or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

NEW RANGE JVC 2014 - Page 42

post #1231 of 3986
Craig, Rich, Toe

Thanks for you input! How do you feel the brightness stacks up at larger screensizes with a JVC? Is it adequate for 10' wide screens or on the dim side?

Thanks!
post #1232 of 3986
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drexler View Post

Craig, Rich, Toe

Thanks for you input! How do you feel the brightness stacks up at larger screensizes with a JVC? Is it adequate for 10' wide screens or on the dim side?

Thanks!

2D or 3D mode?
post #1233 of 3986
2D
post #1234 of 3986
I do have a JVC X30 and a 3m wide 21:9 screen. As it is a dedicated HT room I was able to paint the room dark grey and the floor dark blue with all sources of light (such as windows) being thouroughly closed so the room is very dark. In this conditions the projector is sufficient in it's light output.
post #1235 of 3986
The only issue would be is what is the better upscaler to 4K? The one in the JVC or the one in the receiver? Only way to tell would be to do an A/B.

Re screens. The fair comparison would be Studeotec 130 to HD Pro 1.3, not 1.1.

If you have a JVC and less than a black pit, and want 2D and 3D, the recommendation would be the Stewart Firehawk G4. Craig you need to get a sample of that to in order to make your advice more tasty (sage). The Firehawk has an EXTREMELY high polarization extinction ratio and because all three chips on the JVCs have polarizers aligned the same way and consistent with the alignment of the polarizers in the JVC glasses, one will get a lot more light in 3D. A lot.
post #1236 of 3986
Mark,

I tried a sample of the FH G3 and compared it with carada BW and ST 130 but didnt think it was brighter than the others in 3D even though I expected it to be and was looking for exactly that.

The idea with the jkp 1.1 and ST 130 was to compare screens with different properties not very similar screens. Not very many here have the jkp 1.3, hence my asking for a ST 130 comparison.

westmd.
I will have a dark room so it might be ok with that width then. Thanks!
post #1237 of 3986
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drexler View Post

Craig, Rich, Toe

Thanks for you input! How do you feel the brightness stacks up at larger screensizes with a JVC? Is it adequate for 10' wide screens or on the dim side?

Thanks!

I have the 4810 in a 100% light controlled HT.
Dark maroon/brown walls, black ceiling, screen wall/surround has black velvet surround.
Projecting from back wall mounting, centered on screen, from ~16 feet.
My screen is 150" 16:9 Elite Screens Cinewhite Lunette.

In this setting, it is a very bright projector in 2D.
As a matter of fact, during calibration, I had to close down the iris completely to -15, so that it would not be too bright.

For 3D it could use a bit more output. However, after initial experimentation with 3D, I actually prefer 2D.
Just an FYI - in my set up, I have not experienced ANY ghosting in 3D - perfect image, just a bit dim.
post #1238 of 3986
Dioniz,
Do you prefer watching with closed iris? Your screen is neutral gain right? Thats very large, but I have always suspected the image looks brighter in a reaaly dark room which lets you get away with less footlamberts.
post #1239 of 3986
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drexler View Post

Mark,

I tried a sample of the FH G3 and compared it with carada BW and ST 130 but didnt think it was brighter than the others in 3D even though I expected it to be and was looking for exactly that.

The idea with the jkp 1.1 and ST 130 was to compare screens with different properties not very similar screens. Not very many here have the jkp 1.3, hence my asking for a ST 130 comparison.

westmd.
I will have a dark room so it might be ok with that width then. Thanks!

The problem with screen comparisons in general, is tht one tends to like the brightest assuming it doesn't do gruesome things like the old Silverstar did. One tends to say the brighter does as good as the less brighter re certain characteristics than is true. I don't think anybody has the HD Pro 1.3. But I would want a sample of Studeotec 130 and HD Pro 1.3 before I decided and I would not rely on threads like this where the posters really have no samples or experience with the 1.3.

Most here tend to support the screens they chose. Me too. I am guilty. I think my Snomatt 100 buries my Studeotec 130. I could never ever go back to the 130 but my room can support a wide dispersion screen and my screen size and projector can support a unity gain.
Edited by mark haflich - 10/26/13 at 8:22am
post #1240 of 3986
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

...The Firehawk has an EXTREMELY high polarization extinction ratio and because all three chips on the JVCs have polarizers aligned the same way and consistent with the alignment of the polarizers in the JVC glasses, one will get a lot more light in 3D. A lot.

Mark - does that apply to the first generation Firehawk as well? Or is that an improve my that they've made in the later generations of this screen?
post #1241 of 3986
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

The only issue would be is what is the better upscaler to 4K? The one in the JVC or the one in the receiver? Only way to tell would be to do an A/B.

Re screens. The fair comparison would be Studeotec 130 to HD Pro 1.3, not 1.1.

If you have a JVC and less than a black pit, and want 2D and 3D, the recommendation would be the Stewart Firehawk G4. Craig you need to get a sample of that to in order to make your advice more tasty (sage). The Firehawk has an EXTREMELY high polarization extinction ratio and because all three chips on the JVCs have polarizers aligned the same way and consistent with the alignment of the polarizers in the JVC glasses, one will get a lot more light in 3D. A lot.


I was not looking for a general across the board comparison when asking about the screen comparison, but strictly screen texture. It sounds like a Pro 1.1, Cine 1.1 and Snomatt from lots of comments here including your own should show noticeably less texture vs a 130 and HP 2.8/2.4.
Edited by Toe - 10/26/13 at 9:35am
post #1242 of 3986
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drexler View Post

Craig, Rich, Toe

Thanks for you input! How do you feel the brightness stacks up at larger screensizes with a JVC? Is it adequate for 10' wide screens or on the dim side?

Thanks!

It really depends on the room, screen, projector mounting location/setup and viewer. With a new lamp, mid throw (for 2.35) and iris at -10 getting ~2.1 real world gain out of my HP in my black pit HT room, I find my 9' wide image (throwing ~126" diag 1.78 image to fill my 2.35 screen doing the zoom method) to be excellent for brightness, but if I were to run this same way with a 1.0 screen I would not be happy with my light output. Other members on here are happy with what I would consider a very dim image and others still watch what I would consider too bright of an image. Brightness is a very subjective thing it would seem for a variety of reasons.

Having said all that, for a 10' wide screen and a JVC, I would either want a HP screen with optimal projector mount to take advantage of the gain, or if going with a lower gain ~1.0 - 1.3 gain screen I would want to make sure to mount the projector closer to the screen to max light output. Some may disagree with that, but this is just what I would do in the case of a 10' wide screen in my room with my brightness preferences which again will change from viewer to viewer, room to room, screen to screen, etc.......

Only other thing I would say is watching an "adequately" bright picture vs a "brightness where I prefer it" picture can make a big difference in the overall viewing experience. I have viewed a number of adequately bright setups, but they pale in comparison to an image that puts out closer to what I consider ideal light output. The JVC RS67 put out an adequately bright image when I saw it at Cedia for example while the Sony put out a brighter more close to ideal brightness as far as what I like image. My ST130 9' 2.35 screen when I got it with my RS1 and RS40 put out an adequate brightness type pic running the projector the way I was, but moving up to the HP gave me a pic with brightness very close to how I would ideally want it and it made a BIG difference to my eyes.

Personally, I think the HP screen is the best overall screen you can use with a JVC in particular IF you can accommodate the strict mounting requirements to take advantage of the gain and you don't have a wide seating area (and preferably a single row as well). for 2d, you can tame the brightness as much as needed with low lamp, clamping down the iris and increasing your throw which will also get you more of that awesome native contrast (while still getting great brightness) which the JVCs are so well known for and for 3d open up the iris, high lamp and combined with the HP gain you will still get a nice relatively bright 3d pic vs your 2d. As long as I own a JVC in particular, my HP 2.8 is going nowhere. cool.gif
post #1243 of 3986
Quote:
Re screens. The fair comparison would be Studeotec 130 to HD Pro 1.3, not 1.1.

I have samples of the HD Pro. 1.3 .I haven't reached any conclusion yet comparing it to the ST 130 G3. Stay tuned.
Quote:
If you have a JVC and less than a black pit, and want 2D and 3D, the recommendation would be the Stewart Firehawk G4. Craig you need to get a sample of that to in order to make your advice more tasty (sage). The Firehawk has an EXTREMELY high polarization extinction ratio and because all three chips on the JVCs have polarizers aligned the same way and consistent with the alignment of the polarizers in the JVC glasses, one will get a lot more light in 3D. A lot.

I have a FH G4 sample. It looks very similar to the G3. I haven't really tested it in the theater yet. Since I don't watch 3D, I can't really comment on that. These days I tend to not recommend a grey screen unless one really needs it. Better to modify your room somewhat to be able to take advantage of a good white screen IMO.
Quote:
Thanks for you input! How do you feel the brightness stacks up at larger screensizes with a JVC? Is it adequate for 10' wide screens or on the dim side?

I would say no. I don't think my Lumis is adequate for screens wider than 118". Then again, I like bright ! Might depend on what your definition of bright is. Or, how often you are willing to change lamps.
post #1244 of 3986
The Firehawk G4 was to make it similar to the Firehawk LS. Different coatings and substrate material. The LS over G3 has a much much higher polarization extinction ratio making it suitable for 3D passive and giving a significant boost for use with JVC 3D. The G4 now has the same high polarization extinction ratio has the LS, at least that's my belief but I don't yet have the measurements for the FH G4. I have them under non publication for the other Stewart materials.
post #1245 of 3986
Getting back to the new JVC's....one of the new items for next year are 6th generation D-ILA chips with gaps 40% narrower than this years models. Did anyone ask JVC what happened to the lost real estate? IOW, did they increase pixel size by the same amount they reduced the gap? Or, did they decrease the overall size of the 1920x1080 array?
post #1246 of 3986
Now that is an obvious but good question that no one else even thought of. My guess is that the pixels are bigger but the chip size is the same. If the chip size was smaller the lens would be different in its back plane focus design I would think.
post #1247 of 3986
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

Now that is an obvious but good question that no one else even thought of. My guess is that the pixels are bigger but the chip size is the same. If the chip size was smaller the lens would be different in its back plane focus design I would think.
I thought that too but then again it seems to me that they may want to reduce the imaging array size for 4K panels otherwise that chip will be a beast (and the optics will cost bundles) and if that is true perhaps the array size in these devices got smaller as well.
post #1248 of 3986
I must be a freaking genius.smile.gif I decided to look at the specifications for the coming projectors. the specs show the chip to be 0.7, the same size as last year..
Edited by mark haflich - 10/26/13 at 12:24pm
post #1249 of 3986
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

I must be a freaking genius.smile.gif I decided to look at the specifications for the coming projectors. the specs show the chip to be 0.7, the same size as last year..
And I'm the freaking dunce.....duh....it's right there.....great then, thanks Mark!
post #1250 of 3986
I'm curious if the closer pixel spacing will affect the perceived sharpness without the e-shift.
post #1251 of 3986
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombie10k View Post

I'm curious how the closer pixel spacing will affect the perceived sharpness without the e-shift.
I'd say the better fill would make the image look more solid so coupled with eshift3 it's probably pretty solid and detailed looking. Bigger pixels may improve sharpness.
post #1252 of 3986
Isn't there pixel bleed with LcOS, thus the closer the interpixel gap the greater the bleed. Sharpening may need to be increased to compensate.
post #1253 of 3986
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highjinx View Post

Isn't there pixel bleed with LcOS, thus the closer the interpixel gap the greater the bleed. Sharpening may need to be increased to compensate.

Are you speaking of convergence bleed or the inherit pixel formation, because I think perceptually it's hard to separate the LCOS bleed from the convergence, unless you had maybe the best convergence out of 100 samples.

I never noticed it too much on my RS-45, looks pretty clean pixel-wise. I mean the pixels aren't all that much less defined than my Benq w7000, a little bit but only if you get within 6 feet of the screen can I really see anything different than a low-cost DLP. Also the sharpness on the JVC's have improved quite a bit over the years. Don't get me wrong DLP still looks different even vs. the newer JVC's, but it also looks more digital, so not always a good different when it comes to sharpness.
post #1254 of 3986
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drexler View Post

Dioniz,
Do you prefer watching with closed iris? Your screen is neutral gain right? Thats very large, but I have always suspected the image looks brighter in a reaaly dark room which lets you get away with less footlamberts.
Yes. In my room, with iris not completely closed, the image appears too bright - un-natural.
Even with the iris fully closed, calibration showed all the grey scale bars properly.
That confirms that it has sufficient brightness with the iris fully closed (otherwise I would not have been able to se all the bars)
I believe the screen is specified as 1.1, but when reviewed was measured 1.0
post #1255 of 3986
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post

Personally, I think the HP screen is the best overall screen you can use with a JVC in particular IF you can accommodate the strict mounting requirements to take advantage of the gain and you don't have a wide seating area (and preferably a single row as well).
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombie10k View Post

I'm curious if the closer pixel spacing will affect the perceived sharpness without the e-shift.

Time to say it yet again: It's *not* necessary to strictly follow the optimum mtg req.

My pj is 7' from the floor on the back wall, which gives me about 1.8 gain.

Not optimum, but way better than 1.0 or 1.3, and I still get all of the other HP advantages.
post #1256 of 3986
And all its disadvantages as well. smile.gif
post #1257 of 3986
Pixel bleed is an interesting one. LCoS does suffer from pixel bleed. To be clear what this means is that if a pixel is bright (imagine full white), next to a cluster of black pixels (full off), that the white bleeds into the neighbouring pixels. With a smaller pixel gap, there is a risk that this increases. Does that affect ANSI contrast? Not in itself as the bleed is very close only. To be honest the bleed effect of the lens and other aspects of light scatter within the optical block are much more of a concern as they affect ANSI contrast. You can see the bleed effect of the lens by seeing this "bloom" effect on high bulb , aperture fully open, vs low bulb and aperture fully closed. The pixels become much more distinct as the light working its way through to your screen reduces. Nonetheless and perhaps counter-intuitively ANSI is normally best with the aperture wide open...

Now many, including me, ruled out the clear black feature from the off as some kind of artificial contrast enhancer that pushes dark greys to black at the risk of crushing shadow detail. However, it occurred to me that it could be used to combat some of this bleed if implemented well. If we know that pixel A will have a 25% influence on neighbouring pixel B we can lower the luminance of pixel B by the same 25% thus restoring the pixel to a correct value again. Of course if that neighbouring pixel is black there isn't much you can do. But if the average APL is suitable, then there is the possibility to correct this issue. Now if JVC have implemented this, than that would be something special. If it is as feared, it is just a contrast trick by squashing shadow details, then it will be very un(!)-special.
post #1258 of 3986
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonStatt View Post

Pixel bleed is an interesting one. LCoS does suffer from pixel bleed. To be clear what this means is that if a pixel is bright (imagine full white), next to a cluster of black pixels (full off), that the white bleeds into the neighbouring pixels. With a smaller pixel gap, there is a risk that this increases. Does that affect ANSI contrast? Not in itself as the bleed is very close only.

Now many, including me, ruled out the clear black feature from the off as some kind of artificial contrast enhancer that pushes dark greys to black at the risk of crushing shadow detail. However, it occurred to me that it could be used to combat some of this bleed if implemented well. If we know that pixel A will have a 25% influence on neighbouring pixel B we can lower the luminance of pixel B by the same 25% thus restoring the pixel to a correct value again. Of course if that neighbouring pixel is black there isn't much you can do. But if the average APL is suitable, then there is the possibility to correct this issue. Now if JVC have implemented this, than that would be something special. If it is as feared, it is just a contrast trick by squashing shadow details, then it will be very un(!)-special.

Very interesting post, thanks. I have seen the bleed effect a few times on pure white text over black and seen a slight blooming line effect almost like a fading light in a cloudy night sky. I did not know the technical reason for it until now. It is funny though because my eyes quickly adjusted it out and I no longer notice unless I look for it, and it was very minor in the first place. Plus I don't use my PJ with white text on black very often, of course there is always the credits (but I never watch credits).

Overall, I am still super impressed with the sharpness and pixel definition of JVC as a non-DLP unit, and still have not seen a NON-DLP match the sharpness of my RS-45, but haven't seen the vw1000es of course (but that's apples to oranges really).

Off Topic, but:
Speaking of lights in clouds, unfortunately I recently also encountered my first major UFO sighting. A giant orange light appeared in the sky with no explanation, the light was 100x larger than a plane and was relatively stationary (not like the moon but in a large odd formation). Apparently some of it has been attributed to aberrations of on-ground light sources moving and shining upward from vehicles, and some is from suspected pranksters (the same type of people that love making crop circles). Of course there is always the little green men theory smile.gif
Edited by coderguy - 10/27/13 at 9:17am
post #1259 of 3986
Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp2 View Post

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned already, but one thing the dynamic iris could help with is brighter corners on blackouts. I thought JVC had pretty much solved that problem a few years ago, but then with the RS45 saw some of it with multiple units. Since it tends to be most visible on the darkest images and this is where a DI can help, even if there is some non-uniformity where the corners don't get as dark as the center of the image this may not be visible in DI mode due to the darker levels making this harder to see.

Hopefully other visible non-uniformity won't be caused by closing an iris too far. This was an issue I saw with a Panasonic AE4000 that I had where the image would become very non-uniform at the most closed iris position. With real content it may not have been that much of an issue if I had used the aggressive iris mode, but it became pretty visible when measuring on/off CR even though all parts of the image were doing at least 100k:1 IIRC (some were just doing a lot more than 100k:1).

--Darin

You mean like this paper test on my RS55? That would be great news for me if this was a byproduct benefit of ILA/DI. I never really notice it in real world viewing or overall PQ but I know it's there and it's always bugged me. Maybe I too am just being overly picky. wink.gif

Mark - Your Sox were ROBBED last night… What a BS call! eek.gif

post #1260 of 3986
Agree. I have never seen any baseball game decided on an interference call on the last scoring play. Walk off interference .


And it is intuitively obvious if you make the iris smaller less light will hit the screen, making blacks darker and bright corners less bright. But the delta or ratio rather between the irised down bright corners should, I would thing remain the same, given that the blacks should decrease by the same amount. So Kevin, it will still drive you nuts. best solution? Shut your eyes when the screen is supposed to be black.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home