or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP › Blackest black contest between JVC and DLP on ultra HT gear forum section?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Blackest black contest between JVC and DLP on ultra HT gear forum section? - Page 5

post #121 of 139
For me the strength of the JVC (X35 at the moment, previously owner of a Sony VW85, BenQ W9000 and also familiar with Planar PD8150) is that it doesn't have any obvious flaw to my eyes. Sure, DLPs look better and punchier in bright scenes, but the JVC still look good. However, in darker scenes the JVC retains a very good image whereas the DLPs suffer badly. This complete takes me out of the movie and ruins the experience for me. And this is not only for the darkest movies a lá Haryy Potter. It happens at least occasionally in almost every single movie/serie I watch be it Dexter, Game of Thrones, Bond, Braveheart, Lord of the Rings or what have you. It makes me cringe in the couch, stop concentrating on the movie and start dreaming of a projector with better contrast. Also, DLPs give me slight eye fatigue, while not being a deal breaker, it further favors the JVC.

This is of course just a personal preferences and people are different in what they value in an image, but to me it's the JVC hands down, even in films that are mostly bright.

Gear mentioned in this thread:

post #122 of 139
Quote:
For me the strength of the JVC (X35 at the moment, previously owner of a Sony VW85, BenQ W9000 and also familiar with Planar PD8150) is that it doesn't have any obvious flaw to my eyes. Sure, DLPs look better and punchier in bright scenes, but the JVC still look good. However, in darker scenes the JVC retains a very good image whereas the DLPs suffer badly. This complete takes me out of the movie and ruins the experience for me. And this is not only for the darkest movies a lá Haryy Potter. It happens at least occasionally in almost every single movie/serie I watch be it Dexter, Game of Thrones, Bond, Braveheart, Lord of the Rings or what have you. It makes me cringe in the couch, stop concentrating on the movie and start dreaming of a projector with better contrast. Also, DLPs give me slight eye fatigue, while not being a deal breaker, it further favors the JVC.

I don't find that to be the case with my Lumis. But DLP's with poor or no dynamic iris's do suffer that problem.
post #123 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post

Native contrast of a projector is a function of not just the imaging device but also the optical engine design, including the configuration of (often static) iris's. A good example is CINERAMAX's "Superkontrast" machines. They're (IIRC) "standard" DCI machines (normally 2k:1 or so native contrast) with modified static IRIS's to improve contrast at the expense of light output.

I guess what I'm saying is as far as I'm concerned if you can configure the projector so that it can achive "xxx:1" contrast ratio without any dynamic adjustments (ie, simultaneously), it's "native" contrast.

To argue that native contrast is without any static iris's is like arguing it's the contrast of the imaging device without the light engine, and there is no contrast without the rest of the light engine.

I think this can be construed as somewhat subjective.

You, the user, are the dynamics in setting the manual iris.
post #124 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Peer View Post

I don't find that to be the case with my Lumis. But DLP's with poor or no dynamic iris's do suffer that problem.
I have no doubt the lumis is really good and cant be compared to single chip dlps. As i understand it its black level is also at a different level.
post #125 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by biliam1982 View Post

I think this can be construed as somewhat subjective.

You, the user, are the dynamics in setting the manual iris.
Not really. Dynamic means its changing over time. A manual iris is static and stays at a fixed position and is therefore not involved in dynamic contrast.
post #126 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drexler View Post

Not really. Dynamic means its changing over time. A manual iris is static and stays at a fixed position and is therefore not involved in dynamic contrast.

I see the point made but I think it's broader than that...

How many people open up the iris as the bulb dims?
post #127 of 139
Quote:
I see the point made but I think it's broader than that...

How many people open up the iris as the bulb dims?

Probably quite a few, although I wouldn't call a fixed iris being slooooowly opened over 24 months " dynamic ". smile.gif
post #128 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Peer View Post

Probably quite a few, although I wouldn't call a fixed iris being slooooowly opened over 24 months " dynamic ". smile.gif

People tend to forget there are multiple definitions and interpretations of those definitions for a given word...

Sort of like some think tanks and companies calling people a senior fellow.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dynamic
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dynamic

Here's one of them... Dynamic: Characterized by continuous change, activity, or progress

Nowhere can I find the specific timeline stating how fast something has to change to be considered dynamic.

Whether it happens over a few seconds or months to years, in my eyes(biggrin.gif), the iris is still changing the native contrast.
post #129 of 139
Yes, but in the context of this discussion we aren't talking about dynamic in the way you are. In fact, I don't think anyone has ever referenced a fixed/manual iris as "dynamic" when changing the position as the lamp ages to get more brightness.
post #130 of 139
As another SIM2 Lumis 3 chip DLP owner, I can attest to its excellence. I've seen so many JVCs (owned one, too), Sony, Runco, etc and the best picture, to me, is 3 chip DLP. I've traveled with the AVS crowd for many years to various CEDIA shows to see the best of the best in person. For me, 3 chip DLP is still state of the art.

That said, the JVCs offer a great picture, blacks and more value but have always lacked lumens (unless you buy the $180K model:)). I have a 14' wide scope screen, 1.3 gain Microperf and the Lumis was the best available for PQ, light output, CR and overall excellent picture (and is whisper quiet) for less than my $50K budget. It has been an excellent investment for me and will easily tide me over until 4K really comes into its own. It give as a very bright, vibrant picture even with with my ISCO III lens in place. The dynamic iris ain't too shabby either;)!

If I had a standard 10' wide screen, I would certainly consider any better JVC as light output is not so critical. However, moving from 10' to 14' wide represents nearly 2X the viewing area (plus the 10% loss from perfs)... and that's a lot of extra light. This is where the JVCs have never competed.
post #131 of 139
Let me try to be more clear...

As a whole, a DI changes the native contrast of the FPJ. So does the manual iris. The DI just does it in more real time. The manual iris will do it as the user sees fit.

If you paused the content and took measurements after the DI was engaged and able to perform it's magic, you would get a certain value.

If you took measurements of the manual iris clamped down to whatever setting the user prefers, you would get a certain value.

What I'm trying to say is a user doesn't have to use the manual iris. If they choose to do so, it dynamically changes the measurement no longer making it "native contrast".
post #132 of 139
That is quite a screen! Yes, JVC was not designed to deal with this size. The Sony 1000 is possible, at least with a higher gain screen. (I have a Sony with a 12 ft wide HP2.4 screen, and it works quite well.)
post #133 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by biliam1982 View Post

What I'm trying to say is a user doesn't have to use the manual iris. If they choose to do so, it dynamically changes the measurement no longer making it "native contrast".


See, that's where you have it wrong. The amount of contrast that a manual iris can give is static, as in it cannot change, ie NOT dynamic, which would make this a native amount of contrast that the image can have no matter the content being displayed. I completely understand what you're trying to say, but, like I said, does not apply to this conversation. We are talking about the amount of contrast in an image that a projector give while operating, not the user being able to adjust it before content is displayed.

A DI is totally different depending on the content being thrown at it. It dynamically adjusts (as I'm sure you know) to the content being fed. You should think of it as dynamically adjusting brightness, not contrast.
post #134 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seegs108 View Post

Yes, but in the context of this discussion we aren't talking about dynamic in the way you are. In fact, I don't think anyone has ever referenced a fixed/manual iris as "dynamic" when changing the position as the lamp ages to get more brightness.

I don't think that people are misinterpreting the term dynamic in terms of how an iris is implemented, its more that if someone correlates native CR with image quality then based on the measurements in reviews you would never consider a DLP projector a serious contender to a JVC. You would assume its 3000:1 or less. It would also depend on whose measurements you are using, for example:
Hometheater gave the Q750i a measly 1620:1 native. Yet the Mitsubishi 7800 with its 0.65" DC3 gets 3838:1. I find those measurements hard to reconcile, more difficult still if you have actually seen them demoed.
In fact the 7800 seems to be measured at a historic high with most previous DLP reviews having scores around 1500:1 the previous highest being the Marantz 11S2 with the lofty score of 2650:1 native. I'm not saying that they are particularly anti-DLP, they measured the VW1000 at 2,372:1 native.
So if you are going by those native CR measurements then, sorry VW1000 owners, you should have saved the extra $15K and gone for the Mitsubishi biggrin.gif

They obviously have their methods of measuring, I am sure they are professional and consistent but, personally speaking, this illustrates that native CR should be considered as one of many factors in determining the 'blackest blacks' and overall PQ.

Adjusting a manual iris is not a dynamic measurement by definition.
Edited by danieledmunds - 7/30/13 at 7:23pm
post #135 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by danieledmunds View Post

I don't think that people are misinterpreting the term dynamic in terms of how an iris is implemented, its more that if someone correlates native CR with image quality then based on the measurements in reviews you would never consider a DLP projector a serious contender to a JVC. It would also depend on whose measurements you are using, for example:
Hometheater gave the Q750i a measly 1620:1 native. Yet the Mitsubishi 7800 with its 0.65" DC3 gets 3838:1. I find those measurements are hard to reconcile, more difficult still if you have actually seen them demoed.
In fact the 7800 seems to be measured at a historic high with most previous DLP reviews having scores around 1500:1 the previous highest being the Marantz 11S2 with the lofty score of 2650:1 native. I'm not saying that they are particularly anti-DLP, they measured the VW1000 at 2,372:1 native.
So if you are going by those native CR measurements then, sorry VW1000 owners, you should have saved the extra $15K and gone for the Mitsubishi biggrin.gif

They obviously have their methods of measuring, I am sure they are professional and consistent but, personally speaking, this illustrates that native CR should be considered as one of many factors in determining the 'blackest blacks' and overall PQ.

I owned a HC7800D and the NuVision I have now is the same projector as the Q750i (just a different chassis over the projector). I can tell you without a doubt, the NuVision has a lot more native contrast.
post #136 of 139
I don't doubt it, having seen most of the models mentioned in my post I can attest they vary greatly in all sorts of ways.
post #137 of 139
Isn't the rs20 like 4 generations old with an advertised contrast of 50000:1? I thought the rs66 was like 130000:1, and I'm guessing the new models coming out shortly will do even better.

Are the newer models better than the sim2 lumis?
post #138 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by ComputerTech0903 View Post

Isn't the rs20 like 4 generations old with an advertised contrast of 50000:1? I thought the rs66 was like 130000:1, and I'm guessing the new models coming out shortly will do even better.

Are the newer models better than the sim2 lumis?

The RS20 CR spec. is essentially the same as the later RS40, RS45 and RS46 and RS48 at 50,000:1. The RS5x series and RS6x series have higher CR values. In any case, all of the JVC projectors have a 2-to-1 (or a little more) range of actual on/off CR performance depending on how the zoom is set and how the iris is set. For example the RS4x series will have about 20,000:1 (or a little better) when set to max. zoom (shortest throw) and with the manual iris fully open. This produces the highest lumens output from the projector but the poorest CR value. In order to get the max. CR you need to set the zoom to min. (longest throw) and close down the manual iris. It reduces the lumens output but produces the JVC claimed 50,000:1 CR. The same situation holds true for the other JVC models where it is possible to get over 100,000:1 CR from the RS66, but with perhaps only 400 lumens out.
post #139 of 139
Quote:
The RS20 CR spec. is essentially the same as the later RS40, RS45 and RS46 and RS48 at 50,000:1. The RS5x series and RS6x series have higher CR values. In any case, all of the JVC projectors have a 2-to-1 (or a little more) range of actual on/off CR performance depending on how the zoom is set and how the iris is set. For example the RS4x series will have about 20,000:1 (or a little better) when set to max. zoom (shortest throw) and with the manual iris fully open. This produces the highest lumens output from the projector but the poorest CR value. In order to get the max. CR you need to set the zoom to min. (longest throw) and close down the manual iris. It reduces the lumens output but produces the JVC claimed 50,000:1 CR. The same situation holds true for the other JVC models where it is possible to get over 100,000:1 CR from the RS66, but with perhaps only 400 lumens out.

This is the same problem all projectors have had ( with adjustable irises anyway ). I'll take the 100,000:1 contrast gladly, but I need more like 950 lumens !

Watched Skyfall last night with some friends who hadn't seen it. There are quite a few mixed scenes in that movie that make me so glad we have projectors these days that can put a decent contrast ratio on the screen. The opening of the Macau casino segment is one that looks amazing. Just a stunnung transfer / picture in so much of that movie. smile.gif
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home

Gear mentioned in this thread:

AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP › Blackest black contest between JVC and DLP on ultra HT gear forum section?