Sony VPL-VW1000ES vs. JVC DLA-X90R shoot out - Page 3

If I declared I'm not the least bit envious of all the VW1000 owners, would anyone believe me?

[quote=Sesshoumaru;21610670There is no, and I mean really no, visible pixel structure on my screen (185") - projection distance 9m.

Awesome. I'am really impressed.[/QUOTE]
If the panels were perfectly magnified should an observer see the same pixel structure when viewing the raw panel with a low power microscope?

I guess it will take time to sort this out. Why are the specifications on the 1000 lens?

Note: the pixel structure is also unresolvable with the 2K Sony 30ES and the 95ES.

Move over please! I want to see a 4K alternating single line white/black line test pattern.
This simple step response tells a great deal.

Sorry for the slow reply, been busy. Yes MTF is cumulative through the system from camera lens to screen, although the distribution of performance is quite different to your example as the dominant pole in the system is imposed by the pixel format chosen for output. For the 1920x1080 square pixel format the Nyquist limit is at 1080 lines per picture height, MTF must fall to almost zero at Nyquist to ensure that out of band high spatial frequencies are excluded. Since its not possible to have a filter with infinite cut off, lower frequencies in the pass band below 1080 lines per picture height are unavoidable attenuated.
What this means is that no matter how we capture the image the final video can never have the visible resolution the pixel format suggests. Response must always fall to almost zero at Nyquist for the delivery pixel format.
Put simply 2k can not resolve 2k and 4k cannot resolve 4k. The advantage of 4k video is better response at 2k and lower.

If you look at the very useful link provided by HoustonHoyaFan to Matt Cowans slide pack and refer to slide 26 "Effect of Different MTF" you will see an MTF graph on the left with three responses plotted, to the right are visual representations of the plotted responses. As can be seen all three have the same limiting resolution and therefore the same MTF at high spatial frequencies, only the mid band is different. Its clear from the visual representation that the sharpest images are created by the highest mid band MTF.
If these responses where for projectors all three would look the same at the pixel level or when examining the pixel sharp edges of PC generated test patterns but quite different when viewing real world video.

Since high mid band MTF is whats important for sharp video images its appropriate to use suitable tests to evaluate that area of performance and not concentrate on pixels. The projector with the sharpest pixels may not have the highest mid band MTF and therefore provide the sharpest video images.





Yes I have and the article that preceded it, they show that implementation and lens quality dominate performance not the underlying technology. The JVC LCoS projectors have improved significantly over time and now seem at least as good as high end DLP projectors for MTF at high spatial frequencies so neither technology seems to have an intrinsic advantage.

Encoding is not really the limitation, the pixel format chosen sets the limits. No matter what the format is spatial frequencies greater than Nyquist for the chosen pixel "resolution" must be filtered out. Unfortunately in band frequencies are ALWAYS affected and response should fall to zero or close to zero at spatial frequencies equal to Nyquist in any properly designed digital imaging system and this is particularly important for moving images where inter line flicker on high contrast fine detail can be a problem.

The conversion to 4:2:0 color and subsequent compression introduces a block structure that did not exist in the uncompressed 4:4:4 image, these blocks can have a greater difference in level than 10% but its all distortion and not something we want to faithfully reproduce if picture "quality" is our goal.

No one is suggesting we go back to lower resolution video formats but understanding the limits of what we have and how to best display it is useful.



I have used a HTPC as my only playback system for 12 years and for 6 of those used triple gun CRT projection for display. The CRT was the only display attached to the PC so it was used for everything. CRT was far from ideal for PC text but that did not stop it producing good video images.
Even cheap low res data projectors work great for PC use but they leave a lot to be desired for video. Current 1080 home cinema models dont seem to have any problems with PC text and graphics.



When I view a flat panel TV at the sort of viewing angle I do a projection screen I don’t like what I see at all. Those perfectly sharp pixels and poor fill factor give the image a harsh digital look that I find objectionable.
Video is very dirty and distorted at the pixel level so sharper at the pixel level is definitely not better in my book.



That depends on whether you prefer a clean smooth analogue looking image that better represents the source or a harsh distorted digital looking one.



No doubt cameras and mastering techniques will evolve, however the limits imposed by digital sampling and its required low pass filtering will remain.



The distortions the human ear can perceive at 20KHz after being reproduced by a speaker are very different to what the human eye perceives when looking at HD video projected on a large screen. Problems that would go unnoticed in audio are very noticeable with video.
Resampling or more accurately oversampling has been used for CD audio for years to improve perceived quality, so has upscaling for SD video. Upscaling HD video is also beneficial, although the improvements are less obvious than with upscaled SD, we don’t gain any resolution but we can get a cleaner more analogue looking image.
A similar result can be achieved with double scaling, first up with sharpening and then back down to 1920x1080 for output.



A 4K projector does not guarantee a better quality viewing experience. Unless your viewing angle is large enough for the pixel structure of 1920x1080 to be visible more pixels are of little benefit other than bragging rights, other aspects of performance will dominate.

The Sony will likely resolve 4k with good MTF but 4k video will offer much less improvement over current 2k than people think and virtually all of the improvement will be in greater MTF below 2k.

No, but Im in the same boat as you


dj

I am confused. Are you saying CRT didn't produce good video images, but acceptable PC text?

@HiFiFun: I owned the 95ES previously and there WAS a visible pixel structure. You would have to go right before the screen - but with 10cm distance I saw it clearly. With the VW1000ES is saw nothing, even with 1cm away (was hard to get this close!).

Unfortunaltly I have no black/white pattern video at hand. I only can say that without any pixeling, homogenous high brightness and very precise color renderint the video was just awesome.

LOL, funny how the omission of one little word can totally change the meaning.

I have edited my post to correct the stuff up.

I'll be a little more polite and say that judging by the photos I just saw, it is does not appear to be a clear winner in all cases. I'll have to see it up close and personal next to get a better feel for it.

The easiest way to get this close is to use rear projection.

I don't see this fascination with getting extremely close and trying to get a fix on differences. I wouldn't advocate examining a pixel on a screen with a magnifying glass or a microscope but we also could do this by using rear projection.

Video is an illusion, nothing more or less. Films whatever its all about fooling our eyes. One trick after another.

Bottom line to me for film is what total look did the director intend us to see. He is the artist and his work is what we are attempting to clearly see. Let's make it err better than he/she intended. I don't think so. Let's make it it different than he/she intended. We do that all the time in our HTs and pride ourselves on doing that. Bitch slap ourselves.

In watching video vs film, my standard of judgement, pure and simple, is what takes me closer to reality. Not what the camera and the transmission system captured, not what a microscopic examination of a display pixel shows, but what takes me closer to real life viewing of the scene being captured. What fools me into thinking I am there. What screen makes itself not add to the picture. What screen disappears and what projector makes me forget there is a projector in the chain.

And then I will ask but not answer. Is it is the JVC or the Sony for those who have done an A/B. Does one do a better job of fooling your eyes?

Can you try a BD movie with a regular 1080p PJ and then compare it to the same BD movie using the 1000ES and give us a full breakdown of what you saw?

It's been a while since this thread has been updated. Anybody have any new opinions on this?

The Sony looks amazing, but costs the same as 2 RS65 and almost 3 RS55s.
The Sony does native 4K, but theres nothing out yet, and it sounds like it may be a while.

The JVC has better contrast and faux k, but much more crosstalk and lag for gaming.

I think the 1000 makes sense (if the cost doesn't make for financial hardship!) for persons with a large screen and like to sit relatively close (~ 1.0 to 1.3 SW). The high quality upconversion from 1080p to 4K is a significant enhancement in this case, and especially the higher brightness. These, to me, are its two most imp attributes.

I posted this on the JVC X70 owners thread:

AVforums just put up their review of the Sony VPL-VW1000E 4K projector.

http://www.avforums.com/reviews/Sony...95/Review.html

They compared it directly to the JVC RS55. In a nutshell:

Sony: brighter.
JVC: Better black levels.
JVC: Better color (due to being able to calibrate better).
Sony: better 3D
Motion: essentially the same (that was interesting).

Perhaps the take home for JVC owners, after comparing the Sony to the JVC, they stated:

"In terms of 2D performance the X70 remains our reference projector"

Probably due to better color and leading black levels. But for those of us most interested in 2D movie watching with an appropriate screen set up, that's quite a nice price/performance ratio.

I remain surprised that the Sony isn't running away with the show. OTOH, I do plan to audition one as soon as I get back to the states.

They actually said that the lack of CMS was the only thing keeping me from giving it a "Reference" badge.

I think many were surprised by the lack of the CMS considering the one built into the VW95 works fairly well. Some of the reports of the banding and uniformity issues are a little nerve-wracking at that price point. I would think that each one would be Q/A'd to the Nth degree before they ship to avoid expensive swaps - some multiple per owner.

JVC has spent years mastering the black floor on LCOS panels and increasing the native contrast each year. I'm not surprised that they haven't been overshadowed yet, even with the expensive VW1000.

kudos to AV forum for actually doing an A/B test with identical sources, both projectors calibrated in the same environment and covering each lens for comparison viewing at seating distance. Too many reviewers compare projectors days, weeks or even months apart.

I had a JVC RS20 and used its CMS (with ChromaPure) to calibrate it, and was fairly satisfied. I was intrigued, though, with the autocal feature of CP if one used a video processor, so I did buy a Radiance Mini. I find the calibration results I get with it to be much better than what I could do 'by hand', and am very happy with the purchase.

And now that I have a Sony 1000, having the RadianceMini is icing on the cake.

However, turning off the DI on the Sony is not a fair comparison of it's dark scene performance!

I agree! The DI certainly makes up much of the difference of the JVC's higher o/f CR.

so they clamped the iris down since it was a new lamp in dark room. I'd do the same test to see how it fairs with native vs. native. The iris is only going to help so much with my dark sci-fi movies.

The AV review was quite complementary of the VW1000, I don't see what all the fuss is about his comments. These are his observations. If folks object, they can get both projectors and run the same tests to counter.

"Well I compared the two directly and can only report what I see and with 2D 1080p content, there really was little to distinguish the two images. I'm not saying the X70 is better but I am saying that you can get equally as good 2D images for a lot less money. Of course if I had £17,000 I think I would buy the VW1000 because I thought the 3D performance was amazing and I'd also be future proofed."

"However the native blacks on the JVC were noticeably darker than the Sony."

On a seperate note. The reviewer clarified for me that he was referring to images on a typical screen size. He agreed that the Sony would have a big the advantage on a large screen.

The issue here is if you plan to use the Sony with a 100 inch (or so) diag screen, there would be no point in making the investment. I purchased the Sonyto light up my 120 inch wide 2.35 which the JVC would not be bright enough to handle. Not to mention 3D on the JVC was a mess.

Tony, no arguments on the 3D, they need some help here. With the RS55, I run a 142" 2.8 high power and @ ~800 lumens D65 I can crank the iris to -13 for great contrast and is still very bright with HP. Obviously I couldn't do this with a screen this big that was low gain.

if the AV reviewer clamped the iris on the 1000 vs. the X70, I don't have a problem with that test since I'd want to know how they compare native vs. native. I'm a big sci-fi movie fan and looking for the best possible black floor.

What I don't understand is why it is such a surprise when it comes to comparing native contrast of theses projectors? Really?.. There's already reviews out with measurements. Going strictly on native contrast, it's no contest. 2372:1 isn't exactly world shattering native contrast if you know what I mean.

On those Dark Sci-fi movies...native is where its at no matter how you slice it.
I thought everyone knew JVC does this better than anyone out there?
Do they have flaws? Sure..black levels/contrast aren't one of them.

Did u watch the new underworld movie yet? It was a great dark movie

Yes the brighter Sony helps with bigger screens.

However, there is a tenor to the posts by people raving or owning the Sony that doesn't just stick with "it's brighter," but rather it's like a new paradigm for image quality - that there is some inherently better image quality put out by the Sony than available from other projectors. (If that weren't so, it would be routinely acknowledged that one could stick with a much cheaper JVC projector and just buy a higher gain screen, if brightness were the only advantage for the Sony).

Now, I've never seen the Sony so I don't know if it's true, or what I'd think. But it's interesting that at least in this review, when looked at strictly for PQ considerations other than sheer brightness, the JVC remained their reference for 2D images.

Since screen size was not considered, the JVC should have been compared to a 3D Titan and a 3D Lumis Solo or Duo. I'm sure the JVC would have won because of the black level.

Actually the Sony compared to the Lumis or Titan would be a little more interesting.