Help me choose: JVC X55 vs X35 vs. Sony 50ES vs. Epson 6020 projector - Page 2

Definitely take a look at the X35 and/or Sony 95. If your into sports watching on the big screen go with the Sony. My 90 was great for motion sports. It had a lot of "pop" to the picture. Usually the JVC s have better blacks for bluray but that's a close call IMO also.

You make it seem that the JVC projectors are free from any issues whatsoever. Also, how is using a dynamic iris "unreal"? You are aware that JVC's LCOS panels themselves don't create all that native contrast. JVC uses a wire grid polarizer, among many other things in the light path, to aid the panel to reproduce contrast ratios that high. So by your logic using such things, much like how Sony uses a dynamic iris, would create a "wrong and unreal" picture. Also, their projectors still don't create the same 3D performance that many DLP systems do.

Have you used the DFI on your HW50 yet? Does it help smooth motion w/o the Soap Opera Effect? How noticeable is the "flicker" people report when using it?

Thanks xb1032.

I guess one of my questions on screen aspect was indirectly addressed with your shelf mounted projector. Having it in reach makes the change in aspect ratios between content easier. I will not have that option as mine must be ceiling mounted so remote control of the lens is important unless a scaler solution would do as well or better at aspect changes.

Thanks again for your insight.

I found Epson 6010 new only for 1600$. Is it a good projector to buy? or still better wait for a deal on Sony HW30 or HW50?

I am also looking at upgrading my Sony VLP-VW60 to a 3D projector and the Epson 6020 is high on my list but if the Sony 50ES is better I would like to hear more about it. Anyone do a direct A/B side-by-side of the two?

OT question:
Will 3D work on a curved screen? I have a 130" 2.40 steward Studio-Tec 1.3 gain curved screen and use a anamorphic lens at all times.

Thx,

-DK

3D will be fine on a curved screen.

I have not tried the DFI mode yet.

I've been reading just about every thread on the Sony HW50ES and JVC RS46/X35 and I am still stuck deciding between the two. And to make matters worse, now I'm starting to wonder if the JVC 4810 might be worth the extra money (though I don't know what the price difference really is as I didn't get that price from Mike when I talked to him). I have almost no interest in 3D for now so I'm mostly just comparing their 2D performance. In the end, I don't think there is a "bad" decision here, which probably accounts for why deciding is so hard.

My primary use will be 2D for both DVD/Bluray movies and HDTV (dramas, sci fi, sitcoms, but very little sports). My room is a dedicated HT, dark maroon walls, black ceiling, totally light controlled. Longest throw I can do with the JVC in my room would be about 17.5 feet (lens to screen), screen will be a white (1.1 gain) 110" 16x9 with a primary viewing distance around 12'. "Conventional wisdom" seems to suggest that the JVC would be best for my situation. I think the things holding me back are 1) the JVC is reported as "loud" in high lamp mode, but as best I can tell, I shouldn't need high lamp as low lamp should be plenty bright for my screen (and may still even need/want the iris to turn it down). 2) The reports that the Sony has better looking "motion". I've never used any sort of frame interpolation before (though it is available on my Panasonic plasma), but some report that the Sony looks better at motion just "naturally" and that it's FI is actually one of the better ones. 3) Sony has the RC mode and a full CMS. Am I just nit picking this thing to death? Anyone have any advice that might help me tips the scales one way or the other?

You'll probably be happy with either. For your viewing habits the JVC 46 or the Sony w95 would be my top two picks. If you're a Sci-fi fan, there's no need to cheat yourself on the contrast. It does make a major difference having an extra 20,000:1 contrast in those types of films. Don't let folks here make you think otherwise.
Also the motion with your primary viewing habits is more than fine on the JVC. People like to overstate the motion thing as well. DLP is better for sports, it doesn't hold a candle to the others, when it comes to those very dark, dynamic scenes though.

Another model to consider is the Mitsubishi HC9000D. It's basically a Sony vw90 in a prettier case. I've seen these for $2500 new online.

Hmmm, not really the same at all. The wire grid polarizers only serve to maintain the contrast provided by the panels by better polarizing the light and aiding extinction.

And Sony projectors now have wire grid polarizers.
Edited by Steve Goff - 1/21/13 at 10:24pm

I'm not saying they are equal in how they work. My point is that both use extra things to help get better contrast. Whether it be native or not. Also, your comment doesn't prove what I said to be wrong. I said they use it to help aid the panel to produce that high of a contrast level.
Edited by Seegs108 - 1/21/13 at 10:29pm

The important point being that you can calibrate the gamma in a JVC accurately, but with a dynamic iris the gamma gets altered scene by scene, so it's arguable as to whether you can truly calibrate any projector that has a dynamic iris. However, having seen some recent projectors with dynamic iris in use I think they do have their benefits.

SO this is a very helpful thread and like so many of the posters (ops) i'm stuck deciding which to go with, JVC x35, x55, or Sony hw50?? Trying to be aware of the budget, approx 3k (or less)!

Room:
13' x 19' and 8' tall

My plan/goal is a 100"-110" wide screen 16:9 or 2:35.1 with approx 12'(ish) viewing distance, 13'-14' throw.

The room will have beige walls, ceiling. & similiar carpet, (depending on wifes ability to handle a darker room), black out curtain and 95% light control.

I'll be viewing mostly at night, Primarily Blu-rays (80%), then TV/sports(10%), and some gaming(10%). Don't care about 3D. or frame interpolation (hate the LED soap opera look)


Big additional concern....

if i go 2:35.1 does the JVC lens memory give a similiar anamorphic lens look?? I really want the movies in the directors format if possible.

Need help matching the screen to the PJ too...thoughts?

I have put the 6020 and the 50es stacked on top of each other. Both connected hdmi at the same time using a peice of card board to block one and see the other. This is what I saw with these 2 pituclar pj.
I did no calabration with a disk,,,,,, I tweeked to the source at the same time with the same picture. Some times exzaggrating some settings at times to test the limit to make sure like when testing blacks.

Blacks in mixed content like a dark movie the 50 wins no settings will change that with either projector. The bright areas are brighter and the dark areas are blacker.
On the other hand if you have a black background with white letters ie credits rolling the 6020 wins and no setting will change that. As soon as the white words come up the iris will open too much on the sony. But some white object in mixed comtent like friday the 13 it does not excibit that behavor and keeps the iris more closed. Sony beats the 6020 for actule content.

Sharpness rc set on and minum and sharpness set to 0,,,, the sony is shaper that the ep with the sharp and advance sharp you (must choose).and the super resulation maxed. The sony can only get sharper and it can get too nosie real quick but its never too much with those settings at 0. I run with a little of both most of the time. DirecT can look pretty bad cause u can see the crap in the signal. BUT put on a blueray and WOW clean sharpness . Fantasic. The ep just can not compete here. no matter the setting,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,On the other hand in white parts the ep can look sharper at times. I did some studing with this and I think it has to do with the pixiel structer being bigger than the sony. Example on a crowd of people and a distance shot. a persons head was small. Upon close examintion it became clear that the pixel structer of the ep was apperent and looked bigger but more distored. The same image apperead smaller and more closely grouped togther. (almost no pixel structher visable) and there for more correct and sharper although hard to see the difference from a seated posion at 10 ft from a 106 screen. The pixels giving an impression(fasley) of a sharper image. however 90 percent of the time the sony is just sharper period.

The epson can get brighter but the color goes toward green and its easy to wash out whites using the contrast.Leaving the contrast in center default and the sony on 90 they appear to be the same brightness to the eye. but the sony will mantain its color better. not so much a changing of the gray scale toward green.

They both look excelent and if not side by side I doubt you would miss the other but side by side it becomes apparent, The sony just has a sharper cleaner with slightly more pop in bright pictures and defenitaly more pop with darker pictures. No settings can chang that.

Keep in mind that they both can vary from projector to projector. This is just the 2 I had acess to. The convergence was adjusted on both although nither was very far out but both neede a little tweek.
Purity was good on both at different levels of brightness. color temp was adjusted on both .

before i forget 3d
The 6020 does not do fi in 3d. the sony does. Is it noticeable. YES very much so. the 6020 jitters although not to bad, the sony can be buttery smooth if u want and jittery if you want. Me I like smooth clear.
EP can not do it. Gosting they both can have some no matter the source, the source has a tranmdous effect of 3d. period. dt kinda sucks no matter what u do and fi is not avibael with the sony with dt 3d. dont know why. They both look like poopie on dt.
ps3 now thats a hold different kettke of fish. again the sony excells in sharpness. the ep also disables there advance sharpness settings along with the super resulation. gosting i thnk the ep si slightley worse. there close either is good here. about the same.
Converting to 3d. The sony wins here. fi is back using dt. for some reason although not quite as smooth as when using ps3 with the fi..(source) The sony apperes deeper with less gosting. Things are in better perportion. With the ep using the dir tv guide the bottom of the pix will look close to the screen and as it goes to the top it gets further back and deeper. looks like a stair case to the middle of the screen then looks the same the rest of the way to the top. This also has that effect in the normal picture. The sony can do converision very good and very sharp. Brightness comes across about the same to me. The sony will look deeper over all. i have yet to see a pop out using converison.including the 3d bee diamond. the sony imo converts better than the bee. at least just as good.
These are my impressions and i am just joe smoe so take it for what its worth to you.

this testing also used high and low lamp settings full and limited iris on the sony and levle 1 and 2 with the ep. For got what they call it. all settings in all places were explored to there depth and used.

If you do not care about 3D and you are not going to use FI then the JVC might be your best bet. In 2D the picture on my HW50 is noticeably cleaner and sharper than my RS45 (with RC on with the Sony) and the picture is much smoother as well with FI on. The "soap" look with the Sony's FI set to low isn't as "soapy" as what you see on LED TVs in the store but the effect is still noticeable. If the RS4810/X55 over the X35 is the difference between what I see with my HW50 with RC turned on compared to my RS45 the the upgrade in sharpness will be noticeable (at least it is for me with my closer seating distance).

Thanks HB, that helps siince I was leaning to the X35 or Hw50, but know maybe i'll look into the X55 if i can get it in my budget.

Curious, what about the panasonic pj's and the lens memory ( i think jvc too but havent read about it as much as the panny).....have you been able to review it in terms of the zoom memory for a look similiar to a anamorphic lens? I'm interested in the 2:25.1 look for movies but dont know what to think since tv, sports,& gaming are in 16:9 and the zoom could always look stretched.

If all these various projectors are so close in the appearance of their output, how about another aspect of ownership - COST!!

I know the lamps on the 6020 cost $300 and last 3000 plus hours based on my experience with it predecessor - the 6010. The 6020 should give the same lamp life/cost benefit and the 6020 has a three year factory warranty.

Anyone care to comment on the lamp life & cost and length of warranties of the Sony's and JVC's mentioned in this thread? I seem to recall reading that JVC's have expensive lamps that don't hold up to well and lose their lumens quickly? Aren't the Sony's lamps very expensive too? And how long do they hold up and hold their lumens?

The zoom is not stretching, it's only making the image smaller or bigger.When watching TV on a 2.35:1 screen you will instead get black bars in either side.

Drexler, thank you.

What about a 16:9 screen showing a 2.35:1 movie? Black bars will appear on the top and bottm if i've read correctly. But what if I use a PJ with a zoom lense on a 2.35:1 screen, will that be stretched to fill the screen? My asumption is yes but some online suggest otherwise.....

I'm considering a JVC with a Screen, either 16:9 or 2.35:1, i really like the 2.35:1 look but cant afford an anamorphic lens. Suggestions?

Movies = 75-80%
TV/Gaming 20-25%

You don't need an anamorphic lens to do a 2.35 CIH screen. A motorized zoom+lens shift, plus lens memory (like the JVCs have) is enough. For 1.78 material, the projector will fill the center of the screen, leaving the sides blank. When you switch to 2.35, it will zoom to make the image wider, filling the screen.

With a 16:9 screen, you don't need the lens memory or motorized zoom as the image fills the width of the screen regardless of 1.78 or 2.35. You will have black bars on top and bottom for 2.35, just like a 16:9 flat panel.

ScottJ,

So are you saying, and forgive my lack of knowledge, that I can get the JVC and a 2.35:1 screen and watch movies they way they were intended to look (when shot in 2.35:1)? I always thought i needed an anamorphic lens?

I plan on having a 100-110" screen and I can have any throw i want, but prob 12-14ft and plan on sitting around 12' unless otherwise advised......thoughts?

Start with a 16:9 screen. Then add a wider 2.35:1 screen later !

The benefit of the anamorphic lens is higher brightness, since you can use all of the 1920x1080 pixels in the projector, instead of the 1920x817 pixels of a 2.35 image. Note, the anamorphic lens does not add resolution, since you still only have 817 pixels in the source material (assuming 1080p Blu-ray or similar).

I think 2.35 is cool, but in my room I'm limited by width, not height, so I'm planning a 1.78 screen. Also that way I won't have to deal with the hassle of CIH (switching between sizes, and worrying about subtitles being offscreen). I don't expect the black bars on 2.35 material to be any more objectionable than they are on my plasma.

Prepare to be disappointed then. Even if your room is 100% black walled and ceiling (if not it'll be even worse due to the room reflection) they will be dark grey at best. I saw the older, higher contrast, X7 in a near perfect room and the 'black' bars were plain to see, which spoilt the image for me. However, I'm used to a 2.35:1 screen (and an A Lens for that matter) and for 16:9 I use side masks as even the unprojected side bars of my 16:9 cause the screen to light up: Your top and bottom black bars are 'projected' so will be even lighter.

Having said that, it just depends on how picky you are.

Hmm... maybe I need to rethink my plan. Is there such a thing as an acoustically transparent retractable screen with masking?

The only AT retractable screen I've found is from Seymour AV, but it doesn't seem to offer any masking capability.

With the JVCs you could use the lens memory for 2.35:1 content to shift the image to the bottom of your 16:9 screen. This would then leave you with a double height top black bar. This is then easier to mask off perhaps using something like a black roller blind as I've seen done on here.

You may not find it as objectionable as I do: I know many people who watch 2.35:1 on 16:9 screens without any masking, but I just thought it only fair to point out that you won't get the same level of black bars as you would with a plasma (even my 5 year old Sony LCD has blacker bars than my projector set up).

he can't go wrong spending less with the 50, since it's better than 90, and really close to the 95.