or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP › Official Sony VPL-VW500ES / VW600ES 4K Projector Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Official Sony VPL-VW500ES / VW600ES 4K Projector Thread - Page 52

post #1531 of 2855
Quote:
Originally Posted by SherazNJ View Post

Ok now time for some of my initial impressions. I'm done with stage. Took me 5 hours to put it together and another 2 hours to cover with carpet. That made the seating now 12" higher and now I"m sitting at eye level just a bit higer than center of screen. This itself made a hig difference.

How here comes the funny part. When I asked my wife about projector, all she pointed out was that it was brighter. I hadn't taken care of anything at that time. But this stage change she absolutely loved it. For the first time she said that it feels like she in the theater. Amazing how increasing the height and bring viewing angle to the center of screen makes a big difference.

Now the projector. Simply put. It's a sick sick sick machine. Absolutely loving it. This thing makes me smile. I have seen Lords Of The Ring many times and very familiar of how it looked on vw95ES. It's a very big difference to me. Now it could be because its much brighter but there are many more things I noticed.

First my current settings.
Mode: Cinema Film 1, Lamp: low, Iris: Dynamic, Contrast:100, Sharpness:10, Creality Creation:50 with Noise:20, Gamma:2.4, ColorSpace: 709

Now the changes I see:
1 - Picture looks very natural.
2 - Much more detail in image.
3 - Scenes with actions are much more smooth to look at.
4 - There is no noise in picture
5 - Absolutely loving black levels

I had iris at limited but then I changed it to Full and that brought much better black level and I like it. I know many here like it in Limited mode but I am thoroughly enjoying the Full Dynamics because of the black level it brings.

Those who are deciding if they should get it or if it is going to make a big difference or its not worth buying because there are no 4K contents, I would say that based on my experience, its worth it. Absolutely worth it. I wouldn't even sweat about 4K contents since the reality creation does an amazing job. I watched just a little bit of 4K content before I changed the settings and therefore can't compare the tow yet but the image I am looking at is simply sick.

I just keeps making me say wow over and over again since I can easily see the difference in between this and 95ES. Now if I know this difference before I bought would I go buy it. I'd say NO. I'd run and buy it smile.gif
With full, the blacks will look blacker in mixed scenes because the dynamic range increases and your eyes will make the blacks darker and the image will be brighter, but I think you will lose white detail. The whites will clip and the gray scale will not be as good. The colors tend to shift more. But whatever. If you like it better full, that's all that counts. enjoy.
post #1532 of 2855
Hi,

Interesting IMHO :

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1486011/new-range-jvc-2014/3540#post_24243395
post #1533 of 2855
It would be interesting if they could do a three way sharpness shoot between the 500/600, 1000/1100, and the JVC.
post #1534 of 2855
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

With full, the blacks will look blacker in mixed scenes because the dynamic range increases and your eyes will make the blacks darker and the image will be brighter, but I think you will lose white detail. The whites will clip and the gray scale will not be as good. The colors tend to shift more. But whatever. If you like it better full, that's all that counts. enjoy.

There is a very noticeable difference with Full and I didn't notice any color shift. So seems like a good option for me to go with.
post #1535 of 2855
You wouldn't notice the color shift because you are not tuned into noticing the same. One can not do a gray scale calibration (color temperature if you will) with either limited or full engaged. We do them in manual. The gray scales changes depending on the particular content of the frame with either limited or full engaged. It gets worse in full. Its there but most won't be bothered by it in limited. Full is more for a less than ideal lighting situation. Where you want more brightness. You will lose white detail but it really doesn't matter. Use it the way you like it best.
post #1536 of 2855
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

It depends on whether you want to lose the portion of the picture info between 1.78 and 1.85 in favor of a slightly bigger vertical image.. I think I would rather not and suffer tiny horizontal black bars.
Wouldn't he be able to set both options using the lens memory?
post #1537 of 2855
Quote:
Originally Posted by mariob33 View Post

Wouldn't he be able to set both options using the lens memory?

Forgot about that.

I could just save one preset as 1.85 and the other as 1.78 and just program each preset as a button on my Harmony remote. Voila!
Edited by BigCoolJesus - 1/21/14 at 7:40am
post #1538 of 2855
He would have to set the aspect ratio to other than normal which is 1.78. It can be set to two settings higher. I don't use any of this stuff in my set up having a 4 way masked 1.78 screen. I could go and look at what I would need to do but I just don't use these features at present. his question was which is more desirable. I suggested not losing info by cutting off the edges and giving up a tiny bit of image height in return.
post #1539 of 2855
I know a majority of 16:9 content is 1.78 but there are those movies that are 1.85, hence why I'm trying to find middle ground for both......

To make sure I'm still on track: if I adjust the image size using the 1.85 lines on the test pattern then 1.85 movies will fill the entire screen but 1.78 movies will have small black bars on the top and bottom of the image?
And if I were to adjust image size using the 1.78 lnes on the test pattern then 1.78 movies would fill the entire screen but 1.85 movie images will spill off the screen a little onto the borders?
Edited by BigCoolJesus - 1/21/14 at 8:30am
post #1540 of 2855
Do 16:9 movies "look" better than 2.40/2.35 movies? The reason i bring this up (or maybe I am misinformed) don't the 2.40/2.35 movies only use about 75% of the horizontal lines while the other lines are used for black bars? So if you take those lines and blow them up to fill the screen, you would think it would diminish the quality of the image instead of using all the horizontal lines of resolution like 16:9 are using? Please fill me in.
post #1541 of 2855
Quote:
Do 16:9 movies "look" better than 2.40/2.35 movies? The reason i bring this up (or maybe I am misinformed) don't the 2.40/2.35 movies only use about 75% of the horizontal lines while the other lines are used for black bars? So if you take those lines and blow them up to fill the screen, you would think it would diminish the quality of the image instead of using all the horizontal lines of resolution like 16:9 are using? Please fill me in.

That would depend on how big you zoom the 2.35:1 content. That's one reason I use 2 screens. It's like Goldilocks and the 3 Bears - " my 2.35:1 isn't too big, and my 16:9 isn't too small - it's just right " ! smile.gif
post #1542 of 2855
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Peer View Post

That would depend on how big you zoom the 2.35:1 content. That's one reason I use 2 screens. It's like Goldilocks and the 3 Bears - " my 2.35:1 isn't too big, and my 16:9 isn't too small - it's just right " ! smile.gif

but this does not change the fact that the source is still only spitting out 75% of the lines of resolution with 2.40 compared to 1.78
post #1543 of 2855
Quote:
Originally Posted by lincoln_husker View Post

but this does not change the fact that the source is still only spitting out 75% of the lines of resolution with 2.40 compared to 1.78

You can't add what isn't there though......1.78 and 2.40 are two different formats used when shooting movies. And there are some movies with both ratios in it (Tron Legacy and The Dark Knight for instance).
post #1544 of 2855
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by lincoln_husker View Post

but this does not change the fact that the source is still only spitting out 75% of the lines of resolution with 2.40 compared to 1.78

You can't add what isn't there though......1.78 and 2.40 are two different formats used when shooting movies. And there are some movies with both ratios in it (Tron Legacy and The Dark Knight for instance).

True, but from a practical point of view it all looks good. As for the " dual aspect ratio " movies, I tend to prefer them on my 16:9 screen, for the full Imax experience ( or as close as I can get in my theater ).
post #1545 of 2855
With 4K, you will set get over 6 million pixels using only 75%.
post #1546 of 2855
Quote:
Originally Posted by lincoln_husker View Post

Do 16:9 movies "look" better than 2.40/2.35 movies? The reason i bring this up (or maybe I am misinformed) don't the 2.40/2.35 movies only use about 75% of the horizontal lines while the other lines are used for black bars? So if you take those lines and blow them up to fill the screen, you would think it would diminish the quality of the image instead of using all the horizontal lines of resolution like 16:9 are using? Please fill me in.

If that makes you any better, I am watching on 145" 2.35 screen on LOW lamp with a .98 gain screen and just absolutely loving the image quality. So there you go. No need to worry about losing 25% if image is bright enough smile.gif.
Quote:
So if you take those lines and blow them up to fill the screen, you would think it would diminish the quality of the image instead of using all the horizontal lines of resolution like 16:9 are using?
You are correct that these lines are blown up but would it really diminish the quality of image? If those pixels could be used for the image instead then yes you'd get a better image but then UHD already has so many pixels that it wouldn't really matter unless you go with a very big screen. It has been mentioned so many times that having 4K on a 50" tv won't make a big difference as long as the resolution is concern since our eye cannot perceive that difference. Going to a big screen does make a difference but I don't think that you are loosing noticeable quality in image.
post #1547 of 2855
Quote:
Originally Posted by lincoln_husker View Post

Do 16:9 movies "look" better than 2.40/2.35 movies? The reason i bring this up (or maybe I am misinformed) don't the 2.40/2.35 movies only use about 75% of the horizontal lines while the other lines are used for black bars? So if you take those lines and blow them up to fill the screen, you would think it would diminish the quality of the image instead of using all the horizontal lines of resolution like 16:9 are using? Please fill me in.

Generally speaking, on a Blu-Ray movie disc, you get the same source resolution whether the movie happens to be 16:9, 1:85:1 or in widescreen 2:35:1 format. So a 2:35:1 letterboxes movie or a movie using the whole 16:9 frame, is still giving the same resolution per any particular portion of the movie image.

If you enlarge (via zooming) EITHER your 16:9 image or your 2;35:1 image, you are enlarging the same resolution, and yes the larger you make the image, the more you will notice any defects in the image, or lack of sharpness. But as long as you are projecting each on the same sized screen, the resolution for each film will be the same.

The issue of the available Blu-Ray resolution (and the resolution/detail in the original image source) can come into play in a Constant Image Height type set up, where you are blowing up your 2:35:1 image much larger than your 16:9 images. Doing so *can* bring out softness or other issues in the movie image and since you aren't zooming out on the 16:9 images, they can look sharper or "better" more consistently.
But it's not because the 16:9 image has "more resolution," it's that you are zooming the image much larger for only ONE type of movie (2:35:1), and not the other.

Personally, I've adopted a Variable Size Image system, which just means I bought the biggest screen I could, added 4 way remote controlled masking, and I zoom the image whatever size I want, depending on the aspect ratio, image quality, or just how I want to watch something at the time. Going really wide for 2:35:1 images can make some of them appear more soft, and with lower contrast. However, on the other hand, it can be amazing with lots of good Blu-Ray transfers just how large I can make the image without suffering substantial drops in image detail and sharpness. Some titles seem like they can just keep going larger and larger, and never appear less sharp.
post #1548 of 2855
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

No. I am counting the double pair of outermost lines as one line. You are pointing to the 1.85 markers. One over more toward the center are the 1.78 markers. There pictorial you posted identifies the markers. I don't know why there is a double line at the edge. you can clearly see on the pictorial your arrows are pointing to the 1.85 markers. smile.gif

Your next post has it right.

Mike. Do you have any idea why the outer markers are double lines?


.




Not Mike

But the two double lines - the first outerline is 2.40:1 and the second 2.35:1 .... i think.....wink.gif


dj
post #1549 of 2855
Quote:
Originally Posted by d.j. View Post

Not Mike

But the two double lines - the first outerline is 2.40:1 and the second 2.35:1 .... i think.....wink.gif


dj

I don't think so. Going from the top two double lines the next one down is 2.35.
post #1550 of 2855
Quote:
Originally Posted by d.j. View Post

Not Mike

But the two double lines - the first outerline is 2.40:1 and the second 2.35:1 .... i think.....wink.gif


dj

I should have picked up on that. I am sure you are correct. smile.gif
Reply
Reply
post #1551 of 2855
SHE HAS ARRIVED!!!

post #1552 of 2855
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigCoolJesus View Post

I know a majority of 16:9 content is 1.78 but there are those movies that are 1.85, hence why I'm trying to find middle ground for both......

To make sure I'm still on track: if I adjust the image size using the 1.85 lines on the test pattern then 1.85 movies will fill the entire screen but 1.78 movies will have small black bars on the top and bottom of the image?
And if I were to adjust image size using the 1.78 lnes on the test pattern then 1.78 movies would fill the entire screen but 1.85 movie images will spill off the screen a little onto the borders?

You can have 6 (from memory) focus/zoom/shift presets, why not have a separate one for each aspect ratio you want?
post #1553 of 2855
Alright, after having hands-on experience with the Test Pattern, I think I am NOW on the same page with what you have been trying to tell me, mark.

As the arrows show in the photo below, I zoomed my test pattern so that the 1.85 line markers are just slightly on the border of the frame. Since I am using the 1.85 markers, there is black space between the border and the horizontal pattern lines on the top and bottom of the image, as you had been saying there would be. AND, as you had also been saying, the only way to get rid of those small black horizontal bars on the top and bottom is to zoom the test pattern in one more line to the 1.78 markers but then there would be spill over of images onto the border of the frame (the 1.85 marker lines would be well past the border of the frame off screen).

Am I following correctly so far this time?

post #1554 of 2855

Congrats BCJ!!!!!

post #1555 of 2855
No. If you use the 1.78 markers, the image will fill the whole width of your screen, you will not lose anything and you will have small black bars, top and bottom.


Furthermore you screen is bowed out towards the projector at the top at least. If you have curved lines instead of straight, you screen is not in one plane.

Please call me and I will help. You are not set up correctly in several other areas as well.
Edited by mark haflich - 1/21/14 at 6:04pm
post #1556 of 2855
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

No. If you use the 1.78 markers, the image will fill the whole width of your screen, you will not lose anything and you will have small black bars, top and bottom.


further more you screen is bowed out towards the projector at the top at least. If you have curved lines instead of straight, you screen is not in one plane.

Please call me and I will hep. You are not set up correctly in several other areas as well.

Was playing with the test pattern some more and finally realize how it all works (1.78 vs. 1.85). I made two presets, Custom 1 is zoomed for 1.78 movies and Custom 2 is zoomed for 1.85 movies. Lens memory on this projector seems to work very good. Makes me wonder, however, if the memory ever "drifts" over time or if it always remembers the exact zoom/focus/shift positions. How has your 1000ES done in this regard over the years mark?

Also, the picture above is just preliminary fooling around. Got the test pattern much straighter (had some more adjustments to make with the projector mount). I appreciate your invitation to pick your mind over the phone. Won't be tonight but maybe another time soon smile.gif

I am going to play 9 (1.85) and Avatar (1.78) to see how these memory settings work.....and to see if I FINALLY grasp these rations once and for all biggrin.gif
post #1557 of 2855
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigCoolJesus View Post

Was playing with the test pattern some more and finally realize how it all works (1.78 vs. 1.85). I made two presets, Custom 1 is zoomed for 1.78 movies and Custom 2 is zoomed for 1.85 movies. Lens memory on this projector seems to work very good. Makes me wonder, however, if the memory ever "drifts" over time or if it always remembers the exact zoom/focus/shift positions. How has your 1000ES done in this regard over the years mark?

Also, the picture above is just preliminary fooling around. Got the test pattern much straighter (had some more adjustments to make with the projector mount). I appreciate your invitation to pick your mind over the phone. Won't be tonight but maybe another time soon smile.gif

I am going to play 9 (1.85) and Avatar (1.78) to see how these memory settings work.....and to see if I FINALLY grasp these rations once and for all biggrin.gif

Congrads BCJ. Enjoy your new toy.
post #1558 of 2855
Quote:
Originally Posted by SherazNJ View Post

Congrads BCJ. Enjoy your new toy.

Same with you.

I stole your RC settings of 50 Resolution and 20 Noise Filtering. Thanks!
post #1559 of 2855
What settings are you guys using for 3D. I got these from a review marked as "Ghost free" 3D settings

1 - Contrast Level: Max
2 - 3D brightness to standard (High does add a lot of ghosting)
3 - MotionFlow: Off
4 - 3D Preset: Cinema 1
5 - Color temp: D65


What do you guys think? For Gamma correction, I"m using Gamma 9.
post #1560 of 2855
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigCoolJesus View Post

Same with you.

I stole your RC settings of 50 Resolution and 20 Noise Filtering. Thanks!

And I stole it from whitetrash smile.gif
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP › Official Sony VPL-VW500ES / VW600ES 4K Projector Thread