Projector vs. large (80") LED TV - Page 2

Where did you get 95ES using a cheaper lens ? Isn't it the same from 85/90 ?

Serious competent objectivity is hard to come by.

From Kris Deering's Sony VPL-VW95ES 3D SXRD Projector in Home Theater Magazine:
"In the past we’ve been really impressed with Sony’s sharp lens quality. This model’s up-close pixel focus and focus uniformity across the screen weren’t quite as good as I was expecting from a projector at its price point, but ultimately the VPL-VW95ES did deliver a very sharp image from the normal seating position."
http://www.hometheater.com/content/sony-vpl-vw95es-3d-sxrd-projector-0

Consumer Reports no longer recommends the Honda Civic as they cut too many corners. In fact they list it as a model to avoid:
http://news.consumerreports.org/cars/2012/08/five-popular-cars-to-avoid.html
Edited by HiFiFun - 8/14/12 at 9:22am

What is little noted is that the size of the chip has a huge effect on the sharpness. the chip is the first limiting factor in the system and just like formats in cameras large chips produce better images. The chip has a geometrical MTF which is the start of the multiplier chain.MTFchip xMTFlens xMTF screenxMTFeye So going from a .95 chip to a .7 chip LCOS to a .65 chip really degrades the sharpness. If the LS3 and LS5 are .95 chips then the price is real value. I always wondered why high end projector manufactures did not produce chips that were 2 inches.

I am sounding like a broken record but having owned DLP projectors with both size chips I am also of the opinion that it plays a substantial role in sharpness. Its nice to have the reason for this explained by a retired optical engineer (so sayeth the profile) as I normally can't explain it.
Again, thats why I often recommend some of the older high-end used/ex-demo models around, the contrast numbers won't be as high as a JVC but they still produce a great (and my preferred) image.

They both use the larger .95" DMD. The LS-3 uses a DC2 (DarkChip2) DMD and the LS-5 uses the DC3 DMD. The only other difference between the models is that the LS-5 offers horizontal lens shift whereas the LS-3 does not. It's odd because they both use the same lens as well. I guess the added price gets you a little more placement flexibility.
Edited by Seegs108 - 8/14/12 at 2:06pm

Yeah, but that is 720p not 1080p. I don't think they should be compared. The thing between DLP and LCOS is that the two look almost completely different when projected. They offer two different experiences. I think its a matter of personal taste.

The projector solution for Sony is to use their camera lens partner Carl Zeiss

Here Sony offers a breakthrough compact camera because it has a top quality Carl Zeiss lens:
http://www.amazon.com/Sony-DSC-RX100-Sensor-Digital-Camera/dp/B00889ST2G/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top
http://news.consumerreports.org/electronics/2012/08/sonys-cyber-shot-rx100-is-an-advanced-camera-in-a-small-package.html

A QUALITY SONY/CARL ZEISS LENS

I like the JVC for dark movies but the ,95 single chip in bright scenes is just sharper.

Hm, funny I have own both the 90ES and the 95ES and if anything, the lens is the same or better/sharper in the 95ES ( the generel picture is sharpere and more dynamic in the 95ES )

Have you seen the 95ES live ?


dj

But you can pair a Darbee with a DLP too (I should know )

Comparing a 5th generation 1080p with an image processor to a 7(?) year old 720p projector, (if thats the comparison you are talking about)... I think I'd prefer the JVC too.

In reference to the thread you linked to, its all well and good if you are sitting further than 4 feet back. Having owned projectors with both chips, it was quite easy for me to see the difference from a regular viewing distance. If we are digging up old threads, and comparing 720p to 1080p here is a comparison of a Sim2 720p C3X to a HT3000 (back when I was proved, rather embarrasingly to be a C3X fanboy)
http://www.avsforum.com/t/790935/marantz-vp-11s1-vs-sim2-ht3000-1080p-dlp-shootout/30

Its quite interesting if you read through the thread which is which. The argument was that there were other factors other than resolution that were improved in the move to 1080p DLP. At least in Sim2's offerings.

I didn't know what a Darby was until you mentioned it and as i said I like the JVC but mother nature is working a against you. They Nyquist cut off frequency for a .95 inch chip is 41 lp/mm and for a .7 inch chip it is 55lp/mm Given the same quality lens for both projectors and the contrast is not going to be as good. on the JVC as it would be on a DLP. Now on top of that you add a degradation in MTF due to some misconvergence among the 3 chips and you have light scatter from the wire grid polarizers and the color separation prisms. A 3 chip is just a lot harder to make then a single chip. Maybe a great image processor can even the field. The Marantz you mention had the greatest measured Ansi contrast of 800/1 but it just did not put out enough lumens What I like about any 3 chip is that the image is more stable (no flicker, no dithering) and the color depth is a little deeper.

I definitely respect your knowledge as a retired engineer, but there are points of impact in the realistic assessment or average experience that do not always match what one specific measurement says. It's all somewhat subjective, but mathematics cannot tell someone how much sharpness with less contrast matters to their eye vs. higher contrast with slightly less sharpness. You are talking about immediate definition of a pixel as it falls off immediately, this affects text more than video. A lot of what attribute matters the most in a given scenario is better determined by viewing content, not by one attribute overriding all others. Contrast in most measurements that matter for video go to the JVC by 10-fold over a DLP. I will be the first one to say I don't think either tech is perfect, but I do think LCOS wins in movies on a clean source most of the time (not always). For the price, LCOS wins in most movie viewing anyhow, as high-end DLP's are so darn expensive that it gets ridiculous at some point. It's also getting to the point with my JVC at least that I can BARELY tell the difference between Textual sharpness in HTPC between a Runco, Benq, or JVC RS-45, so now people are going to say the difference is mind-blowing in video and even more than what I can barely see in text, not buying it. I would agree if I were comparing a less sharp LCOS, but a well-converged JVC is pretty freaking sharp. Sometimes people in this forum want to compare a $50,000 DLP to a $2,000 LCOS, and what is kind of funny because the black levels still can't reach the JVC contrast, it can try with an IRIS but not on/off.

I have been a sharpness junkie for years, I went through many many projectors and returned most due to sharpness. Misconvergence now-a-days with 1080p and convergence correction is not the same as it used to be with 720p or even on projectors with less pixel fill.

1) First we have incremental or slight improvements in the lens elements and assemblies in LCOS projectors.

2) A 720p pixel is 2.25 times larger than a 1080p pixel (I think), so 1 pixel off on a 720p projector would be 2.25 pixels off in 1080p. Many of our JVC's are less than 1/2 pixel off in convergence across the majority of the screen, that would be like a 720p projector being less than 0.22 pixels off total. People used to be happy with 720p LCD when it was off less than 1 pixel, which would still be off 2 pixels on 1080p. Things have changed. At some point the detriment to the image is less than focus uniformity, I've seen many mid-range DLP's where I thought about tied with the JVC because they didn't have as good of focus uniformity. I do realize some DLP's are a little sharper, but I think it is overstated. Some of our JVC's are only off 1/4 to 1/8 pixel, and it's invisible even from 3 feet back. The Lens Elements and Assembly on the JVC is IMO the highest quality for a projector in its price range (other than maybe the Mits hc9000d or Mits hc7800 according to some), and the LEN's I've seen on most DLP's in the sub-8k range have worse focus uniformity than the JVC other than maybe one or two. When I say Lens I am speaking of a few things, focus uniformity, how well the individual pixels are resolved despite the outer convergence ring error, the appearance of immediate contrast, and exactly how focus uniformity is affecting text in HTPC given an equalized convergence, since convergence is a separate issue. The convergence on the JVC does not appear to heavily affect the pixel definition at the pixel level like it used to on older projectors, sure it does affect it slightly, but I'm just saying visually the pixel grid on the JVC looks very well defined even from close-up, despite a tiny convergence glow that quickly becomes invisible. The inner pixel within the convergence looks purely white and defined. Convergence also does not affect every pixel color combination when we are talking convergence errors of less than 1 pixel, there are in fact times it does become completely invisible even from close-up to your nose touching the screen depending on which colors are side-by-side or converging.

3) IMO, the increased pixel fill of LCOS can in certain scenes yield enhancements over a lesser pixel fill like a DLP. It depends on the scene or content to whether it's an enhancement or takes away, I've yet to see any DLP beat my JVC overall on really well filmed and cleanly mastered movies. If you take one of the greatest camera masterpieces of film (Tree of Life), movie is boring, but camera work is unbelievable.... I have my doubts any DLP can compete with a JVC on this content, bright scenes or not because the presentation of this film requires maximum pixel fill due to the realism effect it is going for. DLP will add a touch of anti-realism to it. There are sometimes in bright scenes where I think JVC can win, and this movie is one of those times. Too often we don't get film quality (or now digital quality) anywhere near this level, then the DLP often wins... On a transfer like the movie "Into the Wild", DLP will win every time because the type of movie and lighting that exists and the noise. Even a $1000 DLP can beat my JVC in this movie, but that doesn't make the DLP better, since my JVC can whallop the $1000 DLP in most movies (and beat $10,000 DLP's in some).

When it comes to DLP vs. an LCOS, the different attributes tend to lean towards different flavors depending on how the movie was filmed. It's not just about bright scenes or dark scenes either, it's a tad more complex and about the filming methods, noise in the image, presentation, and other stuff. LCOS wins in a few categories, realism and contrast and color depth perception, whereas the DLP wins in motion and sharpness and poorer sources generally speaking. People think they are seeing differences in ANSI contrast when really what they are more often seeing is a mixture of GAMMA variances and processing issues and tiny differences in sharpness and pixel fill variations. Native On/Off contrast is 100x more often visible than variations of ANSI contrast in a movie.

Too long, but can't say what I mean with shorter words, sorry
Edited by coderguy - 8/16/12 at 12:55am

A truly epic post, I learned a lot from it. Thanks, coderguy.

Man, the demo RS45 I saw must have been a bad unit. The one I saw on display did not have that kind of depth and sharpness you were talking about. I also think JVC has a few other kinks to work out. Motion is still a huge concern of mine. Even compared to LCD projectors the JVCs look awful in this regard. For sharpness I think you need to get lucky to be able to get a unit like yours.

Someone was up late last night...
Coderguy, In your second point you talk about sharpness in the sub-$8k range, if we are talking about newer models then I would expect the current Runco & Digital Projection models to show a more visible increase in sharpness. I just thought it was worth mentioning those as they are the only current models (I can think of) in that price range that use the larger chip, also the general build quality/lens should be pretty good as well. But given, the difference in sharpness might not outweigh the contrast of the JVC for the overall viewing experience to some. If I was using a dedicated theater and had $8k to spend, I'd be snapping up an ex-demo LED DLP in a heartbeat but as you know,

I do not think you can tell that much from pixel-grids. Having owned both types of DLP and a JVC, I could see the pixel grid defined very clearly on all three. I agree, it is only when viewing content that you can really see a difference.

You forgot one other attribute that is perhaps more relevant to the original topic - brightness. The JVCs just aren't bright enough (at D65) to use as living room replacement for a TV or very large screens. Sure, you can add a high gain screen but then you have to spend decent money so that it doesn't affect image quality. The only LCOS model I can think of that has high brightness is the LG CF3D and, according to ProjectorReviews, has entry black level performance. That model may specifically not do well, perhaps JVC could make something with more lumens. You could argue that the Epson models would be an alternative but I'd be willing to bet a DC3 or above DLP projector of the same brightness would produce an overall better image. Well, let me re-phrase that, a more preferred image for the DLP fan

Type of viewing and personal preference will ultimately determine which tech you go for but I do think there are decent value options for both DLP or LCOS, used or new.

Well I think the sharpness can matter in some viewing, not saying it never matters. However, many films are not even that sharp (although I will admit now they are using digital cameras SOME movies are now sharper than they were before). I've AB'd a lot of different projectors including some very high-end ones, and I cannot really say I saw much difference in sharpness in movies. The JVC also wins in darker movies (Harry Potters, Sci Fi, etc...). So given that, I think the JVC has quite a few movies it can beat a DLP on, but some movies DLP will win IMO.

When you first come from a DLP, it is sort of like in the old days when you went from a CRT monitor to an LCD flat-screen. If people remember, many people were seeing the screen being indented inward, because our brains over-time naturally flattened the curved CRT monitors in our heads, so when we finally saw true flat screens it looked like someone dented them inward. That's the same thing on LCOS and DLP, you have to give a little time to your mind to adjust (not much), but it's a different type of viewing (and it still has the dimension once your eyes are used to it).

My friend owned a poorly converged RS-20, and for years I thought JVC's weren't sharp until I finally forced myself to go out and look at multiple units. Zombie had a poorly converged RS-50 and had to return it. You just have to exchange it if you get a bad one.

The main difference is on the newer JVC's is that RED is rarely off all that much (and if RED is off, the other colors are generally spot on), so on most people's PJ's it is blue that is off. You do need to let the JVC warm up before judging convergence, it takes 15-30 minutes and red falls back into place on my unit. You cannot see blue convergence error when it is 1/2 pixel or less, it basically has almost no effect on sharpness (a tiny tiny tiny bit). My Red Convergence is off maybe 0.1 (1/10th) of a pixel and in some places in the screen more like 0.05 off. My blue is off 0.2 or so across most of the screen.

Anyhow, in the comparison thread Zombie did, 4 people of 4 that compared the Epson 5010, Benq, and RS-45 to each other in sharpness agreed the Benq and RS-45 were almost the same (a smidgeon different) and that the RS-45 was sharper than the Epson 5010. Some of us have owned 10-15 different projectors. I've seen quite a few different JVC's now, there are some with poorer convergence, but I'd say chances are 75% to 90% of getting a pretty good one.
Edited by coderguy - 8/16/12 at 12:51pm

Code guy in general I agree with you but from an engineering point of view their are precise mathematical expressions which take into account lens quality and chip convergence. Even so when all the ray tracing is done and all the calculations have been made it is the viewing experience which matters. Every time I have seen the JVC with one exception at Cedia I come away thinking it produces the best projected image for film of any projector currently produced. When I have seen it demonstrated in dealer showrooms or in peoples homes I have been less impressed. The exception by the way was a single chip Sim2 DLP showing a very bright scene. I like the fact that a 3 chip integrates light twice as long and that the LCOS modulates light by changing the transparency like film and unlike a DLP which changes intensity by time division multiplexing. The problem with LCOS is that the Wiregrid polarizers which improved the on off contrast dramatically over previous versions also scatter light onto the focal plane reducing intrascene contrast for bright images. You can eliminate that problem by designing a second stage filter and the results are dramatic but the projector cost and size are 1.5 times the original. The easiest way to improve projector performance would be to increase the format size and go to deep color.

You can't design a projector just by the numbers you have to use your eyes and realize the final evaluation is going to be subjective. Paying more does not insure that you will get better performance. If someone says to me, you get what you pay for I assume he is paying too much or he is overcharging me. Having said that with regard to the JVC 'is it worth 2000 extra to get a superior aligned optimized projector" Absolutely.

The GAMMA was probably mis-calibrated, which is probably why the CEDIA JVC looked better than the others (they spent a lot of time calibrating it). Calibrating a JVC is a major freaking pain, I will admit that (at least my RS-45 is).

ANSI contrast is a bunk measurement IMO. I think the problem you are seeing is the way it processes the image. A JVC tends to soften the edges when there is any noise in the image at all (sometimes even noise that is almost invisible). Most people that have compared a JVC and a DLP do not use the right content, I can make either projector win just by changing movies. The reason people think this side effect is caused by ANSI contrast is because the noise is most detrimental and noticed in bright scenes. The JVC's need to improve the processing a little, but I could care less about the ANSI contrast. The thing is though that in really well filmed movies the issue often becomes a moot point, sure there are still a few scenes here and there a DLP will win at, but overall the JVC has its own winnings.

For ANSI contrast, there aren't that many movies that are filmed bright enough to matter. The only time I even notice ANSI contrast mattering is in blown out scenes, but there are probably a few exceptions. If you think of it scientifically it makes sense, all ANSI contrast is really needed for is in bright scenes with really uneven lighting (like the sun shining into the camera). The reason I think is partly because even digital cameras do not do well trying to capture really uneven lighting in bright scenes, so cameramen avoid it anyhow for the most part, so the source is going to be a limiter. Another proof of this theory is that in really bright scenes you can add more ambient light as long as you increase the projector's brightness and you get smaller amounts of visible picture loss (this is from loss of ANSI, so you can see it directly by changing the room lighting), but in a darker scene you cannot even add the tiniest amount of light in the room before intrascene contrast is blown out.
Edited by coderguy - 8/16/12 at 1:09pm

& you could also go with a 92" DLP - box it in so it looks like a screen hanging on the wall

but I agree with previous post, in a dedicated room - go projection

I've been watching this thread and it's been an interesting discussion.

I have the same room dimensions as you and my limiting factor is a seven foot ceiling height.

While my HT is still a ways off from being done, I say go with a projector. I picked up one of the JVC B-Stock units and just projecting it onto a wall looks fantastic.

There are pros and cons to everything, but the pros to using a projector with a 100 inch (or larger) screen far outweigh any TV. I'm going with a 110" 16:9 screen since it's the largest I can comfortably fit.

Get a projector with good black levels, a good screen to shine it onto and you'll end up with what looks like a very large Plasma TV on your wall.

mlang you are the gentleman and a great asset to this forum. I started to write rebuttal to recent nonsense but then decided it wasn't worth it.
Therefore i conclude that some people are probably pretty happy and some are peoples are possibly probably pretty sad. Anyone who needs me as an expert witness I can probably make up something they did. That is a great scientific mind hard at work

We here at AVS Science Forum need edit the contrast article at Wikipedia. Just look at the possible false claims it contains:
"Another measure is the ANSI contrast, in which the measurement is done with a checker board patterned test image where the black and white luminosity values are measured simultaneously.
This is a more realistic measure of system capability, but includes the potential of including the effects of the room into the measurement, if the test is not performed in a room that is close to ideal."

We here at AVS Science Forum need to write the producers and tell them to ban whites it video, as they look grey on me plasma and the ANSI contrast light scatter sucks on me projector. I want pop and not the kind you drink!
We also need to write Apple and tell them they are crazy to buy the Sharp panels with 5000 ANSI contrast. Just get a Shampo brand instead.
Cheers!

I feel projectors are more worth it and feels very luxurious and modern/high tech, especially if you pair it with a motorized screen.
Edited by BestInTheWorld - 8/17/12 at 9:48pm

In closing, so many people discussing this in the forums have never owned a JVC and have too strong of an opinion for a PJ they have never owned (although a few of you have), I'm just speaking from my own experiences being an owner. I've got 600 hours on my JVC and I don't think it's perfect by any stretch, I've A/B'd the JVC against others. They all have weaknesses, including $20,000 DLP's.

In the end it is personal preference, but unfortunately you really have to own multiple projectors to cover all the bases (DLP & LCOS).
If a DLP could do 1000 lumens in best mode at 15,000:1+ native on/off for under $3000, I'd probably be the first in line to go to a single projector solution, but it aint going to happen. Despite what some think, I'm not really saying LCOS is better, but just that it has its place, and people arguing for a single projector solution believing they have all the bases covered because they spent more money, IMO --- almost but not quite. Every DLP I've found in my price range was under 4000:1 on/off above 500 lumens, which is why I went with the JVC, and I was pleasantly surprised by how well it competed in bright scenes with a DLP, but neither can win all the time. The JVC was a nice change because it has different strengths and weaknesses (I just don't think sharpness is the weakness, the more adamant weakness is poorer sources, a tad on motion, and lamp issues), but eventually I will get another DLP as well just for fun and games.
Edited by coderguy - 8/17/12 at 12:30am

After following this thread from the beginning, and seeing all the different opinions based on different scenarios, I went back and re-read the starter post.

Although I agree with many of the opinions depending on the specific set-up, I realized that the poster stated his set-up. "dedicated theater for movies and some gaming) good sized theater with blacked out walls ect. This is a set up for a front projector. He can go with a very large screen, 120" to 150 he could go scope also, either now or in the future". If he went with a 90" flat panel he would love it at first, but he would wish he he went bigger. There would be buyers remorse. If he went with the pj he would love without the remorse.
I am on my 4th PJ, and 3rd screen, every time I changed screens it got bigger. Such is my nature, and probably the nature of most of us on this forum.
In my multi-use den I have a flat panel, and for that use it works fine for me. If I want to seriously watch a movie, I go to my dedicated theater.
Thats it in a nutshell.

P.S. As far as the life expectancy of the different types of displays goes, it is a valid point. Then again, for many of us it is not really an issue. I get upgrade-itus before that comes into play. And the last 2 times I upgraded I spent less and got more
Tony
Edited by tjgar - 8/17/12 at 4:54am

I bought a Runco LS-3 a couple of months ago for my 2:35 HT. Yes, it's old tech now and Runco has a couple of LED DLP projectors, but for the cost of the LS-3, especially with some dealer/installer discount, it's hard to beat, IMO. The comparison of an oversized LCD flat panel display to a HT optimized front projections system is apples and oranges. I would find the former very fatiguing to view for movie durations. It's the opposite of organic, filmic, natural. I've been a front projection viewer since 1993 and would never consider going back--although the new, larger OLED panels are lovely. When I changed to a 1080P DLP projector in 2006 and a 2:35 Stewart Studiotek 130 screen and Panamorph M380 anamorphic lens, the home theater really went to a whole new level. I have neighbors who invite themselves to come over and watch movies. They have large flat screen and rear screen displays at their homes, but they prefer front projection at my place.

The LS-5 and LS-3 come calibrated out of the box--the color is so much more natural, image more refined than my previous Optoma HD-81LV. There may not be any big steps left in lamp based DLP projectors because they are now a mature technology and manufacturers are concentrating on LED versions going forward. Runco LS-3 and LS-5 offer fantastic performance at a competitive price and buying their products adds the support of a local dealer/installer and good customer service from the manufacturer. Hard to see any downside--except no 3D currently.

Right now, I'm re-watching Blu Rays and HD DVD's just to see my favorite movies look even better than ever!