BenQ LK990 - Page 25 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 760Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #721 of 948 Old 04-05-2019, 06:16 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Mike Garrett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 25,043
Mentioned: 230 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11446 Post(s)
Liked: 9045
Send a message via Skype™ to Mike Garrett
Quote:
Originally Posted by ccool96 View Post
I’m not disagreeing.

But the options between selling a RS4500 or nothing (when in regards to the 5000ES) seems like an easy choice.

I have owned tons of projectors of just about every make and model from $5000 to over $100k.

Just as Craig and others have often said, he can’t watch a movie on a 65-75” flat screen and get a true “home theater” experience. Well I have often felt that way about any screen below about 135-150”.

So when my choices years ago was a 1080p Sony or JVC with 1000 lumens or less and a 1080p 3 chip DPI Titan with 5000 lumens, the answer was easy. Size was king and still is. Thankfully the Sony 5000ES came along with 5x the native contrast of my two 4K Barco DCI projectors.

I have multiple projection systems. I have a 5000ES on both a 14’ wide and another 5000ES on a 17’ wide screen and I just upgraded my RS600 for a RS2000 on my small 120” master bedroom projection system.

But there is a reason why myself and many ultra-high end home theater guys like Art Sonneborn, LJG, Etc all used 3 chip DLP projectors prior to moving to the 5000ES. Because having a projector that could adequately light up a 14-18’ wide screen even with lower native contrast was a far more immersive home theater experience than watching a movie on a 100” screen with a higher native contrast image.

I think that why so many people are enthusiastic about this BenQ. People are moving to larger and larger screen sizes for that true home “theater” experience.

And until the day we can have 5000 lumen projectors with infinite contrast, compromises will still have to be made.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
And several times on the forum, you have seen posts where guys are asking about the RS4500 or the VW5000 for really big screens and Craig and I have recommended the VW5000.
Mike Garrett is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #722 of 948 Old 04-05-2019, 06:21 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Mike Garrett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 25,043
Mentioned: 230 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11446 Post(s)
Liked: 9045
Send a message via Skype™ to Mike Garrett
Quote:
Originally Posted by oztheatre View Post
The Z1 or RS4500 is EOL, only what stock is left is it. I would assume the US has more stock of this than most countries.. but once they're gone, only 2nd hand.
I am hearing, that is not true. I guess we will find out when CEDIA rolls around.
Mike Garrett is offline  
post #723 of 948 Old 04-05-2019, 06:23 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Mike Garrett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 25,043
Mentioned: 230 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11446 Post(s)
Liked: 9045
Send a message via Skype™ to Mike Garrett
Quote:
Originally Posted by 12GAGE View Post
I hope that BenQ can get a handle on things. Also the 990 is extremely new. Even dealing with BenQ directly there is not really any stock on these. If I wanted a unit now I would be looking at a 1-2 week wait. I would say let the dust settle and see if the new units coming out still have this issue. Once we have a steady flow of product you should be able to determine the failure rate. Hopefully, this is isolated to a certain production batch. For our friends overseas hopefully your dealers can secure a fix for you guys. BenQ US is usually pretty good on the customer service front.




*I am doing the same thing with the JVC RS3000. I am going to wait a bit until the bugs get worked out and the product starts flowing in higher volumes.
That probably will not happen until June.
Mike Garrett is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #724 of 948 Old 04-05-2019, 07:35 AM
Advanced Member
 
Kevin 3000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 933
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 141 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Removed 18mm lens aberrations this time.


Benq ----- X90
Kevin 3000 is offline  
post #725 of 948 Old 04-05-2019, 08:21 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Craig Peer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 15,526
Mentioned: 106 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6466 Post(s)
Liked: 7469
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaulP View Post
I don’t understand your point at all. In the US at least, the street prices of BenQ pjs are steeply discounted. That, combined with the fact that the starting price is relatively low among other brands would mean that both the seller and the manufacturer are likely earning lower margins compared to the other brands. But, without looking at the hard numbers, this is speculation.

In any case, I still maintain, that people who post on this forum should disclose whether or not they have a financial interest in selling either the projector at issue or competing projectors. The claim by some sellers that they are forbidden from disclosing whether or not they are a seller - that disclosing this fact would result in them being banned from the board - makes no sense. My understanding is that this forum does not allow a seller to promote their products or discuss price. That policy however would not prohibit a seller from disclosing that they are a seller.
For example, the president of Paramorph, discloses that fact. Now, whether or not a financial interest biases a review is a different matter. However, by providing that information, people on the forum can judge for themselves what weight to give to a particular review.

The projectors discussed here are relatively expensive, even for the well healed. Moreover, they are sophisticated. I for one, come to this forum looking for relaible information and advice. Like others, I value the opinions of some of the more experienced enthusiasts, even if they are also sellers - because they may have the most experience and knowledge. But, I want to know whether or not they are sellers so that I can take that into account when I consider the information and advice they provide.

This really shouldn’t be controversial.
Yes - if you are not a paid advertiser on this forum, you can't even mention you sell projectors. Or you can get banned. If you think that makes no sense, take it up with a forum moderator or write Verticalscope.

You can assume that if someone sells brand S / J / E, that they can sell all brands. So if someone has a financial interest in any, they technically have a financial interest in all brands.
audvid and Reddig like this.
Craig Peer is online now  
post #726 of 948 Old 04-05-2019, 09:06 AM
Member
 
arpatel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 22
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 4
Quote:
Originally Posted by markmon1 View Post
I agree with all this.
I agree that size is the king . I wonder why most of the expert projector review is done on 100 to 130 inch
screen . Maybe that is the average home theater screen ?
arpatel is offline  
post #727 of 948 Old 04-05-2019, 10:06 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Mike Garrett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 25,043
Mentioned: 230 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11446 Post(s)
Liked: 9045
Send a message via Skype™ to Mike Garrett
Quote:
Originally Posted by arpatel View Post
I agree that size is the king . I wonder why most of the expert projector review is done on 100 to 130 inch
screen . Maybe that is the average home theater screen ?
Screen sizes I see sold the most over the last year are 105" to 130" wide 16:9 and 110" to 130" wide scope. A few above and a few below (more below than above), but the largest majority are in those ranges. If you are not doing an AT screen, you need a pretty wide room to fit a 130" wide screen with speakers to the side, if you don't want the speakers shoved into the corners. Most people do not have 16' to 18' wide rooms. AT screens will allow you to reduce the required room width quite a bit.

Reviewers review on what they have in their rooms and that size is usually dictated by room size/viewing distance and/or budget. And when I say budget, I am not just talking cost of the screen. Larger room with larger screen means more cost for screen, projector and audio.

Last edited by Mike Garrett; 04-05-2019 at 10:11 AM.
Mike Garrett is offline  
post #728 of 948 Old 04-05-2019, 02:27 PM
Senior Member
 
ckgolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Clifton Park,NY
Posts: 220
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 142 Post(s)
Liked: 141
Just watched the first 30 minutes of The Revenant. Rainbows galore! If it wasn’t the subtitles it was the sun in between the dark trees. It seems like the more I watch this pj the more I see them. This was SDR/2020 out of the UB820 with HDR Optimizer at 0.

I boxed up the LK990 and it’ll sit idle until it’s shipped back. No need to do any further testing to know this is not an option for me.
Archibald1 likes this.
ckgolf is offline  
post #729 of 948 Old 04-05-2019, 03:48 PM
Senior Member
 
oztheatre's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 206
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 97 Post(s)
Liked: 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squidjammer View Post
Do you mind PMing me the street prices as I have not found this to be the case here in Australia so I am considering ordering from the US.
The 970 is 12999 in the USA and 12999 in Australia. BenQ have matched US pricing in Australia which means dealers don't have anywhere near the same margins as those in the USA. That's why. Our dollar is 70 cents US so that machine 'should be' $18,570. BenQ in Australia don't get special 'aussie dollar pricing' they pay the same if not MORE as we don't have the buying power of the USA. I think the 990 is 1K more, but should be 20K, but it's not, it's @14999 aud. Anyhow no price talk, I'm talking relative to our dollar's value where they should be vs where they are priced at. I hope that explains things.
oztheatre is offline  
post #730 of 948 Old 04-05-2019, 03:52 PM
Senior Member
 
oztheatre's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 206
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 97 Post(s)
Liked: 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin 3000 View Post
Removed 18mm lens aberrations this time.


Benq ----- X90
I don't understand the point of these images... the x90 looks like a 480p projector in comparison... looks bloody terrible.
oztheatre is offline  
post #731 of 948 Old 04-05-2019, 04:06 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Javs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Sydney
Posts: 7,710
Mentioned: 468 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6665 Post(s)
Liked: 6316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jue Liang View Post


The original picture is a reference, but it is from an online resource, not as good as UHD bluray. Maybe someone else can provide a better original picture.

My screen shots are taken from UHD bluray.

Nonetheless, the value of the original picture as a reference is very limited because screen shots always look differently from the original pictures due to the limitation of cameras.
Here are the UHD Bluray shots tone mapped with MadVR to 120 nits. This is in my opinion reference and how these shots should look. Supposing you view these shots on a 120 nits display, the only difference is they are tone mapped to Rec709 since none of you read forums on a P3 display.

I am not interesting in jacking sharpness, contrast and colour, so my observations and comparisons which I hope I can get to next week as I am expecting my 990 in just a few days, is going to be done on the basis of how close I can get to reference, not how far I can jack up the settings. Take that as you will, but I am not interested in a highly inaccurate image.




JVC X9500 (RS620) | 120" 16:9 | Marantz AV7702 MkII | Emotiva XPA-7 | DIY Modular Towers | DIY TPL-150 Surrounds | DIY Atmos | DIY 18" Subs
-
MadVR Settings | UHD Waveform Analysis | Arve Tool Instructions + V3 Javs Curves
Javs is offline  
post #732 of 948 Old 04-05-2019, 04:15 PM
Senior Member
 
Maestrosc's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Riverside SoCal
Posts: 295
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 296 Post(s)
Liked: 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by Javs View Post
Here are the UHD Bluray shots tone mapped with MadVR to 120 nits. This is in my opinion reference and how these shots should look. Supposing you view these shots on a 120 nits display, the only difference is they are tone mapped to Rec709 since none of you read forums on a P3 display.

I am not interesting in jacking sharpness, contrast and colour, so my observations and comparisons which I hope I can get to next week as I am expecting my 990 in just a few days, is going to be done on the basis of how close I can get to reference, not how far I can jack up the settings. Take that as you will, but I am not interested in a highly inaccurate image.



I dont understand the need for "accuracy" unless you never upscale on non HD or 4k content to higher resolutions.

I guess it stems form a ideological difference between us though, IMO cinema is an art, and art is highly preferential.

Especially since... how much of hollywood is cgi added in now?

Accurate/correct just dont make sense to me as a critique.

If you can make something look more impressive, why should you be forced to experience them "correctly"

Do you refuse to watch old black and white movies where color was added in decades later?

I have a degree in English, focus in literature, and it just seems like an argument that was repeated throughout my time in college, Does user interpretation supersede artists intent? But I still feel like every individual has to decide that for themselves.

For me, personally, when I buy/build a theater its about making the image look as pleasing to me as possible.

Last edited by Maestrosc; 04-05-2019 at 04:19 PM.
Maestrosc is online now  
post #733 of 948 Old 04-05-2019, 04:24 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Javs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Sydney
Posts: 7,710
Mentioned: 468 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6665 Post(s)
Liked: 6316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestrosc View Post
I dont understand the need for "accuracy" unless you never upscale on non HD or 4k content to higher resolutions.

I guess it stems form a ideological difference between us though, IMO cinema is an art, and art is highly preferential.

Especially since... how much of hollywood is cgi added in now?

Accurate/correct just dont make sense to me as a critique.

If you can make something look more impressive, why should you be forced to experience them "correctly"

Do you refuse to watch old black and white movies where colour was added in decades later?
Sorry, but you are talking to a person who actually works in the film industry as a day job, so we are the complete opposite end of the spectrum here.

I dont understand the need to stray from the original intention for the film. Millions of dollars are spent on colour grading, filming with specific cameras, lenses etc, and some end users want to throw all the intent in the trash. The way we adhere to how the 'art' is presented in the first place is we have a reference in the way the display is to be set up. So far Dynamic tone mapping is getting us the closest to the overall image we would have if viewed on a 10,000nit display so it has reason.

I dont understand the up-scaling comment at all. I am purely talking colour and gamma. Some of the screen-shots posted here are SPECTACULARLY different.

When you go into an art gallery do you wish you could throw a tin of green paint over a picasso and say 'now it looks better'? Its interesting you mentioned your English degree, here is another thought, if you wrote a book, and somebody was to translate it to another language, would you be happy for them to totally reconstruct your sentences however they feel leaving out key words and changing the overall meaning and inflection of your tone? Thats what is happening here, the original medium (your manuscript) is being changed drastically (your projector), this results in an image which is simply 'lost in translation'.

'Impressive' in one scene maybe, but in the very next scene likely destroyed.

This is why we calibrate displays. This is why we calibrate our sound systems.
Quote:
Do you refuse to watch old black and white movies where color was added in decades later?
That entirely depends on who added the colour and what was done to it. Do I refuse to watch the version of 2001 A Space Odyssey that Christopher Nolan jizzed all over and completely destroyed, Yes, I refuse.

The other image which was shared recently and is hilariously incorrect is the LUCY shot... This one, this is the UHD and how it is meant to look, once again:


JVC X9500 (RS620) | 120" 16:9 | Marantz AV7702 MkII | Emotiva XPA-7 | DIY Modular Towers | DIY TPL-150 Surrounds | DIY Atmos | DIY 18" Subs
-
MadVR Settings | UHD Waveform Analysis | Arve Tool Instructions + V3 Javs Curves

Last edited by Javs; 04-05-2019 at 04:31 PM.
Javs is offline  
post #734 of 948 Old 04-05-2019, 04:39 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Craig Peer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 15,526
Mentioned: 106 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6466 Post(s)
Liked: 7469
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestrosc View Post
I dont understand the need for "accuracy" unless you never upscale on non HD or 4k content to higher resolutions.

I guess it stems form a ideological difference between us though, IMO cinema is an art, and art is highly preferential.

Especially since... how much of hollywood is cgi added in now?

Accurate/correct just dont make sense to me as a critique.

If you can make something look more impressive, why should you be forced to experience them "correctly"

Do you refuse to watch old black and white movies where color was added in decades later?

I have a degree in English, focus in literature, and it just seems like an argument that was repeated throughout my time in college, Does user interpretation supersede artists intent? But I still feel like every individual has to decide that for themselves.

For me, personally, when I buy/build a theater its about making the image look as pleasing to me as possible.
Accuracy is not making colors cartoonish and looking like an over-cooked Costco / Walmart / Best Buy display TV. It's skin tones that look like natural skin tones - not skin tones that look sunburned or victims of a nuclear blast. Save the cartoonish look for actual cartoons.
SirMaster likes this.
Craig Peer is online now  
post #735 of 948 Old 04-05-2019, 04:45 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
CoreyM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 2,580
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 243 Post(s)
Liked: 198
I also worked in film for a number of years and while I can appreciate that some people may have preferences that may not be the accurate/reference colors, I want my equipment to be able to reproduce as close to accurate as possible before adjusting an image for preference. Also if (for example) I bought a display that I knew pushed red because I liked that, I would never recommend it without telling someone that it has a red push that can't be corrected.

As for watching a colorized black and white film? That is just utter blasphemy!!!
Craig Peer, SirMaster and Javs like this.

XBox: King Nuthin
CoreyM is online now  
post #736 of 948 Old 04-05-2019, 04:54 PM
Senior Member
 
SirMaster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 411
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 303 Post(s)
Liked: 289
Quote:
Originally Posted by Javs View Post
since none of you read forums on a P3 display.

Hey, I read the forums on my iPhone XS :P



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My apartment Home Theater
Upgrades coming soon!
SirMaster is online now  
post #737 of 948 Old 04-05-2019, 04:57 PM
Senior Member
 
Maestrosc's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Riverside SoCal
Posts: 295
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 296 Post(s)
Liked: 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by Javs View Post
Sorry, but you are talking to a person who actually works in the film industry as a day job, so we are the complete opposite end of the spectrum here.

I dont understand the need to stray from the original intention for the film. Millions of dollars are spent on colour grading, filming with specific cameras, lenses etc, and some end users want to throw all the intent in the trash. The way we adhere to how the 'art' is presented in the first place is we have a reference in the way the display is to be set up. So far Dynamic tone mapping is getting us the closest to the overall image we would have if viewed on a 10,000nit display so it has reason.

I dont understand the up-scaling comment at all. I am purely talking colour and gamma. Some of the screen-shots posted here are SPECTACULARLY different.

When you go into an art gallery do you wish you could throw a tin of green paint over a picasso and say 'now it looks better'? Its interesting you mentioned your English degree, here is another thought, if you wrote a book, and somebody was to translate it to another language, would you be happy for them to totally reconstruct your sentences however they feel leaving out key words and changing the overall meaning and inflection of your tone? Thats what is happening here, the original medium (your manuscript) is being changed drastically (your projector), this results in an image which is simply 'lost in translation'.

'Impressive' in one scene maybe, but in the very next scene likely destroyed.

This is why we calibrate displays. This is why we calibrate our sound systems.
That entirely depends on who added the colour and what was done to it. Do I refuse to watch the version of 2001 A Space Odyssey that Christopher Nolan jizzed all over and completely destroyed, Yes, I refuse.

The other image which was shared recently and is hilariously incorrect is the LUCY shot... This one, this is the UHD and how it is meant to look, once again:

Purely IMO, once you put art out into the world, it is no longer yours and I guess I do fundamentally side with the consumer on this one.

Even in the case of my work being mistranslated, I can be annoyed at my work being misrepresented and mistranslated, but at the same time any time any person reads my work, regardless of language they are approaching with their own perspective, and often leads to things being interpreted wildly differently. And i cant keep those people from scribbling notes on their pages, or creating their own headcannons or fan fictions. I cant control how other people consume my creation once I put it out into the world.

In the case of a Picasso, that person can buy or make a copy of it, take it home and do whatever they want to it. I am not modifying the original recording of any of these films by changing my display settings at home.

I guess I am just not as much of a purist as yourself.
Archibald1 likes this.
Maestrosc is online now  
post #738 of 948 Old 04-05-2019, 05:03 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Mike Garrett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 25,043
Mentioned: 230 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11446 Post(s)
Liked: 9045
Send a message via Skype™ to Mike Garrett
You should set the projector up, calibrated, how it is supposed to look, when doing a comparison. Then if you want to change it on your own for your personal taste, that is your business.
Mike Garrett is offline  
post #739 of 948 Old 04-05-2019, 05:07 PM
Senior Member
 
SirMaster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 411
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 303 Post(s)
Liked: 289
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestrosc View Post
I dont understand the need for "accuracy" unless you never upscale on non HD or 4k content to higher resolutions.

I guess it stems form a ideological difference between us though, IMO cinema is an art, and art is highly preferential.

Especially since... how much of hollywood is cgi added in now?

Accurate/correct just dont make sense to me as a critique.

If you can make something look more impressive, why should you be forced to experience them "correctly"

Do you refuse to watch old black and white movies where color was added in decades later?

I have a degree in English, focus in literature, and it just seems like an argument that was repeated throughout my time in college, Does user interpretation supersede artists intent? But I still feel like every individual has to decide that for themselves.

For me, personally, when I buy/build a theater its about making the image look as pleasing to me as possible.
Because I think that an accurate image looks better. The other images look way too bright. IMO they do not look more impressive, they just look wrong to me.

Also no, I would not watch the colorized version. If it's a black and white movie I will watch it in black and white.

Those are the aspects I decide for myself. I don't care what other people like to do, but that doesn't mean that it's better for me.
Javs likes this.

My apartment Home Theater
Upgrades coming soon!
SirMaster is online now  
post #740 of 948 Old 04-05-2019, 05:09 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
CoreyM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 2,580
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 243 Post(s)
Liked: 198
Nobody is forcing anyone to use any settings, the question, on this AV Science forum, is are our displays (or speakers, etc) capable of reproducing what the artist intended. If not, I think most of us would agree it's a problem (within our own tolerance). I'm grateful for Javs and others who take their time to be meticulous because I do value intent, having sat in rooms for hours while nits were picked.
Craig Peer and Javs like this.

XBox: King Nuthin
CoreyM is online now  
post #741 of 948 Old 04-05-2019, 05:20 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Javs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Sydney
Posts: 7,710
Mentioned: 468 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6665 Post(s)
Liked: 6316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestrosc View Post
Purely IMO, once you put art out into the world, it is no longer yours and I guess I do fundamentally side with the consumer on this one.

Even in the case of my work being mistranslated, I can be annoyed at my work being misrepresented and mistranslated, but at the same time any time any person reads my work, regardless of language they are approaching with their own perspective, and often leads to things being interpreted wildly differently. And i cant keep those people from scribbling notes on their pages, or creating their own headcannons or fan fictions. I cant control how other people consume my creation once I put it out into the world.

In the case of a Picasso, that person can buy or make a copy of it, take it home and do whatever they want to it. I am not modifying the original recording of any of these films by changing my display settings at home.

I guess I am just not as much of a purist as yourself.
You can do whatever you want at the end of the day, sure, But if I am going to review something, if anybody reviews something, it should adhere to reference as much as possible.

What use is making a display, let alone one which costs 4 figures, of which its sole job is to represent the source material 1:1, if it cannot do that.

You have people sharing images here thinking its all the projector, but its NOT, its the user preference they are falling in love with. So far, I am not seeing much in the way of actual reference and thats actually a little alarming to me.

Reference first, then preference. Otherwise you are wildly stabbing in the dark. Just as many people if not more, would want to know its capable of making the image look the way it is supposed to look before any of the other wild colour jacking tweaks. I am supremely confident that it can.

I think it is far more impressive, if for example, I shared an image of the original, then a screenshot from the projector, and you almost didn't know which was which, to me, that is impressive.

The closest I ever got to that is the following btw. Slight colour differences, but in my opinion this is what a well setup display looks like.

Spoiler!
Willie, CoreyM, Reddig and 2 others like this.

JVC X9500 (RS620) | 120" 16:9 | Marantz AV7702 MkII | Emotiva XPA-7 | DIY Modular Towers | DIY TPL-150 Surrounds | DIY Atmos | DIY 18" Subs
-
MadVR Settings | UHD Waveform Analysis | Arve Tool Instructions + V3 Javs Curves
Javs is offline  
post #742 of 948 Old 04-05-2019, 05:26 PM
Senior Member
 
Maestrosc's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Riverside SoCal
Posts: 295
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 296 Post(s)
Liked: 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by Javs View Post
You can do whatever you want at the end of the day, sure, But if I am going to review something, if anybody reviews something, it should adhere to reference as much as possible.

What use is making a display, let alone one which costs 4 figures, of which its sole job is to represent the source material 1:1, if it cannot do that.

You have people sharing images here thinking its all the projector, but its NOT, its the user preference they are falling in love with. So far, I am not seeing much in the way of actual reference and thats actually a little alarming to me.

Reference first, then preference. Otherwise you are wildly stabbing in the dark. Just as many people if not more, would want to know its capable of making the image look the way it is supposed to look before any of the other wild colour jacking tweaks. I am supremely confident that it can.

I think it is far more impressive, if for example, I shared an image of the original, then a screenshot from the projector, and you almost didn't know which was which, to me, that is impressive.

The closest I ever got to that is the following btw. Slight colour differences, but in my opinion this is what a well setup display looks like.

Spoiler!
Ya ive seen your post with these photos before, absolutely stunning shots, hard to believe its a projection/screen, almost perfect recreations.
Maestrosc is online now  
post #743 of 948 Old 04-05-2019, 05:28 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Javs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Sydney
Posts: 7,710
Mentioned: 468 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6665 Post(s)
Liked: 6316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestrosc View Post
Ya ive seen your post with these photos before, absolutely stunning shots, hard to believe its a projection/screen, almost perfect recreations.
Its close, I actually believe the BenQ can get closer, but first it requires a very good calibration. If you view those photos full size you will see a considerable difference in sharpness from the projected to the original, I would love to see how much we can close that gap with the BenQ despite it actually still being eshift.

If anybody wants to throw up these images on their projector for a look here are the originals.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/iino1txph...E_Pv4-gDa?dl=1
ARROW-AV and Archibald1 like this.

JVC X9500 (RS620) | 120" 16:9 | Marantz AV7702 MkII | Emotiva XPA-7 | DIY Modular Towers | DIY TPL-150 Surrounds | DIY Atmos | DIY 18" Subs
-
MadVR Settings | UHD Waveform Analysis | Arve Tool Instructions + V3 Javs Curves
Javs is offline  
post #744 of 948 Old 04-05-2019, 05:47 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 63
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
Liked: 38
Thanks for providing the reference.

I don't know what made you think I am interested in jacking up settings. As I said, I typically leave all those sharpening settings at zero. The only reason I included the screen shots with increased sharpening settings for comparison is to demonstrate the only way I can make it look like tnaik4's screen shots. I also said even when I looked directly at my OLED TV (simulating a projector with perfect sharpness) displaying the UHD disc, it did not look like tnaik4's screen shots, not even close.

The reason I said "the original picture as a reference is limited because screen shots always look differently from the original pictures due to the limitation of cameras." Even with my full frame DSLR, I am not able to make the screen shots look like what I see on the screen. All in all, I am just saying screen shots is not a good way to show the real picture quality on screen, at least with most our cameras. People can make the screen shots look way better or worse than the real picture on screen.

I am looking forward to your professional review.

Regarding P3 display, I am using dual monitors, and one of them is displaying in P3 mode.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Javs View Post
Here are the UHD Bluray shots tone mapped with MadVR to 120 nits. This is in my opinion reference and how these shots should look. Supposing you view these shots on a 120 nits display, the only difference is they are tone mapped to Rec709 since none of you read forums on a P3 display.

I am not interesting in jacking sharpness, contrast and colour, so my observations and comparisons which I hope I can get to next week as I am expecting my 990 in just a few days, is going to be done on the basis of how close I can get to reference, not how far I can jack up the settings. Take that as you will, but I am not interested in a highly inaccurate image.




Last edited by Jue Liang; 04-05-2019 at 05:55 PM.
Jue Liang is offline  
post #745 of 948 Old 04-05-2019, 05:53 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Javs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Sydney
Posts: 7,710
Mentioned: 468 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6665 Post(s)
Liked: 6316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jue Liang View Post
Thanks for providing the reference.

I don't know what made you think I am interested in jacking up settings.
Was not directed at you, purely at the overall thread, which so far has only been sharing completely out of whack images.
Quote:
Regarding P3 display, I am using dual monitors, and one of them is displaying in P3 mode.
Yep, but most browsers will throw away the P3 tags and use SRGB anyway... so its not really going to work even if I did share them.

JVC X9500 (RS620) | 120" 16:9 | Marantz AV7702 MkII | Emotiva XPA-7 | DIY Modular Towers | DIY TPL-150 Surrounds | DIY Atmos | DIY 18" Subs
-
MadVR Settings | UHD Waveform Analysis | Arve Tool Instructions + V3 Javs Curves
Javs is offline  
post #746 of 948 Old 04-05-2019, 07:14 PM
Advanced Member
 
12GAGE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 656
Mentioned: 22 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 303 Post(s)
Liked: 333
Thanks for the images Javs. It should be interesting. I threw the images up on my unit, but I am rear projection so getting proper pictures with the glass is next to impossible for me.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Javs View Post
Its close, I actually believe the BenQ can get closer, but first it requires a very good calibration. If you view those photos full size you will see a considerable difference in sharpness from the projected to the original, I would love to see how much we can close that gap with the BenQ despite it actually still being eshift.

If anybody wants to throw up these images on their projector for a look here are the originals.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/iino1txph...E_Pv4-gDa?dl=1
12GAGE is online now  
post #747 of 948 Old 04-05-2019, 08:40 PM
aka: HarperVision
 
Dave Harper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Paradise on Earth
Posts: 6,476
Mentioned: 60 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3085 Post(s)
Liked: 1700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Javs View Post
Here are the UHD Bluray shots tone mapped with MadVR to 120 nits. This is in my opinion reference and how these shots should look. Supposing you view these shots on a 120 nits display, the only difference is they are tone mapped to Rec709 since none of you read forums on a P3 display..........
Why 120 nits? You even say “in my opinion”. So what makes that the way it is “supposed to look”? What if, as in my case with the LK990, I can hit 200+ nits?

In my opinion, the only way to truly tell what it’s supposed to look like is to present it on a display that has the full dynamic range and color gamut and reaches the target nits of the mastered source so there is no tone mapping whatsoever, no?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Javs View Post
..........I am not interesting in jacking sharpness, contrast and colour, so my observations and comparisons which I hope I can get to next week as I am expecting my 990 in just a few days, is going to be done on the basis of how close I can get to reference, not how far I can jack up the settings. Take that as you will, but I am not interested in a highly inaccurate image.

Whose ”reference” though? Your opinion’s? Because that’s what you seemed to have given here, not SMPTE specs or whatever. Unless I missed something?

Maybe someone that’s seen or works on those modular giant flat panel theaters in Taiwan or China can chime in since I am guessing maybe those may not look like the images you posted. Or maybe a DolbyVision certified theater with a super high brightness DLP?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Javs View Post
Was not directed at you, purely at the overall thread, which so far has only been sharing completely out of whack images...........

How do we know they’re “out of whack” if none of us has 1,000, 4,000 or 10,000 nit projectors? There are absolutely no real specs for tone mapping yet, so who’s to say what is “right”?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestrosc View Post
I dont understand the need for "accuracy" unless you never upscale on non HD or 4k content to higher resolutions.



I guess it stems form a ideological difference between us though, IMO cinema is an art, and art is highly preferential.



Especially since... how much of hollywood is cgi added in now?



Accurate/correct just dont make sense to me as a critique.



If you can make something look more impressive, why should you be forced to experience them "correctly"



Do you refuse to watch old black and white movies where color was added in decades later?



I have a degree in English, focus in literature, and it just seems like an argument that was repeated throughout my time in college, Does user interpretation supersede artists intent? But I still feel like every individual has to decide that for themselves.



For me, personally, when I buy/build a theater its about making the image look as pleasing to me as possible.

I take the easy way out and set it up for both options and then let the actual customer decide which they want to use and when they want to use it.

I’m not sure I actually even want to see some films the way some of these nut job Hollywood types makes them, haha!

Quote:
Originally Posted by ckgolf View Post
Just watched the first 30 minutes of The Revenant. Rainbows galore! If it wasn’t the subtitles it was the sun in between the dark trees. It seems like the more I watch this pj the more I see them. This was SDR/2020 out of the UB820 with HDR Optimizer at 0.



I boxed up the LK990 and it’ll sit idle until it’s shipped back. No need to do any further testing to know this is not an option for me.

Yeah you must be RBE sensitive, just like @youngm who stopped by my place last night to see the LK990. He said he saw them during the exact same scenes in The Revenant that you just mentioned. Funny thing was as he was telling me he is seeing them, I saw NONE!!! Goes to show how strange this phenomenon is, huh?
Dave Harper is offline  
post #748 of 948 Old 04-05-2019, 08:58 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Javs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Sydney
Posts: 7,710
Mentioned: 468 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6665 Post(s)
Liked: 6316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Harper View Post
In my opinion, the only way to truly tell what it’s supposed to look like is to present it on a display that has the full dynamic range and color gamut and reaches the target nits of the mastered source so there is no tone mapping whatsoever, no?

Whose ”reference” though? Your opinion’s? Because that’s what you seemed to have given here, not SMPTE specs or whatever. Unless I missed something?

Maybe someone that’s seen or works on those modular giant flat panel theaters in Taiwan or China can chime in since I am guessing maybe those may not look like the images you posted. Or maybe a DolbyVision certified theater with a super high brightness DLP?

How do we know they’re “out of whack” if none of us has 1,000, 4,000 or 10,000 nit projectors? There are absolutely no real specs for tone mapping yet, so who’s to say what is “right”?
You are firmly in the camp of throwing the rule book out and going with your heart.

And yes they are reference, the Tone Mapping is based on BT2390 standards, Yes, ITU-R BT.2390 they are not 'made up' which are what your settings are:

https://www.itu.int/pub/R-REP-BT.2390

I am not interested in arguing the finer details of 'reference' with you, I have 4 HDR capable displays in my house, an OLED, two LED LCD's and a projector, all are different brands. I can compare all four and tell you as a matter of fact that the only time projection comes close to the displays which can hit true 1000nit + peaks in terms of overall image balance and tonality is when there is dynamic tone mapping used, that's its pure purpose. The OLED looks by far the best obviously, its the Panasonic FZ950, Vincent awarded it the absolute best HDR display last year. It is, quite literally, a 'reference' display, and also uses BT2390 as far as I am aware.
Quote:
Why 120 nits? You even say “in my opinion”. So what makes that the way it is “supposed to look”? What if, as in my case with the LK990, I can hit 200+ nits?
If talking about this shot,



It would actually look identical. This only has a peak of 107 nits. Thats what Dynamic Tone Mapping does. It will display those 107 nits exactly 1:1 as they are encoded. ZERO MANIPULATION whatsoever, no curves, no twisting. Exactly as it is on the disc. If you told MadVR you have a 200 nit display, and I had a 120 nit display, you and I would be looking at literally identical images down to the smallest detail. Exactly the same nit for nit image on the screen.

See where the reference part starts coming into it? I can use this tone mapping on all four of my displays and it will spit out an identical image most of the time no matter how bright the display is. Only when highlights start going positively nuts will you start to see the native differences on the display brightness.

Here is your 200 nits version of this shot also identical, because of the nature of how the dynamic tone mapping and dynamic clipping works. Most of this image falls well under the peak of the display, so its barely needing to compress anything, I left the info for you to see if it interests you:

Reddig likes this.

JVC X9500 (RS620) | 120" 16:9 | Marantz AV7702 MkII | Emotiva XPA-7 | DIY Modular Towers | DIY TPL-150 Surrounds | DIY Atmos | DIY 18" Subs
-
MadVR Settings | UHD Waveform Analysis | Arve Tool Instructions + V3 Javs Curves

Last edited by Javs; 04-05-2019 at 09:36 PM.
Javs is offline  
post #749 of 948 Old 04-05-2019, 09:52 PM
aka: HarperVision
 
Dave Harper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Paradise on Earth
Posts: 6,476
Mentioned: 60 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3085 Post(s)
Liked: 1700
BenQ LK990

Quote:
Originally Posted by Javs View Post
You are firmly in the camp of throwing the rule book out and going with your heart.

And yes they are reference, the Tone Mapping is based on BT2390 standards, Yes, ITU-R BT.2390 they are not 'made up' which are what your settings are:

https://www.itu.int/pub/R-REP-BT.2390

I am not interested in arguing the finer details of 'reference' with you, its amazing you have an ISF Certified logo as your avatar, you should remove it since you dont actually adhere to any standards at all. Throw caution to the wind!!

I have 4 HDR capable displays in my house, an OLED, two LED LCD's and a projector, all are different brands. I can compare all four and tell you as a matter of fact that the only time projection comes close to the displays which can hit true 1000nit + peaks in terms of overall image balance and tonality is when there is dynamic tone mapping used, that's its pure purpose. The OLED looks by far the best obviously, its the Panasonic FZ950, Vincent awarded it the absolute best HDR display last year. It is, quite literally, a 'reference' display, and also uses BT2390 as far as I am aware.


If talking about this shot,



It would actually look identical. This only has a peak of 107 nits. Thats what Dynamic Tone Mapping does. It will display those 107 nits exactly 1:1 as they are encoded. ZERO MANIPULATION whatsoever, no curves, no twisting. Exactly as it is on the disc. If you told MadVR you have a 200 nit display, and I had a 120 nit display, you and I would be looking at literally identical images down to the smallest detail. Exactly the same nit for nit image on the screen.

See where the reference part starts coming into it? I can use this tone mapping on all four of my displays and it will spit out an identical image most of the time no matter how bright the display is. Only when highlights start going positively nuts will you start to see the native differences on the display brightness.

Here is your 200 nits version of this shot also identical, because of the nature of how the dynamic tone mapping and dynamic clipping works. Most of this image falls well under the peak of the display, so its barely needing to compress anything, I left the info for you to see if it interests you:


Wow dude, why so personal? Nobody was trying to argue with you. YOU are the one that said “in my opinion”. You need to check your ego at the door man.

When YOU are the one handing out ISF Certifications, call me! Until then I will continue to display the avatar THAT I EARNED MANY YEARS AGO AND THROUGH 30+ YEARS IN THIS TYPE OF BUSINESS, thank you very much!!!

Who ever said I “couldn’t” do a totally to specs calibration Mr. Javs??? Who ever said that I DON’T do that??? Did I NOT just say that I do BOTH on the display and then let the customer decide??? You conveniently left that part out of your quote of me though didn’t you?

I also have three HDR capable displays, an OLED, an LCD and a projector. What’s you’re point?

Did I ever ONCE say my HarperVision wasn’t anything more than what it is, to start with a calibration and then add in some creative artform???? Tell me please Mr. expert who knows it all and is the only person whose “opinion” matters. Maybe try to keep up man.

As I said a million times. Haters gonna hate.

Why is what I do such a threat to you folks??? Why can’t this be FUN for Christ’s Sake........GOD you people literally drive me INSANE!!!!

I guess we should remove your avatar because you’re not the real Wolverine, right? Utterly ridiculous.

Last edited by Dave Harper; 04-05-2019 at 10:02 PM.
Dave Harper is offline  
post #750 of 948 Old 04-05-2019, 10:13 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Javs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Sydney
Posts: 7,710
Mentioned: 468 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6665 Post(s)
Liked: 6316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Harper View Post
Wow dude, why so personal? Nobody was trying to argue with you. YOU are the one that said “in my opinion”. You need to check your ego at the door man.

When YOU are the one handing out ISF Certifications, call me! Until then I will continue to display the avatar THAT I EARNED MANY YEARS AGO AND THROUGH 30+ YEARS IN THIS TYPE OF BUSINESS, thank you very much!!!

Who ever said I “couldn’t” do a totally to specs calibration Mr. Javs??? Who ever said that I DON’T do that??? Did I NOT just say that I do BOTH on the display and then let the customer decide??? You conveniently left that part out of your quote of me though didn’t you?

I also have three HDR capable displays, an OLED, an LCD and a projector. What’s you’re point?

Did I ever ONCE say my HarperVision wasn’t anything more than what it is, to start with a calibration and then add in some creative artform???? Tell me please Mr. expert who knows it all and is the only person whose “opinion” matters. Maybe try to keep up man.

As I said a million times. Haters gonna hate.

Why is what I do such a threat to you folks??? Why can’t this be FUN for Christ’s Sake........GOD you people literally drive me INSANE!!!!

I guess we should remove your avatar because you’re not the real Wolverine, right? Utterly ridiculous.
For what it's worth I edited my comment and removed that by the time you are posted because it obviously wasn't constructive to the conversation. So in that sense I apologise, but since you replied...

Its just frustrating when you discount and discard things like reference. It's quite arrogant actually.

I will address the rest of your post now.

YOU people? What do you mean? Who? What 'category' have you got me in Dave? Why am I a hater? Do you think I wake up like a grinch every morning and come on here shooting people for having opinions? I have stated people can do what they like, clearly but its not reference and I rightly pointed out why, AND posted the correct images.

As for your 30 years ISF experience, why dont you go back and get recertified to the current standard? You tried to state my opinion is nothing since I was talking about reference, if you were up to date with things you might have gone about that differently, I linked you to the BT2390 standard, perhaps go and read into it. You are super quick to attempt to discredit MadVR tone mapping without having the knowledge of what it is you are discrediting. Hence, my response to you contained the answers on which standard it was, an explanation on how it works, and examples since you talked about having higher peak light output as if that was going to void my entire line of discussion, I am NOT blind, I can read between the lines.

Are you going to retract the comments you made? My images are following a standard, FACT, yours are wildly departed from the standard, that's why I said you follow your heart, that was paraphrasing you, Dave, you have said those very words yourself. I come in here and comment on the wildly inaccurate images being shared, I share how they SHOULD look and I have had a couple people tell me its wrong, well, sorry it is not wrong.

I think this thread needs to jump off its high horse and come back to earth just a little but, lets have less subjective dreaming and more objective information? This is not a magic pill. IF it looks phenomenal when set up to the proper standards I will comment as much and it will satisfy me, and those who adhere to reference, some of those people have already come out and said as much in this thread. IF it suits you with your tweaking, not caring about following any such standard, all the power to you! Nobody is shooting you down. You have such a thin skin when it comes to any criticism of your HarperVision tricks, why? You accept all the praise but wont have anybody with a differing opinion. You were actually incredibly rude to Dylan and went completely out of your way to discredit his observations and that was quite out of line. I called you on it too.

Quote:
Who ever said I “couldn’t” do a totally to specs calibration Mr. Javs??? Who ever said that I DON’T do that??? Did I NOT just say that I do BOTH on the display and then let the customer decide??? You conveniently left that part out of your quote of me though didn’t you?
This is hilarious. I have asked you for P3 gamut coverage and hard data (very nicely), you have posted no such information, the very fact that you are a calibrator is quite funny in the sense that you have not done a single thing to share any ACTUAL data on this projector other than it looks stunning. BACK it up with data. How much P3 does it cover? How is the tracking after calibration. You must have multiple meters, measure its contrast. Its fine if you want to wait for me to do it, I am not even certified in calibration and I will submit more data in 24 hours after I get this thing than anybody seems to have done so far.

Also why haven't you tracked your harper-vision settings against a BT2390 curve to see how close or how far it tracks from reference? Your settings are completely done by eye, have you ever lined it up to see where it actually sits against the standard, man, dont you think that would go SOME WAY to get us to understand just what is happening with it other than blanket telling everyone you have to see it? Have you tracked the colour calibration tracking after you JACK the colour settings to the max? Do you know you are destroying completely gamut tracking when you do that? Not only is your HDR 'Curve' not reference, your colour settings are completely departed from reference, so its not one, but two references you are throwing away. I know if I was going to come up with some completely left of field settings I would probably measure it against the standard and see where it falls. Show us a plot! I am most interested to know if it dips below or above the line for a given peak white under the diffuse 100 nits... doesn't that interest you? I am sure it would be fun to do, no?

In retrospect, I probably should not have edited my post, it was actually pretty on point. It wasn't mean, I called you on the fact that you have an ISF logo yet you laugh in the face of 'reference', its completely contradictory!

You also ignored the rest of my post, are you going to read it? Did you follow the link and read that? Are you willing to admit that, yes, actually, my images ARE reference and following a standard?

It would be nice if you did not work to totally discredit my contribution. I TOLD YOU this would happen a couple weeks back if you didn't like what I had to say. I have an open mind, but I made it clear from the outset I will be following reference, and look at the thread dummy spit which has happened.

Lets get back to the conversation at hand if you wish. But just like Dylan, here I am, pretty sure any actual information and judgement I make on this projector is going to be discredited by you moving forward, which you so spectacularly did with Dylans observations (twice).

JVC X9500 (RS620) | 120" 16:9 | Marantz AV7702 MkII | Emotiva XPA-7 | DIY Modular Towers | DIY TPL-150 Surrounds | DIY Atmos | DIY 18" Subs
-
MadVR Settings | UHD Waveform Analysis | Arve Tool Instructions + V3 Javs Curves

Last edited by Javs; 04-05-2019 at 10:45 PM.
Javs is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP

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