words, I thought 3D depends on polarization to work, no? Without polarization, left images and right images are not blocked completely at the right time and therefore shouldn't you see more ghosting with screens that do NOT retain polarization like the HP? The fact that real users' reports like yours indicate no problem with ghosting is a complete puzzle to me (I am an amateur at this so that's no surprise.).
I seem to only have more questions, and no answer! But I do believe that, all else being equal and if you have a choice, you do want to retain polarization for the best 3D effect.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mike infinity View Post

Don't the silverstar screens retain polarization? I thought those had even higher gain than HP as well.

You are correct, Stewart Silver 5D and 3D are optimized for 3D, by using metallic elements -- I assume silver -- and less plasticization in the screen material (plasticization interferes with polarization retention, aka the ratio of extinction).
However, I suspect these materials are a compromise for non-3D stuffs. In other words, these screens perhaps are "great for 3D, good for 2D."
OTOH If you are looking for something that is a reference standard for 2D (which I watch a lot more of anyway) and good enough for 3D, then I think the Studiotek 130 is the best choice. Just guessing, there is no formal, trustworthy review that I know of.

The odd thing here is that per Ron Jones's thread, the original Studiotek retains polarization better than the current generation. So I am hoping that the next generation of Studiotek perhaps will again retain polarization. I am assuming of course that Stewart could control this parameter - ratio of extinction - in this particular screen (i.e. it's not some random occurence).
Reply
Reply
post #6471 of 9660
4/26/11 at 7:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by cannga View Post


The strangest thing about this polarization issue is this: I am surprised that screens that don't retain polarization like the HP work well at all for 3D.
In other words, I thought 3D depends on polarization to work, no? Without polarization, left images and right images are not blocked completely at the right time and therefore shouldn't you see more ghosting with screens that do NOT retain polarization like the HP? The fact that real users' reports like yours indicate no problem with ghosting is a complete puzzle to me (I am an amateur at this so that's no surprise.).
I seem to only have more questions, and no answer! But I do believe that, all else being equal and if you have a choice, you do want to retain polarization for the best 3D effect (less ghosting).

That's only true for passive 3D (eg RealD 3D at the cinema), where you've got 2 PJs simultaneously projecting the 2 streams of opposite polarization which are thus (by definition) always on, and which rely on polarization friendly screen to retain polarization of the proected beams, as well as passive glasses to reject the right stream for the left eye, and the left stream for the right eye.

The JVCs utilize active shitter technology, whereby a single projector rapidly alternates a single projected beam between the left and right streams. The 'active glasses' also rapidly alternate between left lens on/clear, right lens off/black, and vice versa such that when the projector is displaying a left eye image, the right lens of the glasses is blocked/black, and vice versa when the projector is displaying a right eye image. All of this depends, or course on precise syncing of the projected image and the active 'shutter' glasses, as well as the ability of the liquid crystals in each lens of the battery powered active glasses to rapidly turn on and off 48 to 60 times/second.

Since the 2 streams aren't simultaneously on (only the left OR right image is bring projected at any given split second moment), and since the glasses rely on precise syncing rather than reacting to the polarization of the image to figure put which image to accept vs. reject, you don't need a polarization retaining screen.
Reply
Reply
post #6472 of 9660
4/26/11 at 7:38pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike infinity View Post
I am aware of these facts Ron. I was referring to the test with the real3d glasses. Take a look at my past few posts on this thread for context.
RealD glasses use circular polarized, rather than linear polarized, lens. However, when you view in the reverse direction thru a circular polarizing filter (in this case the lens of the RealD glasses) it becomes a linear polarizer. So the suggestion was to use RealD glasses (reversed) as the viewing filter for checking to what extent a given screen was retaining polarization. You do this by projecting an image from the JVC projector onto the screen then rotating the viewing filter and see to what extent the image on the screen gets dimmer and brighter as viewed thru the filter. These two points will be with the filter positions 90 degrees apart. If the image brightness does not appear to change as you rotate the filter then the screen is not retaining any significant polarization.
Reply
Reply
post #6473 of 9660
4/26/11 at 8:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zenjabil View Post
The JVCs utilize active shitter technology
Ain't that the truth....especially in the bulb department.

The passive shitters in my bathrooms were actually more expensive than the JVC.

....Zenjabil that made my day.
Reply
Reply
post #6474 of 9660
4/26/11 at 8:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by cannga View Post
But I do believe that, all else being equal and if you have a choice, you do want to retain polarization for the best 3D effect.
As the other post indicated, this is not the case for shutter based glasses. Brighter is better. I know many here would agree...the 2.8 gain HP is not only a beauty for 3D with this projector, its also an amazing 2D screen....especially the way it rejects ambient reflections. I am watching hockey right now...its like a giant kuro plasma.
Reply
Reply
post #6475 of 9660
4/26/11 at 9:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zenjabil View Post
The JVCs utilize active shutter technology, whereby a single projector rapidly alternates a single projected beam between the left and right streams. The 'active glasses' also rapidly alternate between left lens on/clear, right lens off/black, and vice versa such that when the projector is displaying a left eye image, the right lens of the glasses is blocked/black, and vice versa when the projector is displaying a right eye image.
Thanks. I see; and I still have some questions! Are you saying that image blocking in active shutter technology is done purely by turning the lens dark, and not by polarization?

If so (real questions, no sarcasm intended):

1. Why do companies like Stewart have screens for active shutter technology specifically with polarization capability? (The 5D and 3D are for home 3D with active shutter technology: both are designed to retain polarization.)

2. Why does JVC projector output image with specific horizontal polarization? And why are all these glasses polarized?
Reply
Reply
post #6476 of 9660
4/26/11 at 9:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by cannga View Post
Thanks. I see; and I still have some questions! Are you saying that image blocking in active shutter technology is done purely by turning the lens dark, and not by polarization?
The image blocking is accomplished in the glasses by using a liquid crystal layer that in combination with the fixed layer turns the lens opaque and then clear at the frequency determined by the IR emittor. The technology works with virtually any type of display that can be strobed at the right frequency...including non polarized light coming from plasma and DLP, etc.

Quote:
1. Why do companies like Stewart have screens for active shutter technology specifically with polarization capability? (The 5D and 3D are for home 3D with active shutter technology: both are designed to retain polarization.)
According to the press releases I read on both screens they preserve polarization in case anyone wants to set up a passive ...or 2-channel 3D system like a dual PJ or the LG PJ.

Quote:
2. Why does JVC projector output image with specific horizontal polarization? And why are all these glasses polarized?
Not because its 3D enabled...but because of how the LCOS technology works.

LCos stands for Liquid crystal on silicon...and this...like any LCD technology (ie like your calculator screen) works on polarization with the liquid layer and fixed filters.

My RS1 also emits plane polarized light...as does most other non-3D liquid crystal displays and projectors.

Similarly...all active glasses have a fixed polarized plate...because of the way the technology works. It just so happens that the plate on the Xpands is oriented at a different angle compared to JVC. It won't matter if you use the xpand's for any compatible TV...it only matters if you use them with a non-depolarizing screen and the JVC PJ.
Reply
Reply
post #6477 of 9660
4/27/11 at 5:44am
^^^^Mike, thanks for the very helpful and detailed explanation. I "got" it, except for one last question. Here goes:

In the 2 situations I gave earlier:
1. Da-Lite HP that does not retain polarization (current version)
2. Da-Lite HP that retains polarization (hypothetical),

Was I correct in stating that of the various combination of screen and glasses (Xpand vs. JVC), absolute max brightness is achieved with (2) plus JVC glasses? (Again, real question, not trying to prove a point or anything like that.)
Why? Because I am thinking if you're using (1), with either JVC or Xpand glasses, the polarized glasses will block part of the non-polarized light coming from the screen. Right or wrong?
TIA.
Reply
Reply
post #6478 of 9660
4/27/11 at 5:50am
Ok first off I am more than pleased with my projector. Plenty bright matched with a HP2.4 and great picture etc.

But..I only have maybe 10-15 hours on it. I am really starting to get nervous about these bulb issues. My projector only gets used on weekends at even then it is only for a movie and or a sports game. So If/when I have a bulb issue I will be way over the warranty time. I hope JVC does the right thing and takes care of its customers. It sounds like so far they are.

Has anyone purchased a new bulb? Are they available for purchase and how much?

Thanks
Reply
Reply
post #6479 of 9660
4/27/11 at 6:01am
Quote:
Originally Posted by dewey9876 View Post

Ok first off I am more than pleased with my projector. Plenty bright matched with a HP2.4 and great picture etc.

But..I only have maybe 10-15 hours on it. I am really starting to get nervous about these bulb issues. My projector only gets used on weekends at even then it is only for a movie and or a sports game. So If/when I have a bulb issue I will be way over the warranty time. I hope JVC does the right thing and takes care of its customers. It sounds like so far they are.

Has anyone purchased a new bulb? Are they available for purchase and how much?

Thanks

My advise: don't get stressed out over things you can't control. You like the picture: enjoy it. If you have a bulb issue later take care of it then... If it's passed warranty time what can you do about it? Maybe JVC will have extended the warranty by then who knows? Maybe you will have to fork out the cost (I read on these threads anywhere between 400$ and 500$).

You will likely be fine I'm sure.
Reply
Reply
post #6480 of 9660
4/27/11 at 8:21am
Noticed something that I thought was a little weird last night. I was getting ready to apply the 1.3 firmware update, so was going through the regular menu and service menu writing down the settings, just in case anything was lost. When I first got the projector, I had tweaked the pixel shift slightly in the regular menu by going down 1 notch on the vertical blue. However, the pixel shift settings in the service menu all said they were centered.

I would assume that it would be a global change, not one set of settings in the regular menu and a different set in the service menu. Isn't it the same pixel shift? Which one is actually used while watching content?

Not sure if I should go change the service menu one to match as well, or if it'll do something weird like make them cumulative (IE, down one notch on each menu will actually end up as down 2 on screen.)
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home

Gear mentioned in this thread:

AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP › Official JVC RS40/X3 Owners Thread