Official JVC RS3000/NX9 - JVC RS2000/NX7/N7 - JVC RS1000/NX5/N5 - Owners Thread - Page 495 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 16432Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #14821 of 17813 Old 08-14-2019, 07:06 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Manni01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,112
Mentioned: 326 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5429 Post(s)
Liked: 5619
Quote:
Originally Posted by SirMaster View Post
Not really.

Ideally you would also create a colorimeter correction from a reference spectrometer first.

I uploaded mine and you can use it with your i1 Display Pro to make it read JVC LCoS projectors more accurately as the spectrometer does.

https://colorimetercorrections.displ...Spyder4&html=1


The 3DLUT process is really only good if you are using madVR, so that you have somewhere to actually load the LUT. Or you could create a 3DLUT for a Lumagen as well.
The i1display Pro is fairly accurate on LCOS, I wouldn't use a profile made on another i1pro2 with another 1display pro. You'd have no way to know if the i1display Pro is more accurate with or without the profile. It's fine to run a 3D LUT with the i1display Pro on its own.

JVC Autocal Software V12 Calibration for 2019 Models (Google)
Batch Utility V4.02 May 16 2019 to automate measurements files for madVR with support for BD Folders
Manni01 is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #14822 of 17813 Old 08-14-2019, 07:06 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
asharma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,257
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1839 Post(s)
Liked: 576
Quote:
Originally Posted by wwtech View Post
Yes, a 100% full screen white in his patterns. I use it to check my lamp levels.
Thanks, r u able to tell me specifically what pattern that is? (name and under what section) I looked last night but couldn't find it...Thanks again...

Video:JVC N7 Sony 85” 900F Sony 55” 900F
Audio: Paradigm Prestige 95, 55C, 15b Dual JL Audio D110
Receiver/Amp: Anthem 1120, Emotiva XPA-5 Gen 2
Source: Panasonic UB820, Triple black velvet batcave
125" 2.35 Stewart Cima Neve Tab Tensioned Electric
asharma is online now  
post #14823 of 17813 Old 08-14-2019, 07:08 AM
Advanced Member
 
SirMaster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 776
Mentioned: 29 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 656 Post(s)
Liked: 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by jj-34 View Post
OK, got it now, I was aware of 3D LUT use within photoshop as a seperate color adjustment layer, but was wondering how to use it with a projector.

Also having a Colormunki Photo spectro I will use it to correct my I1 D3 with DisplayCal,

Another question does this colorimeter correction mandatorily been done with my projector reading the screen or can I do it using my monitor ? (would be easier the latter way, but maybe not as accurate ?)
The whole point of correcting is to make your colorimeter read colors from your projector in the same way that your spectro reads the colors, because the spectro "should" read it correctly regardless of the type of display it is.

Colorimeter corrections are specific to the display being measured/calibrated so you must measure the projector with the spectro and feed that correction to the colorimeter.
SirMaster is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #14824 of 17813 Old 08-14-2019, 07:12 AM
Senior Member
 
jj-34's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Montpellier, France
Posts: 283
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 186 Post(s)
Liked: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by SirMaster View Post
I uploaded mine and you can use it with your i1 Display Pro to make it read JVC LCoS projectors more accurately as the spectrometer does.

https://colorimetercorrections.displ...Spyder4&html=1
I just now realized that your uploaded file is a correction file ........ as it has been made with an I1 Pro 2 (much better than my Colormunki) can I use it as is ? Any chances that my I1 D3 has drifted from yours ?
jj-34 is online now  
post #14825 of 17813 Old 08-14-2019, 07:15 AM
Advanced Member
 
SirMaster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 776
Mentioned: 29 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 656 Post(s)
Liked: 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manni01 View Post
The i1display Pro is fairly accurate on LCOS, I wouldn't use a profile made on another i1pro2 with another 1display pro. You'd have no way to know if the i1display Pro is more accurate with or without the profile. It's fine to run a 3D LUT with the i1display Pro on its own.
From what I am to understand, some colorimeters have their own internal spectro offset calibrations which were set individually per colorimeter in the factory when they were created.

This includes the Spyder4, Spyder5, SpyderX, X-Rite i1 Display Pro, and X-Rite Colormunki.

This means that they can all take a .CCSS spectro correction measured for a specific display type and apply the transformation based on their own individual internal spectro table, and should be more accurate than reading that display with no correction.

From the DisplayCAL documentation page:

Special note about the X-Rite i1 Display Pro, ColorMunki Display and Spyder4/5 colorimeters
These instruments greatly reduce the amount of work needed to match them to a display because they contain the spectral sensitivities of their filters in hardware, so only a spectrometer reading of the display is needed to create the correction (in contrast to matching other colorimeters to a display, which needs two readings: One with a spectrometer and one with the colorimeter).
That means anyone with a particular screen and a spectrometer can create a special Colorimeter Calibration Spectral Set (.ccss) file of that screen for use with those colorimeters, without needing to actually have access to the colorimeter itself.
SirMaster is online now  
post #14826 of 17813 Old 08-14-2019, 07:19 AM
Advanced Member
 
SirMaster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 776
Mentioned: 29 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 656 Post(s)
Liked: 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by jj-34 View Post
I just now realized that your uploaded file is a correction file ........ as it has been made with an I1 Pro 2 (much better than my Colormunki) can I use it as is ? Any chances that my I1 D3 has drifted from yours ?
Your i1d3 may have drifted, but it shouldnt have much as they are known to last well over time.

What I uploaded was a .CCSS file, here is what DisplayCAL says about .CCSS files.

Special note about the X-Rite i1 Display Pro, ColorMunki Display and Spyder4/5 colorimeters
These instruments greatly reduce the amount of work needed to match them to a display because they contain the spectral sensitivities of their filters in hardware, so only a spectrometer reading of the display is needed to create the correction (in contrast to matching other colorimeters to a display, which needs two readings: One with a spectrometer and one with the colorimeter).
That means anyone with a particular screen and a spectrometer can create a special Colorimeter Calibration Spectral Set (.ccss) file of that screen for use with those colorimeters, without needing to actually have access to the colorimeter itself.


It means that when you apply my .CCSS file to your i1D3, it will factor in the internal hardware offsets of your specific i1D3 (which were set in the factory when it was built).

However, if you have your own spectro, you should just create your own .CCMX matrix correction.
SirMaster is online now  
post #14827 of 17813 Old 08-14-2019, 07:20 AM
Senior Member
 
jj-34's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Montpellier, France
Posts: 283
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 186 Post(s)
Liked: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manni01 View Post
The i1display Pro is fairly accurate on LCOS, I wouldn't use a profile made on another i1pro2 with another 1display pro. You'd have no way to know if the i1display Pro is more accurate with or without the profile. It's fine to run a 3D LUT with the i1display Pro on its own.
I missed your post while I was typing mine .... so it be ! Anyway I have no mean to use a 3D LUT now, no Lumagen and no madVR, maybe later on !
jj-34 is online now  
post #14828 of 17813 Old 08-14-2019, 07:30 AM
aka jfinnie
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Norwich, UK
Posts: 3,264
Mentioned: 53 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2639 Post(s)
Liked: 1737
Quote:
Originally Posted by SirMaster View Post
So I did a whole re-calibration of my NX5 from the start with a fresh autocal and fresh 3DLUT.

Here are my results (everything is calibrated and measured against DCI-P3):

JVC Autocal:


3DLUT:


Gamut:


Video version:
https://youtu.be/WQs05LHycaM

3DLUT was created in DisplayCAL with just 115 patches.

It's pretty nice, I now got 90% DCI-P3 coverage and 95.8% DCI-P3 volume.
Nice. The volume number isn't useful since it is just a comparison of the size of the volume, not whether it is in P3 or not. For it to be higher than the coverage it means there is some volume which is wider than P3.
Also note that the behaviour of this LUT is suboptimal - for the saturated greens it is introducing a hue shift. A more correct LUT wouldn't look so wide on this CIE chart.
bobof is online now  
post #14829 of 17813 Old 08-14-2019, 07:32 AM
Advanced Member
 
SirMaster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 776
Mentioned: 29 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 656 Post(s)
Liked: 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobof View Post
Nice. The volume number isn't useful since it is just a comparison of the size of the volume, not whether it is in P3 or not. For it to be higher than the coverage it means there is some volume which is wider than P3.
Ah yeah that makes sense. Learn something new, thanks!
SirMaster is online now  
post #14830 of 17813 Old 08-14-2019, 07:40 AM
Senior Member
 
jj-34's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Montpellier, France
Posts: 283
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 186 Post(s)
Liked: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by SirMaster View Post
It means that when you apply my .CCSS file to your i1D3, it will factor in the internal hardware offsets of your specific i1D3 (which were set in the factory when it was built).

However, if you have your own spectro, you should just create your own .CCMX matrix correction.
Now I am completely confused, so far I thought that I had to read the display once with the spectro then again with the colorimeter and have DisplayCal compute the corrections.
Does that mean that the internal hardware of my I1D3 plus the ccss file from the spectro is enough ?
Is that true only when using DiplayCal or can it be used with HCFR too ?
jj-34 is online now  
post #14831 of 17813 Old 08-14-2019, 07:42 AM
aka jfinnie
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Norwich, UK
Posts: 3,264
Mentioned: 53 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2639 Post(s)
Liked: 1737
Quote:
Originally Posted by SirMaster View Post
Ah yeah that makes sense. Learn something new, thanks!
See the comment I edited in. Though the coverage looks better with the LUT you generated, in reality this chart from post-LUT is still telling you that for the region between attainable green primary and true P3 primary you have a large colour hue shift in order to maintain saturation. (The bent green points are representing green colours which will be shifted in their colour). There is an article about this and other calibration errors at the Light Illusion website - basically a more accurate LUT approach is to maintain correct hue and reduce the maximum saturation atttainable. Edit: In Lightspace the default LUT mode would generate a "correct" LUT (peak chroma). Not sure what you need to select in DisplayCAL to achieve the same, but there are lots of options for the rendering intent so I guess one might achieve something more accurate.

The following image is taken from here:
https://www.lightillusion.com/error.html


You can see here that the MacAdam diagram of elipses of just noticeable differences appear to show that you will likely notice the hue shift more than the lack of saturation in this area of the gamut.
From here: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/...fig1_246546361
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	gamut coverage.png
Views:	149
Size:	159.3 KB
ID:	2602860   Click image for larger version

Name:	MacAdam-ellipses-plotted-on-the-CIE-1931-xy-chromaticity-diagram-9-The-ellipses-show.png
Views:	146
Size:	52.8 KB
ID:	2602864  

Last edited by bobof; 08-14-2019 at 07:50 AM.
bobof is online now  
post #14832 of 17813 Old 08-14-2019, 07:45 AM
Advanced Member
 
SirMaster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 776
Mentioned: 29 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 656 Post(s)
Liked: 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by jj-34 View Post
Now I am completely confused, so far I thought that I had to read the display once with the spectro then again with the colorimeter and have DisplayCal compute the corrections.
That creates a .CCMX file, called a matrix correction. It is the most accurate correction.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jj-34 View Post
Does that mean that the internal hardware of my I1D3 plus the ccss file from the spectro is enough ?
Is that true only when using DiplayCal or can it be used with HCFR too ?
A .CCSS from a reading off the display with a spectro is enough for a Spyder4/5 and i1D3/Colormunki and should be better than no correction. But a .CCMX can be better if you have a spectro to make your own.

For instance, the .CCSS assumes that your i1D3 is still as perfect as it was when it left the factory. If your i1D3 has shifted at all, then it's internal spectro readings wont match its current filter performance, and thus a .CCMX where you measure both a spectro and your i1D3 will be more accurate.
SirMaster is online now  
post #14833 of 17813 Old 08-14-2019, 07:51 AM
Senior Member
 
jj-34's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Montpellier, France
Posts: 283
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 186 Post(s)
Liked: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by SirMaster View Post
That creates a .CCMX file, called a matrix correction. It is the most accurate correction.



A .CCSS from a reading off the display with a spectro is enough for a Spyder4/5 and i1D3/Colormunki and should be better than no correction. But a .CCMX can be better if you have a spectro to make your own.

For instance, the .CCSS assumes that your i1D3 is still as perfect as it was when it left the factory. If your i1D3 has shifted at all, then it's internal spectro readings wont match its current filter performance, and thus a .CCMX where you measure both a spectro and your i1D3 will be more accurate.
OK, now I am back again ....... what a sweat
jj-34 is online now  
post #14834 of 17813 Old 08-14-2019, 08:14 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
Industry Insider
 
Cleveland Plasma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Posts: 24,538
Mentioned: 81 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6668 Post(s)
Liked: 6656
Cleveland Plasma is offline  
post #14835 of 17813 Old 08-14-2019, 08:24 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Manni01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,112
Mentioned: 326 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5429 Post(s)
Liked: 5619
Quote:
Originally Posted by SirMaster View Post
From what I am to understand, some colorimeters have their own internal spectro offset calibrations which were set individually per colorimeter in the factory when they were created.

This includes the Spyder4, Spyder5, SpyderX, X-Rite i1 Display Pro, and X-Rite Colormunki.

This means that they can all take a .CCSS spectro correction measured for a specific display type and apply the transformation based on their own individual internal spectro table, and should be more accurate than reading that display with no correction.

From the DisplayCAL documentation page:

Special note about the X-Rite i1 Display Pro, ColorMunki Display and Spyder4/5 colorimeters
These instruments greatly reduce the amount of work needed to match them to a display because they contain the spectral sensitivities of their filters in hardware, so only a spectrometer reading of the display is needed to create the correction (in contrast to matching other colorimeters to a display, which needs two readings: One with a spectrometer and one with the colorimeter).
That means anyone with a particular screen and a spectrometer can create a special Colorimeter Calibration Spectral Set (.ccss) file of that screen for use with those colorimeters, without needing to actually have access to the colorimeter itself.
Sure, you can do this, I am only saying it is not recommended, simply because the i1pro2 isn't a reference spectro. There is no guarantee that your i1pro2 is in any way more accurate than the other user's i1displaypro. I tested a few i1displaypro on LCOS and I certainly wouldn't have been able to know, without a reference meter, which of these or my i1pro2 was closer to reference.

Anyway, no one will die if using a not so great profile, I'm only saying that it's not a great idea to share an i1pro2 profile for an i1display pro on LCOS. A spyder, sure, because chances are the i1pro2 will be more accurate, but an i1displaypro, not in my opinion, at least based on the 2-3 units I tested and various reviews showing how close they were both between different samples (unlike the spyders) and to the i1pro/pro2.

Personally I'd use the factory calibration specific to this meter, or a profile made also for this meter, with a reference spectro.

JVC Autocal Software V12 Calibration for 2019 Models (Google)
Batch Utility V4.02 May 16 2019 to automate measurements files for madVR with support for BD Folders

Last edited by Manni01; 08-14-2019 at 08:27 AM.
Manni01 is online now  
post #14836 of 17813 Old 08-14-2019, 08:37 AM
Member
 
majicx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: MICHIGAN
Posts: 64
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexr214 View Post
Hey I have the NX7 and have been considering upgrading my 110" 16:9 Carada for a 125" 2:35 Cina Neve. I havn't had the opportunity to view a Cima Neve in person but lots of people compliment it highly. If possible, I'd love to take you up on that sample.

BTW, just a general update, I'm a little over 50 hours on my NX7 and its working fantastic. NO issues. I always use the color filter and have yet to see the "yellowing" being referred to in some of the posts. Perhaps I have not watched enough content but it has not shown up once. I still have not calibrated mine or tweak many of the settings at all. Looking to do a Gamma calibration with a Spyder 5 soon, likely then get a real calibration done after the 100h mark....although I am considering the new screen and am likely to wait until we decide on that.
I also have have Carada screen I was adding backlighting to the back of the frame at night and my flashlight hit the screen and it was amazing how much light went thru it. I added blackout material to the back of the screen and it really made a difference how my NX5 looked. Just a thought before you buy a new screen.
majicx is offline  
post #14837 of 17813 Old 08-14-2019, 08:56 AM
aka jfinnie
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Norwich, UK
Posts: 3,264
Mentioned: 53 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2639 Post(s)
Liked: 1737
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manni01 View Post
Sure, you can do this, I am only saying it is not recommended, simply because the i1pro2 isn't a reference spectro. There is no guarantee that your i1pro2 is in any way more accurate than the other user's i1displaypro. I tested a few i1displaypro on LCOS and I certainly wouldn't have been able to know, without a reference meter, which of these or my i1pro2 was closer to reference.

Anyway, no one will die if using a not so great profile, I'm only saying that it's not a great idea to share an i1pro2 profile for an i1display pro on LCOS. A spyder, sure, because chances are the i1pro2 will be more accurate, but an i1displaypro, not in my opinion, at least based on the 2-3 units I tested and various reviews showing how close they were both between different samples (unlike the spyders) and to the i1pro/pro2.

Personally I'd use the factory calibration specific to this meter, or a profile made also for this meter, with a reference spectro.
I agree.

The only multiple meter comparison I've seen is the old Dry Creek one, and that showed the inter-device agreement to be quite a bit worse for the typical i1pro than i1d3 for at least LCD displays , so you really have to question what you gain from using a shared profile, given that pretty much all the shared profiles are generated with i1pro/2 units!

Maybe if folk were generating them with calibrated higher end spectros they may be considered more useful, but given that there are frequently differences observed in the gamut coverage of these projectors even that seems a stretch.
Manni01 likes this.
bobof is online now  
post #14838 of 17813 Old 08-14-2019, 09:39 AM
Senior Member
 
jj-34's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Montpellier, France
Posts: 283
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 186 Post(s)
Liked: 61
I have another silly question, and it probably will not be the last one

To do an autocal with a spyder 5, given that the spyder is facing the projector's lens, that I am not in a dedicated bat cave and that it is not easy for me to darken the room enough during day time while running the autocal and last that I take it the spyder should only measure the small light beam between its sensor and the projector's lens, could it be possibly to use a piece of tubing (let's say 3 or 4 inches internal diameter, 1 foot long) sort of hood in front of the sensor to isolate it from any external stray light (suggestion with another tripod) ?
Of course once the spyder has been positionned correctly and I could even affix black velvet inside the tube, I've read that someone uses the sensor's reflection to align it properly towards the projector lens.

Last edited by jj-34; 08-14-2019 at 10:17 AM.
jj-34 is online now  
post #14839 of 17813 Old 08-14-2019, 09:52 AM
Member
 
alexr214's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 28
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by majicx View Post
I also have have Carada screen I was adding backlighting to the back of the frame at night and my flashlight hit the screen and it was amazing how much light went thru it. I added blackout material to the back of the screen and it really made a difference how my NX5 looked. Just a thought before you buy a new screen.
Thanks for the feedback. I painted the wall behind my screen in a matte black but never really tested for light passthrough. I may try some material on the back to see if it further improves upon things. My real reason for the change though was considering the switch from 16:9 to 2:35 AR. I have a short throw though ~13.3Ft and have seen some posts with regard to the right size you could fill at that throw so need to test that out because I would not want to go below a 125" diagonal 2:35 screen. If it can't fill that, then I will go for a 120" 16:9 which I am sure I could fill at my throw.
alexr214 is offline  
post #14840 of 17813 Old 08-14-2019, 10:31 AM
Advanced Member
 
den110's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 622
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 61 Post(s)
Liked: 38
Any word yet on SpyderX support for the AutoCal Software?

Dedicated HT Equipment: Klipsch RF82BK L+R Speakers|Klipsch RC62BK CC Speaker|Definitive Technology B92X Surrounds|NHT Super One Rear Surrounds|4 Polk MC80 Ceiling Atmos|Velodyne VLF 1012 and Definitive Technology PF1500TL+ SWs|Marantz SR7012 Receiver|Yamaha RXV1800 Receiver for Atmos|JVC RS2000 Projector|Seymour Center Stage UF AT 140" diag 2:35 Screen on DIY frame and false front wall
den110 is offline  
post #14841 of 17813 Old 08-14-2019, 11:00 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Mike Garrett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 26,467
Mentioned: 241 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12502 Post(s)
Liked: 10127
Send a message via Skype™ to Mike Garrett
Quote:
Originally Posted by den110 View Post
Any word yet on SpyderX support for the AutoCal Software?
Nothing yet.
Mike Garrett is offline  
post #14842 of 17813 Old 08-14-2019, 11:47 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 4,099
Mentioned: 88 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2067 Post(s)
Liked: 1365
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexr214 View Post
Thanks for the feedback. I painted the wall behind my screen in a matte black but never really tested for light passthrough. I may try some material on the back to see if it further improves upon things. My real reason for the change though was considering the switch from 16:9 to 2:35 AR. I have a short throw though ~13.3Ft and have seen some posts with regard to the right size you could fill at that throw so need to test that out because I would not want to go below a 125" diagonal 2:35 screen. If it can't fill that, then I will go for a 120" 16:9 which I am sure I could fill at my throw.
Looks like using the zoom mode to scale to the full 17:9 panel it would work. Looking at this:

http://pro.jvc.com/pro/lens_calc/HTML/jvc_REF.html

If you put in a 2.35:1 125" screen you get 115x49" screen with a minimum throw of 164.96" or 13.75'. Which is just a bit more than you have. Since there is no indication whether it is using zoom to fill the 17:9 panel I switched the screen option to 17:9 and put in the 115" width (130" diagonal 17:9 screen). The minimum throw is now 154.33" or 12.86', which means that using panel zoom you should be able to fill the 125" scope screen.

Whether you want to use panel zoom or not is up to you. There seems to be some concerns over the mild scaling it uses. I use it on wider ARs and can detect no issues, just more light output. Personally I would use the panel zoom and get the 125" scope screen.

jeahrens is offline  
post #14843 of 17813 Old 08-14-2019, 12:06 PM
Member
 
alexr214's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 28
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeahrens View Post
Looks like using the zoom mode to scale to the full 17:9 panel it would work. Looking at this:

http://pro.jvc.com/pro/lens_calc/HTML/jvc_REF.html

If you put in a 2.35:1 125" screen you get 115x49" screen with a minimum throw of 164.96" or 13.75'. Which is just a bit more than you have. Since there is no indication whether it is using zoom to fill the 17:9 panel I switched the screen option to 17:9 and put in the 115" width (130" diagonal 17:9 screen). The minimum throw is now 154.33" or 12.86', which means that using panel zoom you should be able to fill the 125" scope screen.

Whether you want to use panel zoom or not is up to you. There seems to be some concerns over the mild scaling it uses. I use it on wider ARs and can detect no issues, just more light output. Personally I would use the panel zoom and get the 125" scope screen.
Wow. Thanks for the link and the feedback. I am going to test the 17:9 and zoom on my current screen to see if I notice any issues. I highly doubt I will notice enough of an image issue that would sway me from the larger scope screen. At this point the image is so good, depending on the content, that we are just floored with the quality and color this puts out. I am anxious to at least do a gamma calibration for now since I love the image, but know we can tweak that contract to get it even better.
alexr214 is offline  
post #14844 of 17813 Old 08-14-2019, 12:38 PM
aka jfinnie
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Norwich, UK
Posts: 3,264
Mentioned: 53 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2639 Post(s)
Liked: 1737
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexr214 View Post
Wow. Thanks for the link and the feedback. I am going to test the 17:9 and zoom on my current screen to see if I notice any issues. I highly doubt I will notice enough of an image issue that would sway me from the larger scope screen. At this point the image is so good, depending on the content, that we are just floored with the quality and color this puts out. I am anxious to at least do a gamma calibration for now since I love the image, but know we can tweak that contract to get it even better.
I would be nervous about using all your throw margin on assuming you will use the full width mode. If you only have 13ft and the calc says ~12'10" then you only have 2" spare. JVC have said in various places that these numbers are a guide only, and even had written on one of the N5/N7 brochures recently that the guides for throw were +/- 5%. -5% would see you unable to fill the screen and you wouldn't have zoom mode to fall back on (as you've already used that also).

If you do go for it, I'd suggest telling the supplying dealer your throw requirements and making them stand behind the JVC numbers as being good to go. Then you are fully covered if you can't fill your screen.
bobof is online now  
post #14845 of 17813 Old 08-14-2019, 12:53 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 49
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 55 Post(s)
Liked: 2
Hi guys,

On my rs2000 I’m getting three or so defined white lines curved not quite semi circular that stand out on white backgrounds like clouds. Don’t see it on black background or when pic has color. Any ideas what this might be and is it something I need to be concerned about. Thanks!

Ron
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_0245 (1).JPG
Views:	70
Size:	1.33 MB
ID:	2602932  
Ikemi is offline  
post #14846 of 17813 Old 08-14-2019, 01:08 PM
Member
 
alexr214's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 28
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobof View Post
I would be nervous about using all your throw margin on assuming you will use the full width mode. If you only have 13ft and the calc says ~12'10" then you only have 2" spare. JVC have said in various places that these numbers are a guide only, and even had written on one of the N5/N7 brochures recently that the guides for throw were +/- 5%. -5% would see you unable to fill the screen and you wouldn't have zoom mode to fall back on (as you've already used that also).

If you do go for it, I'd suggest telling the supplying dealer your throw requirements and making them stand behind the JVC numbers as being good to go. Then you are fully covered if you can't fill your screen.
Well I am going to go ahead and test the right size by trying the suggestions on my setup currently before I make any purchase. Granted I currently have a 110" 16:9 AR screen but I should be able to zoom on and test what size I get zoomed in using the 16:9, and 17:9 panel on 2:35 content to see where I land in terms of size. I can easily see the image on my walls if I throw up a solid white or colored image, and even just using the gridlines so I will test it out first for sure before I make any purchase. I can likely also get a sense of any scaling degradation to the image, at least for the portion thatch showing up on my current screen, to test out whether I like the zoom option. I appreciate the advice though on dealer requirements.
rjmcinnis likes this.
alexr214 is offline  
post #14847 of 17813 Old 08-14-2019, 01:18 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 4,099
Mentioned: 88 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2067 Post(s)
Liked: 1365
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexr214 View Post
Well I am going to go ahead and test the right size by trying the suggestions on my setup currently before I make any purchase. Granted I currently have a 110" 16:9 AR screen but I should be able to zoom on and test what size I get zoomed in using the 16:9, and 17:9 panel on 2:35 content to see where I land in terms of size. I can easily see the image on my walls if I throw up a solid white or colored image, and even just using the gridlines so I will test it out first for sure before I make any purchase. I can likely also get a sense of any scaling degradation to the image, at least for the portion thatch showing up on my current screen, to test out whether I like the zoom option. I appreciate the advice though on dealer requirements.
Bobof makes a very good point, however I think it was missed that you have 13.3' to work with. So that gives you a 4-6" margin to work with. Still close enough that putting the image up on the wall and actually measuring is definitely a good step.

jeahrens is offline  
post #14848 of 17813 Old 08-14-2019, 01:37 PM
aka jfinnie
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Norwich, UK
Posts: 3,264
Mentioned: 53 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2639 Post(s)
Liked: 1737
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeahrens View Post
Bobof makes a very good point, however I think it was missed that you have 13.3' to work with. So that gives you a 4-6" margin to work with. Still close enough that putting the image up on the wall and actually measuring is definitely a good step.
Whenever I see ~ i disregard a bit. You can't include that measurement uncertainty in the JVC margin! (eg screen surface held away from wall, wall not straight, etc)

I think certainly if you can get the PJ first then just work out how the throw of the actual unit works (and still consider to allow for if your unit has to be exchanged and you get one which is still in spec but has less throw).
bobof is online now  
post #14849 of 17813 Old 08-14-2019, 01:43 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 4,099
Mentioned: 88 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2067 Post(s)
Liked: 1365
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobof View Post
Whenever I see ~ i disregard a bit. You can't include that measurement uncertainty in the JVC margin! (eg screen surface held away from wall, wall not straight, etc)

I think certainly if you can get the PJ first then just work out how the throw of the actual unit works (and still consider to allow for if your unit has to be exchanged and you get one which is still in spec but has less throw).
No that's true and mixing percentages/decimals with ft. doesn't end up all that accurate in a lot of cases. Just trying to be optimistic. Actually measuring is going to be the best method here. Just hope it works out.
bobof likes this.

jeahrens is offline  
post #14850 of 17813 Old 08-14-2019, 01:52 PM
Advanced Member
 
SirMaster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 776
Mentioned: 29 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 656 Post(s)
Liked: 391
I had this dilemma with my NX5 (achieveing the largest screen possible with my limited throw). I decided to leave about 5 inches of wiggle room. In the end, the NX5 was within an inch of what the online calculators said FWIW. I installed the projector, zoomed the image as large as possible from my mounting position (then made it perfectly rectangular), then shrunk the image by about 1" diagonally (for future wiggle room) and then built my custom screen to fit that size perfectly.

But I am certainly using the 17:9 zoom mode to get another 4-5 inches of width out of my screen which is nice.

Last edited by SirMaster; 08-14-2019 at 01:58 PM.
SirMaster is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP

Tags
Jvc , nx7 , nx9 , rs2000 , rs3000

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