or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

NEW RANGE JVC 2014 - Page 8

post #211 of 3973
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Peer View Post

I agree that I'd like to see higher CR and brightness - I suspect that a 4K LED 3 chip DLP dream projector in the future ( or laser ) might do it - at a price I most likely won't like. Another case in point -

From Home Theater Magazine's JVC DLA-X95R review -
My Lumis can produce about 24,000:1 contrast, and 18 - 20 foot lamberts. So it is possible.

That must look amazing! I've always wanted to see a Lumis in action.

I'm always experimenting with image size and aperture settings on my JVC RS55. Since it's true you can't get it all, I go back and forth in my preferences between "brighter/punchier" and "deeper black levels."

Although the contrast goes down as you open the aperture for a brighter image, as you know our perception isn't linear.
The brighter image can look like it has more contrast, even though it has less. So I find when I look at an image that has both large bright and dark areas, as I open up the aperture the bright areas get obviously brighter to my eyes but the dark areas don't look like they brighten nearly as fast. So opening the aperture often gets me a higher-contrast looking image.

However, sometimes I'm watching a movie that is really dark and then I start noticing the raised black levels due to the brighter image. For instance last night I was watching the Blu-Ray of Carpenter's The Fog, which has tones of dark night scenes. In the opening shots you see a gold pocket watch illuminated by camp fire, dangling against a black night background. As I raised the aperture that dangling watch became more brilliant, sticking out from the background more, looking more realistic an solid and gorgeous. But lowering the aperture brightness made those black levels clearly deeper on such material. The watch being dimmer didn't "punch" as much, but it now sat against a much deeper background that looked more solid, less like a gray shadow on a screen surface.

I ended up going with the much lower brightness for this movie. Day scenes weren't as sparkling as they could be, but night scenes were more convincing, more real...and actually creepier! The sense of really "being in the dark" when it went to night scenes was just that much more realised and scary.

So, gosh darn it, I really want both! (Which is why I envy the type of contrast people are now going to get with flat panels like OLED...though of course I won't envy the size).
Edited by R Harkness - 9/11/13 at 1:50pm
post #212 of 3973
JVC contrast numbers are really misleading. For instance, the rs66 can get you 100,000+ but it will only be 200 lumens. So, its really unrealistic, even with a HP screen. If eshift is "4K," you will need a screen big enough to take advantage. When I had the rs55 on a 119in screen, the effects were little to none. With the rs48, you could adjust the effects but they would look over cooked. I'm hoping I don't get suckered into buying one this year, I'm trying my best to hold off until next year
post #213 of 3973
Quote:
Originally Posted by blee0120 View Post

If eshift is "4K," you will need a screen big enough to take advantage. When I had the rs55 on a 119in screen, the effects were little to none.

Interesting, a number of JVC owners including me had different results. When you talk of a negligeable effect, are you talking only of the difference between E-shifted images and the 1080p image? Or are you including
the MPC processing options as well?

I never perceived the pixels (at least not consciously) on my previous JVC RS20 non-Eshift projector. But I could definitely see a difference when I engaged just the E-shift: a more "solid" effect was given to the image. I still don't know if this was due only to the increasing of the perceived pixel density, or to how the picture was processed to be re-scaled during E-shift, or both. But I could notice this benefit on almost any screen size I chose (I alter my image size, from 90" or so diag up to over 10 feet wide/10 foot viewing distance).

But adding the MPC processing was what really made the image take off in terms of clarity and dimensionality over my previous RS20. I use different MPC settings all the time and always appreciate the difference it brings to the table.

I want to hold off upgrading projectors, though until there will be a noticeable increase in image contrast.
post #214 of 3973
Quote:
Originally Posted by millerwill View Post

That seems to be the case with the JVCs, but I don't see why it has to be. As you say, it's all relative: for a given CR, higher brightness will of course mean a higher black level, and also a higher white level, with their ratio remaining the same. I.e., I don't see why the CR itself should decrease with increasing brightness.

This same argument drives me crazy when some people (not you!) say that a HP screen lowers the CR; it of course doesn't--it raises the black level and the white level in the same proportion. Why can't turning up the brightness of a pj--e.g., by opening up an adjustable iris--work the same way?

While increased screen gain actually increases contrast due to increasing the white level while decreasing stray light from the room, a projector works differently. The more you open up the lightpath to increase brightness the more you open it up for stray light to escape as well. While stray light is quite evenly distributed the projected light is more focused in the center. This makes it possible to cut out more stray light than projected light and thereby increase contrast when an iris is closed. Unfortunately, this nature makes it very difficult to simultaneously achieve both high brightness and great contrast. It's basically intrinsic to the nature of projectors. At least bulb based, a laser source could be so focused (low etendue) it doesn't loose brightness as the iris is closed. Well, this is at least the way it works according to my amateur understanding. smile.gif
Edited by Drexler - 9/11/13 at 10:38pm
post #215 of 3973
Quote:
I want to hold off upgrading projectors, though until there will be a noticeable increase in image contrast.

You already have a good projector. I'm excited to see what's new at CEDIA projector wise - not for you or the rest of us jaded current projector owners. I'm excited for folks just getting into home theater. Compared to the cost of my first NEC HT1000 or the Optoma H79, the performance of the new projectors coming out in 2 weeks is light years ahead of those, for less money.

I don't consider myself a sales person - I'm the home theater Candyman ! biggrin.gif
post #216 of 3973
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

That must look amazing! I've always wanted to see a Lumis in action.

I'm always experimenting with image size and aperture settings on my JVC RS55. Since it's true you can't get it all, I go back and forth in my preferences between "brighter/punchier" and "deeper black levels."

Although the contrast goes down as you open the aperture for a brighter image, as you know our perception isn't linear.
The brighter image can look like it has more contrast, even though it has less. So I find when I look at an image that has both large bright and dark areas, as I open up the aperture the bright areas get obviously brighter to my eyes but the dark areas don't look like they brighten nearly as fast. So opening the aperture often gets me a higher-contrast looking image.

However, sometimes I'm watching a movie that is really dark and then I start noticing the raised black levels due to the brighter image. For instance last night I was watching the Blu-Ray of Carpenter's The Fog, which has tones of dark night scenes. In the opening shots you see a gold pocket watch illuminated by camp fire, dangling against a black night background. As I raised the aperture that dangling watch became more brilliant, sticking out from the background more, looking more realistic an solid and gorgeous. But lowering the aperture brightness made those black levels clearly deeper on such material. The watch being dimmer didn't "punch" as much, but it now sat against a much deeper background that looked more solid, less like a gray shadow on a screen surface.

I ended up going with the much lower brightness for this movie. Day scenes weren't as sparkling as they could be, but night scenes were more convincing, more real...and actually creepier! The sense of really "being in the dark" when it went to night scenes was just that much more realised and scary.

So, gosh darn it, I really want both! (Which is why I envy the type of contrast people are now going to get with flat panels like OLED...though of course I won't envy the size).

I do that too. I also mess around with screen size and can go between 90-150" depending on what I'm watching (although I rarely go down to 90" to be fair - I found 117" to be a technical sweet spot for lumens from my throw distance). Will vary between high lamp and low lamp too. Can pretty much have any FL/contrast ratio/screensize I want - just need to find a good multi masking system to make my setup complete. Shame I can't get high FL/max contrast and max screen size all at once but at least the JVC offers the flexibility to move these things around and like you, I'll tune the projector to deliver a certain type of image for a certain type of content.
post #217 of 3973
I watched movies with eshift off and on with my rs55. Most of the time, no real effect at all. I couldn't see the pixels when I was an inch away, but I couldn't see them at 7ft away anyways. So, eliminating pixels was never a concern. I know some with smaller screens say it helped, my experience was different, as too everyone I showed. Eshift 2 was definitely a difference. I thought maybe I had a projector with a defective eshift, but I used the star chart and it changed every time eshift was increased.
post #218 of 3973
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drexler View Post

Unfortunately, this nature makes it very difficult to simultaneously achieve both high brightness and great contrast. It's basically intrinsic to the nature of projectors.

Yup, that's part of the reason why the bright "big iron" projectors are so expensive, they put more powerful lamps in to get more light flowing through a restrictive (high contrast) light path. But the more powerful lamps produce more heat which has to be dealt with at similarly low noise levels which drives up cost.
post #219 of 3973
Thread Starter 
Hi

Some details from Greece (FullHD.gr). If the translation is accurate and reliable, they should come with:
- HDMI 2.0
- Auto-calibration from the X500 (RS49)
and contrast should be increased by "thanks to which shutter is in the lens "(Intelligent lens aperture IMHO)

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=fr&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://www.fullhd.gr/home-cinema/projectos/item/16155-jvc-dla-x900,-dla-x700-and-dla-x500.html%23itemCommentsAnchor&sandbox=0&usg=ALkJrhjBtIOEcBYkln7vLo6w6857YaYVIQ
post #220 of 3973
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thebes View Post

- Auto-calibration from the X500 (RS49)
and contrast should be increased by "thanks to which shutter is in the lens "(Intelligent lens aperture IMHO)
Almost positive now on the dynamic iris version smile.gif
post #221 of 3973
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elix View Post

Almost positive now on the dynamic iris version smile.gif

A dynamic iris would take an X55 from 50,000:1 to about 250,000:1 . But the replacement X500 is only stated as 60,000:1. I hope the improvement is native and not due to tweaks in the aperture mechanism. I don't think this suggests dynamic iris at all. We should know imminently either way though.
post #222 of 3973
Jon. 5 times would I think be really aggressive. Isn't a 3x multiplier more realistic?
post #223 of 3973
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

Jon. 5 times would I think be really aggressive. Isn't a 3x multiplier more realistic?

Perhaps. I thought the Sony's went from about 20k:1 native to 100k:1 .....I was going off memory
post #224 of 3973
Well there is an aggressive mode for maximizing brightness in less than ideal viewing conditions but it clips the whites too much I suspect. I never watch it that way.
post #225 of 3973
I also very much doubt its a dynamic iris for the same reasons Jon mentions. Whats the point if its only moving from 50k to 60k. The JVC aperture is pretty slow and noisy too so that would need an overhaul if they went DI.
post #226 of 3973
Quote:
Originally Posted by soupdragon View Post

I also very much doubt its a dynamic iris for the same reasons Jon mentions. Whats the point if its only moving from 50k to 60k. The JVC aperture is pretty slow and noisy too so that would need an overhaul if they went DI.

I would be surprised, but I'll just throw this out there....

What if they went with thinner/faster panels (with less native CR) to solve the 3D/motion issues and implemented a DI to make up for the drop in native CR....

Just a possibility, though I'd expect higher numbers even with that, though they are relatively truthful in the CR ratings and 60k is pretty good with a DI in practice.

Though like I said, I would be surprised as that would be essentially abandoning their whole theory/product differentiator. Without the huge native contrast, JVCs really aren't anything special.
post #227 of 3973
If they're so hung up on using the high native contrast ratio as a marketing point, then why not implement a dynamic iris, still only quote the native contrast for marketing (if that needs to be their thing), but then also have an improved or higher "dynamic range" due to the DI as yet another marketing point?
post #228 of 3973
^^ maybe the dynamic values wouldn't be as high
maybe they feel 'lieing' to the customer with some randomly determined set of measurements that has zero effect on performance will be viewed as a negative
maybe the addition of a DI will generate questions of why they didn't do it earlier, or what was removed or what corners were cut because of its addition

basically it's become part of the JVC philosophy. i can only speak for myself, but one of the main deciding factors for me to purchase the x35 over the 5020 or 50ES was the lack of a DI. i happen to find them very brutal, and they MUST be turned off. there is literally NO reviews comparing the x35 to the 5020 or 50ES with the DI off. i had no idea if turning off the DI on those projectors would cause a noticeable difference or a monumental difference.

i understand the thought, take a jvc exactly the way it is now and add a DI, couldn't make it anything but better right? i mean we can always turn it off and have the same great performance we have now. but it raises uncertainties. first time buyers and ppl that can demo the units first end up with more questions, and questions lead to doubts and that scares away sales.

i do agree with you though, there's no 'good' reason why jvc couldn't add a DI to their projectors and still have excellent DI-free performance. i'm just suggesting reasons they wouldn't want to rock the boat of success.
post #229 of 3973
I realise that this questions is slightly off topic, but hear me out...

I'm looking to get my first projector pretty soon, and was initially considering the Sony HV50ES, Epson 5020/6020 and the JVC X35/RS46. I've narrowed my choice down to the JVC for various reasons, and was waiting for CEDIA to see if anything changed regarding these lower models, and it looks like that's not going to happen.

$3,499 + tax is still out of my price range, and to be honest, I need to get under $3,000 inc. tax in order for the wife to give me approval (there is no chance in budging on this, because even $3,000 took a LOT of arguing). I had hoped that the X35/RS46 might be updated and I'd therefore be able to get an old unit at a slight discount, bringing the projector into my budget; now that this looks less likely, I'm faced with several options:
  • Buy a new X35/RS46 at the best price I can negotiate, and hope to get it into my budget
  • Wait for a B Stock or reconditioned X35/RS46 to come on the market from JVC themselves
  • Buy a B Stock RS4800 from AVScience that is of course in the budget
  • Try to get an X55/RS48 at a discount since it will be discontinued (I have been offered an ex-display unit with 1,500 hours on the bulb for $3,999, but that is really too high a price I think, and out of budget)

I'm posting in this forum because most of the contributors to this thread know JVC products well, and more importantly, know what happens to the market after the annual CEDIA announcements (Pre-order price discounts, old stock reductions etc.)

Any advice would be greatly appreciated!

Neil.
post #230 of 3973
After the show, give Mike or Craig at AVS a call. Usually there are some great pre order pricing and you don't have to pay until product is available to ship to you.
post #231 of 3973
Thanks for the tip Mark, but just how good have these pre-order prices been in the past?

The real shame is that the X35/RS46 isn't being updated, or a nice pre-order price on that would probably have been just the ticket!
post #232 of 3973
They should add a secret DI that can only be enabled in the Service Menu, then everyone is happy. They can call it "dynamic calibration ability of black levels available to installers and dealers", that way they don't even really have to advertise it. They should also be the first projector manufacturer to make the DI code open source, so that someone can make it better, because I guarantee you someone probably could and would.

Shoulda, coulda, woulda...
post #233 of 3973
Quote:
Originally Posted by nezil View Post

Thanks for the tip Mark, but just how good have these pre-order prices been in the past?

The real shame is that the X35/RS46 isn't being updated, or a nice pre-order price on that would probably have been just the ticket!

Just follow my advice. I think you and your wife will be very pleased.
Edited by mark haflich - 9/25/13 at 1:22pm
post #234 of 3973
Quote:
Originally Posted by seanbryan View Post

If they're so hung up on using the high native contrast ratio as a marketing point, then why not implement a dynamic iris, still only quote the native contrast for marketing (if that needs to be their thing), but then also have an improved or higher "dynamic range" due to the DI as yet another marketing point?

Took the words right out of my mouth; it would be a loss of face to quote DI CR after lambasting it in their previous marketing, but improved performance will not go unnoticed and they, and we, can benefit from is stealthy inclusion.
post #235 of 3973
This argument has been made for many years on our forums but evidently the concept is contrary to the corporate JVC's basic religious beliefs. I wonder if their position now costs them more sales than it perhaps it used to gain when DI's were less perfected. Joe consumer just looks at the numbers I suspect, has no clue what a DI is, or would notice any artifacts from it.
Edited by mark haflich - 9/25/13 at 3:56pm
post #236 of 3973
I would guess that as many as 80% or more of people look in forums before making a purchase decision on a home theater projector, but I could guess wrong.
I only say that because Google so easily directs people to certain forums when googling anything related to certain projectors.

As for the other 20%, they are probably too clueless to care (probably consists of mostly doctors and professionals having the choice made by an HT professional).

I posted what JVC should do a few posts back in Post # 232.
post #237 of 3973
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post

They should add a secret DI that can only be enabled in the Service Menu, then everyone is happy. They can call it "dynamic calibration ability of black levels available to installers and dealers", that way they don't even really have to advertise it. They should also be the first projector manufacturer to make the DI code open source, so that someone can make it better, because I guarantee you someone probably could and would.

Shoulda, coulda, woulda...

LOL. I wish I could be that funny when writing a humorless post.
post #238 of 3973
I think it makes perfect sense, a lot of things sound crazy until you try it smile.gif
Maybe an open standard is a better way to put it.

Keep the IRIS disabled by default, don't over-market it, but it's there if you want it. For people really wanting to dig into a projector's specs, most will find out about it, for the others they don't care. I doubt that many people buying $2000+ home theater projectors are going by contrast ratios in the advertised spec, even if they ONLY read some of the reviews from where they are purchasing it, the reviews almost immediately point out the fallacy of rated contrast, or any projector review site will often point it out.

Almost everything else in video gets better if its at least an open and revisable standard. There really is no reason all these irises have to be hacks from Asia, other than some companies not wanting to divulge their intellectual property of how they built it. At the very least these irises should be more configurable.
post #239 of 3973
Open source code for the DI? Maybe all manufacturers should share all the details of their otherwise proprietary DI implementation with each other and license any patented technology they have for free.
post #240 of 3973
Even if you divulged no code at all, I wouldn't be surprised if some random programmers made it better from scratch with no code to reference even if you just let them overwrite the iris code. Happens all the time in things like game modding, and some of that is just as complex as an IRIS design. For instance, take the game Flight Simulator 10, some people don't realize there is an add-on called "Tile Proxy" that can map real photos from satellite images at different LOD's, increasing the graphics of the simulation by 1000x closer to reality (no exaggeration). Such things are done by open source programmers.

With something as complex as iris design, open standards and design almost always make it better. I don't think open source always makes stuff better, but in the case of something like irises, usually it does.
Edited by coderguy - 9/25/13 at 7:34pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home