Sony HW50 / BenQ W7000 / Epson 5020 / JVC RS55 / JVC RS 46 / JVC RS4810 / JVC RS56 Mini-shootout... - Page 120

I agree 70mm is great when properly converted to Bluray.

But the batman movies? I thought those transfers were bad? Were they remastered and i missed it?

The 35mm footage isn't anything to write home about, but what was shot on 70mm film looks particularly amazing.

Some might describe some of the posts on AV Science forum the same way.


I just picked up Skyfall at Best Buy thismorning. The same price as on Amazon plus tax.

Haven't ewatched it yet.

On HT the shawdow detail should be much better than in the theater. Zombie said the shadow detail will depend on the gamma setting of the projector but it will be projector dependent as well, set up dependent. One must have enough on off contrast ratio, delivered to the screen, to support the specific gamma you set. If not the blacks (shawdow detail) will be crushed.

While the shawdow detail abd blacks will be better in out home theaters, the commercial projection will have more colors, using the DCI colorspace rather than the smaller Rec 709 space and won't have some of the compression and edge enhancement artifacts that just about all Bluray have. Also less colors because of being 8 bit rather than 10 bits or 12, whatever commercial theaters and DCI sources have.

Jason hello what do you prefer for watching ur blurays? Oppo / ps3 or another? I wonder there is an image quality difference oppo vs ps3 about bluray content

That reminds me, I've been wanting to ask anyone who knows about calibration:

My RS55 was calibrated beautifully to a 2.2 gamma (by umr) and the level of shadow detail, and over all detail is tremendous at that calibrated setting. The only thing I feel I'm missing sometimes is the added depth and richness of a higher gamma. But when I switch to 2.3 I lose some shadow detail. I remember reading that there is a "black level" adjustment setting
somewhere in the picture menu which raises the lower gamma to bring out lower end shadow detail, but without raising the black floor. Is this correct and has anyone put this to use?
I'm wondering if that would help out my issue with a higher gamma.

Thanks,

Shoot forum member 5mark a PM and ask his thoughts. I know he has done quite a bit of comparing between the PS3 and 103 recently and is well in tune to whatever differences there may or may not be between these 2 in particular. He has a great eye for video in general as well so it would be very helpful to get his thoughts. Having said that, I am sure Jason can give you some excellent advice about how a HTPC compares to a standalone which I would love to hear about as well.

Rich. The problem you are experiencing is that a higher gamma is too much for the actual on off you are getting on your screen. remember the on off spec is at long throw, max closed iris, low lamp. To run a 2.3 gamma without black crush you need sonething like an actual on screen on off of about 35,000 to one.

there is a control in the JVC picture menu to let one change a set linear gamma to an S curve. In other words at the low end, the control lets you lowerthe gamma level to avoid black crush due to insufficient on off. At the high end, the control lets you raise the gamma because there is no danger there. So you could set a 2.3 or even a 2.4 and lower the gamma at the low end and raise it even higher at the high end. I don't have a JVC handy but you can look in the manual.. Hope this helps.

Simultaneous post by our most valuable poster zombie tells you all you need.

Thank you Mark and zombie! I'll try it out.

Rich

Even the low end JVCs have this control, probably because out of the box blacks tend to be crushed.

I dont think the RS45 has it as I have looked before.... It has the black level control with the 2 rectangles that pop up which is different vs the dark level control, but I dont see any dark level control on the 45 unless I am missing it.

The RS-45 has it under custom gamma. You can fine tune it and even adjust the individual RGB for the various levels.

Its not there either. As Zombie mentioned above it is not in the lower end models.

I will try this, but what dark level is rising, 10, 20, 30 IRE - maybe everything up to 30?

Also, can someone explain where to set iris with regard to calibration.

From owning the 5010 and now 5020...the 5020 is an improved 5010 in every way, 3d is brighter, cleaner, more sharp, smoother and detailed..I guess you have to see them both to understand?Samsung Galaxy Tab 2 7.0 Review
Edited by ackergwj - 3/18/13 at 7:31pm

I continue to be thrilled with the 5020's 3D performance compared to my JVC RS40. Last night it was PARANORMAN, and even at 12 feet wide it was bright enough (this is a fairly dark film) and ghost free.
I also ran some side by side shorts I have and it performed very well with them too.
The OPPO 103/5020 combo for 3D is shaping up very nicely for me so far.

S A M 33

That sounds like an amazing size screen

The RS-45/ X-30 doesn't have a 'Bright/Dark Level' adjustment like the higher models but you can make 3 user gammas under the advanced menu of picture adjustments. Then you just choose the user gamma you desire. I like to set one up for dark viewing, ambient light viewing and 3D viewing.

I know we have the user gamma options and I can also accomplish the same thing in the Lumagen, but neither is a quick easy tweak like having the on the fly dark level control and it would be nice to have that option as well. No biggie since we can accomplish the same thing in a roundabout way, but more options are always good.

RICH WATCHES 3D, FINALLY...

Embarrassingly enough, after owning the JVC RS55 (my first 3D projector) since it came out, I only just viewed my first 3D material on the thing! This was due to the fact that I had some more complicated wiring issues to get 3D to my projector which made meput it off for a long time. Now having finally done the wiring I put on some test material.

I watched some of Finding Nemo in 3D and Avatar. My reaction: Well...kinda cool, but nothing life changing. I didn't find that 3D added tons to the experience of Finding Nemo, which looked sharper and more vivid in 2D. Avatar being made in and for 3D certainly benefited more. Some scenes were really awesome in 3D. When some people say 3D should only project depth back into the screen rather than forward toward the audience, I heavily disagree, and as an example refer to the white, floating spores (or whatever the hell they are) float down and surround Jake and Neytiri, with the spores coming right off the screen in front of you. I vividly remember this as being a pivotal "wow, 3D CAN add to the experience" moment in the theater, so it was gratifying to re-experience it at home.

But overall I came away with the impression that I don't care too much about the 3D experience, at home anyway. My eyes still feel like they are going cross-eyed for a while when watching with those glasses. Images aren't as vivid and sharp and certainly the brightness loss hurts as well. Also, playing with screen sizes in my system, zooming the image to various sizes, shows me why I've never once been interested in watching our 3D flat screen in 3D. It's just too small. Even on my projection screen I kept feeling like I needed a cinematic-type immersion to really make the 3D more immersive and less a novelty I'm viewing on a small square in front of me. So for me, at my 10ish foot seating distance, I wanted the screen to be at least 105" diagonal, if not 110" and beyond.

I know the JVC is often dissed for it's 3D performance, so I know that better 3D is possible at home. Mostly the experience feels promising but not there yet. Then again, that's how I usually feel with 3D even at good theaters. The other thing is, I've been trying to increase the image dimensionality effect with 2D by treating my room - which is a "bat cave" surrounded by black velvet for movie viewing, the image floating in black. Watching even Avatar with and without 3D, the sense of depth achievable with 2D is so good that one hardly misses 3D. For instance the shots of the space station fly-overs in the opening scene had an almost identical sense of depth in 2D vs 3D.

Anyway, that's my extremely-late-to-the-party experience.

It is interesting how opinions differ. I've been watching 3D now for years and I find 2D to be flat and kind of lifeless. I'll take even converted 2D to 3D like the Avengers and even Top Gun (just watched it -- 3D was nice, but I was a little put off by the grain in some scenes and the colour at times) any day over 2D. I still enjoy 2D, but every time I watch something I like I wonder what it would have looked like in 3D.

Did you keep the 3D-Bee 2D to 3D converter or send it back?

I've said for years to friends that 3D isn't for everyone, it is kind of a niche thing and I really think some people sense it better than others. I love it and always have since I was a kid.
It's not "more real or natural" or any such thing than a 2D movie, rather I find it kind of HYPER real and UN natural because of the simple fact that you cannot sense 3D in the "real" world where all the planes are in focus as they are in forced 3D systems.
I find it kind of intoxicating in it's own way.

I think you are absolutely correct that you must have SIZE to really appreciate it. As someone above commented on, I have a 12 foot wide screen for "full scope" films such as PARANORMAN, so you really do get an immersive experience.
To me size is the whole point of home theatre in any case and why I love projectors over flat screens.

S A M 33

You definately need two eyes and both with good vision. If one eye is blurred forget it.

Funny you should bring that up, because I do in fact have blurred vision in my left eye due to a scarred cornea, I have had since I was in my 30's.
Yet I still find I experience 3D just fine.
Now it's not extremely blurred, but there's a noticeable difference between the two images. Go figure.

S A M 33

It sure is hard finding a used RS55 this time of year.

Tom