JVC RS-45 vs Sony HW-50ES - which is better (at anything)?

What's a "JVC HS-45"? Last year's there was a DLA-RS45 but I'm not sure this is what you're referring to.

I'm assuming you mean the RS45. Here are my impressions thus far regarding overall picture quality:

2D

The JVC will have better black levels. The best blacks on the Sony are with the Auto Iris on. If you do not use the iris (auto or manual) the black level difference will increase to the JVC's advantage. This is the biggest advantage the JVC will have over the Sony.

The JVC will have a better dynamic range (brighter whites and blacker blacks on the screen at the same time).

The JVC will have the sharper picture over the Sony but if RC is enabled on the Sony it will have the sharper pic..

Motion is smoother on the Sony.

FI is smoother on the Sony with less artifacts. Thus far the difference in artifacts isn't a major difference but I believe the Sony is slightly better.

The Sony is brighter than the JVC.



3D

The JVC will have the better black levels but the Sony rules in every other area including, far less crosstalk, less flicker, motion is better and with FI enabled motion is MUCH better, and the 3D is brighter.

For 2D when watching blu rays, which one would you pick?

Also Sony lamp is cheaper and much more reliable as I read.

To me the room environment is important in deciding between the two. To get the most out of the JVC you would need a dark light controlled room. If the room is not optimal the advantage of the JVC in blacks/dynamic range is diminished. Further in a non-optimal setting the extra bightness of the Sony would really help.

I've installed a couple of 8350s. There's nothing you can add to the Epson to make it look like the JVC. There really is no comparison between the two. Even in a non dedicated room the differences will be obvious. Remember you cant add contrast to these projectors. You either have it from the start or you live with out it.

It's all going to come down to personal preference so what I like may not be what you may choose. Having said that, the lesser black levels on the Sony is noticeable to me mainly on really dark scenes. This has been a pet peave of mine for years so at this point I might be inclined to say the JVC for 2D. However, I have an ND2 filter on the way that I am going to try out and see how it will impact black levels and overall picture quality. I've never used one before so I'm not sure what to expect but if that does help then I might change my mind. The Sony does have better motion and better FI. The FI in low mode on the Sony when watching 2D doesn't have as much of the soap effect as the JVC does and it seem smoother as well from what I have seen thus far.

Having said that I have an Dalite 2.4 HP screen which will raise black levels somewhat. For someone who does NOT have an HP screen black levels will likely be slightly better. When I saw the Sony on a non-HP screen in store the black levels looked pretty good to my eyes and perhaps a little better than what I am seeing at home due to my screen choice.

It's going to be a difficult choice as IMO there is no clear winner here. The JVC contrast is better and it has a powered lens shift with memory. The Sony is brighter, has much better 3D if you like FI, the FI is a little better, better smoother motion with less artifacts (not sure how much less at this point), RC makes the picture look sharper if it's not offensive to you, comes with 2 pairs of 3D glasses, a built in emitter, and a free lamp. A this point if I had a friend ask me which one he would get and if he were not a black level fanatic I'd probably recommend the Sony. If the same friend were a black level fanatic and had a light controlled darkened room I would tell him the JVC has better contrast and a better dynamic range.

Either way you go you are going to get a nice projector in this price range. If you want the Sony give Mike Garrett at AVScience a call as they have good pricing.

Brightness is subject to your own personal taste. If it looks bright enough for you your good to go. If not, you may prefer a screen with a higher gain. The Dalite HP 2.4 screen significantly boosts brightness. It's typically one of those screens that if you like it you won't replace it.

And if you don't replace it because you value brightness over many other things as most do, you will be happy not knowing what you have otherwise missed. Brightness, obscene brightness compared to the movie theater standard of 12 to 14 ft lamberts is very addictive. guests will like it. Your wife or girfriend will like it. OOO its bright just like our Plasma.. Meanwhile the pros muddle on with their smooth uniform brightness low gain screens, quickly getting used to say brightness a smidge below 10 ft lamberts if they opt for a super large screen and marvel at the.nuances in superior PQ that others are oblivious of.

Brightness trumps all and whatever the blacks are they will be good enough for most every scene.
Edited by mark haflich - 1/3/13 at 6:19pm

I detect a bit of cynicism here-- May I ask why you have your phone # listed in your signature?

Phil

Thats just Mark's natural tone, and hes loved just the same.

Thank you. Some of my best friends in the HT world have HP screens. If you want a really big screen and want to light it with the most popular projectors discussed here, an HP is a very good choice. If you have a screen in the 100" to 123" D 1.78 aspect range, there are nuch better screen choices if you are not one to be err blinded by the light. But its a choice one can make and I can understand the choice. Many people want a picture brighter than the standards. My pet pieve is people who have not experienced what a reference screen can err not add to the experience. I was amazed by my switch to a 1.0 reference from a 1.3 reference. I never would have thunk it. It does require a black pit room and a screen size not larger than the projector can adequately light. When i worked for AV science, I sold 1.0 gain reference screens to those that had 1.3 gain reference screens and have received feed back seconding the improvements I experienced.

I welcome talking to all forum members and assisting them in any way I can. Those who know me, know that and thus my cell phone number.
.
Besides, its a lot safer than me offering my social security number in my signature block. There is only so much helpIi am willing to give.

I assume the 115" is the screen Diag. What is the throw? What will the walls and ceiling be covered with? How big is your screen bank? Great costs money.

I have a 112" 16:9 fixed frame Grandview screen with a white 1.0 gain that I use with my RS45 in my light controlled room. I've had the screen and projector for just over a year now and have about 480hrs on the bulb and it still looks like a great picture too me. I still only use low lamp mode and I have the aperture at -5. I'm still very happy with this combo, although I am about to switch to a AT screen setup.

I think I paid right around $700 for the screen, so it defiantly won't break the bank.

If one is interested, the Feb/Mar Sound and Vision mag just did a write up comparing the 50ES, JVC X35 and Epson 5020e. There is a pretty good guide to buying for newbies as well.

How close do you sit to your AT screen?

I heard the EN4K is the best and wondering if sitting 1SW is acceptable. I would like to use a 10ft wide and sit 9-10ft on the front row

Determining best involves subjective weighting of the various evaluative factors plus limited perceptual abilities,


For example AT screens often attenuate the high frequencies. Absent compensation through equalization, this may or may not ber a problem. For example I have little high frequence hearing left so I would listen and conclude no proble, Screen didn't chasnge the sound I hear. Likewise I am not a brightness frek like some of the HP boys are. I could live with some negative screen gain.

i just don't believe anything can be judged accurately as the best out there.

Mark,

Was it you that said you wouldn't use an AT screen? If so why not?

I am one that said that, another is Joe Kane. That does not mean that someone else shouldn't.

My subjective weighting is 100% video, 0% audio. I have a small screen 110" D 1.78 and easily accommodated speakers on either side of the screen with an above screen center. Also I had a solid cinderblock wall behind the screen. If I had the space I still wouldn't compromise video performance by an AT. But that's me.

Before one goes into a debate about how much does an AT compromise video performance, it does somewhat, perhaps not a lot, but i do not want to suffer that.

My previous post was just an aside, there really is no best anything. It all depends on preferences and discerning ability.

What's the best cigar?.
Edited by mark haflich - 3/8/13 at 8:21am

I knew what you meant, just wanted to hear your take on it

It all boils down to screen size and people wanting to light them with HT projectors rather than commercial light cannons.

This leads to screen choice compromises. I am all in favor od AT screens for big screens ButIi am not in favor with going big screen if one must employ high gaIn instead of high lumens. Everything we do in HT involves trade offs and compromises. Many don't want to face that. they want absolute answers and there are people out there that will give them what they want without it actually be the absolute.

For large screens I think HP is a good choice for peanut whistle projectors. Forget about AT.

Or do it right. A big AT screen with a high lumen high quality projector. Just be prepared to spend.

Interesting how he found the X35 to be 20% brighter than the X30