Recommendations for 160' screen and 4k projector?

The JVC isn't a 4K projector. It has some optical trickery that overlays two images to get a faux 4K image. They call it e-shift. The only consumer grade 4K projector out there at the moment is the Sony VPL-VW1000ES and that has an MSRP of $24999. The JVC you listed is a good choice if you want a solid 1080p 2D projector. At that price range there are a couple DLP models you could look into. I usually recommend looking at the Runco LS-5 as an alternative to a JVC. It's worth seeing a high end DLP and JVC (or higher end Sony) before you make a decision. Many rave about JVC projectors, and they right to do so, but some people, myself included, like how DLP looks in comparison. You should see if there is a place local to you that has some projectors on display to see which technology you like best.

Another thing to point out is that, unless you go with a high gain screen, there is no way you can use most home theater projectors (under $10000) and project an image bright enough for a screen that size. You could look into a Da-Lite High Power screen at that size as it would be your best bet to get the right brightness at that size with almost all current home theater projectors under $10000. There are several drawbacks to high gain screens like the Da-Lite High Power screen. Most of the current projectors out there this year from the leading manufacturers should be able to push a screen around 135" diagonal and still be decently bright on lower gain (1.0 to 1.3) screens.
Edited by Seegs108 - 2/23/13 at 2:06pm

Be very cognizant of your seating distance. Anything less than 1.25x of the screen width will result in seeing the pixel structure if you have a straight 1080p machine (not 4k or JVC eshift).

Don't forget sony projectors. No e-shift and no pixel structure unless you watch from few inches away.

Some state that they can see pixel structure from there seating distances on large screens. Not every one see pixel structure on screens the same way

No one knows what is bright enough for someone's else eyes. I have read some avs members watch their projectors that is very dim to many. Your eyes or your friends eyes will adjust after awhile. For instance, the theaters aim for 12ftL and you can get the same brightness with the jvc projector with the iris open. Most likely you can get that brightness from all projectors uncalibrated. Since I am aware of how many ftL I'm used to watching movies at, I prefer around 14-15ftL and 20ftL for sports in a darken room.

This simply isn't true. Experiment a bit for yourself. On my screen with my old RS1, which is basically the same as the newer projectors sans eshift, pixels and the lines between the pixels are crystal clear more than a foot out and affect picture from way out. The point is to make sure you don't try to go to big and/or sit too close with 1080p or without eshift. The situation is worse with DLP due to the larger spacing between pixels. This stuff isn't an issue with smaller (110" or less) screens where people tend to sit a good ways back. Most folks that want giant screens also want to sit relatively close. This is where the issue pops into view.

To say that there is no difference between an RS1 and newer pre-eshift JVCs is inaccurate at best.

Dude, read the posts before you comment. I didn't say that. We are talking basic pixels. There is little or no difference in pixel spacing byween old and new LCOS projectors. Further, the size of the projected pixels for a 1080P projector won't change for a given image size. As such, the pixel structure won't change, nor will it's visibility.

Hi Ben. I am confused by your statement. Obviously with 1920 x 1080 pixels or for that matter any number of pixels, the area each pixel occupies on the screen (projected pixels?) will increase as well as the space between the pixels.

the way I read it was "for a given image size". So image size constant all 1080p would have the same pixel size by definition. At least that's the way I read it.

LCD, DLP, and LCOS have different sized pixels slightly even at the same resolution if you count the pixel as the space inside the fill and not including the fill itself (which is how a pixel should be counted). How can this be since you cannot geometrically divide something unevenly? As you probably know but may not have thought about, the reason is because the spacing between the pixels vary between the different techs, and therefore so does the pixel size because the extra space causes LCD to have smaller pixels. Now that is if you count the pixel as the actual projected pixel and not with the border.

To the other poster, I disagree that you need e-shift for an LCOS projector from 1.x seating distance. I would say "prefer" e-shift, not need. I sit about 1.05x seating width from the screen and I cannot see pixel structure with a JVC, even a DLP that is about where you ALMOST start to see it. I have good vision and don't wear glasses, though someone younger in their 20's might be slightly more adept to see it. The pixel fill of LCD is very visible at that seating distance, but not LCOS. E-shift is about more than just pixel fill, it's about smoothing and changing the way our eyes see the geometric edges.

Would I benefit from e-shift, yes, but I don't need it. I would also benefit from a more expensive projector, but need is a strong word.
Edited by coderguy - 2/24/13 at 4:05pm

When your eyes see the e shift sequential frames 9overlapped) of course you would not see any edges.

are you guys missing that Ben's response is to the OP who was looking at a 160" + screen.

The e-shift will benefit greatly with a screen this large. It makes a noticeable difference sitting 1.25 from my 142".

I've seen the e-shift now, it's some difference, but I don't need it
If it cost $500 more, I'd take it, but not for double the cost of the RS-45 or RS-46.

Since the OP seems to have the extra cash, I say go try to find a used RS-55 but get a smaller screen and move the seats up. I'm not telling him not to get e-shift, I was just saying I don't want it at that price for my budget.

160" is too big a screen for the JVC anyhow really, because an HP at this size would cost too much (if they will even custom cut one that big), and even then it's pushing it even if he can get 2.0 gain. It's ok if the person is on the dimmer side of likeability of what is acceptable, but for me 160" (even HP) is way too big for a JVC. At near closest throw with the HP it's ok before the lamp ages.
Edited by coderguy - 2/24/13 at 4:58pm

It's nice and bright with the smaller 142" 2.8HP. I run @ -11 and there's still plenty of squinting.

e-shift benefit diminishes with the smaller screens, so imo this is the ideal setup to take advantage of it. This screen takes up an entire wall, nearly floor to ceiling. I'd probably go to 150" if I had the room.

Definitely don't go small with eshift.

It depends on seating distance, not screen size, right?
How can it depend on screen size...

I know bigger screens are cooler because of the "auditorium" effect, not saying go THAT small, but 160" is a bit pushing the lamp. 142" like Zombie sounds more reasonable, maybe to 150" but you're hitting the limits even with an HP. Of course it depends on how many hours you put on the projector. At 850 hours, my JVC is almost too dim for my 106" 2.4 gain HP, of course that is with a series 2 lamp.

Keep in mind going bigger with the JVC = losing contrast since you won't be able to close the IRIS as much.
Edited by coderguy - 2/24/13 at 5:20pm

You right, 150-160 is pushing it, but some like it that dim

I like you am waiting on the next BETTER thing, but what I really need is a better sharpening filter beyond the Darbee (HTPC I guess, but oh the dread of configuring the HTPC for TRUE bluray watching). I've had my HTPC staring at me for 3 years yelling configure me configure me, and I yell back NO THANKS. I like the Darbee, but my Benq w7000 sharpening filters are not so great, I need some standard sharpening that does it without the ringing that the Benq's internal sharpening filters cause. Darbee is good, but I need a different algorithm to lay over it in addition.

I like 16 to 18+ fL for the most POP in the image. My JVC RS-45 with 850 hours on the lamp at -5 IRIS is doing 12.5 fL after calibration (and after 1.5x or so gain) and in LOW LAMP, I actually went off a bit to get it back to 16 fL on LOW LAMP. I have an extra lamp just sitting here but I don't want to use it yet. That's something like 70% loss in brightness since new at this point, but that was the older lamps.

I want to see how long this lamp takes to blow up or blow out or something.

I have seen both the Sony VPL-VW1000ES and the Sony VPL-HW50ES projected on a screen roughly 180" diagonally (4 meters wide - 13 feet 4 inches) at a Sony presentation.
The screen was really nothing special with low gain, maybe 1.0 or 1.1. I can honestly tell you that the 50ES was even brighter than the 1000ES. Unfortunately, The Sony reps would not disclose the settings on either machine, so I cannot comment on the iris and the lamp settings.
I can however certify that the 50ES had no problem filling such a large screen, and it also has Sony's DRC technology that is similar to JVC's E-Shift. The Sony VPL-HW50ES is much cheaper than the Sony VPL-VW1000ES. I would recommend that you demo the 50ES and evaluate the image quality. If you find it satisfactory, you could save a lot of money to spend on the remaining gear of your home theater. The Sony VPL-VW1000ES is a fantastic projector, but in my opinion it is a demonstration of a new technology, for which there is no real content yet (4K), Plus, you know that next year's model will be even better at half the cost, so for the time being I would wait until 4K content becomes readily available before purchasing a 4K projector.
If you are not in a real hurry to buy, I would also wait a little bit for the replacement of the Sony VPL-VW95ES, which is said to be much brighter. If it matches the brightness of the Sony VPL-HW50ES, it would be a better choice in terms of picture quality.

All I really want to say is that the pixel structure starts to reveal itself as a texture or grain that appears from a little over 1x the screen width on good 1080P machines. You won't see little boxes outlined by a grid. It surprised me, and I only discovered it by accident when I was using my RS1 to confirm the size of screen and seating distance I wanted for the 1000. I just wanted to share the info because this sport is expensive, and I'd hate for someone to find this out too late. Once you get around 1x back, your beautiful JVC picture will start to look like a panasonic on too big of a screen. Someone else may be better at describing the effect, but once you see something on your own projector that you don't like, every time it appears its like your mother-in-law smacking you on the face.

I didn't know HP had standard sizes that big, I stand corrected. Though I will say 160" would only have given me about 150 hours at 16 fL with the IRIS at -5, maybe 250 at 0 before the fL was sub-12 on lamp low (that is on the older lamp design). Yes I agree if you use lamp high and all that 400-800 hours. So yah, it's not out of the realm of possibilities for a screen that large, but it is pushing it. I actually think you might even get 1000-1500 hours on a screen that big if you are lucky on the lamp dimming, but who knows it's impossible to say. I just don't like using JVC's at 0 IRIS since you lose enough of the contrast to notice in those really dark movies.

@BEN
I really am not bothered by pixel fill at 1.05x seating distance, and everyone knows I am pretty picky. I can see some pixel fill on a DLP at this seating distance, but it's minimal even with a DLP unless I scoot a few inches closer (this is max closeness for DLP). With LCOS I see pretty much none, to really see pixel fill on LCOS you really have to be much less than 1.0x seating distance. But like I said I am not saying that has anything to do with the benefits of e-shift, I am just saying the pixel fill does not bother me at that seating distance on my LCOS.
Edited by coderguy - 2/24/13 at 8:39pm

Here is a review of the X95:


http://www.projectorreviews.com/jvc/dla-x95r/index.php


dj

BTW.

Personally I think it is to dim for your screen size in the long run !

First choice would be: the 1000ES ( the only HT 4K projector for now, and with lots off lumens too )
second choice: the 50ES . ( normal Full HD - 1920x1080 - projector, but lots off lumens, which you gonna need )
AND ad a HP screen too
Edited by d.j. - 2/25/13 at 7:07am

It really depends on how bright you want your image to be.

Many are looking for plasma like overly bright image.

However, if you are looking for a more typical movie theater image, then the JVC will give you a great image.

I am using a 1.1 Cinewhite 150" Lunette screen with my RS-4810 projector.
When I calibrated the projector, I ended up setting the iris at -15 in the cinema mode.
With iris at -15 as the starting point, that leave a lot of adjustment as the lamp ages.

I can't imagine an HP screen in my 100% light controlled HT - it would be way too bright and would expect bright scenes to be completely blown out.

Again, it really depends on the type of image you are looking for.

Perfect example of how every perceived brightness is different

Plasmas are like 30+ fL OOTB most of the time (can be 50-100+ too), my projector in my setup is nowhere near that. It was 14 fL to 20 fL as it should be, this is not Plasma brightness. To maximize the Native on/off of a JVC, you must close the IRIS to -10 thru -15 or so, this is going to drop those lumens way way down. The numbers quoted in here are based on full IRIS OPEN numbers. Also, I have my projector at farthest throw to maximize contrast (not that it makes a huge difference), but this also further reduces brightness 20%+ or so. So we can take those default "closest throw" with IRIS at 0 and LAMP HIGH numbers and feed them to the birds.

You have to realize all combined JVC issues:

1) Due to LAMP HISTORY and cost, most are much more comfortable running it in LAMP LOW (called normal in JVC menu), rather than LAMP high
2) The JVC lamps (on older models) tend to dim MUCH faster than others
3) To maximize the on/off JVC contrast, you need the IRIS at -10 or even -15 (this about cuts your lumens in half)
4) Many of us have PJ's mounted near farthest throw losing another 20% to 30% of brightness
5) Few of us actually get 2.0+ gain out of the HP screen (most own 2.4 gain screen), but due to mounting location we only get 1.5 to 1.6 gain.

When you factor in all the above reasons, a HP screen hardly seems OVERLY Bright. Many of us will only have 20% of the stated lumens to work with at first, and we open the IRIS up as the lamp ages. The way people are talking about the HP screen in here assumes 2.0 gain, lamp high, IRIS 0, closest throw, with NO DIMMING. Most of us in here don't even set our stuff up anything like that, why would we if we are going for the best image.

If the JVC lamps dim much slower than in the past, then it changes the game. The main thing is why even buy a JVC if you are going to use it at IRIS 0, mise well get a Sony or something.

1.5 gain does not even look nearly as much brighter than 1.1 gain as you think (yes it looks brighter). People claiming JVC's are too torchy with the HP screen apparently never thought this through

At 850 hours, my lamp is useless on a NON-HP screen at this point, and it is only 106". I will get about 8 fL calibrated lumens if I was lucky.
Edited by coderguy - 2/25/13 at 2:02pm