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 195

post #5821 of 8111
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigCoolJesus View Post

You mean you would take the 49 over the 56?

With the new DI, the 49 will get higher contrast. Also, the 4k input is a plus
post #5822 of 8111
Quote:
Originally Posted by blee0120 View Post

With the new DI, the 49 will get higher contrast. Also, the 4k input is a plus

Yes
post #5823 of 8111
But isn't the contrast ratio from using a dynamic iris subject to the scene being watched/measured, hence the "dynamic" designation? Meaning the "600,000:1" dynamic contrast ratio of the RS49 is, in simplest words, unrealistic in real world viewing, whereas the native ratio of 60,000:1 is the more realistic number to compare with for MOST real world material (obviously there are situations where the DI does make a substantial difference but how often is the question).
post #5824 of 8111
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigCoolJesus View Post

But isn't the contrast ratio from using a dynamic iris subject to the scene being watched/measured, hence the "dynamic" designation? Meaning the "600,000:1" dynamic contrast ratio of the RS49 is, in simplest words, unrealistic in real world viewing, whereas the native ratio of 60,000:1 is the more realistic number to compare with?

No because just like how we measure native contrast it isn't an indication of what you'll always being seeing on screen at any given time. The dynamic number is given by measuring the contrast the same way we would measure native contrast.

A good way to measure what you're going for, the "at any one time typical contrast", would be to measure ANSI contrast of a projector. Or you could go one step further and figure out intra-scene contrast.

Here's a good intra-scene contrast calculator:

http://home.roadrunner.com/~res18h39/intrascene.htm
post #5825 of 8111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seegs108 View Post

The dynamic number is given by measuring the contrast the same way we would measure native contrast.

I have always been under the impression that Native contrast and Dynamic contrast are obtained through different methods of measurement, hence the different numbers. Isn't it something along the lines of native is measured by displaying both black and white on screen at the same time while dynamic is measured by displaying just black than just white separately, producing a much "higher" ratio, but not really translating into real-world performance because very little scenes meet this criteria? Hence why a DI can be "noticeable" at times (in a bad way).

I may be completely wrong. Which is fine. Wouldn't be the first time. I have just always been under the impression that native contrast is the more "trustworthy" number to use when looking at specs and to take dynamic contrast ratios with a big grain of salt.

Thanks.
Quote:
A plasma display with a 4,000,000:1 static contrast ratio will show superior contrast to an LCD (with LED or CCFL backlight) with 30,000,000:1 dynamic and 20,000:1 static contrast ratio when the input signal contains a full range of brightnesses from 0 to 100% simultaneously. They will, however, be on-par when input signal ranges only from 0 to 20% brightness
post #5826 of 8111
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigCoolJesus View Post

I have always been under the impression that Native contrast and Dynamic contrast are obtained through different methods of measurement, hence the different numbers. Isn't it something along the lines of native is measured by displaying both black and white on screen at the same time while dynamic is measured by displaying just black than just white separately, producing a much "higher" ratio, but not really translating into real-world performance because very little scenes meet this criteria? Hence why a DI can be "noticeable" at times (in a bad way).

I may be completely wrong. Which is fine. Wouldn't be the first time. I have just always been under the impression that native contrast is the more "trustworthy" number to use when looking at specs and to take dynamic contrast ratios with a big grain of salt.

Thanks.

Full on, full off contrast is measured by dividing peak white level by black level. ANSI is measured through the use of a checkerboard pattern and you measure the white and black level that are on screen at the same time. When most people on the forum here refer to "contrast" they mean full on, full off contrast. Through the use of a DI we see much higher on/off contrast numbers simply because it closes the iris down for a full black while still being able to give you the full brightness of the projector by having it open fully for a peak white measurement. Traditionally we measured the on/off contrast of a JVC with it's iris full closed. Imagine taking the peak white level of a JVC when the iris is fully opened and then the black level of one when it's iris is fully closed. That's how you get a ten fold increase in contrast performance when using a DI, because you can get the best of both worlds when one is employed.
post #5827 of 8111
biggrin.gif*
biggrin.gif
post #5828 of 8111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seegs108 View Post

Full on, full off contrast is measured by dividing peak white level by black level. ANSI is measured through the use of a checkerboard pattern and you measure the white and black level that are on screen at the same time. When most people on the forum here refer to "contrast" they mean full on, full off contrast. Through the use of a DI we see much higher on/off contrast numbers simply because it closes the iris down for a full black while still being able to give you the full brightness of the projector by having it open fully for a peak white measurement. Traditionally we measured the on/off contrast of a JVC with it's iris full closed. Imagine taking the peak white level of a JVC when the iris is fully opened and then the black level of one when it's iris is fully closed. That's how you get a ten fold increase in contrast performance when using a DI, because you can get the best of both worlds when one is employed.

I get that the DI allows for the iris to be fully open for maximum white level or fully closed for maximum black level, but what I am not understanding is that this cannot happen at the same exact time, meaning the dynamic contrast is misleading because obviously for a given measurement, the iris cannot be fully open AND fully closed at the same time. Sure, one bright scene could have white levels x amount high with the iris fully open and an immediate scene after that could have black levels y amount low with the iris fully closed, but a scene involving both bright and dark images simultaneously will not be equal to x+y because the iris cannot be in two states at a single instance.

I am not saying the DI doesn't up contrast numbers above native....but I suppose I am still in the camp of people who feel native contrast is the more "reliable" number to go by whereas a dynamic measurement is to be taken with a grain of salt because it does not translate as reliably to real world viewing material. Hence, the higher the native contrast ratio to begin with, the better (60,000:1 for the RS49 vs. 90,000: for the RS56). Would the DI on the RS49 allow for instances where it's dynamic contrast ratio for REAL WORLD material is higher than the RS56's native ratio? Most likely....but how often would be the question, whereas one would know the native contrast ratio is always higher on the RS56 over the RS49.

That being said, I was just quoted at under $6000 for an RS57, meaning for an extra $1000 I could jump from the RS56 to the RS57. That is probably worth it, right?
post #5829 of 8111
You aren't understanding how those numbers are measured. You are correct in saying you arent going to see that amount of contrast in the image at one time with the DI enabled, but you also aren't going to see that amount of native contrast within the image at one time either. With the DI enabled you're actually going to have more contrast within the image on typical scenes. There are few reasons not to enable the DI on the JVC especially because it works so well.
post #5830 of 8111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seegs108 View Post

You aren't understanding how those numbers are measured. You are correct in saying you arent going to see that amount of contrast in the image at one time with the DI enabled, but you also aren't going to see that amount of native contrast within the image at one time either. With the DI enabled you're actually going to have more contrast within the image on typical scenes. There are few reasons not to enable the DI on the JVC especially because it works so well.

The only other thing I have wondered is calibrating with a dynamic iris......wouldn't having the iris enabled during calibration cause "issues" since it is constantly fluctuating versus the lens being on a static setting?

Again, I am actually thinking of spending the extra to get the RS57 now due to the incredible price I was offered. Just have some more questions is all now.
post #5831 of 8111
Quote:
I saw Sony demo the 1000 at CES 2 years ago and was in awe of the picture quality. Amazing brightness, color and clarity. Now I read from various reports ( I haven't seen the new 600), at half the price Sony's 600 is as bright and colorful with only slightly less clarity, amazing! I can't wait to see it at CES! As you say brightness is a huge factor in image quality on many levels. To use a little Hot Rod lingo, I wonder if you have to run the JVC at max rpm (buy a Lumagen, use high lamp mode, calibrate, etc) just to try to equal what Sony will cruise at out of the box? If that's the case then maybe Sony is worth the much higher price.

I think the JVC is a great projector if you run a smaller screen ( or a High Power screen ). The Sony is worth the money if you have a big screen and need the horsepower. Or like a really bright picture !!
post #5832 of 8111
Quote:
The only other thing I have wondered is calibrating with a dynamic iris......wouldn't having the iris enabled during calibration cause "issues" since it is constantly fluctuating versus the lens being on a static setting?

You should calibrate with the D.Iris off.
post #5833 of 8111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Peer View PostI think the JVC is a great projector if you run a smaller screen ( or a High Power screen ). The Sony is worth the money if you have a big screen and need the horsepower. Or like a really bright picture !!

So with a 10 feet wide 2:35 FireHawk G3 screen what would you recommend?

post #5834 of 8111

I saw no new Panasonic 4K projectors in HT, only pro line! It looks like Sony is the only game in TOWN. I have not heard about EPSON?

post #5835 of 8111
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Peer View PostI think the JVC is a great projector if you run a smaller screen ( or a High Power screen ). The Sony is worth the money if you have a big screen and need the horsepower. Or like a really bright picture !!

So with a 10 feet wide 2:35 FireHawk G3 screen what would you recommend?

I'd get the Sony VW600 with that size screen.
post #5836 of 8111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Peer View PostI'd get the Sony VW600 with that size screen.

I was afraid you would say that!, I guess I just need to start saving my green, I can't afford a $15,000 projector so maybe this year at CEDIA if they come down to earth in prices.

 

The best I could find was $9900 that's still way too much money for my blood!

post #5837 of 8111
Quote:
Originally Posted by wse View Post

I saw no new Panasonic 4K projectors in HT, only pro line! It looks like Sony is the only game in TOWN. I have not heard about EPSON?

I don't think there is anything to hear.
Reply
Reply
post #5838 of 8111
Quote:
Originally Posted by AV Science Sales 5 View Post

I don't think there is anything to hear.

Are you saying there are no EPSON 4K projector at CES.
post #5839 of 8111
This post is for 3D lovers. If you're not into 3D then don't waste your time reading any further.

I'm very surprised to say that the Mits HC8000 has become my go-to projector for 3D. I've already mentioned that it has the best iris implementation I've seen and its CFI is something special and works in 3D.

I've played with 2D to 3D conversion over the past 3 years or so and had largely lost interest in it as a viable option when it came to watching 2D in 3D. Along came PowerDVD 13 Ultra, which took 2D to 3D conversion to another level. It is certainly not perfect, but for me the positives outweighed the negatives. I'd heard that the Mits had good 2D to 3D conversion; however, after reading Art's review I sort of forgot about it. Art had this to say:

"Like many other 3D capable projectors, this Mitsubishi is capable of taking a 2D signal and converting it to 3D. If anything, Mitsubishi spends a lot of ink touting how superior their 2D to 3D processing is.

So far, I’m still not a fan of 2D to 3D conversion. I figure it’s a lot of fun with personal videos, but, in general too often you notice weird things when converting 2D content to 3D. An example: A street light in the background, where the pole seems to be on this side of the street, but the light across the street. Like the HC7900DW, the HC8000D seems particularly good converting 2D to 3D. I say that, but sooner or later I see something that “doesn’t work”. Perhaps if the lower brightness and having to wear the glasses, weren’t required, I’d have a more positive opinion of 2D to 3D conversion. That said, this Mitsubishi is about as good as I’ve seen. (Not that I’ve really devoted any significant effort to really comparing how the different projector brands do on 2D to 3D conversion)."


Bill over at PC was more positive and had this to say:

"2D to 3D Conversion. The HC8000D-BL has a 2D to 3D conversion system that produces superb results. Usually, 2D to 3D conversion is something of an afterthought, and the resultant 3D picture is only marginally three-dimensional. On many projectors the trade-off of brightness and discomfort that you get from wearing 3D glasses makes 2D to 3D conversion not worth the hassle. However, on the HC8000D-BL, the results of 2D to 3D conversion are more dramatic and engaging than on competitive models. What you end up with is an actual 3D picture that is worthy of the name, and fans of 3D will definitely want to experiment with it using their favorite 2D movies."

I decided to give it a try and I have to admit that I'm very impressed with the real-time conversion of the Mits. I prefer watching 3D converted 2D movies on the Mits rather than the 2D version by a long shot and apparently so do my guests. I've now watched some of my favourite HD-DVDs converted to 3D by the Mits -- Chronicles of Riddick and the director's cut of Blade Runner. The Mits provided an extremely engaging experience. Next up -- Dune.

When set up with TLC (smaller HP screen) the Mits provides an extraordinary 3D experience with a major bonus being amazing 2D to 3D conversion. I'll be using this feature a lot and for a 3D lover it's a dream come true and opens up all kinds of possibilities. IMO the Mits is a very under-rated 3D projector. In 3D I don't see any RBE using the optional 4X colour wheel speed, which retains the CFI and 2D to 3D conversion.
Edited by Deja Vu - 1/8/14 at 7:36am
post #5840 of 8111
"I think the JVC is a great projector if you run a smaller screen ( or a High Power screen ). The Sony is worth the money if you have a big screen and need the horsepower. Or like a really bright picture !!"


At what maximum screen size is the above comment ?

Everyone is desiring larger screens with the Sony, but what about the more 110' diagonal .....JVC should be plenty bright enough....???

Thanks

Joey
post #5841 of 8111
Quote:
Originally Posted by wse View Post

Are you saying there are no EPSON 4K projector at CES.

I think Sony is still the only game in town.
Reply
Reply
post #5842 of 8111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deja Vu View Post

This post is for 3D lovers. If you're not into 3D then don't waste your time reading any further.

I'm very surprised to say that the Mits HC8000 has become my go-to projector for 3D. I've already mentioned that it has the best iris implementation I've seen and its CFI is something special and works in 3D.

I've played with 2D to 3D conversion over the past 3 years or so and had largely lost interest in it as a viable option when it came to watching 2D in 3D. Along came PowerDVD 13 Ultra, which took 2D to 3D conversion to another level. It is certainly not perfect, but for me the positives outweighed the negatives. I'd heard that the Mits had good 2D to 3D conversion; however, after reading Art's review I sort of forgot about it. Art had this to say:

"Like many other 3D capable projectors, this Mitsubishi is capable of taking a 2D signal and converting it to 3D. If anything, Mitsubishi spends a lot of ink touting how superior their 2D to 3D processing is.

So far, I’m still not a fan of 2D to 3D conversion. I figure it’s a lot of fun with personal videos, but, in general too often you notice weird things when converting 2D content to 3D. An example: A street light in the background, where the pole seems to be on this side of the street, but the light across the street. Like the HC7900DW, the HC8000D seems particularly good converting 2D to 3D. I say that, but sooner or later I see something that “doesn’t work”. Perhaps if the lower brightness and having to wear the glasses, weren’t required, I’d have a more positive opinion of 2D to 3D conversion. That said, this Mitsubishi is about as good as I’ve seen. (Not that I’ve really devoted any significant effort to really comparing how the different projector brands do on 2D to 3D conversion)."


Bill over at PC was more positive and had this to say:

"2D to 3D Conversion. The HC8000D-BL has a 2D to 3D conversion system that produces superb results. Usually, 2D to 3D conversion is something of an afterthought, and the resultant 3D picture is only marginally three-dimensional. On many projectors the trade-off of brightness and discomfort that you get from wearing 3D glasses makes 2D to 3D conversion not worth the hassle. However, on the HC8000D-BL, the results of 2D to 3D conversion are more dramatic and engaging than on competitive models. What you end up with is an actual 3D picture that is worthy of the name, and fans of 3D will definitely want to experiment with it using their favorite 2D movies."

I decided to give it a try and I have to admit that I'm very impressed with the real-time conversion of the Mits. I prefer watching 3D converted 2D movies on the Mits rather than the 2D version by a long shot and apparently so do my guests. I've now watched some of my favourite HD-DVDs converted to 3D by the Mits -- Chronicles of Riddick and the director's cut of Blade Runner. The Mits provided an extremely engaging experience. Next up -- Dune.

When set up with TLC (smaller HP screen) the Mits provides an extraordinary 3D experience with a major bonus being amazing 2D to 3D conversion. I'll be using this feature a lot and for a 3D lover it's a dream come true and opens up all kinds of possibilities. IMO the Mits is a very under-rated 3D projector. In 3D I don't see any RBE using the optional 4X colour wheel speed, which retains the CFI and 2D to 3D conversion.

How is it with people in interior scenes, such as kitchens and living rooms? This is where 2D to 3D conversion falters most often for me. There are too many arms and legs, and coffee pots and kitchen chairs. The software can't make sense of the variety and proper placement of objects or parts of objects in 3D space fails. It can be great for landscapes and many sports, but inside it can be distracting more often than not. How would you rate it compared to other conversions?

You and I are in the minority, in that we actually like 2D to 3D conversion. I'm willing to put up with the frequent strangeness, because when it does work it can look great. I did some tests, and 2D to 3D conversion of some of my original footage taken at the Missouri Botanical Garden looks better on the 3D Bee or my LG LCD display than it does as native 3D. That is, some shots taken at a distance tend to flatten out because the subject is so far away. (This happens when the interaxial distance of the two lenses is too narrow to discern much z-axis separation in objects more than 20-30 feet away.) The 3D Bee conversion (derived from the left eye only view) appears more 3 dimensional. It's an effect that has to be seen to be fully appreciated. I have an "Over America" 2D Blu-ray that was shot from a helicopter. It's full of landscapes and city-scapes. It looks like native 3D from start to finish, with very few anomalies. OTOH, some interior shots can look just plain weird. Go inside in a regular movie, for instance, and bright white mugs in the background of a restaurant wall might appear to hang in mid air. Much of the rest of the scene might look really good, with chairs and tables having a legitimate sense of depth. But it's usually a lot "messier" than outdoor footage.
post #5843 of 8111
Interesting. I was just wondering (and was going to ask here) a couple days ago whether anyone ever used the 2D to 3D conversion on their display. I haven't even touched mine on my JVC RS55 - it's already marginal for real 3D
movies which I've just started to watch, so I'm sure it's conversion looks sucky. Though I've wanted to remember and try it on something like a UFC broadcast, just to see how it looks.
post #5844 of 8111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Clark View Post

How is it with people in interior scenes, such as kitchens and living rooms? This is where 2D to 3D conversion falters most often for me. There are too many arms and legs, and coffee pots and kitchen chairs. The software can't make sense of the variety and proper placement of objects or parts of objects in 3D space fails. It can be great for landscapes and many sports, but inside it can be distracting more often than not. How would you rate it compared to other conversions?

You and I are in the minority, in that we actually like 2D to 3D conversion. I'm willing to put up with the frequent strangeness, because when it does work it can look great. I did some tests, and 2D to 3D conversion of some of my original footage taken at the Missouri Botanical Garden looks better on the 3D Bee or my LG LCD display than it does as native 3D. That is, some shots taken at a distance tend to flatten out because the subject is so far away. (This happens when the interaxial distance of the two lenses is too narrow to discern much z-axis separation in objects more than 20-30 feet away.) The 3D Bee conversion (derived from the left eye only view) appears more 3 dimensional. It's an effect that has to be seen to be fully appreciated. I have an "Over America" 2D Blu-ray that was shot from a helicopter. It's full of landscapes and city-scapes. It looks like native 3D from start to finish, with very few anomalies. OTOH, some interior shots can look just plain weird. Go inside in a regular movie, for instance, and bright white mugs in the background of a restaurant wall might appear to hang in mid air. Much of the rest of the scene might look really good, with chairs and tables having a legitimate sense of depth. But it's usually a lot "messier" than outdoor footage.

Hi JC,
I'm glad that you responded with this post.
I see that Rich has commented on it as well.
It seems like you have some real world experience with the 3D Bee. I'm not sure that this is the place to explore this, but I posted in the 3D Source Components Forum about it here:
http://www.avsforum.com/t/1510555/outboard-2d-to-3d-black-box-converters
In your opinion, is the 3D Bee as good as it gets? Is it worth the $300 for the device? How much do you use it? Do you convert all 2D or just sports and documentary stuff?
Thanks
post #5845 of 8111
I've tried 2D to 3D on a number of different displays and devices. Here's roughly how I'd rate my experiences.

Early Panasonic 3D Blu-ray players < Epson 6010 projector < early Sony LCD displays < Samsung 40" active LCD display < Epson 5030 projector < Samsung 64" plasma display < LG 47" LCD passive display < 3D Bee external converter < Teranex Blackmagic 2D to 3D converter (based on only one outdoors clip, but pretty impressive). The steps from one to the other aren't always large, and one device might be a little better at some content but worse at another.
post #5846 of 8111
Quote:
Originally Posted by humbland View Post

Hi JC,
I'm glad that you responded with this post.
I see that Rich has commented on it as well.
It seems like you have some real world experience with the 3D Bee. I'm not sure that this is the place to explore this, but I posted in the 3D Source Components Forum about it here:
http://www.avsforum.com/t/1510555/outboard-2d-to-3d-black-box-converters
In your opinion, is the 3D Bee as good as it gets? Is it worth the $300 for the device? How much do you use it? Do you convert all 2D or just sports and documentary stuff?
Thanks

It's worth it to me for documentaries and football. It may not be worth it to you, because (as with any converter I've seen) it fails often enough to be frustrating. And for certain content it fails consistently. I tend to watch conversion in spurts, then not for a while. It depends on how much original 3D content I have to watch, how much 3D I've edited lately (I watch less conversion the more I edit 3D) and whether I get the bug to find out how it would do for a particular 2D movie or TV show. I don't use it consistently for any content.
post #5847 of 8111
The 3D Bee is probably the best converter I have, but the LG LCD display is a close second.
post #5848 of 8111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Clark View Post

How is it with people in interior scenes, such as kitchens and living rooms? This is where 2D to 3D conversion falters most often for me. There are too many arms and legs, and coffee pots and kitchen chairs. The software can't make sense of the variety and proper placement of objects or parts of objects in 3D space fails. It can be great for landscapes and many sports, but inside it can be distracting more often than not. How would you rate it compared to other conversions?

You and I are in the minority, in that we actually like 2D to 3D conversion. I'm willing to put up with the frequent strangeness, because when it does work it can look great. I did some tests, and 2D to 3D conversion of some of my original footage taken at the Missouri Botanical Garden looks better on the 3D Bee or my LG LCD display than it does as native 3D. That is, some shots taken at a distance tend to flatten out because the subject is so far away. (This happens when the interaxial distance of the two lenses is too narrow to discern much z-axis separation in objects more than 20-30 feet away.) The 3D Bee conversion (derived from the left eye only view) appears more 3 dimensional. It's an effect that has to be seen to be fully appreciated. I have an "Over America" 2D Blu-ray that was shot from a helicopter. It's full of landscapes and city-scapes. It looks like native 3D from start to finish, with very few anomalies. OTOH, some interior shots can look just plain weird. Go inside in a regular movie, for instance, and bright white mugs in the background of a restaurant wall might appear to hang in mid air. Much of the rest of the scene might look really good, with chairs and tables having a legitimate sense of depth. But it's usually a lot "messier" than outdoor footage.

I was very apprehensive about how the conversion would handle Blade Runner with all the interior scenes -- what can I say? You have to see it for yourself. My wife, who watched Blade Runner with me, has seen a ton of native 3D and she mentioned how good the 3D was, which surprised me. I would pay what I paid for the Mits just for a 3D conversion "box" that did 3D conversion this well. I think we're coming closer to the day when what we now consider to be exceptional 3D conversion in real time will be the norm. I am confident that the technology exists, since I own some of it, and that it will be available for a reasonable price sooner rather than later. I've seen seven different attempts at 2D to 3D conversion and one of them, IMO, is quite good (PowerDVD Ultra 13) and another very good (the Mits) -- everything else IMO isn't worth the effort. The 3D conversion with the Mits is conservative behind the window 3D, which is deep and very accurate and handles complex scenes very well -- at least on the limited material I've thrown at it. The material I've used though is very tough to handle. It isn't perfect; however, it is far better than "it's good enough". From what I've seen so far I'd have to say this 2D to 3D conversion is exceptional and has me excited about watching a number of 2D favourites over again in 3D -- definitely a new and exciting experience. I'm really looking forward to watching Dune and Serenity in 3D.
post #5849 of 8111
My LG LM7600 LCD display does a bit better than PowerDVD 13, and the conversion parameters are very customizable. The one area where the 3D Bee is a somewhat better than the LG is with red objects. On the LG, they're almost invariably pushed forward in the shot, so they tend to separate from the surroundings/objects they're a part of. The 3D Bee I have creates a SbS 3D image, so it appears softer than the LG's conversion, though it's far from perfect. I found the Epson 6010 extremely poor for conversion - nothing much more than a "recessed" 2D image, with the bottom a little closer than the top. I never used it. The 5030 is better, I think, but I haven't tested it much. I did watch "Oblivion" on it and enjoyed the effect more than the 6010. One of these days, I'm going to try the 3D Bee on the 5030.
post #5850 of 8111
Quote:
Quote:
"I think the JVC is a great projector if you run a smaller screen ( or a High Power screen ). The Sony is worth the money if you have a big screen and need the horsepower. Or like a really bright picture !!"


At what maximum screen size is the above comment ?

Everyone is desiring larger screens with the Sony, but what about the more 110' diagonal .....JVC should be plenty bright enough....???

Thanks

Joey

That sort of depends on exactly what kind of screen you are talking about.
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