Sony HW50 / BenQ W7000 / Epson 5020 / JVC RS55 / JVC RS 46 / JVC RS4810 / JVC RS56 Mini-shootout... - Page 6

Maybe he just wanted to get the review out, instead of waiting until he finish with the 5020. He always go back and update his reviews. Can't blame him comparing it to a familiar model.

When you compare the Sony 50 to your JVC I assume that you will try to equalize the brightness. Can you be sure to do a comparison with the JVC's iris fully opened. This is the only way that I along with others with large low gain screens would use the JVC.

Thanks Zombie! When you do your comparisons I'm not sure if you are using High/Low lamp but could you possibly compare the low lamp settings on both as well?

I saw an RS50 when they first came out on a low gain Stewart screen and within an hours time I viewed my old RS2 on my old 2.8 Dalite HP screen and making a comparison from memory the black levels looked the same (even with the HP screen). So my assumption has always been that they must be fairly close. Thanks!


Gotchya. I had been wondering if the Sony (or other projectors with a DI) actually get darker blacks on an all black screen because the DI can close down further. I'm not obsessed about fade to black scenes like many.
Good point as well bass addict. My Pioneer Kuro plasma I used to own handled most scenes as perfections because the ANSI contrast was so high that even in a darkened room the blacks looked pitch black. However, on the darkest scenes (not a star field) it was that black levels needed improved. That drove me nuts. However, for me those scenes aren't many and I think I've hit the point to where I won't obsess about that as much as I used to so if black levels are only an issue in a small amount of real world scenes that I'll have to learn to deal with it.

I have ST130 and HP 2.8 at the same room. With my RS40, The measured black level by colorimeter is quite different between the two. ST130 had 0.003 fL while HP 2.8 was 0.011 fL when aperture is fully open.(Theoretically it should be 0.003 x 2.8 = 0.0084 fL)
The reason why ppl like the HP screen is the perceived black is not so high since the white level is also boosted if you watch some typical soft opera or something like that.
But If you watch some night scenes from 'The tree of Life' like space or volcano where we can enjoy the real black, you'll instantly recognize black level from HP 2.8 screen is not so deep when compared to Stewart ST130 even if it's JVC high model.

Thanks for the info! That appears to be a noticeable difference. I run my RS45 lamp in normal mode and have the manual iris set at -15. If I put a blank pic on the screen with 12" samples of a 1.1 gain screen, and the 2.8 screen the 2.4 looks about the same as the 1.1 gain but you can see slightly brighter blacks on the 2.8 screen. With the HP the better the blacks the less the blackest blacks will rise which is my main concern with the HW50. But like you said the perceived difference makes up for any los

Interesting post, thanks. One thing that comes to mind is that some have measured the true gain of the HP 2.8 as high as around 3 or 3.1 (?) which might be why your numbers dont add up. If this does not explain things, there must be some other explanation since it does not make sense.

One other thing, I own BOTH the screens in question as well and I have not once in the last 2 years since my HP 2.8 went up ever felt any need to go back to my ST130 which I still own. Also the film in question (Tree of Life) is still one of the absolute best things my eyes have witnessed with my RS45/HP 2.8 combo with max throw, iris cranked all the way at -15 so I am maxing out contrast.......the HP allows me to run my projector this way and still get excellent brightness which I could NEVER do with a 1.3 screen, much less something like a 1.0. Needless to say, I dont miss my ST130 a bit and overall for my seating/setup (a different projector, room, setup, viewing position(s), etc....... might change this). This among other things is why my hardly used ST130 is up for sale since it is not the best screen for my room/setup, but would be the best screen for another room/setup since it is a fantastic screen in general.
Edited by Toe - 10/23/12 at 12:42pm

Not sure what you mean by this. Screens are passive and all levels of light from the darkest blacks to the brightest whites will be affected to the same degree by the gain of the screen. The 0 IRE values on a 2 gain screen will be 2x greater than the 0 IRE values on a unity gain screen. There is no way around that. Any deviations from this are measurement errors.

@Freebits
You need like a $1000+ light meter and a proper technique to do accurate black level readings on an RS40 (I mean you can use a $150 one, but it'll be so-so at best). Colorimeters aren't any good at taking low light readings, I mean it's ok to do it just for fun but the error margins are skewed as you go darker and darker (they get bigger and bigger), plus there are a lot of measurement issues with how you do it on a colorimenter. As a simple example, even on a DLP projector with a very high black level, I got around 2,700:1 on my colorimeter for contrast, but measured with a light meter the reading was really 1800:1, the colorimeter was bottoming out too easily and reading it darker than it really was.

@ScottB
I agree with you 100%. You can however preserve intrascene and ANSI contrast with an HP screen depending on how reflective your room was before you added an HP screen.
Edited by coderguy - 10/23/12 at 2:15pm

Great thread, Zombie. Thanks for doing all this. I can't wait until you get your hands on the 4810.

Hmm, maybe the gamma at 5 IRE to 15 IRE was messed up, so it wasn't the absolute black you were seeing but the grays just above absolute black. I would think Plasmas should measure higher in both on/off and ANSI. Gamma doesn't affect absolute black technically, but it does affect the way you see dark scenes because unless you are looking at a blank screen, then the grays mix in with 100% all black. I haven't messed with Plasmas much, but front displays tend to have much higher intrascene contrast in dark scenes than most projectors (even when they don't measure as high from Native On/Off). It's mainly because they handle reflections differently because the light source is enclosed and the screen is coated in reflective light-rejecting materials. It's not really pure ANSI contrast perse (although they do have much higher ANSI as well), but it's partly just the way the intrascene contrast comes out at different levels. Even a decent PC monitor can beat many projectors in mixed contrast in dark scenes though its absolute black might not be that great, depending on a bunch of factors. People often mix up ANSI contrast with intrascene contrast, but ANSI contrast is only the intrascene contrast on a specific checkerboard pattern, and is not a pure indicator of intrascene contrast at varying levels or scenes.
Edited by coderguy - 10/23/12 at 4:17pm

I'm referring to what is seen by our eyes. On an all black output from the JVC black level on a 1.0 gain screen is only going to be very slightly darker than an HP screen. As we move from black to gray the gray is going to start getting much brighter on the HP screen in comparison to the 1.0 gain screen.. On a peak white screen the white is going to be so much brighter on the HP screen in comparison. Having said that, the better the black level on a projector the less you'll see the black levels raise in dark scenes on the HP screen. I know there are more variables here and I'm solely referring to what is black level perception seen by our eyes. Am I off here?
Edited by xb1032 - 10/23/12 at 4:03pm

The black and grays and whites don't raise disproportionately. The native on/off contrast is the same and that is all that matters. You have to equalize the peak white levels for it to be a fair comparison (which is nearly impossible to do because 1.0 gain screen vs. 2.8). Hence you'd have to open the IRIS up for the 1.0 and close it all the way down for the 2.8 (but even then you'd probably have to offset and move the projector to reduce it further). I think the HP might have a slight blue tint to it (real slight) compared to some non-gain screens (maybe I am wrong, don't remember), so it could change your calibration and that might affect it.

There is so much confusion on this in the forums, but in a good room and in almost all cases, the white to black level (on/off contrast) does not change on an HP screen, so the blacks are the same as long as you reduce the peak white to the same as before. Now the bright corners issue could reflect differently because that is an uneven thing and room combines as well, but it shouldn't be a big deal unless you are watching at 20+ fL.

From what I had read years back was that ANSI contrast on the Pioneer Kuros were so high that in many scenes blacks looked near perfect. I believe the ANSI was around 5000:1. On a bright scene the only way you could tell that the letterbox bars were not pure black was to focus your eyes on that area. If you didn't look directly there they looked pitch black unless the scene being viewed was dark. Also keep in mind that I am referring to a 60" TV as opposed to a 100"+ TV where the black bars would have been much larger. When I first got my RS2 I had an Elite 1.1 gain Screen and the minimum black level on the RS2 was a shade or two darker than the Pioneer Kuro. Dark scenes looked better on the RS2. Anything else looked great on the RS2 but it wasn't in the same league as the Pioneer. Then again this was a measly 60" screen.

That sounds like equating ANSI contrast always equivalent to intrascene contrast (but they are not equal in different scenes and lighting). ANSI contrast doesn't have as much effect on darker scenes, it is just that the Plasmas hold the intrascene contrast better as the light reduces, whereas front projectors wash out the intrascene contrast as light reduces. That said, I suppose ANSI contrast could be more of an indicator for a front display as to how well it does for intrascene contrast in dark scenes, but there are probably a lot of variables here. It's just the way the intrascene ramp works, the intrascene contrast ramp is different between front panels and projector screens.
Edited by coderguy - 10/23/12 at 4:13pm

Yes you can! He hasn't done the Panny 8000 vs. Epson 5010 comparison yet and has the 5020 in-house. Why not just wait an extra day or two and compare the 8000 to the 5020 and save himself the extra effort of comparing the Panny 8000 to the 5010 -- unless of course he's comparing using his memory of the 5010. He's got the 5020 right there for comparison purposes and is reviewing it right now, so its fresh. Doesn't make any sense to me not to compare the new Panny to the new Epson since they're both there and it's what people want.

You know I hate to be down on any unit, but I don't feel too good about the Panny 8000 based on last year's 7000. I mean all the lamp flickering issues with the 7000 and the various delays in Panasonic's warranty service (and the shorter warranty in itself), the lower native on/off, and the LCD pixel fill. I don't see why people would pay about as much for a Panny as a JVC other than lag times. I'd buy a second used projector for gaming before I went with the Panny. I don't have anything against it, it just has a bad track record overall from a performance standpoint.

If I were a projector buyer, the three to watch are the JVC's, the Sony's, and the new Mits DLP (unknown). That said I'm sure the 8000 produces a decent image, but I would only look to it if you just have to have CIH and gaming (of course we don't have all the lag times for all the new PJ's yet).

A bit off topic Zombie, but how does the 3d on Madagascar 3 compare to Sammys Adventure?

I'm one of the THX certified calibrators and own a spectrometer and a few colorimeters which are not that cheap.
The thing with HP is it's not color neutral due to some glass beads at screen and in result, it's hard to get the solid measurement of the brightness. In other words, the slight change of the position of the colorimeter affects a lot to the measured number. On the contrary, Stewart ST130 is very easy to measure the light and the position of the tool doesn't affect the result very much because it's color neutral.
Even though you can't trust my number 100%, you still can understand HP somehow boosts the black level. Percieved black Not so much but absolute black YES.

As you said, the best combination of JVC & Da-lite HP is closing down the aperture by -13 to get the lowest black but you also need to sacrifice your maximum white. JVC RS40, RS50 are not so bright PJs and we'll have to choose one of them, black or white...

In case of ST130, you'll get 0.001 or 0.002 fL if you close the IRIS down while HP at best gets 0.005. It's perceivable difference when you see the darkest scene.
If it's Sony PJ, the black gets worse with HP and that's why you're still stick to JVC, right?
Edited by freebits - 10/23/12 at 6:49pm

We completely 100% disagree. Screens are passive, we both know that, so how can it increase the absolute black relative to the peak white unless we are dealing with uneven reflections, are you saying the glass crystals have uneven light capacity input/output on the screen at different light spectrums, because if so that would be the only thing I can think of...

Neither spectrometers nor colorimeters are nearly accurate enough at low level light readings to even get close to measure the black floor of a JVC to screen accurately enough unless you had the screen and black floor really pumped up bright enough for them to read it easily.
Edited by coderguy - 10/23/12 at 7:24pm

It's based on my experience and measured number. meters don't tell a lie.

Ask Tom Huffman in the Chromapure thread, yes meters lie at low-level light readings, sorry bud but your readings are in error.

Reading a darker black floor automatically induces the error from the meter, because the meter cannot read the difference in contrast at the same accuracy when the black floor isn't the same (heck even meters have some error on white peaks, but more on black floors).

This is exactly why contrast readings have to be taken from the lens and not the screen, end of discussion. Your reading is exactly as I would suspect it to be on a low-level contrast reading on a darker black floor, the result is an improperly amp'd up contrast reading on the darker image. It also coincides with what happens anytime a person takes a contrast reading off the screen (darker readings appear to have much higher contrast, whereas people that did it at the lens with a light meter always measure lower readings for the same scenario - same screen and PJ at same fL).

I see this all the time from reviewers when they claim the contrast difference on Lamp Low was 3x better than Lamp High. It's because they took the reading off the screen with a spectrometer or colorimeter instead of from the lens with a reference level light meter.

If you wish to further push the point of the HP doing worse contrast, then a good idea is to take it up with people that are absolute calibration experts and seeing what they say (Joel Sotti, Tom Huffman, whoever). I'm not one of the absolute experts at calibration, so I'll leave it at that...
Edited by coderguy - 10/23/12 at 7:57pm

I'm curious. It's been said that the HW50 has a better black floor level than the HW30, but is this only acheived by the better new DI? Meaning that if the DI is disabled on the HW50, then the black floor level would be more or less exactly the same as the HW30?

All very amusing. I do think the glass beads make the screen rough in optical texture and add what I will call a screen surface artifact which always with respect to HP make me aware that the screen is visable as part of the image. The HP champions just don't want to deal with this. The bottom line is that all screens are flawed, none are FANTASTIC. But in some cases the flaws can be dealt with by say with respect to Studeotec 100 constructing a black pit and keeping the screen size small. If your room isn't ideal and your screen size is Ed Sullivanish (really BIG shew) HP is not a bad choice but it has problems that can't be dealt with (the color shift can of course be dealt with through calibration). The surface texture and bleed can't be. Measuring reference black levels is very difficult but can be accurately done with very expensive instrumentation and not the consumer stuff most are using here which by the way is more than adequate when the meter is calibrated against a reference. By adequate I mean for calibrating but not for measuring absolute black level.

@Raine0
You'll have to go look at all the Native On/Off readings from the various reviewer sources, maybe Cine4's reviews. The key is the hw50 is so much brighter that it gives you more control overall and it still produces good contrast.

Of course others are welcome to comment, and I won't get "testy" at anyone unless someone makes another HP screen comment (only kidding).

Time for a group hug?

Funny, nice job. You can tilt your head just a tiny bit and get real near that 3.0 gain!

I just hope illegal substances and drinks are outlawed in your theater (and hyper-active teenagers).