JVC DLA-RS48 / DLA X55 projector with 3D RF glasses and E-shift CEDIA 2012 - Page 24

JonFo, e shift on my seymour xd acoustically transparent screen works very well. i sit at 1x screen width, the farther back you go the more of a difference it makes. I am actually thinking of shrinking my screen down from 117 wide to 113 wide. before I got the jvc I was all set to widen it to 127 wide (ie. 138" diagonal 2.35:1)

the 4810 lines aren't as sharp as my samsung dlp either with eshift on or off, but the benefits of the jvc outweigh the loss in sharpness.

i would chime in to say see my comments a page or so back re whether eshift works well. I think at some point we need to differentiate between the eshift physical block that goes into the lightpath and the 3 mpc controls.

i personally dont think the pixel-blurring physical device adds anything from more than 1SW away (if that) (seems like i am the minority here), but the MPC enhancement controls DO, so i think those are worth it. only you can tell if it's worth the upgrade cost though.

Hi! Does the emitter and glasses for the newest x-serie work with the x30,x70,x90?

yes

Edfowler.

I too have the seymor screen. Tested this with a x30 a couple of months back. Sitting at 1.1sw the structure of the screen was very visible. Can you see a signifficant difference with eshift on/off on your screen on the x55?

Im thinking of buying a x55, as it is hopeless to get a hold of one just for testing. time to upgrade from my old barco 808s crt pj

Does anyone else have issues with the lens memory feature? Every time I recall a memory while video is going it will freeze and I have to turn it off and back on.

kjelli,

I loved my old Barco 808!!! It was my first big boy projector after I got a little experience with a Dell business dip and then a Sanyo 720 lcd (Z1 I think).

And yes, there is a SIGNIFICANT difference with e shift on.

After the 808 I drove 300 miles to look at a Barco 909 with only 6 hours on it that came out of a flight simulator for only $2000. The guy couldn't get a decent picture out of it so I passed (still regret not getting that one). Then I sweet talked my loving wife into driving 17 hrs with me to New York to pick up a Sony G70 for $2500. This 4810 is definitely the closest to the crt blacks I used to love.

Thanks for your input. I'll go and buy a x55 then. As the x30 gave a really great picture.
I am addicted to good black level. these days one can get supersharp tubes for a fraction of the old prices for these crt beast, my main reson to upgrade is ease of use for the family. One cannot beat the charm with these crt monsters. Have had mine for almost 10 yrs. Cant beat the $ pr hour

Curious of how many people use a external video processor (Lumagen or DVDO) for scaling or CMS???

Scot

You'll find many Lumagen owners here. It's a great product with unsurpassed support (lie a free firmware upgrade to allow a 125 pt gamut calibration).

What would a number do for you here?. There are many variables as to whether using a processor would be cost justified to YOU.

Would you appreciate the ring free scaling of the Lumagen?

Are you going to calibrate? does your projector have a fully fuctioning CMS? Do you want to calibrate automatically.


The list of questions go on and on. And most people just don't understand the many things a good processor can add. People that own one usually get it.

But no way does a popularlity contest enter into the question. A lot of the things a processor does can be done in the projector's processor. And some people, in fact, many just don't understand the differences, one function name is all they know.

hey man, some will say, I don't have one and I can't see any reason why one will need it. Save your money sand spend it on weed.

Others who know, will think its one of the finest investments they ever made.

Its a interesting question, as the scaler is almost 50 % of the cost of the projector. I thought JVC finally had come up with a decent CMS and scaler. ? What will the Lumagen do so much better than the JVC cant?

I do plan on having it professionally calibrated, but dont want to, and dont have the skill to do a auto calibration. Also I have heard the auto is good for the "numbers" but may not be visually appealing.

Its a matter of what percentage of perceived quality will I gain over the processor in the projector or a lower end DVDO etc. I come from the CRT days, and a good scaler was mandatory. Now Lumagen and DVDO (barely) are the only companies that even make a external scaler. It makes me wonder if the processors in the source, pre/pro or display devices have come of age.

If you have some weird EDID or resolution etc, then it is a must...

Comments?

Mark, you're always fun to read.....save money and spend it on weed.....lol

I have the 4810 and have never used lens memory without an underlying source video signal being present. No issues of this sort. Sounds like your problem may be an HDMI handshake issue??

I own a JVC DLA-HD750. I believe this is two generations ago, meaning that my guess is that the new projectors represent two new "generations" of models since I bought mine three years ago.

I posted this in the thread for the X75R, but my question equally applies to the 55R, so with apologies, am posting in this thread as well. I'd probably buy the 55R in any case.

If I was to upgrade to the DLA-X55R or 75R or 95RKT -- how much of an improvement would I see in *2D* ? How much of a difference does e-shift2 result in? I know that such an upgrade delivers 3D, but the purpose of my question here is to determine if that is the only change, or whether the latest and greatest also results in an improvement in 2D.

To the extent that there is an improvement, is it in the overal density of the picture, such as moving from SD to HD, or it also in detail, or both?

I know that this is hard to subjectively describe, so here are my six standards to try to define such things:

(1) SO TINY IT IS DEBATABLE -- Is the improvement tiny and, and barely noticeable, even to any of us? So small that we would debate among ourselves whether the improvement is, in fact, real?

(2) SMALL AND VERY SUBTLE -- Or is it a small improvement, that we might see -- those who own these projectors? The type of an improvement that only sustained watching might confirm for any of us, the visual equivalent of a subtle change in sound quality in an amp or speaker cable?

(3) SMALL BUT CLEARLY EVIDENT TO THE OWNERS -- Is the improvement clearly noticeable to any of us, but is nonetheless small enough that our occasional guests, even those who have seen a number of movies on our projects, would not notice?

(4) CLEAR ENOUGH WE IMMEDIATELY SEE IT, BUT GUESTS SEE NO CHANGE -- The next step would be an improvement we would clearly see in the first five minutes of looking at the picture from the new projector, but our guests might not see the difference, and say "it looks the same to me," unless those guests saw the two projectors in quick succession, and only with such a direct comparison would our guests notice the difference?

(5) CHANGE SO SIGNIFICANT THAT EVEN GUESTS SEE A SMALL CHANGE -- Or is a significant improvement that any of us would immediately notice and even our occasional guests would detect and those guests would comment on the improved picture?

(6) CHANGE SO LARGE THAT EVEN GUESTS DESCRIBE IT THAT WAY WITH A WOW! Or, finally, is it such an improvement that it passes the wow! factor?

FINALLY, are there other manufacturers and other projectors for 3D that more clearly also deliver an improvement in 2D compared to what I am used to with the DLA-HD750?

I have seen some very favorable comments about a recent Sony model, but am not clear as to how much of an improvement it might represent and whether it is better than these recent JVC models.

And do any of you have any opinion as to whether the 75R is worth the extra money? Is it better for 2D or brighter for 3D ??

I can answer one question for you having gone from a HD350 to an X35: The motion is much better: I never was that bothered by it on the HD350 as others seemed to be, but I have noticed the X35 is smoother (I don't use CMD either so it's not that). I can't watch 3D due to headaches, so my comments are purely based on 2D.

I saw a noticeable improvement in contrast, but this is partly because my HD350 has less contrast than your HD750 to start with plus my lamp had dimmed some, so I had the iris well open and now with the much brighter X35 the iris is fully clamped down for 15fL so I get max contrast. I would argue that apart from the brightness/aperture change you would see much less improvement going from HD750 to X55. I would suggest that you might need to consider the X75 as it has more native contrast (for 2D and 3D) and you will gain on the aperture as per the X35/55, but it isn't any brighter than the X55 (the X35 is slightly brighter than all the other models since it doesn't have the Eshift glass to pass through).


I don't think that the Eshift is such a huge difference, but others swear by it. More that the MPC gives lots of options to increase apparent contrast/shaprness. Personally I'm not keen on MPC set even to default settings as I find it bit too much for my taste (same as for the Darbee if set above 50%, it just looks too processed to me and I could see ringing on certain scenes). Having seen a true 4K Sony VW1000ES the JVC Eshift is a poor relation (but then I'm too poor to buy the Sony anyway ).

My comments should also be tempered by the fact that I chose the X35 over the X55 because in the UK if you by the 2D version (no emitter or 3D glasses) then the X55 is twice the price of the X35. I already had a Lumagen video processor, Darbee enhancer and an Isco lens (for higher pixel density with 2.35:1) so these 'accessories' IMHO help to boost my X35 to close enough to the X55 in many areas and better in some (the 125 point CMS/ autocalibration).


Just by the by, II consider that our HD350/750 models are 4 generations out of date if you follow this timeline:

HD350/750> HD550/950> X3/X7> X30/X70> X35/X55

Had a side by side demo with x55 vs Epsom 6010 on a 2.35:1 129" screen.
The jvc was the winner hands down.
I was impressed with the brightness of the picture, the level of details and the smoothness during action sequences.
The jvc, albeit more expensive, had way more features including motorized lens shift which is a must when not using an external lens with CinemaScope.
Overall, I can't wait for my unit to arrive.

Thanks for being honest. I was going to order the rs48 on line but I think I will need to go to Toronto to audition it. Thanks again.

If I have it right, and I might not, the MPC controls adjust the sampling etc to create the 1080p frames flashed sequently with one shifted 1/2 pixel over and down by the e shift element to create the frame overlap your eyes see as one 4HD frame. The MPC controls are thus part and parcel to the e shift process and would be inapplicable without the e shifting.

That said I find the eshift picture to have more depth and look more real than a JVC without e shift. It is much more than making the inter pixel structure disappear from close up. If I were to own a JVC, it would be one with eshift. Of course I do own the Sony VPL-vw1000ES, a true 4K projector, and it demolishes the JVCs as well it should at the price. That said the JVCs and the Sony 50 are good projectors and I would buy one or the other if I were on a budget at that level. Happy viewing.

The MPC settings do have an effect even with 4K profile (e-shift) set to off.

Can anyone tell me the difference between the different modes on the PJ? Are they just different memory banks with presets? So if cinema and natural have all settings set at the same adjustable levels there will be no change between the two modes?

Cheers
Kjell

The only thing you achieve with the Darbee is to **** up your picture! It does not(!) boost your sharpness, it manipulates the picture and by that make all content look processed, unnatural and false.

This should not become a Darbeevision process thread. Let's just say many like what it does and some don't. While it doesn't make a lens sharper, the measure of a lens's sharpness is MTF and line pair resoultion. MTF is basically the degree of contrast a lens can resolve. The Darbeevision process changes the contrast of the target by enhancing the contrast in areas where a lens no matter how good it is has trouble resolving it. It doesn't create objects in the source but it makes them easier to see such as blond hairs sticking up from a womenj's head against a light back ground. By enhancing the contrast of the hairs the hairs become visable thus raising the measure of sharpness without actually raising sharpness. Used in moderation on my projector which has a fine 4K rated lens (my projector is a Sony 1000ES) the process appears to slightly sharpen the lens but in reality it slightly increases the contrast of certain objects making them visable.

It is processing but there is much video processing in the capture to display chain already. If you don't want processing, buy a film projector. There is no pure digital, its all processed and there is good vs bad processsing and because some processing can look bad on certain test paterns which are equivalent to multiple square waves doesn't make it bad for normal video content. But to each their own.
Edited by mark haflich - 3/13/13 at 7:45pm

Well said.

I wonder if Turrican4D has actually tried Darbee. Many processing units do in fact degrade quality, but there are too many skeptics and purists who have tried and been converted by Darbee now that you cannot just dismiss it out of hand without trying it yourself.

The Darbee has made my old JVC look like a new projector. Sharpness has improved, much more that I expected, without adding ringing. I would not be looking to replace it if it had good convergence

Tom

Who knows? But to show up in a projector thread where a lot of us clearly are already owners of the Darblet, and just start throwing stones..... wow. Take that over to the Darbeevision thread in Video Processors and see how many "owners" there agree with your (his) opinion.

Somebody here recommended adding a Darblet and I think it would be appropriate for one to say I don't like it for a specific reason. The problem is the way the post was worded almost as a religeous belief or political statement about any processing and using a ***** word too. Plus it made me write a longish post that the substance of which has appeared elsewhere many times posted by me and others, to attempt to add some balance to the post. Annoying but WTF.

What Is Darbee? I have a X70 Projector in my setup and love it.

There are lots of threads on the Darbeevision process both here and in the processor furum. The process is done by a product from Darbee that is called a Darblet costing around $300. Many of us have one. Read all about it in the existing threads.