Any idea when/if Sony will be releasing a successor to the vpl-vw95?

No clue. Given the financial shape Sony is in, no predictions can reliably be made. Normally they will come out with one projector a year, sometimes two and Cedia in September would be the timing. Cedia is late Sept. this year.

I have a VW95 at the moment but I'm eager for news on it's replacement too. Hoping that Sony can deliver a lower black level and increase in native contrast to compete with JVC while giving us extra brightness for 3d. Reality Creation would be nice too! I suspect that they'll release a replacement in the later Autumn.

They're only solid with the help of a dynamic iris. Native measurements are close to 10:000:1. That still blows DLP and LCD out of the water but it's no where near what JVC is doing. The way JVC has designed their chips to get contrast that high has consequences though. Response times of the panels become slow and thus motion and 3D are hurt in the process. From what I've heard JVC uses particularly thick LCOS chips. This helps with contrast, but because they're thick the amount of time the chip needs to "reset" is lengthened and thus the amount of time to accept and display it's next intended image is lengthened.

Sony has taken the middle ground. Very decent native contrast and an implementation of an ingenious dynamic iris algorithm design. I'm a fan of what Sony has done. With this method you get better motion and 3D and still end up with that LCOS analog look combined with "enough" contrast and black levels. Though, there are still some out there that complain and want better than what JVC is currently doing. Apparently that isn't enough.

Mark,

What are your thoughts on the SRX-R515? In the highend it seems only DLP will do, with even the vw1000 relegated to the $3k forum. If it isn't Sim2, Barco, or maybe DPI... it's crap.

People make a big deal about chip size in DLP. The Sony has a 1.48" chip which is bigger than 4k DLP. Some people cite optics, but surely a projector designed for 12 to 16 meter screen has sufficiently good optics to look great on a 12' to 16' foot screen, no?

So 4k, large chip, 8k:1 CR, 15,000 lumens, passive 3D support in 1 projector, DCI color, built in server... what am missing? Why isn't that projector as least as hot as the Qualia was when it came out... marketing?

Edit: ...and lens memory for us zoomers.
Edited by rabident - 3/19/13 at 6:45pm

What is the benchmark we are using for better motion when discussing Sony vs JVC? I thought the FPD benchmark was considered the litmus test for this topic.

David Mackenzie @ http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk measured the VW1000, Sony HW50 and JVC RS4810 at ~300 lines with no motion compensation. He uses top shelf equipment in his lab and has some of most dead on reviews out there today on these models.

Is he doing the test wrong? I ran the FPD test last night on an HW50 and I'm seeing the same thing, ~ 300 lines. I can't make out much more below that.

if the Sony is better, why are we seeing these numbers? I would have though 600+ lines if there was a visible difference between the Sony and JVC.

You're also seeing those numbers for a number of DLP machines out there as well. You're telling me that DLP has the same motion look as LCD and LCOS?

I went to a home theater meet over the weekend and spent nearly 5 hours with a HW50ES and I can tell you it looks worlds better than the X3 I owned for a couple months. So unless e-shift makes THAT much of a difference and I doubt it does, I'm telling you there's no way the JVC machines handle motion the same way Sony projectors and DLP ones do. You're also telling me you see NO difference between your RS55 and the HW50ES you own with real world content with no FI system engaged?

Ok, so the FPD benchmark is no longer considered a valid test then. So what is the benchmark for comparison? A scene is a specific movie, or a sporting event clip?

I need a frame of reference or a known benchmark when comparing in an A/B stack.

I'll try and remember a few specific scenes where the JVCs looked particularly bad. I remember in Tree of Life at the beginning where Brad Pitt and Jessica Chastain's characters are walking down the street, there are some fairly fast camera movements and it looked horrible on the RS20 at the time. I never got a chance to take a look at that scene with the X3 but I'm sure it would have been troublesome. It was a smeared mess. I'll try and recall some other specific scenes for you to test.

I'm not sure what to make of the test. But there are clearly differences in projectors and other displays when running that test. But like I said before there are several recently released DLPs scoring the same as JVC projectors but there is obviously a difference to the eye when it comes to how motion looks on them with real world material. Right?

Back to the OP, I'm in the same boat, but have decided to wait and see what comes out at Cedia in Sept. Currently with a black pearl and really wanting an upgrade as well. Finally decided that if I've lived with the Black Pearl for 5 + years, a few more months won't kill me. I'm the type that thinks I'll upgrade or turnover product on a regular basis (houses, cars, projectors) but in reality, I usually use things for a long time (House-15 years and counting, cars-same thing) so I may as well wait till Sept. and then buy the latest, because I'll end up using it for another 5 years plus.

I'm going to Cedia just to know and see what's coming this fall. September is a long way off tho.

I have been away for a few days doing a mega high end install in a man cave house in eastern long island. Projectors and screen won't be installed until early summer I suspect. a 600 mile RT to the site every time I go and I go about once per month. We are dealing with a mega buck projector lift right now.

The Sony projector is going to be a price break through and it has a built in 4TB server. Pricing and further detailed specs are expected April 1st. We were hoping for around $40K but I suspect it may come out in the $50K plus range. A company I am with will be selling it.

It should be a hell of a machine but your screen better be really big. It has something like 6000 lumens and will require a booth to muffle the noise and it will need a cool air intake and a hot air exhaust venting to the outside.
Edited by mark haflich - 3/28/13 at 10:32am

Anecdotal evidence suggests that JVC motion handling on the current crop of projectors is vastly improved. Drawing any conclusions of the 2013 JVC projectors' motion performance based on your experience with the X3 (which is a few generations old) is specious at best. Compare the 46, 4810, 56 or 66 against the HW50ES and then let us know what you think.

If JVC had really gotten rid of the issue, don't you think there would be a lot more discussion about it? I think you're seriously overstating that motion handling is "vastly" superior compared to projectors that have a very similar design to the X3 generation. If that was the case I think you'd be seeing a marketing campaign similar to what Sony did a few years ago. When Sony redesigned their LCOS chips people KNEW about it. They were claiming a vast improvement with motion and it was actually there. Don't be naive enough to think that JVC would do something like this and be mum on the subject. They would be all over that chance to tout their LCOS technology (in regards to motion) as being better (or equal) than what Sony has to offer. You won't be seeing this happening any time soon, either. One of the reasons they haven't redesigned their chips for "vastly" superior motion is because they'd have to sacrifice native contrast to do so. Sony made this happen because their new LCOS chips are quite a bit "thinner" but at the cost of native contrast. From what I've read this helps with response time of the chips. They can "reset" and display a new image much quicker if the chip is thinner, thus making response time faster. If Sony wanted to match JVC in contrast they could but their approach is for a better overall experience with decent native contrast (~10000:1) and the best motion LCOS has to offer currently. JVC would have to sacrifice the native contrast (and you won't be seeing them doing this any time soon) to get motion to look anywhere near it does on Sony projectors. Black levels and contrast are what make a JVC projector a JVC projector. It's really the only thing they do better than any other projector technology.

So I don't NEED to see one to know that motion isn't as good as DLP or SXRD. I will try my hardest to see for myself, but the engineering behind the technology is enough for me to know that it isn't improved upon as much as some people are claiming.

Most people are fine with the way it looks and I'm kind of envious of their ignorance. My perception of motion must be more sensitive because it bothers me enough to the point where I simply can't own one. If you don't see what I see that's great. Enjoy your projector.

I want to add that I'm not saying that it isn't indeed better and there are tons of reports that say e-shift is the real culprit of why it looks better. So it may be improved but I don't think that even JVC thought it was improved upon by a vast amount. Otherwise, like I said, they would be making claims that it is just as good as what Sony offers or some other claim of that type. The only thing we get is a single line on their website that says that it has an "Upgraded optical engine and driver for smoother gradations and reduced motion blur" and I have yet to see a single professional review comment on how motion looks "vastly superior" to previous generations. But when Sony came out with their new SXRD chips almost all of them commented on how motion was better.
Edited by Seegs108 - 3/23/13 at 5:26pm

I stick by my original statement. If you think that the X3's motion performance is a reliable indicator of the 2013 JVC projectors' motion performance, you're wrong. And even the RS46's motion performance is improved, and it doesn't have e-shift, so e-shift isnt the whole story. You don't have to believe me regarding JVC's overall motion handling; zombie has also implied that it's better. I don't have a dog in this fight, but I think it's disingenuous to make recommendations to the OP about projectors you haven't even seen. The JVCs certainly no longer look "partularly bad" in any motion intensive scene.

It isn't disingenuous to say that motion isn't as good as SXRD and DLP. Because that is the truth. That is exactly what I said. If anything I was being helpful telling him that motion isn't all the same between technologies. There have been many people who have heard nothing but great things about JVC projectors, bought one, and returned it because they didn't like how it looked. Most of the time, they were coming from an older DLP model. The biggest complaint was always motion related.

My question to you would be; have you see an X3 (or older generation) and compared it to the newest generation?

How is that the truth when the tests that Zombie referred to in his post above said that uncompensated motion resolution is the same between the Sony and the JVC?

Nope, I haven't seen the X3 and compared it to the newest generation of JVCs But I'm also not the one saying that motion resolution is comparable between the X3 and current projectors. As I said in my original post, anecdotal evidence (i.e. comparisons by other former and current JVC users) suggests that JVC motion reproduction is vastly improved. The measurements zombie linked to seem to bear that out. But you're making a recommendation based on an assumption (apparently erroneous) that older JVC projectors perform just like new ones with respect to motion resolution. All I'm saying is that without actually seeing both, you shouldn't draw that conclusion.

I haven't compared older and current JVC projectors. But neither have you. And the facts are that anecdotal evidence, published reviews, and hard numbers suggest the current JVC projectors are much better at motion than they used to be. Sure, it's possible the SXRD is still better. But it's known that D-ILA isn't nearly as crappy as it used to be.

That's because that test is dependent on more than just how a projector handles motion and is based on a number of other things. One of the more important factors is how well pixels are defined. The lens on the JVC is rather exceptional at the Sony's price point. While I haven't personally seen the newest JVC generation, I have read some posts by members who have owned a Sony HW50ES and one of the newer generation JVCs and they have said that motion is definitely better on the Sony.

Zombie has responded after I talked about motion. I'm sure if he thought my post was totally out of line he would have commented on it. I'm sure he will comment eventually and put this issue to rest. I'm not claiming (nor have I ever in this thread) that motion hasn't been improved. I'm sure it has, but I don't think it has improved enough to the point where it matches Sony's SXRD panels and that's what my point was.

Please enlighten me to a single post where someone has said, based on comparison, that current generation JVC units handle motion just as good as a Sony with it's new SXRD panels. I read this forum quite a lot and have yet to see someone make that claim. I have seen, however, many posts claiming the opposite.

Speak of the devil... Had a chance to A-B my JVC RS4810 vs the Sony HW50 last night for a few hours.

Motion... The Sony is still better but not by a huge amount in actual film material. Both are significantly better with motion flow on, but it just causes to many negative side effects to use on 24p material.

Overall though I would take the JVC any day of the week. (For 2D)

This is pure speculation so take it for what it is:

I don't see how the panel speed could affect motion resolution in this case. Think about it. The JVC can do 3D at 120 Hz. That means it can show 60 right and 60 left images per second. While it can't do it completely ghost free it does a fairly nice job with it. A movie has only 24 frames per second. Do you really think it can't resolve each frame at 24 Hz when it can show 3D at 120 Hz? Also, if there was smear at 120 Hz even the still pictures in 3D would be a smear since it constantly shifting between the left and right perspective.

What jumps to mind is instead the sample and hold effect. Perhaps the blanking time between frames are different for the Sony and the JVC?

My advice is always to try and demo and see for yourself if you're new to projectors. People have very different priorities.

I'm coming from a BenQ W9000 0.95'' DLP to a Sony VW85 to a JVC X35. IMO the JVC is by far the better projector. I haven't really noticed any poor motion resolution either. 24 Hz is always a bit smeary at fast motion and on regular TV I don't notice any poor motion. Not to say there is no difference, just that I don't notice it! So go and see for yourself. I'll bet it's only a minority who would have a problem with it.
Edited by Drexler - 3/24/13 at 2:38am

Those are my observations as well. I'm not seeing a day/night difference in motion for 24 frame film content. I was A/B'ing between my RS55 / HW50 watching scenes from Skyfall, The Dark Knight Rises and the nordic release of the Fifth Element. I wouldn't pick the HW50 over 4810/55 because of an obvious advantage for motion with blurays. The 1 advantage here is that the Sony can crank out ~1000 lumens @ D65 which is impressive.

All 3 projectors are still limited to ~ 300 lines on the FPD benchmark. A recent test of the Sharp 30K shows around 450 lines. If the Marantz projectors can easily handle 1080 in this test, then it would seem to have an obvious advantage with fast paced broadcast sports at 60 frames.

This is an interesting motion test to put some perspective on motion blur between 24 frame and 60 frame content.

http://frames-per-second.appspot.com/

Motion covers a variety of scenes and shooting techniques and frame rate captures. First shutter capture speed as well as the panning of moving options will affect the clarity of any frame capture not to mention DOF which can make an object look blurry too. Then the frame capture comres into play and the space traveled by the motion between frames. then we often have stutter of vertical objects which while not motion is pretty much the same because of the distance traveled by the pan between frames. And the frames themselves could be blurry if the shutter speed is too slow. we tend to call all motion.

if a frame is blurry the projector is not going to fix it. Nothing is going to help. it will look blurry on all the projectors. next we can add frames interpolated from the real frames. it all becomes how many can be added and how well they can be constyructed. this depends in part of the the offset in position of the object in each frame. now if panel spped is slow, this would limit the number of frames that could be generated and displayed but that really isn't the case here with the various projectors. Its more a case of the quality of the non real frame generation.

Anyhow my point is that oftyen we are talking about different motion et all blurring and several tests are needed, basically one for each type of shot etc.

Now that is a cool website!!!!

If you're viewing mainly blurays / movies, etc. then consider the 4810 as a replacement. The 2D PQ w/ eshift is more natural in appearance without the noise that RC introduces into the image.

How big is your screen / seating distance? Do you have light treatments on the floor and ceiling to block reflections?

The 4810 has the memory zoom built in.

I can watch that video all day long on my iPad. Kind of like the old Atari PONG game except user doesn't have a paddle. I'll watch that video for 12 or so hours today while I snort cocaine and watch my cats throw up on the carpet...hilarious

Re-read my posts. I never claimed that the JVC motion handling was just as good as Sony's. I pointed out one test (that Zombie also pointed out) that indicated the relative performance is now similar. Regardless, all I ever claimed was that the X3's performance is not a reliable indicator of current-model JVC motion performance since current JVC motion performance is vastly improved...i.e. it no longer sucks. I don't know why this is so hard to understand.
Edited by Schwa - 3/24/13 at 7:47am