I saw the following quote in a different thread. I felt it was well written and wanted to start a new discussion on the following subject.
Background about my own viewing and ownership experience.
My theatre started with a 7" Sony CRT projector (1994), then the JVC G10 (1998 - first JVC DILA projector - it was $18,000 at that time and a nice door stop a few years later!), the Marquee 9" CRT (2000) and subsequently/now the Sony Qualia 004.
I set up a nec 3 chip DLP in 2005, for a friend - forgot model name - it was originally a $60,000 commercial projector with 5000 lumens. Contrast may have been 900:1? Not sure whether on/off or Ansi.
I have also viewed the JVC RS20 and the JVC 4k Eshift. In particular, I am disappointed with JVC projectors - they seem to be dark but lack sharpness, depth and clarity. I do own a couple of low end projectors - Sony and infocus - they seem great for the price..
I have not seen the new generation single chip DLP HIGH END but did get a demo of Lumis/sim2. I do have a low end 1080p DLP (infocus I think - about a year old) in my son's room. It seems fine - especially that it was only $1200.. but on a/b viewing, my qualia is much superior of course.
Now the purpose of this thread:
First - full disclosure - I am not a fan of the JVC Lcos. I have nothing against them but I simply don't seem to like them, compared to Sony Lcos or low end DLPs. This is not an authoritative comment - just thinking otu loud. I have nothing against JVC and don't mean to offend its owners. It seems to be a pioneer in high contrast projectors and that is what made me curios enough to start this thread. Considering how popular the JVCs are and how good their contrast numbers seem, why do I not seem to be impressed with their picture?
I would like to have a discussion about "Sharpness, Resolution and perceived depth". I am not good/sensitive enough with color accuracy; hence I cannot comment.
Over the years, I have been noticing discussions primarily based on brightness and contrast.
I did participate in a similar thread in the past
http://www.avsforum.com/t/1322294/how-would-the-sony-qualia-004-compare-to-todays-projectors
The NEC has a $8000 lens. My sony qualia has a $6000 lens (both approximate MSRP - I forgot the actual numbers).
What I noticed was that the NEC, despite its weak contrast has an excellent picture, even today. Yes, the low contrast ratio is obvious but the light output of 5000 lumens and the very high end optics make its picture to be superior to me, even compared to many of today's high contrast JVC LCOS projectors. Yes, NEC's blacks are clearly not even close to the JVC's.
My Sony Qualia 004 also has an amazing picture, even though it's light output is not much higher than the JVC projectors.. I am assuming that its very high end lens is the reason?
I am interested in hearing from others, who might have noticed the superiority of high end lenses - separated from the contrast ratio numbers.
Sim2 lumis also, seemed to have a "high end" picture - not 100% sure because I did not spend enough time with it - while it was demoed to me in my home theatre, a few years ago.
Are there any other factors, besides the lenses, which make these high end projectors seem to have better picture of sharpness, clarity and depth?
How come not too many seem to talk/advertise about high end lenses? The MSRP of the two lenses I mentioned is in the price range of the MSRP of some of the good projectors. I assume that the NEC/Sony are not trying to rip off customers and that there is a genuine reason for such a high price range for their optics/lenses.
In summation, I find my Sony qualia 004 to be superior to the newest JVC 4k eshift projector.. even if thought the jvc is a 8 year newer technology and much superior contrast numbers.
I would like to hear about your experiences about the sharpness/depth of the picture, as related to high quality lens.
I have no interest in 3D and request that we avoid it in this thread.
Comments?
Bueler..., Beuler?
Also.. a second topic.. I have not seen current generation high end single chip DLP projectors. I find that the 3 chip designs (including NEC and qualia) are not perfectly aligned, pixel to pixel among the 3 chips.. I suspect that single chip DLPs offer superior sharpness/focus. True?
Edited by audvid - 9/9/12 at 11:26am
Quote:
Originally Posted by HiFiFun 
"The Contrast Trap
Don't get caught in the contrast trap. This is when consumers chase a high on/off contrast ratio to the exclusion of all else. As important as contrast is, it is only one measurement of image quality. You should evaluate the image a display provides based on a broad variety of criteria, including (in addition to contrast):
Sharpness
Resolution
Color accuracy
Freedom from artifacts
Perceived Depth
Engineering good contrast is generally not cheap, so high contrast displays will usually offer great images in any case."
http://www.chromapure.com/colorscience-contrast.asp
"The Contrast Trap
Don't get caught in the contrast trap. This is when consumers chase a high on/off contrast ratio to the exclusion of all else. As important as contrast is, it is only one measurement of image quality. You should evaluate the image a display provides based on a broad variety of criteria, including (in addition to contrast):
Sharpness
Resolution
Color accuracy
Freedom from artifacts
Perceived Depth
Engineering good contrast is generally not cheap, so high contrast displays will usually offer great images in any case."
http://www.chromapure.com/colorscience-contrast.asp
Background about my own viewing and ownership experience.
My theatre started with a 7" Sony CRT projector (1994), then the JVC G10 (1998 - first JVC DILA projector - it was $18,000 at that time and a nice door stop a few years later!), the Marquee 9" CRT (2000) and subsequently/now the Sony Qualia 004.
I set up a nec 3 chip DLP in 2005, for a friend - forgot model name - it was originally a $60,000 commercial projector with 5000 lumens. Contrast may have been 900:1? Not sure whether on/off or Ansi.
I have also viewed the JVC RS20 and the JVC 4k Eshift. In particular, I am disappointed with JVC projectors - they seem to be dark but lack sharpness, depth and clarity. I do own a couple of low end projectors - Sony and infocus - they seem great for the price..
I have not seen the new generation single chip DLP HIGH END but did get a demo of Lumis/sim2. I do have a low end 1080p DLP (infocus I think - about a year old) in my son's room. It seems fine - especially that it was only $1200.. but on a/b viewing, my qualia is much superior of course.
Now the purpose of this thread:
First - full disclosure - I am not a fan of the JVC Lcos. I have nothing against them but I simply don't seem to like them, compared to Sony Lcos or low end DLPs. This is not an authoritative comment - just thinking otu loud. I have nothing against JVC and don't mean to offend its owners. It seems to be a pioneer in high contrast projectors and that is what made me curios enough to start this thread. Considering how popular the JVCs are and how good their contrast numbers seem, why do I not seem to be impressed with their picture?
I would like to have a discussion about "Sharpness, Resolution and perceived depth". I am not good/sensitive enough with color accuracy; hence I cannot comment.
Over the years, I have been noticing discussions primarily based on brightness and contrast.
I did participate in a similar thread in the past
http://www.avsforum.com/t/1322294/how-would-the-sony-qualia-004-compare-to-todays-projectors
The NEC has a $8000 lens. My sony qualia has a $6000 lens (both approximate MSRP - I forgot the actual numbers).
What I noticed was that the NEC, despite its weak contrast has an excellent picture, even today. Yes, the low contrast ratio is obvious but the light output of 5000 lumens and the very high end optics make its picture to be superior to me, even compared to many of today's high contrast JVC LCOS projectors. Yes, NEC's blacks are clearly not even close to the JVC's.
My Sony Qualia 004 also has an amazing picture, even though it's light output is not much higher than the JVC projectors.. I am assuming that its very high end lens is the reason?
I am interested in hearing from others, who might have noticed the superiority of high end lenses - separated from the contrast ratio numbers.
Sim2 lumis also, seemed to have a "high end" picture - not 100% sure because I did not spend enough time with it - while it was demoed to me in my home theatre, a few years ago.
Are there any other factors, besides the lenses, which make these high end projectors seem to have better picture of sharpness, clarity and depth?
How come not too many seem to talk/advertise about high end lenses? The MSRP of the two lenses I mentioned is in the price range of the MSRP of some of the good projectors. I assume that the NEC/Sony are not trying to rip off customers and that there is a genuine reason for such a high price range for their optics/lenses.
In summation, I find my Sony qualia 004 to be superior to the newest JVC 4k eshift projector.. even if thought the jvc is a 8 year newer technology and much superior contrast numbers.
I would like to hear about your experiences about the sharpness/depth of the picture, as related to high quality lens.
I have no interest in 3D and request that we avoid it in this thread.
Comments?
Bueler..., Beuler?
Also.. a second topic.. I have not seen current generation high end single chip DLP projectors. I find that the 3 chip designs (including NEC and qualia) are not perfectly aligned, pixel to pixel among the 3 chips.. I suspect that single chip DLPs offer superior sharpness/focus. True?
Edited by audvid - 9/9/12 at 11:26am
). However, to be fair to the JVC's image, they do put a number of inappropriate gamma settings in some of the presets which seem to magnify their lack of ANSI contrast or mid/high APL 'pop'. It was disputed in another thread, but I and others have measured a drop in gamma in a small number of hours which does tend to make the image lack depth until recalibrated. It doesn't help that the older RS20 models had a particularly cumbersome custom gamma controls: They could be made to achieve a flat response, but it was un-necessarily fiddly. By comparison using an external VP like my Lumagen Mini3D made it a breeze.
