Official JVC X30 / RS45 owner's thread! - Page 4

Originally Posted by fight4yu

However, the translated website seems to suggest both the X30 and X70 is measured at D65 calibrated value...

Brightness D65 (eco)
Brightness measured with the short focal iris open or automatic mode.
Projector calibrated to D65 - eco lamp mode.

Brightness D65 (normal)
Same but in normal mode of the lamp.
(The noise problem can be more important

Originally Posted by paradigm

It's hard for me to believe that no professional review site/magazine has had one in their hands. It's tough waiting for this thing as it is. Why does JVC not wish to give their products in the hands of reviewers? Are they afraid they will find its faults therefore taking away sales?

Originally Posted by Smackrabbit

Please only use the term rebadged if that is actually what it is. Since the RS45 adds lens memory among other features, it is not a rebadge of the RS40. If you want to say it sounds like a tweaked RS40, then that's fine. I'm just sick of the term rebadged being thrown around by people that don't seem to understand what it means.

Originally Posted by ripley161

Yes correct, from what I have tested. You certainly cant just pop a 3d movie in and watch straight away.

Originally Posted by ripley161

Correct ghosting is still there but like I said earlier it doesnt look as bad on the x30 vs the x3.

Originally Posted by Owen

The X3/RS40 and X30/RS45 contrast and brightness numbers are not comparable as the X3 was measured after calibration for accurate colour and the X30/RS45 was not, or so it appears.

When the X30/RS45 is calibrated it should be about the same as the X3/RS40.

The same goes for the X7/RS50 and X70/RS55 comparison.

Originally Posted by kutlow

I can call it what I want to. Since I owned 4 of the RS40'S I know exactly what it was. Lighten up...Why dont you buy one and test out that rebadged bulb for us?

Originally Posted by Fat Dave

Those test numbers on the X30 are very encouraging, but I'm thinking maybe TOO encouraging. It was noted that the model tested was a pre-production model, so I'm hoping for a test of a production model that shows even remotely similar results.

Approximately double both the brightness and the contrast of the X3 seems rather extreme given what we've heard so far.

Originally Posted by Smackrabbit

You can call it what you want, doesn't make it correct. If JVC sends me one for review then I'll take a look at it. I imagine JVC has 1-2 units set aside for review, since setting aside more wouldn't make as much sense as they obviously have a lot of pre-orders to fill, and reviews will show up as those get around. As the number of units out there seem to be able to be counted on fingers now, I wouldn't expect a review from a review unit for a bit.

Originally Posted by Fat Dave

Those test numbers on the X30 are very encouraging, but I'm thinking maybe TOO encouraging. It was noted that the model tested was a pre-production model, so I'm hoping for a test of a production model that shows even remotely similar results.

Approximately double both the brightness and the contrast of the X3 seems rather extreme given what we've heard so far.

Originally Posted by AV Science Sales 4

If you are talking MSRP, the JVC is $3499 and the Sony is $3999 but the Sony includes the emitter and two pairs of glasses. If you subtract out the costs of the emitter and 2 pairs of glaases, the JVC would be about $100 less expensive. I do not think a choice between the two could be based on price except if one was not interested in 3D at all and didn't want an emitter and two pairs of glasses. The JVC because it emits the same direction polarized light from all three chips and because most screens have at least a polarization extinction ratio that would merit using 3D glasses whose polarizers are aligned with polarized light coming from the JVC, chosing the JVC glasses over others with not the same polarizer orientation, not buying the JVC glasses and chossing some other would probably not be the best decision. The JVC glasses MSRP for $179 and the emitter MSRPs at $79. Adding the JVC glasses and emitter to an RS 45 makes the JVC about $60 cheaper. Once again, hardly a reason to choose between the two. Then the extra year of the Sony warranty is free and purchassing it for the JVC would throw the money decision in the Sony's favor by quite a few hundred. But. Once again one must evaluate everything including the strength and weaknesses of each, the intended souces, and the set up parameters. Which is better generiacally is not possible to determine and it is pathetic that some repeatedely ask this question. The only question which can be answered is which is better for you.

Originally Posted by rwestley

There could be several reasons why JVC has not let professional reviews get their hands on the units yet. 1. It is possible that they have been tweaking their firmware and want to get it right before subjecting their machines to reviews. 2. In the past JVC released units to reviewers and they had issues that were reported and were not fixed.

The fact is that reviewers will get units one way or another so we should hear something soon. The reviews will also come from several forum members that have as much experience with projectors as most reviewers.

Originally Posted by Fat Dave

Those test numbers on the X30 are very encouraging, but I'm thinking maybe TOO encouraging. It was noted that the model tested was a pre-production model, so I'm hoping for a test of a production model that shows even remotely similar results.

Approximately double both the brightness and the contrast of the X3 seems rather extreme given what we've heard so far.

Originally Posted by AV Science Sales 5

I was told best mode lumens were increased around 30% across the board, not just the 55 and 65. JVC did not say a word about increased light output for the 55 and 65 and yet early reports (Cine4home) have shown about 30% increase.

Originally Posted by Thebes

Hi,

it's right about brightness but not for contrast :

In fact, the real comparison are :

X3 - Iris open - Short Throw : 22 800 :1
- Iris open - Long Throw : 30 000 : 1

X30 - - Iris open - Short Throw : 34 700 :1
- Iris open - Long Throw : 46 600 : 1

About the X30, the measures of contrast at 64 900 : 1 is with iris closed and long throw. This measure was not available on the X3 because brightness was too low, it's what I understand...

Originally Posted by Thebes

Hi,

it's right about brightness but not for contrast :

In fact, the real comparison are :

X3 - Iris open - Short Throw : 22 800 :1
- Iris open - Long Throw : 30 000 : 1

X30 - - Iris open - Short Throw : 34 700 :1
- Iris open - Long Throw : 46 600 : 1

About the X30, the measures of contrast at 64 900 : 1 is with iris closed and long throw. This measure was not available on the X3 because brightness was too low, it's what I understand...

Originally Posted by AV Science Sales 5

You did see where Cine4home got about 30% increase in lumens over last years 50/60? Jvc did not advertise about that either.

Originally Posted by nohjy

50%+ increases across the board!! Absurd. Obviously, this has no chance of turning out to be the case. Someone was not performing the testing properly. I will wait until we see numbers from someone we know and trust.