Sony HW50 / BenQ W7000 / Epson 5020 / JVC RS55 / JVC RS 46 / JVC RS4810 / JVC RS56 Mini-shootout... - Page 103

Quick question. I have an over 1 year old Eye One Display LT which has probably drifted and needs to be recalibrated and I have the Lumagen Radiance XD. When you got the Radiance Mini which you could do an autocal on your RS55, was the results in before vs after worth the cost of a Chromapure w/autocal and EyeOne Display3 package?

I'm just trying to justify the cost but didn't want to splurge for the whole package if there would only be a minor improvement. I could just keep recalibrating my grayscale with the Display LT but I almost don't completely trust my results since the meter is about 18 months old.

Toe stated he was going to post his results by doing his RS45 so I'm waiting to hear his results as well.

Thanks,
Mike

I compared a C6 (D3 variant) to a Display LT, the Display LT was reading way too low on blue if we go by what the C6 said.
Hence any calibration by the Display LT was too cool as it under-interpreted how much blue was in the image. I would probably buy the D3 + Chromapure package and do so over the Spectracal C6.

Doing my first auto cal right now. Nice being able to eat dinner while the Mini/ChromaPure are hard at work on my 45.

Thanks. When I first got the Display LT and did grayscale I did notice an improvement but thought it could be a tad better. I know I need to redo grayscale since it has been a while since it was done and thought I need to get a better meter and the whole autocal Chromapure package has me intrigued. I tell myself to wait and save money for a better projector down the road but I will need to calibrate it as well so I might as well spend the money now. The biggest thing holding me back is that the D3 would need to be recalibrated after about 18 months. I understand why it has to be done but that is a big negative for me.

Mike

Cool, as you can see I am very interested to hear your results and if you think the cost is worth it. I'm sure over time it is easily worth it but in my post above the cost of recalibrating meter down the road is a turn off for me.

Thanks,
Mike

Zombie -
First off YOU ROCK for your tireless work on these exhaustive tests. Hats off to you sir. Saw the HW50 and was floored by its PQ last month.
One thing I've been anxiously waiting on to hear is how the quality of the budget Panamorph Cinevista Lens is. Any good or not had a chance to put it through its paces?

Im sure the Isco and the higher tier lenses will fare much better, but was wondering still how this budget lens would look with a great projector like the JVCs - as it wont work on the HW50 no?
Would also be curious to see how it fares compared to JVC lens memory ... will all figure into when we build our theater later this year or early next

Cheers

Are there memory modes for the pixel controls? I'm just curious because, unless you're using it 100% of the time, when switching to 1.78:1 material without the lens won't the convergence be off?

Maybe you can find some sort of happy middle point? Unless convergence is good enough without the need of adjustment when just the prime lens is in use.

Better that the D3 can be recalibrated as the LT just drifts and drifts and drifts. My i1LT measures a dE of 12 compared to <1dE on the same test pattern using my new D3.In other words it is useless (except maybe for adjusting gamma I suppose).

It's not the prime lens convergence that it the issue, it's that this cheaper lens causes issues when in place that can only be corrected using the zonal adjustment. Even then it seems like two wrongs trying to make a right to me. We go to all the fuss and bother discussing the projector's convergence and the extra resolution of Eshift, then stick a lens in front that undoes all of this work.

IMHO if you're going to stick a lens in front of one of these projectors, then make it a good one.

I know the cry will be 'Oh but it's cheap' but then so was that light meter that someone was using on here and almost convinced himself that his projector was faulty when it was just a cheap meter being inaccurate. Sometimes things are cheap for a reason...

Just to answer the comments about my little X70 v X90 test. I mentioned in the original post that both are in need of a calibration and this is quite obvious in the images. I have the tools but unfortunately not the time and I'm not going to invest several hrs getting my X90 right when its only got 15 hrs on the bulb. The X70 is also brand new, straight out of the box with only a couple of hours on it. the X70 is on its way to a new (and very lucky!) owner. So sorry I couldn't make the test more accurate in terms of calibrated image but I simply didn't have the time for that

An interesting point about matching the lumen output and something I considered prior to doing the test - I decided to not match output in the end but there was a logical reason for that. The X70 was slightly brighter than the X90. I could easily have matched the output lumens of both machines by opening up the aperture of the X90 until it matched the X70 (maybe there is a different way, I'm not sure...)
If I did this, then the test wouldn't be a true test - opening the aperture decreases the contrast so I would effectively be robbing the X90 of some of its contrast if I had of did this.

In any experiment, you need to have as few variables as possible to make analysis of the result meaningful and I did my best to do this, keeping as many constants as I possibly could.

Effectively, this test was just a test of how these projectors perform out of the box with only basic brightness and contrast set correctly, along with convergence checks. It might not be the best test in the world but I fully recognised that when I was doing it and knew that the true test could only be after a full calibration.

However - we can still conclude the following:

- in THX mode, in the same room, same screen, same throw etc - both projectors show quite different images. If anyone was in any doubt how much difference a calibration makes we can conclude that it will make a big difference as even in their best THX modes under the exact same conditions, they throw very different images. At least one of them (and most likely both) are way off reference.

- Out of the box, the X90 out performs the X70 in terms of black level/shadow detail. How much of a difference a calibration will make here I will never know unfortunately as the X70 is on its way to another owner.

- Out of the box, the X70 is slightly brighter than the X90 but there could be sample variance at play here.

- Out of the box, the X90 has better convergence than the X70, but after a full pixel adjustment, the X70 was basically every bit as good as the X90 and overall both are excellent.

- chromatic abberation from the lens is minimal in both, and I would give the X90 and ever so slight edge in performance here

- I hadn't mentioned it prior to now, but on a black feild image, the X90 displays brighter corners than the X70

So in summary, I'm sorry to dissappoint those who wanted a more accurate head to head but thats the best I can do with the time I had at my disposal. But ther is still valuable information I have gained from doing this so it hasn't been totally in vain

Hi,

It's been a while I did not post in this thread. I am still happy with my Sony HW50. It is a great projector but I miss my VW95 for the quality of his lens and motorize zoom and focus compare to the HW50. I think I may buy a refurb one when AVS will have some in stock. The best option for me will be the upgrade model from the VW95... But It look like it wont be until the end of the year. As for the better 3D in the HW50, it's the only thing that make me keep the projector since the 3D is very good on it. For the RC, in the beginning I was impress by the RC and after a while I found myself distract by how the RC modify the image. I then turn the RC down, and down, and down, and finally off Now I only use the RC for 3D.

One upgrade that I like the most is my new Lumagen Radiance XS-3D. "Influence" by Zombie post in this thread I decide to buy one and try the Chromapure 125 pt auto calibration. The result is awesome ! In less than one hour, the XS and Chromapure do all the work and give you a near perfect calibration. I know I have all the control on the HW50 to do a separate calibration but in the end it's more complicated and time consuming. Also the Lumagen have all kind of options to help you with your image. For exemple, I copy my calibration setting to another memory and from there modify couple of things to make the image better suit for sport viewing. There so many things that can be done with that machine, I am still experiencing...

That's it for now, I will continue to read this thread, it's one of the best around here... Keep the good work.

I'm aware of what the issue is. My point was that unless convergence of all three panels is good, making adjustments to them is going to be a pain when swapping the anamorphic lens in and out of the light path. You'd have to find a middle point (ie decent looking convergence with and without the extra lens) otherwise you'd be setting the convergence again and again every time the anamorphic lens is in front of the primary lens and the taken away to watch non anamorphic content.

can you please tell us whats the problem with RC? thank you

No problem at all, it is just personal preference... When RC is engage, on some movies, the face of the actors look a bit not natural (too much detail/noise). That effect seem more pronounce in low quality blu ray. On high quality / new release like Avengers the effect is less visible and more appreciated. Since I watch at lot of "classic" blu ray. I prefer to keep the RC off

I kept making rookie mistakes last night, but I should be able to give you my humble impressions tonight or tom after I run the calibration again. First mistake I made was calibrating the white point at 100% instead of 80%.

EDIT: Nevermind............Guess I should be using the 100% pattern after reading Marks post over again (and Kelvins).......

Edited by Toe - 1/18/13 at 8:39am

 

I noticed this as well until I put my Darbee in the chain (separate issue relating to a shorter 3' v1.3 HDMI cable between Onkyo DHC-80.3 and Darbee with a 60' Redmere cable between Darbee and HW50 that was preventing the Darbee from working 100% even with just 2D content but this was solved with a 6' Redmere between 80.3 and Darbee).  I find that RC on 10 and the Darbee in HiDef at 30-40% is very good for the majority of my content (DirecTV incl sports, 720p MKV's, 1080p MKV's as well as full BD's).  I was skeptical of the Darbee since the Sony has RC but find they complement each other well.

So you would be taking a decent Eshift projector and making the convergence look worse for 16:9 non lens content and it still wouldn't be properly converged with the lens in place either. I'm not sure there would be a decent looking middle point unless you aren't that bothered about picture sharpness/resolution, but that seems to go against the reasons for buying an Eshift model in the first place.

IMVHO a lens should try to pass the image with as little degradation as is possible to give the best image fidelity. To then accept a lens that has chromic aberration by default and then try to correct it electronically just seems wrong to me. One of the reasons I like using a lens is that I find in my set up it actually looked sharper than when zooming (at least with my older HD350, haven't tried zooming the X35 to be fair), so why would I want to risk harming that sharpness by using a sub par lens? While I already have a lens, I wouldn't be averse to buying another one because my Isco II isn't a true CIH lens since it produces a slight (5% or so) magnification in the image height, so if using a lens sled, the 'without lens' image ends up with not enough image height unless I rezoom. If I genuinely thought that I could replace my Isco II with a new lens that could do this and still provide the same sharpness I'd be on it like a shot. I don't think I'll be rushing out for one of these lenses though (especially as I haven't got zonal pixel adjustment, but even if I did).

Not everyone has that much money to spend on an anamorphic lens. I'm in agreement with you. I wouldn't want a lens that degrades the picture a decent amount. But that's besides the point I'm trying to make. Like I said, it's either fix the convergence so it looks good without the lens, fix the convergence so it looks good with the lens in place, or try to find a middle ground (if possible).

I think it sounds like we agree, but IMHO if you buy an X55/RS48 or above with Eshift, then it's questionable as to whether a lens will add very much to the overall image. I know that some hail brightness as the main reason, but in my set up there is hardly any difference in light output zooming verses using a lens. This is because I'm at the end stops on the zoom when using the lens, so least light output. I believe that the transition isn't linear in terms of lens aperture so there might be quite a change in brightness over that first bit of zoom when zooming ( going from x1.0 to x1.33). Of course each set up is different, but if anyone finds that they are at or very near to minimum zoom for 16:9 content, then they might get similar results to me. I know there are other pros to using a lens, such as pixel density and lack of black bars, but what use is higher pixel density if the lens is degrading the image significantly enough to have to mess with the convergence?

So for me this lens is a bit of an enigma: You need a JVC with zonal convergence, so it has to be an RS48 or above, but in doing this you automatically have a projector with Eshft which gives you increased (upscaled) pixel density over a 1080p model anyway. In fact one of my choices when upgrading recently was whether to sell the Isco and get the X55 instead and go back to zooming. It was only that I already have the Lumagen for CMS (and a Darbee) and that the X55 has no more contrast than the X35 that just made it hard to justify the doubling of cost (less the lens sale of course). Equally someone with an X55 that is considering this lens, I would suggest that they would be better off just getting the X75 instead and enjoying extra contrast.

soupdragon, - I hadn't mentioned it prior to now, but on a black feild image, the X90 displays brighter corners than the X70

So in summary, ...

My first 4810 had very bright corners, I noticed when I changed the gamma to 2.3 the corners were way more noticable.

I wonder if the 90 seemed to have brighter corners on the black field image because the contrast/black floor level on the 90 is lower than the 70?

They would increase brightness more just by buying a bunch of extra lamps and changing the lamp often, rather than an a-lens.

Hi. I recently purchased a new (older) home and I finally have the opportunity to set up a good home theater-like experience in a room in the basement. My intent is not to go full "bat cave" as it doubles as a kids play room and I'd like something a bit more social (for sports and the like too). The walls/ceiling are off-white although the floor is relatively dark grey color. Relatively little natural light (small window well window) and I had 4 rows of recessed lighting installed in several dimmers so I can turn the ones nearest the screen off easily (ceilings are bit less than 9ft).

I ordered a 120" DNP SuperNova (0.8 gain) and a BenQ W7000 (which should actually be arriving today from Amazon). That said, I am questioning whether the W7000 is optimal (I don't mind spending a bit more money) for my goals and setup. I'd like something with a compelling movie/television viewing experience at night (don't necessarily care about pure reference level stuff for its own sake) with the way lights down or even off, but I'd really like to have the ability to let the kids watch their stuff on their with the lights on or watch football and the like with a reasonable amount of light (e.g., during the rear lighting on to keep direct light off the screen as much as possible). [Hence the purchase of the DNP screen].

According to the reviews I've seen the BenQ offers a substantially brighter calibrated image than the others I was previously considering so it seems like I should have plenty of lumens on screen for my setup. That said, I think I might prefer better contrast and black levels (without having tried it yet). I was previously considering the Epson 5020 and Panasonic AE8000 but their relative lack of calibrated brightness made me consider the BenQ. However, it seems like in their brighter modes I can get pretty close to the BenQ... I just don't know how those brighter uncalibrated images look for viewing under ambient light. 3D is a plus for me, but probably not a must have.

I'm willing to spend significantly money to get a better picture but I suspect I don't want to compromise on brightness too much. Placement wise I'm pretty flexible (ceiling mount), although I have power and wiring at about 15' already (the DNP requires a min of about 13'). Primary seating will be at about 13-15 ft, in case it matters.

Thoughts? Suggestions?

Thanks,
Pete

P.S., I purchased a ND filter to go with the projector (1 fstop)... I guess that should help with the black levels for more of a movie viewing experience.

I'm also attaching some photos to give you some sense of what I'm dealing with lightwise. I realize I'll probably want to get a blind for that window nearest the screen ... and pardon the clutter :-)

Thanks Kelvin,

Since my LT is 1 1/2 years old I won't even bother trying to redo grayscale with it and will just wait to get the Chromapure advanced auto-cal bundle with the D3.

Thanks again,
Mike

After a JVC imaging engineer explained the cause of bright corners to me, it seems that their presence and intensity is going to vary from projector to projector. Since the 90 is the TOTL model with hand-picked components, iit should have a lower incidence of bright corners IMHO.

That's really sad to hear "bright corners" are still popping up in random fashion across models. My RS1 had them pretty good but have been very lucky since. The 4810 not a hint. But with that X90 it seems kind of unacceptable to me as you've paid a premium for that extra contrast which those muck up on a dark screen, and supposedly hand selected parts. No one in QC on that top of the line model noticed it before boxing it up and shipping it at the premium price?

Just a small comment: Soupdragon didn't pay anything for that X90, it was damaged and he managed to get it working again. However, it is disappointing if it suffers from them, but to be fair it's only on a complete fade to black that you'll see it.

Of all the problems my 4810 had the bright corners were the main thing that was unacceptable and merited an exchange from the supplier.
I just received my replacement and will unbox it and take a look this weekend Man I hope I got a decent sample for the amount of money I paid for it