Owners of Sony VPL-VW665 - Page 4 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 655Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 3292 Old 12-12-2015, 12:42 PM
 
Andreas21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Norway
Posts: 2,424
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1133 Post(s)
Liked: 729
Double.
Andreas21 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 3292 Old 12-12-2015, 01:01 PM
Advanced Member
 
BakeApples's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Sweden
Posts: 753
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 464 Post(s)
Liked: 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peak View Post
I have seen the Sony reproduce blu-ray with a calm that was not present with the new JVCs. I look forward to seeing 4K native material.

I tend to believe what Doug describes above more than the other view described above that the new JVCs would be sharper with 1080 panels over a 4K one.

Why on earth, when UHD Blu-ray material arrives, would a non native panel reproduce the resolution better? In 2-3 years the discussion will be moot, and all displays will be 4K. Why fight the future?
I agree, i watched the 520 and the x5000 at a tradeshow a while back and although it wasn't a side by side comparison, it was still very obvious that the Sony had a much calmer image with better motion than the JVC. I felt like the JVC image was a bit "stressed" compared to the Sony and also had a more digital look to it.

I preferred the 520 myself.
BakeApples is offline  
post #93 of 3292 Old 12-12-2015, 01:06 PM
Member
 
Peak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 190
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 97 Post(s)
Liked: 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andreas21 View Post
And @Peak , have you seen the Sony and the JVC side by side?? It is the only way to truly see the difference. Turning off e-shift makes the JVC much calmer and with much less noise in the picture and I think most people seeing them side by side will prefer the JVC, but as I have not seen them side by side yet I am not 100% sure. We will be at least 5 enthusiasts/experts present at the test and I am actually very eager to known the result at the end.
I saw them side by side, but with a pre-sample on the JVC side. It was with e-shift on, and I did not have the opportunity to turn it off, to see if the picture would turn a bit to the calmer side I saw with the Sony. Without a doubt, the JVC is still stronger on it's forte of basing its picture off of a contrast floor which is stronger. It is also ridiculously bright for being a JVC! On the other hand the contrast, even without the DI, on the Sony is much stronger now. They are basically eating each others cake, and getting closer to each other.

But my drive is clearly to increase the resolution, based on my screen size. Turning off e-shift and landing in regular 1080p is not my motivation at the moment. 1080p is not enough after 7 years with it, and I have lacked the next step since I got my Panasonic AE4000 a long time ago. Overall picture quality in all other aspects but resolution has taken enormous steps since then, but it is time for the next step in resolution now!
Peak is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #94 of 3292 Old 12-12-2015, 01:06 PM
 
Seegs108's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 10,827
Mentioned: 48 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5167 Post(s)
Liked: 2593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Blackburn View Post
Someone mentioned that this projector failed to reproduce some test patterns somewhere (in a foreign language review perhaps?) so I took a look at 1920x1080 test patterns with full-screen single pixel alternating black & white lines... horizontal and vertical. Neither one was reproduced right... you can see the single pixel lines, but instead of the test pattern appearing to be a 50% white screen (half the lined are 0%, the other half of the lines are 100%), there are a few pink/red tinted snakes and irregularly shaped areas of slight green or slight blue tint. None of the screen remains a uniform gray. However, full-screen grayscale patterns from 5% to 100% have excellent uniformity without any discolored areas. I also looked at the singe pixel black & white checkerboard pattern called Pixel Clock & Phase from Joe Kane's DVE HD Basics Blu-ray also in 1920x1080 and that pattern is not reproduced correctly either and moving most of the controls in the Picture menu causes the appearance of this pattern to change in strange ways.

The only displays I've ever seen reproduce those patterns correctly are DLP and plasma (have not looked at those patterns on OLED so can't say). I don't recall any LCD-based imager technology reproduce those kinds of patterns properly. But now that I have seen this happen on a UHD projector which is CLEARLY reproducing UHD levels of detail (UHD content is freaking incredibly detailed, so much more so than HD that it is impossible to not be impressed, that there is simply NO WAY those single pixel line and single pixel 1920x1080 test patterns not reproducing right has ANYTHING to do with the image quality performance of this projector. And now, I'll go as far as saying other LCD based displays that can't reproduce those patterns right are NOT resolution limited either. There is simply SOMETHING different about LCD imager technology that causes those patterns to fail in spite of the display really being able to reproduce the resolutions the manufacturers say they can reproduce. I think that it is simply wrong to say that a display that can't reproduce those patterns has a high-frequency problem that doesn't permit the display to reach the advertised resolution. I believe the 665 projector is reproducing the full UHD resolution... there is simply NO WAY native UHD content could look this good (so obviously better than Blu-ray it's silly to even compare them) if the projector couldn't reproduce every pixel in UHD video correctly. It may have something to do with how LCD imagers (mostly) work... the video display does all the imaging processing as it would for any other display, but just before the processed digtal data is sent to the LCD imagers (LCoS is an LCD imaging technology too), the digital data is converted to an analog signal. There are some LCDs display devices in development (not sure if they are in any products yet) that are trying to move to direct digital drive to eliminate the analog conversion, but I think that may only be a technicality as these new devices may simply do the digntal to analog conversion inside the the imager or support chip set instead of externally in circuiry before the imager(s). Bottom line, I don't believe any longer that the failure of this projector or other displays that use LCD technology to reproduce those single pixel line/checkerboard patterns means anything... it's just an anomaly that says nothing about the real-world performance of the display.

Think about it... if the projector's high frequency performance was really indicated by those patterns, you'd expect the problem to become visible maybe 2/3 or 3/4 of the way towards full UHD resolution... NOT at 1920x1080. The failure of 1920x1080 patterns to display correctly (if what is said about those types of test pattern is true) then this projector doesn't even have 1920x1080 resolution so it shouldn't look a lick better at UHD than it does with HD sources. But as I've said alreasy, it is VERY obvious that this projector is reproducing UHD resolution because the amount of detail present in UHD content... it far exceeds the detail present in 1080p images. I have a DLP projector here right now as well and it has nowhere near the amount of detail in HD images that the 665 has in UHD images. So the 665 has to have resolution much higher than 1920x1080 in spite of the failure to reproduice this specific type of test pattern.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it. I've asked Sony for an explanation about why those patterns fail on their prokectors (HD and UHD). They know about the issue and this time I may get an actual answer to the "Why?" question... fingers crossed.
It's been reported that the 1100ES does the same thing. This is why Jim Peterson of Lumagen doesn't consider these Sony 4K units "true" 4K projectors. He has subsequently sold the 1100ES because it failed several of his tests. It's true that in real world scenarios it's unlikely one would be able to tell there is some resolution loss. It's just odd that there seems to be some shortcuts taken in the video processing chain on such expensive projectors, especially at the level of the 1100ES.
Seegs108 is offline  
post #95 of 3292 Old 12-12-2015, 01:11 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
darinp2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 23,188
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1135 Post(s)
Liked: 1767
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peak View Post
Why on earth, when UHD Blu-ray material arrives, would a non native panel reproduce the resolution better?
Because it is a lot more complicated than just the chip resolution. You might as well ask how a car with less engine displacement or cylinders could possibly win a race.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peak View Post
In 2-3 years the discussion will be moot, and all displays will be 4K. Why fight the future?
I certainly don't consider not buying a display that has trouble showing me all the resolution advertised to be fighting the future. I bet we'll see plenty of 4K projectors in the future that can do a good job showing full resolution patterns like discussed earlier and even as good as the JVC e-shift is I expect to see real 4K projectors where I can pretty clearly discern sharper detail than with this year's JVCs and at the very least don't look less detailed on many things. So far the Sony 6xx models haven't to my eyes though.

--Darin

Last edited by darinp2; 12-12-2015 at 01:15 PM.
darinp2 is offline  
post #96 of 3292 Old 12-12-2015, 01:36 PM
 
Andreas21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Norway
Posts: 2,424
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1133 Post(s)
Liked: 729
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peak View Post
I saw them side by side, but with a pre-sample on the JVC side. It was with e-shift on, and I did not have the opportunity to turn it off, to see if the picture would turn a bit to the calmer side I saw with the Sony. Without a doubt, the JVC is still stronger on it's forte of basing its picture off of a contrast floor which is stronger. It is also ridiculously bright for being a JVC! On the other hand the contrast, even without the DI, on the Sony is much stronger now. They are basically eating each others cake, and getting closer to each other.

But my drive is clearly to increase the resolution, based on my screen size. Turning off e-shift and landing in regular 1080p is not my motivation at the moment. 1080p is not enough after 7 years with it, and I have lacked the next step since I got my Panasonic AE4000 a long time ago. Overall picture quality in all other aspects but resolution has taken enormous steps since then, but it is time for the next step in resolution now!
So you did a side by side with both projectors in the same room and screen?? What JVC did you see?

And saying the contrast is getting closer is very far from true as the VW520 might have 20000:1 in best scenario with the iris closed, and The JVC RS600 has up to 155000:1 on/off with the iris closed. And the JVC´s is brighter than the Sonys this year with up to nearly 8 times the contrast and that is a very big advantage to the JVC.

I have had the VW1000/1100 for over thre years when I sold it earlier this year and ended up with a X500 (now sold) and I don´t miss the resolution one bit. I am almost 100% sure the RS500/600 will be better totally with UHD BD than the VW520. But of corse some will prefer the Sony and I am perfectly fine with that.

Last edited by Andreas21; 12-12-2015 at 01:43 PM.
Andreas21 is offline  
post #97 of 3292 Old 12-12-2015, 05:17 PM
 
Doug Blackburn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: San Francisco - East Bay area
Posts: 3,587
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 188 Post(s)
Liked: 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seegs108 View Post
It's been reported that the 1100ES does the same thing [fail to reproduce single or 2-pixel alternating black & white line or checkerboard patterns properly]. This is why Jim Peterson of Lumagen doesn't consider these Sony 4K units "true" 4K projectors. He has subsequently sold the 1100ES because it failed several of his tests. It's true that in real world scenarios it's unlikely one would be able to tell there is some resolution loss. It's just odd that there seems to be some shortcuts taken in the video processing chain on such expensive projectors, especially at the level of the 1100ES.
I have been communicating with Jim Peterson about this issue. He said fine alternating patterns like the checkerboard or thin line patterns technically violate Nyquist Sampling Theory. This isn't an issue for DLP since the digital video signal drives the imagers directly. LCD imager technology requires the digital video to be converted to analog before driving the LCD pixels. That's where you get into trouble with the Nyquist Sampling issue. I've asked Jim a follow-up question about that aspect of the difference between how LCD tech displays fail those line or checkerboard patterns when DLP imagers do not fail at reproducing them.

Jim still has a 1000ES projector and said in his reply that it is not a problem for a display to fail at those test patterns because they cause Nyquist Sampling to fail and that is never present in real video images and those displays that don't display the patterns right still produce full 3820x2160 resolution in spite of the appearance of the test patterns. So I very much doubt the reason they sold the 1100ES had much to do with the performance on those patterns... it was more likely "why do we need both of these expensive projectors (the 1000 and 1100) and it may have been easier to sell the 1100. But if I have an opportunity to ask him, I will ask about the real reasoning behind selling the 1100ES.

It is very clear to me that the 665ES, and the 1000ES for that matter, reproduce every pixel of information in 2160p UHD images in spite of the failure at reproducing those technically "illegal" 1 or 2 pixel line or checkerboard patterns. I believe the failure is due to being "illegal" according to Nyquist Sampling Theory and that comes into play because of the D-to-A conversion that has to be done to drive LCD imagers... it does NOT mean the upper resolution limit of LCD displays is linked in any way to how the displays perform with these particular patterns. This would also explain why EVERY LCD display of every type, including flat panel TVs and projectors (LCD panels and LCoS imagers) cannot reproduce the fine line or checkerboard patterns... all of them (not just Sony) convert the digital video to analog before driving the LCD imagers. In short, this is not a "Sony problem" it is an artifact of LCD imager technology that does not affect the actual resolution of the display (whether 1080 or 2160).

I have another resource (PhD) I can ask about this as well to see if there's agreement that the Nyquist Sampling limit is the issue and not the actual resolution of the display.
robdman, BakeApples and JeffR1 like this.
Doug Blackburn is offline  
post #98 of 3292 Old 12-12-2015, 08:57 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
darinp2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 23,188
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1135 Post(s)
Liked: 1767
Doug,

Just to be clear are you claiming the JVC 1080p projectors fail the single pixel pattern test in 1080p?

There is a big difference between how the JVCs and 4K Sony's handle single pixel patterns. The Sony 6xx projectors I've seen haven't even come close.

I asked Joe Kane about the issue of Nyquist years ago when he was talking about how sharp his DLP projector was and his answer was that even if sources shouldn't have detail that high they do. Not saying that is true, but was his position.

--Darin
darinp2 is offline  
post #99 of 3292 Old 12-12-2015, 09:02 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
darinp2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 23,188
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1135 Post(s)
Liked: 1767
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peak View Post
It was with e-shift on, and I did not have the opportunity to turn it off, to see if the picture would turn a bit to the calmer side I saw with the Sony.
I wish I could tell which was displaying the content correctly. I think the Sony may be filtering detail out given how poorly it does with high resolution static patterns, where moving patterns are even more difficult, and the JVC may be multiplying noise or adding its own.

Somebody could make a film grain test pattern, but it might be hard to describe what correct would look like.

-Darin
Andreas21 likes this.
darinp2 is offline  
post #100 of 3292 Old 12-13-2015, 05:21 AM
 
Seegs108's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 10,827
Mentioned: 48 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5167 Post(s)
Liked: 2593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Blackburn View Post
I have been communicating with Jim Peterson about this issue. He said fine alternating patterns like the checkerboard or thin line patterns technically violate Nyquist Sampling Theory. This isn't an issue for DLP since the digital video signal drives the imagers directly. LCD imager technology requires the digital video to be converted to analog before driving the LCD pixels. That's where you get into trouble with the Nyquist Sampling issue. I've asked Jim a follow-up question about that aspect of the difference between how LCD tech displays fail those line or checkerboard patterns when DLP imagers do not fail at reproducing them.

Jim still has a 1000ES projector and said in his reply that it is not a problem for a display to fail at those test patterns because they cause Nyquist Sampling to fail and that is never present in real video images and those displays that don't display the patterns right still produce full 3820x2160 resolution in spite of the appearance of the test patterns. So I very much doubt the reason they sold the 1100ES had much to do with the performance on those patterns... it was more likely "why do we need both of these expensive projectors (the 1000 and 1100) and it may have been easier to sell the 1100. But if I have an opportunity to ask him, I will ask about the real reasoning behind selling the 1100ES.

It is very clear to me that the 665ES, and the 1000ES for that matter, reproduce every pixel of information in 2160p UHD images in spite of the failure at reproducing those technically "illegal" 1 or 2 pixel line or checkerboard patterns. I believe the failure is due to being "illegal" according to Nyquist Sampling Theory and that comes into play because of the D-to-A conversion that has to be done to drive LCD imagers... it does NOT mean the upper resolution limit of LCD displays is linked in any way to how the displays perform with these particular patterns. This would also explain why EVERY LCD display of every type, including flat panel TVs and projectors (LCD panels and LCoS imagers) cannot reproduce the fine line or checkerboard patterns... all of them (not just Sony) convert the digital video to analog before driving the LCD imagers. In short, this is not a "Sony problem" it is an artifact of LCD imager technology that does not affect the actual resolution of the display (whether 1080 or 2160).

I have another resource (PhD) I can ask about this as well to see if there's agreement that the Nyquist Sampling limit is the issue and not the actual resolution of the display.
Doug,

In this dated article here, it was shown that an RS35 actually bested the Samsung SP-A900B in MTF and Nyquist Limit. While I've never measured the newer generation JVC units, I do believe that a well converged current generation JVC to offer similar, if not a tad better, performance. Is it possible that JVC and Sony simply have a fundamental difference in how they're driving their LCoS panels? I'm in no way qualified to make conclusions about any of this. To be honest, it's difficult for me to grasp all the concepts in that article, but unless I'm reading that article incorrectly, isn't that what the article is saying about how JVC drives their DiLA panels?
Seegs108 is offline  
post #101 of 3292 Old 12-13-2015, 06:20 PM
 
Doug Blackburn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: San Francisco - East Bay area
Posts: 3,587
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 188 Post(s)
Liked: 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seegs108 View Post
Doug,

In this dated article here, it was shown that an RS35 actually bested the Samsung SP-A900B in MTF and Nyquist Limit. While I've never measured the newer generation JVC units, I do believe that a well converged current generation JVC to offer similar, if not a tad better, performance. Is it possible that JVC and Sony simply have a fundamental difference in how they're driving their LCoS panels? I'm in no way qualified to make conclusions about any of this. To be honest, it's difficult for me to grasp all the concepts in that article, but unless I'm reading that article incorrectly, isn't that what the article is saying about how JVC drives their DiLA panels?
That's an interesting article, but it's going to take more time to digest it that I had on my first look-through...

I don't know if there's anything in that particular article that provides any more insight or not, I need to look more closely...

I also want to see if I can find a respource that has enough depth to reveal how LCD imaging devices are really driven to see if that provides any more insight. So far, the searching I have done produces things that are either way too simplified or so over-the-top technical I just don't want to spend that much time learning how to design or manufacture LCD iamgers (-: seems like that happens a lot when I do online searches... answers that are too simplified or too complicated to bother with.
Doug Blackburn is offline  
post #102 of 3292 Old 12-13-2015, 06:29 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
darinp2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 23,188
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1135 Post(s)
Liked: 1767
Doug,

Not that it will necessarily help, but I'll try to put something simply.

If Sony stays in the projector market they will have 4K models that can resolve full resolution patterns. With digital projectors manufacturers don't purposely make them so they can't resolve single pixels unless the technology isn't available or costs too much money.

When they can't resolve all the pixels they can come up with excuses, but it isn't like that is the goal. I don't recall their 1080p projectors not being able to resolve single pixel patterns. They may have poor lenses, but that is another matter.

Much like with lenses where the goal is high resolution, with digital projector that is generally the design goal too.

--Darin
darinp2 is offline  
post #103 of 3292 Old 12-13-2015, 06:32 PM
 
Doug Blackburn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: San Francisco - East Bay area
Posts: 3,587
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 188 Post(s)
Liked: 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp2 View Post
Doug,

Just to be clear are you claiming the JVC 1080p projectors fail the single pixel pattern test in 1080p?

There is a big difference between how the JVCs and 4K Sony's handle single pixel patterns. The Sony 6xx projectors I've seen haven't even come close.

I asked Joe Kane about the issue of Nyquist years ago when he was talking about how sharp his DLP projector was and his answer was that even if sources shouldn't have detail that high they do. Not saying that is true, but was his position.

--Darin
It has been so long since I ran a single pixel pattern on a JVC projector, I can't remember for sure if they "pass" or not. I'm supposed to be getting one of the new ones before too much longer so I'll definitely be looking at that one. Don't have one here now that I can check.

I've heard Joe say that also, but the thing is... those patterns don't happen in images. I can see more information in the images the 665ES projector creates than would be possible if you believe the test pattern failure. BECAUSE... the 665ES doesn't properly reproduce the 1920x1080 single line pattern sent from the Radiance processor and upconverted by the projector to 3840x2160. If you believe the test pattern, people have been saying that the 665ES with 4096x2160 imagers in it, can't even reproduce full HD resolution. That's just baloney... real video images from this projector look way too good for the projector to have less than HD resolution. So there is obviously SOMETHING the test patterns are causing to fail that does NOT fail when you view actual video images. Once we get to the bottom of that, we'll have a better idea of what the real issue is. But I don't see anything about 665ES images that would lead me to believe it has anything less than the resolution of the imagers in spite of the test pattern issue.
Doug Blackburn is offline  
post #104 of 3292 Old 12-14-2015, 10:31 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
thrang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 7,122
Mentioned: 25 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2506 Post(s)
Liked: 2027
Would the vertical and horizontal line test patterns from a Lumagen Pro (outputting 2160P) be an accurate test of the resolving capabilities of the Sony's? (i.e.,are the lines separately discernible with little or not artifacting or color wash?)

UPDATED 4/29/17 Thrang's Home Theater (for now...)
Sony VPL-VW5000es • Panamorph Paladin DCR • Trinnov Altitude 16 • Crown DCIn amplifiers • JBL M2 (LCR-LW-RW) • JBL S2S-EX subwoofers x2 • JBL SCL-4 (side/rear surrounds) • JBL SCS12 (x4) SCS8 (x2) TH/RH/TM • Lumagen Radiance Pro • Panasonic UB820 • Apple TV 4k • Synology RAID (45 TB total storage) • RTI control system
thrang is offline  
post #105 of 3292 Old 12-14-2015, 06:41 PM
Senior Member
 
flyguyjake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 433
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 191 Post(s)
Liked: 70
Does this projector have bright corners like the JVC RS600? Does Sony offer a main board upgrade (future proof) on this projector like they did the VW1000?

flyguyjake is online now  
post #106 of 3292 Old 12-15-2015, 11:39 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Craig Peer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 15,769
Mentioned: 106 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6612 Post(s)
Liked: 7674
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyguyjake View Post
Does this projector have bright corners like the JVC RS600? Does Sony offer a main board upgrade (future proof) on this projector like they did the VW1000?

Not sure about " bright corners " ( never really looked for them on my VW600 ), but the board upgrade on the VW1000 was more or less unprecedented, so I'd say not a chance. You would have to do a " board upgrade " the old fashioned way - by buying a new projector.
Craig Peer is offline  
post #107 of 3292 Old 12-15-2015, 03:55 PM
AVS Forum Club Gold
 
joerod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: MIDWEST (just outside Chicago)
Posts: 23,744
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1131 Post(s)
Liked: 1200
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyguyjake View Post
Does this projector have bright corners like the JVC RS600? Does Sony offer a main board upgrade (future proof) on this projector like they did the VW1000?
The 665 I currently have does not.
robdman likes this.

4K HDR10- ignore the “rules” and trust your eyes!
joerod is offline  
post #108 of 3292 Old 12-15-2015, 06:05 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
lovingdvd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 12,913
Mentioned: 78 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3639 Post(s)
Liked: 810
Is there any light leakage from the Sony 665 that would be noticed in a totally dark room?

Edit: To clarify - I am talking about lighting leaking from the case such as from an intake or exhaust fan and not light from any bright corners.

Last edited by lovingdvd; 12-16-2015 at 10:52 AM.
lovingdvd is offline  
post #109 of 3292 Old 12-16-2015, 08:35 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Kris Deering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Pacific Northwet
Posts: 10,602
Mentioned: 186 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3747 Post(s)
Liked: 6376
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyguyjake View Post
Does this projector have bright corners like the JVC RS600? Does Sony offer a main board upgrade (future proof) on this projector like they did the VW1000?
My review unit doesn't have any corner issues. I would say no on the board upgrade, I don't think you'll see that again from Sony on projectors, that was more of a CYA move from them because of how early they released the 1000ES compared to a 4K standard coming out.

My Home Theater UPDATED DEC 2017
Technical Editor/Writer Sound and Vision Magazine
Deep Dive AV - Calibration, Consulting and Education
Kris Deering is offline  
post #110 of 3292 Old 12-21-2015, 09:25 PM
4K & 3D Man
 
robdman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Redondo BEACH CA.
Posts: 87
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 53 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kris Deering View Post
My review unit doesn't have any corner issues. I would say no on the board upgrade, I don't think you'll see that again from Sony on projectors, that was more of a CYA move from them because of how early they released the 1000ES compared to a 4K standard coming out.
So Kris what is your review on the Sony 665 mine is coming this
wednesday .
robdman is offline  
post #111 of 3292 Old 12-22-2015, 11:28 PM
 
Doug Blackburn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: San Francisco - East Bay area
Posts: 3,587
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 188 Post(s)
Liked: 354
Someone sent Jim Peterson at Lumagen a screen shot of an 1100ES reproducing high-res test patterns (black and white alternating lines) correctly. Not sure what settings were used to do that, trying to find out. I don't expect to hear anything from Sony (they were going to get some info about why some of these single pixel patterns don't reproduce perfectly even though the projectors absolutely have full 1920x1080 or 4096x2160 resolution) before some time in January. But it is very clear from the image quality that the 665 is reproducing every pixel in UHD images perfectly.
Doug Blackburn is offline  
post #112 of 3292 Old 12-23-2015, 12:52 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
darinp2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 23,188
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1135 Post(s)
Liked: 1767
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Blackburn View Post
But it is very clear from the image quality that the 665 is reproducing every pixel in UHD images perfectly.
This is AVScience. Sorry, but the premise that you can just watch some non-test pattern content you have and tell whether it is reproducing every pixel is not credible.

Other than that the images look really good to you do you have any actual proof that the 665 is reproducing every pixel properly? What is the basis for this claim that you keep repeating? Put another way, how would you possibly know whether it is reproducing every pixel properly?

If you are just going to say something like, "Because it wouldn't look this good", how would you know?

Do you think it is possible for an e-shift projector with 1080p chips to reproduce all those pixels properly too? Would you consider it credible if somebody said an e-shift projector reproduce all those pixels because they watched some content and the images wouldn't be that good if the e-shift projector wasn't displaying all those UHD pixels properly?

Thanks,
Darin

Last edited by darinp2; 12-23-2015 at 01:00 AM.
darinp2 is offline  
post #113 of 3292 Old 12-23-2015, 01:31 AM
Member
 
Peak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 190
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 97 Post(s)
Liked: 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp2 View Post
This is AVScience. Sorry, but the premise that you can just watch some non-test pattern content you have and tell whether it is reproducing every pixel is not credible.

Other than that the images look really good to you do you have any actual proof that the 665 is reproducing every pixel properly? What is the basis for this claim that you keep repeating? Put another way, how would you possibly know whether it is reproducing every pixel properly?

If you are just going to say something like, "Because it wouldn't look this good", how would you know?

Do you think it is possible for an e-shift projector with 1080p chips to reproduce all those pixels properly too? Would you consider it credible if somebody said an e-shift projector reproduce all those pixels because they watched some content and the images wouldn't be that good if the e-shift projector wasn't displaying all those UHD pixels properly?

Thanks,
Darin
Doug probably does so in the same way that Seegs above mentions that "a guy sold his vw1100" because he had "said" that it isn't "true" 4K. Is that AVScience?

Lo and behold, the above mentioned "guy" has commented a picture posted (by one owner who had the strength to take a couple of iPhone photos of his 4k projector resolving some Lumagen 4k test pattern) in the w1000 thread, and said that obviously the vw1100 resolves 4k perfectly fine.

But sadly this thread, like the vw1000, tends to be overflowing with rumors instead of science (or even just observations) and have everyone clamoring to say that the Sonys are not capable of this and that. Can we talk a bit more talk about what the projector, which this is an owners thread for, CAN do instead?
BakeApples likes this.
Peak is offline  
post #114 of 3292 Old 12-23-2015, 03:12 AM
 
Doug Blackburn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: San Francisco - East Bay area
Posts: 3,587
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 188 Post(s)
Liked: 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp2 View Post
This is AVScience. Sorry, but the premise that you can just watch some non-test pattern content you have and tell whether it is reproducing every pixel is not credible.

Other than that the images look really good to you do you have any actual proof that the 665 is reproducing every pixel properly? What is the basis for this claim that you keep repeating? Put another way, how would you possibly know whether it is reproducing every pixel properly?

If you are just going to say something like, "Because it wouldn't look this good", how would you know?

Do you think it is possible for an e-shift projector with 1080p chips to reproduce all those pixels properly too? Would you consider it credible if somebody said an e-shift projector reproduce all those pixels because they watched some content and the images wouldn't be that good if the e-shift projector wasn't displaying all those UHD pixels properly?

Thanks,
Darin
How can I say that?
1) I can SEE every pixel by walking up to the screen and looking at them.
2) I am an imaging systems engineer with 34 years of experience which included analyzing image quality of all types of film and electronic images on levels you can't imagine. This was one of the few companies in the world that assigned an image scientist to every significant program I worked on (professional and commercial products, not consumer products) had at least one image scientist assigned to the program... and nothing gets by those guys. They are very good at (and very patient) tutoring essential team members in all the specific issues with each product.
3) Because if the projector was high-frequency limited, I would be able to see blurred pixels and indistinct detail in native UHD/4K content and there ISN'T any. I can see single-pixel-level detail in UHD images. Period. And I mean I can follow a 1-pixel wide hair and follow the hair pixel by pixel in the (paused) frame.
4) Because no 1080p projector on the planet makes images that look this good. (there, I said it anyway because it is a valid observation)
5) Because I have had several e-shift models here and while they look better than "regular" 1080p, they produce softer looking images that are nice in their own way, but detail is not as sharply defined as the images produced by the 1000ES or the 665ES.
6) I sit close enough to the screen to see all the detail in UHD images and too close, really, for HD images, I see aliasing in HD images constantly because I sit so close to the screen (45 degree viewing angle for HD (THX recommends 36 degrees to see the most detail without artifacts like aliasing) and I move the screen (on legs) even closer to get a 52 degree viewing angle which is just a little more than 1.5 times the screen height. You can look at a page of text reproduced by a really sharp 1080p projector and see the raggedness on the edges of characters caused by the aliasing and if you get really close to the screen, you can see why you are seeing aliasing with a 45 degree viewing angle.
7) Because I can create a 3840x2160 or 4096x2160 computer image and make the entire screen all one color or 1 shade of gray except for 8 pixels that I can make some other color or black or white or some shade of gray, and in that frame I can find all 8 individual pixels when I get up close to the screen and look for them (I typically place them near the center, close to the 4 corners, and at the midpoints of each side of the screen with the pixels along the outer edge, spaced a couple of inches in (towards the center) from the very outer edge of the frame. A pattern like this doesn't violate Nyquist Sampling Theory and resolves perfectly, unlike alternating lines or checkerboards of black and white pixels that DO violate Nyquist Sampling Theory causing big problems for LCD imaging devices that rely on conversion of the digital signal to analog to actually drive all or part of the LCD imagers - but causing no problem for imaging technology like DLP that directly drives the chips with a digital signal. Alternatively, I can create other UHD or 4K images with a single color (or gray or black or white) background and draw a convoluted line around the frame with a 1-pixel-wide pencil tool in PhotoShop or Paint.Net and I can see that 1 pixel line clearly in every part of the screen from center to corners and points between.

I've got about 10 more points but it's early AM and I still have to shred the brisket I took out of the smoker an hour ago. This should be enough to assuage the science police.
Steve_T, robdman, Peak and 1 others like this.

Last edited by Doug Blackburn; 12-23-2015 at 03:19 AM.
Doug Blackburn is offline  
post #115 of 3292 Old 12-23-2015, 01:00 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
DavidHir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 14,265
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2532 Post(s)
Liked: 2198
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Blackburn View Post
5) Because I have had several e-shift models here and while they look better than "regular" 1080p, they produce softer looking images that are nice in their own way, but detail is not as sharply defined as the images produced by the 1000ES or the 665ES.
Hi Doug,

Have you checked out the new JVCs with e-shift4 that are fed 4K content? By all accounts, it's a step up from previous years and able to resolve vertical pixels in 4K from what I understand. It sounds like it's around 3K image, overall.
DavidHir is online now  
post #116 of 3292 Old 12-23-2015, 01:32 PM
 
Doug Blackburn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: San Francisco - East Bay area
Posts: 3,587
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 188 Post(s)
Liked: 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidHir View Post
Hi Doug,

Have you checked out the new JVCs with e-shift4 that are fed 4K content? By all accounts, it's a step up from previous years and able to resolve vertical pixels in 4K from what I understand. It sounds like it's around 3K image, overall.
The last e-Shift JVC I reviewed was not the last model, but the one before that (2014 I think). It did accept UHD using the same workarounds everybody else was using including limiting frame rate for the incoming UHD video to no more than 30p and limiting the color format to 4:2:0.

One of the new JVCs is supposed to be coming for review. My take on the most recent eShift projector I reviewed was that it made HD images look better but they lacked the "sparkle" present in upconverted HD or native UHD in projectors with native UHD or 4K resolution. Calling it 3K? Hmmmm... I'd have to see one again and do some of the things with it that I've been doing for the last 18 months or so to see just how much detail is visible and how much isn't. The eShift images look more "solid" (hard to define, like pixels melting into each other rather than being distinct points of light on the screen, so the effect is more like a lithograph than a high-res image made up of very distinct individual square pixels. I didn't feel there was anything obvious missing from the eShift images and I would use it rather then turn it off, but those images really do look different because shifting four 1080p pixels is not the same thing as having full control over 16 individual pixels occupying the same space in a native UHD or 4K imager.

The other thing I've found is that upconversion of HD images to UHD images looks very similar no matter what product in your system does the upconversion (disc player, projector, or processor/AVR) with ONE exception. Lumagen Radiance processors make upconverted HD images look better than they look from any other component I've used that can do upconversion. Lumagen uses their patented "No Ring" upconversion for upconverting HD to UHD. That technique was developed for upconverting DVD to HD, but it apparently still works great when applied to HD>UHD upconversion.

By the way, on the screen I use, the pixels from UHD/4K projectors are about 1/2 mm each (~50 pixels per inch of screen width). So I use a magnifier or sometimes zoom the image and refocus in order to see larger pixels (and fewer per inch).
Doug Blackburn is offline  
post #117 of 3292 Old 12-23-2015, 01:32 PM
 
Doug Blackburn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: San Francisco - East Bay area
Posts: 3,587
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 188 Post(s)
Liked: 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidHir View Post
Hi Doug,

Have you checked out the new JVCs with e-shift4 that are fed 4K content? By all accounts, it's a step up from previous years and able to resolve vertical pixels in 4K from what I understand. It sounds like it's around 3K image, overall.
The last e-Shift JVC I reviewed was not the last model, but the one before that (2014 I think). It did accept UHD using the same workarounds everybody else was using including limiting frame rate for the incoming UHD video to no more than 30p and limiting the color format to 4:2:0.

One of the new JVCs is supposed to be coming for review. My take on the most recent eShift projector I reviewed was that it made HD images look better but they lacked the "sparkle" present in upconverted HD or native UHD in projectors with native UHD or 4K resolution. Calling it 3K? Hmmmm... I'd have to see one again and do some of the things with it that I've been doing for the last 18 months or so to see just how much detail is visible and how much isn't. The eShift images look more "solid" (hard to define, like pixels melting into each other rather than being distinct points of light on the screen, so the effect is more like a lithograph than a high-res image made up of very distinct individual square pixels. I didn't feel there was anything obvious missing from the eShift images and I would use it rather then turn it off, but those images really do look different because shifting four 1080p pixels is not the same thing as having full control over 16 individual pixels occupying the same space in a native UHD or 4K imager.

The other thing I've found is that upconversion of HD images to UHD images looks very similar no matter what product in your system does the upconversion (disc player, projector, or processor/AVR) with ONE exception. Lumagen Radiance processors make upconverted HD images look better than they look from any other component I've used that can do upconversion. Lumagen uses their patented "No Ring" upconversion for upconverting HD to UHD. That technique was developed for upconverting DVD to HD, but it apparently still works great when applied to HD>UHD upconversion.

By the way, on the screen I use, the pixels from UHD/4K projectors are about 1/2 mm each (~50 pixels per inch of screen width). So I use a magnifier or sometimes zoom the image and refocus in order to see larger pixels (and fewer per inch).
Doug Blackburn is offline  
post #118 of 3292 Old 12-23-2015, 02:09 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
DavidHir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 14,265
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2532 Post(s)
Liked: 2198
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Blackburn View Post

One of the new JVCs is supposed to be coming for review. My take on the most recent eShift projector I reviewed was that it made HD images look better but they lacked the "sparkle" present in upconverted HD or native UHD in projectors with native UHD or 4K resolution. Calling it 3K? Hmmmm... I'd have to see one again and do some of the things with it that I've been doing for the last 18 months or so to see just how much detail is visible and how much isn't. The eShift images look more "solid" (hard to define, like pixels melting into each other rather than being distinct points of light on the screen, so the effect is more like a lithograph than a high-res image made up of very distinct individual square pixels. I didn't feel there was anything obvious missing from the eShift images and I would use it rather then turn it off, but those images really do look different because shifting four 1080p pixels is not the same thing as having full control over 16 individual pixels occupying the same space in a native UHD or 4K imager.
By all accounts, eshift-4 is a large upgrade over previous e-shifts. Cine4home has a pretty good screenshot comparison between this year's model and last year's. Some were saying vertical 4K pixels were resolved on patterns, but not horizontally. I'd be curious what you think when you get one and how it compares to the 665 as some very reputable sources were saying they could not tell much of a difference with real 4K content between the two. The new RS500/600 are also doing 98-99% of P3 which should be nice for UHD BD.
DavidHir is online now  
post #119 of 3292 Old 12-23-2015, 02:53 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
darinp2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 23,188
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1135 Post(s)
Liked: 1767
Thanks Doug. Sounds like you did some good tests and/or have some good ones in mind.

From the first post I remember from you a little over a week ago on this subject I recall that my impression was much more that you were just watching 4K content and got your position that the 665 must be showing each pixel properly from that, while discounting what happens with test patterns. I'm talking about this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Blackburn View Post
But now that I have seen this happen on a UHD projector which is CLEARLY reproducing UHD levels of detail (UHD content is freaking incredibly detailed, so much more so than HD that it is impossible to not be impressed, that there is simply NO WAY those single pixel line and single pixel 1920x1080 test patterns not reproducing right has ANYTHING to do with the image quality performance of this projector. And now, I'll go as far as saying other LCD based displays that can't reproduce those patterns right are NOT resolution limited either. There is simply SOMETHING different about LCD imager technology that causes those patterns to fail in spite of the display really being able to reproduce the resolutions the manufacturers say they can reproduce. I think that it is simply wrong to say that a display that can't reproduce those patterns has a high-frequency problem that doesn't permit the display to reach the advertised resolution. I believe the 665 projector is reproducing the full UHD resolution... there is simply NO WAY native UHD content could look this good (so obviously better than Blu-ray it's silly to even compare them) if the projector couldn't reproduce every pixel in UHD video correctly. It may have something to do with how LCD imagers (mostly) work... the video display does all the imaging processing as it would for any other display, but just before the processed digtal data is sent to the LCD imagers (LCoS is an LCD imaging technology too), the digital data is converted to an analog signal. There are some LCDs display devices in development (not sure if they are in any products yet) that are trying to move to direct digital drive to eliminate the analog conversion, but I think that may only be a technicality as these new devices may simply do the digntal to analog conversion inside the the imager or support chip set instead of externally in circuiry before the imager(s). Bottom line, I don't believe any longer that the failure of this projector or other displays that use LCD technology to reproduce those single pixel line/checkerboard patterns means anything... it's just an anomaly that says nothing about the real-world performance of the display.

Think about it... if the projector's high frequency performance was really indicated by those patterns, you'd expect the problem to become visible maybe 2/3 or 3/4 of the way towards full UHD resolution... NOT at 1920x1080. The failure of 1920x1080 patterns to display correctly (if what is said about those types of test pattern is true) then this projector doesn't even have 1920x1080 resolution so it shouldn't look a lick better at UHD than it does with HD sources. But as I've said alreasy, it is VERY obvious that this projector is reproducing UHD resolution because the amount of detail present in UHD content... it far exceeds the detail present in 1080p images. I have a DLP projector here right now as well and it has nowhere near the amount of detail in HD images that the 665 has in UHD images. So the 665 has to have resolution much higher than 1920x1080 in spite of the failure to reproduice this specific type of test pattern.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it. I've asked Sony for an explanation about why those patterns fail on their prokectors (HD and UHD). They know about the issue and this time I may get an actual answer to the "Why?" question... fingers crossed.
So, thanks for clarifying the testing you have done or could do and that there are test patterns you do trust as relevant to this subject.

I don't think anybody was saying it can't reproduce more detail than 1080p, but that is a different bar than doing all the pixels in 4K properly.

Given that the 1100 can pass a single pixel test according to Thrang's testing it would be interesting if somebody could find a way to get the same thing from the 665. And if they can't, does that mean anything for detail in any real 4K content between the 1100 and 665? I don't know the answer, but also think it would be interesting to explore.

--Darin

This is the AV Science Forum. Please don't be gullible and please do remember the saying, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

Last edited by darinp2; 12-23-2015 at 02:58 PM.
darinp2 is offline  
post #120 of 3292 Old 12-27-2015, 04:02 AM
Member
 
jimmyg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Dubai, United Arab Emirates
Posts: 71
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp2 View Post
Given that the 1100 can pass a single pixel test according to Thrang's testing it would be interesting if somebody could find a way to get the same thing from the 665. And if they can't, does that mean anything for detail in any real 4K content between the 1100 and 665? I don't know the answer, but also think it would be interesting to explore.
Having seen most of the Sony 4K projectors in person, including the latest 2015 models (except the 5000ES), they all produce a full 4096x2160p image pixel-for-pixel. Some of their image processing features can screw up some test patterns, but those expose edge cases that don't show up in actual 4K video sources. Turn off all processing and feed it a pure 4K signal and you get pixel-for-pixel reproduction on the screen.
jimmyg is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP

Tags
VPL-VW665

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off