or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP › Average Joe Owner Sony VW90ES/JVC-40 Face Off
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Average Joe Owner Sony VW90ES/JVC-40 Face Off - Page 2

post #31 of 559
Quote:
Originally Posted by omicronian View Post

[*]I measured between 16ms and 33ms input lag with games, instead of a horrible 200ms.

Well this is interesting, what lag testing method did you use? I had assumed that if I wanted to go 3D (or really any future technology) I was going to have to put up with horrible lag.
post #32 of 559
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombie10k View Post

Do you have a reference for this info? I've been looking for it and not sure where it sourced from. thanks.

I thought the JVC defaults to a 1.8 gamma for 3d?
post #33 of 559
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Sorel View Post

Thread has been cleaned up...NO STREET PRICES, PLEASE!

Thanks, Mark, for the info on the MSRP of the 3 new JVC models.

Sorry, joerod, but I had to edit one of your earlier posts.

What is the MSRP of the VW90?

No worries.
post #34 of 559
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoreyM View Post

Well this is interesting, what lag testing method did you use? I had assumed that if I wanted to go 3D (or really any future technology) I was going to have to put up with horrible lag.

That cant be with frame interpolation on?
post #35 of 559
Quote:
Originally Posted by kutlow View Post

Yes Joerod you are correct. The only fault with the JVC that I have is the fact that they use 120 htz panels vs 240 htz panels. Why would they do that? Maybe next year we will see 240 in the jvc.

The Sony is build on last years machine. The panels are not true 3D panels but 2D platform. Next year you will see a new Sony with new panels designed for 3D.
That aide I have always preferred the Sony for a more analog image. The Sony always looked less digital to my eye and cleaner. The JVC has better black level if your an on/off fanatic.
We can list shortcomings for both machines and what one person thinks should be taken as personal preference, remember others have different rooms, eyes, likes and dislikes & requirements so to many brand B Kicks brands A butt.

Enjoy.
post #36 of 559
Type slower.

Built not build

aside not aide

you're not your

Brand A's not brands A

Though your post is better than an AG locator GPS.
post #37 of 559
To much.

Where's Chuck?
post #38 of 559
Thread Starter 
Sorry, I've been gone so long guys...I've had some personal issues to contend with, and between those, and spending (way too much time) with these 2 projectors, I literally have not had one second to spare. Unfortunately, it's late, and I had zero sleep last night, so I will bid you ado, but I'll try to find at least 30 minutes tomorrow...Right now I must crash......Just want to say, I still haven't decided on which to keep...May just keep both until the next best thing under 10 grand arrives... I will post a list of pros and cons for both these machines tomorrow. Most of you who are familiar with both these brands probably already know what to expect....
post #39 of 559
Hopefully your personal issue aren't to serious, and i'ts good that your taking the time to still post here.

I would guess that the Sony is slightly sharper and more film like. It also has slightly better FI modes with less artifacts, and it's great for motion.

The JVC will have the slightly deeper blacks, more vivid colours, brighter, but more digital looking.

I would guess the 3D is up in the air, as it seems to vary greatly from person to person and unit to unit.

As I was very unhappy with the Sony's 3D performance, and that was my main reason for returning it (loved the 2D quality). I'm hoping that the JVC is a setup up for me in the 3D department. I should have mine any day now, and I'll focus on the 3D aspects in particular between both units. Even though I don't have the Sony now, I clearly remember the level of ghosting and what scenes they were the most visible in.

I hope they don't announce a Panasonic 3D projector at CES that uses some now tech to eliminate ghosting completely, or my RS50 may have the record for shortest lifetime in my theater. Actually, that would be the Sony which I owned for 9 days :-)
post #40 of 559
Here's the Input lag test for my VW90. The monitor on the left is cloned.
A few months ago, I had a similar 16ms result with my old VW50 too. I would expect the true value to be "less than 33ms" if I could use a CRT as a reference.


LL
post #41 of 559
Quote:
Originally Posted by Murilo View Post

That cant be with frame interpolation on?

No it wasn't. I tried it and FI seems to need 3 frames, I got 62ms :


LL
post #42 of 559
This is with 3D enabled... I used top-bottom 3D mode so we can see it correctly.
16ms. There is absolutely NO lag caused by 3D on the VW90. It's still a single frame.


LL
post #43 of 559
Thanks omicronian. Is that with HDMI in?
post #44 of 559
Yes, and my test also includes the lag from my denon 3311 (in theory it's only a small part of a frame). It's the whole system.
The path is Computer-DVI --> Denon-HDMI --> VW90-HDMI
While the monitor was connected directly to the computer.
post #45 of 559
So would you say that the Sony smokes the JVC in input lag time? in 2D to 3D conversion? 3D Frame Interpolation? Higher ansi contrast? Jury still out on motion handling?

Perhaps it is in the realm of possibility that some people are willing to pay more to get these improvements. Others are not. I just don't get the thrill that some people get in trying to put down other people's purchases all the time.
post #46 of 559
Most people try and justify what they just spent all the money for. Human nature.

I tried to justify keeping the Sony, but in the end I couldn't convince myself that the 3D was every going to be anywhere near good enough "for me".

Now, I won't have any issues with telling you guys if the JVC is better, the same, or worse for 3D. I'm already planning for the worst, and seeing how I could mount the Acer (really almost impossible with no lens shift!!)

2D should be interesting as I really liked the Sony, but was not happy with how the FI worked in 2D, and I had a slight pause every few minutes with multiple 24p sources. The Sony does not have a useable FI for movies. Even on low in creates the Soap effect. while my current Epson, and from what I've heard he JVC, gets rid of judder without the soap effect.

Also, I had issues with the FI in 3D. Extreme loss of detail during panning. I wish I could show someone where it happens. Once you see it, then it's always visible. Im VERY surprised that nobody has mentioned this other then me. I should have taken a video when I had the VW90 and posted it.

I am worried a little about input lag as I do game sometimes. But, it seems that very few people are actually bothered by it from what I've read in the JVC threads.
post #47 of 559
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Gouger View Post

The Sony is build on last years machine. The panels are not true 3D panels but 2D platform. Next year you will see a new Sony with new panels designed for 3D.
That aide I have always preferred the Sony for a more analog image. The Sony always looked less digital to my eye and cleaner. The JVC has better black level if your an on/off fanatic.
We can list shortcomings for both machines and what one person thinks should be taken as personal preference, remember others have different rooms, eyes, likes and dislikes & requirements so to many brand B Kicks brands A butt.

Enjoy.

Im guessing next years machines from jvc and sony will be awesome! Is there a preorder list already started? hahaha
post #48 of 559
OK, I am a complete newbie to projectors (this is my first one) and have RS50 on pre-order. Sony VW90 are available now.

Bottom line is that 75% of my viewing is sports/gaming/TV. I have heard motion handling on Sony is better. Question is motion handling on JVC good enough or would you pay extra cash for Sony. Brightness also counts for me as I am at 110" screen.
post #49 of 559
Quote:
Originally Posted by villarrr View Post

OK, I am a complete newbie to projectors (this is my first one) and have RS50 on pre-order. Sony VW90 are available now.

Bottom line is that 75% of my viewing is sports/gaming/TV. I have heard motion handling on Sony is better. Question is motion handling on JVC good enough or would you pay extra cash for Sony. Brightness also counts for me as I am at 110" screen.

Both projector will be amazing and will make you, your family and friends very very happy.

But...

[Flame suite on]

If you want the absolute best for TV/Sport/Gaming I think the sony will be better. When you send a 1080p/60 signal to the Sony, the motion and sharpness are just amazing... Also the sony FI for the 60fps is the best in it's class.

But... 2000$ better ? You are the only one to decide...

[Flame suite off]
post #50 of 559
Sending my VW90 1080p/60 from my DVDO DUO has produced jaw dropping results. Same goes for using a Blu ray player with Dual HDMI outs (Panny BDT300 & Oppo 93) with 2D and 3D movies. Not saying a JVC pj couldn't come close but I am very happy with my purchase of the Sony.
post #51 of 559
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

Type slower.

Built not build

aside not aide

you're not your

Brand A's not brands A

Though your post is better than an AG locator GPS.

Nothing worse than a reformed anything . . .
post #52 of 559
comparison on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQxU2RhAXgk (I think JVC X7 is on the right)
post #53 of 559
Quote:
Originally Posted by lebloganthrope View Post

comparison on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQxU2RhAXgk (I think JVC X7 is on the right)

Wow, this video gives a whole new meaning to "apples to oranges". More specifically "red" apples to "yellow" oranges, if you know what I mean
post #54 of 559
If anyone have seen 3D on the Sony "out of the box" and, like me, you were put off by the dim image, you REALLY have to see it with better settings. To prove my point, I took some shots of the brightness differences between sony's factory default settings and my settings. I took 2 shots, the first one shows the effect of the gamma (low-light background) and the other image is a very bright scene, showing the peak brightness is also much higher. I can't see much ghosting either, there is some but you really have to look for it in the background.

The shots are Cloudy Meatballs at 00:24:45 and at 00:27:04. Manual exposure is the same on each respective image, 6500 white balance.

Sony factory settings and sony glasses.

X103, and my tweaked settings.

Sony factory settings and sony glasses.

X103, and my tweaked settings.

LL
LL
LL
LL
post #55 of 559
Quote:
Originally Posted by lebloganthrope View Post

comparison on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQxU2RhAXgk (I think JVC X7 is on the right)

Yes, Sony on the left and JVC on the right...
post #56 of 559
Quote:
Originally Posted by omicronian View Post

If anyone have seen 3D on the Sony "out of the box" and, like me, you were put off by the dim image, you REALLY have to see it with better settings. To prove my point, I took some shots of the brightness differences between sony's factory default settings and my settings. I took 2 shots, the first one shows the effect of the gamma (low-light background) and the other image is a very bright scene, showing the peak brightness is also much higher. I can't see much ghosting either, there is some but you really have to look for it in the background.

The shots are Cloudy Meatballs at 00:24:45 and at 00:27:04. Manual exposure is the same on each respective image, 6500 white balance.

Sony factory settings and sony glasses.

X103, and my tweaked settings.

Sony factory settings and sony glasses.

X103, and my tweaked settings.

Can you post your latest settings again? I want to try them out. Thanks.
post #57 of 559
Quote:
Originally Posted by omicronian View Post

If anyone have seen 3D on the Sony "out of the box" and, like me, you were put off by the dim image, you REALLY have to see it with better settings.

Agree. Once you change the setting, the image is no dim anymore.
post #58 of 559
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by joerod View Post
Can you post your latest settings again? I want to try them out. Thanks.
+1...same here. I'd like to see what settings you are using...From those shots, it looks like you've eeked out more brightness than I have been able to...Thanx, I'd like to try them out before I lay down my final review.

Chuck
post #59 of 559
Quote:
Originally Posted by dogone View Post
+1...same here. I'd like to see what settings you are using...From those shots, it looks like you've eeked out more brightness than I have been able to...Thanx, I'd like to try them out before I lay down my final review.

Chuck
Something tells me they are a variation of yours. Pretty much a good combo of both of yours.
post #60 of 559
Thread Starter 
I'm going to reserve my final thoughts and comments until my final and somewhat lengthy, review. But, for now, for all concerned, I will say that if you are more interested in 2D quality and you've got the means to buy the Sony VW90ES...do it. The 2D picture quality (to my eyes) after days of calibrating (and viewing everything I could throw at it), is nothing less than phenominal...The picture is bright, punchy, (almost DLP like) Very good blacks...There is just something really special about the image quality...The JVC is no slouch..(I love it!) I love playing with all the settings and there seems to be so much more you can do with it in the way of calibration, but still...I just cannot reproduce that unique look that the Sony has. I've already said more than I wanted to, but the bottom line is...If I were rich and it wouldn't phase me to keep both of these, I'd use the JVC for 3D because of the brightness (not because it has a better image in 3D), and I'd use the Sony for 2D material...The Sony is just not very bright for 3D
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP › Average Joe Owner Sony VW90ES/JVC-40 Face Off