or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP › JVC DLA-RS1 questions answered!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

JVC DLA-RS1 questions answered! - Page 3

post #61 of 3254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Turk View Post

It never hurts...I will be calibrating mine and reviewing it, and obviously I will post results.

Hopefully the rumors are true and your going to be getting one in early for an in home review.
post #62 of 3254
Me too.
post #63 of 3254
Has a ceiling mount for the JVC been discussed or asked about?
post #64 of 3254
Chief RPA-U. Universal mount, works with most projectors and is very flexible.
www.chiefmfg.com
post #65 of 3254
Will this be a good projector for 138" screen?
post #66 of 3254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Petersen View Post

[*] 1080i60 to 1080p24 3-2 cadence removal for film sources - This is a feature that JVC is interested in and they will look into it to see if their architecture supports it. EDIT: I should make it clear that the RS1 doesn't currently support it, but JVC may add it *if* the architecture supports it.


We may have found something to criticize about the RS1 after all.

Come on JVC, we really want....er need this!
post #67 of 3254
Quote:
Originally Posted by kits View Post

Will this be a good projector for 138" screen?

Well no way to just say yes or no. There are a lot of factors. Now it definitely can handle a 138" with proper room, screen, etc... but we would need to know that info to specifically say yes or no to your setup.
post #68 of 3254
Quote:
Originally Posted by McCabe View Post

I asked Tom in one of these threads and he confirmed that it is measured from the center of the vertical center of the screen. Effectively the projector can be mounted up to 30% (80%-50%) the screen height from the top of the screen. So for a 54 inch high screen, the projector can be ceiling mounted up to about 16 inches from the top of the screen.

Can I get some clarification on this (I'm a bit of an idiot - this is my first foray into a dedicated projection room)? Does this mean 16" ABOVE the top of the screen, or 16" BELOW the top of the screen?
post #69 of 3254
Quote:
Originally Posted by MauneyM View Post

Can I get some clarification on this (I'm a bit of an idiot - this is my first foray into a dedicated projection room)? Does this mean 16" ABOVE the top of the screen, or 16" BELOW the top of the screen?

In that example involving a celing mount, it would be ABOVE the top of the screen. Keep in mind the lens shift is variable so you can mount the projector on the vertical axis anywhere inside the screen area plus 30% of the screen height outside the screen area. The max horizontal shift is 34% of screen width as noted above.

The Japanese brochure at this link should answer all your questions:

http://www.jvc-victor.co.jp/english/...06/dla-hd1.pdf
post #70 of 3254
McCabe is correct...it basically depends on if you want to mount it high or low. High you have to invert the projector, low, it is rightside up.
post #71 of 3254
Quote:
Originally Posted by McCabe View Post

In that example involving a celing mount, it would be ABOVE the top of the screen.
[...]
The Japanese brochure at this link should answer all your questions:

Thanks - perfect!
post #72 of 3254
Thread Starter 
Okay so I'm working on part 2 of the review, but I thought I would share a couple of photos. As I mentioned the RS1 prototype is the same one from CEDIA which doesn't have the black faceplate (or the white faceplate for the Japanese market), this has been well photographed already, so I just took a few photos of the people.

Here is a photo of John Ballentine on the left, me with a case of writers cramp in the middle and Tom Stites on the right.

post #73 of 3254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Turk View Post

Well no way to just say yes or no. There are a lot of factors. Now it definitely can handle a 138" with proper room, screen, etc... but we would need to know that info to specifically say yes or no to your setup.

I'm also very interested in a 138" screen with this pj. In a completely light-controlled dedicated HT, any guess what screen gain would be required for that size?
post #74 of 3254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Turk View Post

High you have to invert the projector, low, it is rightside up.

I was thinking the same thing when I responded, but if you look at the Japanese brochure it states that you do not have to invert the projector when mounting on the top side (i.e. the projector will shoot down toward the screen even when it is upright). So you can do a high shelf mount instead of an inverted ceiling mount if your heart desires.
post #75 of 3254
The page linked to Mike's post indicates that the projector can be mounted above the screen without inversion. Are there any advantages to this? I've seen some PJ specs that say brightness is reduced when the image is inverted. Why would that be the case?
post #76 of 3254
Assuming you want 16:9, and it checks out to around 800 lumens, then that would yield about 14.25 footlamberts on a matte screen. So I would say around a 1.3-1.5 gain is ideal (18.5-21.5 footlamberts).
post #77 of 3254
Thread Starter 
Here is a photo of Kei and Tom Stites at the AVS/DC after party. I don't know how Kei manages to get prettier every year. She somehow found time to get the party organized, help out with the setup, socialize and mix with everyone and maintain such a warm and friendly personality the entire time. The after party was a lot of fun and it was great seeing the new SMX screen as well as the BenQ, Pearl and JVC HD10K. Personally, I thought the HD10K stole the show, but the Pearl wasn't set up properly and the color saturation was way off.

Oh yeah and Tom made sure to tell me to put the caption on the photo (funny guy that Tom) Umn oh yeah and in case you didn't notice that's Tom on the right


EAT YOU HEART OUT TRYG!!!


post #78 of 3254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Turk View Post

McCabe is correct...it basically depends on if you want to mount it high or low. High you have to invert the projector, low, it is rightside up.

Maybe I am looking at the diagram wrong but it says "can use the projector without turning over". It also shows a picture of the projector above the screen with the projector feet on bottom. The way I interpret this is that the projector does not need to be inverted.

Boy, you guys sure post quick. My wife called me from the other room, I was only gone for a couple of minutes, but when I got back and posted this was redundant.
post #79 of 3254
Depends on how high. In other words, you cannot have the projector above the top of the screen rightside up. But say you were in the middle of the screen, you can be either rightside up or upside down.
post #80 of 3254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Turk View Post

Depends on how high. In other words, you cannot have the projector above the top of the screen rightside up. But say you were in the middle of the screen, you can be either rightside up or upside down.

I dunno... the diagram clearly shows it above the top of the screen... feet down. Is the diagram wrong?
post #81 of 3254
I am working on confirming but don't go by a simple drawing.
post #82 of 3254
Thread Starter 
Setup:

The setup was similar to CEDIA and this has been well covered so I'll just say that it was well light controlled with black curtains on the ceilings and sides. The HD10K was by itself with the Sharp 1080p DLP side by side with the DLA-RS1 and projecting an identical source (HD-DVD U-571) onto identical screens.

JVC actually brought a Pearl to the show, but they made the point that it wasn't about ripping on the Pearl, Sharp or any one manufacturer as much as showing the differences in the technology. So it was the turn of 1080p DLP to get ripped er I mean compared lol.

The setup and image on the HD10K was really amazing. The colors, shadow detail and overall image on this projector is awesome. There really isn't anything that I can knock on this projector other than saying that the depth of image in the really dark scenes is better on the RS1. I think anyone who has one of these should be happy with it for a long time to come.

The color temp on the Sharp was noticeably different from the RS1. The RS1 looked dead on D65, but the Sharp was slightly cold (blue). When I asked about this JVC said that they tried to calibrate it closer to D65 but it ran out of adjustment range. I'm not a Sharp aficionado so I don't know if the image looked representative of a typical sample or not, but I assume that this was the case as JVC stressed that they wanted a fair comparison and they've been nothing but honest during this demo.

Black level

I asked if I could check the black uniformity by blanking the video. The JVC rep (I believe it was Ken at the time) said no problem and we were treated to a pretty dark screen. I was still somewhat surprised at how much light was hitting the screen though which was when we noticed that if you put the lens cap on the RS1, the black level on the screen stayed the same! Yup, the ambient lighting even in the dark environment was enough to swamp the screen. This was due to the blue rope lighting used in the back hallway. When we switched it off, we could start to see the true black level on this projector and were able to see shadows on the screen when holding our hands over the lens. Even still the screen was not completely blacked out owing to light from the Exit sign (outside the room!) diffusing into the room from the hallway.

So what this means is that everyone who saw the demo with the rope lighting on (which for safety reasons meant everyone), didn't see the true capability of this projector when it comes down to absolute black levels!!! The ambient lighting was close to the black level but slightly over it. I don't think it affected the HD10K at all and probably not the Sharp much but it did affect the RS1, but not to a huge degree.

This is an important real world test when talking about on/off CR as it points out that a room has to be nearly pitch black to see the true black level on a projector with this sort of CR. If this machine is going into a room with any ambient lighting you'll never see the full 15,000:1. The other thing that was interesting is that the glow on the screen is still readily apparent even with on/off CR this high. I think most people will be very happy if not ecstatic with the image depth in the really low APL scenes but some black level videophiles will still be wanting more (big surprise).

Shadow / low level detail:

The image depth in the dark scenes on the RS1 is excellent and it was noticeably better than the Sharp (in high CR mode) which pretty much everyone has commented on. I also thought that the RS1 was better in this respect than the HD10K. The slight haze in low APL scenes is replaced with more realistic looking detail which makes the scene more convincing and the image therefore more 3D-ish. There is a psyco-perceptual link in this in that it's my belief that there is a subconcious tendency for most digital viewers to focus on the bright material in low APL scenes so as to not be taken out of the movie. With a high CR projector the eye is free to roam around the scene and pick out detail in the haze that it may have otherwise avoided. The net result is a much more convincing viewing experience.

The true beauty of dynamic range

The really killer thing about the RS1 that I didn't expect and which took me awhile to recognize is what happens to the bright but small elements of the image during the dark scenes. The high native contrast makes the bright detail really jump out during the dark scenes. A good example of this was looking at the perspiration on the faces during the dark underwater scenes on U-571. The bright detail was noticeably muted on the iris equipped Sharp. The picture detail was still there, but there was much more pop and depth to the image, but not because of the black detail, but because of the whites!

People tend to focus on what the iris does to the overall black level but even if the black detail ends up the same, the higher dynamic range of native CR makes a noticeable impact on the image. The CRT guys no doubt knew this all along but us digital guys are still getting accustomed to this. This could be one reason why the CRT guys felt that the Ruby looked dull in comparison to a CRT because the iris equipped Sharp had the same sort of look to it. A dullness due to the lack of small but bright detail in the dark scenes.

Sharpness

Sharpness vs smoothness has been a hot topic on this forum recently. The RS1 looked very sharp. I had worries that the optical lens quality would be significantly less on the RS1 than the HD series because of the price point but after seeing it, I'm not worried. The RS1 looked just as sharp as the HD10K (even more actually owing to the fact that the HD10K had a few more layers of glass in the form of the anamorphic lens). My personal belief is that the RS1 is both smooth and sharp and that they don't necessarily have to be polar opposites. If one were to increase the pixel resolution and/or the fill ratio for example the image will become both smoother and sharper. As I mentioned in another thread I would love to see the actual MTF specs on the RS1 because I think it will be higher than many people think.

Before spending time with the RS1, I spent an hour or so watching a well setup Marantz 11S1 a few days ago. I really liked the image it throws and if a person sits closely (like 1x screen width) it does have a much edgier (digital) look to it. I really don't think that this represents more sharpness as much as it's the look of the pixels. It's analogous to running up the sharpness setting, which can give a picture the perception of sharpness but it's a perception only.

Bottom line though, is that it really comes down to personal preference. Some people like to set sharpness settings high, others don't. I don't think that either setting is wrong just as I don't think that the look of either DLP or LCOS is wrong. My own personal preferences tilt towards LCOS however.

To be continued
post #83 of 3254
the post ive been refreshing all day for!

THanks!
post #84 of 3254
Thanks Mark - great work! Would you agree with the assessments of others that the RS1 looked just as sharp as the Sharp 20K? And, did anyone check to see if the Sharp was perfectly focused? Would you say the RS1 is significantly (i.e much more noticeably sharp) than the Ruby?
post #85 of 3254
Jason. 800 ANSI lumens would be for an IRE 100 window at the absolute closest throw. Assuming an average scene IRE equivalent of 50 and some wear on the bulb, one won't get anything near the digital standard of 10 ft lamberts with a screen that big. Move back the throw a bit and the lumens realy go down because the lens is not constant apeture. See the specs. We are looking at real life lumens in the vacinity of 300 to 350. For a screen that large you better get a very high gain screen which of courses narrows the viewing cone very much and will have excessive hot spotting. 800 ANS lumens is LOW for all the projectors out there. The machine should sing on 100"D screens and one might go up to 110" D inch ok. Better to stack two projectors for a large screen. No free lunch.
post #86 of 3254
Excellent! Man you are making me wish I could have been there!
post #87 of 3254
Tom said brightness wouldnt be effected by throw?
post #88 of 3254
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

Jason. 800 ANSI lumens would be for an IRE 100 window at the absolute closest throw. Assuming an average scene IRE equivalent of 50 and some wear on the bulb, one won't get anything near the digital standard of 10 ft lamberts with a screen that big. Move back the throw a bit and the lumens realy go down because the lens is not constant apeture. See the specs. We are looking at real life lumens in the vacinity of 300 to 350. For a screen that large you better get a very high gain screen which of courses narrows the viewing cone very much and will have excessive hot spotting. 800 ANS lumens is LOW for all the projectors out there. The machine should sing on 100"D screens and one might go up to 110" D inch ok. Better to stack two projectors for a large screen. No free lunch.

We shall see when I get my hands on it. But I don't think you are correct.
post #89 of 3254
"f-number is constant with zoom...no appreciable variation in output vs throw ratio." -tstites
post #90 of 3254
Quote:


Move back the throw a bit and the lumens realy go down because the lens is not constant apeture.

Mark, if I am not mistaken, the RS1 *is* constant aperture and would not lose any appreciable lumens with a longer throw.

BTW, I also believe that JVC has adjusted the D65 calibrated lumens number to 700, not 800.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP › JVC DLA-RS1 questions answered!