JVC 55/65U - needs anamorphic lens or no? - Page 5

Me and Amir are best buds - he's not seen a lens either.

Gary

At 1 second, your lens sled motor must be faster than mine. It's more like 2 or 3 seconds

Ha! It might take that but the "A" lens must have passed the primary lens in at least 1sec, it does however take longer for the masking to move out to scope

Well, I actually run a faster firmware than "stock" . For stock shipping units, we slowed it down a little at the request to TUV to make them happy for European units. But for mine, from the time the lens hits the side of my light beam till it has fully engulfed it, probably less than one second.

You are welcome to load the faster firmware if you are comfortable with that kind of thing and want to try it. Assuming of course you have a CineSlide. My apologies, I forget everyone's user names. If it's a CineSlide with stock firmware, full motion (not just passing the light beam) is 1.9 seconds IIRC.

Scott I would LOVE mine to go faster, can you send that to me?

Will do.

It's because there is additional information/detail found in 1920 x 1080 source material, compared to 1280 x 720....it's actually over a million pixels with additional detail.

Rearranging existing detail over more pixels only has a benefit if pixel visibility is an issue. Just quietly, no one should be sitting that close if image quality is the priority, if one is viewing at a distance where the pixel structure can be seen, then compression artifacts too will be visible. Native(not upscaled) image information addressed to 55-60 pixels per degree is about right.

I don't have the energy to go through all that again...


But we're not talking about 1080 or 817 pixels here!!! We have 2160 vertical to start with and 1624 left after zooming! How can you continually miss this point which we've been over countless times!?! And you're calling me a troll?!?

People who have the projector are saying the're hard to make out standing right next to the screen. How on earth would you benefit by adding another 33% when you're sitting 12-20 ft away!?!

"The circle is now complete..."

The point isn't simply "how many pixels." The point is "when do we reach the thresholds of what we can percieve."

Do you not understand that to percieve any difference in pixel structure or resolution/image detail between a 50" 1080p display and a 50" 720p, you have to be close enough to do so? If you are at 15 feet from that display, you can add another 10 million pixels, another billion, to one of the displays (all other things being equal)...and it won't matter because JUST ADDING MORE PIXELS DOESN'T MATTER WHEN YOU CAN'T PERCIEVE THEM.

Cine4home's review of the RS55 said that E-shift does indeed increase the effective pixel count per square inch, and makes pixel structure "gone." They posted super close ups of the pixel structure visible, then invisible with E-shift on, inches from the screen! We owners of the RS55 can see this in person, with our noses to the screen!

So if you want to say that maybe adding even more pixels (by adding an A-lens on top) will make a visible difference, any reasonable, cautious person, especially one who has the RS55, needs to take that claim with skepticism. Saying "but...but...you'll be getting more pixels" is simply beside the point! (Not sure why I repeat this, as it's been said so many times and you just ignore it).

As for other issues:

That you accuse Drexler of calling someone a "liar."

That is not only false, it's completely uncalled for. That you would mix up the placebo (or subjective bias effect) with calling someone a "liar" means you still no understanding of bias effects. A placebo effect means someone can be MISTAKEN...not lying...MISTAKEN. See the difference?


No. Go read what I wrote again; its the opposite of what you just claimed: I said I CAN'T hear differences between the power cables I tested. I explained how, in a sighted test one cable seemed to make a sonic difference, but when I got more careful and blind-tested, I found out I could not, in fact, reliably hear any differences.

Now...following your own logic, are you a liar? Or...are you just mistaken. Following your logic on placebos, they'd be the same thing. However, I'll assume it was an honest mistake on your part.


No: the difference is that 1080p resolution is fairly well tested in terms of our perception. People with good eyesight sitting close to a big screen can be reasonably expected to percieve the pixel structure (if it is well defined by the display). That's not controversial. And you can see 1080p pixel structure near the screen. But if you have a display whose pixel structure is virtually INVISIBLE standing inches from the screen, THEN it's a whole different claim to say you can see additions to the pixel density from a regular viewing distance.


Nowhere have I said you had to take my word on E-shift. You can look at the photos from Cine4home yourself. You can audition the RS55 yourself.
In my own posts, I've actually been very cautious, saying I'm not sure yet what I can actually attribute to the E-shift technology, vs other factors like image contrast etc.




So...go see it somewhere. Just like I investigated anamorphic lenses. I've seen MANY different set ups with Schneider, ISCO and Panamorph A-lenses, including my previous RS20 projector with an A-lens. So which one of us is talking before experiencing?


Again...made up stuff. I never said any such thing. A-lenses with a 1080p display can have visible benefits, not only potentially brightness for scope, but if you are close enough, benefits in reducing pixel visibility. BECAUSE 1080p pixels CAN become visible from some close seating distances certain folks use.

The rest of what you keep writing just keeps repeating the same mistakes, and mischaracterizations of whatever I've written.

And, BTW, I'm so "anti-A lens" that I keep watching the listings for A-lenses and just investigated buying one a couple days ago.
But facts like that shouldn't get in the way of painting me as close-minded and arguing against the usefulness of A-lenses.

I could get you a deal on a used Isco III. But I think in the end I'd regret it

Much obliged. But even a "deal" on an ISCO 3 is going to be out of my league.
IF I end up buying an A-lens, I'm looking at Panamorph or Prismasonic.

. We'll never win you over then I'm afraid. I tried

So now your argument has changed and it is perceptible, and not placebo. Finally, we got there in the end. I wonder if Drexler will agree with us or keep to his 'placebo' and brightness argument.

And to be clear, I mentioned on more than one occasion Arts set up, and that he can see pixels in his front row without a lens so requires a lens to make the image acceptable from there. So it's not as if I've been trying to mislead anyone by being ambiguous about what resolution I was talking about.

And as for seating distances, I think you've probably seen me mention on many occasions (especially over on the UK forum), that I prefer and promote closer seating distances, as immersion is IMHO one of the important factors for the home cinema experience (and it causes a lot of arguments from one particular member over there). Seating distance is in my UK forum sig for example, as is one about CIH, and another about anamorphic projection.


I don't disagree and never have regarding screen pixel visibility with an RS55. My point here was about A lenses and their affect not being placebo and brightness, but being genuine and perceptible with 1080. However I still wonder what I'll see when I zoom an RS55 though.

If the source pixels are still enlarged and visible in any way when zoomed, there is the possibility of an A lens being beneficial, but I'd have to see.


I don't disagree with regards to the RS55 - I think I even said elsewhere that it's possible we may no longer see an A lens, but if I had one, I'd probably use it anyway. Depending on what's happening with the source pixels, it's possible that a lens may make a difference, but I'd have to see - I've always said I'm curious as to what I'd see when I zoom the image 33% larger. One owner said he saw a difference with the lens in place. But what happens When you zoom things 33% larger, do they get bigger, or stay the same size?

If he did se a difference, it might be because it's still a 1080 display zooming 33% larger a 1080 source. The source pixels are still being enlarged but the overlap is masking the display pixels. A lens may make a perceptible difference. Purely conjecture on my part of course, but from experience zooming does make things larger.



Well, the guy said he could see a difference, and Drexler said he couldn't, without being there himself. That's how I saw it.



My bad, but that's how it read.


Well you can make you're own mind up.

I've only ever posted what I see and try to be as factual as I can here and on the UK forum, yet often you take me to task on my 'claims' regarding A lenses as if I'm making things up. But now, back in the first paragraph here you've agreed that if you sit close enough we can see a difference. So you now must agree my 'claims' are in fact real. So why all the accusations of my comments being claims if you agree with me? That, plus the sudden grasp of the placebo argument made me wonder if it was something personal.



My issue here is that Drexler and yourself have been saying that there are no visible benefits with lenses and what people can see is purely placebo. Now you're saying that with 1080 (and that's what I've been talking about here) you can see a difference.



I've said elsewhere they look very convincing and could well do away with the need for A lenses. But what happens when you zoom things 33% larger, do they get bigger, or stay the same size?


So everything you said against my comments regarding A lenses and 1080 in this thread were untrue? You never believed in the placebo argument after all? You were deliberately arguing just for the sake of it?


So again, why were you saying it was placebo if not for the sake of argument?

Gary

im abit confused about JVC Models..

is the x70 and x90 better than the 55 ? do they all the the e-shift thing..and zooming ?

i want to get a cinemascope screen and not sure about a-lens or not..

I skipped over some of the repetition and as many of the ad hominem attacks as I could, and maybe I missed something. But it seems to me both sides of the argument in this saga have not really addressed edge definition as something other than pixel structure visibility. Setting aside placebo and brightness effects for the moment, just think about edge definition.

I am performing a thought experiment here and make no claims of expertise. So just consider these notions. If you use e-shift you will reduce pixel structure visibility, but at the expense of edge definition in the actual picture. So you get a slight softening effect (loss of gradient precision) and possibly (maybe only) a perceived loss of contrast. Artificial edge sharpening would introduce artifacts so that is no good. But using an A-lens should accomplish the goal of reducing or eliminating pixel structure visibility without the loss of actual edge detail that happens with e-shift. This should lead to slightly improved visual experience in the eyes of the observer.

In a sense, more information IS being added to the picture by using more available pixels with the A-lens, and this is how I think that happens: The original x amount of detail is conveyed to the screen with or without the A-lens. But, the A-lens conveys less noise to the signal (because there is reduced visible pixel structure PLUS less edge softening) resulting in a net information gain compared to e-shift. Remember, information is not the same as the data broadcast by the projector. It is the net result on the perception of the viewer. In other words, information is the product of the equipment interacting with the viewer's eyes/brain.

It might help to understand these ideas by drawing analogies to the bokah effect in photography. Your lens can have a razor sharp image captured in the foreground but if the depth of field is unnatural compared to what the eye does with the equivalent live image, then the overall perceived quality of image reproduction may be reduced--it is a perception of decreased verisimilitude relative to the original live subject. (Although photographers use bokah creatively in many ways.) By the same token, a video projection will look less natural, and for some, less pleasing, if the edge definition is either too soft or artificially dithered. Same problem in audio reproduction, really. I think... Compare reproduced sound waves to reproduced visual images and examine what goes into eliminating the jaggies in both cases, and what side effects result.

Here is a helpful source for considering this subject: http://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_a_useful_definition_of_an_edge_in_image_processing

JVC has sharpening you can add laying over the e-shift which re-intensify the edge definition. I seriously doubt an A-lens is going to improve the picture, if anything it is going to degrade it. In a clean source image noise is rarely an issue on any of today's projectors, although there are quite a few movies and content out there not totally clean, but a lot of it is clean.
Edited by coderguy - 1/14/13 at 11:17pm

Not when compared to zooming and using a decent A lens. Those extra 250,000 pixels make for a visible improvement. Zooming is like moving your seating 33% closer.

Gary

The RS55 is the pro version of the X70 and the RS65 is the pro version of the X90. The respective models are exactly the same in terms of specifications, operation and parts. The only difference is the name and some cosmetics to the casing. The pro models have a gold rim around the lens and gold writing on the case. I'm not 100% sure but there may be a difference in the length of warranty in different countries and in some countries like here in Britain I noticed that you can get the pro version cheaper.

Firstly, this thread has been very educational and beneficial for me. Thanks all.
I purchased an X95R last month to replace my 6 year old JVC HD1. I had always used a Prismasonic A lens with the HD1. I have a 120 inch scope screen with a gain of 1.26. When I installed the X95 I didn't bother mounting the A lens because I had read all about eshift2 and the lens memory feature and saw and heard many comments that basically said this rendered the A lens obsolete for this projector. I was a bit curious though that JVC included an anamorphic stretch option in the menu for those who did want to use an A lens. This got me thinking that maybe there was still some benefit to be had otherwise the option surely wouldn't be necessary. My 6 year old A lens was about to be sold on ebay when I found this thread. This encouraged me to mount the lens and see for myself what difference it made. I am not going to go into a technical analysis here but I will say that the lens will be staying on my projector. I sit 4 meters from the screen and the picture is noticeably better - it is definitely sharper to my eyes, not perceivably brighter though. I tried many different blu-ray discs before I came to this conclusion. I am now living in my home theatre!

From Tony at Xeit.

With 4K projectors you lose a whole Blu-Ray's worth of pixel smoothness by zooming.

Think about it: 4K image... 2160 x 3840 = 8,294,400 pixels. 3/4 of these are black bars, so you are left with 6,220,800 pixels with the Zoom Method.

8,294,400 - 6,220,800 = 2,073,600 pixels lost.

1 x Blu-Ray disk = 1080 x 1920 = 2,073,600 pixels. QED.

Zooming with a 4K projector buys you a Blu Ray disk's worth of data. Buy 3, get one free.


ANY enlarging of the image - either by zooming or using an anamorphic lens - will reduce apparent detail from a fixed sitting position. Detail is reduced by the anamorphic route, but a similar loss of detail from optically enlarging the image via the Zoom Method.

Provided you are sitting in the same position for both enlarged an non-enlarged views you will ALWAYS notice such a difference in resolution, no matter which way you get there. This is because the image is larger within your fixed frame of view (no matter which method you use to get there).

I agree, that with genuine 1080p content - computer graphics, text etc. that DOES use every single pixel available - you will notice a softening with an anamorphic lens, but this is not a practical situation at all, when it comes to movies.

* Remember that computer graphics and text are usually 16:9 format,
and hence not candidates for Constant Image Height (CIH) presentation, so you would probably never put them through an anamorphic lens in the first place as this would mean cropping the screen information. So yes, an anamorphic lens will degrade a static image, but you'll rarely (if ever) find yourself in that situation.

* Also, computer graphics and text are basically static images, virtual test patterns.
Human perception of detail is seriously degraded when images move as they do in "movies". Try this test to satisfy yourself that movement degrades perception of detail: using a static image, focus your image perfectly so that you can see every pixel tile. Then play a moving image and see if you can still see this tiling anywhere there is movement. You won't be able to. The only place you'll see the tiling during a movie is on static objects. The movement has degraded your ability to perceive the finest detail. In effect, that detail may as well not be there as you can't see it anyway.

* The important movie detail is not at the 1080p end of the range. It is more in the middle. It is very rare to find full 1080p content in movies, even animation-based movies, as anti-aliasing is deliberately introduced by the producers to reduce viewer eye fatigue around sharp edges.


Anamorphic delivers a finer, brighter image
When you use the Zoom Method you are enlarging pixels in BOTH horizontal and vertical dimensions. Anamorphic lenses only enlarge projector pixels in the horizontal dimension. There is a greater density of pixel structure with anamorphic lenses: 2 million (anamorphic) versus 1.5 million pixels (Zooming). The anamorphic image is smoother and there is less chance of seeing pixelation from a fixed viewing distance.

As to brightness, the mathematics is tedious so I won't go into a formal "proof". And image that us enlarged will lose some brightness compared to the original sized image. Starting out with you original image at 100%...

Zoom Method...
loses brightness by direct optical enlargement, reducing nominal brightness to 9/16ths of the original un-zoomed image (56.25%). This is the inverse of the increase in area. Some brightness is clawed back as the lens zooms wider (to a lower focal length). A phenomenon called "numeric aperture" increases, increasing the brightness, adding about 8% (on average, can be a little more or less) of brightness back into the image. That will take our 56.25% to around 63%.

Anamorphic Lens...
The is no loss of brightness from the vertical stretch. The lens itself will absorb about 4% of the light before expansion, leaving 96% for that expansion. There is a further 25% loss as the image is horizontally enlarged by 4/3, leaving 75% of 96% = 72%.

Comparing...
(Anamorphic 72%) divided by (Zoom Method 63%) = 72/63 = 1.14. The anamorphic image will be brighter by around 14% on average than the Zoom Method image. This can vary, depending on the exact "From" and "To" zoom settings, so let's set the range from 10%-20%. I don't know where the writer of the article got "1.4%" at all, and his "9%" is at the low end of the range. In my own Home Theater the brightness dividend is 16%.

Final word on quality...
Anamorphic lenses do NOT increase quality by only "a small amount over DVD", The increase in quality and immersion is huge. You should never be fooled by relying on the use of static/test-pattern images to evaluate moving image performance of any system.

This is the problem with the better A lenses out there. And why I don't own one. Fact is, you have to pony up $ 4k - $8K ( or more ) to find out if it is worth the improvement in your theater. Depending on the size of your screen, your seating distance and your throw ratio, it may or may not be.

Is Chateau Petrus 2005 really worth $5,330.00 a bottle? I'm not going to know the answer to that question anytime soon either ( if ever ).

Not a fair comparison. For the price of <1.5 bottles of that wine (a value proposition that would be hard to swallow figuratively and literally, for me), you get a lens AND transport that could last a lifetime, or generations. If the Schneider/Isco option was $2000, there would be no other option. Once you've had German, you would never be happy otherwise. Once you've had that wine, maybe you would have to drink water from now on, it is unlikely I too, will ever know.

Or rather until next change in technology makes it obsolete... Hardly a lifetime or generations, but perhaps a few years.

Drexler, What change in technology are you referring to that would make the A-lens obsolete?

/Christian