Originally Posted by d.j.
I looked a the test pattern ( when you adjust the focus ), because when this is activated, the RC is off. And I must say it did look better and sharper overall then the 30 ( but not then the 95ES or the RS55 IMO ) I would classify it betwen the 30 and the 95.
when you ad the RC, it looks more sharp, but a little more "digital" / "noisy " ( but like the darbe, I think most people will like it ), the picture in general. Looked very good.
Darbee had nothing to do with it. The Darblet release timing was too late to have influenced Sony at all.
Basically, economics is the driving influence where all manufacturers are pretty much forced to use the same chassis for multiple years with a relatively small design team tweaking the design from year to year. Sony RC has been around for years, it hit FPs on the 1000ES, good marketing to yell trickle down and include it in the 30, renamed the 50, this year. Ditto for a few more changes.
The lens used in the 50 was and evidently if it hasn't changed significantly or at all, remains a weak point opitical quality wise in the design. Adequate but nothing to brag to your mother about. Once again, economics forced the lens design, materials, and country of manufacture. RC is a way of making the lens appear to perform better without changing its performance. Nothing wrong with that but RC does involve negative artifacts.
None of this is to say that the sum of the tweaks Sony has made to the 30, renaming it the 50, has not significantly improved the machine. Competition at this price level forces significant improvements to remain competitive. At the higher price point of the 1000ES, yearly change is not required. For one reason price point didn't force cost cutting compromises and there is no competition.
Let me go on record about the innanity that there is some battle going to take place between RC vs eshift2. Which is better? They are different animals and do completely different things. A more logical comparison would be Darbee processing vs RC processing but even here they are performed differenty and can be used in series with a net positive benefit greater than either one itself, at least on the 1000ES. Eshift2 clearly is more significant than the Sony RC. Eshift2 gives you some of the 4HD experience. The problem is they both involve the description more real. 4HD from 1080p looks more real. RC improves the resolution of detail. So does the Darbee process. But they do it differently with different results. But neither will make a 1080p display look like a 4HD or 4K display, whether real or done by tricking your eyes in a good way by eshift2.
And let's talk about eshift2, which I like a lot. It is a stop gap measure. A transition bridge to native 4HD panels, A relatively cheap way of offering 4HD pixels to ones eyes. Very very well done by JVC this year. But don't kid yourself, 4K panels for consumer projectors are coming and eshift will be nothing more than a historical footnote in a few years. But until that happens, it does offer a lot of the 4K from 1080p sources experience.