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 214

post #6391 of 8005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuke61 View Post

I have no experience with 4K, but here's a review which basically mimics the distance/sharpness that you've been talking about, but interestingly, it depended on the brightness of the image.

http://hometheaterreview.com/sony-vpl-vw1000es-4k-sxrd-front-projector-reviewed/?page=2

Specifically what I'm referring to is this statement:

He compared 2k movies, which is different than comparing 4k content. It has been established that both the JVC eshift and 4K Sonys show a similar image when brightness is matched. But many prefer the brighter image while others prefer more contrast and better black levels.
post #6392 of 8005
Quote:
Originally Posted by blee0120 View Post

He compared 2k movies, which is different than comparing 4k content. It has been established that both the JVC eshift and 4K Sonys show a similar image when brightness is matched. But many prefer the brighter image while others prefer more contrast and better black levels.

If you see the picures I posted earlier in this tread you will see 1080p pictures from the X500 and VW1000 brightness matched (the JVC had 3 lux more at the screen). They dont have a similar image as the Sony has a much sharper, more clarity, 3D like and dynamic picture even if they are brightness matched. The difference is quite big on a 110" screen.
Edited by Andreas21 - 2/5/14 at 5:30am
post #6393 of 8005
Quote:
Originally Posted by blee0120 View Post

He compared 2k movies, which is different than comparing 4k content. It has been established that both the JVC eshift and 4K Sonys show a similar image when brightness is matched. But many prefer the brighter image while others prefer more contrast and better black levels.




No, it hasnt and no they dont ! - and Andrew Robinson "review" sucks a lot , two off the big problems with the 1000 is that it has eek.gif , I quote:

The dual door lens cover is also too complicated for its own good. I'm a firm believer in less being more, as more often results in more problems. In this instance, I wonder how long it will be until one or both of the doors break. Granted, the VW1000ES does have a pretty comprehensive three-year warranty, but if forced to send the 44 pound VW1000ES back for warranty repairs because of its overly complicated lens door system, I'd be pissed.

And:

. Furthermore, its three finish options are just weird and appear as if chosen at random from a hat. Like I said, from a distance, the VW1000ES is rather striking, but up close, it turns into a bit of troll. My wife called it a Ninja Turtle shell on more than one occasion. The gloss front baffle is annoying, the grip tape top and sides are stupid and the back, well, you can't see it.

Quote end.


rolleyes.gif

And how many has had problem with the lens cover til now ? ( by the way, if it ever stucks, you can open it by hand wink.gif )

And for now, I think he ( and RayJr, WHO's room they used ) is the only one who thinks that the 1000 look the same as the RS20 when they light macth them . They even didnt use the iris ( used manuel mode to get the light Down rolleyes.gif )

I have not heard any other, who has seen the 1000, saying that it looks like the RS20 ( even some RS20 owners ) - have you ? and have you seen it ?

And do the RS20 even have E-shift ? ( which was the JVC projector ,he compared it to wink.gif )

dj
Edited by d.j. - 2/5/14 at 6:09am
post #6394 of 8005
Quote:
Originally Posted by blee0120 View Post

He compared 2k movies, which is different than comparing 4k content. It has been established that both the JVC eshift and 4K Sonys show a similar image when brightness is matched. But many prefer the brighter image while others prefer more contrast and better black levels.
Of course there would be a difference when comparing 4K content. The part I quoted was that when comparing 2K content on a relatively small screen from a normal viewing distance, the difference was minimal, but only when the foot lamberts were matched.
post #6395 of 8005
Still, someone can purchase a JVC purchase for under $4000 that can match or best in some areas than a native 4K Sony projector costing much more. Some like to turn the RC up to overcook the image and say its really sharp. I understand, many have other preferences when it comes to PQ. To get the best image from the 1000es, you would need a Lumagen, costing close to the RS49 or a HTPC. Adding to the cost overall. I know the 1000/1100/500/600es is a better machine, but too many make it seem as if every aspect is better than all projectors. If the 1000es is a 9/10, the RS49 is a 8.5/10.
post #6396 of 8005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuke61 View Post

Of course there would be a difference when comparing 4K content. The part I quoted was that when comparing 2K content on a relatively small screen from a normal viewing distance, the difference was minimal, but only when the foot lamberts were matched.

True
post #6397 of 8005
Quote:
Originally Posted by blee0120 View Post

Still, someone can purchase a JVC purchase for under $4000 that can match or best in some areas than a native 4K Sony projector costing much more. Some like to turn the RC up to overcook the image and say its really sharp. I understand, many have other preferences when it comes to PQ. To get the best image from the 1000es, you would need a Lumagen, costing close to the RS49 or a HTPC. Adding to the cost overall. I know the 1000/1100/500/600es is a better machine, but too many make it seem as if every aspect is better than all projectors. If the 1000es is a 9/10, the RS49 is a 8.5/10.

We have had this discussion before, and I can tell you if the VW1000 is a 9/10 the RS49 is not a 8.5/10 when compared side by side. But does it really matter these are projectors in totally different priceranges and the RS49 has a hell of a picture in it´s pricerange. The RS49 is better in very lov APL scenes nothing else.
Edited by Andreas21 - 2/5/14 at 7:17am
post #6398 of 8005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuke61 View Post

Of course there would be a difference when comparing 4K content. The part I quoted was that when comparing 2K content on a relatively small screen from a normal viewing distance, the difference was minimal, but only when the foot lamberts were matched.

You can also look at the screenshots I posted earlier, these are taken from brightness matched X500 and VW1000 with a 1080p source. I know screenshots is not a good way to compare projectors, but these are taken at the same frame of the clip and with the same camera and screen and in the same HT and then they have some value.

And the Andrew Robinson review shows very clear he doen not like Sony, to say the VW1000 looks like a RS20 is like comparing a Ferrari with a Toyota and say the perform equally on a racetrack.

d.j can you post the pictures here in the tread so they show on screen??
post #6399 of 8005
Screen shots are almost useless
post #6400 of 8005
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOE-C View Post

I asked this a few days ago but didn't get a response.
I will be going to Craig Peers to view the new JVCs and would like to see the improvement in 3D so was wondering which "torture tests " Blurays can people recommend especially to see ghosting. I don't have Monsters v Aliens or Sammy's Adventure but I do have Despicable Me. Any other recommendations .
Zombie? Or any one else that is familiar with a lot of 3D?
Thanks in advance

Despicable Me should answer any questions that you have. If that movie is acceptable to you, then you should be okay for most 3D movies.
Reply
Reply
post #6401 of 8005
d.j can you post the pictures here in the tread so they show on screen??[/quote]



. Im ( redface.gif ) allmost as bad for PC management as you biggrin.gif - but I think it succeeds, here we go:









But the resolution is lower, then if you click on your file - there can you better see it ( I think smile.gif )
post #6402 of 8005
Quote:
Originally Posted by blee0120 View Post

Screen shots are almost useless




OOOHHH, NO. just ask Kevin3000.....wink.gifbiggrin.gifbiggrin.gifbiggrin.gif


dj
post #6403 of 8005
Quote:
Originally Posted by blee0120 View Post

Screen shots are almost useless

I know, but these two shows the difference in sharpness,clarity and 3D feeel almost as it is shown on screen.cool.gif

Thanks d.j.
post #6404 of 8005
I have a quick question in regards Sony VW500 and the JVC X500 Fan noise:

Is the High mode of the Sony louder than the High mode of the JVC? How about the Low mode?
post #6405 of 8005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andreas21 View Post

And the Andrew Robinson review shows very clear he doen not like Sony, to say the VW1000 looks like a RS20 is like comparing a Ferrari with a Toyota and say the perform equally on a racetrack.
He did not say that they performed equally. What he said was that only when the VW1000 was purposely light limited be under spec, since the lesser projector could not meet the light spec, that the picture difference was minimal to him and his friend. This seems to be a simple difference of opinion over the subjective difference between minimal and more significant.

I'll continue to limp along with my $2.5K 5030UB on my 120" screen biggrin.gif
post #6406 of 8005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shepardos View Post

I have a quick question in regards Sony VW500 and the JVC X500 Fan noise:

Is the High mode of the Sony louder than the High mode of the JVC? How about the Low mode?

No the Sony is not louder than the JVC in high or low, without measuring I would say they are about equal, maby the Sony is a little quieter in low.
post #6407 of 8005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuke61 View Post

He did not say that they performed equally. What he said was that only when the VW1000 was purposely light limited be under spec, since the lesser projector could not meet the light spec, that the picture difference was minimal to him and his friend. This seems to be a simple difference of opinion over the subjective difference between minimal and more significant.

I'll continue to limp along with my $2.5K 5030UB on my 120" screen biggrin.gif

Yes, but the whole review shines throug that he favors JVC and that is wrong for a reviewer I think

Your 5030UB is better than the JVC RS20 in many aspects and a good projector.smile.gif
post #6408 of 8005
Quote:
Originally Posted by d.j. View Post

d.j can you post the pictures here in the tread so they show on screen??
Quote:
. Im ( redface.gif ) allmost as bad for PC management as you biggrin.gif - but I think it succeeds, here we go:





But the resolution is lower, then if you click on your file - there can you better see it ( I think smile.gif )

WOW! My X700 doesn't look nearly as soft as that X500. And I'm not saying the 1000/1100 wouldn't look better than my X700, but my X700 looks better than that bottom image...that I promise you. rolleyes.gif
post #6409 of 8005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuke61 View Post

He did not say that they performed equally. What he said was that only when the VW1000 was purposely light limited be under spec, since the lesser projector could not meet the light spec, that the picture difference was minimal to him and his friend. This seems to be a simple difference of opinion over the subjective difference between minimal and more significant.

I'll continue to limp along with my $2.5K 5030UB on my 120" screen biggrin.gif

Except to get the Sony to match the brightness of the JVC RS20, he had to cripple the Sony, by setting the dynamic iris to a fixed position. The RS20 does not throw as good of an image as a RS49, much less a VW1000. Of course if we turn off the dynamic iris on the RS49, close the iris down so that light output is matched and view from far enough back or on a small enough screen so that E-shift is not much of a factor, then the RS20 will be able to compete against the RS49. Anybody can skew the results of any comparison. All you need to do is make adjustments that will favor the side that you want to win. In other words, anybody that thinks an RS20 throws an image close to the VW1000, then they will never need to upgrade, because I doubt OLED holds any improvement for them either.
Reply
Reply
post #6410 of 8005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Hatcher View Post


WOW! My X700 doesn't look nearly as soft as that X500. And I'm not saying the 1000/1100 wouldn't look better than my X700, but my X700 looks better than that bottom image...that I promise you. rolleyes.gif

You really can't compare your projector to a screenshot of something else. I'd guess that both the Sony and the JVC looked better than they appear in those screenshots, it's really hard (if not impossible) to capture what a good projector looks like, and even if you can, you're likely displaying a picture of something with >10,000:1 contrast on an LCD display with <500:1 contrast. On top of that you'd really need at least an "8k" photo to capture all the information in a "4k" projected image (actually you'd need quite a bit more than that).

That said, if the conditions of the screenshots were identical, then comparing the two against each other can provide some valuable insight.
post #6411 of 8005
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post

You really can't compare your projector to a screenshot of something else. I'd guess that both the Sony and the JVC looked better than they appear in those screenshots, it's really hard (if not impossible) to capture what a good projector looks like, and even if you can, you're likely displaying a picture of something with >10,000:1 contrast on an LCD display with <500:1 contrast. On top of that you'd really need at least an "8k" photo to capture all the information in a "4k" projected image (actually you'd need quite a bit more than that).

That said, if the conditions of the screenshots were identical, then comparing the two against each other can provide some valuable insight.

This is correct!

The conditions of these screenshot were identical, taken with the same camera in the same HT and same screen, even the frame in the clip is the same.

I posted this just to show the difference between the X500 and VW1000 with a screenshot that is very good for comparing sharpness, the difference is not so big with normal movies.
post #6412 of 8005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuke61 View Post

He did not say that they performed equally. What he said was that only when the VW1000 was purposely light limited be under spec, since the lesser projector could not meet the light spec, that the picture difference was minimal to him and his friend. This seems to be a simple difference of opinion over the subjective difference between minimal and more significant.

I'll continue to limp along with my $2.5K 5030UB on my 120" screen biggrin.gif

That is not the only review online stating the JVC hangs with the 1000es. Not saying the JVC is better but some were able to see minimal difference with 1080p content. The big advantage is brightness, it all boils down to brightness.
post #6413 of 8005
Quote:
Originally Posted by blee0120 View Post

That is not the only review online stating the JVC hangs with the 1000es. Not saying the JVC is better but some were able to see minimal difference with 1080p content. The big advantage is brightness, it all boils down to brightness.

The problem is in trying to compare them with level matched brightness. You have to cripple the Sony to do that. Now if the review was 1080P from an RS49/RS57 or RS67, then I would have less problem with it. I still think the 1000 is better, but with 1080P content they will be close, but to say an RS20 is close, I am not buying, what he is selling.
Reply
Reply
post #6414 of 8005
Quote:
Originally Posted by blee0120 View Post

That is not the only review online stating the JVC hangs with the 1000es. Not saying the JVC is better but some were able to see minimal difference with 1080p content. The big advantage is brightness, it all boils down to brightness.

Iam sorry blee, but it is far from only brightness. The difference is big even when they are brightness matched, the difference is there even if the JVC is brighter. Yes, we even tried that because my friends VW1000 has about 850h on it so they were matched in high lamp, and even with the VW1000 at low it was better.smile.gif

But I know you won´t belive me anyway, but it is the hard and difficult truth.cool.gif
post #6415 of 8005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andreas21 View Post

Iam sorry blee, but it is far from only brightness. The difference is big even when they are brightness matched, the difference is there even if the JVC is brighter. Yes, we even tried that because my friends VW1000 has about 850h on it so they were matched in high lamp, and even with the VW1000 at low it was better.smile.gif

But I know you won´t belive me anyway, but it is the hard and difficult truth.cool.gif


Thanks for all your comparisons Andreas. I noticed this general sharpness/clarity difference when I saw the 49/67 vs the Sony 600 at Cedia, but there were a lot of variables between setups and this was not an A/B obviously so I was not sure what to take from it. Your comments and comparison as well as the cine4home link where brightness was matched shows what I noticed in general when I saw these in person which could be seen not only with 4k content but 1080p blu ray as well. The Sony just looked better to my eyes for sharpness/clarity and it sounds like you and cine4home are seeing and saying the same thing once the variables have been minimized.

My question is, on the 110" screen you were comparing these on, when both projectors were brightness matched, how far back could you sit and still see a noticeable advantage to the Sony in the sharpness/clarity department? 10'? 12'? less or more?

Thanks
post #6416 of 8005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post

Thanks for all your comparisons Andreas. I noticed this general sharpness/clarity difference when I saw the 49/67 vs the Sony 600 at Cedia, but there were a lot of variables between setups and this was not an A/B obviously so I was not sure what to take from it. Your comments and comparison as well as the cine4home link shows what I noticed in general when I saw these in person.

My question is, on the 110" screen you were comparing these on, when both projectors were brightness matched, how far back could you sit and still see a noticeable advantage to the Sony in the sharpness/clarity department? 10'? 12'? less or more?

Thanks

My friends cinema is quite small, about 12 feet and the difference is easily seen from that distance. I have a bigger cinema and it is about 18 feet and I guess the difference would be easily seen even from that distance with a 110" screen.

I have the VW500 in my cinema and I have compared it to the VW1000 a little, and the VW1000 is a bit sharper and clearer even than the VW500 and I think the difference is beacause of the surperior lens of the VW1000.
post #6417 of 8005
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post

You really can't compare your projector to a screenshot of something else. I'd guess that both the Sony and the JVC looked better than they appear in those screenshots, it's really hard (if not impossible) to capture what a good projector looks like, and even if you can, you're likely displaying a picture of something with >10,000:1 contrast on an LCD display with <500:1 contrast. On top of that you'd really need at least an "8k" photo to capture all the information in a "4k" projected image (actually you'd need quite a bit more than that).

That said, if the conditions of the screenshots were identical, then comparing the two against each other can provide some valuable insight.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andreas21 View Post

This is correct!

I posted this just to show the difference between the X500 and VW1000 with a screenshot that is very good for comparing sharpness, the difference is not so big with normal movies.

Yeah, I know. I'm just giving you a hard time, LOL! tongue.gif

There's no doubt in my mind that the Sony would create a "sharper" image than the JVC. It should as it has chips that have 4x the amount of pixels.

All based on a 120" diagonal screen size:
- 2K: 1920 x 1080 = 2,073,600 pixels (18.36 ppi)
- 4K: 3840 x 2160 = 8,294,400 pixels (36.72 ppi)
- 4K: 4096 x 2160 = 8,847,360 pixels (38.59 ppi)

Going off of the numbers above one could conclude that on a 120" screen size, a 4K image should have less stair stepping due to having more pixels crammed into the same space. When JVC uses e-Shift they just stagger/superimpose two 1080p images which produces a psuedo-4K image (which is still pretty sharp, but not as sharp as the native 4K chips).

Law of Diminishing Returns:
Due to the limitations of the human visual perception system, as screen size decreases so does the advantages of having all of those extra pixels when watching normal video content from a given seating distance (static images and text may still appear sharper).
As screen size increases, the advantages of 4K increases, to a point...then we will need 8K. wink.gif

It really all depends on the source material, the display resolution, the distance from your eyes to the display, and your vision score...as to how much you will benefit from a given ppi ratio.
I understand the math may not be the end all be all of the picture here, it's only meant to provide an average based on 20/20 vision.
We will all have 4K displays within the next 10 years though, regardless of size (even mobile phones which is ridiculous), whether we like it or not. rolleyes.gif
post #6418 of 8005
Quote:
Originally Posted by AV Science Sales 5 View Post

The problem is in trying to compare them with level matched brightness. You have to cripple the Sony to do that. Now if the review was 1080P from an RS49/RS57 or RS67, then I would have less problem with it. I still think the 1000 is better, but with 1080P content they will be close, but to say an RS20 is close, I am not buying, what he is selling.

I really didn't pay attention to the comparison to the RS20. I know he did something with the RS55 or RS65. But I was able to see a 1000es when I had my RS55 and came to the same conclusion that the 1000es was a better projector. It didn't make me think anything less of mines. Joerod let me come to his place to see it. He told me that when he had the RS55, the Sony throw a better picture, which I agreed. With all other sources like 3D, sports, HDTV, etc, he thought the 1000es was a no brainer. I agreed. I told him that I only watched blu rays with my JVC and there is not much of a difference. We both used 120in screens and his seating distance was a little further than mines. He even said it wasn't a huge difference with blu rays but overall with everything he watched on the 1000es, he would choose the 1000es any day. I would not disagree with that at all. Many others have different preferences that I have. I have a 3 projector setup, each one for certain things, and others have one projector. If I had the money, which I do, for a 1000/1100es, I would still chose the JVC for better value and close performance to the Sonys.
post #6419 of 8005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andreas21 View Post

My friends cinema is quite small, about 12 feet and the difference is easily seen from that distance. I have a bigger cinema and it is about 18 feet and I guess the difference would be easily seen even from that distance with a 110" screen.

I have the VW500 in my cinema and I have compared it to the VW1000 a little, and the VW1000 is a bit sharper and clearer even than the VW500 and I think the difference is beacause of the surperior lens of the VW1000.

Can you post the pics comparing vw500 vs vw1000 just like you did with X500? I'd be interesting to see how big of a difference there is in b/w the two.
post #6420 of 8005
Quote:
Originally Posted by SherazNJ View Post

Can you post the pics comparing vw500 vs vw1000 just like you did with X500? I'd be interesting to see how big of a difference there is in b/w the two.

I will se what I can do.smile.gif
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