or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

NEW RANGE JVC 2014 - Page 21

post #601 of 3982
Quote:
Maybe their deal with Joe Kane has expired? He unlike every year since the JKP Affinity was first introduced, he was not at the show demoing a JKP Affinity at the Da-lite booth. If the endorsement deal expired, maybe Da-lite can no longer use the initials JKP which stand for Joe Kane Productions. Its not Joe's technology, its Da-lite's. Joe advised re what the screen should do and endorsed it when they developed a fabric that met his performance prerequisites. I wonder what he thinks of the 1.3 fabric?

Joe Kane was sitting at the Da Lite booth when I walked up to check out their display. I introduced myself and shook his hand. Yes, they call the JKP Affinity screens HD Pro now.
post #602 of 3982
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

Also with the JVCs a few years back, I don't know about now, the gamma changed drastically say every 50 hours of use and if you are a gamma freak, like my friend Ric is (lovingDVDs), he spent more time tweaking his gamma than watching.

The gamma changes still happen in the latest versions but less so. The primary reason it is less, is because of the bulb stability being so amazingly good. With the earlier models, as the bulb dimmed, you would change white balance/greyscale which would knock out the gamma. This combined with the second reason, panel mutation, meant a lot of fiddling with the gamma. I don't know if JVC will ever solve panel mutation, but Sony's do it too. I think it may be an LCOS thing.
post #603 of 3982
I hate it when my panels mutate. smile.gifsmile.gifsmile.gifsmile.gif
post #604 of 3982
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

You using the words "making fun of him" does not convey the laudatory nature of my post. You should have seen the way I lit into him about his all white room when I first saw it. I was gentle of course, I was a guest for several days. All I really said was I'll be back next week with 5 gals of black paint. I think he might of said the HP helps make up for bad rooms. But he took it to heart, not swiftly, but slowly he fixed the room and even HE can see the dramatic improvements. smile.gif

Now your last comment about there are people who think Studeotec 130 is a reference quality screen so somehow that makes it OK to think HP is a reference quality screen? In reality anything can be used for a reference, its just a marker of various qualities, some screens having some of these qualities better and some worse. A stretched bed sheet could be a reference as well as a rough textured DIY painted on sheetrock screen. The problem is learning what the state of the art is with respect to each quality instead of saying I have a really really big screen and gain is what I need especially since I watch a lot of 3D and HP gives me the gain I need without any adverse impacts on image quality. what does it do bad, What doesn't it do as good as some others. So many HP freaks say I don't see it doing anything bad to the image.A reference screen lets you see things lesser screens don't and make things you shouldn't see like screen texture go away. Can you see you never are aware that you are looking at an image projected on a material. Does the screen material vanish?i

The truth is he doesn't know how much better an image overall he could have with a reference quality screen. Not as big, not as bright, but.overall better
More real, less texture, sharper yada yada

So here is the rub.I ask Jason to say to himself, I am a projector reviewer. I need to evaluate the performance of projectors. This means I need a great room, one that doesn't take away from projector performance and measurement of same. I have that now. I also need a truly neutral screen, one that has no characteristics that might mask or subtract from the projector's performance. For reviewing its not about having the biggest screen and needing a high gain screen. So you get a reference quality screen. One that scores high in every characteristic and one that can resolve and sharply delineate 4K pixels. You control the brightness by keeping the screen small. Keep the HP, one will need a really wide screen (10 ft at least) to fully evaluated 4K source quality. But get a smaller, say 100 inch D reference screen for critical evaluations. To let you better see what the projector is doing. Sooner or later he will. Maybe he will review a few screens. But sooner or later he will err see the light and not need to have it so large or bright as to be blinded by it.

My point about the StudioTek 130 is that, like the HP screen material, the 130 is not a reference material but many pro-reviewers use it and make the claim that it is. That's all I was saying. That claim doesn't make it so. As you put a truly reference screen adds NOTHING to the image while taking nothing away either. The sparkles on the 130 material are, in my opinion, far worse than the glass bead texture on the HP 2.8. But both are definitely not reference screens.
post #605 of 3982
At one time it was a reference quality screen particularly for CRTs.

Reference quality screens need reference quality black pit rooms. Without the room, a otherwise reference quality screen might not be making some other screen a better choice for your reference.
post #606 of 3982
Hopefully Kris and/or Chris will be getting one soon. I would have to look, but I think Kris's review didn't come out till Feb.
post #607 of 3982
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seegs108 View Post

My point about the StudioTek 130 is that, like the HP screen material, the 130 is not a reference material but many pro-reviewers use it and make the claim that it is. That's all I was saying. That claim doesn't make it so. As you put a truly reference screen adds NOTHING to the image while taking nothing away either. The sparkles on the 130 material are, in my opinion, far worse than the glass bead texture on the HP 2.8. But both are definitely not reference screens.

I would say I am particularly sensitive to the sparkles on screens. Lord knows nearly every screen at CEDIA was riddled with it. But the ST130 I have at home rarely if ever shows anything even approaching the amount of screen texturing you see from most screens on the market. And there is no way I am giving up the gain for what would probably be an almost imperceptible amount of difference in the image texture. Ever since Mark went nearly evangelical about his 1 gain screen I have started seeing everyone come out of the woodwork on why anything other than it is worthless and hurts the image. Never mind the myriad of other things applied to video from setups or rooms that have FAR more impact.
post #608 of 3982
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seegs108

My point about the StudioTek 130 is that, like the HP screen material, the 130 is not a reference material but many pro-reviewers use it and make the claim that it is. That's all I was saying. That claim doesn't make it so. As you put a truly reference screen adds NOTHING to the image while taking nothing away either. The sparkles on the 130 material are, in my opinion, far worse than the glass bead texture on the HP 2.8. But both are definitely not reference screens.

I would say I am particularly sensitive to the sparkles on screens. Lord knows nearly every screen at CEDIA was riddled with it. But the ST130 I have at home rarely if ever shows anything even approaching the amount of screen texturing you see from most screens on the market. And there is no way I am giving up the gain for what would probably be an almost imperceptible amount of difference in the image texture. Ever since Mark went nearly evangelical about his 1 gain screen I have started seeing everyone come out of the woodwork on why anything other than it is worthless and hurts the image. Never mind the myriad of other things applied to video from setups or rooms that have FAR more impact.


Ya, the best projector demos at Cedia were on ST 130 G3 screens. Lots of other screens had irritating sheen and texture - and I took notes on which ones they were. I rarely see any artifacts on mine - even with my blazing foot lamberts.

I was surprised how clean the Stewart Ultramatt 1.5 gain screen looked with the RS67 though - it worked quite well with that projector. smile.gif
post #609 of 3982
My set up and room are impeccable. I did the snap out of the 130 to the snap in of the 100 in less than 15 minutes. The image improvement was dramatic and I immediately called over Tom Huffman and Bill Cruce who have spent time in my room with the 1000ES and the ST130. The texture difference is vey significant and the screen material disappeared. Rather than speculate or postulate, try it and get back to us. I would have called you too but you are geographically undesirable. But if want to come, I will do switch outs and A/Bs for you. I, as others who have been my guests for a day or several days, can attest that my digs on the lake are spectacular. Fly into BWI and I will have you picked up and taken back for your return flight. I can't drive myself right now and won't be able to until I no longer need a walking boot on my right leg.
Edited by mark haflich - 9/30/13 at 6:46pm
post #610 of 3982
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

My set up and room are impeccable. I did the snap out of the 130 to the snap in of the 100 in less than 15 minutes. The image improvement was dramatic and I immediately called over Tom Huffman and Bill Cruce who have spent in my room, the 1000ES, and the ST130. The texture difference is vey significant and the screen material disappeared. Rather than speculate or postulate, try it and get back to us. I would have called you too but you are geographically undesirable. But if want to come, I will do switch outs and A/Bs for you. I, as others who have been my guests for a day or several days, can attest that my digs on the lake is spectacular. Fly into BWI and I will have you picked up and taken back for your return flight. I can't drive myself right now until I no longer need a walking boot on my right leg.

I will atest, Mark's house is marvelous, on that lake, and he is a magnificent host!
post #611 of 3982
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

My set up and room are impeccable. I did the snap out of the 130 to the snap in of the 100 in less than 15 minutes. The image improvement was dramatic and I immediately called over Tom Huffman and Bill Cruce who have spent time in my room with the 1000ES and the ST130. The texture difference is vey significant and the screen material disappeared.

I used to think you were exaggerating it when it came to screens, but now I'm a believer...
I wonder what you would prefer though, let's say upscaled 4k on a lesser screen like the HP (from the Sony vw1000es), or E-shift v1 JVC on the 100-Screen.

Does the screen really make so much difference that you think the JVC could beat the Sony if the Sony were on the inferior screen, because a lesser screen just takes that much away from the Sony?
post #612 of 3982
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

My set up and room are impeccable. I did the snap out of the 130 to the snap in of the 100 in less than 15 minutes. The image improvement was dramatic and I immediately called over Tom Huffman and Bill Cruce who have spent time in my room with the 1000ES and the ST130. The texture difference is vey significant and the screen material disappeared. Rather than speculate or postulate, try it and get back to us. I would have called you too but you are geographically undesirable. But if want to come, I will do switch outs and A/Bs for you. I, as others who have been my guests for a day or several days, can attest that my digs on the lake are spectacular. Fly into BWI and I will have you picked up and taken back for your return flight. I can't drive myself right now and won't be able to until I no longer need a walking boot on my right leg.

I'll be in touch Mark. I go out that way for work from time to time. If I make it out that way I'll give you a buzz in advance and we can get together. Thanks for the offer!
post #613 of 3982
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geof View Post

I hate it when my panels mutate. smile.gifsmile.gifsmile.gifsmile.gif


And our Blue's! wink.gif
post #614 of 3982
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post

I used to think you were exaggerating it when it came to screens, but now I'm a believer...

A believer in what exactly and what made you a believer?

Have you seen the Stewart ST100 screen?
post #615 of 3982
Not in that specific screen, but in general.

I probably did in a showroom as I think several of the screens were Stewarts, but not enough to tell anything definitively, other than that the HP 2.4 definitely has some visual issue.

A bit of a glassy look, started noticing it more last year when I started sitting closer. Then I had the unpleasant experience of projecting onto a wall for a minute while doing a test, and it looked more film-like on the wall over the HP 2.4, and sad to say, that is when I came to the conclusion I need a new screen soon. I wouldn't say it looked better overall coming off the paint or anything, just more film-like.
post #616 of 3982
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seegs108 View Post

As you put a truly reference screen adds NOTHING to the image while taking nothing away either.
That 2nd half is the tough part. The ST100 is about the worst you can get for ANSI CR retention. Does that count as taking away?

I don't like visible screens either (one reason I generally don't even try much to evaluate projectors at shows where they often use screens with lots of visible texture to me), but unfortunately screens are about trade offs. It isn't like Stewart didn't have a 1.0 screen back when the ST130 was considered the reference. The ST130 retained ANSI CR better and when viewing with some other lighting would generally retain on/off CR better too. I also think the small amount of extra ft-lamberts in the center of the screen over the edges could have an advantage without having very noticeable hotspotting.

Extra projector resolution now might affect things, but I think some of this is just what trade offs people choose.

For instance, with a JVC or Sony VW600 somebody could close the iris a little more with an ST130 and get more native on/off CR with the ST130.

I think it would be a good idea to try dimming the projector some for the ST130 in a comparison with the ST100 to try to make sure some artifacts seen with the ST130 are not just because of higher ft-lamberts. Some would probably still show up, but might be reduced at the same ft-lamberts.

Back when I started reviewing projectors I did buy a ST130 for my Stewart frame just because that was considered the reference. I would use it for reviews, but for personal viewing I was more likely to use the HP.

I still have Firehawk and Grayhawk materials from those days that I should get around to selling at some point since I sold the ST130 in the frame that all 3 pieces fit.

To me the perfect screen doesn't exist. That would be one with no sheen/sparklies, that would only send light to a place if a viewer was there (for CR retention) and would only reflect the light from the projector. So, not likely smile.gif

--Darin
post #617 of 3982
Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp2 View Post

That 2nd half is the tough part. The ST100 is about the worst you can get for ANSI CR retention. Does that count as taking away?

Yeah, that's always given me pause. Outside of a black box lab-room or something there's likely some level of reflection back to the screen and the ST100 is going to be particularly susceptible.
I remember someone mentioned a number of folks compared images on the ST100 and the ST-130, and ultimately preferred the images on the 130, no doubt due to the slightly higher brightness or whatever.
post #618 of 3982
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post

Not in that specific screen, but in general.

I probably did in a showroom as I think several of the screens were Stewarts, but not enough to tell anything definitively, other than that the HP 2.4 definitely has some visual issue.

A bit of a glassy look, started noticing it more last year when I started sitting closer. Then I had the unpleasant experience of projecting onto a wall for a minute while doing a test, and it looked more film-like on the wall over the HP 2.4, and sad to say, that is when I came to the conclusion I need a new screen soon. I wouldn't say it looked better overall coming off the paint or anything, just more film-like.

Ultimately that's one reason I didn't keep using my HP screen; the ultra brightness, as amazing as it was, did create a more video-like image.

There's nothing inherent in the HP that makes an image look more video-like, since if you project a dimmer image on the HP is going to look much like the image on a lower gain screen. It's mostly just an issue of brightness. Mine was a 105" diag 16:9 HP screen with the projector right level with the screen, so it was blazingly bright. But that was also before I had the JVC with it's adjustable iris.
post #619 of 3982
I think the Stewart .ST 130 a great choice for shows where large screens are often used with good but not black pit viewing conditions. And is a great consumer choice where some gain would be appreciated and some keeping light from scattering to the side walls and reflecting back. Hell it was my reference for many many years. Its just there are better references now if you don't need gain, have a black pit, and a 4K projector. Studeotec was specked by Joe Kane also back in the CRT days when screens left a lot to be desired. 1.3 gain was specified by Joe because it was the highest gain that could be used without hot spotting at the traditional fixed short throws required by CRT projectors. The original formulation had some red enhancement or push to help the CRTs along. I don't know if G# has that push. I don't think it does. The ST 100 or Snomatt must only be used in a black pit, non reflective, viewing environment. It is the reference screen used by THX at a 49 x 87 sixe, the size limitation needed to met a 12-14 ft lambert spec for 1000 lumens class projectors/ For years, the ST 100 was considered the post production industry standard because it added nothing to the image, has a very very wide half angle and has great uniformity of brightness when measuring variations across the screen width and height. The JKP Affinity .9 and 1.1 screens have made in roads as a the post industry screen of choice mainly do to Joe lugging it around for demoes at post production houses. It may in fact be smoother than the ST 100 but there is no accepted test for measuring screen texture or smoothness. Several years ago WSR review did a testing shootout of ST 100 and either JKP .9 or 1.1. I don't remember which. Da-lite refused to participate or be present at the testing. I think the JKP was purchased by WSR for the testing and measurements. Mainly because the Steward was more uniform on brightness, it was declared the winner but the JKP was not far behind. No attempt was made to measure smoothness and that characteristic was not even mentioned in the WSR reporting. On off pixel patterns were bot viewed to determine subjective degree of sharpness or non pixel bleed. I published critical comments on the test on several internet sites. Re 3D performance, non of the manufacturers except Stewart to my knowledge measure polarization extinction ratios for non silver screens though this is a relevant consideration for use with the JVC projectors in 3D. Their polarizers are aligned in the same direction and the polarization extinction ratio if significant in magnitude as one non silver Stewart screen is means that screen will give a significant boost to 3D brightness with the JVCs. I had to have significant discuss with many screen manufactures as to why polarization extinction ratios were significant for other than passive 3D systems. Stewart listened and ran the tests and now I and they have the extinction numbers. Then I had the privilege of explaining to the sales staff why the numbers could be important. In my opinion I think for 4K. screen texture is of paramount importance. Still no accepted measurement test. I know the JKP and Stewart 100 are both top notch and I could own either one. I got the 100 because I already had a 4 way masking Stewart screen frame. I hope this explains things. I have received compensation for consultative work with screen and projector companies but that does not bias my opinions or recommendations. My role is an engineering nerd pointing out things that are mainly intuitively obvious. One has to figure out a way of paying for my expensive stuff. I have also done legal work for a whole bunch of audio companies over the years and was involved in the design of reference preamps years ago and even air bearing tone arms and air bearing turntables. Talk about horse and buggy days.
post #620 of 3982
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kris Deering View Post

I'll be in touch Mark. I go out that way for work from time to time. If I make it out that way I'll give you a buzz in advance and we can get together. Thanks for the offer!

Please don't hesitate to bring your wife, if you are married, or significant other if not and if you have one. DC is a great place to visit if the Government is running. Not so good if the Federal attractions are locked up. I love visiting the Pacific NW also
post #621 of 3982
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

Yeah, that's always given me pause. Outside of a black box lab-room or something there's likely some level of reflection back to the screen and the ST100 is going to be particularly susceptible.
I remember someone mentioned a number of folks compared images on the ST100 and the ST-130, and ultimately preferred the images on the 130, no doubt due to the slightly higher brightness or whatever.

Not in my HT with the Sony 4K projector. But I have a black pit and one should not use the 100 in other than a black pit and not if your screen is too big to be adequately lit with your projector with a unity gain screen. JKP with its gain or 1.1 would be better and maybe the JKP 1.3 when I get a sample to evaluate. If its good, it might be my choice for a screen when I move when I would like to get a 126 wide 2.35 screen. extra gain would be good and its not likely that I will have a non reflective black pit. At least it will be black and as non reflective as I can make it without busting the bank.
post #622 of 3982
Out of all the samples I've received from Stewart and Da-Lite (thanks AVScience for hooking me up with them! smile.gif) The Stewart 100 and the Da-Lite HD Progressive 1.1 looked the best. They were small pieces, though. I'd love to see what the 100 looks like at a realistic size. To A/B a few projectors on that screen would be a lot of fun. Mark, when you're starting to feel better maybe I could drive down with a few projectors and see what they look like against the 1000ES? I think next year will be my time to move to 4K!
post #623 of 3982
We are getting more posts about screens then about the JVC ... eek.gif
post #624 of 3982
Your projector is only as good as your screen. tongue.gif
post #625 of 3982
Your screen is only as good as your projector eek.gif

Edit:
And my posts are only as good as my pocket protector.
post #626 of 3982
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seegs108 View Post

Your projector is only as good as your screen. tongue.gif

i'm well aware of that. I have ordered my screen in the USA by the way, one of the best acoustically transparent scrren, with a gain of 1.2 (Center Stage XD Seymourav)

but each time i receive a notification for a new post i'm a bit disappointed it's not about the JVC rolleyes.gif
post #627 of 3982
How about this:

JVC now has a DI. The govt is now officially shutdown. And BrBa officially ended.

What do these three things have in common?

You guessed it, Armageddon...
(no not the movie, the event)
post #628 of 3982
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post

Your screen is only as good as your projector eek.gif

Edit:
And my posts are only as good as my pocket protector.

A screen tends to be a longer term investment except for somebody like Darin who owns I think something like 17 different screens. If you own that many, its buying a commodity not investing.
post #629 of 3982
Quote:
Originally Posted by cyrilp View Post

i'm well aware of that. I have ordered my screen in the USA by the way, one of the best acoustically transparent scrren, with a gain of 1.2 (Center Stage XD Seymourav)

but each time i receive a notification for a new post i'm a bit disappointed it's not about the JVC rolleyes.gif

Until production samples etc get out there there is not too much more to say. And there are many more screen options than JVC model options. There are some interesting comments on getting the most expensive JVC model in the Cedia attendees please report here thread. But you are right of course. We should stop talking or posting about screens in this main JVC thread.i
post #630 of 3982
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seegs108 View Post

Out of all the samples I've received from Stewart and Da-Lite (thanks AVScience for hooking me up with them! smile.gif) The Stewart 100 and the Da-Lite HD Progressive 1.1 looked the best. They were small pieces, though. I'd love to see what the 100 looks like at a realistic size. To A/B a few projectors on that screen would be a lot of fun. Mark, when you're starting to feel better maybe I could drive down with a few projectors and see what they look like against the 1000ES? I think next year will be my time to move to 4K!

I feel fine. I just have this walking boot that slows me down but I m fine. A little effort to go up and down stairs but its not all that hard. I am a trooper, Come anytime.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home