Originally Posted by Archibald1
I said the same thing about the Sony 760 v the 870. The 870 has an obviously superior lens, but in normal conditions and situations the difference was simply not worth an extra 10k.
The JVC lenses are already very good by default, incredibly good really, better than most DLP lenses. It's not ALWAYS the lenses on the DLP's that sometimes make them sharper, it's the way the DMD works with the pixel fill and the lack of convergence with a single chip. The sharpness issue (if you want to even call it that) is also partly related to the white flaring on a JVC. Even if on a text pattern you do not see the white flaring like you do on credits, it's still there causing a very slight loss in sharpness. DLP's don't generally have the flaring issue nor convergence, some have CA.
Compared to projectors 10 years ago, these JVC's are all incredibly sharp (remember how the RS-1 looked, or worse an Epson 6500ub - average sample), then you know the improvements on sharpness are diminishing compared to past years. Put even a vanilla JVC lens on most sub-$5000 DLP's, and it would be better than the same DLP with its own lens, but they aren't going to be compatible anyhow as the lens specs are different, but in theory anyhow.
However, as far as the RS-4500 vs. JVC 3000, I'll believe it when I see it. I don't trust comparisons for these models because the RS-3000 have more sample variance and are more prone to variance. This is always the case with super high-end models like the RS-4500 generally having much less sample variance, the cost is so high JVC knows they need to make sure every sample is darn near a golden sample.
So yes, for sample variance, going by past data, the RS-4500 will likely be better and more refined, but the RS-3000 just has a lot more native contrast and the same lens, so I question how people even compared these two projectors, or whether the RS-3000 sample they had lived up to the same quality of the RS-4500 they had.