or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP › Official JVC DLA-RS46 / DLA-X35 owners thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Official JVC DLA-RS46 / DLA-X35 owners thread - Page 54

post #1591 of 2085
anyone really use high lamp mode for 2D movie watch?
post #1592 of 2085
MX48, Have not purchased yet but more than likely 5030 or 6030. This is not because the Epson is better or the RS46 is bad, its based more on my screen and the DC1. Something had to give because no way do I want to buy two DC1 lenses and stack two pj's so fo now I will cut my loses, run a brighter pj and wait till a brighter projector comes out that has image quality and decent price point to fit my screen and the DC1 that I got a killer deal on.

I have been in contact with a few different folks from panamorph and other companies and the consensus seems to be Epson will provide good picture, dual Rs46 overkill. So why not wait it out with a good picture rather than a better projector with a dimmer picture? If using a single projector on my screen epson is the better choice for me. Not the best, but good enough for now.
post #1593 of 2085
Quote:
So why not wait it out with a good picture rather than a better projector with a dimmer picture?

Makes sense.
I have a 200" diag 2.35 screen and am stacking 2 RS4800's. In a couple years I can get money out of my 401K without penalty and am going to see what is available. Now it would be a Runco, DPI or Sim2, but I'll see what's available then. Plus will have to see what the 4k situation is.
post #1594 of 2085
Are you running dual Alens or zoom method?
post #1595 of 2085
Zoom. No money for A lens smile.gif.
Edited by MX48 - 12/18/13 at 9:17am
post #1596 of 2085
Quote:
Originally Posted by cinema mad View Post

All that Stress for nothing, Glad to hear It was not your Projector smile.gif
Thx...it was a simple fix ; just attched an air vent diverter. Eight bucks instead of sending the projector to have a tach say that there is nothing wrong with it, and not be able to watch for two weeks while it was looked at...smile.gif
post #1597 of 2085
MX48,

4K is going to be even more useful on a large screen, even the JVC Quasi 4K should make a difference on a larger screen but again the way things are going a year or two should make a big difference in what will be available.

The only problem with me is that I need an A lens for my curved screen, and I prefer an A lens over the zoom so that adds even more $$$ so either I hit the lottery, get clobbered by my wife for digging into savings (and the guilt for the bad choice), or just wait for price/quality point to meet my budget. My reasoning is also that these projectors hold value like a rock in a gravel pit.

There is no way I would spend money on a new Runco, DPI or Sim2 etc, although I keep my eye open for a used one at a decent price. Its the same reason I will never buy a new car again, EVER. Bought one new car, drove it off the lot and bam, down 2K just like that.... I bought the wife an 03 BMW in 05, this time we are buying an 06 and was just about to buy it a couple weeks ago until I started thinking, wait two more weeks its a year older and I just saved $$$.

I think of these projectors the same way typicly, my Mits 6800 has served me well the last two years with no issues whatsoever, same bulb too, the darn thing still looks good and the RS46 should be a much better projector.


All this talk got me to thinking that I should put some hours on my RS46 before selling it that way it justifies the money I will loose on it if I sell it in its current condition which is brand new.

Or,

I have a brand new 120" electric screen that we were going to put in the family room but the wife arranged the furniture in a way where the seating is off so I have to nudge her into seeing these differently, lol biggrin.gif

Coming across the DC1 changed my course but I think in the long run it will be the wiser choice, and the least expensive. One DC1, one projector, one large screen and the Lumagen. smile.gif

Patience is the key, but man is that hard sometimes wink.gif

LOL, wow, I just caught myself rambling....sorry guys!! biggrin.gif
post #1598 of 2085
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajvandenb View Post

Thx...it was a simple fix ; just attched an air vent diverter. Eight bucks instead of sending the projector to have a tach say that there is nothing wrong with it, and not be able to watch for two weeks while it was looked at...smile.gif


Nice... smile.gif
post #1599 of 2085
Quote:
Originally Posted by fleaman View Post

Ok, and the saved re-focus setting is accurate?

Sorry, don't have a JVC (yet!), but the idea of having a 16:9 and a separate 2.35:1 screen is very appealing (not really into tiny CIH 16:9 screens), but it would require refocusing of course.

maybe...

haha. i don't know for sure. either because of my mount and the projector being under a fairly high traffic area, or lens shift wandering a bit, i do find i need to readjust the settings occasionally. when i readjust the shift, i refocus as well. i can't say I've ever noticed the focus being off, but i think it's a lot easier to notice the shift being off just a few pixels.

but i am curious about using the dual screens on purpose? i certainly wouldn't. if i had a flat wall to use, I'd put the biggest screen i can fit on it and be done with it. if height is an issue, use a scope screen and go CIH. if width is an issue, use a 16:9 screen like normal. either way you're getting the biggest scope and biggest 16:9 image you can.

my plan is to eventually get a scope screen. I'm not sure how i could make it work in my current room though, otherwise i would have already ordered one. i bought my screen(s) before i got the jvc and had any idea of how awesome CIH could be.
post #1600 of 2085
Quote:
Originally Posted by fightclub View Post

anyone really use high lamp mode for 2D movie watch?

i don't even use it for 3D.

maybe 2000hrs from now when the bulb is nearing its end i'll squeeze a few extra hours of use out of it by using high mode, but until then, it just doesn't seem like it's really worth it. I'd rather give my eyes a couple seconds to adjust to a slightly dimmer image
post #1601 of 2085
Quote:
Originally Posted by fierce_gt View Post

but i am curious about using the dual screens on purpose? i certainly wouldn't. if i had a flat wall to use, I'd put the biggest screen i can fit on it and be done with it. if height is an issue, use a scope screen and go CIH. if width is an issue, use a 16:9 screen like normal. either way you're getting the biggest scope and biggest 16:9 image you can.

Ok, I guess I'm kinda confused as to your set up, thought it was multiple (dual?) screens?>>>
Quote:
Originally Posted by fierce_gt View Post

yup I have saved presets
-16:9
-2.35:1(grey screen), this moves the image up to the top of the screen because mine is mounted kind of low frown.gif
-2.35:1 (white screen)
-IMAX, if I pull the white screen down all the way it touches the floor, haha. I've only used this once so far, but it's kind of neat if I'm watching alone.

Seems like you have at least dual screens? How are your screens set up? Drop down? Wouldn't they be at different distances?

What I don't like about CIH is the relatively small 16:9 image, when (it seems) more and more movies are being released in aspects close to this size, + the resolution loss.
What I don't like about 16:9 screens is of course the small scope size.
My preference is a balance between the two, a scope screen that is wider than the 16:9 screen, but not as tall.
So in theory the JVC can power zoom/focus to adjust (with a saved preset) to do my preference, but I'm curious to how accurate the focus adjusts to with saved presets.
post #1602 of 2085
Quote:
Originally Posted by fleaman View Post

What I don't like about CIH is the relatively small 16:9 image, when (it seems) more and more movies are being released in aspects close to this size, + the resolution loss.
What I don't like about 16:9 screens is of course the small scope size.
My preference is a balance between the two, a scope screen that is wider than the 16:9 screen, but not as tall.
So in theory the JVC can power zoom/focus to adjust (with a saved preset) to do my preference, but I'm curious to how accurate the focus adjusts to with saved presets.

There is not necessarily any resolution loss with CIH, depending on how you do it.

Seymour AV mentions a constant area screen with an aspect ratio of 2.07. See http://www.seymourav.com/masking.asp. One reason for the choice of 1.78 for HDTV was because it's the geometric mean of 1.33 and 2.35, the narrowest and widest common formats, so area is constant for those two formats.

I wish I had CIH for two reasons; (1) it's how movie theaters work; and (2) I find my 16:9 screen to be too tall for 1.85 movies, yet too narrow for 2.35 movies.
post #1603 of 2085
Quote:
What I don't like about CIH is the relatively small 16:9 image, when (it seems) more and more movies are being released in aspects close to this size,

It seems to be the opposite to me. The great majority of movies I see these days are 2.35. I'm guessing it's so the theaters can offer something that most people don't get at home. You know, the "theater experience".
post #1604 of 2085
Has anyone use this projector with a da-lite hp screen (the 2.8)? What are peoples thoughts regarding the combo with the manual iris?
post #1605 of 2085
Quote:
Originally Posted by fierce_gt View Post

i don't even use it for 3D.

maybe 2000hrs from now when the bulb is nearing its end i'll squeeze a few extra hours of use out of it by using high mode, but until then, it just doesn't seem like it's really worth it. I'd rather give my eyes a couple seconds to adjust to a slightly dimmer image

sure. got it.
post #1606 of 2085
Quote:
Originally Posted by fleaman View Post


What I don't like about CIH is the relatively small 16:9 image, when (it seems) more and more movies are being released in aspects close to this size, + the resolution loss.
What I don't like about 16:9 screens is of course the small scope size.
My preference is a balance between the two, a scope screen that is wider than the 16:9 screen, but not as tall.
So in theory the JVC can power zoom/focus to adjust (with a saved preset) to do my preference, but I'm curious to how accurate the focus adjusts to with saved presets.

If the overall height of the screen is maintained when using a 2.35:1 screen the 16:9 image will not be any smaller. My 110" 16:9 screen was 54" tall. My 130" 2.35:1 screen is 51" tall. So I went from a 110" 16:9 image to a 104" 16:9 image with the switch to the scope screen. The difference in 16:9 image size isn't really noticeable. The difference when showing scope material is MASSIVE.

I've checked the focus on switching between the lens memories and it has been very consistent (just make sure the projector is warmed up when saving your settings). You do not lose any resolution when using the lens memory as the Blu Ray format hard codes the black bars in a scope film. I think Hollywood continues to release about 50-50 scope vs. 1.85:1 films. Your viewing habits will determine where you fall. In our 2 weeks of owning the RS46 we've watched 4 scope films and 2 non scope films. The real beauty is that it doesn't really matter. We sacrifice almost nothing when viewing 16:9/1.85:1 content and scope material is simply amazing.

Bottom line is I found the switch to a scope screen to be more than worth it. To me the only upgrade that has exceeded what it brings to the home theater experience was moving to a projector in the first place.
post #1607 of 2085
Quote:
It seems to be the opposite to me. The great majority of movies I see these days are 2.35. I'm guessing it's so the theaters can offer something that most people don't get at home. You know, the "theater experience".

Not true in my case. Around 45% - 50% of Blu Rays I watch are still 16:9. Pacific Rim - brand new - 16:9 !
Quote:
If the overall height of the screen is maintained when using a 2.35:1 screen the 16:9 image will not be any smaller. My 110" 16:9 screen was 54" tall. My 130" 2.35:1 screen is 51" tall. So I went from a 110" 16:9 image to a 104" 16:9 image with the switch to the scope screen. The difference in 16:9 image size isn't really noticeable. The difference when showing scope material is MASSIVE.

I too did not like the compromise size wise. As far as I'm concerned, constant height and constant width are both a compromise. Using 2 separate screens solved that problem. Taller 16:9 picture, wider 2.35:1 picture. If I didn't have such a short throw in my theater, I would have gone slightly wider on my 2.35:1 screen so that both screens had the exact same amount of square feet of viewing surface. With a 118" x 50.2" 2.35:1 screen ( 41.1 SF ) and a 106" x 59.5" 16:9 screen ( 43.8 SF ) it's pretty close.

You guys with JVC projectors with lens memory and power zoom and focus make using 2 screens easy !
post #1608 of 2085
Quote:
Originally Posted by fleaman View Post

Ok, I guess I'm kinda confused as to your set up, thought it was multiple (dual?) screens?>>>
Seems like you have at least dual screens? How are your screens set up? Drop down? Wouldn't they be at different distances?

What I don't like about CIH is the relatively small 16:9 image, when (it seems) more and more movies are being released in aspects close to this size, + the resolution loss.
What I don't like about 16:9 screens is of course the small scope size.
My preference is a balance between the two, a scope screen that is wider than the 16:9 screen, but not as tall.
So in theory the JVC can power zoom/focus to adjust (with a saved preset) to do my preference, but I'm curious to how accurate the focus adjusts to with saved presets.


i have dual screens, but not on purpose...

i rearranged my room, which required me to downsize from 120" to 100". shortly after getting the new screen, i got the jvc projector. i installed some hooks so that i could hang the old screen and use it as a wider screen for scope movies.

the result is basically the same as if i had a 112" or so scope screen. the image height of the 120" screen pulled partway down is the same as the 16:9 screen all the way down. if my room wasn't all weird, there would be no reason for me to keep the 100" screen.

generally i use the 100" screen, it's electric, it's 'permanently' mounted. it's just that occasionally i hang the larger screen to get a wider 2.35:1 movie. i happen to really like the CIH. i find the extra width is appealing, while adding height is overwhelming. the 120" screen showing 16:9 content was too much for my viewing distance. the 100" 16:9 feels good. but scope stuff on the 100" feels small. scope stuff on the 120" feels about right. as it turns out, that's roughly the same height image for both

i'm not sure i follow your logic on image size. if the 2.35:1 screen is as tall as the 16:9 screen you would have got, then the 16:9 image is the 'same size' and the scope one is larger. you shouldn't have to go smaller at all.

my only holdup, is these directors that can't make up their mind and flip between 2.35:1 and 16:9 mid movie. it's fine if you have a 16:9 screen, but doesn't work at all with a scope screen. still, i feel most of the time i'm limited by image height, so a scope screen would allow me the same size 16:9 image, and a larger scope image
Edited by fierce_gt - 12/21/13 at 3:13pm
post #1609 of 2085
Quote:
Not true in my case. Around 45% - 50% of Blu Rays I watch are still 16:9. Pacific Rim - brand new - 16:9 !

Guillermo has always done 16:9 for some reason. Drives me crazy. The only other high profile recent movie I can think of other than comedies and stuff that is 16:9 was The Avengers, which was a pretty baffling decision.
post #1610 of 2085
A lot of what I watch is 16:9 - The Pacific, Band of Brothers. New / recent movies - Europa Report, Side Effects, Les Miserables, The Master, End of Watch, Incendies, to name a few. Of course, anyone that loves HDTV sports ( Super Bowl ) - there's another reason not to compromise your 16:9.
post #1611 of 2085
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Peer View Post

I too did not like the compromise size wise. As far as I'm concerned, constant height and constant width are both a compromise. Using 2 separate screens solved that problem. Taller 16:9 picture, wider 2.35:1 picture. If I didn't have such a short throw in my theater, I would have gone slightly wider on my 2.35:1 screen so that both screens had the exact same amount of square feet of viewing surface. With a 118" x 50.2" 2.35:1 screen ( 41.1 SF ) and a 106" x 59.5" 16:9 screen ( 43.8 SF ) it's pretty close.

You guys with JVC projectors with lens memory and power zoom and focus make using 2 screens easy !

I guess I don't find a 6" loss in diagonal measurement much of a compromise. Like I said I don't really notice (nor has anyone else that comes over to watch movies). In your case you have room for extra height and not width. So that makes a better case for a 2 screen scenario. In my case I couldn't squeeze in more height than the 16:9 screen I replaced. Most home theaters I have been in are more height bound (8-9' ceilings) than width bound, so as long as you have to width to maximize height there isn't any compromise.

My setup differences:

110" 16:9 = 36 SF
104" 16:9 (130" scope screen 16:9 area) = 32.3 SF

110" 16:9 screen gives an 11% increase

110" 16:9 scope area = 27.2 SF
130" scope area = 51 SF

130" Scope screen gives an 87% increase with scope material

I suppose if were to immediately switch between the 16:9 and 2.35:1 screen I would notice the size difference. But having lived with the 16:9 screen for about 9 years my brain seriously does not notice (the scope screen is 3" shorter and 5" narrower showing 16:9 content) . Scope on the other hand is again a MASSIVE difference. Scope was intended to be a larger picture format from the outset. A CIH setup is how the vast majority of cinemas are configured. I really was not expecting a scope setup to make the impact it did. Now I can't imagine not having it.

Again I don't feel like I'm compromising anything with this setup. 4:3 and 1.85 content basically look the same and scope content is stunning. I've thought about masking to make the experience a bit more like the cinema, but the black floor on the RS46 is low enough I'm not really compelled to do it at this point.
post #1612 of 2085
I suppose the other consideration for me was 2 screens cost less than one electric screen with masking. And, I could use a higher gain material for the 2.35:1 screen to offset the light loss ( my projector is way too close to the screen to use a lens unfortunately - I have to zoom ). Just another way to do it - that's all. I like my 2 screen system better, but it's not for everyone. smile.gif
post #1613 of 2085
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Peer View Post

I suppose the other consideration for me was 2 screens cost less than one electric screen with masking. And, I could use a higher gain material for the 2.35:1 screen to offset the light loss ( my projector is way too close to the screen to use a lens unfortunately - I have to zoom ). Just another way to do it - that's all. I like my 2 screen system better, but it's not for everyone. smile.gif

Hey if you're width bound and really would have to take a big hit on 16:9 size to go to a single scope screen I can certainly see 2 screens as a great option. Everyone's setup is different.
post #1614 of 2085
If I went any wider with a scope screen from my seating distance ( 12' 6" ) I'd need a 4K projector, as I would be able to make out pixels !
post #1615 of 2085
Quote:
Originally Posted by fierce_gt View Post


my only holdup, is these directors that can't make up their mind and flip between 2.35:1 and 16:9 mid movie. it's fine if you have a 16:9 screen, but doesn't work at all with a scope screen.

It works perfect with a scope screen if you use a lens or a Lumagen so there are no black bars zoomed off the screen. If you use the zoom method for scope then yes it doesn't work. I actually feel sorry for 16.9 screen owners because they are the ones that see every aspect ratio change (Dark Knight Rises has over 100 AR changes) which would drive me nuts. With a lens or a Lumagen the whole movie stays in 2.35 mode and you wouldn't even realise the scenes that are in Imax.
post #1616 of 2085
You can use the built-in masking feature to achieve the same without a Lumagen.

Your take on the mixed AR movies is a personal choice issue. Some would argue that watching a film such as Dark Knight Rises on a 16:9 screen is how the director intended it, and to crop the IMAX bits would be just as sinful as zooming a scope movie to 16:9 and chopping the sides off!
post #1617 of 2085
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevelup View Post

You can use the built-in masking feature to achieve the same without a Lumagen.

Your take on the mixed AR movies is a personal choice issue. Some would argue that watching a film such as Dark Knight Rises on a 16:9 screen is how the director intended it, and to crop the IMAX bits would be just as sinful as zooming a scope movie to 16:9 and chopping the sides off!

The director intended TDKR to be viewed on an IMAX screen not a 16.9 screen, and if it wasn't shown on an IMAX screen then it was shown in scope during its theatrical run. If the director had intended it to be shown in 16.9 it would have screened in 16.9 in the theatres worldwide, it didn't. Same for all the other AR changing films (transformers, TDK, etc).

They are filmed in a way so they look just as good as if they were filmed entirely in scope. Comparing watching them in scope to cropping the sides off a scope movie is just an argument by those that don't understand this concept.
post #1618 of 2085
Like I said, it's a matter of personal opinion. You're entitled to yours, I'm entitled to mine.

I'm personally not bothered by it and will happily watch mixed AR content in 16:9. I can fully understand why it might irritate some people though.

This is a technical forum about a particular projector. So getting back on topic, you're free to watch it however you like on the JVC - without purchasing extra kit.

You could even watch it on a 16:9 screen if you wanted and mask off the stuff outside the scope frame if desired.

I was just pointing out that you need neither a lens or an external processor to do this!
post #1619 of 2085
Like you said, "as the director intended", he didn't.
post #1620 of 2085
if I want to put RS46/x35 on a board, it need 50cm*50cm or 60cm*60cm?Thanks.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP › Official JVC DLA-RS46 / DLA-X35 owners thread