or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP › JVC RS-45 vs Sony HW-50ES - which is better (at anything)?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

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

post #31 of 69
Remember it won't appear to your eyes as a 20% brighter image, more like 4.5% brighter.
post #32 of 69
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

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.

Yes 115" is the diagonal. I'm guessing I can fit as big as 130" according to this calculator.

http://www.draperinc.com/projectionscreens/CustomSizeCalculator.asp

My maximum width is 122" and maximum height is 78" (I'm accounting for power panel height above baseboards (14") and light sconces on the same wall as the projector off to the sides (14" in from each side) which subtract from total wall height (92" to where ceiling starts to curve) and from total wall width (150" before subtracting 28" for both sconces).

Putting the 78" height value into that calculator above shows the largest screen is 130" so seems 120-125 is probably a safe range.

Throw will be about 15 feet I'd bet - I ran cabling (HDMI, component) and mounted power to the ceiling about that far from the back wall.

Walls and ceiling are an off-white beige at this time but I'll likely be painting them either dark brown, red, blue or green, haven't decided on a color.

I'd like to spend as little as possible on a screen but I don't want sparkling or a poor image. I'd like to stay below $1000 if possible, but I'm willing to consider ones that cost more if there are true benefits to doing so. Also interested in screen masking with magnets where I can have a native 16:9 but then mask and view 2.35:1 with real velvet borders.
post #33 of 69
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbrown15 View Post

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.

What's an "AT screen setup"?
post #34 of 69
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jnabq View Post

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.

Thanks, I'll look for that issue...
post #35 of 69
Thread Starter 
Related to the screen question is the proper seating distance compared to screen width measure I see bandied about here on AVS. I'm one of those people that likes to sit 3/4 of the way back (or more) in the theater to keep as much of the image in the sweet spot of my vision as I can. I find sitting too close to be too much like work as you have to constantly be scanning around to see enough of the image to keep track of what's happening. Does anyone have an opinion on what ratio of screen size to viewing distance would be good for a person like me who wants a large (ish) screen for the details to show up but doesn't want to be enveloped in it to the point I can't make out enough of what's going on? Is 1.5 the ratio I should be looking at? Higher?
post #36 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

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.

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
post #37 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrZaus View Post


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?

Not Mark, but if you want to run a 150"/160" screen on a budget, then you are going to need to look at something like the High Power. If you go with the High Power you will have to mount your projector down low, otherwise, don't bother to buy the HP screen. Also with that size screen, even with a HP, you will be using high lamp on the Sony for 3D.
Reply
Reply
post #38 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdoherty972 View Post

What's an "AT screen setup"?

"AT" means acoustically transparent. ie speakers can be placed behind the screen just like commercial theaters.
post #39 of 69
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.
post #40 of 69
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdoherty972 View Post

Related to the screen question is the proper seating distance compared to screen width measure I see bandied about here on AVS. I'm one of those people that likes to sit 3/4 of the way back (or more) in the theater to keep as much of the image in the sweet spot of my vision as I can. I find sitting too close to be too much like work as you have to constantly be scanning around to see enough of the image to keep track of what's happening. Does anyone have an opinion on what ratio of screen size to viewing distance would be good for a person like me who wants a large (ish) screen for the details to show up but doesn't want to be enveloped in it to the point I can't make out enough of what's going on? Is 1.5 the ratio I should be looking at? Higher?

Can anyone help with this? I don't want to end up hating my setup due to not being able to plan this.
post #41 of 69
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.
post #42 of 69
Thread Starter 
For example this site:

http://www.elitescreens.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=489&Itemid=178&lang=en

States the following:

[q]Choosing the screen’s diagonal size may depend on individual preference, but it is always wise to choose a diagonal screen size that is less than or equal in measurement to the distance from your front-row seating to the projection surface.[/q]

So if your closest seating distance is, say, 9 feet (108 inches) that's saying you need a screen that size or smaller, but no larger.

Agree? Disagree?
post #43 of 69
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

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.

Thanks, Mark.

I'm also wanting to hear if anyone has experience in this same regard. Like they thought "I'll go huge" and the regretted it (or vice versa).
post #44 of 69
S
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdoherty972 View Post

Thanks, Mark.

I'm also wanting to hear if anyone has experience in this same regard. Like they thought "I'll go huge" and the regretted it (or vice versa).

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.
post #45 of 69
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.
post #46 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

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.

i was under the impression that screen research does not need an equalizer for their acoustically transparent screens (???)....
post #47 of 69
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.
post #48 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by tallnick View Post

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.

Lot of misinformation in that thread. Like the Foot Lambert numbers of the 6010 being way higher than the Foot Lambert numbers of the 5010. Take the two projectors apart and you see they have the same internals, same layout and the same lamp. Another example, the measured gain of the XD material is 0.98 not 1.2. Now an Epson 5010 can light up a 150" 0.98 gain screen in best image mode, but not very well and not for very long if you are looking to stay in the 12FL to 16FL range. You will also be running the projector in high lamp mode, so you have more fan noise to deal with.
Reply
Reply
post #49 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by paris401 View Post

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

Nothing is required. But if you want the best accuracy . . .
post #50 of 69
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.
post #51 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

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

after 40yrs of loud rock music, and even louder drag-racing cars, my hearing is shot...
post #52 of 69
A screaming at me wife did me in.
post #53 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

A screaming at me wife did me in.

Ah, that tells me that, Mark, you really are 'the man' wink.gif
post #54 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by AV Science Sales 5 View Post

Not Mark, but if you want to run a 150"/160" screen on a budget, then you are going to need to look at something like the High Power. If you go with the High Power you will have to mount your projector down low, otherwise, don't bother to buy the HP screen. Also with that size screen, even with a HP, you will be using high lamp on the Sony for 3D.

I'm not going for 3D, purchased a longer extension rod.. will be mounting near eye level.. smile.gif
post #55 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrZaus View Post

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

That works. smile.gif
Reply
Reply
post #56 of 69
For the one asking about screen size... Go big wink.gif

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.
post #57 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by SOWK View Post

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

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.
post #58 of 69
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.
post #59 of 69
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
post #60 of 69
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.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP › JVC RS-45 vs Sony HW-50ES - which is better (at anything)?