or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP › Projector Mini-Shootout Thread 2013-2014
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Projector Mini-Shootout Thread 2013-2014 - Page 39

post #1141 of 8122
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dupin67 View Post

Sorry have aslo posted the question in HW50 owners' thread.
- Can Sony HW50 use Panasonic TY-EW3D3MU IR glasses?

Really appreciate any input becaue my HW50 is on the way. Try to order two extra glasses asap, and Panasonic glasses are cheaper here.

very unlikely that they will work, each company has their own proprietary signal that isn't cross compatible between models.

Your options are universal glasses like the Xpand 104 or the inexpensive Sony PS3 3D glasses

http://us.playstation.com/ps3/accessories/sony-playstation-3d-glasses-ps3.html
post #1142 of 8122
Quote:
Originally Posted by krichter1 View Post

I would be particularly interested in you testing/playing with the Parallux setting Joe to see if you perceive any improvement with your problematic scenes (also your impressions with the crosstalk settings as well!). I usually pause a problematic foregraound and backgrond scene to find the best balance but just know as you improve one the other will suffer. biggrin.gif
FYI - Try out TinTin as well... very good transfer IMO.

Hey Kevin, just wanted to throw out my experimentation results from when I first got my RS45. Here is a cut and paste of part of my first post when I got the 45............

First up, the grand daddy of ghosting on my RS40, Dinosaurs Giants of Patagonia!!!!!


Starting at about the 6:30 mark, ghosting becomes steady and frequent just like on the 40, BUT the ghosting here was much more subtle/faint. I am guessing though that the reason it was much more subtle/faint is simply due to the new lamp in the 45 vs the ~400 hour lamp in the 40 when I watched this. The actual amount of ghosting was subjectively going off memory the same Where things got interesting though is when I would pause a scene and experiment with parallax and the crosstalk canceler. Here is what I found so far........

Basically, the crosstalk canceler is useless IMHO and here is why. The only setting of the 4 that seems to do anything at all is the "white" option and the ONLY thing the white options seems to do is lighten/darken the overall image. When you move this setting all the way down to -8, the ghosting is harder to see, but the overall image is dimmer so that makes sense. Moving this all the way up to +8 the ghosting is easier to see, but the image is brighter in general so this also makes sense. With either extreme setting though, the ghosting is certainly NOT canceled, but rather just more or less noticeable simple due to the screen being darker/brighter. The 3 other color sliders dont seem to do anything at all and I am curious what exactly these should be doing? Bottom line though is this "feature" is largely worthless IMO since it does not eliminate crosstalk at all. It does make it a bit more subtle, but at the expense of darkening the image. Overall, I was not impressed with this addition from what I played with it so far.

Parallax was much more interesting in the fact that I could literally pause ANY ghosting scene and move the parallax adjustment one way or the other and eliminate the ghosting! the problem is every scene is different as far as what type of adjustment you need. On one extreme, we have something like the Despicable Me title at the 0:57 time stamp......at the "0" default parallax setting, the ghosting is horrible on this red title shot, BUT moving the parallax all the way to -15 almost completely eliminated the ghosting! Great right? WRONG! Fast forward to 4:52 where we have some ghosting going on with a lamp post....on this scene, I needed a +5 parallax setting to eliminate the ghosting which is not even close to the -15 needed for the previous scene. Now fast forward to the 23:31 mark where we get some ghosting on a straw that is in a cup.......for this scene I needed a -5 on the parallax to get rid of the ghosting. As you can see, the parallax setting you need to eliminate ghosting depends on the scene so you cant just pick a global setting that will work for the whole film which brings me to the conclusion that this "feature" is also worthless at least as far as ghosting is concerned and watching an entire film. For the record, both Grand Canyon and Patagonia showed the same results.


To sum it up, I found both of these "features" worthless for all practical purposes for the reasons mentioned above. frown.gif
post #1143 of 8122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xavier1 View Post

Lots of great comments in this thread, my favourite on AVS.
@XOOD Thank you for your viewing impressions, gives a really good idea what the new JVCs can do in 3d
Going slightly off-topic: Regarding 3D movies, I've really been watching a lot more 3D lately, seems like a lot of great movies (for my taste) coming out lately.
I actually loved the new Spiderman, but I was not impressed with the 3D at all. Way too conservative, didn't push the boundaries at all IMO. I find the converted Titanic 3D to be far superior, it was actually amusing to see a converted 3D movie spank a natively shot one.
Another great 3D conversion is the new Men In Black (3?), looked fantastic as well.
Great time to be a 3D fan, and nice to see all the PJs in this shootout are capable.

When I first started down the 3D path some two years ago now with the original RS50 model I too was looking for more of an "in yo face" experience but as I've now collected over 100 movies, I have come to appreciate the subtle beauty of dimensionality as an added benefit to the user experience. The best way to judge this is to watch half the movie in 3D and then back in 2D. There certainly are some I prefer in 2D (without the added hassle of the glasses plays a part too), but for the most part watching the same movie in 2D makes it just look flat IMO (for the one's where the transfers are done well of course).

post #1144 of 8122
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xavier1 View Post


Going slightly off-topic: Regarding 3D movies, I've really been watching a lot more 3D lately, seems like a lot of great movies (for my taste) coming out lately.

I actually loved the new Spiderman, but I was not impressed with the 3D at all. Way too conservative, didn't push the boundaries at all IMO. I find the converted Titanic 3D to be far superior, it was actually amusing to see a converted 3D movie spank a natively shot one.
Another great 3D conversion is the new Men In Black (3?), looked fantastic as well.

Great time to be a 3D fan, and nice to see all the PJs in this shootout are capable.

I liked the movie as well, but they left a lot on the table for the 3D. With the conversions, I think it's easier for them to deal with the depth, but it might not be possible to push much outside the frame since it wasn't filmed natively. With a native 3D shot, there is no excuse. The closest thing to a pop-out in SM3 is when they are fighting on the tower at the end. Dr. Conner lunges at him, that's a great 3D scene. Flying through the air at the end was excellent as well.

I think the stereo photographers have to be more creative. There is some great native 3D in Street Dance 3D and Step up 3D.

Sammy's Adventure is the king of popouts, I haven't seen any of the other 3D animations done as well as this one.
post #1145 of 8122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post

Hey Kevin, just wanted to throw out my experimentation results from when I first got my RS45. Here is a cut and paste of part of my first post when I got the 45............
First up, the grand daddy of ghosting on my RS40, Dinosaurs Giants of Patagonia!!!!!
Starting at about the 6:30 mark, ghosting becomes steady and frequent just like on the 40, BUT the ghosting here was much more subtle/faint. I am guessing though that the reason it was much more subtle/faint is simply due to the new lamp in the 45 vs the ~400 hour lamp in the 40 when I watched this. The actual amount of ghosting was subjectively going off memory the same Where things got interesting though is when I would pause a scene and experiment with parallax and the crosstalk canceler. Here is what I found so far........
Basically, the crosstalk canceler is useless IMHO and here is why. The only setting of the 4 that seems to do anything at all is the "white" option and the ONLY thing the white options seems to do is lighten/darken the overall image. When you move this setting all the way down to -8, the ghosting is harder to see, but the overall image is dimmer so that makes sense. Moving this all the way up to +8 the ghosting is easier to see, but the image is brighter in general so this also makes sense. With either extreme setting though, the ghosting is certainly NOT canceled, but rather just more or less noticeable simple due to the screen being darker/brighter. The 3 other color sliders dont seem to do anything at all and I am curious what exactly these should be doing? Bottom line though is this "feature" is largely worthless IMO since it does not eliminate crosstalk at all. It does make it a bit more subtle, but at the expense of darkening the image. Overall, I was not impressed with this addition from what I played with it so far.
Parallax was much more interesting in the fact that I could literally pause ANY ghosting scene and move the parallax adjustment one way or the other and eliminate the ghosting! the problem is every scene is different as far as what type of adjustment you need. On one extreme, we have something like the Despicable Me title at the 0:57 time stamp......at the "0" default parallax setting, the ghosting is horrible on this red title shot, BUT moving the parallax all the way to -15 almost completely eliminated the ghosting! Great right? WRONG! Fast forward to 4:52 where we have some ghosting going on with a lamp post....on this scene, I needed a +5 parallax setting to eliminate the ghosting which is not even close to the -15 needed for the previous scene. Now fast forward to the 23:31 mark where we get some ghosting on a straw that is in a cup.......for this scene I needed a -5 on the parallax to get rid of the ghosting. As you can see, the parallax setting you need to eliminate ghosting depends on the scene so you cant just pick a global setting that will work for the whole film which brings me to the conclusion that this "feature" is also worthless at least as far as ghosting is concerned and watching an entire film. For the record, both Grand Canyon and Patagonia showed the same results.
To sum it up, I found both of these "features" worthless for all practical purposes for the reasons mentioned above. frown.gif

What up my bruvah! biggrin.gif

I remember your post vividly... actually you're the one who deterred me from even trying this out as I remember (ya D-bag!). tongue.gif

My point is we know in it's current form with the JVC's . . . it is what it is and nothing is going to change the panel relationship with regards to 3D ghosting for LCoS technology. My point was rather an attempt to find a compromise using these settings in order to improve "perceived" ghosting between foreground images vs. background and seeking some new perspective from my fellow respected brethren(s). I could be smokin' something (could even be that stuff from the Denver mountains!), but thought it was worthy of a second look-see. biggrin.gif

Have you talked to Sammy-boy at all... where the hell is he??
post #1146 of 8122
I could have told you that in the first place, that using a parallax-slider is useless to control ghosting.
Just put the glasses down and look at the (double)-image and see what the parallax-slider does.
Parallax is zero when an object is in screen plane. These objects can show no ghosting at all. Objects further away show more and more (positive) parallax, the farther away, the greater the parallax. Objects in the foreground in front of the screen plane (popouts) show (negative) parallax, the closer they are to the viewer, the bigger the parallax. There's (nearly) always a deviation of parallax from front to back, and that gives you the perceived depth. If all objects would have the same parallax, they would all be on the same plane and be perceieved as flat. This usually happens with static images that are 2D-3D converted on the fly via a converter in the projector or player. With static scenes normally the same amount of parallax is added to all objects. This gives you the perception that the objects aren't on the screen plane anymore, but farther away (usually), but the whole picture is still flat. Unexperienced viewers can think that this is alread "WOW 3D", but it isn't. In a static converted scene you can usually eliminate the parallax for all objects via a paralax slider and get basically the 2D image in the screen plane. Only with moving objects an on-the-fly converter is able to generate a different depth (and therefore different parallax) for the moving objects.

With real 3D material, you'll have a deviation in parallax from front to back. When you now use the parallax slider the two images for the L and R eye are moved horizontally to each other, so you can match 2 objects so they don't have any parallax (and therefore seem to be in screen plane) and logically can't show any ghosting. But for other objects in the image the parallax gets bigger, and therefore the danger of perceived ghosting gets bigger.
And then in the next scene, the perceived screen plane (also called the convergence point in stereography) lies on a different plane in the perceived depth and the complete perceived depth could be different, so the parallax settings you made in one scene are totally useless in the next, and so on, and so on...

So normally leave the parallax slider at 0!
There maybe some movies that have a big offset for all the parallaxes, then one can use the parallax slider to compensate this.

It's very difficult to explain (even more so in english for me..), it would be a lot easier to demonstrate all this live with a projector!
post #1147 of 8122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deja Vu View Post

I thought this was an interesting comment about the HW50.
Just how "bad" are the optics in the Sony? Without RC does the Sony look soft?

The HW50 without RC appears soft, lacks sharpness, and appears almost slightly out of focus. RC resolves those issues and gives the picture an almost DLP like pop. I wouldn't own this projector without RC.
post #1148 of 8122
Quote:
Originally Posted by krichter1 View Post

I would be particularly interested in you testing/playing with the Parallux setting Joe to see if you perceive any improvement with your problematic scenes (also your impressions with the crosstalk settings as well!). I usually pause a problematic foregraound and backgrond scene to find the best balance but just know as you improve one the other will suffer. biggrin.gif
FYI - Try out TinTin as well... very good transfer IMO.

Audiohobbit explains convergence very well. The "parallax" setting moves the stereo pair left and right, changing the point of convergence for any given shot. It may seem to "fix" a ghosting problem, but it just shifts it somewhere else. It was never meant as a solution to ghosting. 3D has to be shot so as to limit such problems, and that can get complicated. Limiting the interaxial distance (the amount of space between the two lenses) prevents too much ghosting, but the image looks flatter. It's always a balancing act.
post #1149 of 8122
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombie10k View Post

very unlikely that they will work, each company has their own proprietary signal that isn't cross compatible between models.
Your options are universal glasses like the Xpand 104 or the inexpensive Sony PS3 3D glasses
http://us.playstation.com/ps3/accessories/sony-playstation-3d-glasses-ps3.html

Just picked up a bunch of the Playstation glasses at BB for $29.99. Tried them out the other night on Avatar and they performed really well. I had a slight preference for the color balance of the stock glasses but they are really close. For kids and visitors these will certainly get the job done.
post #1150 of 8122
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Clark View Post

I've noticed a distinct difference from the beginning with JVC ghosting vs ghosting in other 3D displays. With the JVCs, if you have a dark object against a bright background (such as a telephone pole against a bright sky), you see dark ghosts of the telephone pole on either side - what I call "dark ghosting." With lots of other displays, the ghosting tends to be with bright objects against dark backgrounds (such as headlights coming down a dark road, or Galaxar's slender tentacles against the dark backdrop of his space ship in Monsters vs Aliens). I refer to that as "light ghosting." I'm sure it has to do with how the various displays are able to refresh their pixels - the speed at which they can transition from dark to light or vice versa. Whatever the cause, 3D on the JVCs looks amazing in dark scenes, which are free of light ghosting (no double headlights on dark roads). But they suck in brighter scenes, where the dark ghosting is killer. And this gets worse with each passing day.

Did you see this post?

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1440180/jvc-x30-xpand-104-my-best-3d-settings#post_22606511

"As an owner of the JVC X30 (Euro model) for a year now I've always tried to lessen the 3D crosstalk. At the factory settings crosstalk was visible, although my unit worked not bad at all, colors were wrong and image had an oversharpened appearence... Since I got the Xpand 104's I kept trying and following some tips on the web and my own trial and error I've now found some settings that're very satisfying for me. Colors look true, images are natural and not oversharpened and, most important, ghosting is minimal. Black on white ghosting is so slight as to not be an issue for me anymore. "

I haven't thought to try tweaking the settings on the Xpand 104 but I'll give it a shot based on this members feedback. He states he has 700 hours on this lamp.
post #1151 of 8122
Quote:
Originally Posted by krichter1 View Post

What up my bruvah! biggrin.gif
I remember your post vividly... actually you're the one who deterred me from even trying this out as I remember (ya D-bag!). tongue.gif
My point is we know in it's current form with the JVC's . . . it is what it is and nothing is going to change the panel relationship with regards to 3D ghosting for LCoS technology. My point was rather an attempt to find a compromise using these settings in order to improve "perceived" ghosting between foreground images vs. background and seeking some new perspective from my fellow respected brethren(s). I could be smokin' something (could even be that stuff from the Denver mountains!), but thought it was worthy of a second look-see. biggrin.gif
Have you talked to Sammy-boy at all... where the hell is he??

Dont do it bro! Its a lie..............a deceptive one at that! You think you are getting somewhere, but your not. Its EVIL I tell ya..........EVIL!!!!!!!! tongue.gif Seriously though, the other guys explained better then I can why you really should not tinker with this as far as ghosting goes. I like that you are still looking for solutions though............something has got to give for crying out loud!

I did talk to Sam a while back. Will shoot you a PM.
post #1152 of 8122
The big advantage of the HW50 will be the FI mode that s very well implemented and works in 3D. The new jvc cannot do this so even if it has no crosstalk at all the no-FI + slow dila panels will result in far less 3D quality compared to the HW50
post #1153 of 8122
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombie10k View Post

I liked the movie as well, but they left a lot on the table for the 3D. With the conversions, I think it's easier for them to deal with the depth, but it might not be possible to push much outside the frame since it wasn't filmed natively. With a native 3D shot, there is no excuse. The closest thing to a pop-out in SM3 is when they are fighting on the tower at the end. Dr. Conner lunges at him, that's a great 3D scene. Flying through the air at the end was excellent as well.
I think the stereo photographers have to be more creative. There is some great native 3D in Street Dance 3D and Step up 3D.
Sammy's Adventure is the king of popouts, I haven't seen any of the other 3D animations done as well as this one.

I haven't seen Sammy, but I just watched Madagascar 3 and it has become THE reference 3D disc for me. Amazing popout and very good depth throughout. Looked incredible on my new Epson 5010. I grabbed one for 3D duties in a 2 projector setup paired with my RS55. So far it has been a fantastic upgrade for the lack of ghosting and flicker, as well as a more stable, easy to watch image. 3D PQ has been very good even on most dark scenes. Granted I haven't done a side by side, but the only time I miss the 55 is on the very darkest scenes with not many highlights.

I was considering a 5020, but thanks to the comparisons in this thread, I couldn't find a reason compelling enough. A great deal on a 5010 sealed it, and so far I couldn't be happier with the 3D performance. As far as 2D, it is quite impressive for an LCD, but I wouldn't want to use it as an all around projector unless I sat maybe 1.3sw or farther. The SDE and digital look is quite noticeable after being used to LCOS and e-shift in particular. wink.gif
post #1154 of 8122
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombie10k View Post

Did you see this post?
http://www.avsforum.com/t/1440180/jvc-x30-xpand-104-my-best-3d-settings#post_22606511

I haven't thought to try tweaking the settings on the Xpand 104 but I'll give it a shot based on this members feedback. He states he has 700 hours on this lamp.

That's kind of what I was asking you in my earlier reply (not sure if you took note of it), but when I sell my RS55 should I be looking at replacing the old version 1 JVC's with these 104's IYO??).

Quote:
Originally Posted by audiohobbit View Post

I could have told you that in the first place, that using a parallax-slider is useless to control ghosting.

So normally leave the parallax slider at 0!
There maybe some movies that have a big offset for all the parallaxes, then one can use the parallax slider to compensate this.
It's very difficult to explain (even more so in english for me..), it would be a lot easier to demonstrate all this live with a projector!

No your explanation is right on point and I get all that but I guess what I was really trying to communicate is I just didn't realize how much deviation there was from film to film and if moving the parallux for each movie might decrease the "perceived" amount of ghosting by trying to find a balance between the foreground and background separation (which does not seem to me to be the same from movie to movie and if the foreground would take precedence over background then I could see the benefit here).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Clark View Post

Audiohobbit explains convergence very well. The "parallax" setting moves the stereo pair left and right, changing the point of convergence for any given shot. It may seem to "fix" a ghosting problem, but it just shifts it somewhere else. It was never meant as a solution to ghosting. 3D has to be shot so as to limit such problems, and that can get complicated. Limiting the interaxial distance (the amount of space between the two lenses) prevents too much ghosting, but the image looks flatter. It's always a balancing act.

It definitely is always a balancing act with these machines (and that was my main goal here... knowing full well the JVC's unfixable deficiency in this regard, but hoping there was something to change that perception from movie to movie; albeit even slight... I'll take anything at this point!)

Thanks guys!

wink.gif
post #1155 of 8122
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanderdvd View Post

The big advantage of the HW50 will be the FI mode that s very well implemented and works in 3D. The new jvc cannot do this so even if it has no crosstalk at all the no-FI + slow dila panels will result in far less 3D quality compared to the HW50

+1

Even if the JVC can rid itself of crosstalk it will still have motion issues that will be more evident in 3D than in 2D. The loss of contrast on the HW50 vs the RS45 is all that is holding me back from switching. I've purchased some 3D movies that I am waiting until I "switch" projectors before making the jump. Sadly, there's really no way to know how much black level sacrifice you have to give up to make the jump. Not really any more info here than in any other review. I might have to take a blanket or something to cover the door at a local dealer to see how black levels look on a non-HP screen. I hate doing that as I know I won't be buying from a local dealer but given that they sell at MSRP only I won't be purchasing from them...
post #1156 of 8122
zombie10k,
Any updates on the performance of the HC8000 in 2D.
post #1157 of 8122
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanderdvd View Post

The big advantage of the HW50 will be the FI mode that s very well implemented and works in 3D. The new jvc cannot do this so even if it has no crosstalk at all the no-FI + slow dila panels will result in far less 3D quality compared to the HW50

While the motion flow is good on the HW50, some agree that it's a little too aggressive in 3D mode, even in low mode. I don't recall it being this noticeable in 3D on the HW30, it seems they have turned it up some.

It looks more like the high setting. Did you notice this?

you guys are discounting the new JVC's before they've had their fair evaluation.
post #1158 of 8122
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombie10k View Post

Did you see this post?
http://www.avsforum.com/t/1440180/jvc-x30-xpand-104-my-best-3d-settings#post_22606511
"As an owner of the JVC X30 (Euro model) for a year now I've always tried to lessen the 3D crosstalk. At the factory settings crosstalk was visible, although my unit worked not bad at all, colors were wrong and image had an oversharpened appearence... Since I got the Xpand 104's I kept trying and following some tips on the web and my own trial and error I've now found some settings that're very satisfying for me. Colors look true, images are natural and not oversharpened and, most important, ghosting is minimal. Black on white ghosting is so slight as to not be an issue for me anymore. "
I haven't thought to try tweaking the settings on the Xpand 104 but I'll give it a shot based on this members feedback. He states he has 700 hours on this lamp.

I'd be interested in seeing how this works first hand, but I don't have the RS45 anymore. I traded it for the Epson 6010. I'll certainly wait for your review of the JVCs before I do anything. I'm inclined to think I won't make a switch this year, or at the very least I'll wait a few months. I'm really, really hesitant to trust other reviewers about ghosting.
post #1159 of 8122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xavier1 View Post

Lots of great comments in this thread, my favourite on AVS.
@XOOD Thank you for your viewing impressions, gives a really good idea what the new JVCs can do in 3d
Going slightly off-topic: Regarding 3D movies, I've really been watching a lot more 3D lately, seems like a lot of great movies (for my taste) coming out lately.
I actually loved the new Spiderman, but I was not impressed with the 3D at all. Way too conservative, didn't push the boundaries at all IMO. I find the converted Titanic 3D to be far superior, it was actually amusing to see a converted 3D movie spank a natively shot one.
Another great 3D conversion is the new Men In Black (3?), looked fantastic as well.
Great time to be a 3D fan, and nice to see all the PJs in this shootout are capable.

I think Epson, Sony and Panasonic all had interchangeable 3D glasses last year for their projectors so it might be worth at least a try. I think Conan48 was using the Panasonic glasses with the Epson.
post #1160 of 8122
I use the Sony Playstation 3 glasses with the Epson. IMO, they're not quite as bright or clear as the original Epsons, but for those occasions when I have several people watching at the same time, they're a good, economical solution.
post #1161 of 8122
My new 64" Samsung plasma (D7000) uses Bluetooth glasses instead of IR. I really like that they don't interfere with other IR devices like the older plasma model did, and they were cheap, but it means I've collected some incompatible 3D glasses. If anyone is interested in some Xpand 103s or UltraClears, PM me.
post #1162 of 8122
Quote:
Originally Posted by dbturbo2 View Post

Just picked up a bunch of the Playstation glasses at BB for $29.99. Tried them out the other night on Avatar and they performed really well. I had a slight preference for the color balance of the stock glasses but they are really close. For kids and visitors these will certainly get the job done.

+1 For friends and visitors these seem perfect to have a few pairs lying around as spares. I'm gonna look out for them (and some extra Xpan104's) in Black Friday deals....
post #1163 of 8122
Quote:
Originally Posted by havok2022 View Post

I'm not projector guru so feel free to tell me what I'm missing. But this whole idea makes no sense to me. The lens assembly is the final part of the projected image (excluding the screen) before you see it. So if the lens is so bad, and is making the image soft, I can't see how RC could make any difference since that is processing taking place before the lens. What am I missing here? Otherwise I'd have to conclude that perhaps the lens wasn't as bad as some make it to be, but rather the panels and processing.

My 2 cents:

My Sony HW50 does show focus non-uniformity in the form of portions of the image being softer than others. Put another way, in some areas of the screen (many, in fact), the pixel structure is not as well defined as in other areas. In these areas, the pixels are more out of focus than in other areas.

Slightly out of focus pixels yield a slight drop in contrast in the image at that particular area. Think about a black pixel next to a white one; if this area is slightly defocused, the transition btwn black & white pixels gets blurred... and you get areas of grey as you go from one pixel to the next rather than a sharp black/white transition. In other words: sharpness of high frequency detail is closely related to local contrast of edges, and since that very local contrast at edges drops slightly when pixels are out of focus, RC can help recover some of the lost sharpness by boosting contrast (making bright pixels brighter & darker pixels darker). This boost in contrast counteracts the loss in contrast due to pixels being out of focus.

Of course there's no free lunch, & you get an increase in noise from RC. You also run the risk of compressing highlights & crushing shadows. All in all, though, I do like RC. Not simply b/c it might help overcome the focus nonuniformity, but b/c it also just helps native content that isn't so sharp to begin with (that would otherwise still look dull even if the focus uniformity were perfect).

I'd also like to add: the focus nonuniformity on my current unit, which replaced a unit that had terrible non uniformity, is not really visible from my viewing distance (1.15x SW). Maybe a bit, but not much. Which is why I don't necessarily say RC is there to make up for the lack of a bad lens. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't... my point is: RC's utility is likely beyond simply overcoming the lens on the HW50.

Furthermore, another reason people may find the image on the Sony's soft is simply b/c of its lack of pixel structure. I have a feeling that extra pixel structure can almost act as an edge-sharpening algorithm; high contrast edges may be enhanced by a pixel outline, whereas larger low frequency, low contrast, regions would simply only suffer slightly by possible SDE (or perhaps the pixel structure in those areas just looks like noise, which can also sometimes be perceived as sharpening an image).

That's not to say that the Sony shouldn't have a better lens (if that really is the sole reason for poor focus nonuniformity); it should, especially considering that I've seen better focus uniformity in cheaper projectors. I just wonder how much of an effect the focus nonuniformity has on the viewing experience when you're actually seated <1x SW away from the screen. Very bad nonuniformity would be viewable from even that distance, yes. And any drop in MTF does lead to lower perceived contrast for that area of the image, yes. I'm just wondering if people are mistaking lack of pixel structure with softness (in which case RC may be just as effective, or better, sharpening algorithm as pixel structure/SDE on the Epsons), or judging the image to be soft from up close b/c of focus nonuniformity (bad, yes, but debatable how noticeable a difference this makes when seated in viewing position).

I'll post some comparisons of focus non-uniformity in my next post.
post #1164 of 8122
Since we're comparing Sony & Epson projectors on this thread, & there's a lot of talk about the poor focus uniformity of the Sony HW50ES, I thought I'd post some high resolution shots of focus uniformity for 2 Sony HW50ES units I owned, & an Epson 8350.

I would love/appreciate feedback from any of you on how you think the focus uniformity stacks up, and whether it's acceptable to you. I realize it's hard to tell from pictures, but at least you can compare between the 3 images I've posted below.

Note the text being displayed in the test image all have a width of 1 pixel. Also, all shots taken at same focal length/distance, so images should be comparable. Links are provided for you to download the full-resolution images.

1. Sony HW50ES (#1100001) | Large soft patch right of center (really poor focus uniformity)

Full-res image here: http://cl.ly/L1MP/Sony%20HW50-BadCopy.jpg

2. Sony HW50ES (#1100196) | Random patches that are softer than others (somewhat poor focus uniformity)

Full-res image here: http://cl.ly/L0wG/SonyHW50-Replacement.jpg

3. Epson 8350 | Acceptable focus uniformity

Full-res image here: http://cl.ly/L1Qe/Epson8350.jpg

I realize focus uniformity comparisons between the Epson & Sony are a little hard here since you can see the pixel structure on the Epson but you can't really see it (at this distance/focal length) on the Sony... but hopefully you can still somewhat judge focus across the field.

Would appreciate any feedback. I'm thinking I can live with the HW50ES replacement (1100196), but I'm curious if others expect better focus uniformity. You can clearly see the focus nonuniformity even in the replacement Sony in the center of the screen in this further zoomed in shot of the center of the screen:

Focus Nonuniformity even at Screen Center (Sony HW50 #1100196):

Full-res image here: http://cl.ly/Kzou/SonyHW50-Replacement_CenterCloseup.jpg

100% crop of Center Left (soft):

Full-res image: http://cl.ly/L0j8/SonyHW50-Replacement_CenterCloseup_Bad.jpg

100% crop of Center Right (sharp):

Full-res image: http://cl.ly/Kzub/SonyHW50-Replacement_CenterCloseup_Good.jpg

Again, do note the text here has a width of 1px, so this sort of test is very revealing. Most of the text does look sharp from normal seating distance. However, my point is: the low end Epson appears, to me anyway, to have better focus across the screen.

Do you agree? Thanks in advance for any feedback!
post #1165 of 8122
I've not given up on the JVCs yet, I'm just skeptical. I'm on the pre-order list for the RS46 and I've waited this long so I'll wait it out.
post #1166 of 8122
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5mark View Post

I haven't seen Sammy, but I just watched Madagascar 3 and it has become THE reference 3D disc for me. Amazing popout and very good depth throughout. Looked incredible on my new Epson 5010. I grabbed one for 3D duties in a 2 projector setup paired with my RS55. So far it has been a fantastic upgrade for the lack of ghosting and flicker, as well as a more stable, easy to watch image. 3D PQ has been very good even on most dark scenes. Granted I haven't done a side by side, but the only time I miss the 55 is on the very darkest scenes with not many highlights.
I was considering a 5020, but thanks to the comparisons in this thread, I couldn't find a reason compelling enough. A great deal on a 5010 sealed it, and so far I couldn't be happier with the 3D performance. As far as 2D, it is quite impressive for an LCD, but I wouldn't want to use it as an all around projector unless I sat maybe 1.3sw or farther. The SDE and digital look is quite noticeable after being used to LCOS and e-shift in particular. wink.gif

I also use the 5010 (in my case a 6010) for 3D only and I'm very impressed with it so I'm having a hard time rationalizing purchasing a 5020/6020 or a JVC or Sony. I should just spend less time on this forum and in particular this thread! The latest Madagascar is a 3D treat for sure. Lots of animal faces stretching out into the room.
post #1167 of 8122
Ditto on Madagascar 3! It's an amazing 3D animated feature. I watched it on my Samsung 3D plasma a couple of days ago, and I kept marveling at how great it looked from start to finish. The lighting is incredible.
post #1168 of 8122
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanderdvd View Post

The big advantage of the HW50 will be the FI mode that s very well implemented and works in 3D. The new jvc cannot do this so even if it has no crosstalk at all the no-FI + slow dila panels will result in far less 3D quality compared to the HW50

That is my primary concern as well, coming from a VW95. Seems the new JVCs will have the PQ advantage in 2D, but personally I wouldn't want to give up the 3D of the Sony *if* the JVC cannot at least match it.
post #1169 of 8122
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5mark View Post

I haven't seen Sammy, but I just watched Madagascar 3 and it has become THE reference 3D disc for me...

+1, although I'm not sure IMO I'd go as far as to say its the reference, but its darn close. The neon circus scene in all black background is just outrageously beautiful, among other scenes too.
post #1170 of 8122
Thread Starter 
This would have been a good time for Sony to release V2.0 of the VW95. If they added all the new features of the HW50, it would have been a very popular model.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP › Projector Mini-Shootout Thread 2013-2014