or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

NEW RANGE JVC 2014 - Page 29

post #841 of 3990

The problem I have with projectors and pre/pros is that their life expectancy are like those of computers 3 years max, and they are outdated!

 

On the other hand speakers and amplifiers can last a very very long time and still perform extremely well even after ten years and in addition retain a lot of value :)

post #842 of 3990
I think that is a reflection of the maturity of the technologies.
post #843 of 3990
Quote:
Originally Posted by wse View Post

The problem I have with projectors and pre/pros is that their life expectancy are like those of computers 3 years max, and they are outdated!

On the other hand speakers and amplifiers can last a very very long time and still perform extremely well even after ten years and in addition retain a lot of value smile.gif

I think this is still the case for LCOS based projectors. There still seems to be some life in regards to furthering the technology. DLP seems to be at a standstill. There are several older DLP models (circa 2008/2009) that still look just as good and usually better in terms of overall picture quality compared to todays offering in the under $10000 market. This is one of the reasons we're seeing so many people sell off last years JVC model only to pick up the current years model. They keep refining the technology year after year. DLP on the other hand seems to be funding the technology on the cheap end as opposed to funding R&D on their larger higher performance chips. DLP is on a race to be as cheap as possible. That's great for those looking to spend only $1000 but for those of us who still love DLP, it's hard to defend a technology that hasn't seen any major advances in almost 7 years. DC4 was introduced in 2007 and we've heard nothing from the .95" DMD line of chips since then. mad.gif
post #844 of 3990
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seegs108 View PostI think this is still the case for LCOS based projectors. There still seems to be some life in regards to furthering the technology. DLP seems to be at a standstill. There are several older DLP models (circa 2008/2009) that still look just as good and usually better in terms of overall picture quality compared to todays offering in the under $10000 market. This is one of the reasons we're seeing so many people sell off last years JVC model only to pick up the current years model. They keep refining the technology year after year. DLP on the other hand seems to be funding the technology on the cheap end as opposed to funding R&D on their larger higher performance chips. DLP is on a race to be as cheap as possible. That's great for those looking to spend only $1000 but for those of us who still love DLP, it's hard to defend a technology that hasn't seen any major advances in almost 7 years. DC4 was introduced in 2007 and we've heard nothing from the .95" DMD line of chips since then. mad.gif

Good point Laser/LED based projectors would be great

post #845 of 3990
But that doesn't really have anything to do with DLP chip technology not be advanced when it could be. It is owned, lock, stock, and barrel, by TI and they have made a business decision not to invest in R7D and production cost in coming out with better DLP chips for consumer projectors.
post #846 of 3990
Quote:
The problem I have with projectors and pre/pros is that their life expectancy are like those of computers 3 years max, and they are outdated!

That's a self imposed idea. I'm going on 5 years with my projector. I know people with cheap 480p Optomas that are still happy with them ( and they still work ) 6 and 7 years after they bought them. I'll bet there will be folks using the current projectors 5 or 6 years from now.
You don't have to replace them every 3 years. Hell, I have 220,000 miles on my truck, and put 320K and 289K miles on the last two before that. Just say'n - todays excellent projectors will look just as good 5 years from now ( with a new lamp in them ).
post #847 of 3990
My trusty pre pro:Arcam AV-8 is going strong(which has to be 7-8 yrs and have not had one glitch or problem yet.
She's being fed by analog outs of my Oppo 95 for bluray movies and of course the HDMI out to my X9.
The Arcam and all components have been on 24/7 for years and nadda problemo.
Course maybe being plugged into the Torus(s)has helped with longevity.
post #848 of 3990
My speaker wires are all going strong. And my PS Audio wall plugs. My projector mount. My projector screen frame . . . . The list goes on and on.
post #849 of 3990
Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp2 View Post

Could be. Unfortunately, they told me it was too late to get in the feature I wanted. That was to be able to control the most open iris position in DI on mode, like using the manual iris position instead of having the iris open all the white for bright white. More like Sony has allowed, although it was in a service menu with my last Sony.

I would be fine with a service menu setting for this, but sounds like at least next year before we'll have that capability. At least for the 49x models. As I posted before, for the dual iris models they didn't know whether the lamp iris would stay at its last manual position or open up all the way when the DI is enabled. I know it doesn't move with the picture for the DI mode. It is just the lens iris that moves with content.

If the lamp iris just opens up when the DI is enabled then I believe that means much of the extra native on/off CR from the 60k:1 of the 49x to the 120k:1 of the next model up doesn't apply to the DI mode. I wonder how far their native on/off CRs would differ with all irises open. If they pick better chips the higher end model could have more from that, but without the advantage of the dual manual irises I'm not sure it would be a lot of difference. Maybe the cine4home site or another one has data from previous years between the single iris lower end model and the dual iris higher end models of the same generation with the manual iris setting at 0 on both.

--Darin

I posted a question for "GaryB" about this on the AVforum. He's a very reliable JVC employee - Technical Manager for JVC-UK (he's great about posting the latest firmware etc for JVC projectors). He just responded:

"I had a very quick play with a sample unit today and checked this. The IA has three settings, "Manual", "Auto 1" and "Auto 2". On the unit I checked (with very early test software), when you use the Auto settings, you can't set a maximum brightness."

If that's how the projector is released it might rule out this year's JVC for me. Engaging the IA would take away one of my most valued features of the JVC projectors.
Edited by R Harkness - 10/10/13 at 7:12pm
post #850 of 3990
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

But that doesn't really have anything to do with DLP chip technology not be advanced when it could be. It is owned, lock, stock, and barrel, by TI and they have made a business decision not to invest in R7D and production cost in coming out with better DLP chips for consumer projectors.

We really only saw a 20% contrast performance increase going from DC3 to DC4. Some speculated that the DC4 chips were actually hand picked graded DC3 chips that performed best. Black level didn't seem to be that much better. The contrast boost was mostly from the DMDs reflecting more light which added to the peak white level of the DMD. It would be nice to see the UHD DMDs do better. I'd be very pleased with 6000:1 on/off with a great DI to dynamically boost contrast 3-4x which would yield 18000-24000:1 on/off performance. That coupled with 600:1+ ANSI contrast would make DLP one hell of a competitor with LCOS again, especially against Sony's offerings. Their SXRDs have native contrast right around there.

1080p DC4 coupled with the right light path design can do 6500:1+ on/off natively. Look at Sim2 HT3000E. I would love to see someone other than Sim2 take the time to optimize light paths, unishape lamp technology, color wheels, DI's ect and give us a REAL DLP competitor when it comes time for single chip UHD DLP projectors. I still think that if JVC can somehow make motion handling/resolution better, DLP will have very little left to offer the enthusiast market in terms of overall image quality. These DLP only manufacturers are going to be in a world of hurt if TI doesn't do something drastic with UHD DMDs. Sim2, Runco, ProjectionDesign, Digital Projection, BenQ, Optoma, Vivitek, ect will have little to offer those looking to spend big bucks (read higher profit margins) in the next few years. They need to band together and get TI moving. They're already going to be 3 years behind LCOS when consumer UHD DMDs are available. If I were one of those companies I'd be pissed off.

I think LED based light sources were done because these DLP only manufacturers needed a new hook to get people to spend big bucks with DLP again. TI had them by the balls and forced them to go down a different route to get people excited about DLP again.
Edited by Seegs108 - 10/10/13 at 7:29pm
post #851 of 3990
Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp2 View Post

My guess is that when somebody says no gamma change (like JVC) they mean that they try to keep non-black objects at the same level no matter the current iris position and don't worry about trying to avoid clipping of near white detail.
...

Put another way, my guess for JVC is that the 2 DI choices will be one for the projector to apply some intelligence to try to reduce clipping or crushing of near white detail ...

Is it the logarithmic nature of the gamma curve combined with the max light reduction of the iris that keeps that from happening for mid or far white?

And it applies to all colors, not just white, right?
post #852 of 3990
Noah. You know the answer to that. White is a combination of RGB and obviously it acts on all three. Gamma can be set for white and with the aid of an external processor gamma can be set individually for R,G, and B. Which will result in a gamma curve for white which would then necessitate a readjustment of the white curve. Have I got that right?
Edited by mark haflich - 10/10/13 at 8:23pm
post #853 of 3990
I think so, but it's really the first question I'm interested in.
post #854 of 3990
Quote:
Originally Posted by noah katz View Post

Is it the logarithmic nature of the gamma curve combined with the max light reduction of the iris that keeps that from happening for mid or far white?
If I'm understanding the question correctly then I would say that the logarithmic nature of light and our vision kind of works against us and makes much higher on/off CR desirable, but also works in our favor for the reason you mentioned. Without gamma a 2.5x reduction in light through the iris would clip/crush 50% video level things, but with normal gamma even a 5x reduction wouldn't clip/crush 50% video level things (although the CR between 100% and 50% would likely be reduced).
Quote:
And it applies to all colors, not just white, right?
True. I was using white as a kind of shortcut, but anything that contains high video levels of one or more primaries would be more accurate. Maybe near 100% video level clipping or crushing would be a better way to put it, but more words. smile.gif

--Darin
post #855 of 3990
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

Noah. You know the answer to that. White is a combination of RGB and obviously it acts on all three. Gamma can be set for white and with the aid of an external processor gamma can be set individually for R,G, and B. Which will result in a gamma curve for white which would then necessitate a readjustment of the white curve. Have I got that right?
That brings up a good point. If they want to have no gamma change at the screen (just clipping), then what should they do with a small object that has levels of say 100% video level red and 75% for green and blue? That isn't a white object, but if you close the iris and clip everything to 75% it becomes white. One reason to apply some intelligence like Sony does even though a measurement of gamma will show that the projector is doing things that are wrong compared to a standard.

I think much of DI design and implementation is an art where they check to see what viewers tend to notice and not notice (applying those to both positive factors and negative factors).

A person may think they want no gamma change based on measurements, but then prefer them for actual viewing.

--Darin
post #856 of 3990
Your answer indicates that you did understand what I was getting at; thanks, Darin.
post #857 of 3990
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

I posted a question for "GaryB" about this on the AVforum. He's a very reliable JVC employee - Technical Manager for JVC-UK (he's great about posting the latest firmware etc for JVC projectors). He just responded:

"I had a very quick play with a sample unit today and checked this. The IA has three settings, "Manual", "Auto 1" and "Auto 2". On the unit I checked (with very early test software), when you use the Auto settings, you can't set a maximum brightness."

If that's how the projector is released it might rule out this year's JVC for me. Engaging the IA would take away one of my most valued features of the JVC projectors.


Oh! Now that is a surprise. We know that the higher end models still have an aperture just in-front of the lamp. So there was an extending thought that this meant you still had the dual aperture mechanism from before plus an additional third aperture for the dynamic bit. And the extension on that was that the aperture only closed down to help with dark scenes. The aperture in-front of the lamp is a big heavy thing compared to the one at the lens......so that would be very hard to make dynamic! Having just those 3 options throws all of our theories up in the air and now I have no idea what JVC have implemented here!
post #858 of 3990
The 67/6710 uses a better grade chip than the 57 which uses a better grade chip than the 49/4910. That is a portion of the increase in native contrast. Of course, the dual Iris design on the 57 & 67/6710 helps too.

The Intelligent Lens Aperture does have two auto settings. One adjusts Gamma as well. One does not.
Reply
Reply
post #859 of 3990
Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp2 View Post

That brings up a good point. If they want to have no gamma change at the screen (just clipping), then what should they do with a small object that has levels of say 100% video level red and 75% for green and blue? That isn't a white object, but if you close the iris and clip everything to 75% it becomes white. One reason to apply some intelligence like Sony does even though a measurement of gamma will show that the projector is doing things that are wrong compared to a standard.

I think much of DI design and implementation is an art where they check to see what viewers tend to notice and not notice (applying those to both positive factors and negative factors).

A person may think they want no gamma change based on measurements, but then prefer them for actual viewing.

--Darin


And that is why DI's have been accused as causing color errors. Obviously the RCB stars and the clouds in the sky need to be lined up in certain ways for the shifts to be noticeable to an observer not looking for them and the algs for the DI can take into account when the shifts would be noticeable and do wrong things that make the colors more right.

If one wants to see how a good DI screws things up colorwise, go to 2001 A Space Odyssey and look at the astronaut floating into deep space when the broken computer cuts him off. Look at the scene with the DI in partial and then look at it with the DI off. The color of the space suit changes. Looking at it only one way, it looks fine and one wouldn't even notice the error. But do an A/B.
post #860 of 3990
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

I posted a question for "GaryB" about this on the AVforum. He's a very reliable JVC employee - Technical Manager for JVC-UK (he's great about posting the latest firmware etc for JVC projectors). He just responded:

"I had a very quick play with a sample unit today and checked this. The IA has three settings, "Manual", "Auto 1" and "Auto 2". On the unit I checked (with very early test software), when you use the Auto settings, you can't set a maximum brightness."

If that's how the projector is released it might rule out this year's JVC for me. Engaging the IA would take away one of my most valued features of the JVC projectors.

Thanks for the info Rich. Not being able to set a max brightness if using the IA is a big negative in my book, especially with my HP screen where I clamp the iris all the way down for 1.78.
post #861 of 3990
Quote:
Thanks for the info Rich. Not being able to set a max brightness if using the IA is a big negative in my book, especially with my HP screen where I clamp the iris all the way down for 1.78.

Just curious - do you already use the low lamp setting to control brightness? Or is that not enough without using the iris setting too?
post #862 of 3990
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Peer View Post

Just curious - do you already use the low lamp setting to control brightness? Or is that not enough without using the iris setting too?


I use low lamp Craig. My 1.78 screen is small though at 94" diagonal, so combined with the HP gain I can get away with low lamp and iris at -15 (I bumped this up recently to -13 as I have ~400 hours on the bulb). For my 9' wide 2.35 image doing the zoom method, I use low lamp and -7 iris right now which puts the brightness approximately the same as my 1.78.
post #863 of 3990
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post

I use low lamp Craig. My 1.78 screen is small though at 94" diagonal, so combined with the HP gain I can get away with low lamp and iris at -15 (I bumped this up recently to -13 as I have ~400 hours on the bulb). For my 9' wide 2.35 image doing the zoom method, I use low lamp and -7 iris right now which puts the brightness approximately the same as my 1.78.
I'm not sure whether you have a single iris model or one of the higher dual iris models, but I was curious about what the native CRs might do between using the manual iris to get close to max native on/off CR and using the auto iris. This year's models are supposed to be brighter than last year's, so seems like you could use -15 for a while for 1.78:1 content. This year's should also have a little bit better native on/off CR, but we of course don't have numbers for this year yet.

According to the numbers from Cine4home at http://cine4home.de/tests/projektoren/JVC_X-Serie_2012/JVC_DILA_2012.htm for the X55 model some example CRs are:

Max throw, manual iris at -15: 48k:1
Max throw, manual iris at 0: 28k:1
Min throw, manual iris at -15: 42k:1
Min throw, manual iris at 0: 24k:1

So, going from a case like your 1.78:1 situation a person would lose about 40% of the native on/off CR in order in order to gain the higher dynamic on/off CR. For a person who could go with a darker screen to help ANSI CR retention in their room that may work well, but for others this reduction in native on/off CR alone might make them decide not to enable the dynamic iris (not even counting that they may not want brighter whites that happen with the iris open).

Looking at the X75 from the same link some values are:

Max throw, manual iris at -15: 83k:1
Max throw, manual iris at 0: 38k:1
Min throw, manual iris at -15: 63k:1
Min throw, manual iris at 0: 31k:1

As I mentioned earlier, I don't know what the back iris does in auto mode, but assuming that the back iris opens up for auto mode then a person who could use the projector with both irises shut down could lose over 50% of their starting native on/off CR in order to use the dynamic iris.

On the subject of the CRs, from looking at the specs of the new models it looks like JVC is using a 10x multiplier from native on/off CR to dynamic on/off CR. However, since their native spec isn't with the irises open they would need to use more like a 20x multiplier from their starting native on/off CR to get to their claimed dynamic on/off CR.

--Darin
post #864 of 3990
Excellent post Darin. Good stuff.
post #865 of 3990
Back to the days of CRTs and modding them. It should be relatively easy to open a JVC case, disconnect the voltage to the back iris, then apply a voltage independently to step it to whatever one wanted and then leave it closed or whatever. Find some way to set it and then disable it from opening when switching to II. None of this would be brain science.
post #866 of 3990
As Geof said, great post/thoughts Darin.

I just have the single iris 45. I am close to max throw for my 1.78 image at 17.5' and combined with the -15 iris which I used for the first few hundred hours, I would have to think I was getting close to max contrast. I would love to see a new 57 or 67 in my setup and see what kind of real world difference there would be with their superior native and dynamic.

Very interesting point you bring up about actually loosing native in a situation like mine if choosing to use the IA. I had not thought about it that way, but it makes sense. I was really hoping the IA would be used in addition to the manual iris which does not seem to be the case from what we are hearing.
post #867 of 3990
Todd, yes as Darin notes the IA looses some native CR. Countering that is the extra brightness resulting from a wide open aperture is going to be rather apparent and the eye likes brightness.

I'm keeping my an open mind till I see one in action. The worst case is I turn it off and ignore it. I can live with that but I'd obviously like to see a well implemented DI/II/IA whatever.....
post #868 of 3990
Geof. We need all three I think. smile.gif
post #869 of 3990
I too run my setup(RS20/HD750) at -15, to maximise native CR, my screens are small enough to let me run at that setting while giving me the brightness I 'like'.

I think it would be unlikely that JVC would not have a setting where the user adjusts the manual lens iris to suit the individual setup/reqirements and then IA works wihin those parameters.

Auto modes, possibly fully opened user iris(no user control in auto mode) with 2 different multiplier settings for auto1 and auto2, auto 2 being more agressive than auto1.
post #870 of 3990
As I understand things, a DI is a relatively rapid changing lens iris. Of course in dark scenes it could stay closed etc but it is designed to change quickly to changing frames. It is very much like a lens iris in a thru the lens view finder. The technology of a in the lens iris that could change quickly was developed by the camera industry and adopted and adapted by the projector industry which coupled it with dynamic gamma. Its one iris. Of course it could be set ti limit how much it can close and how much it could open and the algs designed to fit the extreme limits. And there is no reason why the user couldn't be given control of the settings for the extremes and the algs which are to be applied. Of course, by allowing such access the potential for less than optimal results exists. But the potential for fining tuning to screen sizes, gain, etc also exists.

Now let's add an adjustable iris after the light source. Settable over a range but once set stays there as the dynamic iris acts. The issue here becomes in giving the user control over the setting for that iris. Seems pretty simple to do.

Now the bulb iris is a rather crude way of lowering the black floor, less light out of the bulb onto the chips.

But here is the problem with using a lamp iris and an adjustable but not dynamic lens iris as in the case in the present JVC dual iris non II models. There are optimum combinations to achieve best black levels while maintainmng decent brightness. Now compound the issues by making the lens iris dynamic and giving gamma choices to be applied. Some pretty weird results will be possible. And projector designers want the damn thing to look good in spite of the user trying unwittingly to screw it up.

All the relationships are complex. And why is the DI there? To improve the CR, not lower it. And to lower the black levels. Its a lot more complex than just asking for options that make no sense to the DI designer and his/her design objective. The real trick is to have a good correlation to the frame and the knowledge of how everything mechanically should be set for that frame and then what gamma curve to be applied dynamically. DIs have gotten better over the years and it wasn't a question of holding back to something better could be offered in the next model.
Edited by mark haflich - 10/11/13 at 5:26pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home