Offical JVC DLA-RS4810 Owners Thread - Page 25

Well, back from work and glad I didn't cause an uproar on here with my earlier post. I think if I didn't already have the Lumagen, Darbee and Isco then if might have been a different matter of course. I just wish the price difference over here was as small as for you guys. I do know that having recently seen the Sony VW1000ES and the X55 (nearly) side by side that I know that I'll be happy to hold on to my X35 until such time as I can afford a used '1000ES or perhaps if JVC start making a true 4K model in the future.

I think the X55 wasn't looking it's best to be fair as I think the MPC settings must have bee too high as I could see very obvious ringing on some discs that I'd recently watched on my X35, so it is possible to overcook things. The X55 was using most of it's zoom as well, so the contrast didn't look as much as I'm used to at home (min zoom and min iris still gives me 15fL, I think the demo screen was bigger and lower gain than mine).

when I was testing e-shift 1 vs eshift-2, I noticed an interesting anomaly when e-shift was engaged.

RS55 is on top, RS-4810 bottom. You can see the text looks a bit distorted vs. the RS55 w/ e-shift 1. This doesn't matter which mode is engaged, any of the MPC modes produced the same results. I am not sure what's exactly happening, but it might explain why I think the 55 looked better overall.

e-shift off (RS55 is slightly sharper, just pot luck w/ a better lens sample)



eshift on

Same thing here on my 4810...although I'm not sure I'd describe it as distortion. It looks to me like the 4810 is just less aggressive in smoothing out the individual pixels. In movies where aliasing effects are less pronounced, it seems like this would equate to slightly better sharpness on the eshift2 machines.

well you guys can take pot shots at me but as far as I'm concerned eshift1 is better than eshift2. Perhaps for the reason Zombie's photo clearly shows. With shift 1 I could see an improvement even at my 1.6 SW seating distance. With eshift2 I have to crank up the controls to see it but then it looks over processed to me.

Nope, I can understand that. From zombie's picture it looks like eshift1 is "doing more."

I studied this closely when I had them in a direct A/B (4810 / RS55). I expected to see the MPC differences, but didn't expect the actual e-shift process would look different at the pixel level.

if you apply MPC sharpening to those edges, I see how it could look overdone trying to match the naturally smooth appearance of the e-shift 1. I'd like to know what's actually happening to make it appear that way, since they are identical when it's turned off.

RS55 on top, RS4810 on the bottom

What is the optimum screen size to seating distance ratio specifically for 4810 for 1.78:1 ?

Nice job on the comparison shots. I couldn't put my finger on the reason for my discontent but I think you may have shown it with the photo's. It's too bad they didn't include an eshift1 mode....

There's no screen size recommendation for the RS4810 specifically, but here's a pretty good calculator. I sit 1.5 screen widths from my screen and, although perfectly comfortable, even with my non-eshift projector, I feel like I could've been closer without any problem. With eshift, I could sit even closer without seeing pixel structure. I think max comfortable seating distance for me would be around 1.3 screen widths.
Edited by Schwa - 1/8/13 at 8:31pm

Last night I finally reached 100 hours on my 4810. Since I had played with the setting quite a bit during this time, I decided to do a Reset to the Film Mode. Then I went into the OPPO-95 settings and changed sharpness and contrast to +1

The picture that is being projected now is just beyond all my expectations. Watched Cars2 with the family last night and everyone kept commenting on how good and balanced the overall picture was. The sharpness is just right and the screen just pops with beautiful colors and contrast.

Not sure if this is what Darbee does but by tweaking these settings on the OPPO and leaving the RS4810 to the default Film mode I'm one happy camper.

BTW HDMI1 on the OPPO is set to video only and is connected directly to the 4810 bypassing the receiver. HDMI2 on the oppo goes to the receiver and is used for Audio.

If anyone has a similar setup, its worth a try.

...Can you tell us what modes of MPC were used in each of the two examples displayed? By modes, I mean "Film", "HD", etc. This mode selection makes for big differences in appearance on my 4810.

Just popping in to comment on the new lamp again for this year's models. It seems to be really, really good. Can fluctuate up to 10 or so center, peak lux during course of watching for several hours, but it seems to reach its brightest points after several hours on. I have 8.5' wide 16x9 screen. At less than 1 hour, for that size screen, on low lamp with the projector about 2/3 of the way back to long throw, I got 180 for the reading. I am just hitting 190 hours with a calibration thrown in as well at 100 hours. Just measured a little while ago the highest reading I have seen in about a week...... 179.6 lux. Dayam!! That is unlike any lamp I have ever owned. It just keeps chugging along with extremely low brightness loss.

the RS55 was in it's only e-shift mode (either on or off) + MPC @ 2, the RS4810 was in the film mode with the default settings.

The HD setting will be more obvious than the film mode setting since there is a more aggressive form of sharpening being applied.

I couldn't match the RS55 e-shift image with any of the modes in this specific test.

My calibration will be done tomorrow. My Eshift settings are film:60-50-50 with my Darbee at 35%. WoW, I love the picture with this combo and my eye calibration! I'm a little nervous that the pro calibration won't look any better since it looks so good right now!

RonF, sounds good so far. It looks like you'll get to 500 hours before me. I'd love to hear about the readings then, fingers crossed.

An hour later it dropped to 173 while I'm watching Lakers. Weird with the fluctuations but it seems to stay always within 10 of the original lux reading. You should like your calibration. Anyone known here doing it?

No, just a guy I found in my area (I'll ask tomorrow if he's on the forum). Just hoping it makes a difference; to get the best out of the JVC.

anyone over 500 hours? If so, how's the new lamp holding up?

I thought that when I first set up my X35 as I just put in settings that I thought would be about right (mainly Standard colour space and 6500K, 2.3 gamma). Turned out it wasn't bad, but a little too warm, so after calibration mine ended up brighter than this initial setting (94 Lux to about 102 Lux). The gamma was flatter too (thanks to my Lumagen, but a Pro should be able to set up the JVC's internal gamma just as well, if taking a bit more time) so the image has more depth in bright scenes and slightly better shadow detail too. It wasn't such a massive change as calibrating my old HD350 plus Lumagen (due to the very oversaturated colour gamut) but worthwhile and certainly an improvement...I'm sure you'll feel the same.

I'm at nearly 90 hours now and my reading has started to settle the last couple of viewings. Like you I measure after it's been on a while and I've now dropped 2 Lux from 102 to 100 now. It seems to be a consistent reading (bar the lower reading during the first 30-60 minutes of perhaps 92-95 Lux). I can live with this sort of dimming as I'm running low lamp at -15 for 16:9 and -9 for 2.35:1 so have plenty in hand.

Hi guys,

I actually just noticed only recently that my PJ has dimmed considerably.

At first I had the PJ on high lamp and IRIS on -9 and then just recently I found that way to dim...so I put on high lamp and Iris at -6 and it seemed better.

But I just bought a light meter recently and checked the settings...I have done a calibration and on high lamp and Iris on 0 I am only getting 92LUX and only 10.3FL and On low lamp on any setting I was struggling to break 7.4FL!!!...........my PJ is about 4m from the screen and its a 100 inch screen and 1.1 gain screen. i know some of your guys are hitting 16-20FL's!!!! lol.

I spoke to my retailer and he is organising for me to take it to the service centre to get it checked out. I hope it is just the lamp and not the PJ itself as the PJ's convergence is pretty much spot on!.

Does this sound like a faulty lamp issue?

Thanks guys

Is that a 100" diagonal or width on a 16x9 screen? Are you just taking center, peak lux readings at the screen with the meter facing toward the projector I assume? I definitely seems very dim. I have roughly same size in width, if that was your measurement. If that is a diagonal then your screen is even smaller. My projector is back also a bit over 13 feet, similar distance as yours and as mentioned the peak lux when new was 180 in center on low lamp, and over 220 on high. Now varies between 165 low reading and 174 usually, sometimes spikes higher if on several hours. Definitely get at least the lamp checked it would seem. Good luck! Let us know what you find out.

Cheers mate,

Yes it's 100" diagonal and a 16x9 screenl.....The highest reading I can get on the meter with the IRIS fully open and lamp on high is 105lux lmao!.........something is definetly up. Hopefully it will just be the lamp as my unit has very good convergence and wouldnt want to exchange it for another one with worse convergence.

Not wishing to add to confusion, so I should just remind that I have the X35, but when I'm set for 16:9 my size is approx 100" diagonal at minimum zoom and -15 iris and I'm getting 100 Lux in low lamp. Even allowing that the X35 is supposed to be about 8% brighter (1300 lumens verses 1200) something sounds a bit wrong in your case.

How many hours have you done on it (I'm at about 90 now).

EDIT: Back up to 103 Lux tonight just before switch off after maybe 4 hours viewing.
Edited by Kelvin1965S - 1/12/13 at 4:54pm

Hi Kelvin,

I have only 61hrs on the lamp so far. Any setting on low lamp is pretty much 7.3fls or 85lux-92lux

Had mine calibrated today and initial test showed 9fl in low lamp and 14fl in high lamp (153" diagonal 16x9).

Not much in hand there then Crabalocker, though if the lamp is like mine maybe it'll maintain that level for many hours. I wouldn't want it to drop any lower though. I just checked my old HD350 (RS10) as I sold it this morning. At full iris, minimum zoom and high lamp it was putting out 140 Lux (400 hours on the lamp) or 70 Lux mid iris (so the iris steps seem much more severe on the older model).

Well looks like a problem with the particular brand meter I had...it was a cheap one but had a friend who uses it and it gives readings pretty close. I changed the meter twice thinking it was the meter and then I thought it must of been the PJ.

I have personal good friend of mine who is a HAA/ISF specialist and he was able to come past my house today with his expensive Sencore equipment and do a checkout on the Foot Lamberts....low and behold.......I was getting on High Lamp and IRIS at 0. 10.3FL on my meter but on his meter I was actually getting 28.5FL!!!!!! LOL!............he said the PJ was plenty bright and it looks like I was just perceiving it that way....now everything looks and feels normal!........The mind is a very baffling thing!!!. Thank god nothing is wrong with the PJ or the Lamp!!!.

Thanks for the help guys!...the meter I brought it going back for a refund. Any good meters out at the moment that are rather accurate?...I live in AUS BTW.

Thanks for the feedback on that meter. Someone on the UK based AVforum was recommending that meter and I wondered if it might be a bit too cheap/insensitive at the ranges that we need to measure. I'll link back to this thread and let them know.

EDIT: It might be that this meter doesn't detect the particular wavelengths that we need to measure for projector use, or it could just be that the lower range isn't very sensitive.
Edited by Kelvin1965S - 1/13/13 at 7:09am

28fl in a 100 in. Screen ?wow...very bright
..

It seems odd that if you did have over 28FL on Low or High lamp.....whichever..... that to your eyes it looked dim. With a Hi Power 2.8 screen at slightly larger size as mentioned above, when my calibration was being done we were at 9 clicks down on the iris on low or normal lamp setting. He was reading off the screen right around 30FL. This was my request for the sports I watch and other source material in addition to bluray movies. Plus I like a bright image. No way does that 30FL give any impression of the image being "dim" or having something wrong on a new lamp.

Mine at 14fl on a 153" screen looks bright. I think the mind and your eyes can adjust fairly well to to different light levels as buddhamus bum meter proved. The mind is funny. Even when my bulb dims to 9fl, the picture will still be acceptable for viewing movies. The wife and I watched Star Trek (2009) last night in low lamp and the picture looked fantastic.

As for my calibration: Mike spent a few hours doing the grey scale and gamma which is now spot on (I had a pretty good red push both at the low and high end of the grey scale). He also set the gamma to 2.3 and did a custom gamma fix to a few points along the line. The darkest grey had a bit of a blue push as well which his gamma tweaks fixed rather well. My gamma is now measured at 2.2.

Since the colouring, with my settings, looked rather good to my eye already, the calibrated colours didn't look all that different/better to me. More accurate yes but not a huge difference. Having the proper grey scale and gamma makes the picture come to life and it's here where I find the biggest and most noticeable benefits to this calibration (I'm sure the accurate colours help as well).

Overall I'm really happy with his calibration. Let's hope the lamp stays fairly stable....oh well, the price I have to pay for having that theater look and feel.

note: the fl were pre-calibration (-7 on the iris) and will have to wait for his report to get the final numbers. I forgot to ask him post-calibration.

What "picture mode" are most using?

I know that the "standard" color profile is reportedly relatively close to 6500k, but what difference does the picture mode make?

Can anyone explain why someone would choose "film" vs. "natural", etc... ?