or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP › Sony VPL-VW1000ES vs. JVC DLA-X90R shoot out
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Sony VPL-VW1000ES vs. JVC DLA-X90R shoot out - Page 6

post #151 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joesyah View Post

Sad part is the Sony will be old news just like every other projector in less than 6 months.

Sadly - truer words were probably never spoken. Hopefully it will be for the better though. Still my sense right now is that for those that have taken this plunge it is a future proof investment for now. Similar to the Ruby, it's going to take quite a few years before you fully tap out what this PJ can do or for anything to top it by any margin. Of course, I'm saying all this upon the words and testimony of the owners and the reviews - and without actually having seen it - a situation I will vigorously manage as soon as my schedule permits.
Edited by javry - 6/14/12 at 7:06am
post #152 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by joerod View Post

.
Adidino-
Zombie - I don't mean to bust your chops. No mal intent at all. You really need to see 3D on this projector for yourself before making assumptions based on a couple of reviews that really do not add up based on my personal experience and other owners. 3D is plenty bright on this projector in high lamp mode. I have a 120 wide 2.35 AT screen and I have no complaints about brightness and I have not seen any noticeable ghosting. I was a JVC guy for several years. This is my first Sony in a long time so I'm not biased to any specific product at all. I would not hesitate to try something else if there was anything else in the market that could perform this well (in 2d and 3d) at this price point. The Lumis would be the only other option at twice the price.[/quote]
I have to agree. I have not had any noticable ghosting at all. Everyone who demos the 1000 walks away shocked how good 3D is. I do 3D on a 120" matte white 1.4 screen and it is plenty bright enough. I have never had one of those moments when I wished it was brighter like I did with other projectors. And of course 2D on my Vutec SS is too bright! biggrin.gif[/quote]

3D was really good and bright enough on that size screen that joerod has, a huge difference in quality from JVC IMO. But taken that zombie uses a 2.8 gain screen, his brightness level is different than most. I'm sure it will take at least 1500 lumens on his 142in screen to be satisfied.
post #153 of 198
Digital Leopard common wallpaper online free.

Lets see how the VW1000 compares, C`mon Joerod show us with and without the DARBEE inline.

JVC X90 unedited photbucket resized 1024x680.
RS65.jpg
post #154 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin 3000 View Post

Digital Leopard common wallpaper online free.
Lets see how the VW1000 compares, C`mon Joerod show us with and without the DARBEE inline.
JVC X90 unedited photbucket resized 1024x680.
RS65.jpg

What is your problem?
post #155 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andreas21 View Post

What is your problem?

Please explain?
post #156 of 198
34ddc297.jpg

&

5754f6cb.jpg

Unedited photos from the Sony... biggrin.gif

Look at all the detail you lose by not having true 4K... Lol.
Edited by SOWK - 6/15/12 at 1:48pm
post #157 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andreas21 View Post

What is your problem?

You are posting screenshots all the time to show off your projector, and everybody here tells you to stop. Screenshots is not a good way to show the quality of a projector!
I have tested the X70 (and yes it is the same as a X90 but alot cheaper) side by side with the VW1000 in my batcave and it is no contest, the VW1000 is the winner by a clear margin!

And the DARBEE will not improove the picture quality of the VW1000.
post #158 of 198
No thanks Kevin. I have better things to do than try and prove image Q thru screen shots. Actually the only one you are trying to convince is yourself. Others here who have had both all agree. If you really truly were happy with the JVC then you would be enjoying it instead of hell bent on convincing us. We get it. You love your JVC. That's great. Seriosuly. smile.gif
post #159 of 198
Tell you what, you guys can post screenshots and I'll be an impartial judge on my 2" android screen, winner takes all smile.gif
post #160 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post

Tell you what, you guys can post screenshots and I'll be an impartial judge on my 2" android screen, winner takes all smile.gif

Deal! smile.gif
post #161 of 198
I was at an AV store that does higher end installations today and lo-and-behold they had the Sony VW1000! I had to ask them to fire it up.
It was in a light controlled room, shooting on to a 100"16:9 Draper 1.3 gain screen. It had been "somewhat" calibrated, apparently (not full ISF but
taking factory settings and tweaking them toward a more accurate image, purportedly).

They played the Art Of Flight Blu-Ray. You can hardly have better Blu-Ray source quality than that (and I have the disc at home as well).

No surprise to me: the Sony looked fabulous. It looked liquid, quite color-rich, quite sharp, detailed and yummy. It had an excellent, dynamic sense of contrast too, the way highlights were quite bright
against mid tones and dark areas. Quite snappy. "Luscious" for some reason was the word my brain came up with while watching.

Got home, threw the same Art Of Flight scenes on my projector at home. Unfortunately my room is undergoing some adjustments and I don't have my normal light control (my bright walls are exposed, where normally I pull dark velvet curtains over them). Be that as it may: with a 100" diag image and the MPC settings at "3" the image looked truly jaw dropping in terms of image detail, clarity, solidity and just pure realism. It actually looked more impressive than what I saw on the Sony in that regard. Then, adding the Darbee Darblet processing (HD mode, I played with settings from %40 to %70) just made the image clarity, depth and realism take off even further. In terms of "wow" and "impressive" it was significantly better than what I saw at the Store with the Sony. The only area I felt the Sony may have looked more impressive was perhaps a bit more color richness, but I'm not sure. (My RS55 has been calibrated by UMR and looks very nice).

Since I don't actually have the Sony in my house to double check all the settings and ensure it's performing to it's max potential, like my RS55, of course I don't consider this anything remotely definitive or even a valid comparison, objectively speaking.
I'm just reporting more the "experience" of having seen the Sony today and turning on my system at home. I'm quite sure the Sony would look stellar at my place as well (or in any good room, well calibrated).
post #162 of 198
Judging from what owners of the Sony vw1000 say, even if the picture quality of the Sony is a bit better than the JVC RS55, the price of the projector is extremely high and out of reach for most people. I mean, even the JVC RS55 is pretty darn expensive...but the Sony is incredibly expensive. It is just not worth it even if it is a bit better IMO. However, R Harkness's opinion has convinced me that the JVC is equal or dare I say even better than the Sony after he compared the two. So actually what I'm trying to say is that most people would be extremely happy to own a JVC RS55 combined with a Darbee Darblet, rather than pay a huge amount of money for a Sony vw1000 (assuming they have the money to buy either or).
post #163 of 198

Rich,   Once one is at the quality level of a RS55 and VW1000 I think it is very hard to discern major differences without having them side by side, and both properly calibrated.    So I think most any of us could be happy with either.

 

The only difference would depend on whether one has an extra large screen, and needs the extra lumens of the 1000, and sits extra close (~ 1 SW or so), and can benefit from its extra resolution.     If one doesn't need the extra brightness and extra resolution, then the RS55 should be every bit as satisfactory as the 1000.

 

PS.   I also note that the shorter min throw ratio of the 1000 is very important for me, for I couldn't have gone to my larger screen without it.

post #164 of 198
I have seen the Sony and had the RS55. I don't understand the argument about the two. The Sony is better and it should be, its over 3x the amount of the RS55. The only way the RS55 should be considered over the Sony is if you only watch movies. If you choose to watch something other than movies, then the Sony will outperform the RS55 or 65, like HDTV, sports, gaming, and 3D. Or if the other things are only watched scarcely. The JVC might throw an image close to or better than the Sony on certain movies, but most of us like to watch a variety of things. Its brighter and allows you to get a bigger screen, but if you want to watch 3D, that will dim the projector with a big screen. Is it worth it to not watch 3D? I sold my RS55 and I must say that I find it hard to enjoy a image as good as the RS55. It was spectacular, but I want to upgrade when the new ones come out. Well, everyone who bought the Sony doesn't even have to think about upgrading to a better projector for years.
post #165 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by joerod View Post

No thanks Kevin. I have better things to do than try and prove image Q thru screen shots. Actually the only one you are trying to convince is yourself. Others here who have had both all agree. If you really truly were happy with the JVC then you would be enjoying it instead of hell bent on convincing us. We get it. You love your JVC. That's great. Seriosuly. smile.gif

OK surprising you declined a simple resolution/contrast comparison as you are so used to taking screenshots and after saying you have the Sony dialed in and once i saw the shadow detail etc etc?

There must be another Sony owner out there capable of a simple screenshot comparison of the above to showoff the Sonys outstanding optics/contrast?
post #166 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andreas21 View Post

You are posting screenshots all the time to show off your projector, and everybody here tells you to stop. Screenshots is not a good way to show the quality of a projector!
I have tested the X70 (and yes it is the same as a X90 but alot cheaper) side by side with the VW1000 in my batcave and it is no contest, the VW1000 is the winner by a clear margin!
And the DARBEE will not improove the picture quality of the VW1000.

I have found screenshots to tell a lot about a projector resolution/contrast differences especially.

My experience of seeing an X70 along side an X90 was night and day different the clarity was more than a Darbee difference and because my X90s lamp
had problems i was able to choose between 3 x90s of which they all varied slightly in clarity.
post #167 of 198
Fine Kevin. Let's also compare a couple pics of football, gaming and 3D. biggrin.gif
post #168 of 198
I'm sure there is a difference that is noticeable between the two higher JVCs
post #169 of 198
Ble0120 and others

I dont understand it too

I have seen the X70 ( calibreted ) and it was very good and a very fine projector, but I wouldnt even trade it for my 95ES - who I think is a more complete allround projector (BTW thats why I did buy that wink.gif, rather than the X70 ), with no major weaknesses in any area ( not that it is doing allthing best - it dont !, but it perform very well on allmost everything and has no area where I think its "fall through".

Dont get it wrong, I did like the X70 and think its a very good value for the money and yes, it has the lowest black level ( without using a DI ) with highest native on/off contrast off all projectors out there ( besides the X90 - and IMO the difference between say "native"10000:1 and 40000:1 is small in the real world and picture quality depending on a lot more things) and maybe a little brightere then the 95Es !? , but it didnt have better intra contrast ( showing "more" or better details in the dark scenes - On the contrary - here I did find the 95 better ) it wasnt sharpere, in was more noisy, it wasnt better on 3D, it wasnt better on motion, it wasnt cheaper,it have less memory settings and have "maybe" lamp problems !? etc. ....you get the point - it didnt fit better ,actully a little less then the 95ES for me.

So what about the 1000ES versus the 95/70 on the "paper" and for now ( til I get one to compare by my self ) , the feedback from owners and all the "proffessionel" reviwers and jungle off measurment ( wich half off them are 100% useless, because they are made off a prototype - rolleyes.gif ).

In my book it looks like this:

A hell off a lot expensiver eek.gif ( but this is a personal view depending on your priorities, and of course your economy )

A much better/sharper optic with better zoom and lens shift ( more flexsible on placement and options )

much more light output in 2D ( giving a lot better options for bigger screens, brighter/ more dynamic picture, possible options with lower gain screens / AT screens )

Better 3D with less/ allmost none? ghosting ( and maybe the opportunity to use a higher settings - duty cycle - of the Monster glasses for more brightness !? )

About same or better black level/contrast as the 95ES ? ( because off higher light output, better DI,better lens )

4K future "prof"
( yes I know, there maybe come 4K48P/60P, and maybe not 4K "bluray" right now and only maybe it can hardware/sofware upgrades - but I do think, that when the 4K movies arrives, the main part will be 24P - except maybe the "hobbit" and Avatar 2 smile.gif) because the most movie theaters cant deal with 4K48P anyway )

Even better motion handling.

extreme silent for the high light output

Higher real resolutions for photo´s and movies ( wich I think is better even with moderate screen sizes )

Better scaling engine ( the RC chip ) ?

So I really dont understand the comparsion with the X70 - and even less a compersion, where you lower the light output to match them and then conclude they are in the same "ballpark" ( like buy a car, who can drive 200 KM / Mph? but only compare them at 120 Km/Mph because the other car cant go any faster than that eek.gif )

Just my 2 cent biggrin.gif

dj
post #170 of 198
That is a great point. I remember watching half a football game with the X70 and the other half with the 95ES. Not even close. The room completely voted the Sony. Motion, colors and overall pop. 3D I won't even go there. Then we did movie trailers and this is where the X70 was closer. Black levels were slightly better. Sharpness was still better on the 95. For movies I could see loving the X70 but for overall I would feel something is missing. I think the more interesting experiment is a 95 and a Darblet.

Lastly, I almost had to give away the X70 when it came time to sell it. Seriously. That was a pretty big loss which is why I'm nervous to look at another jvc in the near future! eek.gif
post #171 of 198
Jeff Meier is at my house now and just finished up calibration of my projector. We measured 900 lumens in low lamp, 1300 in high lamp mode. auto iris off
post #172 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by d.j. View Post

Ble0120 and others
I dont understand it too
I have seen the X70 ( calibreted ) and it was very good and a very fine projector, but I wouldnt even trade it for my 95ES - who I think is a more complete allround projector (BTW thats why I did buy that wink.gif, rather than the X70 ), with no major weaknesses in any area ( not that it is doing allthing best - it dont !, but it perform very well on allmost everything and has no area where I think its "fall through".
Dont get it wrong, I did like the X70 and think its a very good value for the money and yes, it has the lowest black level ( without using a DI ) with highest native on/off contrast off all projectors out there ( besides the X90 - and IMO the difference between say "native"10000:1 and 40000:1 is small in the real world and picture quality depending on a lot more things) and maybe a little brightere then the 95Es !? , but it didnt have better intra contrast ( showing "more" or better details in the dark scenes - On the contrary - here I did find the 95 better ) it wasnt sharpere, in was more noisy, it wasnt better on 3D, it wasnt better on motion, it wasnt cheaper,it have less memory settings and have "maybe" lamp problems !? etc. ....you get the point - it didnt fit better ,actully a little less then the 95ES for me.
So what about the 1000ES versus the 95/70 on the "paper" and for now ( til I get one to compare by my self ) , the feedback from owners and all the "proffessionel" reviwers and jungle off measurment ( wich half off them are 100% useless, because they are made off a prototype - rolleyes.gif ).
In my book it looks like this:
A hell off a lot expensiver eek.gif ( but this is a personal view depending on your priorities, and of course your economy )
A much better/sharper optic with better zoom and lens shift ( more flexsible on placement and options )
much more light output in 2D ( giving a lot better options for bigger screens, brighter/ more dynamic picture, possible options with lower gain screens / AT screens )
Better 3D with less/ allmost none? ghosting ( and maybe the opportunity to use a higher settings - duty cycle - of the Monster glasses for more brightness !? )
About same or better black level/contrast as the 95ES ? ( because off higher light output, better DI,better lens )
4K future "prof"
( yes I know, there maybe come 4K48P/60P, and maybe not 4K "bluray" right now and only maybe it can hardware/sofware upgrades - but I do think, that when the 4K movies arrives, the main part will be 24P - except maybe the "hobbit" and Avatar 2 smile.gif) because the most movie theaters cant deal with 4K48P anyway )
Even better motion handling.
extreme silent for the high light output
Higher real resolutions for photo´s and movies ( wich I think is better even with moderate screen sizes )
Better scaling engine ( the RC chip ) ?
So I really dont understand the comparsion with the X70 - and even less a compersion, where you lower the light output to match them and then conclude they are in the same "ballpark" ( like buy a car, who can drive 200 KM / Mph? but only compare them at 120 Km/Mph because the other car cant go any faster than that eek.gif )
Just my 2 cent biggrin.gif
dj

I agree with you in every way! I have side by side tested the VW1000 against the VW95 in my own HT and the VW1000 won in every category. I have also tested the X70 side by side against the VW95 and I found the VW95 better in most categories, and I have tested the X70 side by side against the VW1000 and it was no contest as the VW1000 demolished the X70 in every category.

So I find it very strage that it is even a discussion going on in this forum wich is best the JVC or the Sony, only people who havent seen the VW1000 or compared the side by side would say the JVC is better. The only way to test this is in the same room with the same screen and side by side so that you can swich between them istantly with the same pictures showing. If you see them in different rooms wih days between it is impossible to tell the differences.
post #173 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andreas21 View Post

I agree with you in every way! I have side by side tested the VW1000 against the VW95 in my own HT and the VW1000 won in every category. I have also tested the X70 side by side against the VW95 and I found the VW95 better in most categories, and I have tested the X70 side by side against the VW1000 and it was no contest as the VW1000 demolished the X70 in every category.
So I find it very strage that it is even a discussion going on in this forum wich is best the JVC or the Sony, only people who havent seen the VW1000 or compared the side by side would say the JVC is better. The only way to test this is in the same room with the same screen and side by side so that you can swich between them istantly with the same pictures showing. If you see them in different rooms wih days between it is impossible to tell the differences.

I can't see anyone saying the X70 is better than the VW1000 but the only thing I can see them saying is the X70 is a better value given the price of both.

Mike
post #174 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by millerwill View Post

Rich,   Once one is at the quality level of a RS55 and VW1000 I think it is very hard to discern major differences without having them side by side, and both properly calibrated.    So I think most any of us could be happy with either.

The only difference would depend on whether one has an extra large screen, and needs the extra lumens of the 1000, and sits extra close (~ 1 SW or so), and can benefit from its extra resolution.     If one doesn't need the extra brightness and extra resolution, then the RS55 should be every bit as satisfactory as the 1000.

PS.   I also note that the shorter min throw ratio of the 1000 is very important for me, for I couldn't have gone to my larger screen without it.

I totally agree Bill. Properly calibrated side by side is the ideal.

Some people seem to think that comparing a lower cost projector with much higher cost projector is a silly exercise in of itself, but I'd totally disagree. As enthusiasts about AV products and picture quality, it's entirely understandable and sensible to want to know "What DO you get for that extra money?" It's like a $20,000 high end pair of speakers vs a $1,000 pair of speakers. To ask what kind of performance gains one gets in a product that asks that kind of money over cheaper ones is entirely relevant and intriguing to anyone who cared about technology and sound quality.

Personally, I'm not so much interested in the question "which is the better projector?" because the criteria for "better" can be so wide, and to some degree subjective (and certainly higher end AV equipment can offer things lower end do not in terms of flexibility, etc). For me I'm mostly interested in advances in picture quality. Though I like the idea of all sources being made to look better, I have a particular interest in movies on Blu-Ray - Blu-Ray being the best image source available, and movies being my main love. So if a projector is advancing the state of the art in image quality, especially for watching movies, I want to know about it, whether I can afford it or not (not only for interests sake, but there is always the trickle-down technology effect so expensive advances can predict affordable advances in the near future).

Obviously the Sony is getting a lot of love and there is at least the implication that it is in the vanguard of currently possible image quality for a consumer display device, so I'm curious exactly WHAT it is about the Sony image that advances it beyond something like my RS55. If it were just brightness I wouldn't be all that impressed, since that is not a picture quality parameter per se, and there have been bright high end projectors (brighter) available for quite some time. And in principle one could increase brightness of a JVC or whatever with something like an HP screen, as you know (given the same size image). So...what is it exactly? It's hard to get a bead on it from user and even pro reviews.

The 4K aspect is a big selling point. What does it bring to the table in terms of image quality? Allows one to sit really close. Ok. But that strikes me as more preserving image quality at close distances, vs actually advancing image quality per se. The dearth of 4K sources makes that aspect a bit moot at this time. Does the 4K nature of the display offer advantages in image processing? It seems that might be the case with the "reality creation" processing. (Do you use that setting much, Bill?). That could be something there. I certainly find the MPC processing on the JVC to be advantageous. And of course the JVC allows close seating with it's 4K-lite just like the Sony. Does the Sony have a sharper image due to better optics? It seems that's a distinct possibility, and that's always welcome - something you often have to pay for. But this is also what brings up my question of a lower cost JVC projector with a Darbee Darblet in the chain. My experience viewing the Sony at least suggests the possibility that simply adding the Darblet subjectively "upgrades" the look of the image clarity to something, if anything, even more pronounced than what I saw on the Sony. (The difference was pronounced enough to not have needed a side-by-side to notice it - however, I WOULD want the Sony in my place
to ensure it is set up optimally).

Better ANSI on the Sony? Could be, and I think it has measured higher ANSI. The JVC for instance doesn't measure with great ANSI. Though, strangely, the JVC subjectively APPEARS to have much better ANSI (or something like it) than any JVCs I've seen before. I looked for this type of advantage from the Sony and did not see it - both JVC and the Sony looked to me to have very dynamic images.

Better motion on the Sony? That would be nice. I've bemoaned the motion on my JVC. Though it seems my brain has mostly adjusted for it or something, as the motion now seems fine most of the time (I looked for the better motion on the Sony on The Art Of Flight and watched some HD basketball and some other shows on the Sony as well. I didn't actually perceive a diference in motion with the Sony. But, again...need side by side).

Anyway, these are just the things that go through my head as someone interested in all these things. Hence I think comparing high end, high priced equipment to lower cost gear is an entirely reasonable and informative project. There are so many examples that show one shouldn't simply presume you get better performance for more money - and when you do get better performance, it's interesting to understand what and why.

It's nice to read the impressions of those who have had both projectors in their home, and I respect and appreciate such contributions. You are clearly thrilled with the Sony and I don't doubt this is because you are seeing the most impressive image you've had in your home.
Edited by R Harkness - 6/16/12 at 11:53am
post #175 of 198

Yes, Rich, I use Realty Creation always, and yes, motion handling is much better than on my previous RS20.   

 

I didn't want to go through the laundry list of the 1000's advantages (it's quieter in high lamp--which I use--than my RS20 in low lamp), but in IQ I would say that the colors strike me as richer (though as you say, it's hard to be quantitative about something like this without having the 2 pj's side by side) and I believe the lens/optics of the 1000 is much superior (but I'm no expert in this area).     Mark Haflich has mentioned that the cost of the 1000's lens/optics along is probably about that of the JVC in toto.

post #176 of 198
compare the sony with a darbee to the jvc with a darbee on a 12ft screen and you might see the sony advantage...just guessing
post #177 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by adidino View Post

Jeff Meier is at my house now and just finished up calibration of my projector. We measured 900 lumens in low lamp, 1300 in high lamp mode. auto iris off

Was that displaying 2D or 3D content? There have been reports that the light output of the 1000 drops in 3D, and I think it would be interesting to know what the numbers are in low and high lamp. This is independent of glasses, etc -- the claim was that actual light out of the lens was lower.

I would also be very interested to hear what numbers people get for 2D with the iris on "auto limited" in low lamp.
post #178 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustMike View Post

Was that displaying 2D or 3D content? There have been reports that the light output of the 1000 drops in 3D, and I think it would be interesting to know what the numbers are in low and high lamp. This is independent of glasses, etc -- the claim was that actual light out of the lens was lower.
I would also be very interested to hear what numbers people get for 2D with the iris on "auto limited" in low lamp.

That was 2D mode. Reference preset with some custom adjustments within the preset for color temp and a few others. I have 3D mode set to stay at the Reference preset with some adjustments with an increase in color temp and a decrease in brightness (from 53 to 49. Yes, I have to lower it for 3D). I wish we thought to measure it in 3D mode but we didn't think to. It does jump up in brightness based on what I'm seeing. I think what some people are experiencing is when the projector goes into 3D mode, it doesn't just go to high lamp mode, there are several other setting affected. You need to make sure those are set to your liking. For example, I have my projector set to remain in Reference mode for both 2D and 3D but brightness, color temp and gamma will change to my my defined settings in 3D mode.
post #179 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by javry View Post

Sadly - truer words were probably never spoken. Hopefully it will be for the better though. Still my sense right now is that for those that have taken this plunge it is a future proof investment for now. Similar to the Ruby, it's going to take quite a few years before you fully tap out what this PJ can do or for anything to top it by any margin. Of course, I'm saying all this upon the words and testimony of the owners and the reviews - and without actually having seen it - a situation I will vigorously manage as soon as my schedule permits.

One thing I expect you can take to the bank: You won't see a VW1000ES replacement shown at CEDIA, or CES. While nothing I heard was official, the folks at Sony all seem to be indicating that the VW1000ES has "at minimum" a two year life as a current product.

That doesn't mean that the price of the VW1000ES won't fall if it's around a full 2 or 3 years, so maybe we'll find that in 2014 we can pick up our VW1000ES projectors for $14999, or $9999. Time will tell. -art
post #180 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post

Tell you what, you guys can post screenshots and I'll be an impartial judge on my 2" android screen, winner takes all smile.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin 3000 View Post

I have found screenshots to tell a lot about a projector resolution/contrast differences especially.
My experience of seeing an X70 along side an X90 was night and day different the clarity was more than a Darbee difference and because my X90s lamp
had problems i was able to choose between 3 x90s of which they all varied slightly in clarity.

Greetings, while I didn't lay my hands on an X90 or RS65 this year, last year I did have both the RS50 and RS60.

There was a distinct difference in clarity between the two. My own take was that the bulk of any difference was due to the optics, rather than anything else. I remember being really impressed with a "sense of clarity" that other projectors simply lacked.

The VW1000ES also always seemed like that to me, compared to whatever I had around during the 5-6 weeks with the Sony, whether the X70 or other projectors. The VW95ES in "clarity" (er, zombie10k, are we allowed to talk subjectively here, or are we going to have to start measuring lens performance? - for you spec fanatics). With both hat RS60 and the VW1000ES it sort of "looked like" in the old days, when I spent a lot of time with 35mm photography, and briefly had use of a very expensive Canon f1.2 lens, I think - it was 30 years ago), compared to my own f1.4 55mm (or 58, who can remember?). I think that lens was about 3x the price of mine, which was a lot more than the standard lens. At any rate, the optical difference between the two lenses was "obvious". I suspect the VW1000ES optics are also a step up from the VW95ES, but that could be illusion due to the inherent additional detail with 2->4K or pure 4K. -art
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP › Sony VPL-VW1000ES vs. JVC DLA-X90R shoot out