or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

NEW RANGE JVC 2014 - Page 38

post #1111 of 3982
I didn't think the JVC line as it is now needs any reduction for low lamp. But high lamp is horrible. The Sony projectors are leaps and bounds better in this regard.

My comment before is based on the article that specifically says improvements were made in the loudness in low lamp mode. I can't imagine JVC only reducing the volume for low lamp and again I was told at cedia that it applied to high lamp mode.
post #1112 of 3982
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geof View Post

My interpretation of the part you quoted agrees with my understanding of how shift functions....
It does have to output 1080p images, but I would say the disagreement is about where the imaged marked "1920x1080 B" in the picture you posted come from with 4K input:



I think the article implies that the "1920x1080 B" image comes from another 1080p image. My understanding is that it would come from the 4K image.

Seems pretty clear to me that the proper way to make the "1920x1080 A" and "1920x1080 B" images with 4K sources is from that 4K source with the only reasons to first downscale to one 1080p image and work from there being shortcuts like lack of schedule or limitations of the particular chips used.

--Darin
post #1113 of 3982
How does the eshift glass work. I notice when I enable it on my X55R there is a noticeable high pitch noise. I'm aware the frames are sequentially placed on the screen. Does that mean the glass is moved in and out the light path for every frame? Is that high speed movement or the motor moving the glass causing this noise?
post #1114 of 3982
So you could just slow the fans down a bit from what use to be the speed in high lamp mode and leave low lamp speed the same.
post #1115 of 3982
Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp2 View Post

It does have to output 1080p images, but I would say the disagreement is about where the imaged marked "1920x1080 B" in the picture you posted come from with 4K input:



I think the article implies that the "1920x1080 B" image comes from another 1080p image. My understanding is that it would come from the 4K image.

Seems pretty clear to me that the proper way to make the "1920x1080 A" and "1920x1080 B" images with 4K sources is from that 4K source with the only reasons to first downscale to one 1080p image and work from there being shortcuts like lack of schedule or limitations of the particular chips used.

--Darin
Part A and Part B both have to come from the 4K image -- Parts A and B are the two subframes derived from from a single 4K frame.

The quote does not imply that to me but I see how it could be taken that way.....
post #1116 of 3982
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geof View Post

Part A and Part B both have to come from the 4K image -- Parts A and B are the two subframes derived from from a single 4K frame.
I was thinking of modifying my post to say the original 4K image. Part B could come from the original 4K image directly, or the 4K could be converted to a single 1080p and then the Part B from that, which is what I believe the article implies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geof View Post

The quote does not imply that to me but I see how it could be taken that way.....
So, why does he imply that there is no benefit over inputting 1080p? Seems pretty clear to me that there is a benefit of extracting the A and B images from the 4K instead of downscaling to 1080p first and then creating the A and B images from that (even if A is identical to that). I wonder if he just doesn't understand the benefit of the former solution.

--Darin
post #1117 of 3982
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seegs108 View Post

How does the eshift glass work. I notice when I enable it on my X55R there is a noticeable high pitch noise. I'm aware the frames are sequentially placed on the screen. Does that mean the glass is moved in and out the light path for every frame? Is that high speed movement or the motor moving the glass causing this noise?
Not sure where the noise originates. The first generation used a glass element whose refractive index varied with applied voltage. They designed it such that the refracted image was shifted by 1/4 pixel in both the vertical and horizontal directions. The 2nd generation makes noise whose pitch varies with frame rate (IIRC) which may mean that the eshift glass element is physically being shifted (similar to shifting lens elements in a Vibration Reduction Lens for example).
post #1118 of 3982
Then why upscale a 1080p image to UHD in the first place. You scale up to UHD or input that with this years models and extract 2 different sets of 1080p pixels from that. Processing or not processing them. Those articles are reviews of demos. You guys are putting too much into the wording. Its just sloppy like most of my posts.
post #1119 of 3982
Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp2 View Post

I was thinking of modifying my post to say the original 4K image. Part B could come from the original 4K image directly, or the 4K could be converted to a single 1080p and then the Part B from that, which is what I believe the article implies.
So, why does he imply that there is no benefit over inputting 1080p? Seems pretty clear to me that there is a benefit of extracting the A and B images from the 4K instead of downscaling to 1080p first and then creating the A and B images from that (even if A is identical to that). I wonder if he just doesn't understand the benefit of the former solution.

--Darin
The way my mind interpreted that is....(no shrinks here I hope)

Even though we can now input 4K signals they must be converted into 1920x1080 images which are then used to generate the pseudo 4K image.

His wording indicated distain for the fact that the 4K image is converted into 1920x1080 images. I infer nothing from his words regarding how those 1920x1080 images are generated.
post #1120 of 3982
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kris Deering View Post

I didn't think the JVC line as it is now needs any reduction for low lamp. But high lamp is horrible. The Sony projectors are leaps and bounds better in this regard.

My comment before is based on the article that specifically says improvements were made in the loudness in low lamp mode. I can't imagine JVC only reducing the volume for low lamp and again I was told at cedia that it applied to high lamp mode.

Correct, low and high reduced
Low 21db
High 28db
Reply
Reply
post #1121 of 3982
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

You guys are putting too much into the wording..
Could be. It might not be the author being sloppy, it might be not understanding the subject matter. Although I do think there is a non-zero chance that the writer is correct and JVC has done this in an inferior way to what is possible (for schedule or technological reasons).

Others can probably explain it better and it seems obvious to me that there is a difference between downscaling to 1080p first and then working from there vs extracting both 1080p images from the original 4K, but I'm going to try a simple example to explain a difference.

Let's assume that product A has to deal in integers and a new product B comes along from a competitor that can deal with resolutions down to 1/4th of an integer. It would be too expensive for product A to be modified to have 1/4th of an integer resolution, so the engineers come up with a way to deal in 2 integers with half as much time applied to each. To viewers this looks pretty much like 1/2 of an integer resolution. I'll call this new one product A2.

If product A2 can only take integer input then there is only so much that can be done to be similar to 1/2 of an integer resolution. However, they come out with a product A3 that can now take 1/4th of an integer inputs. They still have integer output, but with a system that can look like 1/2 an integer of resolution.

The engineers could take that 1/4th an integer input and convert everything to single integers, then extract their 2 integers from that, or they could apply a little more intelligence and realize that extracting their 2 final integers from the original makes a lot more sense.

As an example, if an input was say 3.5 the dumb way to deal with that would be to convert it to 3 or 4, then figure out how to split that up into 2 integers based on other data. The smart way to do it would be to convert it to 3 and 4, for an average of 3.5, then deal with it from there. If the input was 3.75 then they couldn't do that value, but could use 3 and 4 (for 3.5 average) or 4 and 4, or use one of those and keep some meta deta around in case they want to push it toward an average of 3.5 or 4 depending on other data.

I realize this is different and very simplified compared to JVC's situation, but if the above situation happened and a writer claimed that there was no advantage to 1/4th of an integer resolution input on product A3 I would say that they either don't know what they are talking about, or they do and the manufacturer has a dumb implementation that converts that 1/4th of an integer resolution input to a single integer resolution value (not 2 single integer resolution values straight from the input signal).

--Darin
Edited by darinp2 - 10/21/13 at 4:51pm
post #1122 of 3982
So he was writing clearly but misunderstood what was going on. Little difference except in the degree of criticism. For years now, we have understood more or less how it is done. The only difference thius is is UHD in and no need to upscale as a first step when the source is UHD.
post #1123 of 3982
Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp2 View Post

I hope somebody can get clarification about the part of this article that implies JVC is taking 4K frames and downscaling them to single 1080p frames before applying e-shift. I'm talking about his part

I believe the author is incorrect in his statement. At least all the material I've seen about eshift3 suggests so.

However, both reports claim that the Sony VW500 shows significantly more detail and a more natural less "digital processing" look with native 4K material. That might mean that eshift3 isn't as near to native 4K projection as I would have hoped.

But let's wait and see until final reviews come in...
post #1124 of 3982
I remember when HD first came out, I had a Panasonic plasma that was a so-called ED panel. It was therefore not HD (if I recall it was 800x480 or something close to that). It could accept an HD input, and when I tried it I was blown away with how good it looked despite not being an HD display. In other words, starting with too much information and letting the panel decide the important bits of the frame to keep or discard, resulted in an image that no DVD could match. It was a big upgrade...however when I eventually did get a true HD display, it was another fairly big upgrade again.

I am thinking that what we have with the JVC range is somewhat similar. It is not a true 4K panel. As the pixels overlap, you cannot have that clean pixel separation either. Yet, given a 4K source, as the algorithm to downconvert is built-in to the display, and optimised for the display, it will look superior (probably significantly so) than a 1080 source of the same material. However, alongside a true 4K projector like the Sony, it will fail in the resolution stakes and therefore will fall somewhere between 1080 and true 4K.

The question is which is more important for a purchase this year....contrast, or resolution?! Sony has the resolution, JVC has the contrast.
post #1125 of 3982
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonStatt View Post

I remember when HD first came out, I had a Panasonic plasma that was a so-called ED panel. It was therefore not HD (if I recall it was 800x480 or something close to that). It could accept an HD input, and when I tried it I was blown away with how good it looked despite not being an HD display. In other words, starting with too much information and letting the panel decide the important bits of the frame to keep or discard, resulted in an image that no DVD could match. It was a big upgrade...however when I eventually did get a true HD display, it was another fairly big upgrade again.

I am thinking that what we have with the JVC range is somewhat similar. It is not a true 4K panel. As the pixels overlap, you cannot have that clean pixel separation either. Yet, given a 4K source, as the algorithm to downconvert is built-in to the display, and optimised for the display, it will look superior (probably significantly so) than a 1080 source of the same material. However, alongside a true 4K projector like the Sony, it will fail in the resolution stakes and therefore will fall somewhere between 1080 and true 4K.

That's just how I've been thinking of it.

Maybe because I still have my Panny ED plasma smile.gif (Which does still look fantastic with HD).
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonStatt View Post

The question is which is more important for a purchase this year....contrast, or resolution?! Sony has the resolution, JVC has the contrast.

That's close to my dilemma, but for me the dilemma between the Sony and JVC is more "better contrast...or higher brightness...which way to go?"
(And, also, I'm wondering if the true native 4K of the Sony and the Sony RC processing ends up with an overall more impressive image than the JVC with standard HD content. But if the JVCs have made some step forward in processing/contrast, I guess the contest gets even more intriguing).
post #1126 of 3982
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonStatt View Post

I remember when HD first came out, I had a Panasonic plasma that was a so-called ED panel. It was therefore not HD (if I recall it was 800x480 or something close to that). It could accept an HD input, and when I tried it I was blown away with how good it looked despite not being an HD display. In other words, starting with too much information and letting the panel decide the important bits of the frame to keep or discard, resulted in an image that no DVD could match. It was a big upgrade...however when I eventually did get a true HD display, it was another fairly big upgrade again.

I am thinking that what we have with the JVC range is somewhat similar. It is not a true 4K panel. As the pixels overlap, you cannot have that clean pixel separation either. Yet, given a 4K source, as the algorithm to downconvert is built-in to the display, and optimised for the display, it will look superior (probably significantly so) than a 1080 source of the same material. However, alongside a true 4K projector like the Sony, it will fail in the resolution stakes and therefore will fall somewhere between 1080 and true 4K.

The question is which is more important for a purchase this year....contrast, or resolution?! Sony has the resolution, JVC has the contrast.


The 4K input is not down-converted. With 1080P input, JVC upscales to 4K resolution in the projector using MPC. Then, JVC uses that 4K data to create an “A Frame” and a “B Frame”. The A Frame is different from the B Frame. Each frame is 1920 x 1080. The “B Frame” is shifted down and over by ½ a pixel. Those frames are projected at double speed. Your eyes and your brain blend them together to create the 4K e-shift image that you see on the screen.

With a 4K input, nothing is upscaled. The pixels needed for the “A Frame” are taken directly from the 4K data and the different pixels that are needed for the “B Frame” are taken directly from that same 4K data, using JVC's proprietary algorithm. The “A Frame” is different from the “B Frame”. Each frame is 1920 x 1080. The “B Frame” is shifted down and over by ½ a pixel. Again, those frames are projected at double speed. Again, your eyes and your brain blend them together to create the 4K e-shift image that you see on the screen.
Reply
Reply
post #1127 of 3982
Quote:
Originally Posted by AV Science Sales 5 View Post

The 4K input is not down-converted. With 1080P input, JVC upscales to 4K resolution in the projector using MPC. Then, JVC uses that 4K data to create an “A Frame” and a “B Frame”. The A Frame is different from the B Frame. Each frame is 1920 x 1080. The “B Frame” is shifted down and over by ½ a pixel. Those frames are projected at double speed. Your eyes and your brain blend them together to create the 4K e-shift image that you see on the screen.

With a 4K input, nothing is upscaled. The pixels needed for the “A Frame” are taken directly from the 4K data and the different pixels that are needed for the “B Frame” are taken directly from that same 4K data, using JVC's proprietary algorithm. The “A Frame” is different from the “B Frame”. Each frame is 1920 x 1080. The “B Frame” is shifted down and over by ½ a pixel. Again, those frames are projected at double speed. Again, your eyes and your brain blend them together to create the 4K e-shift image that you see on the screen.

I think I wasn't clear. I know the 4K input is not down-converted in the traditional sense. But as the pixels overlap each other, you will never get the distinctly clear 4K pixels you would get from a native 4K panel. So in a sense it is a form of down-conversion. You say your brain merges them together as if two 1080p images become 1 4K image....well your brain cannot see those 2 distinct images at all. It is too fast for that. Actually your brain sees the composite blended image of frame A/B which has overlapping pixels very simply as a static blended image and therefore will never be true 4K in the sense of seeing each pixel individually. The algorithm I was referring to is the bit that does the edge enhancement and contrast enhancement to make up for the fact that pixels overlap. I have the X75 today so I know very well the effect it gives. And it's a great bit of kit, and absolutely adds value. But to say that it approximates a true 4K panel is not valid either. Hence my approximation to something that is better than 1080p, but not the same as Sony's true 4K panel either....
post #1128 of 3982
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonStatt View Post

I think I wasn't clear. I know the 4K input is not down-converted in the traditional sense. But as the pixels overlap each other, you will never get the distinctly clear 4K pixels you would get from a native 4K panel. So in a sense it is a form of down-conversion. You say your brain merges them together as if two 1080p images become 1 4K image....well your brain cannot see those 2 distinct images at all. It is too fast for that. Actually your brain sees the composite blended image of frame A/B which has overlapping pixels very simply as a static blended image and therefore will never be true 4K in the sense of seeing each pixel individually. The algorithm I was referring to is the bit that does the edge enhancement and contrast enhancement to make up for the fact that pixels overlap. I have the X75 today so I know very well the effect it gives. And it's a great bit of kit, and absolutely adds value. But to say that it approximates a true 4K panel is not valid either. Hence my approximation to something that is better than 1080p, but not the same as Sony's true 4K panel either....
I think this is clear and I agree with it. Another way to think about this is with a true 4K Sony all 8.2+ million pixels are fully addressable - ie, each pixel can have unique image data. In the case os a JVC eShifted image only 4+ million pixels are addressable.....the other 4+ million pixels do not exist except in our mind (being formed by the composite of Frame A and Frame B).
post #1129 of 3982
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonStatt View Post

I think I wasn't clear. I know the 4K input is not down-converted in the traditional sense. But as the pixels overlap each other, you will never get the distinctly clear 4K pixels you would get from a native 4K panel. So in a sense it is a form of down-conversion. You say your brain merges them together as if two 1080p images become 1 4K image....well your brain cannot see those 2 distinct images at all. It is too fast for that. Actually your brain sees the composite blended image of frame A/B which has overlapping pixels very simply as a static blended image and therefore will never be true 4K in the sense of seeing each pixel individually. The algorithm I was referring to is the bit that does the edge enhancement and contrast enhancement to make up for the fact that pixels overlap. I have the X75 today so I know very well the effect it gives. And it's a great bit of kit, and absolutely adds value. But to say that it approximates a true 4K panel is not valid either. Hence my approximation to something that is better than 1080p, but not the same as Sony's true 4K panel either....

There has been some confusion on how the JVC's accepted 4K input and that is why I posted. Several posters have mentioned down converting. Yes the "A" frame and "B" frame are flashed so fast that you see them as one. That is the whole point. Yes pixels are overlapped, but the end result speaks for it's self. smile.gif
Reply
Reply
post #1130 of 3982
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geof View Post

I think this is clear and I agree with it. Another way to think about this is with a true 4K Sony all 8.2+ million pixels are fully addressable - ie, each pixel can have unique image data. In the case os a JVC eShifted image only 4+ million pixels are addressable.....the other 4+ million pixels do not exist except in our mind (being formed by the composite of Frame A and Frame B).

Its really amazing the ones mind could create 4 million plus pixels in up to xyYcc color space without the aid of any mind altering drugs. Kudos to JVC.
post #1131 of 3982
Quote:
Originally Posted by AV Science Sales 5 View Post

There has been some confusion on how the JVC's accepted 4K input and that is why I posted. Several posters have mentioned down converting. Yes the "A" frame and "B" frame are flashed so fast that you see them as one. That is the whole point. Yes pixels are overlapped, but the end result speaks for it's self. smile.gif

You could stop there and say it speaks for itself. But that is not AV Science forum speak. What you see must be dissected and compared to a true 4K display. And then it doesn't speak for itself because most don't have a 4K display, so others must speak and they have. Its somewhere in quality between 1080p native and UHD native. Sometimes in life a fake is better than the real thing because flaws in the real thing can be engineered out. Here like an orgasm the real thing is just better. But the imitation is pretty good and a lot cheaper. Remember, you get 4 million plus pixels for free. They don't exist anywhere but in the viewer's mind. Since half the 4K pixels don't exist except in one's head, the projector can MSRP for half the cost of a projector actually projecting 8 million plus real pixels. Its mostly all in the panel costs and the lens.
Edited by mark haflich - 10/22/13 at 9:05am
post #1132 of 3982
I found that bit of info in the article about the pricing interesting. Sounds like the 500ES is priced right in between the 700 and 900 JVC. You would have to be a real contrast die hard to actually spend MORE for the 900 over the Sony. If the short demos I saw at Cedia are a reliable indicator, nobody in their right mind would buy the JVC if the prices were the same, much less if the JVC was more which seems to be the case over there! Of course over here it is a much different story and all the JVCs can be had for much less (street) vs the Sony.

Also good to see these guys comment on the general detail difference between the JVCs and Sony which backs up a lot of the Cedia impressions including my own. Lots of variables obviously, but the Sony just looked more detailed in general to my eyes not only with the native 4k material, but the upconverted blu rays' as well (Spiderman and some Billy Joel concert).
post #1133 of 3982
I saw Billy Joel a while back on some TV concert show and I didn't even know who he was until he played and sang a bit. Man has he aged. Funny. His ex wife model still looks reasonably good in comparison.
post #1134 of 3982
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

I saw Billy Joel a while back on some TV concert show and I didn't even know who he was until he played and sang a bit. Man has he aged. Funny. His ex wife model still looks reasonably good in comparison.

Was it Christie Brinkley he was married to? I think that's right, but not sure.......

The show they were playing at Cedia looked recent as he was definitely showing his age. He had another famous singer with him on stage, but cant remember who now.
post #1135 of 3982
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

Its really amazing the ones mind could create 4 million plus pixels in up to xyYcc color space without the aid of any mind altering drugs. Kudos to JVC.

I have visions of babes in every room and 1000 dollar bills stacked nice and high but they're about as real as those pseudo 4K pixels....tongue.gifsmile.gif
post #1136 of 3982
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post

Was it Christie Brinkley he was married to? I think that's right, but not sure.......

The show they were playing at Cedia looked recent as he was definitely showing his age. He had another famous singer with him on stage, but cant remember who now.

Yes. It was Christie. Someday when we meet I will show you how to find out things like this using google. Of course you must own a google machine.
post #1137 of 3982
post #1138 of 3982
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post

You would have to be a real contrast die hard to actually spend MORE for the 900 over the Sony.

Or get the 4910 for half the price and still get better contrast.
post #1139 of 3982
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

Yes. It was Christie. Someday when we meet I will show you how to find out things like this using google. Of course you must own a google machine.


biggrin.gif


You are my google.
post #1140 of 3982
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post

biggrin.gif


You are my google.
Ahh, ain't that cute....cool.gifbiggrin.gifbiggrin.gif
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home