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 98

post #2911 of 8033
I agree on lamp aging, I am just saying in general for first few hundred hours.

I don't think the Epson 3D is better than the Benq, but hard to say without an A/B for sure. The Benq + FI looks better to me than the Epson's motion, but the Epson has better contrast for sure and is brighter. I can see some ghosting on the Epson 5010 in some content on a lamp that has more than 500 hours (forgot exactly how many). I have only watched bits and pieces of 4 titles in 3D on the Epson.

I don't think I could live without FI now that I've seen it in 3D, but the Epson is the smoother of the few 3D PJ's I have seen that don't have FI, but I'd still miss it. I agree with Zombie in that forget IRIS for Epson in 3D, FI would be a better addition.
post #2912 of 8033
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post

How big are you projecting the 3D image when you say "want more brightness" and are you in a bat-cave?

I estimate I am seeing at least 14-15 fL for 3D after the glasses EVEN with the IRIS closed at 8 min, that is pretty bright in a batcave.

Thank god for the Benq IRIS, I think the Benq IRIS for 2D + 3D FI makes this projector a formidable contender even for someone wanting to go with a single PJ solution if they are not picky about blacks. Though the Sony hw50 and Epson 5020 are more well rounded, the Benq is fine for everything but darker stuff.


Like we have been talking about, brightness is subjective. Some would not call 14-15 fL "bright"..........it is all subjective. I am projecting a 126" 1.78 image to fill my 2.35 screen so 2.40 movies fill the height and I then mask the slight bit of overspill on the sides.

I am curious to experiment with the iris for 2d. I still cant see going without my JVC for 2d movie watching though as the contrast between the 2 projectors is significant to my eyes. The native black levels between the 2 machines is not even close from what I have seen up to this point. Just like I cant imagine watching 3d on the JVC now, I cant imagine doing much critical 2d movie watching on the BenQ. Engaging does not help much IMO and I can see it pumping away which is annoying. I appreciate the native contrast of the JVC more than ever for movies.
post #2913 of 8033
14-15 fL looks different in every room. My room is really really blacked out, I can watch things at 20 fL to 25 fL in my other room without being bothered. I don't know the exact fL I am getting but it's definitely higher than 13 in 3D mode, could be up to 17 fL. I think most would be pretty assured it looks too bright in 3D on my screen if I turn the IRIS off, you'll be squinting on some scenes.

Well yah the Native on/off of the JVC makes the Benq tough to swallow when you get spoiled, but otherwise everyone has to concede something.
post #2914 of 8033
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post

14-15 fL looks different in every room. My room is really really blacked out, I can watch things at 25 fL in my other room. I don't know the exact fL I am getting but it's definitely higher than 13 in 3D mode, could be up to 17 fL.

Well yah the Native on/off of the JVC makes the Benq tough to swallow when you get spoiled, but otherwise everyone has to concede something.

Brightness is still subjective in a black pit though Coder. My room is a combination of flat black paint and black velvet, no windows, fully enclosed 12x17.5. The first 9' of my floor is black velvet. The first ~9' of my side walls is black velvet. The couch is draped in black velvet. The back wall is covered in black velvet. Part of the ceiling is black velvet and the other part is flat black paint. So my room is really, really blacked out as well. smile.gif

I also want to reiterate that I am not suggesting the 7000 is perfect, but my complaints are minor overall and most are related to my particular setup.
Edited by Toe - 1/11/13 at 9:52am
post #2915 of 8033
Brightness is subjective, but I'm telling you most would find it uncomfortably bright in 3D if I turn the IRIS off in brighter scenes at least. You are projecting a larger screen, and I am also betting if you mess with some of the SM stuff you can make the PJ brighter (just be careful as I almost bricked mine). I also did not calibrate 3D yet, so I'm probably brighter than you think.

I know what people are used to, I've been in lots of HT rooms, and never seen anyone that would want it this bright in 2D as bright as I can make it in 3D with the IRIS open, hence 20+ fL in a batcave would be insanity in 2D unless you are just waiting for the lamp to wear in.

Don't get me wrong, 3D is bareable even with the IRIS open, but it's still too bright.
post #2916 of 8033
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post

We can't tell from the calibrated modes, we need measurements. The w7000 is about 1800-2000 lumens in TORCH 2D which is basically the same in 2D as the w1070 (close), yet the w7000 only does 1000-1100 or so in 3D, both made by the same MFR, so we have no idea. This is a common trend with some DLP's as to having a major lumens drop in 3d mode even before the glasses, more so than LCD and LCOS (although they too have some drop).

You can't infer anything, but you can guess. My guess is that the w1070 in 3D is a bit brighter than the w7000, but we have no idea for sure or how much.

In its best mode, Art measured the w7000 at 1571. The w1070 measured 1711. Those are both in 2D. Figuring they both lose about the same percentage of light in 3D, and that's how you could infer that the 1070 would be brighter than the 7000 in 3D.

Not absolute fact, but a fairly good indication, no?
post #2917 of 8033
Nope, not really, they are too close.
The trend doesn't hold unfortunately, that is why these reviewers need to measure the lumens in 3D mode and stop doing that, it's annoying.
post #2918 of 8033
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deja Vu View Post


As far as lumens go -- for 3D you can't have enough. All these lamps age and lose brightness. What looks bright enough today won't in six months or so.

Exactly. This is why I keep saying ~2000 3d lumens to start with (for my tastes/screen at least) and preferably some sort of manual iris to tailor the light output depending on what stage of bulb degrade you are in and/or brightness preference. Until we get to this point, ALL these projectors have room for improvement as far as this goes and some more than others (looking at you JVC!)
post #2919 of 8033
I know, I've been saying that for years, that's why I wrote a PJ calculator.
My Viewsonic was >= 1000 Lumens in 2D at first in its least bright mode and I had to put up with that with NO ND Filter for 500 hours or so, but I am half-blind because of it (j/k but it was insanely bright until lamp wore in). I could have ordered an ND filter, just never did.

Yah, I wouldn't mind having more, but I'm happy for now.
You can't really have too many lumens since you can initially cure that with an ND filter or IRIS clamping down, but this is still fine for now and a lot better than my JVC :P
post #2920 of 8033
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post

How big are you projecting the 3D image when you say "want more brightness" and are you in a bat-cave?

I estimate I am seeing at least 14-15 fL for 3D after the glasses EVEN with the IRIS closed at 8 min, that is pretty bright in a batcave. If I turn the IRIS off, it's probably closer to 20 fL+.

Thank god for the Benq IRIS, I think the Benq IRIS for 2D + 3D FI makes this projector a formidable contender even for someone wanting to go with a single PJ solution if they are not picky about blacks. Though the Sony hw50 and Epson 5020 are more well rounded, the Benq is fine for everything but darker stuff.


With all the talk of cross talk and lamp aging and it being becoming even worse, I have started to at least consider a DLP as a single projector option. I've never seen RBE, but then again, the only DLPs I've ever seen are in the theater. Never seen DLP RPTV either, except in a big box for minute or two.

The w7000 is considered an ultra high contrast projector correct? I know the blacks aren't going to be as good as the 5020 or the HW50ES, but is it so drastic as to be clearly noticeable?

As a Panny plasma owner, I'm spoiled on Black Levels, but I'm also realistic. If the difference is only noticeable in a side by side, I could train my mind not to think about what I'm missing lol.
post #2921 of 8033
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post

The w1070 can be floor mounted 3" below the screen near the coffee table (fairly short throw), so giving near the same gain as most of us can get from the w7000 in our setups.

So the above will only apply for the 2.8 gain HP or perfect center-mounters on the 2.4.

I doubt I will ever mount my Benq perfectly centered to the screen even with my HP, no place to put it.
For those of us that have our PJ's 15 feet+ back, they have to be high enough to clear our heads, but we still get 1.4 to 1.8 gain depending how high we put it exactly.

Even if I mounted a w1070 3" above screen instead of floor mounting, to me it's only a difference of 1.4 gain vs. 1.8 gain I can get with the w7000 at max.

That said, the w1070 doesn't fit in my room very well regardless, the w7000 is more flexible on longer placements, because I sit so close to the screen, but for some it will.

Agree with everything you said... The w1080st allows for placement at screen top/bottom, so if having the PJ in your peripheral field of view is not annoying, may only be giving up 10% or so in ftL on an HP compared to the best you could hope for with the w7000 behind the viewers. BQ is now listing on their site for preorders at $50 more than the w1070. Will be interesting to see if the ST has typically benq sharpness
post #2922 of 8033
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deja Vu View Post

The one thing we don't talk about on this thread is SBS 3D! No problem for the DLPs, except my Epson looks much better with this material than my Acer -- the Acer never ghosts, but the overall image on the Epson is just better. I have a number of sbs 3D movies and I believe 3D HDTV is also sbs. Question -- how do these projectors perform with sbs material?

Having now owned 11 projectors I have come to the conclusion that what I thought was "great" a year or two ago I could not live with today. As far as lumens go -- for 3D you can't have enough. All these lamps age and lose brightness. What looks bright enough today won't in six months or so.

BTW I don't think the Sony 1000 is all that bright in 3D and I'll bet I'd prefer the Sony 50 or Epson 5020 to it for 3D. Mark, who loves to bad mouth the HP screen whenever he gets the chance is apparently buying an HP for 3D. biggrin.gif


Was the bolded a joke? If it was, apologies in advance, but isn't the VW1000ES brighter than both those projectors in their respective best modes?
post #2923 of 8033
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post

Nope, not really, they are too close.
The trend doesn't hold unfortunately, that is why these reviewers need to measure the lumens in 3D mode and stop doing that, it's annoying.

I got you.
post #2924 of 8033
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuntman_Mike View Post

With all the talk of cross talk and lamp aging and it being becoming even worse, I have started to at least consider a DLP as a single projector option. I've never seen RBE, but then again, the only DLPs I've ever seen are in the theater. Never seen DLP RPTV either, except in a big box for minute or two.

The w7000 is considered an ultra high contrast projector correct? I know the blacks aren't going to be as good as the 5020 or the HW50ES, but is it so drastic as to be clearly noticeable?

As a Panny plasma owner, I'm spoiled on Black Levels, but I'm also realistic. If the difference is only noticeable in a side by side, I could train my mind not to think about what I'm missing lol.

I will just say that the black level difference is easily noticeable without a side by side. I also just helped install a new A/V setup for a family member that consisted of a Panasonic 65" VT50 (possibly the best picture I have ever seen by the way for 2d! eek.gif Great 3d as well) and the black level between that set and the BenQ W7000 is significant even without a side by side. However, once you factor in zero ghosting, zero flicker, FI in 3d, good brightness you might find like me and others that the black level is only part of the equation. As far as projectors in particular go, I have not once missed my JVC for 3d even in light of the much better black levels in 3d all things considered. I have found that the complete lack of ghosting, flicker and better motion are all more important for a quality 3d experience. Of course if you can get all that with great black levels that would be the ultimate, but I dont know of a machine that can do that yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuntman_Mike View Post

Was the bolded a joke? If it was, apologies in advance, but isn't the VW1000ES brighter than both those projectors in their respective best modes?

Doesn't the 1000 put out 1000 lumens in 3d mode? If so, the Epson has a significant advantage at 1400. Of course the 1000 will be better in other areas I am sure, but as far as 3d brightness in particular, the 1000 is not top dog.
Edited by Toe - 1/11/13 at 10:22am
post #2925 of 8033
Quote:
Originally Posted by dougri View Post

Agree with everything you said... The w1080st allows for placement at screen top/bottom, so if having the PJ in your peripheral field of view is not annoying, may only be giving up 10% or so in ftL on an HP compared to the best you could hope for with the w7000 behind the viewers. BQ is now listing on their site for preorders at $50 more than the w1070. Will be interesting to see if the ST has typically benq sharpness

The 1080st might actually work in my room since it's even shorter throw, but then again I don't really like having PJ's in front of me partly due to the noise.
post #2926 of 8033
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post

I will just say that the black level difference is easily noticeable without a side by side. I also just helped install a new A/V setup for a family member that consisted of a Panasonic 65" VT50 (possibly the best picture I have ever seen by the way for 2d! eek.gif Great 3d as well) and the black level between that set and the BenQ W7000 is significant even without a side by side. However, once you factor in zero ghosting, zero flicker, FI in 3d, good brightness you might find like me and others that the black level is only part of the equation. As far as projectors in particular go, I have not once missed my JVC for 3d even in light of the much better black levels in 3d all things considered. I have found that the complete lack of ghosting, flicker and better motion are all more important for a quality 3d experience. Of course if you can get all that with great black levels that would be the ultimate, but I dont know of a machine that can do that yet.
Doesn't the 1000 put out 1000 lumens in 3d mode? If so, the Epson has a significant advantage at 1400. Of course the 1000 will be better in other areas I am sure, but as far as 3d brightness in particular, the 1000 is not top dog.

Like I said, I'm realistic lol. I know going in that I'm not gonna get Plasma type black levels. I also know that it's much more affordable to get a projector and a 100-110" screen than it is to get a 100-110" plasma, so, got to trade off somewhere.

I'm just looking for good black levels and great perceived contrast more than actual. Better than waiting for affordable OLEDs lol.

I know I keep using Art's numbers, but he sets up all his PJs the same way and uses the same equipment and environment, so their is a baseline there to go off on.

He measured the 5020 in best mode at 678 lumens, the HW50Es in best mode at 992 lumens, and the VW1000ES in best mode at greater than 1200 lumens. Maybe my understanding isn't up to snuff, but wouldn't you use 3D in one of the calibrated cinema modes? If so, I don't see how the the 1000ES wouldn't be brighter. Again, I'm new to the projector game. Hell, I don't even have one yet lol. I'm just trying to absorb as much as I can and make an informed decision.
Edited by Stuntman_Mike - 1/11/13 at 11:12am
post #2927 of 8033
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuntman_Mike View Post

Was the bolded a joke? If it was, apologies in advance, but isn't the VW1000ES brighter than both those projectors in their respective best modes?


Art had this to say about the Sony 1000: "I am rather happy with the Sony for 3D. Sure, some more lumens would be better, but the 3D is rather clean. Even in the High setting for the glasses, it was rather good. Certainly the best I've seen from an LCoS projector or 3LCD projector. Single chip DLP's are different, when it comes to 3D artifacts. I haven't had a good one of those in here in a while. I think just about everyone will find the 3D to be at least satisfactory." I think he measured the Sony at 1176 lumens for 2D. No idea about 3D, but I'll bet it is a lot less than either the Sony 50 or in particular the Epson 5020 when calibrated -- if a projector in best mode for 3D is so dim you can't see anything on the screen then who cares? biggrin.gif I think Zombie calibrated the 5020 in 3D and got 1400 lumens. That's more than the Sony 1000 in 2D!

This is a $25,000 projector and he says he thinks everyone will find the 3D at least satisfactory. I hope so for that price! biggrin.gif The problem with projectors in this price range (as with the Qualia 004) is that in 4 or 5 years they're dinosaurs and have lost so much in resale value that they can't compete with current $3,000 projectors. I should know since I owned a Sony G90. The world moves on. If I remember correctly the 1080p Qualia sold for about $30,000 or a little less) in 2004 or 2005 and shortly after that Sony introduced the 1080p Ruby at $10,000 with 8 Xs the on/off contrast ratio!
Edited by Deja Vu - 1/11/13 at 11:16am
post #2928 of 8033
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post

The 1080st might actually work in my room since it's even shorter throw, but then again I don't really like having PJ's in front of me partly due to the noise.

I know that DLPs are generally louder than the other technologies, but when ceiling mounted, is the fan noise and iris that noticeable during quiet moments of viewing? I know that this is pretty subjective, but I don't know of any place to experience some of these projectors first hand, so I'll take all the subjective I can get.
post #2929 of 8033
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deja Vu View Post

Art had this to say about the Sony 1000: "I am rather happy with the Sony for 3D. Sure, some more lumens would be better, but the 3D is rather clean. Even in the High setting for the glasses, it was rather good. Certainly the best I've seen from an LCoS projector or 3LCD projector. Single chip DLP's are different, when it comes to 3D artifacts. I haven't had a good one of those in here in a while. I think just about everyone will find the 3D to be at least satisfactory." I think he measured the Sony at 1176 lumens for 2D. No idea about 3D, but I'll bet it is a lot less than either the Sony 50 or in particular the Epson 5020 when calibrated -- if a projector in best mode for 3D is so dim you can't see anything on the screen then who cares? biggrin.gif I think Zombie calibrated the 5020 in 3D and got 1400 lumens. That's more than the Sony 1000 in 2D!

This is a $25,000 projector and he says he thinks everyone will find the 3D at least satisfactory. I hope so for that price! biggrin.gif The problem with projectors in this price range (as with the Qualia 004) is that in 4 or 5 years they're dinosaurs and have lost so much in resale value that they can't compete with current $3,000 projectors. I should know since I owned a Sony G90. The world moves on.

I listed his measurements for best mode for each projector in 2D and the 1000ES was brighter than the 50ES and twice as bright as the Epson.

You can't compare zombie's measurements to Art's because they aren't in the same environment and don't have the same throw, zoom, screen etc. That's why I'm going by Art's because the environment is the same and he measured all of them under the same circumstances.

If zombie had a new 1000ES and calibrated it in his room it would probably be higher than what Art got also.
post #2930 of 8033
Quote:
Originally Posted by edfowler View Post

You have gone thru three already? I am still waiting for Avad to issue me a rma for my one and only and I was billed for it December 7th!
I would like to move on and start watching some movies
First RS46 had stuck pixels so AVS took it back (it only had 3 hours on it). Second RS46 was fine but decided to trade up to the RS4810.

Have you tried calling JVC directly and going through their Perfect Experience program? If your projector is defective within the first 30 days they'll advance-ship you a replacement.
post #2931 of 8033
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post


Ghosting increases by double to triple after 300-500 hours.
How can you say this unequivocally about the 2013 JVCs? No one has that many hours on a new JVC projector yet and the bulbs this year are supposed to age more gracefully than they have in prior years. Plus, if the performance of last year's models is your benchmark for JVC 3D performance, and if the pre-firmware RS46 is representative of last year's models in 3D, then 3D has come a long way for the 2013 projectors IMHO.

I guess only time will tell for sure how the 2013 JVCs perform as the bulb ages. I'm not saying you won't be right, but no one knows for sure until get some real evidence.
post #2932 of 8033
I just calibrated the Sony HW50 in Low Lamp mode.
After calibration it went from 12,30fL to 18,60fL on my 120"screen.
It is a perfect projector to calibrate as well.
Everything stay's at place while going from Greyscale to CMS and back for check.
What a great pleasure to do with this unit.

I was planning on keeping it in High Lamp mode but since this will save a lot of Lamplife, I can now brighten the projector in at least three stages while lamp ages while picture keeps great.
If it is going too dim I'll go to High Lamp Mode and Limited Iris, and than Full Iris whit a perfect DeltaE.
Picture keeps 100% perfect this way through the entire lamplife.

I was stunned how good this projector looked in 3D.
Everything works while watching 3D on this projector and it is amazing to experience.
No way I'm going to the cinema now I have this projector here..
Motion Enhancer and Iris in 3D is fantastic.
This is just what I missed on the TW9000W.
It is time Epson is putting FI in their next Gen projector.

Is the Buzzing sound during 3D solved or is that something that belongs to the HW50.
Edited by Matthieu - 1/11/13 at 12:32pm
post #2933 of 8033
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombie10k View Post

for those following my blackout project, I received a small truckload of the black 'ProtoStar' material that is often talked about in the HT build threads.

http://www.protostar.biz/flock.htm

I have a ton of the Dalite 'Pro-trim' which is an excellent material used to cover the Cinema Contour frames. I was saving this for making masks for my 16:9 Dalite CC. I tried some of it on my white ceiling grid, but the problem is it's too 'thick'. So it stands out a bit vs. blending in with the new flat tiles I am using.

The good news is, the ProtoStar material is just as black and also thinner as well. Plus it's significantly cheaper.

This is a direct flash photo, so you can see some of the texture. This stuff is about as black as it gets.


ceiling1.jpg

Hi zomie
If you permit me .. Where did you get these wonderful lamps? I looked it up in the Internet and did not find it frown.gif ... Please could you tell me where I get them.

I plan to make the darkness in the ceiling of my room
post #2934 of 8033
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuntman_Mike View Post

I listed his measurements for best mode for each projector in 2D and the 1000ES was brighter than the 50ES and twice as bright as the Epson.

You can't compare zombie's measurements to Art's because they aren't in the same environment and don't have the same throw, zoom, screen etc. That's why I'm going by Art's because the environment is the same and he measured all of them under the same circumstances.

If zombie had a new 1000ES and calibrated it in his room it would probably be higher than what Art got also.

How about a $1000 3D projector as a comparison -- the Benq 1070? Art had this to say:

"Back to the 3D performance. With a proper cable, crosstalk is a non-factor. I found watching 3D to be rather enjoyable and relatively bright. Color was pretty good (in 3D), I don't expect color as good as 2D, and we have never tried to calibrate 3D. The excellent brightness allowed me to put on some widescreen movies and fill my 124" diagonal. Not bad, watchably bright. At 100" diagonal there's plenty of lumens for 3D. Afterall, consider that 400 lumens is more than enough (with proper lack of ambient light) to watch a 100" screen. With over 1700 lumens calibrated, that's more than 4 times as much. 3D no longer costs 75% of brightness even if it does cost viewers a good bit more than half the brightness. Translated, this W1070 can do a great job in 3D on an average sized screen."
post #2935 of 8033
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deja Vu View Post

How about a $1000 3D projector as a comparison -- the Benq 1070? Art had this to say:

"Back to the 3D performance. With a proper cable, crosstalk is a non-factor. I found watching 3D to be rather enjoyable and relatively bright. Color was pretty good (in 3D), I don't expect color as good as 2D, and we have never tried to calibrate 3D. The excellent brightness allowed me to put on some widescreen movies and fill my 124" diagonal. Not bad, watchably bright. At 100" diagonal there's plenty of lumens for 3D. Afterall, consider that 400 lumens is more than enough (with proper lack of ambient light) to watch a 100" screen. With over 1700 lumens calibrated, that's more than 4 times as much. 3D no longer costs 75% of brightness even if it does cost viewers a good bit more than half the brightness. Translated, this W1070 can do a great job in 3D on an average sized screen."

I don't understand what that has to do with anything.

The 3 projectors mentioned were measured in the same environment and all were calibrated for 2D. The 1000ES measured highest of the 3 and almost twice as bright as the Epson. I know that Art doesn't calibrate for 3D or list lumens measured through the glasses for 3D, which is why it wasn't listed. The point is, if you have the PJ calibrated, wouldn't you either:

A) use a calibrated mode for 3D viewing, or
B) calibrate in 3D through the glasses for an even more accurate picture to offset glasses tint?

If you choose either A or B, then it makes no difference what Art measured in an uncalibrated 3D mode. Furthermore, the 1000ES is brighter than the 50ES in both Best mode (calibrated) and brightest mode (uncalibrated). It's brighter across the board. And the Epson is obviously just pushing a lot of Green to get its inflated brightness numbers out of the box. Why else would it lose so many lumens after calibration (678 eek.gif)?

Not trying to be a jerk, and don't take this as an attack or in a condescending tone. I really am just trying to understand what you are trying to say.
post #2936 of 8033
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwa View Post

How can you say this unequivocally about the 2013 JVCs? No one has that many hours on a new JVC projector yet and the bulbs this year are supposed to age more gracefully than they have in prior years.
I guess only time will tell for sure how the 2013 JVCs perform as the bulb ages. I'm not saying you won't be right, but no one knows for sure until get some real evidence.

Experience...
Every non-DLP projector ghosts more as the lamp ages, every one I've seen, and LCOS is the worst at this. You guys are watching 3D at micro-lumens compared to how I was watching it. Sure if you don't mind dark 3D it won't ghost that bad, JVC always been like that. Zombie is the expert and he's the one that stated it's a very minor improvement if you EQUAL LUMEN for LUMEN.
post #2937 of 8033
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post

Experience...
Every non-DLP projector ghosts more as the lamp ages, every one I've seen, and LCOS is the worst at this. You guys are watching 3D at micro-lumens compared to how I was watching it. Sure if you don't mind dark 3D it won't ghost that bad, JVC always been like that. Zombie is the expert and he's the one that stated it's a very minor improvement if you EQUAL LUMEN for LUMEN.
Yes, I'd expect the performance to degrade as the bulb ages. But the bulbs are different on the 2013 JVCs, so if they don't dim as fast, then why would the 3D start to ghost at the same rate as prior years' models?

Zombie may well be the expert, but there was a substantial improvement when going from 3D on the RS46 to 3D on the RS4810. It was not a subtle improvement. For example, BD menu text on the RS46 was practically illegible because there was so much crosstalk. Not so on the RS4810. I could go on and on, but both settings were compared using the same settings and same configuration.

More importantly, AFAIK Zombie (nor anyone else other than me) has used the JVC RF emitter with the JVC glasses on the 2013 projectors. Anything other than this combination would likely be sub-optimal, but without actually trying it, you guys certainly can't assume that what you saw was representative of the performance of the JVC projectors with JVC's own emitter and glasses.

I'm sure Zombie is accurately describing what he saw with respect to JVC's 3D performance. And I'm not arguing that most other 3D projectors wouldn't beat the 3D performance of the JVCs in brightness and crosstalk. But for you to dismiss the fact that there's a substantial improvement by extrapolating last year's projectors' performance to this year's projector's performance without giving the JVCs a fair shot (by testing them using the recommended OEM equipment) is disingenuous.

I'm now the second person around here who's claimed that the 3D performance of the 2013 projectors isn't that bad. Doesn't that at least make you interested enough to check it out using the matching OEM equipment before dismissing our claims out-of-hand because we don't have as much "experience?" That doesn't seem very scientific or objective to me -- more like hard-headed and stubborn.
post #2938 of 8033
I don't have anywhere to go see it atm, it was hard enough finding a place to see e-shift. Got a DLP moved onto greener 3D pastures.
Until the JVC Ghosting = Epson, I am not interested in making assumptions based on a few people.

When I first got the RS-45, it didn't ghost that bad either, it took a while and depends on how bright you have it and what you are watching. Granite, your JVC may ghost significantly less than the RS-45 even if at the same lumens, but I have doubts to these testing methods unless A/B at exact same lumens.
post #2939 of 8033
My x35 with the new firmware and the JVC RF glasses is too bright in 3d on high lamp for me and the missus.
Have a 100" screen and a reasonably dark room.
No ghosting to report whatsoever,even with SBS material.
Image is incredibly clean and popps heaps.
I set up my brothers x35 the other day.He has a 120" screen in a bat cave.His was bordelining between low and high lamp
mode for 3d.Some prefered the low,others the high.
Again no crosstalk whatsoever.I mean totally absent on 2 projectors after several hours of viewing.
Also in relation to Zombies test.I set my crosstalk cancell setting around 6-8,and see no crosstalk.I beleive his was around the
0 setting.
We have never ever seen better 3d.Be it at the cinemas or the many projectors i demoed last year.Someone i know went from a
Panny 7000 to the X35 and is over the moon with the improvement in 3d.
I think it depends on the kind of movies watched.We dont watch kids cartoon 3d movies,where the extra brightness maybe beneficial.
On Avatar ,Prometheus, and other such movies i cant reallly imagine anything better.Dont think extra brightness will make these movies any better.
Better contrast on the other hand makes these 3d movie really shine.
Watched the last harry potter last night.I kept flicking it over to the bright 3d mode.Then we would switch it back to natural low lamp as the
picture and black levels was just far superior.
post #2940 of 8033
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwa View Post


More importantly, AFAIK Zombie (nor anyone else other than me) has used the JVC RF emitter with the JVC glasses on the 2013 projectors. Anything other than this combination would likely be sub-optimal, but without actually trying it, you guys certainly can't assume that what you saw was representative of the performance of the JVC projectors with JVC's own emitter and glasses.

I'm sure Zombie is accurately describing what he saw with respect to JVC's 3D performance. And I'm not arguing that most other 3D projectors wouldn't beat the 3D performance of the JVCs in brightness and crosstalk. But for you to dismiss the fact that there's a substantial improvement by extrapolating last year's projectors' performance to this year's projector's performance without giving the JVCs a fair shot (by testing them using the recommended OEM equipment) is disingenuous.

I'm now the second person around here who's claimed that the 3D performance of the 2013 projectors isn't that bad. Doesn't that at least make you interested enough to check it out using the matching OEM equipment before dismissing our claims out-of-hand because we don't have as much "experience?" That doesn't seem very scientific or objective to me -- more like hard-headed and stubborn.

I've spoken to several experienced calibrators who have seen the new JVC glasses on the X55/RS4810, there is no day/night difference between the other glasses out there. They also agree there has been a compromise between brightness and ghosting. The lumen output #'s are a fact, we really can't dispute them. The RS46 (pre-firmware) was nearly 400+ lumens brighter than the 4810, but at the expense of ghosting. Get rid of the ghosting, lower the lumen output.

Having owned the RS40, RS50, RS55 and calibrated the RS46 (pre-firmware) and RS4810, I can see first hand all the changes that have been made since the 1st gen was released in 2010. There is more than a decrease in lumen out. The overall PQ has changed. There is overall less image depth and detail. The photos clearly show something had to be compromised in order to reduce the ghosting.

We're not saying to not enjoy what you have. The thread is here for granular comparisons of the current projectors and of course all feedback is welcome. The goal is to stay as objective as possible.


RS46 (pre-firmware) first, RS4810 second.

3D-shootout13.jpg

3D-shootout14.jpg

3D-shootout17.jpg

3D-shootout18.jpg

btw, I love my JVC RS55's 2D PQ. I got lucky with a killer sample (convergence and focus is near perfect) and haven't seen anything yet I'd prefer to replace it with for 2D.

I have to believe at this point a full ground-up rebuild in coming in 2013. Each year, the other projector manufacturers are taking 3D to the next level and I doubt they are standing still. I know if we rounded up the troops to see the 4810 / HW50 / Epson 5020 in direct shootout, there is no doubt which 2 projectors will come out on top.
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