Sony HW50 / BenQ W7000 / Epson 5020 / JVC RS55 / JVC RS 46 / JVC RS4810 / JVC RS56 Mini-shootout... - Page 5

BTW, according to the PJC Review, the hc8000 can do 1200 lumens in 3D (wow I had no idea), now I don't trust that, so I'll wait for Zombie to see how it looks, and if that mode is unusable.

"This combination, along with setting the lamp to full power, yields 1293 lumens." --- PJC
(he was speaking of a 3D preset)

1200+ Lumens in 3D down to 360 Lumens in 2D with a dual IRIS, this is the DLP I've been waiting on unless they messed it up (possibly). Imagine having that range with DUAL IRIS's, that would be freaking beneficial, especially on a DLP which most so far have almost NO range in lumens.

And finally a Mits DLP with a 6x color wheel...

Not to mention the famous Mits DLP reliability on both the lamps and projector itself (at least on the hc3800 and hc4000, other than the checkerboard of death, but that issue is fairly rare on units past 200 hours, it usually showed up before that)
Edited by coderguy - 10/22/12 at 9:13pm

Does it come with an RBE filter?

You see RBE with a 6x color wheel, man that's tough, I don't know if I will see RBE at 6x, but certainly I doubt it as I didn't see much in 6x in showrooms unless I wiggled my eyes all around, and I really doubt I'd see anything in 3D.

VERY VERY few people see RBE on a 6x color wheel, and seeing RBE in a 6x color wheel in 3D, doubt hardly anyone will (there will always be a couple).

I see it occasionally on 6's. Not nearly as bad as the 4's. Bummer is my wife is really susceptible to it and I'd hate to grab it only to find she's running to the bathroom every few minutes.

I agree on the Marantz, but they don't even make projectors anymore I don't think. Plus I'd maybe spend that much, but it'd have to really be convincingly incredible for me to spend over $3k on a projector.

Ahh well, my fingers are crossed on the hc8000, I think this might be the one to come out of the gates on top for best average 2D/3D if you are leaning more towards 3D but still want decent 2D. I just hope they did it right this time, it's a second-gen, so I bet they did.

Plus this projector is tweaked out with all kinds of features we haven't seen on a DLP in this price range attempt EVER...

That's saying a lot for how much you praise the JVC's.

And don't forget the hc8000 has CIH capability and can not only shift the image up and down within the 16:9 native zone, but it can also resize with no extra equipment. That means you can have 16:9 and 2.35 on a motorized screen without anything else other than outer masking.

So we have a 3D DLP with CIH capability, 6x color wheel, Dual IRIS's, 1200+ Lumens in 3D, and possibly the best blacks of any DLP under $3000 ever. I'm surprised there isn't more talk, we'll see when it comes out.

Yah could just be a huge disappointment, but I hope not.
I mean they gave us the kitchen sink with the toilet built-in.

Only thing is, it can't do FI in 120hz 3D, but only at 96hz 3D, I don't know what effect that would have, do you?

"In other words, you can have 120Hz 3D for reduced flicker or frame-interpolated 96Hz 3D. There's no way to get both." --- PJC

Zombie10k,

Do you still plan on a side by side comparison of the HW50 and RS55 in 2D? If so, is it possible to adjust the brightness or manual iris level to get a similar lowest black floor? I know this isn't a scientific approach and room size/color/etc come into play but I'm trying to get a ballpark idea of what kind of differences would be seen between the two. I believe you had an RS40 previously as well. Was it in the same league as your RS55 for black levels?

Thanks, and sorry for harping the same tune over and over.

Don't apologize! Keep asking because I'm silently wondering the same thing

You have to set the white peak the same, not the black floor, setting the black floor the same would be cheating :P
The black floor isn't going to be the visible difference so much, because it'll be more in the peak whites in star scenes and things like Harry Potter like movies from the IRIS of the Sony reducing the brightness to account for on/off.

Bingo. As stated before, a proper DI can actually pull off "blacker" blacks than the JVC. It's when you mix bright scenes with blacks that the DI projectors start to lose ground.

I know you are a big dark sci fi guy, but how much material would you say would really highlight the JVC's superior black levels; 5%.....10%....? I'd be interested in not only the aforementioned titles, but also some "everyday" scenes incorporating some darker content.

One test you might do that I don't think you've ever done in the past is to play an older movie that was done on older FILM (like an older Western), then you can see which projector looks better on "ancient" content. I'm also interested in this because it tends to tell you which PJ handles a noisier image better. I'd say any 1960ish movie that is good quality but still should have a little more noise than normal (maybe like an old John Wayne western, I dunno, but something)...

Good point! I hadn't considered this. I'm trying to decide whether to get the HW50 or the coming X35 so I'm interested in how the lens shift performs in these two models. I know that the X35 is not out yet, but I assume it's optics will be very similar to the X30.

My goal is to have the projector rear shelf mounted as high up on the wall as possible without to much image degradation due to lens shift. I know that the X35 should have sharper optics than the HW50 and that the X35 have more range in the lens shift. What I do not know is how the lens shift affects the iq of these two projectors. Especially in the extreme setting; no horizontal shift, maximum vertical shift, projector mounted upside down above the screen.

My question is basically, which one of the X35 and the HW50 would allow the projector to be mounted the highest on the rear wall without image degradation.

My specific setup is: Throw distance just under 4 meters, 16:9 screen, 100" diagonal screen size.

If anyone can comment, I'd appreciate it.

The difference in video from Lens Shift is not that visible to most people unless you have good eyes or sit close, in HTPC it's more obvious but even then... That said, many of us here at AVS are not most people, so I don't know if you'll notice. -Note to Self- Having one of those trashy nights where I can't sleep, anyways...

The JVC is going to be favored most likely because it starts out sharper. However, Zombie can test this for you I imagine, but it's impossible to say exactly because different units have different points of convergence mix with the CA that lens shift causes. Lens shift error overlaps convergence error and every projector has a bit of difference as far as convergence goes, even different units between the same MFR and model.

I personally wouldn't use this to make my decision (JVC has more lens shift though than the Sony), unless the Sony just does not have enough lens shift for you. My decision of the JVC vs. Sony would be undecided until Zombie tests the JVC (to see how well the JVC can compete with the Sony in 3D). Also, you have a really small screen, so Lumens won't matter, both projectors are essentially overloaded on brightness for you (you might even need an ND filter).

Hi,

at the moment I don't think that the RC can handle old films with much grain very well.
Cine4home says the following:

The RC works best with Full-HD-material that has been derived from a 4K-Master and has been scaled down and compressed. With such material the algorithm recognizes the typical 4K->2K scaling artifacts and recreates high frequency details in the images.

I guess that with grainy material it may be best to leave RC off if you find it less pleasing. When using Darblet for example, on grainy movies I'll drop it down low or maybe switch it off completely. Doesn't make my image terrible or anything, just back to default which is actually pretty good anyway!

Picking up on Zombies point around the sweaty tee-shirt image with extra noise. In the moving image I'm guessing that this noise is 'floating around' rather than staying still which is all we can see in the still image? I think would probably find this 'floating noise' distracting and therefore turn it off or turn it down a bit. That said, we still need to understand how the other noise reduction features help offset this.

So many variable's to consider - its like a plug'n'play person's nightmare or a tweeker's paradise

I don't think that it's so "easy". The HW50 has also a normal sharpening setting that probably uses a sharpening algorithm. Normally sharpening algorithms introduce ringing at high contrast edges when set too high, but I couldn't see this amount of ringing with the RC, even at relatively high settings.
zombie, what say you?

Sony claims to have analyzed a whole lot of films and created a database of the analyzed data (I think frequency data in the pictures analyzed) and that the RC recognizes specific patterns and recreates the high frequency content based on data from the database.
Reality Creation has been developed for a long time at Sony, you can find press releases dating back to 1997 of developing reality creation: http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/News/Press_Archive/199705/97D-032/index.html

Look also at the pictures here: http://www.engadget.com/2006/06/04/sony-retools-digital-reality-creation-into-drc-mfv2-5/
Sony tries to recreate the original frequency content of the analog picture.

I know theres a lot of marketing stuff going on, but the thing with the database sounds reasonable to me. Why not?

What one could do to analyze the different sharpening algorithms is to take close up pictures of different edges with a good camera and analyze the waveforms of those pictures, if you understand what I mean. with the waveform you should easily be able to see if an algorithm introduces ringing for example or if it is a simple interpolation or really introduces higher frequency content (maybe transform the waveform to the frequency domain, to see the frequency content).

Yah, but the problem is if you made it that advanced there would be motion artifacts from the sharpening reacting in real time as the scene shifts. That sounds like a messy AI program that I wouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole, and I've been programming for 31 years.

I suppose it's possible (I am not an expert in this at all, there are probably experts in the forum), so take my opinion for what it's worth, someone that has messed around with this stuff and just coming to a conclusion that may not be worth the free e-paper this post was printed on.
Edited by coderguy - 10/23/12 at 5:05am

I'm not a programmer nor a mathematician, just a mechanical engineer, but I'm interested to find out what the RC does.

here's a picture from the cine4home-review:


As far as I understand, they claim that the data they've analysed to create the database has been analysed in spatial AND temporal dimensions, so maybe that's to eliminate motion artifacts.

but I think this also means that you don't fully realize how RC works when only looking at still pictures.
So maybe it's also affecting motion!?

No idea, all I know is it sounds like part fluff because the sharpening already has to protect itself from motion artifacts because the pixels are moving, but I don't really know for sure. I mean everything has to account for temporal dimensions when stuff is moving or you'd get massive motion artifacts.
Edited by coderguy - 10/23/12 at 5:59am

For those who haven't seen the Panny 8000 review:

http://www.projectorreviews.com/panasonic/pt-ae8000/index.php

Funny thing is that Art is going to compare the new Panny 8000 with last year's Epson 5010 -- Why? I guess he might as well compare the Epson 5020 (when he's finished that review) with last year's Panny 7000. This doesn't tell me anything I want to know.