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 15

post #421 of 795
Just ordered one.
Can't wait...
post #422 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.

When it comes to A-Lens not always adding brightness, that would really depend on what you compare it to. If you compare it to watching something in 16:9 vs 2.35:1, then it might not add brightness. But if you are planning on watching in 2:35 format the lens would always give you a brighter image than a zoom method would.
post #423 of 795
Quote:
Originally Posted by holmern View Post

When it comes to A-Lens not always adding brightness, that would really depend on what you compare it to. If you compare it to watching something in 16:9 vs 2.35:1, then it might not add brightness. But if you are planning on watching in 2:35 format the lens would always give you a brighter image than a zoom method would.

Besides brighter, would the PQ be enhanced alot more with a lens?
post #424 of 795
Quote:
Originally Posted by holmern View Post

When it comes to A-Lens not always adding brightness, that would really depend on what you compare it to. If you compare it to watching something in 16:9 vs 2.35:1, then it might not add brightness. But if you are planning on watching in 2:35 format the lens would always give you a brighter image than a zoom method would.


I'm going to have to change my signature to save me retyping this so much, because I am one example of a set up that isn't any brighter when using a lens compared to zooming. I still prefer the lens for other reasons, but it isn't any brighter. My set up has a very long throw and the change of aperture when zooming compensates with a change of brightness, so there is no real difference in lumens (measured) when zooming or using the lens. So therefore it isn't a guarantee that a lens will be brighter, better perhaps, but not necessarily brighter. smile.gif
post #425 of 795
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bardia View Post

Besides brighter, would the PQ be enhanced alot more with a lens?

I have a RS40 with a Panamorph UH480 lens. I use to use the zoom method before the lens. With the lens I find the image smoother, a little brighter(not a lot, just maybe 5-10% more), and it allows me to have a bigger image for the small throw distance I have. I bought my lens as a C stock at a great price and for the price I am very happy with it. I would not advise someone who is getting an eshift2 JVC to buy the lens unless they are either getting it for a great price and/or need it to accommodate a bigger screen than their throw distance allows.

Mike
post #426 of 795
Quote:
Originally Posted by holmern View Post

When it comes to A-Lens not always adding brightness, that would really depend on what you compare it to. If you compare it to watching something in 16:9 vs 2.35:1, then it might not add brightness. But if you are planning on watching in 2:35 format the lens would always give you a brighter image than a zoom method would.

I am thinking about a 122" screen and using a JVC IDLA-X30 form 15 feet away. Would this cobination work? Sitting is 10 feet away..
post #427 of 795
or a 95" Tension screen. Which might make more sense...
post #428 of 795
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbw23air View Post

I have a RS40 with a Panamorph UH480 lens. I use to use the zoom method before the lens. With the lens I find the image smoother, a little brighter(not a lot, just maybe 5-10% more), and it allows me to have a bigger image for the small throw distance I have. I bought my lens as a C stock at a great price and for the price I am very happy with it. I would not advise someone who is getting an eshift2 JVC to buy the lens unless they are either getting it for a great price and/or need it to accommodate a bigger screen than their throw distance allows.
Mike

I still have to see in person what would the pic look like when the projector zooms into 2:35:1. would there be alot of detail loss in the pic?
post #429 of 795
Had a chance to hold a mini-shootout yesterday with a pre-production X55 against my own 2 year old X3. Spent about 7 hours comparing (2/3 of the they were shooting 2D split-screen to my 110" 16:9 Stewart ST130 G3 screen) those two in my own 98% batcave theater with my own reference BR collection. Short-version end result: I'm so getting the X55. In my short throw, very short viewing distance setup X55 just blows the X3 out of water. I took some pictures with my Nex-6, but did not have any time to check them. I will write a more detailed report and check the pics if they captured any of my impressions later today. I returned to loaner X55 this morning; stopped the comparion around 03.45 AM smile.gif
post #430 of 795
Quote:
Originally Posted by tn1krr View Post

Had a chance to hold a mini-shootout yesterday with a pre-production X55 against my own 2 year old X3. Spent about 7 hours comparing (2/3 of the they were shooting 2D split-screen to my 110" 16:9 Stewart ST130 G3 screen) those two in my own 98% batcave theater with my own reference BR collection. Short-version end result: I'm so getting the X55. In my short throw, very short viewing distance setup X55 just blows the X3 out of water. I took some pictures with my Nex-6, but did not have any time to check them. I will write a more detailed report and check the pics if they captured any of my impressions later today. I returned to loaner X55 this morning; stopped the comparion around 03.45 AM smile.gif

You just made my wait even longer. Safe to say that the X55/RS48 is much better than the X35/RS46
post #431 of 795
Quote:
Originally Posted by blee0120 View Post

You just made my wait even longer. Safe to say that the X55/RS48 is much better than the X35/RS46
I will see if I can further increase your pain when I get home from work, go through my pictures and write down a more detailed report on why I think X55 is such an awesome projector for my theater biggrin.gif
post #432 of 795
Quote:
Originally Posted by tn1krr View Post

I will see if I can further increase your pain when I get home from work, go through my pictures and write down a more detailed report on why I think X55 is such an awesome projector for my theater biggrin.gif

Can't wait for the torture
post #433 of 795
Quote:
Originally Posted by blee0120 View Post

You just made my wait even longer. Safe to say that the X55/RS48 is much better than the X35/RS46

It must be all in the Eshift as I'm not sure that T1nkrr has had chance to calibrate the CMS which is the other improvement over the X35. It may also have a lot to do with how close he is sitting, which I read was under 1SW unless I'm mistaken.

Not to detract from T1nkrr's happiness, but I don't think all of us waiting for X35/RS46s need panic (especially those with external CMS options) and those who perhaps don't sit quite as close.
post #434 of 795
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bardia View Post

I still have to see in person what would the pic look like when the projector zooms into 2:35:1. would there be alot of detail loss in the pic?

I don't really see a big difference in detail in zooming vs using anamorphic lens. The biggest advantages of anamorphic lens is I am able to have a bigger 2.35 image and not lose any brightness. I have found a Darblet to help more with the image detail than the anamorphic lens but having the combination of both with my RS40 is great.

I plan on getting the RS4810 and can't wait to see what the eshift2 does to picture.

Mike
post #435 of 795
Ok, here we go with full report on the pre prod X55 vs. my trusty old X3.

As a background info my setup is quite short throw with quite short viewing distance. I've got a fixed 16:9 110" ST130 G3 with motorized masking for 2.35:1. So the screen width is 244 cm and about so is my vieving distance (depending on whether I am laying on the sofa or sitting smile.gif ), which varies between 0.8 ans 1.1 screen widths. So this setup is one where E-Shift should shine if it does anywhere. Room Is quite treated, matte black ceiling (floating Ecophon Acoustic ceiling panel) walls with everything around screen covered with Prostar light trap material. Gray floor with a few colored acoustic ppanels on the sidewalls outside one's viewing cone. There is some white behind viewing area, the folding sound-insulating back wall and side doors, propably should do something about these bright spots in my batcave.

Looks like this

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/26280040/theater_final.jpg

I setupped the X55 just inside the screen horizontally in the middle (below the X3 that is in a ceiling box) and did a "mechanical split screen" split screen eg. covered part of lens with a cardboard that was covered with the Prostar light trap material and both projectors were fed from outputs of my Radiance XS so I was getting same content from both projectors; X55 on the left side and X3 on the right side. Both were running Cinema mode with default settings everywhere else expect X55 was running low lamp with iris at -15 (iris does not seem to affect brightness that much) and X3 had high lamp and iris fully open. X3 has a bit over 1000 hours on it so it was slightly dimmer than the new X55 low but what can you do. A pic below show is a screenshot from the screen; I'm no pro with camera gear and barely know how to operate my Nex-6 so obviously the exposure was off (there actually was not completely black area in the middle and brightness difference between the projectors is exaggered). The EVF is great for anything else, but it does suck for manual focus on the projectors screen it seems. The picture however somewhat does match what my eyes saw in terms of detail clarity and perceived sharpness etc.

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/26280040/baraka.jpg

I spent 4 or so hours going through my own reference disks, including Scubasteve's collection, Tom Lowe's Timescapes, Baraka, TDK and I did throw in AVSHD calibration disk for a sec. Since I had no time (and no real interest, not fan of that stuff, only done when absolutely necessary) to calibrate the

The following themes constantly popped into my head, in the following I try also to figure why
- X55 E-Shift picture is more lifelike, I'd say more HD-Analog. I tried put my head into "why is this" when it hit me. I some cases I'm seeing the pixels in X3 from around 0.8 SW distance. The dish radio mast support beams in the Timescapes "dish dance" showed individual pixels whereas in the X55 the edges of the beams were completely smooth. AVSHD patterns showed similar thing from same vieving distance
- I'm seeing "new" or more fine-grained details if I look carefully. Star Wars Episode 3 BR in the beginning "Battle of Coruscant" where Star destroyers glided from left to right they lost some of the finest details when they went from left to right into X3 screen area. Same thing with R2-D2 inside Grievous command ship, The leds in the side of R2-D2 took a more defined form, I could observe inperfections in the R2 more clearly, the dirt in cars in TDK had more details...
- texture definition was better. Through each and every scene where there was some textures they were better defined in X55; the fur (and waterdrops in the fur) on the monkey in Baraka, The old stone walls in Baraka. Looked a bit like turning on higher level of texture detail in a computer game.
- X55 made the ST130 screen texture appear slightly less visible. I pondered for a long time why this would be and came up with a theory that pixel grid that can be seen with X3 when looking closely may be interacting the screen texture in the near white parts of video. Dunno why this would be but by looking at the white clouds in the sky I get this feeling
- for some strange reason the X55 appear to show a bit of something that looks like luminance noise (been trying to learn Lightroom 4 lately) than X3 in some scenes. Don't know if the X3 generates some of it's own or if X55 removes it from video, but the difference is there.
- I managed to pause Kung Fu Panda so that Mr Panda has his face is split between halfs of the screen. The difference on the eyes is staggering, the X3 eye looked like digital picture that was zoomed to 110%. Very good but slightly artifical whereas X55 eye looked like a perfectly realistic eye looking at me.
- does the E-Eshift2 soften the picture to get its look. Most definately not

I often paused the video to stop to look more closely and think "is this brightness/contrast difference I'm seeing", but it just was was not.

After watching all the clips (some of them I rerun several times) I remembered what R Harkness wrote here about E-Shft last year; it truly does bring another level if "being there". The last thing I watched was Jay-Z Live concert "Rock Am Ring" from MTV HD in 1080i (watched it maybe 25 times before) and there just was a new sence of being there in Nurgburgring. Some obvious clues that tell you that you are watching (high quality) digital video are just gone with E-Shift/X55 and more detailed fine textures just bring the illusion that you are watching live show instead of a very good recording of it. All the little details described above make a big impact when put together.

So all in all, it is all in the E-Shift2, but truth to be told I was shocked how much the E-Shift brought into the game. When viewed solo the X3 stills looks great, but in the company of X55 it does not when viewed as close as I do. I took a brief test on how far back I could tell the difference and I can safely say that after 1.5-1.6 SW I was just mainly the slight brighness advantage that the X55 had.

As for 3D I did comment about crosstalk in the Zombie's mini-shootout thread and short story is this: with my X3 I was always seeing at least a little of it, even out of the box, sometimes barely noticeable and sometimes very noticeable. In the X55 with 80 hours in lamp I did not see any; watched parts of IMAX Space Station, Under The Sea, some demos from DTS 3D Demo disk, Transformers 3D, Avengers 3D... Total of 2 to 2.5 hours. I do not have Sammy's or Despicable me so those very hard scenes may show but yesterday with X55 I saw now crosstalk. I might have watched wrong parts of the movies but I just saw no crosstalk I could notice.

So, I confirmed my X55 order today, should have one in my theater hopefully late next week. The E-Shift2 is just that good for close vieing distance. I'm quite confident 24p 3D has also taken a real step forwardand even though I watch 3D less than 10% of my projector usage that is a nice bonus too.
post #436 of 795
Quote:
Originally Posted by tn1krr View Post

. I took a brief test on how far back I could tell the difference and I can safely say that after 1.5-1.6 SW I was just mainly the slight brighness advantage that the X55 had. .

Thank you very much for trying this as I have been very curious to get some opinions about how far back eshfit2 looses its benefit mostly. I am ~1.8 for my 1.78 material so it sounds like eshift2 would have VERY little impact for me here. For my 2.35, I am at about 1.4 so it sounds like I may get some benefit(?), but nothing major. Would you agree with this from what you watched?

Thanks!

EDIT: Was the brightness difference between the X3 and X55 as noticeable as that lizard shot you posted above? Brighter will always be perceived as better (I am not suggesting eshift2 does not have significant benefits) and this looks like an unfair advantage for the X55 right off the bat if it was as noticeable as that shot would suggest. That is not a small brightness difference!
Edited by Toe - 11/23/12 at 10:56am
post #437 of 795
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post

Thank you very much for trying this as I have been very curious to get some opinions about how far back eshfit2 looses its benefit mostly. I am ~1.8 for my 1.78 material so it sounds like eshift2 would have VERY little impact for me here. For my 2.35, I am at about 1.4 so it sounds like I may get some benefit(?), but nothing major. Would you agree with this from what you watched?
Thanks!
EDIT: Was the brightness difference between the X3 and X55 as noticeable as that lizard shot you posted above? Brighter will always be perceived as better (I am not suggesting eshift2 does not have significant benefits) and this looks like an unfair advantage for the X55 right off the bat if it was as noticeable as that shot would suggest. That is not a small brightness difference!
Like mentioned above the difference was nowhere near what it is in the screenshot. The full black bar in the middle did not exist, the brightness stuff is just me sucking with the new camera and photography overall. One could notice the difference in the bright scenes but in the darker scenes the image was seamless, with just a small darker stripe in the middle where the pic shows black bar.
post #438 of 795
Quote:
Originally Posted by tn1krr View Post

Like mentioned above the difference was nowhere near what it is in the screenshot. The full black bar in the middle did not exist, the brightness stuff is just me sucking with the new camera and photography overall. One could notice the difference in the bright scenes but in the darker scenes the image was seamless, with just a small darker stripe in the middle where the pic shows black bar.

Sorry, I somehow missed that. redface.gif

So in your opinion, how much impact would eshift2 have at a 1.8 view distance? How about 1.4?

Thanks
post #439 of 795
Quote:
Originally Posted by tn1krr View Post

So, I confirmed my X55 order today, should have one in my theater hopefully late next week. The E-Shift2 is just that good for close vieing distance. I'm quite confident 24p 3D has also taken a real step forwardand even though I watch 3D less than 10% of my projector usage that is a nice bonus too.

Thanks for your opinions as I also have the RS40/X3 that i sit about 1.0-1.2 screen widths back from my 2.35 screen and I am glad you were able to do this comparison. I can't see 3D so I am glad you focused on 2D content.

Thanks again,
Mike
Edited by mbw23air - 11/23/12 at 11:29am
post #440 of 795
The x55 has just arrived in Europe.
Mine is coming next week ;-)
post #441 of 795
Quote:
Originally Posted by tn1krr View Post

So all in all, it is all in the E-Shift2, but truth to be told I was shocked how much the E-Shift brought into the game. When viewed solo the X3 stills looks great, but in the company of X55 it does not when viewed as close as I do. I took a brief test on how far back I could tell the difference and I can safely say that after 1.5-1.6 SW I was just mainly the slight brighness advantage that the X55 had.

As for 3D I did comment about crosstalk in the Zombie's mini-shootout thread and short story is this: with my X3 I was always seeing at least a little of it, even out of the box, sometimes barely noticeable and sometimes very noticeable. In the X55 with 80 hours in lamp I did not see any; watched parts of IMAX Space Station, Under The Sea, some demos from DTS 3D Demo disk, Transformers 3D, Avengers 3D... Total of 2 to 2.5 hours. I do not have Sammy's or Despicable me so those very hard scenes may show but yesterday with X55 I saw now crosstalk. I might have watched wrong parts of the movies but I just saw no crosstalk I could notice.

So, I confirmed my X55 order today, should have one in my theater hopefully late next week. The E-Shift2 is just that good for close vieing distance. I'm quite confident 24p 3D has also taken a real step forwardand even though I watch 3D less than 10% of my projector usage that is a nice bonus too.

thanks for posting your experience so far. I sit 1.25 sw from a 142" 16:9 and always keep the e-shift on the RS55 (X70) regardless of what i'm watching.

I can't wait to see the e-shift2 in direct comparison to e-shift1. Your comments on the e-shift and improved 3D are similar to the early previews from Cine4home and AreaDVD.

Are you getting the new RF glasses as well?
post #442 of 795
If the reports of 3D ghosting being a non-issue are true, I'll re-evaluate whether to go back to a JVC this year. For those looking for ghosting, remember that "dark ghosting" is the JVC's main problem, not light ghosting. That is, look for thin dark ghosting against bright, solid backgrounds (telephone poles, tree branches, suspension cables against the sky). That's where my RS45 failed miserably. It was great at not exhibiting light ghosting. And 120hz 3D was even worse (side by side, gaming, 60i MVC). The old JVCs were awful at that. They also performed very poorly after just a few hundred hours. You have to evaluate 3D on the JVCs with a different mindset than other displays.

FWIW, I don't find a dual projector setup for 2D/3D a very attractive alternative. I'd love the total lack of ghosting of a DLP projector, but the high native contrast of a JVC is what makes its 3D so incredibly beautiful. If I have to give up the contrast, I'd just as soon stay with the Epson 6010, which has its own set of 2D/3D compromises but overall is very good.
post #443 of 795
Do you know how many hours were on the preproduction unit?
post #444 of 795
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigerfan33 View Post

Do you know how many hours were on the preproduction unit?

He said 80hrs in his post.
post #445 of 795
Quote:
Originally Posted by tn1krr View Post

Ok, here we go with full report on the pre prod X55 vs. my trusty old X3.
...
As for 3D I did comment about crosstalk in the Zombie's mini-shootout thread and short story is this: with my X3 I was always seeing at least a little of it, even out of the box, sometimes barely noticeable and sometimes very noticeable. In the X55 with 80 hours in lamp I did not see any; watched parts of IMAX Space Station, Under The Sea, some demos from DTS 3D Demo disk, Transformers 3D, Avengers 3D... Total of 2 to 2.5 hours. I do not have Sammy's or Despicable me so those very hard scenes may show but yesterday with X55 I saw now crosstalk. I might have watched wrong parts of the movies but I just saw no crosstalk I could notice.

I realize these units aren't out yet, but would this 3D improvement probably apply to the RS46/X35 as well?
post #446 of 795
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragon Reborn View Post

I realize these units aren't out yet, but would this 3D improvement probably apply to the RS46/X35 as well?

It should
post #447 of 795
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post

Sorry, I somehow missed that. redface.gif
So in your opinion, how much impact would eshift2 have at a 1.8 view distance? How about 1.4?
Thanks

Its interesting what the gentleman from Finland (tn1krr) said about the e-shift2 advantage from farther seating distances. I am going to be sitting about 1.5 to 1.6 screen widths from a 16 x 9 screen and based on what he said, I won't really see any difference from the 46 and the 48. This makes me think that e-shift will be an advantage only if I sit really close to the screen, which is just too close for me.
post #448 of 795
Quote:
Originally Posted by tn1krr View Post

Ok, here we go with full report on the pre prod X55 vs. my trusty old X3.
As a background info my setup is quite short throw with quite short viewing distance. I've got a fixed 16:9 110" ST130 G3 with motorized masking for 2.35:1. So the screen width is 244 cm and about so is my vieving distance (depending on whether I am laying on the sofa or sitting smile.gif ), which varies between 0.8 ans 1.1 screen widths. So this setup is one where E-Shift should shine if it does anywhere. Room Is quite treated, matte black ceiling (floating Ecophon Acoustic ceiling panel) walls with everything around screen covered with Prostar light trap material. Gray floor with a few colored acoustic ppanels on the sidewalls outside one's viewing cone. There is some white behind viewing area, the folding sound-insulating back wall and side doors, propably should do something about these bright spots in my batcave.
Looks like this
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/26280040/theater_final.jpg
I setupped the X55 just inside the screen horizontally in the middle (below the X3 that is in a ceiling box) and did a "mechanical split screen" split screen eg. covered part of lens with a cardboard that was covered with the Prostar light trap material and both projectors were fed from outputs of my Radiance XS so I was getting same content from both projectors; X55 on the left side and X3 on the right side. Both were running Cinema mode with default settings everywhere else expect X55 was running low lamp with iris at -15 (iris does not seem to affect brightness that much) and X3 had high lamp and iris fully open. X3 has a bit over 1000 hours on it so it was slightly dimmer than the new X55 low but what can you do. A pic below show is a screenshot from the screen; I'm no pro with camera gear and barely know how to operate my Nex-6 so obviously the exposure was off (there actually was not completely black area in the middle and brightness difference between the projectors is exaggered). The EVF is great for anything else, but it does suck for manual focus on the projectors screen it seems. The picture however somewhat does match what my eyes saw in terms of detail clarity and perceived sharpness etc.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/26280040/baraka.jpg
I spent 4 or so hours going through my own reference disks, including Scubasteve's collection, Tom Lowe's Timescapes, Baraka, TDK and I did throw in AVSHD calibration disk for a sec. Since I had no time (and no real interest, not fan of that stuff, only done when absolutely necessary) to calibrate the
The following themes constantly popped into my head, in the following I try also to figure why
- X55 E-Shift picture is more lifelike, I'd say more HD-Analog. I tried put my head into "why is this" when it hit me. I some cases I'm seeing the pixels in X3 from around 0.8 SW distance. The dish radio mast support beams in the Timescapes "dish dance" showed individual pixels whereas in the X55 the edges of the beams were completely smooth. AVSHD patterns showed similar thing from same vieving distance
- I'm seeing "new" or more fine-grained details if I look carefully. Star Wars Episode 3 BR in the beginning "Battle of Coruscant" where Star destroyers glided from left to right they lost some of the finest details when they went from left to right into X3 screen area. Same thing with R2-D2 inside Grievous command ship, The leds in the side of R2-D2 took a more defined form, I could observe inperfections in the R2 more clearly, the dirt in cars in TDK had more details...
- texture definition was better. Through each and every scene where there was some textures they were better defined in X55; the fur (and waterdrops in the fur) on the monkey in Baraka, The old stone walls in Baraka. Looked a bit like turning on higher level of texture detail in a computer game.
- X55 made the ST130 screen texture appear slightly less visible. I pondered for a long time why this would be and came up with a theory that pixel grid that can be seen with X3 when looking closely may be interacting the screen texture in the near white parts of video. Dunno why this would be but by looking at the white clouds in the sky I get this feeling
- for some strange reason the X55 appear to show a bit of something that looks like luminance noise (been trying to learn Lightroom 4 lately) than X3 in some scenes. Don't know if the X3 generates some of it's own or if X55 removes it from video, but the difference is there.
- I managed to pause Kung Fu Panda so that Mr Panda has his face is split between halfs of the screen. The difference on the eyes is staggering, the X3 eye looked like digital picture that was zoomed to 110%. Very good but slightly artifical whereas X55 eye looked like a perfectly realistic eye looking at me.
- does the E-Eshift2 soften the picture to get its look. Most definately not
I often paused the video to stop to look more closely and think "is this brightness/contrast difference I'm seeing", but it just was was not.
After watching all the clips (some of them I rerun several times) I remembered what R Harkness wrote here about E-Shft last year; it truly does bring another level if "being there". The last thing I watched was Jay-Z Live concert "Rock Am Ring" from MTV HD in 1080i (watched it maybe 25 times before) and there just was a new sence of being there in Nurgburgring. Some obvious clues that tell you that you are watching (high quality) digital video are just gone with E-Shift/X55 and more detailed fine textures just bring the illusion that you are watching live show instead of a very good recording of it. All the little details described above make a big impact when put together.
So all in all, it is all in the E-Shift2, but truth to be told I was shocked how much the E-Shift brought into the game. When viewed solo the X3 stills looks great, but in the company of X55 it does not when viewed as close as I do. I took a brief test on how far back I could tell the difference and I can safely say that after 1.5-1.6 SW I was just mainly the slight brighness advantage that the X55 had.
As for 3D I did comment about crosstalk in the Zombie's mini-shootout thread and short story is this: with my X3 I was always seeing at least a little of it, even out of the box, sometimes barely noticeable and sometimes very noticeable. In the X55 with 80 hours in lamp I did not see any; watched parts of IMAX Space Station, Under The Sea, some demos from DTS 3D Demo disk, Transformers 3D, Avengers 3D... Total of 2 to 2.5 hours. I do not have Sammy's or Despicable me so those very hard scenes may show but yesterday with X55 I saw now crosstalk. I might have watched wrong parts of the movies but I just saw no crosstalk I could notice.
So, I confirmed my X55 order today, should have one in my theater hopefully late next week. The E-Shift2 is just that good for close vieing distance. I'm quite confident 24p 3D has also taken a real step forwardand even though I watch 3D less than 10% of my projector usage that is a nice bonus too.

This post was extremely helpful.....I'm a current rs45 owner who sits at approximately 1.0 screen distance away from a 120" 2:35:1 screen and this close distance renders quite a few of my older or intentionall ygrainy (i.e. Hunger Games) Blu rays unwatchable......eshift2 might be exactly what I've been looking for. I preordered an rs56, but I'm now thinking that this X55/rs4810 may make more sense for me. Thanks again!
post #449 of 795
Quote:
Originally Posted by tn1krr View Post

I took a brief test on how far back I could tell the difference and I can safely say that after 1.5-1.6 SW I was just mainly the slight brighness advantage that the X55 had.

Hi
When we say 1.5-1.6 SW , are referrring to the horizontal screen width or the diagonal screen width. For me its going to be about 9feet horizontal for a 10feet (120") diagonal screen. My seating distance is going to be 16 feet away. So that's over 1.6SW either way. So I won't be able to see much difference between the RS46 and RS48 it seems... frown.gif


Thanks again for the details !
post #450 of 795
Using data from Cine4home's previews of the X75, X55 and review of the X70 I plotted Contrast Ratio for these 3 machines at the three points Ekki measured: Iris Closed, Mid Iris, Iris Open.

Ekki posts CR numbers for max zoom and min zoom but I averaged them so as to keep the chart uncluttered and easier to follow.

I think it's pretty safe to say that JVC made a nice improvement in the X75 compared to its predecessor the X70.



The data shows that one clearly benefits more from the higher CR machine when the Iris is clamped down. For those using the Iris nearly open the advantages of the higher CR projectors greatly diminishes.

EDIT: Updated chart with X7 data
Edited by Geof - 11/25/12 at 4:07pm
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