or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP › Projectors at CEDIA Expo 2012
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Projectors at CEDIA Expo 2012 - Page 9

post #241 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwestley View Post

As Mark and others have stated the JVC units were prototypes and I would not be surprised to see more improvements when the units come out. JVC knows that they had a problem with 3D. They read the forum and reviews. Having said this I don't expect the JVC 3D quality to equal DLP but I would not suprised to see more improvements. They listened regarding the lamp and they are trying to make 3D better. I do think that they have had some success with ghosting. It did not seem as bad as last year. You really had to know where to look for it. Having said this I still believe the DLP will win. I was very impressed with the new Mits proj. with 3D. No ghosting at all. If you primarily watch 2D nothing beats the JVC in this price range. In fact one could consider a 2 projector setup if they want the best of both worlds.

But the offset range for lens shift starts way above screen top and only shifts worse from there.
Edited by AV Science Sales 4 - 9/11/12 at 5:41am
post #242 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post

I am done beta testing JVCs 3d which I have done with both the 40 and 45. Considering these new units are largely the same as far as 3d specs go, how much can they really do in another few months to improve 3d? They have had a few years now with a very similar design and until there are actual real world results from reviewers I trust (like Zombie), I am done with rolling the dice with JVC 3d. Word last year was the crosstalk canceler was going to make big improvements and that addition was 100% useless. Now they are going to lower the black level in hopes to make the ghosting less noticeable? Sounds like another BS bandaid approach TBH. There is still the issue of flicker which wont be improved at all with the 120hz. No FI in 3d. I dont see any reason to have much hope this year for JVC 3d. Time will tell of course, but others can play beta tester this year.

Display technology choices will favor various parameters over others. Dila has certain advantages over DLP and of course the reverse is true. If you don't have an improved display chip available, such as a new DLP chip, the design task is to improve the weaker parameters through other methods. Trade offs arise when one does this. JVC has increased the brightness in 3D and has reduced the ghosting without compromising 2D. If the blsacks have been raised in 3D in order to get fast response time and thus less ghosting, so be it.Its a very sensible trade off and one that most viewers would easily take.
post #243 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post

I dont know if it is a wise decision though considering the competition. JVC projectors are clearly geared toward movie watching and they are definitely not great all around projectors. How many people are ONLY interested in movies? Most people want a projector that will do other things well like 3d and games, neither of which the JVC is strong at. A lot of people are down on the JVCs for sports viewing as well which competitors such as Sony are strong at while also offering a very good movie machine, good 3d, good for games...........I think JVC is going to loose some significant sales in light of this, but that is just my speculation. I would have moved to a Sony by now if it had the throw range for my setup and a motorized lens. If the new Epsons had motorized optics, I would also be strongly considering that route this year since they have addressed the lag complaint supposedly from what we are hearing.
Just taking gaming and 3d, the JVCs are arguably last in both categories vs the competition. In the case of 3d, I dont think there is any question that JVC is in last place and whatever they have done this year certainly wont be enough to change that I would bet considering the same basic 120hz panels/design. No FI in 3d, definitely the same flicker. As far as games go, 80ms of lag is on the high end of the spectrum vs the competition and again JVC looks to be bringing up the rear here as well. Epson was at 80 this year, but word is this has been addressed which leaves JVC by itself I believe.
Many people are very critical of JVCs CMD system vs the competition. Panasonic and Sony in particular both seem to get praised much more highly in this regard vs JVC. Many people consider this an important feature. Why no improvements in this area? Are they even able to improve it with the 120hz design?
There are much better all around projector choices than the JVC and I really think this is going to start denting sales if they dont start addressing more of their weak points.
Todd, I think this is a pretty decent summary of the current JVC deficiencies. I'm sure they want to maintain their strength in 2D and perhaps these other areas are at odds with that (although I fail to understand why they could not put a game mode in to minimize lag).
post #244 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kris Deering View Post

It's called a RS35 and that is why it continues to have residence in my HT. wink.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Ballentine View Post

Me too smile.gif Reason I just bought a used (w/ Jeff Meier calibration and only 400 hours on the original bulb) RS35 vs buying a newer machine.

Me three! I bought a used RS-35 ("Optimized" by William Phelps) with similar hours on the original bulb.

Mark
post #245 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post

I am done beta testing JVCs 3d which I have done with both the 40 and 45. Considering these new units are largely the same as far as 3d specs go, how much can they really do in another few months to improve 3d? They have had a few years now with a very similar design and until there are actual real world results from reviewers I trust (like Zombie), I am done with rolling the dice with JVC 3d. Word last year was the crosstalk canceler was going to make big improvements and that addition was 100% useless. Now they are going to lower the black level in hopes to make the ghosting less noticeable? Sounds like another BS bandaid approach TBH. There is still the issue of flicker which wont be improved at all with the 120hz. No FI in 3d. I dont see any reason to have much hope this year for JVC 3d. Time will tell of course, but others can play beta tester this year.

I guess you could have this same argument with DLP or LCD. You could be complaining about DLP's black levels and contrast or we could be talking about the low native contrast levels of LCD. We could talk about the band aid of using a dynamic iris. Have not seen a new DLP chip in years so those numbers have gone relatively unchanged for several years. Each technology has its trade offs. One size does not fit all. You just have to find a projector that does the best for your viewing habits and live with the other compromises. That goes for DLP, LCD and LCOS.
Reply
Reply
post #246 of 384
And if I played games (other than those involved in posting), I would get me a Darblet just for that. At the darbeevision booth they demoed several games with and without using the Darblet and it was staggering, and I mean staggering, how much more real things looked with the Darblet. detail, sharpness, involvement. HUGH
post #247 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by AV Science Sales 5 View Post

I guess you could have this same argument with DLP or LCD. You could be complaining about DLP's black levels and contrast or we could be talking about the low native contrast levels of LCD. We could talk about the band aid of using a dynamic iris. Have not seen a new DLP chip in years so those numbers have gone relatively unchanged for several years. Each technology has its trade offs. One size does not fit all. You just have to find a projector that does the best for your viewing habits and live with the other compromises. That goes for DLP, LCD and LCOS.

I agree with you in part, but Sony and Epson in particular have no significant weak points IMO, at least with this years models (Epson has supposedly improved its only significant issue which was lag). Epson and Sony projectors are still going to be solid movie units, even if not quite up to snuff with JVC. JVC on the other hand is far from solid at 3d and with the lag, gaming is gimped as well for anyone who is somewhat serious about performance. So I understand what you are saying Mike, but I guess my point is there are much better all around projector choices for those who want to do a variety of things with their projector and not just movies. Just my opinion though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AV Science Sales 4 View Post

And if I played games (other than those involved in posting), I would get me a Darblet just for that. At the darbeevision booth they demoed several games with and without using the Darblet and it was staggering, and I mean staggering, how much more real things looked with the Darblet. detail, sharpness, involvement. HUGH

I am probably going to add a Darbee anyway, but that is great info. Thanks for sharing! smile.gif I know Mike has answered this for me so I apologize for not remembering, but what type of lag does the Darbee add to the chain?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geof View Post

Todd, I think this is a pretty decent summary of the current JVC deficiencies. I'm sure they want to maintain their strength in 2D and perhaps these other areas are at odds with that (although I fail to understand why they could not put a game mode in to minimize lag).

I think you are exactly right Geof. There is no other reasonable explanation why they have not addressed these areas. In light of that, they are kind of between a rock and a hard place, but no way should they sacrifice what they are best at (movies) if it comes right down to it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AV Science Sales 4 View Post

Display technology choices will favor various parameters over others. Dila has certain advantages over DLP and of course the reverse is true. If you don't have an improved display chip available, such as a new DLP chip, the design task is to improve the weaker parameters through other methods. Trade offs arise when one does this. JVC has increased the brightness in 3D and has reduced the ghosting without compromising 2D. If the blsacks have been raised in 3D in order to get fast response time and thus less ghosting, so be it.Its a very sensible trade off and one that most viewers would easily take.

I dont disagree with that, but my question is how much have they actually reduced ghosting by doing this? Honestly, the only way I would be even satisfied with a JVC for 3d from what I have experienced with my 40/45 is if ghosting was knocked down at least ~75% with TOUGH material like Patagonia, Sammy's, etc....on the movie side, and SBS and TB content as well which is even more challenging.........Is JVC really going to make a significant impact here? I seriously doubt it, but once we get round 3 of the beta testers we will find out. tongue.gif This seems like an unrealistic expectation. To be truly happy with 3d, it would have to be even higher than that %. Just dont see that happening. Again, there is still the flicker issue as well which is not going to see any improvement this round from the sounds of it. Flicker is almost as bad as ghosting for me at this point! eek.gif

I just need to buy a DLP for 3d and get it over with since I am pretty sure that is all that is going to satisfy from a flicker/ghosting standpoint for me at this point.
Edited by Toe - 9/10/12 at 4:10pm
post #248 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by AV Science Sales 4 View Post

But the off set range for lens shift starts way above screen top and only shifts worse from there.

So far I have not seen the perfect solution at a reasonable price. Would love to hear would suggestions others would make to obtain both a great 2D and 3D picture.
post #249 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by AV Science Sales 4 View Post

Also there is a big bump up this year in the ANSI contrast, a traditional weakness of Dila panels compared to DLP. JVC closed the gap and the performance improvement was noticeable.

Any claimed ansi contrast numbers?

Also, do you know what they did to get this claimed improvement? The dila panels themselves (are they different or the same panels from last year?), light path improvements? Something else??
post #250 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by AV Science Sales 4 View Post

But the off set range for lens shift starts way above screen top and only shifts worse from there.

I'm one that loves/wants large offsets. Have a higher ceiling + not that large of a screen. In fact, it drives my PJ shopping as a lot of PJ don't have the large offset capability that my Mits HC3800 has.
post #251 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

For most of us (and in what would amount to standard use) "image quality" is how the image looks, and not the number of pixels that happen to make up the image per se. You can have plenty of pixels and awful image quality and visa versa, and you can have constant number of pixels and varying image quality, which is in fact what we have on Blu-Ray or DVD. So given image quality actually varies in our source, pointing to a constant in the pixel count doesn't address the problem of picture quality. You don't get "constant image quality" by using the same amount of pixels or having a CIW system. Plenty of CinemaScope movie transfers can look even better at a CIH width (wider than 1:85:1) than some 1:85:1 AR movies shown at a narrower size. Depends on the transfer and movie, etc.

Yes, obviously source quality varies and we have no control over that, but given equal source quality a CHW setup provides a constant on screen data density no matter what the aspect ratio of the source. Projecting scope content wider as in a CIH setup results in lower data density and low picture quality for scope content, all else being equal.We can add more pixels via an A-lens or 4k projector but the on screen data density remains the same.
Even the best 2k source can only be viewed so large before quality drops to an unacceptable level. Give equal source quality the maximum horizontal viewing angle before that point is reached is the same for 16:9 and scope content as both are encoded the same width (1920) and have the same data density. Projecting scope wider results in unacceptable image quality to my eyes and projecting 16:9 smaller to fit CIH results in an unnecessary loss of immersion.

I tested a good A-lens to see if it would allow a larger viewing angle with acceptable image quality but it did not. To me eyes the limit was imposed by data density (or the lack of it) not visible pixel structure with a 2k LCoS projector. By the time the pixels are visible the image is too soft and well past its best.

Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

Further, if you see a Scope movie on a CIH system, and switch back and forth to that movie being much smaller w. black bars at a CIW size, there's no way you can say the CIW size produces "maximum immersion." The greater immersion for scope movies is one of the prime motivations for CIH.
Of course you could just make your 1:85:1 image much larger - as wide as you would have gone with your CIH system. But then in terms of image quality you compromise the image quality of some of your 1:85:1 images (the poorer sources) by making that large - the problem of the fact there is no "constant image quality" to begin with, whichever way you go. Further, due to the "contrast effect" size-wise, your scope image on your 1:85:1 screen will feel perceptually less immersive, given it's size will shrink relative to your 1:85:1 content.

I should have clarified my statement by saying “maximum immersion for a given image quality”.
I have yet to find one scope title that can be displayed wider than comparable quality 16:9 without becoming unacceptable soft at my preferred viewing angle of about 45 degrees and in my experience the highest visual quality titles are all 16:9. Anything shot with an anamorphic lens has an inherent disadvantage in sharpness compared to content shot with a good spherical lens and 16:9 content is often sourced from IMAX or high resolution digital which are superior to 35mm. This means that plenty of 16:9 content can be display wider than scope content for comparable image quality and thats the opposite of what a CIH setup provides. CIW provides far more consistent image quality IMHO and allows both 16:9 and scope to be displayed as large as possible for maximum immersion with acceptable image quality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

Which is all to say: the issues in home theatre, given the variables and varying goals, is far too complex to say one ought to go CIW for the reasons you had given.
Cheers,

That's fair enough, peoples goals and personal preferences can vary wildly so there is no single best solution. A massive 16:9 screen with dual masking to accommodate any desired image size and aspect ratio is probably the nearest thing to the perfect setup.
post #252 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by AV Science Sales 4 View Post

And if I played games (other than those involved in posting), I would get me a Darblet just for that. At the darbeevision booth they demoed several games with and without using the Darblet and it was staggering, and I mean staggering, how much more real things looked with the Darblet. detail, sharpness, involvement. HUGH

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post

I agree with you in part, but Sony and Epson in particular have no significant weak points IMO, at least with this years models (Epson has supposedly improved its only significant issue which was lag). Epson and Sony projectors are still going to be solid movie units, even if not quite up to snuff with JVC. JVC on the other hand is far from solid at 3d and with the lag, gaming is gimped as well for anyone who is somewhat serious about performance. So I understand what you are saying Mike, but I guess my point is there are much better all around projector choices for those who want to do a variety of things with their projector and not just movies. Just my opinion though.
You are correct. That is your opinion, but probably not shared by a lot of people. I find LCD from Epson or Panny not even close to the JVC (or Sony LCOS) for general movie or TV watching. I love DLP, but its lack of on/off cr pulls me out of what I am watching a lot of the time.
While there are 3D lovers, I still haven't met many. Cineramax has been its biggest champion. He even had a very convincing demo at Cedia two years ago, but it still isn't something I have seen people stampeding to get. Now gaming is much more popular. The thing is most gamers that I have known aren't really videophiles. Most are happy with a flat screen.
Since you have been complaining about this for three years, I will sum it up for you. If you like 3D, then BUY A DLP. If you want to game, then BUY A DLP.


If Mark is correct and JVC is still reading this forum (even after all of the BS) then let me throw in what I want.
1) More on/off cr
2) More ANSI cr
3) Better motion handling (maybe black frame insertion)
4) A better and longer lasting lamp (maybe taken care of this year)
5) On board Darbee (since most JVC owners say the Darbee makes a big difference)
post #253 of 384
The Darblet I think adds about 6 MICRO seconds of lag. Dr. Darbee I think posted 3 MICRO seconds but sitting down with the Darbeevision engineers we calculated something like 6.3 In any event the lag is really below the threshold of human perception. I think one could safely call it real time processing but of course any processing must take some time and thus it can't be described as real time except in add speak.

I was shocked when I saw how much the Darblet improved the quality of game pictures. The Darblet improves film and video say by 5 to 10 percent. A bit, noticeable and worth it to me.

The improvement to a game picture is staggering. Maybe 50 to 100 percent better.
post #254 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by fleaman View Post

Any claimed ansi contrast numbers?
Also, do you know what they did to get this claimed improvement? The dila panels themselves (are they different or the same panels from last year?), light path improvements? Something else??

No numbers were given. I think improved wire grid polarizers are a big part of the improved ANSI contrast.
post #255 of 384
Several here have asked how much improvement was there in 3D performance.

I know the new glasses are more efficient and the less brightness drop over time of the lamp would be a bright 3D picture. A 3D mode that trades more light for a little contrast means one can open the shutters less and thereby reduce ghosting caused by the slower response time of Dila and LCOS panels. But how can all this be quantified even by an eagle eyed observer at a trade show?

Politically I can't say that X model by Y manufacture 2 years ago was unwatchable to me and the Z model by Y manufacture while no really good was watchable.

But I can say under show conditions with the content that was displayed, the JVCs this year were quite watchable this year. Was there some ghosting on some scenes? I am sure but I didn't see much. Was there any flicker? maybe some but I really didn't notice it. how. Much better in all over next year. I can't quantify it but noticeably and significantly better it was.
post #256 of 384
Eric. Zombie (Jason) is a champion of 3D also. When it's good, it is good. But for example it can be bad, say football over cable with half resolution and long range camera shots. 2D with full 720p or 1080i resolution is much better.
post #257 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by AV Science Sales 4 View Post

Several here have asked how much improvement was there in 3D performance.
I know the new glasses are more efficient and the less brightness drop over time of the lamp would be a bright 3D picture. A 3D mode that trades more light for a little contrast means one can open the shutters less and thereby reduce ghosting caused by the slower response time of Dila and LCOS panels. But how can all this be quantified even by an eagle eyed observer at a trade show?
Politically I can't say that X model by Y manufacture 2 years ago was unwatchable to me and the Z model by Y manufacture while no really good was watchable.
But I can say under show conditions with the content that was displayed, the JVCs this year were quite watchable this year. Was there some ghosting on some scenes? I am sure but I didn't see much. Was there any flicker? maybe some but I really didn't notice it. how. Much better in all over next year. I can't quantify it but noticeably and significantly better it was.

Can anyone you were with recall what exactly was shown in 3d? I know you dont remember, but maybe someone else you were with does?
post #258 of 384
A little off-topic but is my JVC RS45 any good for gaming?
post #259 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ericglo View Post

You are correct. That is your opinion, but probably not shared by a lot of people. I find LCD from Epson or Panny not even close to the JVC (or Sony LCOS) for general movie or TV watching. I love DLP, but its lack of on/off cr pulls me out of what I am watching a lot of the time.
While there are 3D lovers, I still haven't met many. Cineramax has been its biggest champion. He even had a very convincing demo at Cedia two years ago, but it still isn't something I have seen people stampeding to get. Now gaming is much more popular. The thing is most gamers that I have known aren't really videophiles. Most are happy with a flat screen.
Since you have been complaining about this for three years, I will sum it up for you. If you like 3D, then BUY A DLP. If you want to game, then BUY A DLP.
If Mark is correct and JVC is still reading this forum (even after all of the BS) then let me throw in what I want.
1) More on/off cr
2) More ANSI cr
3) Better motion handling (maybe black frame insertion)
4) A better and longer lasting lamp (maybe taken care of this year)
5) On board Darbee (since most JVC owners say the Darbee makes a big difference)

I have been complaining for about a year and a half to be exact wink.gif It took me some time with my RS40 before the ghosting severity set in, then me (and others) started our complaining.

Its not as easy to get a good gaming and 3d projector in a single solution in light of DLPs placement flexibility, or lack of when you have an HP screen. Options are very limited. The Benq will work for me which I am strongly considering, but while it sounds like a killer 3d unit, it is still a bit high on the lag side at 50ms. Not bad, but for a gaming projector it would be nice to be even a bit lower.

Thanks for the advice though.
post #260 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanderdvd View Post

A little off-topic but is my JVC RS45 any good for gaming?

The RS45 (and new models most likely) have 80ms of lag which is on the high side. If you are just a very casual gamer, you will probably be fine. If you are competitive to any degree though and play games that require split second decision like racing, fps, etc...., the lag on the JVCs is to high. I have become a die hard SSX player and experienced a noticeable difference moving from my 45 to my flat panel. The plasma is noticeably more responsive vs the JVC and ironically a lot of my personal best times and scores went up the week I moved the xbox out of the HT and onto the plasma. Coincedence and/or placebo? Maybe, but its all a bit too ironic IMO to label it as that. wink.gif I wont even play the game on the 45 at this point from the difference I experienced between it and my lower lag flat panel.

Bottom line though is any player half way serious about gaming would not play on the JVC due to the high lag.

Makes me wonder why JVC cant include a game mode like so many displays do to combat lag? confused.gif


Mark,

Thanks for the Darbee lag info. I am probably going to order one from you guys this week before the price hike. Should make a nice addition to my 45 this year for movies. smile.gif
Edited by Toe - 9/11/12 at 12:43am
post #261 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post

The RS45 (and new models most likely) have 80ms of lag which is on the high side. If you are just a very casual gamer, you will probably be fine. If you are competitive to any degree though and play games that require split second decision like racing, fps, etc...., the lag on the JVCs is to high. I have become a die hard SSX player and experienced a noticeable difference moving from my 45 to my flat panel. The plasma is noticeably more responsive vs the JVC and ironically a lot of my personal best times and scores went up the week I moved the xbox out of the HT and onto the plasma. Coincedence and/or placebo? Maybe, but its all a bit too ironic IMO to label it as that. wink.gif I wont even play the game on the 45 at this point from the difference I experienced between it and my lower lag flat panel.
Bottom line though is any player half way serious about gaming would not play on the JVC due to the high lag.
Makes me wonder why JVC cant include a game mode like so many displays do to combat lag? confused.gif
Mark,
Thanks for the Darbee lag info. I am probably going to order one from you guys this week before the price hike. Should make a nice addition to my 45 this year for movies. smile.gif

Mark

To me, its sounds like the new HW50ES could fit your needs for movie, tv, 3D, games etc. !? or do you need motorised lens, focus, zoom and memory settings ( cant remember what screen you have redface.gif )

dj
post #262 of 384
You mean Tod (Toe), not Mark (AV Science Sales 4 (Mark Haflich)) smile.gif
Edited by AV Science Sales 4 - 9/11/12 at 5:44am
post #263 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by d.j. View Post

Mark
To me, its sounds like the new HW50ES could fit your needs for movie, tv, 3D, games etc. !? or do you need motorised lens, focus, zoom and memory settings ( cant remember what screen you have redface.gif )
dj

Hey dj!

The Sony sounds great for my needs, but unfortunately does not have enough throw for my setup so I can do a rear shelf mount with my HP screen. I also need a motorized lens since I am doing the zoom method on a 2.35 screen and switch aspects a lot. This knocks the Epsons out as well.
post #264 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Owen View Post

Yes, obviously source quality varies and we have no control over that, but given equal source quality a CHW setup provides a constant on screen data density no matter what the aspect ratio of the source. Projecting scope content wider as in a CIH setup results in lower data density and low picture quality for scope content, all else being equal.We can add more pixels via an A-lens or 4k projector but the on screen data density remains the same.
Even the best 2k source can only be viewed so large before quality drops to an unacceptable level. Give equal source quality the maximum horizontal viewing angle before that point is reached is the same for 16:9 and scope content as both are encoded the same width (1920) and have the same data density. Projecting scope wider results in unacceptable image quality to my eyes and projecting 16:9 smaller to fit CIH results in an unnecessary loss of immersion.
I tested a good A-lens to see if it would allow a larger viewing angle with acceptable image quality but it did not. To me eyes the limit was imposed by data density (or the lack of it) not visible pixel structure with a 2k LCoS projector. By the time the pixels are visible the image is too soft and well past its best.
I should have clarified my statement by saying “maximum immersion for a given image quality”.
I have yet to find one scope title that can be displayed wider than comparable quality 16:9 without becoming unacceptable soft at my preferred viewing angle of about 45 degrees and in my experience the highest visual quality titles are all 16:9. Anything shot with an anamorphic lens has an inherent disadvantage in sharpness compared to content shot with a good spherical lens and 16:9 content is often sourced from IMAX or high resolution digital which are superior to 35mm. This means that plenty of 16:9 content can be display wider than scope content for comparable image quality and thats the opposite of what a CIH setup provides. CIW provides far more consistent image quality IMHO and allows both 16:9 and scope to be displayed as large as possible for maximum immersion with acceptable image quality.
That's fair enough, peoples goals and personal preferences can vary wildly so there is no single best solution. A massive 16:9 screen with dual masking to accommodate any desired image size and aspect ratio is probably the nearest thing to the perfect setup.

What were you using to do the vertical stretch? Reason I ask, there is a very noticeable difference on my system between letting the projector do the vertical stretch and using the Lumagen for the vertical stretch. With the projector doing the vertical stretch, I thought the image was kind of soft. With the Lumagen doing the vertical stretch, the image is very sharp. I was surprised at how much better it was with the Lumagen.
Reply
Reply
post #265 of 384
Once again my boys, it all boils down to the quality of the processing. Vertical strech is vertical scalling (nothing more, nothing less). The Lumagen is known for its ring free scaling and the other qualities of its scaling. Scaling involves sharpening. If you just add lines and don't sharpen, the image would like very soft.Tthe vertical strech in the projector is not bad BUT in the Lumagen it is better. Duh. That's one of the reasons that many videophile spend the bucks on a Lumagen because in many ways its a better processor than the processing chip used in a display.
post #266 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post


Hey dj!
The Sony sounds great for my needs, but unfortunately does not have enough throw for my setup so I can do a rear shelf mount with my HP screen. I also need a motorized lens since I am doing the zoom method on a 2.35 screen and switch aspects a lot. This knocks the Epsons out as well.


Sounds like the Sony1000 would be just right for you, though it does have one significant drawback.

post #267 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post

Mark,
Thanks for the Darbee lag info. I am probably going to order one from you guys this week before the price hike. Should make a nice addition to my 45 this year for movies. smile.gif

Price hike for the Darbee? This is news to me. So how much will it cost now?
post #268 of 384
Going up 30 bucks.
post #269 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by millerwill View Post


Sounds like the Sony1000 would be just right for you, though it does have one significant drawback.

The Sony 1000 would be just right for a lot of us if not for the "one significant drawback".wink.gif

Wish I had your 3D performance. Oh yeah, you don't even use it! tongue.gifsmile.gif
post #270 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by millerwill View Post


Sounds like the Sony1000 would be just right for you, though it does have one significant drawback.
Seems like there is always a gotcha.....rolleyes.gif
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP › Projectors at CEDIA Expo 2012