JVC RS-45 vs Sony HW-50ES - which is better (at anything)? - Page 2

Remember it won't appear to your eyes as a 20% brighter image, more like 4.5% brighter.

Mark, I'm so confused by all these screens,, I was to project 150" or 160" don't know either 16:9 or 235:1 yet.. I was thinking of getting the HP, but I need to mount my SonyHW50ES on the ceiling.. I need a screen that will power that large of a screen.. I don't want to get a 1.2 screen and run on torch mode to see 3D picture.. I'd figure I get teh HP and run on eco mode.. is that fine with the Sony HW50ES?
Edited by DrZaus - 3/8/13 at 10:51am

"AT" means acoustically transparent. ie speakers can be placed behind the screen just like commercial theaters.

I agree with Nike.

BTW. No screen is truly acoustically transparent. They all affect the sound and they all affect that more at high frequencies. equalization must be emplyed to offset the high frequency attentuation. Perforation and weaves all denegrate optical performance to some degree. Everything is a trade off. High gain screens have negatives and almost all require throws of a minimum of the screen gain to mitigate the optical degradation. If you can't mount at eye level or fairly close to that, pick an angular reflective screen and try to live with a gain of around 1.5. Nothing is a firm law. Maybe go to 1.8, just be sure to use at least a minimum throw of that.

Its really a matter of preference. Of course you don't want to sit so close as to see the pixel grid lines and that depends on your vision and screen size for a given projector. The best advice anyone can give you is do a mockup of various screen sizes on your screen wall and experiment with viewing distance if you have flexibility there. generally its better to err getting a screen size smaller if you are undecided between two sizes.

S
See here. As crabalocker says in post 9, people kept telling him 150" was too big so he originally went 130" then later went up to 153" and it's the best thing he could have done. And that's with an Epson that doesn't have the 1000 calibrated lumens of the Sony.

One's eyes are quite adaptable to brightness. many of us had CRT FPs that put ot little light. we lived with 5 ft lamberts. Today's digital projectors put out enough light to do that on huge screens. So you don't meet a 12 to 14 ft lambert standard. whatever. the best thing is a screen size that you like whether it be bigger or smaller. there really is no right. I have friends with 14 ft wide screens that sit 6 ft from the screen.

i was under the impression that screen research does not need an equalizer for their acoustically transparent screens (???)....

All AT screens have some sound loss even if it is only a DB at higher frequencies. Whether you wish to compensate for it is another matter. If it is only a db at higher frequencies many won't EQ it. Even the speaker grill of a speaker changes it response between grill off and grill on. Some of the AT screens are like using the speaker grill but you have to leave the grill off behind it. Which you should anyway. So in this instance it is fair to claim you don't need an EQ.

Nothing is required. But if you want the best accuracy . . .

I have now tested AT screen material from SeymourAV XD material and the Audioweave 4K material from EluneVision and IMO they don't really effect the sound any more then taking the grills on and off of my speakers. With both of these audioweave screens I would say at most you would lose 0.5 to 1dB and thats really hard to correct in your AVR setup.

after 40yrs of loud rock music, and even louder drag-racing cars, my hearing is shot...

A screaming at me wife did me in.

Ah, that tells me that, Mark, you really are 'the man'

I'm not going for 3D, purchased a longer extension rod.. will be mounting near eye level..

For the one asking about screen size... Go big

I absolutely love my 150" wide 2.35:1 & when I have to shrink down to 130" diagonal for 16x9 material I get pissed... Lol.

Nothing pulls you into the movie more then a near full field of view image. It's so immersive. I sit 14.5ft away from the 12.5ft wide screen.

I love your theater and screen. Good thing you can enjoy a non HP screen so big, when so many say its impossible with under $10k protectors.

I brought my Sony HW50-ES over to SOWK’s house yesterday for a side by side shoot out of sorts with his RS4810 (not the RS-45 the OP was asking about). The JVC shoots an awesome picture and lives up to it’s reputation for contrast and black levels. The Sony is no slouch with it’s brighter image and better motion. We didn’t play with 3D but by all reports, the Sony would have the edge there. As a test, we turned the lights on in SOWK’s bat cave to test the picture of the Sony with ambient light in the room. As long as the light was not shining directly onto the screen, the picture was very good even with the lights on. Bottom line is, if you’re going to use the projector strictly for 2D movie watching, the JVC is the better choice of the two. I’m going to use the projector for watching movies, 2D and 3D and football, so the Sony fits my needs better. No projector in this price range is perfect but they are very good and I think you would be happy with either depending on your usage.

Both projectors looked great on the SeymourAV 150” wide screen. So much so, that I have made my decision to purchase this screen for myself. The emersion this screen size offers is what having a projector is all about. IMHO, go with the biggest screen your room and seating distance allows, you won’t be sorry.

Thanks again Tony for having me over to experience your truly fantastic theater. You were right, your subs are being driven in parallel. The have brought your sound system up another notch or two. At this pace, your running out of things to upgrade.

tedO (or sowk), how did the sony look from the front row vs the jvc? was the pixelation worse with no e-shift at such a close seating distance to such a large screen?

I ask because I'm basing my theater build and projector choice around SOWK's theater, its the best looking theater I've seen on avs.

I want the sony for its brightness for sports with some ambient light (and its 3d) but worried that at such a close seating distance pixelation will visible.
Edited by tallnick - 3/24/13 at 2:08pm

SDE is visible from front row if not used with an anamorphic lens. Not to the point it would bother most, but you will get a smoother image with an e-shift projector.

That is primaraly one reason I liked the JVC more for 2D was the lack of SDE.