Originally Posted by ARROW-AV
It's precisely the same identical chipset / video panel in both the JVC RS3000/NX9 and JVC RS2000/N7. Any difference in contrast is exclusively due to the different lenses, with the lens that features within the JVC RS3000/NX9 being slightly higher contrast.
However, I consider the jury to be out with respect to whether or not there is in reality a 20% difference in contrast performance between the JVC RS3000/NX9 and JVC RS2000/N7. I will be measuring a bunch of units so will be able to offer multiple data points towards confirming this one way or the other. But even if the difference is 20%, whilst this is indeed better, so worth mentioning, because the perception of contrast is approximately logarithmic, most people will be hard pressed to tell the difference as far as black levels are concerned. In other words, a contrast difference greater than 20% is usually required to yield a perceivable difference in black levels.
And the THX aspect is just sprinkles
Hence, really the primary benefits / differences boil down to: (1) the eShift 8K; and (2) the superior lens, as being what you are really paying for with the extra 10,000 bucks
Someone asked what the differences were between the two models beyond the better lens and 8K e-shift, I replied with objective differences in the specs.
I was trying to be polite when I said I wasn't sure what THX brings, and I said why. To me, it's not worth anything. I never used it with any model I owned that had it (for example the rs50). But I know that to some, especially those who don't calibrate, get a calibrator or even want to find best OOTB settings, it can have some value. So I was only trying to remain objective (and polite). By the way you suggested yourself that THX was a way to achieve SDR Rec-709 with the filter, so that's an example when it can be useful if the native gamut is slightly understatured even in rec-709 without the filter and the user doesn't want to upload a custom color profile.
Given the little we know at the moment, everything else has to be proven, including the fact that the lens is indeed better (I'm not saying that it's not, I do believe it is as the rs4500 lens is better and it's supposed to be the same one).
I honestly don't know if the better native on/off specs comes from the binning of some elements (panels for example), the lens itself, or even the assembly process. For example, I'm not saying it's the case and I don't believe it is, but the rs3000 could have brighter corners, hence higher contrast in the centre of the panels when measuring the specs, at the expense of contrast at the periphery.
Sure we don't even know if there is a difference at all, but historically, unlike dynamic specs which are often fantasist (or they should tell us how they produce them), JVC have never lied about native contrast specs, so I have no reason to suspect this here. They did deliver 80,000:1 native on my rs2000, so until trusted owners or calibrators provide enough measurements to prove that the rs3000 doesn't reach 100,000:1 native I'll believe it's the case.
I'm sure that if/when you manage to get enough working units from each model (only teasing
), you will contribute to providing answers as to where differences - if any - come from between the models, and whether the lens is the only reason for the increase in the native on/off specs. But for now, all we have is the specs.
Regarding how much of the difference 80,000:1 vs 100,000:1 makes, I agree that it shouldn't be much but 1) I didn't say it was and 2) I'm much more interested in the difference with the iris fully open than with the specs iris fully closed. On the rs2000, although I don't see a contrast difference when content is on the screen, I do see a slight difference in black levels between 30,000:1 (iris fully open on the rs2000) and 36,000:1 (iris closed a few clicks) in my bat cave. The fade to black works for a little bit longer before the black floor becomes visible. Until the DI is fixed/improved, I would take any increase in native on/off, especially at the iris fully open position for HDR.
So until we know how the specs translate into reality, and especially how the rs3000 measures iris fully open vs the rs2000, I really have no idea whether this small increase in the specs is significant or not, even if it most likely won't be for most, including myself once we get a working DI.
Again, that wasn't my point. I didn't say that any of the objective differences you had left out in your reply were significant, I only replied to the question of the OP (before I saw your answer by the way). Hopefully we can leave it there?