or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP › JVC DLA-RS48 / DLA X55 projector with 3D RF glasses and E-shift CEDIA 2012
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

JVC DLA-RS48 / DLA X55 projector with 3D RF glasses and E-shift CEDIA 2012 - Page 14

post #391 of 795
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holiday121 View Post

Lol I want it now!!!

How do you think a RS35 would compare to an X70 or X55? Kris mentioned somewhere that his X30 he tested was almost on par with his RS35? Any opinions?
post #392 of 795
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nima View Post

How do you think a RS35 would compare to an X70 or X55? Kris mentioned somewhere that his X30 he tested was almost on par with his RS35? Any opinions?

Unless you had a very small screen or a really long viewing distance, i would take the newer projectors with E-shift over the 35.
Reply
Reply
post #393 of 795
Hey I have a question please about eShift2 which no one maybe can answer yet but then, eShift1 please from owners who watch a lot of sports. I don't recall it being mentioned (I'm sure it has) or discussed much. How does this process do with sports and motion? It popped into my head while I was watching the Lakers at Staples last night lose their 3rd straight under coach Brown. On the new Time Warner Sports Net. I had been sweating it because all these networks are not created equal in getting a pristine signal out of their camera equipment to the trucks up to the bird and out to all the providers. What we had was quite good before. But I have to give them props watching with my RS50 on my very unforgiving 8.5' wide 16x9 2.8 Highpower at my desired high foot lamberts. The picture was I believe the most amazing and pristine I have ever seen come out of Staples. And they could be directly compared to ESPN who was also covering the game and really has their own bleep together for the past two years now after sucking hard prior to that with crawling artifacts everywhere.

So at 1080P resolution and with clear motion drive set at 3 with this good of a signal it wasn't the motion handling from my W7000 BenQ but it was quite good. What happens to all of that when the resolution interpolation of eShift at only 120hz is thrown into the mix? Does anyone find they prefer to watch sports with it turned off, just on the native panel? That would disappoint me when the 4810 gets here.
post #394 of 795
No one watches sports with eShift? eek.gif Bump
post #395 of 795
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nima View Post

How do you think a RS35 would compare to an X70 or X55? Kris mentioned somewhere that his X30 he tested was almost on par with his RS35? Any opinions?

I compared last year's E-Shift projector to my RS35 on my screen (120" Studiotek 130). I am 12' back from my screen and I matched the brightness (14 fL). We could not see any benefit to the E-Shift compared to the RS35 regardless of the material we used. Images looked about the same overall detail wise, but ANSI contrast looked better on the RS35. The X70 was brighter and quieter though. And obviously it has a few more bells and whistles. But for 2D playback, I still preferred the image on my RS35.
post #396 of 795
Quote:
Originally Posted by RonF View Post

No one watches sports with eShift? eek.gif Bump
I'm not a huge sports fan but I never turn eshift off (I did vary the MPC setting some tho). I haven't found any problems using eshift while watching football. If there were any eshift artifacts while watching sports I think it would have been mentioned by now....but possibly not.
post #397 of 795
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kris Deering View Post

I compared last year's E-Shift projector to my RS35 on my screen (120" Studiotek 130). I am 12' back from my screen and I matched the brightness (14 fL). We could not see any benefit to the E-Shift compared to the RS35 regardless of the material we used. Images looked about the same overall detail wise, but ANSI contrast looked better on the RS35. The X70 was brighter and quieter though. And obviously it has a few more bells and whistles. But for 2D playback, I still preferred the image on my RS35.
It will be interesting if this years models surpass your RS35. Supposedly they have better ANSI (but I've heard that before) and supposedly eshift2 is more beneficial at further seating distances.
post #398 of 795
Quote:
Originally Posted by RonF View Post

No one watches sports with eShift? eek.gif Bump

I didn't see any problems with it. Compared to the w7000, the benq is brighter and have better motion handling. I was happy with the JVC with sports.
post #399 of 795
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kris Deering View Post

I compared last year's E-Shift projector to my RS35 on my screen (120" Studiotek 130). I am 12' back from my screen and I matched the brightness (14 fL). We could not see any benefit to the E-Shift compared to the RS35 regardless of the material we used. Images looked about the same overall detail wise, but ANSI contrast looked better on the RS35. The X70 was brighter and quieter though. And obviously it has a few more bells and whistles. But for 2D playback, I still preferred the image on my RS35.

I'm really hoping eshift 2 exhibits more advantage this year. Other than that I can't think of much other reason to have gone with the 4810 over the 46 (warranty is moot as I trade projectors at least once a year). redface.gif
post #400 of 795
Quote:
Originally Posted by bass addict View Post

I'm really hoping eshift 2 exhibits more advantage this year. Other than that I can't think of much other reason to have gone with the 4810 over the 46 (warranty is moot as I trade projectors at least once a year). redface.gif

Yeah me too. It would also be great if the 4810 has the sharpness of the RS35 or at least close. Maybe in combination with the e-shift2 and a darbee (and some tinkering) the perceived sharpness will be very close I hope. What do you guys think?
post #401 of 795
Well, some have said some RS-45's/RS-55's were sharper than the RS-35, so yes but I think it will be based on convergence luck.
There is no question in my mind at this point that the JVC LCOS (and Mits hc9000d) are the two sharpest sub $8000 NON-DLP projectors in existence that I know of anyhow.
post #402 of 795
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post

Well, some have said some RS-45's/RS-55's were sharper than the RS-35, so yes but I think it will be based on convergence luck.
There is no question in my mind at this point that the JVC LCOS (and Mits hc9000d) are the two sharpest sub $8000 NON-DLP projectors in existence that I know of anyhow.

Good to know that because I just saw an Epson 5010 yesterday projected on a black diamond 92" at Best Buy and thought it looked nice except for the sharpness. It did not seem to be as sharp as I wanted it, but of course I didn't play with the settings. I'm sure the JVCs will be sharper.
post #403 of 795
Epson is even more random on convergence luck for sure.
post #404 of 795
Quote:
Originally Posted by SED <--- Rules View Post

Yeah me too. It would also be great if the 4810 has the sharpness of the RS35 or at least close. Maybe in combination with the e-shift2 and a darbee (and some tinkering) the perceived sharpness will be very close I hope. What do you guys think?

The Darbee made my w7000 sharper, so I know it will do the same for the JVC
post #405 of 795
Quote:
Originally Posted by blee0120 View Post

The Darbee made my w7000 sharper, so I know it will do the same for the JVC

We shouldn't have to rely on some kind of software sharpening to give us what we want in regards to sharpness. What we should have is actual sharpness from optical system and if want to increase it from there we can add a Darblet or the like.
post #406 of 795
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seegs108 View Post

We shouldn't have to rely on some kind of software sharpening to give us what we want in regards to sharpness. What we should have is actual sharpness from optical system and if want to increase it from there we can add a Darblet or the like.

I agree, but you get what you pay for. Despite it's other fatal flaws, the RS60 was touted as one of the sharpest LCOS projectors to date. All at an entry price of a mere 8k. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Cheaper projectors are going to employ cheaper optics (amongst other things), plain and simple.

If you want a sharper optical system, spend more money. For the rest of us, we'll stick with the more affordable solution to get us most of the way there, and add a 300.00 product to pick up the rest.
post #407 of 795
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seegs108 View Post

We shouldn't have to rely on some kind of software sharpening to give us what we want in regards to sharpness. What we should have is actual sharpness from optical system and if want to increase it from there we can add a Darblet or the like.

I was saying that because the W7000 is a very sharp projector and the Darbee can make it sharper. So, it doesn't need it but it can help. The JVC doesn't need it, but it can help. The Darbee is not required, just like a new model is not required.
post #408 of 795
Let's say, hypothetically, the HW50 came without the reality creation software. Like the HW30, people would be complaining of a soft picture. I've seen a bunch of people complain about the optics of the HW30 and from what someone has told me who knows a Sony insider, the HW50 has a very similar optical system in place just like the HW30. In this Sony's price range the optics shouldn't be this bad. For $4-5K, most projectors regardless of display technology use a better lens. What Sony has done is a kind of dick move. Instead of spending the extra money on a better lens they implement software they had already developed and then tweaked for this projector. They are saving a ton of money because of this choice. The point I was trying to make before was that we shouldn't be okay with letting companies use this type of technology in lieu of sub par optics. What this shows Sony is that they don't need to put a good lens in the projector, all they need to do is use software to enhance the picture to add sharpness when there wasn't any there to begin with. I just don't want this to become a trend with projector manufacturers. Like I said, this could be a huge indicator that people will still buy a product in a certain price range even though the quality of the product isn't up the the standard that most other manufacturer's produce.

Lets make a good optical system and if I choose to add on a sharpener that doesn't produce artifacts that's fine. But I don't want to be dependent on that software to get a sharp picture. I own a Darblet and love what it does. But I also love the fact that I can turn it off and still get a very sharp picture without it.
Edited by Seegs108 - 11/5/12 at 6:38pm
post #409 of 795
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seegs108 View Post

Let's say, hypothetically, the HW50 came without the reality creation software. Like the HW30, people would be complaining of a soft picture. I've seen a bunch of people complain about the optics of the HW30 and from what someone has told me who knows a Sony insider, the HW50 has a very similar optical system in place just like the HW30. In this Sony's price range the optics shouldn't be this bad. For $4-5K, most projectors regardless of display technology use a better lens. What Sony has done is a kind of dick move. Instead of spending the extra money on a better lens they implement software they had already developed and then tweaked for this projector. They are saving a ton of money because of this choice. The point I was trying to make before was that we shouldn't be okay with letting companies use this type of technology in lieu of sub par optics. What this shows Sony is that they don't need to put a good lens in the projector, all they need to do is use software to enhance the picture to add sharpness when there wasn't any there to begin with. I just don't want this to become a trend with projector manufacturers. Like I said, this could be a huge indicator that people will still buy a product in a certain price range even though the quality of the product isn't up the the standard that most other manufacturer's produce.
Lets make a good optical system and if I choose to add on a sharpener that doesn't produce artifacts that's fine. But I don't want to be dependent on that software to get a sharp picture. I own a Darblet and love what it does. But I also love the fact that I can turn it off and still get a very sharp picture without it.

+1

I totally agree, there are less expensive projectors than the Sony that are sharper. Sony is simply cheaping out on the quality of the optics which @ $4k they should be able to do better since others can in this price range.

The HW50 sounds to be such an awesome unit that it is truly too bad they left the weak link as the optics when that is so crucial to a projected image, it could have been so much better.

Jason
post #410 of 795
Does anyone know the latency for the x55r?
I am currently considering it and also do some gaming so this is important to me.
post #411 of 795
Looking at this projector for a 120" screen with .8 Gain. I am about 18' away from the screen. Also looking at the Epson 6020UB. Any recommendations?
post #412 of 795
Quote:
Originally Posted by hevnbnd View Post

Looking at this projector for a 120" screen with .8 Gain. I am about 18' away from the screen. Also looking at the Epson 6020UB. Any recommendations?

How far away is the projector mounted?
post #413 of 795
I was thinking it would be mounted about 17 to 16' away.
post #414 of 795
With the X55, would I still need an anamorphic lenz to display onto a 2:35:1 screen?
post #415 of 795
you wouldn't NEED it , it would just increase resolution and brightness
post #416 of 795
Quote:
Originally Posted by edfowler View Post

you wouldn't NEED it , it would just increase resolution and brightness

Thank you for answering. Sorry I am new to the Front Projection. So the projector would use zoom to fit on the screen I assume. This wil be for a non dedicated living room set up. Too much light during the day so it's only for night time watching.

In such room, is it worth it to spend thousands more on a lenz?
post #417 of 795
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bardia View Post

Thank you for answering. Sorry I am new to the Front Projection. So the projector would use zoom to fit on the screen I assume. This wil be for a non dedicated living room set up. Too much light during the day so it's only for night time watching.
In such room, is it worth it to spend thousands more on a lenz?

Don't spend extra on a Lens. There is a forum for A-Lens discussion, but I been told by many who have them that an increase in brightness is not always the case. Without the lens, you project 1920 x 820 and with the lens, you get the full 1920 x 1080. However, while having discussions with lens owners, they would think about giving up their lens for an eshift JVC, since they have a higher resolution of 3840 x 2160, which would give you more than 1920 x 1080. I have no idea if this is actually true, but it has made my decision to not purchase one for higher resolution easier. Of course there are other benefits but that was my main reason for purchasing one.
post #418 of 795
Quote:
Originally Posted by blee0120 View Post

Don't spend extra on a Lens. There is a forum for A-Lens discussion, but I been told by many who have them that an increase in brightness is not always the case. Without the lens, you project 1920 x 820 and with the lens, you get the full 1920 x 1080. However, while having discussions with lens owners, they would think about giving up their lens for an eshift JVC, since they have a higher resolution of 3840 x 2160, which would give you more than 1920 x 1080. I have no idea if this is actually true, but it has made my decision to not purchase one for higher resolution easier. Of course there are other benefits but that was my main reason for purchasing one.

I see. How would the X55 handle the Oppo's new BDP-105 4K upscaling? On paper, the PQ should be pretty decent..
post #419 of 795
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bardia View Post

I see. How would the X55 handle the Oppo's new BDP-105 4K upscaling? On paper, the PQ should be pretty decent..

It wouldn't - The JVC eshift projectors cannot accept a 4K input. They are not native 4K projectors. They only accept, as most, 1080p and then use their own internal upscaler to 4K that when displayed using eShift produces a pseudo 4K image.
post #420 of 795
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Jones View Post

It wouldn't - The JVC eshift projectors cannot accept a 4K input. They are not native 4K projectors. They only accept, as most, 1080p and then use their own internal upscaler to 4K that when displayed using eShift produces a pseudo 4K image.

Got it. thanks
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP › JVC DLA-RS48 / DLA X55 projector with 3D RF glasses and E-shift CEDIA 2012