or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP › Predictions for 2013 4K projectors
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Predictions for 2013 4K projectors - Page 17

post #481 of 691
Quote:
Originally Posted by blee0120 View Post

The jvc projectors use an upscaling process that is similar to the 4K process. There is no 4K projectors under $20K right now but Sony is making a newer cheaper 4K projector this fall but its probably going to be $12K. Also, the last two jvc projectors I had, I didn't use the 3D really, maybe 3 movies but its mainly for 2D for me. So, just because they have 3D, you don't have to use it for 3D. No need to skip them just because it has 3D. I'm guess it will be at least 3 years before its $5k

So how can JVC call it 4K if it isn't 4K? I have a Panny 3000U right now and was thinking of getting a 8000U this fall, but after hearing about all this 4K stuff It just seems to confuse me even more. I have a 10 foot wide CIH setup. Just wondering if I will notice anything with the JVC 4K unit.

Is there any comparison of 4K with this JVC unit vs non 4K on the same unit if that is even possible. Just need to see comparisons before making a decision.
post #482 of 691
Quote:
Originally Posted by chipvideo View Post

So how can JVC call it 4K if it isn't 4K? I have a Panny 3000U right now and was thinking of getting a 8000U this fall, but after hearing about all this 4K stuff It just seems to confuse me even more. I have a 10 foot wide CIH setup. Just wondering if I will notice anything with the JVC 4K unit.

Is there any comparison of 4K with this JVC unit vs non 4K on the same unit if that is even possible. Just need to see comparisons before making a decision.

The 2nd paragraph here explains how e-shift works. it's not true 4K, but it does increase the PQ on large screens with relatively close seating distance.

http://pro.jvc.com/prof/attributes/tech_desc.jsp?model_id=MDL102123&feature_id=02

The JVC e-shift projectors are in another league in regard to overall PQ vs. the Panasonic 8000.
post #483 of 691
Quote:
Originally Posted by chipvideo View Post

So how can JVC call it 4K if it isn't 4K? I have a Panny 3000U right now and was thinking of getting a 8000U this fall, but after hearing about all this 4K stuff It just seems to confuse me even more. I have a 10 foot wide CIH setup. Just wondering if I will notice anything with the JVC 4K unit.

Is there any comparison of 4K with this JVC unit vs non 4K on the same unit if that is even possible. Just need to see comparisons before making a decision.

Most of us in here are NOT huge fans of the Panny, not that it's a bad projector, it's not. That said, it is one of the weaker options when comparing it to today's projectors. The only reason to buy the Panny is if you need CIH (you're buying a 2.35 aspect screen) and you need LOW gaming lag AND you are not willing to use a Lumagen processor or A-LENS to do the CIH (pay well over a thousand more). If you do not need ALL of those three combined (one of them doesn't count, since JVC can do CIH but with more gaming lag), then I cannot see a compelling reason to buy the Panny, its 3D is just average, its best-mode brightness is well below average, calibration is a pain, sharpness is average, and the contrast is average.

The JVC and Panny are not even in the same league IMO, especially if you are a videophile. For non-videophiles, the Panny does what it does well, but the image isn't as sharp or contrasty. I'd do the Sony hw50 or JVC before the Panny.
Edited by coderguy - 4/27/13 at 8:18pm
post #484 of 691
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombie10k View Post

The 2nd paragraph here explains how e-shift works. it's not true 4K, but it does increase the PQ on large screens with relatively close seating distance.

http://pro.jvc.com/prof/attributes/tech_desc.jsp?model_id=MDL102123&feature_id=02

The JVC e-shift projectors are in another league in regard to overall PQ vs. the Panasonic 8000.

They sure are. smile.gif
Reply
Reply
post #485 of 691
Bill Miller and I spent a portion of today watching the Life of Pi in 3D projected with my Sony1000ES on my 54 x 96 Studeotech 100 screen. We then watched Skyfall in 2D. Both pictures were fantastic re picture quality. No ghosting visable in 3D showing Life of Pi. 3D was fairly dim though. After 900 hours I was getting only about 13 ft lamberts in low lamp mode. In 2D high lamp things were plenty bright. Life of Pi should be watched in 3D. Well shot in the beginning real non blue screen shots. Every trick in the book re 3D blue screen.
post #486 of 691
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

Bill Miller and I spent a portion of today watching the Life of Pi in 3D projected with my Sony1000ES on my 54 x 96 Studeotech 100 screen. We then watched Skyfall in 2D. Both pictures were fantastic re picture quality. No ghosting visable in 3D showing Life of Pi. 3D was fairly dim though. After 900 hours I was getting only about 13 ft lamberts in low lamp mode. In 2D high lamp things were plenty bright. Life of Pi should be watched in 3D. Well shot in the beginning real non blue screen shots. Every trick in the book re 3D blue screen.


Curious as th Bill's impression of his HP vs Studeotech 100.....?
post #487 of 691
Took bill to the airport at 6AM this morning. He will be flying all day and is going to Canada above Denver where he will be at a conference all week. I think he will post later in the week. We did not have a HP here because I am waiting until I move to Florida to order a new one and a new snomatt 100 as well. I am thinking of a 10.5ft wide 2.35 for the 100 which will give me a 54 x 96 1,78 image. I don't know about the HP size but that will be a pull down and just for 3D.
Edited by mark haflich - 4/28/13 at 7:46pm
post #488 of 691
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

Bill Miller and I spent a portion of today watching the Life of Pi in 3D projected with my Sony1000ES on my 54 x 96 Studeotech 100 screen. We then watched Skyfall in 2D. Both pictures were fantastic re picture quality. No ghosting visable in 3D showing Life of Pi. 3D was fairly dim though. After 900 hours I was getting only about 13 ft lamberts in low lamp mode. In 2D high lamp things were plenty bright. Life of Pi should be watched in 3D. Well shot in the beginning real non blue screen shots. Every trick in the book re 3D blue screen.

Yes, I had a very pleasant Friday night and all day Saturday with Mark and his delightful (and lively!) wife Jill. Thanks again, Mark, for true Southern Hospitality coming from a true Boston Yankee! (Fortunately you got me to Dulles on time, for the plane was beginning to board as I got to the gate, and it left on time. I guess the sequestration of the air traffic controllers is indeed over.) And it's cold here in Banff!

My primary HT goal on the visit was to see the Studiotech100 screen that Mark has been raving about, to see if I could tell if it indeed gives better pq than the Dalite HP2.4 that I have. Without seeing the two side-by-side it is of course not possible to be definitive--and as Mark said below, this just wasn't possible with his getting ready to move to Florida--but I certainly agree with Mark that the pic it produces with the Sony1000 is extremely smooth, yet sharp as a razor, and just about complete in every way. And Mark has of course been in this business much, much longer than I have been learning about it--he's installed many screens of different types (including HP's)--so one must certainly give his opinion great weight.

As Mark had his Sony1000 initially set up, and in low lamp, it appeared dim to me, lacking the dynamism I am used to, but Mark had no issue with this. When we measured, however, we saw that it was giving only ~ 7 ftL off the screen, so I talked him in going to high lamp, and with some other tweaks got up to ~ 14 ftL, IIRC. I liked this much better, though Mark wasn't sure that it wasn't too bright for his taste. We watched 'Life of Pi' in 3d, and though I still don't care at all for 3d, I admit that this rendering was well done. After finishing I put in the 2d BD disk, went to the storm scene, and liked it much better: the contrasts of the white breakers, dark sky, etc., I just found much more striking than the 3d version. But this is a matter of taste that people will differ on. (Watched 'Skyfall', 2d BD, and it really was superb. I believe we did this with 2.4 gamma, and in high lamp this really gave remarkable contrast for mixed scenes with light and dark material, so much beyond what one could ever get in a commercial theater.)

In the future I would still like to see the 1000 performing off the Studiotech100 side-by-side with the HP2.4--not that I don't trust Mark's judgment, but to see just what the differences are. Of course this is all a mute point for me, for I need the gain of the HP (my 1000 is optimally located for it) for my large screen--which you will have to 'pry out of my cold, dead hands'.
post #489 of 691
Quote:
Originally Posted by millerwill View Post

Yes, I had a very pleasant Friday night and all day Saturday with Mark and his delightful (and lively!) wife Jill. Thanks again, Mark, for true Southern Hospitality coming from a true Boston Yankee! (Fortunately you got me to Dulles on time, for the plane was beginning to board as I got to the gate, and it left on time. I guess the sequestration of the air traffic controllers is indeed over.) And it's cold here in Banff!

My primary HT goal on the visit was to see the Studiotech100 screen that Mark has been raving about, to see if I could tell if it indeed gives better pq than the Dalite HP2.4 that I have. Without seeing the two side-by-side it is of course not possible to be definitive--and as Mark said below, this just wasn't possible with his getting ready to move to Florida--but I certainly agree with Mark that the pic it produces with the Sony1000 is extremely smooth, yet sharp as a razor, and just about complete in every way. And Mark has of course been in this business much, much longer than I have been learning about it--he's installed many screens of different types (including HP's)--so one must certainly give his opinion great weight.

As Mark had his Sony1000 initially set up, and in low lamp, it appeared dim to me, lacking the dynamism I am used to, but Mark had no issue with this. When we measured, however, we saw that it was giving only ~ 7 ftL off the screen, so I talked him in going to high lamp, and with some other tweaks got up to ~ 14 ftL, IIRC. I liked this much better, though Mark wasn't sure that it wasn't too bright for his taste. We watched 'Life of Pi' in 3d, and though I still don't care at all for 3d, I admit that this rendering was well done. After finishing I put in the 2d BD disk, went to the storm scene, and liked it much better: the contrasts of the white breakers, dark sky, etc., I just found much more striking than the 3d version. But this is a matter of taste that people will differ on. (Watched 'Skyfall', 2d BD, and it really was superb. I believe we did this with 2.4 gamma, and in high lamp this really gave remarkable contrast for mixed scenes with light and dark material, so much beyond what one could ever get in a commercial theater.)

In the future I would still like to see the 1000 performing off the Studiotech100 side-by-side with the HP2.4--not that I don't trust Mark's judgment, but to see just what the differences are. Of course this is all a mute point for me, for I need the gain of the HP (my 1000 is optimally located for it) for my large screen--which you will have to 'pry out of my cold, dead hands'.

I guess there is no universal answer.....I too like a dynamic bright image that the HP gives..........viewing from the middle of the cone to way off axis which gives a dimmer image, I pick the bright all the time.There are others who feel it is too bright and much prefer a 12-16fl image.

I'm at 20-25fl RS20/HD750 low lamp iris -15 106" HP from 1.5 screen widths.....love it!
post #490 of 691
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highjinx View Post

I guess there is no universal answer.....I too like a dynamic bright image that the HP gives..........viewing from the middle of the cone to way off axis which gives a dimmer image, I pick the bright all the time.There are others who feel it is too bright and much prefer a 12-16fl image.

I'm at 20-25fl RS20/HD750 low lamp iris -15 106" HP from 1.5 screen widths.....love it!

I think Mark will tell you that the reason his screen is superior in regards to picture quality has little to do with gain and more to do with the material itself. The HP 2.4 material has an inherent crosshatch pattern to it. When you're dealing with a projector that has the capability to be sharper compared to something like the Samsung SP-A900B and Marantz VP-11S1/2 and want to utilize that extra sharpness as much as possible you need to pair it with a screen material that is as smooth as possible. The SnoMatte screen Mark has is one of the smoothest materials out there. Also, the glass beads on the HP material add a graininess to the picture in higher brightness scenes that is easily visible and is something that wouldn't be there on a unity gain screen like the SnoMatte. So if you're willing to give up a little sharpness or have a 3 chip or cheaper single chip DLP projector that wouldn't lose sharpness from a screen like the HP 2.4 anyways and can also live with added image noise to get higher brightness the HP 2.4 material is fine.

Here's a picture of a sample piece of HP 2.4. I had to put a bit of junk on it to get my autofocus to work on something that is solid white tongue.gif



As you can see from the picture, there is plenty of "texture" inherent to the material due to that crosshatch pattern where as something like the SnoMatte or JKP Affinity Screen are basically the smoothest material you can get. I have a sample of both and think the JKP material is a bit nicer, but since I haven't used either on a full scale screen I can't make a definitive statement.
Edited by Seegs108 - 4/28/13 at 9:13pm
post #491 of 691
Very knowledgeable comments. the JKP Affinity fabric is also very smooth perhaps even a bit smoother than the snomatte. damn. there are so manu ways to spell Sno whatever. But the brightness uniformity is a tad less on the JKP. I think however its no just a question of the smoothness of the fabric itself, it also a question of the sprayed on optical coatings that most positive gain screens have. For example, the Snomat and studeotech 130 I think have the same base fabric. I need to double check that though siunce I could be wrong here, but the 130 has a sprayed on coating which raises the base fabric from about a gain of .98 to a gain of 1.3. the base fabric gain of the snomat is also a ted less than one but the sprayed on coating to bring it to one is very very minimal and involves a different solution.
post #492 of 691
I checked my HPs' the 2.4 as you say has a texture, the 2.8 doesn't.........actually prefer the 2.4 as the 2.8 has the odd spakley.

One needs to be 12" away to see the texture however, the pixel grid would be visible from a greater distance than that, it is personal choice.....with the HP daylight looks like daylight, the unity gain screen I've seen of similar size/projector brightness is obviously less bright and to my eye not as dynamic.

Horses for courses....no right or wrong.
post #493 of 691
I actually have a 92" 2.8 HP and a 92" 2.4 HPHC screen and can tell you both screens have the same "shimmer" and noise to them. The 2.8 may have a little less because the glass beads are more uniform (as seen in other threads). I purchased the 2.8 used while I was waiting for Da-Lite to manufacture a replacement 2.4 Hp for me. The 2.8, however, has a different sub-straight that the glass beads are sprayed on to.It's nothing like the crosshatch pattern on the 2.4 HP. It's VERY smooth. It's almost as smooth as the SnoMatte material.
post #494 of 691
Being able to see both JKP and Snomatte and looking at the picture below can you estimate this material's potential alongside these two?

post #495 of 691
Just for clarity, which JKP fabric is that? The 0.9 or the 1.1?
post #496 of 691
I must've formulated my question wrong. I addressed my question to Seegs who has seen both materials. But your input would be most welcome, Mark! The picture above is neither Da-Lite nor Stewart but a German company called Screen-Tech (topic). The screen itself is on the left, the A4 plain sheet of paper is on the right. The coin is just for size reference. I have seen neither JKP nor Snomatte thus I'm interested how their surfaces compare at least visually.
post #497 of 691
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elix View Post

Being able to see both JKP and Snomatte and looking at the picture below can you estimate this material's potential alongside these two?


It looks like it has slightly more texture than ST100.
Reply
Reply
post #498 of 691
To be completely honest, without seeing them in person along side the other materials it'll be hard to compare the SnoMatte and JKP against a picture. Mike is correct in saying that both the SnoMatte and JKP materials look smoother. Especially against the material on the left.

My experience with screen materials is rather limited and I'm sure both Mike and Mark know a TON more than I do. Trust what they have to say over anything I may think to be correct smile.gif. They simply have a lot more hands on experience with these materials than most people.
Edited by Seegs108 - 4/29/13 at 8:39am
post #499 of 691
Its hard to judge from a photo. If I get close to my computer screen I see thr grid from my monitor rather than screen texture. The best thing to get would be samples. I suppose AVS Science might have samples in stock and could mail you some. They are only the size of a sheet of writing paper and postage to your country wouldn't be that much. maybe $5 bucks or so.
post #500 of 691
I was looking for Bill's reaction to be more of how better the picture looked than an HP screen. He must still prefer the HP over the Snomatt if he couldn't come to that conclusion.
Edited by blee0120 - 4/29/13 at 11:58am
post #501 of 691
Quote:
Originally Posted by blee0120 View Post

I was looking for Bill's reaction to be more of how better the picture looked than an HP screen. He must still prefer the HP over the Snomatt if he couldn't come to that conclusion.

i don't think you should conclude this. Yes, from 'visual memory'--which is notoriously unreliable--I could not say that Mark's Snomat100 looked better to me than my HP2.4, though had I seen them side-by-side I presume that I could have seen some differences. Also, note Mark's screen is quite a bit smaller than mine*, and we all know that pics always looks sharper on a smaller screen, so even if I had perfect memory of how my screen looked it would have been a meaningless comparison.

*The area of Mark's screen is 36 ft^2, and when zoomed for 2.35 mine is 81 ft^2. To achieve 20 ftL with a 1.0 gain screen I thus need the pj to put out ~1600 lumens (correctly calibrated), and even the Sony1000 doesn't do this after some aging. With a gain of 2, I need only 800 lumens, and this is quite within reach. So until projectors are brighter, I will go with an HP, and I'm very grateful that it produces a very high quality pic, at least for viewers near the central viewing region. It's possible that on side-by-side viewing I could see the 1.0 gain screens as being better, and if brighter pj's become feasible I will certainly investigate this more carefully.
post #502 of 691
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seegs108 View Post

To be completely honest, without seeing them in person along side the other materials it'll be hard to compare the SnoMatte and JKP against a picture. Mike is correct in saying that both the SnoMatte and JKP materials look smoother. Especially against the material on the left.

My experience with screen materials is rather limited and I'm sure both Mike and Mark know a TON more than I do. Trust what they have to say over anything I may think to be correct smile.gif. They simply have a lot more hands on experience with these materials than most people.

I am judging by what texture, I can clearly see in my 24" monitor, compared to what I see in a magnified image of ST100. Nothing scientific. smile.gif
Reply
Reply
post #503 of 691
Quote:
Originally Posted by millerwill View Post

i don't think you should conclude this. Yes, from 'visual memory'--which is notoriously unreliable--I could not say that Mark's Snomat100 looked better to me than my HP2.4, though had I seen them side-by-side I presume that I could have seen some differences. Also, note Mark's screen is quite a bit smaller than mine*, and we all know that pics always looks sharper on a smaller screen, so even if I had perfect memory of how my screen looked it would have been a meaningless comparison.

*The area of Mark's screen is 36 ft^2, and when zoomed for 2.35 mine is 81 ft^2. To achieve 20 ftL with a 1.0 gain screen I thus need the pj to put out ~1600 lumens (correctly calibrated), and even the Sony1000 doesn't do this after some aging. With a gain of 2, I need only 800 lumens, and this is quite within reach. So until projectors are brighter, I will go with an HP, and I'm very grateful that it produces a very high quality pic, at least for viewers near the central viewing region. It's possible that on side-by-side viewing I could see the 1.0 gain screens as being better, and if brighter pj's become feasible I will certainly investigate this more carefully.

I hope you did not think that I meant you prefer the HP over the Snomatt because the HP is a better screen. I basically meant that you didn't see enough to change your opinion of how you like your HP screen. When I went to see the Sony 1000, I no doubt thought it was a better projector than the RS55 that I had, but I could live knowing that the RS55 was good and right for my situation.
Edited by blee0120 - 4/29/13 at 7:51pm
post #504 of 691
I will admit that it's going to be hard for me to get rid of my HP screen. There's something about a brighter image that's so much more inviting. I want to go with the JKP material eventually, but the HP screen I have now will suffice until I get an appropriate room to buy a screen of that magnitude. I guess I'll have to pair it with an exceptionally bright projector or go with a more modest sized screen.
post #505 of 691
I would need a Sim2 to light up a 1.0 142" 16:9 to my satisfaction. never going back down in size.
post #506 of 691
I keep saying I could live with most any screen and projector out there. Its the event or the movie which more interests me. I quickly get engrossed and don't care that much about a minor fault. Of course as HT nerds we want to make things better and better and money then enters into the equation. But frankly, I don't see how any improvement is needed in my set up either equipment wise or tuning. Bill and I remarked on watching Skyfall how visually it couldn't get any better. So much better for me than seeing it in a good commercial theater (Bill hadn't seen it before, commercially or in a HT). I see absolutely no need for anything better except for needing moire brightness for 3D and that is easily solved by using an HP for that application. Its the movie and the 3D, and not any degradation in PQ caused by the screen. Remember the rather low optical quality of the 3D glasses most of us are using would likely degrade the IQ and negate the benefit of the Snomatte 100. I never feel I wish I had a better projector. Its like being hopelessly in love, one does not care about finding something better because there is no better for you. Now for movies, if I had the wall width, I would go for a 126" wide 2.35 if I could and zoom and run the mother in high lamp and replace the bulb at about 800 hours or for me once a year. Not so expensive since I can get bulbs at dealer cost.
Edited by mark haflich - 4/30/13 at 8:23am
post #507 of 691
Quote:
Originally Posted by blee0120 View Post

I hope you did not think that I meant you prefer the HP over the Snottmat because the HP is a better screen. I basically meant that you didn't see enough to change your opinion of how you like your HP screen. ....

Sorry blee, yes, I did miss the point of your earlier comment; your above statement is pretty much right on my view.

Seegs and Zombie: glad to see that I'm not abnormal in being hooked on the big screen experience!
post #508 of 691
Quote:
Originally Posted by blee0120 View Post

I hope you did not think that I meant you prefer the HP over the Snottmat because the HP is a better screen. I basically meant that you didn't see enough to change your opinion of how you like your HP screen. When I went to see the Sony 1000, I no doubt thought it was a better projector than the RS55 that I had, but I could live knowing that the RS55 was good and right for my situation.

Blee, thanks for the laugh with the typo. smile.gif
Reply
Reply
post #509 of 691
Quote:
Originally Posted by AV Science Sales 5 View Post

Blee, thanks for the laugh with the typo. smile.gif

That's funny, I didn't even catch that
post #510 of 691
Quote:
Originally Posted by blee0120 View Post

That's funny, I didn't even catch that

Now I know you guys really like your HP screens, but that does not reduce the rest of them to that level. smile.gif Knowing how much Mark likes his Snomatte 100, it just about brought tears to my eyes, I was laughing so hard.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP › Predictions for 2013 4K projectors