or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP › Official JVC DILA-X500R / RS49U / RS4910U Owners Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Official JVC DILA-X500R / RS49U / RS4910U Owners Thread - Page 27

post #781 of 1219
Quote:
Originally Posted by xb1032 View Post

Maybe you don't notice it because once you start watching a movie it's not distracting? I notice it easily when turning it on/off but like the fan once I start viewing a movie I don't notice it. Some people may notice fans and such more in their environment because of their rooms accoustics.


Good point.
post #782 of 1219
So how far back are you guys mounting your pjs? I have mine 12' from a 126" diag 1.0 screen.
I was thinking of moving it back to 20' back and maximize contrast but didn't want to loose to much brightness
post #783 of 1219
I had my demo 4910 at 14' from a 122" diagonal screen ( the 16:9 screen ). It was nice and bright. Blacks were great too.
post #784 of 1219
Finally got the Samsung 5100 3D glasses to try out (4 pairs). I have to admit, they look like a toy and perform like a toy.
The lens are ridiculously small. I can see the frame very clearly. It doesn't even fill the scope of my 140" 2.35 screen. The JVC/Xpand model is night and day in terms of lens size.
Plus, the image is definitely darker, and occasionally I can see the flickering of the active lens very clearly.

Guess I'm returning theses or some xpands instead.
post #785 of 1219
Quote:
Originally Posted by odedia View Post

Finally got the Samsung 5100 3D glasses to try out (4 pairs). I have to admit, they look like a toy and perform like a toy.
The lens are ridiculously small. I can see the frame very clearly. It doesn't even fill the scope of my 140" 2.35 screen. The JVC/Xpand model is night and day in terms of lens size.
Plus, the image is definitely darker, and occasionally I can see the flickering of the active lens very clearly.

Guess I'm returning theses or some xpands instead.

I'm using the $50 panasonics on amazon and they look nice. I don't have the JVCs to compare to though.
post #786 of 1219
Is anyone else experiencing vertical grey banding?
It's more noticeable in some films than others. Oblivion is particularly bad - 1:46:50 very obvious banding on the right of the screen.
I have calibrated using DVE HD Basics, and also using the JVC calibration program. The contrast pluge is not very smooth.

Anyone else have this problem?
Does it sound as though the unit is faulty?
post #787 of 1219
http://www.hdfever.fr/2014/02/19/test-jvc-dla-x500-2/

translate and read this VERY indepth review....
post #788 of 1219
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Peer View Post

I had my demo 4910 at 14' from a 122" diagonal screen ( the 16:9 screen ). It was nice and bright. Blacks were great too.

Compared to the 4810, is the black improvement very incremental?
post #789 of 1219
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikos77 View Post

http://www.hdfever.fr/2014/02/19/test-jvc-dla-x500-2/

translate and read this VERY indepth review....

Thank you. That certainly was in depth! I may have learned more from it than owning one of the new projectors.
post #790 of 1219
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikos77 View Post

http://www.hdfever.fr/2014/02/19/test-jvc-dla-x500-2/

translate and read this VERY indepth review....

great review + details. Any review that covers 3D color calibration is A+ in my book. Plus those killer meters they have... cool.gif
post #791 of 1219
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikos77 View Post

http://www.hdfever.fr/2014/02/19/test-jvc-dla-x500-2/

translate and read this VERY indepth review....
I have to respect the amount of effort that went into that and the amount of detailed information provided.

That said, I found it rather strange that this reviewer basically stated that on/off CR is irrelevant to how projectors project film, then went on to praise stuff in the Pacific Rim section that looked like it was mostly the result of higher native on/off CR.

I realize I was reading a translation, but it seemed pretty clear that the reviewer was stating that ANSI CR tells you how blacks will be in mixed images, when that is not actually the case. It is for a specific very bright image that is a long ways from most mixed images and just one indicator. One reason I asked for the checkerboard of 5% and 0% blocks in the same layout as the ANSI CR pattern that is on the 2nd Spears and Munsil disc is because it is actually a mixed pattern, but a large percentage of the time it is actually the on/off CR that has more effect on the intra-image CR for that pattern. I'm guessing that is counterintuitive to some of those who think ANSI CR tells them about black performance in mixed images and on/off CR tells them nothing about black performance in mixed images, but is the truth none the less. Kind of like how the sun going around the earth is logical, but the earth going around the sun factual. smile.gif

Digitals could do 300:1 ANSI CR and beyond years ago, but they couldn't do some of the blacks we can get in many of those mixed scenes with these JVCs now. Maintaining reasonable ANSI CR mattered, but it isn't the main way we got the black level performance that is now available from digital and wasn't 8 years ago, yet some of these reviewers or professionals still seem to think so.

--Darin
post #792 of 1219
Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp2 View Post

I'm guessing that is counterintuitive to some of those who think ANSI CR tells them about black performance in mixed images and on/off CR tells them nothing about black performance in mixed images, but is the truth none the less. Kind of like how the sun going around the earth is logical, but the earth going around the sun factual. smile.gif



--Darin

If I remember your explanation correctly wasn't it roughly like this: ANSI checkerboard patterns are not particularly indicative of most movie content, where the distribution of bright and dark content tends to be different and less uniform than
an ANSI pattern. In other words, if you continually place small equal amounts of brighter area beside equal amounts of dark area (e.g. ANSI checkerboard pattern) then you will show up the problem in light pollution in a projection system - that is how the projector has trouble keeping the brighter adjacent light from straying somewhat into the black area. An ANSI checkerboard is a sort of worst case scenario for highlighting this issue.

But a lot of movie content isn't of the same nature. One could infer from a meager 300:1 ansi reading of a JVC projector that there isn't going to be much contrast between a brighter area and a dark area on screen. And yet, watch a movie scene on the JVC with, say, a city-scape at night, street lights in the dark etc, and the lights look brilliant contrast. That's because there is more "room" in the image, more dark area, so it's not contaminated with the smaller bits of bright light.
Hence what you are really seeing then, in action, is something closer to the effects of the NATIVE on/off contrast of the projector, which is quite high, making for a high contrast image. And many more images in actual movie content take advantage of this on/off native contrast than you have images that mimic the characteristic of an ANSI checkerboard.

Have I got that anywhere near right?
post #793 of 1219
Wow! that review is very complete...and now I understand why i saw no difference playing with the MPC different settings...I will try again playing with those!
post #794 of 1219
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

Have I got that anywhere near right?
Seems about right.

One issue with the ANSI CR checkerboard is that it is a test where our eyes have trouble seeing a lot of CR. It doesn't take all that much to satisfy us. It is watching over periods of time where our eyes can adjust a lot more that our eyes can see across a much bigger range and so it is actually the larger range of the projector (on/off CR) where our eyes can adjust enough to see that there is a deficiency in the performance of the projector.

That isn't to say ANSI CR doesn't matter. It does. It is just an extreme test. If we consider it with gamma it calls for 2.5 times as much light as even a full screen 50% video pattern of gray, which is already much brighter than the average movie image. That isn't even counting that non-gray things tend to have less light. The ANSI CR pattern is even more than 2.5 times brighter compared to a 50% full screen green, red, yellow, or just about any color other than gray.

And going back to that 5%/0% mixed pattern on the 2nd Spears and Munsil disk, the regular ANSI CR pattern is about 700 times brighter than that is supposed to be. How could ANSI CR possibly tell us what we need to know about an image that is 700 times dimmer than it?

I think that what you've seen with your own eyes is that when we have a projector and setup that is good (not great) at ANSI CR and good (not great) at on/off CR the images that really bring attention to themselves are the ones that have poor CR compared to what our eyes are capable of seeing. Since the ability of our eyes to notice CR weakness goes down with more light in the images the lack of great ANSI CR doesn't make it itself obvious all of a sudden, but the lack of great on/off CR shows up as pretty obvious sometimes to those who care about black performance. Here an increase to great ANSI CR brings almost nothing to the table to fix the cases where poor CR is really sticking out, since many of those scenes that show obvious problems have less than 1/500th as much light as the ANSI CR pattern.

Instead of going dimmer by lowering the peak level in an image (like the one with 5% peaks I mentioned) we can go the other direction that our eyes can start to see across a bigger range compared to the regular ANSI CR pattern and that is to decrease the amount of white.

Consider an image that is basically 1% white pixels and 99% black pixels. That may seem like hardly any white pixels, but on an 8' wide screen that is a 16:9 rectangle that is 9.6" wide (10% of the width). Here the amount of light that image calls for is 1/50th as much as the ANSI CR pattern. Again, a ways from it. It is also some distance from the patterns used for on/off CR, but in some ways less distance than from the ANSI CR pattern.

For this pattern what would an ANSI CR of 200: 1 vs 500:1 tell me about the contrast ratio I will get with that image? Not all that much unless the on/off CR is at least 5k:1 I would say, since the on/off CR would be the limiting factor anyway. With only 1% of the pixels at white instead of 50% of the pixels as white like in the ANSI CR pattern the washout it describes is only going to limit our CR in that image to maybe 10k:1 if the ANSI CR is 200:1 and 25k:1 if the ANSI CR is 500:1. Those are approximations as there are a lot of dependencies like how far the black a person is looking at in the image is from the white pixels and the causes of ANSI CR being 200:1 or 500:1 (how proximity based it is).

When some of these people claim that on/off CR is irrelevant I wonder if they even have a clue that an image like that could achieve something like 10k:1 with just 200:1 ANSI CR, but won't even come close if they have poor on/off CR.

I truely wonder how much some of these people have actually checked their assumptions. For instance, one standard is based on just shining lights at the screen then blaming the lower ANSI CR they measured for the problems seen. They basically killed ANSI CR and on/off CR then blamed their lowered ANSI CR for the problems they had seen. If they had properly checked their assumptions for cause and effect they would have used reflections instead of other lighting to reduce their ANSI CR without killing their on/off CR, then I am sure all those problems they had seen would not have been there. Yet they should be there from the lower ANSI CR if that were actually the cause. Some of us have actually done testing like this which is one reason I am confident that those who assumed lower ANSI CR caused their image problems would not have seen all those problems if they had only changed ANSI CR.

Unfortunately, that standard is out there for people to see as gospel without having any idea of how poor their testing methodology was. I wouldn't want my name on a flawed standard like that. Fortunately, I don't think the FDA lets drug companies get away with such mistakes or we would all be in trouble (or more trouble) IMO.

--Darin
Edited by darinp2 - 2/19/14 at 5:58pm
post #795 of 1219
I skipped over the contrast info, not sure where they were going with that. It was just interesting to see accurate meters showing how in-accurate most of the built in modes are...
post #796 of 1219
Quote:
Originally Posted by JamMcD View Post

I'm using the $50 panasonics on amazon and they look nice. I don't have the JVCs to compare to though.

these?
http://www.amazon.com/PANASONIC-Compatible-3ACTIVE%C2%AE-Glasses-Rechargeable-TWIN-PACK/dp/B008BUGZFK/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1392889259&sr=8-1&keywords=panasonic+3d+rf

I think for the price, the XPand is a better deal because you know you're getting basically the same product as the JVC model (JVC buys their glasses from XPand). Based on your screen, you may or may not notice a 10% decrease in brightness due to vertical vs horizontal polarization.
post #797 of 1219
Quote:
Originally Posted by TWheatley View Post

Is anyone else experiencing vertical grey banding?
It's more noticeable in some films than others. Oblivion is particularly bad - 1:46:50 very obvious banding on the right of the screen.
I have calibrated using DVE HD Basics, and also using the JVC calibration program. The contrast pluge is not very smooth.

Anyone else have this problem?
Does it sound as though the unit is faulty?

Greetings,

I ran that sequence last night and didn't observe any problem.


Regards,
post #798 of 1219
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikos77 View Post

http://www.hdfever.fr/2014/02/19/test-jvc-dla-x500-2/

translate and read this VERY indepth review....

Thank you, very informative I am going to try out the MPC adjustments tonight.

Just to add to what the reviewer says, I have watched several 4K Youtube videos with my X500 connected to my PC and they look really impressive. Defiantly better then HD
post #799 of 1219
Quote:
Originally Posted by cardoski View Post

Thank you, very informative I am going to try out the MPC adjustments tonight.

Just to add to what the reviewer says, I have watched several 4K Youtube videos with my X500 connected to my PC and they look really impressive. Defiantly better then HD

Hanging my RS4910 tonight. Just thought about watching 4k video through Youtube using my Oppo103D. Would that work or not? I know the Oppo can output a quasi 4K signal. Not sure if it would be true 4K though.
Edited by deewan - 2/20/14 at 1:06pm
post #800 of 1219
Thanks Ralph, really appreciate you taking the time. Seems I've got a duff unit.
Sending it back.
post #801 of 1219
I've noticed when watching espn my x500 struggles handling the score tracker along the bottom of the screen. I believe when I had the x55 I didn't notice this. Anyone else notice it?
post #802 of 1219
Could you be more specific? Is the issue motion related or is it that the image is so soft where you can't read the text?
post #803 of 1219
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seegs108 View Post

Could you be more specific? Is the issue motion related or is it that the image is so soft where you can't read the text?

Its an issue with motion.
post #804 of 1219
Can someone tell me the best performing 3d glasses I should buy for the 4910
post #805 of 1219
Zombie

I found a good acid test for the auto iris for the 4910. Go to Picaso web site, if you have an oppo BDP-95 it will be listed as one of the player’s sources. Select it then go to Featured. A slide show will begin showing various pictures of art with multiple highlights both dark and bright scenes. The oppo 95 defaults to about 3 seconds per picture. Needless to say the 4910 is slow compared to the Epson and Sony projectors. Both of them of course have had many more years to perfect their AI systems. Zombie maybe you can find a combination of settings that will improve the speed, Fortunately the native contrast is very strong enough so you don't have to use the AI. Take a look.
post #806 of 1219
if you go looking for trouble with the iris, you will find it. the question is, do you find it acceptable for the majority of the real content?

I don't like the iris on the Epson and generally turn it off. I see too much pumping w / real content.

overall I think JVC did a good job on their first attempt with a DI. I'd rather it be a bit slower than show obvious pumping.
post #807 of 1219
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombie10k View Post

if you go looking for trouble with the iris, you will find it. the question is, do you find it acceptable for the majority of the real content?

I don't like the iris on the Epson and generally turn it off. I see too much pumping w / real content.

overall I think JVC did a good job on their first attempt with a DI. I'd rather it be a bit slower than show obvious pumping.

Greetings,

I agree Jason. The DI isn't perfect however on the majority of content, and I watch a lot, I find the implementation to be quite good.


Regards,
post #808 of 1219
Hello. Should I be concerned that the green LED on the front of my RS4910 never stays on after initial power up? The picture appears to be fine. I even unplugged it for a minute and when that didn't work, I performed a factory reset. My experience in the past is that when the LED is out, it doesn't think it has a signal on the specified HDMI input. This occurs regardless of whether I'm watching blu-ray, Directv or Xbox. Everything runs through my Denon AVR-X1000 (only does pass through, not capable of anything else). Any ideas?
post #809 of 1219
No, it's supposed to go off...

Look at page 25 of your manual...

post #810 of 1219
Quote:
Originally Posted by walterappleby View Post

No, it's supposed to go off...

Look at page 25 of your manual...


Thanks!!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP › Official JVC DILA-X500R / RS49U / RS4910U Owners Thread