Sony VPL-VW1000ES vs. JVC DLA-X90R shoot out

The Hasbro starfield shot/s shows the CR advantage of the JVC. The Sony is sharper is this 'Reality Creation' at work?Impressive.

.......however there is a link to the Sony at the bottom of the page, but not the JVC...which makes me go.....hmmmmm!

Translated:

http://translate.googleusercontent.c...i6u9n9nR0fIjVg

Whats with the dark shading VW1000 in the blue clear sky, Robot pic, Adaptive Iris blowing in a storm?

Holy! the sharpness difference is amazing! too bad that projector costs 25k. Do you guys think they will come out with a model next year for less? if i could get one for 10K, i'd love that. no time soon i'm sure, but man oh man, i want

That is good convergence, but my JVC RS-45 is pretty close to that, you'd be surprised after it drifts into place it's about 0.1 pixels off in the center. However, I assume I have above average convergence compared to most JVC's. My blue does drift a bit, but doesn't affect the image at all since the red fully drifts into place across most of the screen.

Yah for 25k they better spend extra time aligning that convergence up, and it appears that they do. Actually I'm assuming they use a much more laborious and time consuming method that costs a bit of extra money with more precise equipment (not sure how it's done).

the translation is tough to read. did the X90 have a convergence issue or no?

I wonder if it had focus issues like my first RS55. I'll have to convince Mark to stop in PA before he heads to NY with the VW1000. My replacement RS55's focus is quite sharp and has very good convergence. I'd like to see the VW1000 on my 142" next to the RS55.

Star field and color on the girl looked a bit better on the X90?

I like that they refer to it as 'Victor'. I still have a Victor Sega Saturn called the 'V-Saturn'

The level of detail is very impressive in those VW1000 pics, is this better than high end 1080p DLP? I'd love to see some comparisons of the same test pattern.

Is it just me or is the shadow detail better on the JVC?

I was wondering the same thing, how would the VW1000 fair against a Lumis or Mico.

Shadow detail does appear better.. but who knows how, or if the units were calibrated. I can't follow the translation too well.

No way to know any of these things from that review or the images, you'd need to check it with a sharpness pattern.

My JVC RS-45 is sharper than most DLP's believe it or not, I'd like to compare it to a Runco and see how far it is, it's gotta be close. It's not as sharp as a Benq w6000, but it's close.

Using purely a line pattern like he used isn't actually the COMPLETE way to check sharpness, you must used a circular'd line pattern at every angle on the screen, non-aliased text of varying sizes, cross patterns over multiple colors, and finally some type of video sharpness test. I made a test for this, been using it for years.

This is very informative--just the comparison I've been hoping to see, with my own eyes if possible, but this is the next best. It certainly shows that the Sony's 4K gives a sharper, etc., pic than the JVC's e-shift 4K-lite, and the star field shows the slight advantage the JVC still has in this very special circumstance. Very helpful!

@ Bremenfx1 - I can't follow the translation.. can you tell us if this particular X90 had a focus or convergence issue? My first RS55 might have looked ok to some, but there was something wrong with the focus and convergence. The replacement was much sharper and also affected the e-shift IQ.



certainly the 4k native should trump the JVC in absolute resolutions tests, I'd like to see how it looks at normal seating distance vs the RS55 on my 142". I am mainly curious if the black level will be as convincing since I watch a lot of dark movies and need the best black level possible for my HP screen.

That will be a key bit of information.

It appears around 50% to 60% of the stars are 'lost' in the Sony

You really can't judge contrast, shadow detail, brightness, or black level from screenshots, there's just way too many variables, like did the camera crush black, etc.

I fully agree that screen shots don't mean much as far a black levels and shadow detail are concern. This is true in part because most of use view those screen shots on our LCD computer monitors that have 1000:1 CR, if we are lucky.

Computer generated test patterns are pretty much useless for determining a projectors "sharpness" with real world video content as video has nothing in common with pixel sharp test patterns, why people take any notice of such "tests" is beyond me as it shows a lack of understanding of the issues involved.

The best way to meaningfully measure image sharpness for video is via MTF (Modulation Transfer Function) measurements, that's the way cameras, lenses and film are measured for good reason.

I have the ISO 12233 chart in my pattern next to an image of a circuit board, next to many other test images all one screen and all individually to analyze in a sequence and give a rating. I have a decent idea of what I'm doing (although I'm not the all-end expert on it, I know JUST enough to judge it properly).

http://www.google.com/imgres?q=iso+1...:0&tx=15&ty=79

That lumolabs article is pretty good about sharpness. The actual thing goes beyond my expertise, but it shows you how complex sharpness really is. A single MTF measurement does not cover it all. You do in fact need to take an average of multiple test patterns to determine the visual perception of sharpness, taking a single reading no matter what it is will never be complete.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"not satisfied that resolution measurements are sharpening measures. Quoting MTF50 was ok when it was a direct analog measures of optical performance. Not anymore. So, we at Lumolabs are researching alternative measures. One is the blur momentum (ZBM and FBM) where m=0 for the zeroth blur moment ZBM and p=1 for the first blur moment FBM. The following holds true for the hard pixel: mth BM(hard)=1/2 for all m. The delta_lum integrand means the (minimal) deviation of edge luminosity from an ideal edge step function {0, 1} and px the distance from the edge position measured in pixels."

"Note: MTF measurements as published on the web are more than everything else, measurements of the applied sharpening settings. As there is no standard for these settings, MTF50 values from different sources cannot be compared. The difference of edge blur widths may still be significant though as we will discuss in a second. Also, measurements of lens MTFs obtained on an optical bench are comparable as all luminosities are to be recorded linearly and without applying a spatial filter then."

"In practice, it turns out that this equivalence relation between the 9-91% edge blur width and the MTF50 frequency is quite generic." --- Lumolabs
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't know how everything exactly comes out for a projector, but I do know that my test pattern works. I don't agree that only one MTF test is all that matters since we also use our projectors for gaming and some use HTPC's for their content as well, and to do MTF testing is very difficult comparatively from the way that article sounds since there are holes in the methods.

The JVC does very well in all areas from seating distance when you average the patterns out. People that think it looks soft on text either have a convergence issue or don't know how to judge it correctly. When I bought the JVC, I was NOT expecting it to pass my tests NEARLY as well as it did, let me put it that way.

Keep in mind that video is actually a mix of rendering and computer enhancements to video content these days. Most movies are using digital cameras, not film anymore. Even when film is used now, it is often altered by digital intermediate formats as far as I know (that's what I keep reading online). There are exceptions, but the latter is now the norm rather than the exception.

I have mine on order but I have to wait until those who have them on order from us get theirs. I won't get my new Studeotec 100 material to replace my Studeotech 130 G2 for about 3 weeks. I ordered it up on Monday.

I do have some proprietary info on how the panels are aligned but all I can say under my nondisclosure agreement is that no trained monkeys, chimpanzees, baboons, gorillas, or children are used on the Sony production line. Its all machines and humans of legal age.

In regards to the Sim2 Lumis Solo-3D a UK AVS Mod saw both the VW1000ES and Solo and preferred the Lumis Solo. But then again the Lumis Solo is alot more expensive than the Sony.

No wonder they wouldn't let me inside

I would note that neither of the projectors under discussion actually have panel alignment adjustments. The panels are aligned at the factory and are bonded permanently into place in the x, y, and z axes. The adjustments actually adjust how each of the image frames going to the three chips appear on each chip. Thus on one chip a line appears as a row of lit pixels. On another chip the line is constructed using two pixels with part of the line being on one pixel and part odf the line appearing on the second pixel and the line now including the space between the two pixels. Thus the misconvergence which is static and non adjustable is masked by having the off position line now appear as being properly located.

MTF is not a single measurement or single number, its comprises contrast measurements over a range of spatial frequencies up to the limiting frequency of the system, which corresponds to the pixel grid of 1920x1080 or 1080 lines per picture height. The data is presenting in a frequency v contrast (amplitude) graph in the same way as a audio frequency response graph shows amplitude v frequency. Just as with audio we are after a flat amplitude v frequency plot or 100% MFT at all frequencies, unfortunately because of the low pass filtering requirements of digital sampling via a digital camera, film scanner of downscaling of high res computer animation the amplitude (contrast) response of video falls away dramatically at high spatial frequencies.
At frequencies equal to about 800 lines per picture height MTF is down to about 30% (about 5db down) and at spatial frequencies equal to 1080 lens per picture hight (the limit for HD video) response is down to 10% or less (more than 10db down).
If we had an audio system that was 10db down at 20KHz we would be very unhappy but thats as good as it gets for 1080 video and there is no way around it.

The eye needs contrast to see detail and the finer the detail (higher the spatial frequency) the more contrast (MTF) we need. Unfortunately ALL video has a falling MTF response and essentially no response at very high frequencies close to that of the pixel grid.
10% MTF means that only 10% of the original contrast remains in the image, at the pixel level this means that if the input to the system was a full white pixel next to a full black pixel the system output would be a 55% grey pixel next to a 45% grey pixel at best. This level of contrast is useless for film and television presentation, all the eye will see is a grey blur with no detail at all.
Luckily image sharpness is not defined by sharp pixels but by high MTF (contrast) at much lower spatial frequencies that a 1920x1080 video system is capable of reproducing.

30% MTF is very blurred and typically classed as the usable limit by digital video camera makers and the film industry as only very high contrast details will be visible to the viewer, lower contrast information in the source will be lost. 30% MTF for 1080 video occurs at about 800 lines per picture height, for a full image that translates to about 1420x800 usable resolution, far short of what people expect from 1920x1080 HD, and that may be a hard pill to swallow for many.

Since video has no sharpness at the pixel level why on earth would we care about how sharp the edges of pixels are or how sharp 1:1 mapped digitally created test patterns look when they have no relationship to real world video?
Nice crisp square edges on pixels introduce out of band high frequencies that are not part of the original analogue image and therefore represent distortion. Ideally pixels should have soft smooth edges and blend together seamlessly, this is what E-**** achieves.
We can get a similar effect by adding many more pixels as the pixels are so small they smooth the image, thats what the 4K Sony achieves.

If the Sony does look sharper than the JVC with real video its because it has higher MTF not because it has more pixels.




As I said, MTF is not just “one test”. It may not be the ONLY measure of what we see, however it translates very well. If MTF is low the image will look soft even if resolution is VERY high, and if MTF is high the image will look sharp, its very simple. Its much the same as a frequency response plot for an audio system but much more difficult to measure. Just because its not easy does not mean its not appropriate, the camera, lens, film and television industries have used it for decades.



It matters not if we capture with a digital camera, a film scanner or downscale high res CGI, the laws of digital sampling apply to all and are not flexible. A 1920x1080 image format cannot provide 1920x1080 visible resolution if the source is sampled, life’s just not that simple.

CGI can be made sharper than film as there is much less MTF loss, but if we want the CGI content to blend with the film content it must be softened to match, and it is.

That wasn't a very good review. I wouldn't base anything on that write up.

@Owen:
The pattern I use does not judge pixel-level sharpness, it is made for judging many different types of sharpness at seating distance, including video. So I judge sharpness with my patterns from seating distance, not from the pixel grid. I have never judged it that way. Although pixel-level sharpness is one of about 5-6 attributes that can be weigthed in, but it's not the sole determining factor.

MTF is a single approach, let me put it that way. It is not as valid or complete of a measurement as it used to be, the article explains why. Only certain ranges are applicable to be used for comparison in certain things.


The input effects certain general characteristics of how the final output will look when it comes to these things. There are other things besides just movies and video that we use our projectors for, there are many reasons to average sharpness out rather than to pick one attribute. Also, the way pixels are supposed to look is subjective, there isn't an exact science to it. I would say JVC has it right, but others might prefer it differently. Of course there are general rules. MTF does me no good personally. It can only be done in a lab, to do the measurement properly is too expensive and time consuming for one, and for two it is not the best and proper measure of sharpness anymore at the current level we are at. The camera lenses and other such things are rated in laboratories and this is a different type of use anyhow that also is factored in with the sensitivity of the input/output of the final picture in regards to limitations in the lens, for a projector we are only watching the final output rather than taking an input that then gets outputted (two separate things). MTF may be fine if a person is writing up a study of a projector's lens, but beyond that it doesn't serve a huge purpose. There is a default sharpening enhancement in certain projectors even when we have sharpness at 0 and this further distorts the measurement for projectors.

As you have said before, many projectors are already as good as they can be related to MTF for video, so then to judge sharpness we have to also factor in the other attributes.

I did not mean to suggest you are using pixels to judge sharpness and was not directing my comments at you, I was simply concerned that people where making judgement on relative sharpness between projectors based on computer generated test patterns posted on a web site that have no relevance to real world video.
If people want to get up close to the screen and examine test patterns, small convergence errors, pixels etc that's fine but it wont provide much useful information about sharpness of real world video.
If people want to make a test pattern more useful, capture it with a film or video movie camera and display it on screen at a normal viewing distance as you would for normal video content, at least that way they will be taking the characteristics of the source into consideration when making an evaluation.



The "article" is a bit of a worry, the guy rambles on and mistakenly calls Modulation Transfer Function "Modular Transfer Function". Can you find a more reputable source that provides a useful alternative to MTF testing as a way of measuring sharpness of a video system or component?

I have never seen an MTF graph that does not cover all the spatial frequencies under the Nyquist limit. The only "cherry picking" I have seen is when a single point is quoted, but quite obviously a single point is useless at describing the frequency response of a system and can be ignored. When the entire graph is examined we do get the information we need if we know how to interpret it.



True enough, that's why we should use an appropriate test image for the intended use. A PC generated test pattern with 100% MTF at the pixel level is not appropriate for video with 10% MTF at the pixel level. If we want to evaluate movie performance use movies.



In the end everything is subjective, but sharp square edged pixels have no relationship to what comes through a camera lens. To better represent the scene pixels should smoothly and seamlessly blend together, sharp edges at the pixel level are bad if you sit close enough to see them, if you dont it doesn't matter.



I agree, the JVC's are plenty sharp for video and any improvement will be very subtle.
I never suggested MTF measurements where practical, but if people want hard numbers to evaluate sharpness I am not aware of any other method.
The most practical and sensitive tool we have for evaluation is our eyes, combine them with an appropriate video source and we have all we need.



That's an important point, sharpening alters MTF and our perception of sharpness. One projector can be pronounced "sharper" than another simply because it employs more aggressive sharpening even when the sharpness control is set to off.
Projector sharpening systems are often quite rudimentary, high quality processing of the video signal before it is sent to the projector allows potentially much greater control and overall quality. If you dont like what you see you can adjust to taste provided the projectors basic design and optics are not the real limitation.



The standard of reasonably priced projectors is now very high so there will be no dramatic improvident in future. However I would be surprised if the Sony did not have better optics than the JVC given its price and the demands of 4k source.

All fair points I think, but this is about as far as I ever wanted to go into the sharpness thing. I am confident that my sharpness testing works, and that's enough for me. I just look at the video and the patterns and make a little note here and there.