need advice on Runco LS-7 - Page 2

That would be nice.

Let's go back to the 3rd post...LS7 just under $7k. Skip it. It really doesn't matter what "deal" it appears, the fact is unless light output is key for you, yet not resolution (often people need light output for larger screens but then also need resolution), it might be a good option.

But if that is not the case, then for that price range you can most certainly do better, and likely for less, whatever that would end up being.

I agree about the LS-7 not being a good value, but if one likes the look of DLP, an LCOS isn't going to be the same. Every time I demo a new JVC model, I am left underwhelmed. To be fair, I haven't seen the newest generation.

They just don't look sharp enough, not enough ANSI contrast, color fringing is apparent at my 10' viewing distance and 100" wide screen. I don't like the motion, the color.

The smaller chip DLP's aren't sharp enough either, IMO. I had a CRT projector for 14 years, so I appreciate good blacks, but the Sony and JVC's just don't grab me like a good single chip DLP.

I've suffered through a long line of Optoma HD-81 and HD-81LV failures and I'm ready to move to a Runco LS-3 or LS-5. But I will look again at the newest JVC's before I buy.

I have owned many DLPs (now have a RS45) and love the look they produce (except for the Benq W6000). I know they're a little older, but the Optoma HD8600 and Infocus SP8602 both have a fantastic picture and they are just a fraction of the cost. Also very bright. Just my 2 cents.

+1
I enjoy the DLP look as well. I don't feel as though I'm missing anything with the JVC RS45. These projectors are very sharp and detailed.

Jeff you should demo at home. That's the only way to know if the LCOS will suit you. I think you'll be surprised with how good they are.

As an optical engineer I can tell you there are very precise spatial frequency tests based on different modulation depth targets which will accurately characterize a projector. The size of the format is important and the .95 single chip dlp vs. the .7 3 chip is always going to be sharper. I think if you get lucky and you get a properly aligned 3 chip JVC in a dark room It will probably produce the best image available for movies from a projector at any price. I have seen JVC even with the 3 chip format disadvantage blow away the competition at CEdia but I have never seen one demoed in a show room which had that effect, which is why I continue to buy DLP.

I know DLP is sharper, but I am just saying most will NOT miss it in movies if you get a JVC with good convergence. Some might miss it in HTPC a tiny bit. I don't really care what the numbers tell me all that much, because I know what my eyes see.

Also, there are focus uniformity issues which some DLP's have, and others might even have a pixel mapping or scaling issue. Even without those 2 factors, at least theoretically speaking the .95 would not always be sharper than all lower ones because throw ratio and other optics issues come into play what also affect sharpness, so it just depends. I have read the TI build documents on DLP projector optics, so I am just quoting TI for the most part (I have had this argument with people before and just referred them to the official TI documentation). I agree if all things are equal the higher chip will always be sharper (and I also agree the Runcos use expensive optics so in that case the higher number will be sharper). However, even the normalized MFR error of the optical assembly can also introduce some variance in DLP models even though convergence is not an issue.

I know about MTF and all that stuff, but even that measurement is highly subjective to some degree due to processing and too many variables, and there are a lot of arguments about how measured sharpness translates to the real world across different content. You cannot actually accurately and mathematically represent any living response that is multi-dimensional with pure mathematics, as you get stuck on "Navier-Stokes" like problems with too many multivariate calculations, and such problems have not yet been truly solved by mathematicians.

Well, ANSI contrast is for the most part a non-issue. The bad default gamma settings on the JVC is the reason for the issues in perceived contrast. Also the other reason is because projectors with higher native on/off are more sensitive to the gamma, because the jerkiness in gamma changes are more perceived by the eye from dark to bright because of the larger overall range as affected by shifts in contrast. You just need to spend a lot of time on the gamma calibration with a JVC projector because of this.

I have done all kinds of testing on ANSI contrast, and it mainly only helps in blown out lighting if the gamma is calibrated right. There are some things the JVC does not do well like processing of poorer signals or processing bad lighting (not even nearly purely due to ANSI contrast), but I am speaking of comparing reference level content (that is all that matters).

Throw in the movie Tree of Life, Art of Flight, or even a cheaper filmed one like Mr. Popper's Penguins, and then tell me the ANSI contrast was bad, if it was, then your calibration is wrong.

I saw a JVC X70 today at Magnolia on a curved 2:35 Stewart screen. I watched broadcast video source and a movie, "Alice In Wonderland" scenes. I made sure the room was completely black. I watched at different viewing distances. I thought the X70 was very sharp, but in an artificial way. It looked videoish, not film like. Blacks weren't as good as other JVC's I've seen, so must have been a setup issue. I didn't like the color or contrast. Convergence looked good. I just never was engaged with the image, same as other JVC's I've seen and I'm sure there are better places to demo than Magnolia, but at least the room wasn't an issue. It just didn't have the pop that I'm used to with DLP.

Last week I demoed at a high end installation company, a Runco LS-5, Q-750 and a 3-chip DLP. I loved the image the LS-5 threw, not so happy with the color of the Q-750, the 3-chip had huge lumens, but I thought the LS-5 did a good enough job of lighting up the matte screen. I ordered an LS-3 today, in hopes that the contrast is close enough to the LS-5. I'm just still enamored with DLP images and the LS-5 had the best contrast ratio I've ever seen from a sub $10K DLP.

I demoed a JVC at the same company in Atlanta. I almost canceled my order because of it. I'm glad I didn't. These units look nothing like they look in the stores. Too bad we aren't closer. I would have brought my RS45 over so you could see what POP is all about.
Enjoy your new unit!

Most of the time it's gamma misconfiguration and other calibration issues. That is the problem viewing projectors in showrooms. I've been to tons of showrooms and I rarely see a projector there configured the way it should look. I went into one place, and after 5-10 minutes of fiddling by eye, I improved the image 10-fold, that is how bad some of the calibrations are.

Calibration is everything. DLP's aren't quite as sensitive to calibration as LCOS or LCD in general, because the contrast range is tighter. DLP can still do better at some things, but the closer something is to reference level camera work, the more similar it looks on a JVC and DLP (IMHO).

The Runco's do throw a good image, but you pay for it.

Yes, when I think back over the past 6 years, most of the demos I've seen of JVC projectors have been at Magnolia. Clearly they don't know how to setup the projector properly--unlikely that they calibrate the projectors. There are way too many experienced eyes that I trust on this forum who are big fans of the JVC's, so I'm sure I haven't seen a proper demo of the various models I've sen.

Still, I am enamored with the DLP look after five and half years of viewing them. I'm looking forward to my Runco LS-3, but know that I would be happy with a properly setup JVC. I'm hoping the Runco will be pretty close out of the box.