or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP › Offical JVC DLA-RS4810 Owners Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Offical JVC DLA-RS4810 Owners Thread - Page 46

post #1351 of 1794
He brought a 25ft HDMI cable ($40) that works. However lose image or get a poor image unless the HDMI is only partially connected. Plug in all the way and there is no picture or a very snowy/distorted pic. Installer thinks it might be an issue with my AV receiver(Sony STR-DN1030). The receiver is brand new. I told tech that no way was I going to mess with the HDMI cable each time I want to watch a movie after spending all this money. He's coming back Tommorow to complete the install so well see what happens.

I have the same model AV receiver in the living room and when watching bluray movies the audio is out of synch. We hope that a newer HDMI cable will fix the issue. I will be pissed if it doesnt.
post #1352 of 1794
are you saying the connection at the avr needs to be 'wiggled' and not fully plugged in, or the connection at the projector?

either way, that's not a good thing. i'd still maybe check if other hdmi cables work, I did have an issue with my old projector where the hdmi cable didn't seem to seat properly. I actually just had a short extension lieing around that I used. but it was the opposite, the cable worked when fully inserted, but lost connection when I didn't hold it in place. since I got the jvc, I no longer needed the extension, the monoprice hdmi cable works fine for me(not redmere, it's an older one)
post #1353 of 1794
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Cutter View Post

And look what arrived today for me! I can't wait to get it hooked up!



That must be the way they pack these projectors when shipping to a VIP. lol

Mine was sent just using the projector box. No extra box/padding etc.



post #1354 of 1794
It's the hdmi connection at the AVR that's the issue. I also thought it was strange that when watching a wide screen bluray movie (lord of the rings) in 16x9 format (projected on wall) that if the projector is set to "anamorphic on" the image keeps the same width but was much taller then using the "anamorphic on" setting.
post #1355 of 1794
Quote:
Originally Posted by nflguy View Post

It's the hdmi connection at the AVR that's the issue. I also thought it was strange that when watching a wide screen bluray movie (lord of the rings) in 16x9 format (projected on wall) that if the projector is set to "anamorphic on" the image keeps the same width but was much taller then using the "anamorphic on" setting.

Sounds like you need to return the AVR for a replacement.

The anamorphic mode is for use with an anamorphic lens which will optically stretch the image horizontally so it will look normal again.
post #1356 of 1794
Thanks for the info on the anamorphic mode. So that's for people that have the lense. If im understanding this correctly I need the settings to be anamorphic off , 16x9 format and then zoom to a 2:35 image.

I was tinkering with the zoom function but found I couldnt stretch the image width once I had the height I wanted. I'm trying to get the image to match the dimensions I have seen listed online for 2:35 screens
post #1357 of 1794
The installer left the image as a 133" 16x9 screen projected on the wall. 64" tall and 114" wide

I watched about an hour of directv programming from a seat 15 ft back and my eyes hurt after. I think a foot shorter and a few inches wider would be more pleasing to my eyes. Now if I can only get the projector to zoom to the dimensions want!!
post #1358 of 1794
Quote:
Originally Posted by nflguy View Post

The installer left the image as a 133" 16x9 screen projected on the wall. 64" tall and 114" wide

I watched about an hour of directv programming from a seat 15 ft back and my eyes hurt after. I think a foot shorter and a few inches wider would be more pleasing to my eyes. Now if I can only get the projector to zoom to the dimensions want!!

I suggest you google for a CIH FAQ as you seem to have some basic misunderstandings of how a 2.35 screen works and how it is used.

Just to begin: the ratio of width to height (aspect ratio) is a matter of the source material. Zooming in and out will not change that. Without an anamorphic lens you can use the lens memory to zoom in and out when you change aspect ratios.

A good installer should have explained all this. Did you hire your installer off craigslist? smile.gif
post #1359 of 1794
NFLGuy,

Read up on the Anamorphic lens in the CIH forums. If you go with a 2.35/2.40:1 screen you will need either a anamorphic lens or a Lumgen VP to stretch the image. If you go with the Lumage, it is said that you will lose PQ. I went with a Panamorph CineView. It's a bear to set up perfectly, took me a couple of hours to get mine perfectly "rectangle". The CineView has too many moving parts which makes it difficult to get the screen setup. If you go with a Lumagen it's much easier. Read the Lumage guide to set it up or look at Brolic Beast Youtube video that describes how to set it up. If it was in my budget I would have went with a Panamorph U480.
post #1360 of 1794
Quote:
Originally Posted by avsform1 View Post

If you go with a 2.35/2.40:1 screen you will need either a anamorphic lens or a Lumgen VP to stretch the image.

Not true at all. Assuming you wish to maintain correct geometry (a circle in the source material is still a circle, not an oval) all you have to do to switch between aspect ratios is zoom in & out, typically along with some lens shift to keep the picture centered on the screen. No need for an a-lens or any video processing at all.

This is all basic CIH, and my apologies for getting a little OT in this JVC 4810 thread.
post #1361 of 1794
What is lenses shift?
post #1362 of 1794
Lens shift is a rudimentary function of the RS4810 projector. You would do well to read the manual.
post #1363 of 1794
Thanks for the info
post #1364 of 1794
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottJ View Post

Not true at all. Assuming you wish to maintain correct geometry (a circle in the source material is still a circle, not an oval) all you have to do to switch between aspect ratios is zoom in & out, typically along with some lens shift to keep the picture centered on the screen. No need for an a-lens or any video processing at all.

This is all basic CIH, and my apologies for getting a little OT in this JVC 4810 thread.

I think the point that is getting lost to some of the forum members is that to get the most out of a 2.35:1 screen you want to use all 1920x1080 pixels of your projectors panels for it (to give maximum brightness and to minimize visible pixel structure on larger screen sizes). To achieve that you want to stretch the image to fill the 1080 lines of the panels and then use a lens to take that 16:9 image and emit it as a 2.35:1 image instead. This is a fairly expensive thing to do and the cheaper way is just to zoom/shift the image to fill the screen accepting that you are not fully utilizing the panels. One thing to consider is if you use the zoom method, there will be some "throw" of light onto walls particularly below the screen that may be annoying unless you use an extended masking.
Edited by JonStatt - 8/5/13 at 2:12pm
post #1365 of 1794
For best PQ you must go with a A-lens. But it can be a bit expensive. As I mentioned before I went with the CineView A-lens from AVSscience and it looks great on 120" 2.35:1 screen. You will have CA, but the 4810 can dial this out. It took me a while to get right and the CineView is worth the money, especially for a low price A-lens. 2nd best way would be to use the Lumagen, which is what I was doing prior to the A-len purchase.
post #1366 of 1794
An A-lens is not really needed with the eshift models for you will be getting more pixels. If you want to get a picture picture, maybe but not for PQ
post #1367 of 1794
Quote:
Originally Posted by avsform1 View Post

2nd best way would be to use the Lumagen, which is what I was doing prior to the A-len purchase.

I don't understand what you think the Lumagen is for. Without an a-lens, no video processing is necessary.
post #1368 of 1794
Quote:
Originally Posted by nflguy View Post

The installer left the image as a 133" 16x9 screen projected on the wall. 64" tall and 114" wide

I watched about an hour of directv programming from a seat 15 ft back and my eyes hurt after. I think a foot shorter and a few inches wider would be more pleasing to my eyes. Now if I can only get the projector to zoom to the dimensions want!!

You sound like you may be a candidate for a scope screen if the image height was bothering you. The 4810 will work great with a 2.35 screen since it has eshift and lens memory. But keep in mind you will have at least 2 different zoom/lens shift positions or "lens memories". One will be for 2.35:1 movies (fitting the screen perfectly) and one will be for 16:9 material (this will be zoomed smaller so the image is the same height but narrower with black bars on the sides).

So for now I wouldn't worry about the more complicated methods like using a lens or a Lumagen processor (plenty of time to learn about those later). I would decide what shape/size screen you want based on your viewing habits and what size is comfortable for each aspect ratio. Keep projecting on the wall or a makeshift screen at different sizes and see what you like(make sure anamorphic mode is off) You might even tape off different sized 2.35 and 16:9 screens to better visualize what is going on (getting a feel for 16:9 on a scope screen or 2.35 material on a 16:9 screen).

FWIW I'm a huge fan of scope screens, and I would consider the idea of moving your projector back farther and going with a 10-11ft wide 2.35:1 screen (not possible from your current 13ft throw distance)
post #1369 of 1794
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonStatt View Post

I think the point that is getting lost to some of the forum members is that to get the most out of a 2.35:1 screen you want to use all 1920x1080 pixels of your projectors panels for it (to give maximum brightness and to minimize visible pixel structure on larger screen sizes). To achieve that you want to stretch the image to fill the 1080 lines of the panels and then use a lens to take that 16:9 image and emit it as a 2.35:1 image instead. This is a fairly expensive thing to do and the cheaper way is just to zoom/shift the image to fill the screen accepting that you are not fully utilizing the panels. One thing to consider is if you use the zoom method, there will be some "throw" of light onto walls particularly below the screen that may be annoying unless you use an extended masking.

I've always wondered about this. i'm only using 100" so it's not really an issue for me, but I've still wondered if an anamorphic lens was really worth it.

with the lens, the pixels end up getting stretched right. so if a 16:9 image gave you 1920x1080 square pixels, 2.35:1 would give you 1920x1080 rectangular pixels?

and my second thought, is there any source that provides a 2.35:1 AR image with 1920x1080 pixels? and assuming i'm correct that there isn't, is there really a huge advantage getting those extra couple hundred lines of pixels if you are no longer using the native 1:1 pixel structure?

I've been justifying it to myself that even when i'm zooming in, i'm still using 100% of the source's resolution, so even though i'm 'wasting' some of the projectors resolution, it's still a 1:1 pixel structure so it should be great. on my smaller screen it's certainly the case, but eventually i'd like to go larger and that's when it'd be handy to know these things
post #1370 of 1794
Quote:
Originally Posted by fierce_gt View Post

with the lens, the pixels end up getting stretched right. so if a 16:9 image gave you 1920x1080 square pixels, 2.35:1 would give you 1920x1080 rectangular pixels?

Correct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fierce_gt View Post

and my second thought, is there any source that provides a 2.35:1 AR image with 1920x1080 pixels? and assuming i'm correct that there isn't, is there really a huge advantage getting those extra couple hundred lines of pixels if you are no longer using the native 1:1 pixel structure?

There is no current source material like that. So you're right, it requires scaling the ~810 lines to 1080 lines, and with scaling comes the possibility of artifacts like a softening of the image. (It's conceivable that in the near future when 4K material is available, it could be scaled down to 1920x1080 at 2.35, so the a-lens would give a real benefit in resolution.)

The big advantage is the added brightness from using ~33% more of the projector's panel; however the a-lens will reduce that brightness by some small amount.

The other advantage is that your PJ will no longer be projecting the black bars above & below the screen, which can be a problem if the PJ doesn't have good blacks.
post #1371 of 1794
Quote:
Originally Posted by fierce_gt View Post

I've got two screens I've tried in my room with the x35 mounted about about 19-20'

100" 0.8gain grey screen
120" 1.0 gain white screen

I find both more than bright enough in low lamp with the iris fully closed, however I've settled in at about -12 for a little extra pop. I find anything higher to be too bright now. it really takes away from the blacks.

so depending on your preferences, there's no reason why you couldn't use the 4810 on a 120" 1.0 gain screen in low lamp mode, and potentially even close down the iris significantly

I am doing that now.

I am projecting on a 120" 2:35:1 white BOARD!! From 19 feet away I have the iris on -8 or -10 most of the times or it will be too bright for me.
post #1372 of 1794
Quote:
Originally Posted by fierce_gt View Post

I've always wondered about this. i'm only using 100" so it's not really an issue for me, but I've still wondered if an anamorphic lens was really worth it.

with the lens, the pixels end up getting stretched right. so if a 16:9 image gave you 1920x1080 square pixels, 2.35:1 would give you 1920x1080 rectangular pixels?

and my second thought, is there any source that provides a 2.35:1 AR image with 1920x1080 pixels? and assuming i'm correct that there isn't, is there really a huge advantage getting those extra couple hundred lines of pixels if you are no longer using the native 1:1 pixel structure?

I've been justifying it to myself that even when i'm zooming in, i'm still using 100% of the source's resolution, so even though i'm 'wasting' some of the projectors resolution, it's still a 1:1 pixel structure so it should be great. on my smaller screen it's certainly the case, but eventually i'd like to go larger and that's when it'd be handy to know these things

The projector or video processor stretches the image vertically. The A-lens stretches the image horizontally. If what you suggested was happening, people and objects would not look right. They would be out of per portion. That is not the case. An A-lens is the best method for 2.35, but it is also the most expensive. Cost is the reason why people use the zoom method.
Reply
Reply
post #1373 of 1794
Quote:
Originally Posted by fierce_gt View Post

I've always wondered about this. i'm only using 100" so it's not really an issue for me, but I've still wondered if an anamorphic lens was really worth it.

with the lens, the pixels end up getting stretched right. so if a 16:9 image gave you 1920x1080 square pixels, 2.35:1 would give you 1920x1080 rectangular pixels?

and my second thought, is there any source that provides a 2.35:1 AR image with 1920x1080 pixels? and assuming i'm correct that there isn't, is there really a huge advantage getting those extra couple hundred lines of pixels if you are no longer using the native 1:1 pixel structure?

I've been justifying it to myself that even when i'm zooming in, i'm still using 100% of the source's resolution, so even though i'm 'wasting' some of the projectors resolution, it's still a 1:1 pixel structure so it should be great. on my smaller screen it's certainly the case, but eventually i'd like to go larger and that's when it'd be handy to know these things

I tell you, zoom method is so damn good, at least with the 4810, that for me personally, it has to be night and day for me to decide to go with a anamorphic lens.
post #1374 of 1794
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottJ View Post

I don't understand what you think the Lumagen is for. Without an a-lens, no video processing is necessary.

I'm not sure this is what he was talking about, but some people (not me!) use the Lumagen (or some scaler) to scale 16:9 source material down to fit on a CIH 2.35 screen and get a CIH theater that way.
post #1375 of 1794
Quote:
Originally Posted by erkq View Post

I'm not sure this is what he was talking about, but some people (not me!) use the Lumagen (or some scaler) to scale 16:9 source material down to fit on a CIH 2.35 screen and get a CIH theater that way.

I see. That way you wouldn't need lens memory. But since this is the 4810 thread, which does have lens memory, an external video processor is not needed to do 2.35, either with or without a lens.
post #1376 of 1794
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottJ View Post

I see. That way you wouldn't need lens memory. But since this is the 4810 thread, which does have lens memory, an external video processor is not needed to do 2.35, either with or without a lens.

Yes. That's right.
post #1377 of 1794
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottJ View Post

Correct.
There is no current source material like that. So you're right, it requires scaling the ~810 lines to 1080 lines, and with scaling comes the possibility of artifacts like a softening of the image. (It's conceivable that in the near future when 4K material is available, it could be scaled down to 1920x1080 at 2.35, so the a-lens would give a real benefit in resolution.)

The big advantage is the added brightness from using ~33% more of the projector's panel; however the a-lens will reduce that brightness by some small amount.

The other advantage is that your PJ will no longer be projecting the black bars above & below the screen, which can be a problem if the PJ doesn't have good blacks.

ah, that makes sense. too issues I haven't had to deal with, so I never even thought about it, thanks
post #1378 of 1794
Quote:
Originally Posted by AV Science Sales 5 View Post

The projector or video processor stretches the image vertically. The A-lens stretches the image horizontally. If what you suggested was happening, people and objects would not look right. They would be out of per portion. That is not the case. An A-lens is the best method for 2.35, but it is also the most expensive. Cost is the reason why people use the zoom method.

how do you figure? I'm either really misunderstanding something, or there's some voodoo going on, haha.

so let's just assume that the native pixel structure is square(I honestly don't know if it is, but it makes it easier to describe what happens). ok, so those pixels are fixed right, they can not physically change shape, which means no matter what the IMAGE looks like, the physical pixel structure will be square when it leaves the projector. the anamorphic processing on the projector digitally stretches the image, which doesn't stretch the pixels. the a-lens then stretches the image horizontally, making that pixel structure rectangular, and the overall image 'normal'.

it's pretty simple math, the only way a 1920x1080 pixel structure ends up being anything other than 16:9 is if the pixels become rectangular.

so, i'm just wondering WHY an a-lens is still 'the best' if it doesn't technically add any native resolution. if the source doesn't have 1080lines, we're trading off extra pixels for extra processing. it reminds me of a few years back when 720p displays actually looked better playing 720p signals than similar 1080p displays. the 1080p looked 'smoother' because you saw less pixel structure, but the 720p looked much sharper and clearer. I guess processing has gotten better as well, but I still wonder if this is a numbers game not backed up by real worried results. would you really be able to pick out the difference? honest question, I've no experience with an a-lens
post #1379 of 1794
Quote:
Originally Posted by fierce_gt View Post

how do you figure? I'm either really misunderstanding something, or there's some voodoo going on, haha.

so let's just assume that the native pixel structure is square(I honestly don't know if it is, but it makes it easier to describe what happens). ok, so those pixels are fixed right, they can not physically change shape, which means no matter what the IMAGE looks like, the physical pixel structure will be square when it leaves the projector. the anamorphic processing on the projector digitally stretches the image, which doesn't stretch the pixels. the a-lens then stretches the image horizontally, making that pixel structure rectangular, and the overall image 'normal'.

it's pretty simple math, the only way a 1920x1080 pixel structure ends up being anything other than 16:9 is if the pixels become rectangular.

so, i'm just wondering WHY an a-lens is still 'the best' if it doesn't technically add any native resolution. if the source doesn't have 1080lines, we're trading off extra pixels for extra processing. it reminds me of a few years back when 720p displays actually looked better playing 720p signals than similar 1080p displays. the 1080p looked 'smoother' because you saw less pixel structure, but the 720p looked much sharper and clearer. I guess processing has gotten better as well, but I still wonder if this is a numbers game not backed up by real worried results. would you really be able to pick out the difference? honest question, I've no experience with an a-lens

You understand it correctly actually. But just to summarise the benefits of an A-lens

1) Use whole panel means preserve maximum image brightness. This means closing the aperture further down on JVC projectors and thus improving contrast
2) Improve pixel density. For larger screen sizes the pixel grid may become too apparent
3) Avoid huge overspill which may be annoying unless you have extended masking above and below the screen
4) The benefits of intelligent scaling algorithms

For 4) you can make your own mind up. It is generally thought that DVD upscaling algorithms have reached a point where they DO improve the overall image quality compared to watching that same DVD with no scaling on an SD screen. If you don't believe in that, you will believe even less in mechanisms like JVCs e-shift which upscale 2K to 4K (and gets favourable reviews), or Sony's 4K projector with Reality Creation (also upscaling 2K to 4K). So if you believe those things have merit, then you should also be able to believe that there may be gains to be made in upscaling a 21:9 source to fill a 16:9 panel. But if you are purist, then you may turn your nose up at the idea!
post #1380 of 1794
Quote:
Originally Posted by fierce_gt View Post

how do you figure? I'm either really misunderstanding something, or there's some voodoo going on, haha.

so let's just assume that the native pixel structure is square(I honestly don't know if it is, but it makes it easier to describe what happens). ok, so those pixels are fixed right, they can not physically change shape, which means no matter what the IMAGE looks like, the physical pixel structure will be square when it leaves the projector. the anamorphic processing on the projector digitally stretches the image, which doesn't stretch the pixels. the a-lens then stretches the image horizontally, making that pixel structure rectangular, and the overall image 'normal'.

it's pretty simple math, the only way a 1920x1080 pixel structure ends up being anything other than 16:9 is if the pixels become rectangular.

so, i'm just wondering WHY an a-lens is still 'the best' if it doesn't technically add any native resolution. if the source doesn't have 1080lines, we're trading off extra pixels for extra processing. it reminds me of a few years back when 720p displays actually looked better playing 720p signals than similar 1080p displays. the 1080p looked 'smoother' because you saw less pixel structure, but the 720p looked much sharper and clearer. I guess processing has gotten better as well, but I still wonder if this is a numbers game not backed up by real worried results. would you really be able to pick out the difference? honest question, I've no experience with an a-lens

From what you wrote earlier, I got out of it, that you thought the geometry of the image was skewed, when using an A-lens. In other words, people and objets would not look correctly proportioned. Sorry, if I did not understand what you were trying to convey.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP › Offical JVC DLA-RS4810 Owners Thread