Zombie, I PM'd you before you posted on the same topic just above. In terms of matching e-shift 2 against e-shift 1 (MPC=2), I understand the film mode gets the closest. When you said the "default" film mode, do you mean you leave all the settings bars at 50,50,50. On AVS, many have been sliding all the bars down to zero, or having settings like 30,30,0 or 20,0,0. Personally I find leaving everything at 50,50,50 to be quite similar to e-shift 1 but as I have a smaller screen, I need that bit more of a boost to be able to see the difference. With e-shift 1 and MPC=2 I could see the differences in some scenes fairly easily whilst not being able to see any difference in others. Interestingly on AV forums review they also liked film with 50,50,50 and this may once again be partly due to the typically smaller screen sizes used in the UK vs the US. I do see the distortion on the text like you showed, but I found that while I can see that up close and from a purist perspective is somewhat alarming, I can't see evidence of that distortion from a normal viewing distance.
Also, for those using e-shift 2 on film with all the settings on zero, you will not be emulating e-shift 1. E-shift 1 was always a combination of double the pixels (through clever refraction) AND edge and contrast enhancement. It didn't have the smoothing aspect. Even on the lowest MPC setting with e-shift 1 there was always some element of edge and contrast enhancement. It ONLY used the extra pixels to achieve this. A downside of e-shift 1 was that there was a fairly prominent loss of ANSI contrast. The servo type noise you hear from e-shift 2, while we don't know exactly what is causing it, is apparently a new technology to reduce the ANSI loss with e-shift. If you run e-shift 2 with all sliders on zero, you run the risk of ending up with an image that looks softer than without e-shift. This is because the doubling of the pixels overlap each other, which while removing visible grid, can give the effect of softening the image. Personally I think JVC had it right with e-shift 1 and should have refined the algorithms to allow a bigger range of adjustment values, rather than re-write it to be a cross between a Darbee (but not as good) and Sony's RC. Having said that, where satellite HD can often be marginal at best, I have found e-shift 2 to be hugely beneficial over e-shift 1 in putting a bit of snap to the image.
NOTE: The on screen display characters do not seem to change depending on the 3 sliders. So it is hard to see using that what the sliders do in terms of the distorted text. Also the MPC analysis mode you can see when you press MPC a second time, does not change with the sliders either. It shows what parts of the image will be affected by the sliders, but not the extent currently selected.
On the topic of fine convergence adjustment. Sorry for being late to the party on this, But I can absolutely state it DOES affect resolution. A full pixel is a fine adjustment of 16 points. To see the loss of resolution, set any colour to 8 points. Then go into the service menu and look at the convergence test pattern (where red, green and blue lines are all separate). You will notice that the colour adjusted to +-8 has two rows of pixels lit in that orientation instead of 1! In other words, you have halved your resolution in that colour in that orientation. Now, as its just one of the colours, and only one orientation, how visible that loss is, could be questionable, particularly if its blue. But I did want to emphasise that it is not a feature without compromise. I strongly suggest that you set convergence by whole pixel adjustments ONLY at the central part of the screen, and only use the zone adjustments towards the edges to avoid fringing etc. This is a particularly useful technique if you find for example red is correct at the top of the screen, but heads towards a pixel out at the bottom. By doing this you maintain resolution where it counts but minimize any visible issues from seated.
P.S Absolutely loving the 3D performance improvements. I am still using the IR glasses from before (I have both JVC IR variants). I understand the RF glasses make no difference to crosstalk, but has anyone compared the brightness of the image between the two?
Edited by JonStatt - 4/13/13 at 8:36am