AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews (https://www.avsforum.com/forum/)
-   Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP (https://www.avsforum.com/forum/24-digital-hi-end-projectors-3-000-usd-msrp/)
-   -   The 2019 model projectors comparison thread (https://www.avsforum.com/forum/24-digital-hi-end-projectors-3-000-usd-msrp/3043762-2019-model-projectors-comparison-thread.html)

ARROW-AV 01-17-2019 01:42 AM

The 2019 model projectors comparison thread
 
Hi everyone,

This thread is for the purpose of discussing and posting regarding comparisons between the various 2019 model home theater/cinema projectors.

This includes projectors by SONY, JVC, and other brands.

I will shortly be personally carrying out some in-depth evaluations of various 2019 model projectors so will be posting the details here in this thread as and when.

Please feel free to do the same :)

:wink:

rwestley 01-17-2019 03:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaketom (Post 57452536)
I like sony ones!

Welcome to the Forum. The purpose of this thread is to test the different 2019 projectors. If you like or dislike a projector please give reasons and show how it was tested. Just posting that you like one or the other serves no purpose.

On another note, welcome back Arrow and thanks for your honest in depth testing and evaluations.

DLCPhoto 01-17-2019 05:54 AM

In various other threads, many posters have talked about how specifications, and the various tested parameters of Projector performance, contrast, etc., were not particularly useful in accurately assessing the picture quality of these Projectors. I responded in the owners thread, to some of those making this point, but I think it would be useful here as well, so for what it's worth:

Quote:

On the one hand, I understand where you both are coming from. 'Real-world' performance is where the rubber meets the road, so to speak!

But on the other hand, without some type of objective analysis, how are potential buyers going to decide between purchasing an NX7 over an NX5, or an NX9 over any NX7, or even a Z1 over the NX9??

Simply relying on any Projector owner to report, "Man, this looks great!" is of no use whatsoever to me, or others, as potential buyers, especially since most of these have not been in a position to do controlled, side-by-side comparisons with other Projectors.

And if the various specifications, and their actual measurements, do not correlate well with that 'real-world' performance, then we're really up the creek.:eek:

The only remaining way to provide objective data for buyers would then by fully controlled, calibrated, brightness-matched, side-by-side comparisons, of the various Projectors, done by competent folks like @ARROW-AV; , @Kris Deering; , etc., who would be among the extremely rare group of people with the talent, skills, tools, and opportunity to perform such comparisons.

And even then, quantifying their observations, which are ultimately subjective, is also problematic. Perhaps if they could include some type of double-blinded polling by home theater enthusiasts they could invite over, to try and assess whether those differences are consistently observable, along with their characterizations of the differences they're seeing, we might get some legitimate basis for decision making.
Looking forward to these comparisons!!

markmon1 01-17-2019 06:08 AM

Carrying over from another thread, the thing I'm looking for here is an answer to why the RS4500 / Z1 measures so poorly in areas of contrast but looks so great in areas of dark and light performance.

I think one of the areas that we might want to add to our measurements is the "black floor" both natively and with the full dynamic dimming system in place on say the interstellar 53:30 star field scene (not a full black screen). I realize that this should be taken care of by the dynamic contrast measurement but I'm not sure that it currently is.

For example, my RS4500 shows that interstellar star field scene with much blacker blacks than the Sony 675ES I had with its dynamic iris enabled. It's almost as dark black as the RS640, but the RS640 stars pop much more on that scene. The RS4500 dims much harder obviously due to its lack of native contrast.

I'm wondering also how the RS4500's low APL contrast is like from 1%, 2%, 10%, 20% etc. Its ANSI contrast is on par with other JVC projectors so I'm not sure why it pops so much more. I feel like if you just look at the measurements, it won't fare well. I stayed away from the RS4500 for years because I saw one early on only and it wasn't impressive, and the stats were quite poor. There wasn't one to view in my area until last week. I feel that we should have had some way to measure this and quantify this performance as it actually seems to have decent black performance where it matters.

Mike Garrett 01-17-2019 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by markmon1 (Post 57453038)
Carrying over from another thread, the thing I'm looking for here is an answer to why the RS4500 / Z1 measures so poorly in areas of contrast but looks so great in areas of dark and light performance.

I think one of the areas that we might want to add to our measurements is the "black floor" both natively and with the full dynamic dimming system in place on say the interstellar 53:30 star field scene (not a full black screen). I realize that this should be taken care of by the dynamic contrast measurement but I'm not sure that it currently is.

For example, my RS4500 shows that interstellar star field scene with much blacker blacks than the Sony 675ES I had with its dynamic iris enabled. It's almost as dark black as the RS640, but the RS640 stars pop much more on that scene. The RS4500 dims much harder obviously due to its lack of native contrast.

I'm wondering also how the RS4500's low APL contrast is like from 1%, 2%, 10%, 20% etc. Its ANSI contrast is on par with other JVC projectors so I'm not sure why it pops so much more. I feel like if you just look at the measurements, it won't fare well. I stayed away from the RS4500 for years because I saw one early on only and it wasn't impressive, and the stats were quite poor. There wasn't one to view in my area until last week. I feel that we should have had some way to measure this and quantify this performance as it actually seems to have decent black performance where it matters.

I posted a response to this in the other thread where you asked the question, but more appropriate here. Per Kris Deerings measurements of his 4500.

"For my calibrated viewing (17 fL) using the laser in mid power, aperture at -8, near long throw and with the dynamic dimming activated in mode 2:

0=67K:1
1%=20K:1
2%=10K:1
3%=6300:1
4%=3500:1"


Those numbers look pretty good, but then, so do the same measurements on a lamp based JVC. Here are Jav's numbers for his X7000.

"My X7000 at Low lamp -10 it does this:

0% - 48,571:1
1% - 45,945:1
2% - 15,962:1
3% - 6,273:1
4% - 3,238:1"


Granted these measurements are from two different people in two different rooms using different equipment, so we do not have a true apples to apples comparison here. But taking the measurements at face value, the numbers are so close, that you would not be able to tell the difference. So you have to look elsewhere for the difference, like the lens itself.

Added
I will say this, people's perception of the 4500 changed a lot more than the 4500 changed itself. The 4500 was first shown at CEDIA with no dynamic dimming. So it was equivalent to a dimmer VW5000, which was not a bad thing. Then all JVC did was slight adjustment to the fan programing and added the dynamic dimming. Many people had preconceived notions about the 4500 based on reading specs and not quite understanding the reason for the differences.

Wookii 01-17-2019 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Garrett (Post 57453382)
I posted a response to this in the other thread where you asked the question, but more appropriate here. Per Kris Deerings measurements of his 4500.

"For my calibrated viewing (17 fL) using the laser in mid power, aperture at -8, near long throw and with the dynamic dimming activated in mode 2:

0=67K:1
1%=20K:1
2%=10K:1
3%=6300:1
4%=3500:1"


Those numbers look pretty good, but then, so do the same measurements on a lamp based JVC. Here are Jav's numbers for his X7000.

"My X7000 at Low lamp -10 it does this:

0% - 48,571:1
1% - 45,945:1
2% - 15,962:1
3% - 6,273:1
4% - 3,238:1"


Granted these measurements are from two different people in two different rooms using different equipment, so we do not have a true apples to apples comparison here. But taking the measurements at face value, the numbers are so close, that you would not be able to tell the difference. So you have to look elsewhere for the difference, like the lens itself.

Added
I will say this, people's perception of the 4500 changed a lot more than the 4500 changed itself. The 4500 was first shown at CEDIA with no dynamic dimming. So it was equivalent to a dimmer VW5000, which was not a bad thing. Then all JVC did was slight adjustment to the fan programing and added the dynamic dimming. Many people had preconceived notions about the 4500 based on reading specs and not quite understanding the reason for the differences.

It kind of feels like a period of enlightenment on this forum (without trying to sound melodramatic) - we've always focused for so long solely on straight on/off contrast measurements, which are still important, but don't tell the whole story as to what we will see in actual content.

I will add though, I think these measurements are so difficult to take with sufficient accuracy and consistency, that we can only get a true apples-to-apples comparison when we compare measurements taken by the same person using the same technique, in the same room.

It will be good to see those measurements from Nigel and Kris when they both measure the various projectors.

woofer 01-17-2019 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Garrett (Post 57453382)
I posted a response to this in the other thread where you asked the question, but more appropriate here. Per Kris Deerings measurements of his 4500.

"For my calibrated viewing (17 fL) using the laser in mid power, aperture at -8, near long throw and with the dynamic dimming activated in mode 2:

0=67K:1
1%=20K:1
2%=10K:1
3%=6300:1
4%=3500:1"


Those numbers look pretty good, but then, so do the same measurements on a lamp based JVC. Here are Jav's numbers for his X7000.

"My X7000 at Low lamp -10 it does this:

0% - 48,571:1
1% - 45,945:1
2% - 15,962:1
3% - 6,273:1
4% - 3,238:1"


Granted these measurements are from two different people in two different rooms using different equipment, so we do not have a true apples to apples comparison here. But taking the measurements at face value, the numbers are so close, that you would not be able to tell the difference. So you have to look elsewhere for the difference, like the lens itself.

Added
I will say this, people's perception of the 4500 changed a lot more than the 4500 changed itself. The 4500 was first shown at CEDIA with no dynamic dimming. So it was equivalent to a dimmer VW5000, which was not a bad thing. Then all JVC did was slight adjustment to the fan programing and added the dynamic dimming. Many people had preconceived notions about the 4500 based on reading specs and not quite understanding the reason for the differences.

@Mike Garrett

Not sure but those numbers by Kris "may" of been before the update to the Dimming system ? ?

I have measured "Far" higher than that....to the point where i consulted with @Javs because i thought the numbers i got cannot be correct.
Most of my measurements for "other" projectors correlate with what others have got, so i dont know?

Will be interesting to see what Nigel comes up with. :)

Mike Garrett 01-17-2019 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woofer (Post 57455192)
@Mike Garrett

Not sure but those numbers by Kris "may" of been before the update to the Dimming system ? ?

I have measured "Far" higher than that....to the point where i consulted with @Javs because i thought the numbers i got cannot be correct.
Most of my measurements for "other" projectors correlate with what others have got, so i dont know?

Will be interesting to see what Nigel comes up with. :)

I just realized the conversation between Kris and I on those numbers took place today in the RS1000/2000/3000 owners thread, not here. Yes, I think those are early numbers, before the improvement in the dynamic dimming.

markmon1 01-17-2019 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woofer (Post 57455192)
@Mike Garrett

Not sure but those numbers by Kris "may" of been before the update to the Dimming system ? ?

I have measured "Far" higher than that....to the point where i consulted with @Javs because i thought the numbers i got cannot be correct.
Most of my measurements for "other" projectors correlate with what others have got, so i dont know?

Will be interesting to see what Nigel comes up with. :)

What were your numbers can you post them? And if you don't have them can you approximate what you remember?

Wizziwig 01-19-2019 03:13 PM

If those numbers Mike G posted are the numbers I'm remembering (posted here a long time ago), they have virtually nothing to do with contrast. The measurements used fields or windows at each specific gray level (1%, 2%, etc.) and compared them to peak white. They are simply showing gamma tracking of each particular projector. To infer any type of contrast from those measurements, you would first have to establish whether the projector tracked gamma correctly down low and what the peak white level was.

These are not the ADL or APL percentages we've been discussing the past few weeks.

Mike Garrett 01-19-2019 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wizziwig (Post 57466572)
If those numbers Mike G posted are the numbers I'm remembering (posted here a long time ago), they have virtually nothing to do with contrast. The measurements used fields or windows at each specific gray level (1%, 2%, etc.) and compared them to peak white. They are simply showing gamma tracking of each particular projector. To infer any type of contrast from those measurements, you would first have to establish whether the projector tracked gamma correctly down low and what the peak white level was.

These are not the ADL or APL percentages we've been discussing the past few weeks.

Reply with quoteModifyRemoveSplit Topic
Quote from: Javs on January 16, 2017, 03:23:06 PM
Hi Kris, I posted this on AVS but will repeat it here. I think going forward with these laser projectors, I think the most useful information would be contrast ratio measured at multiple APL levels, in addition to the regular 50% ANSI measurement.

What I really want to know,

At 16fl, what is the contrast ratio at 1% APL.

We know dimming takes care of 0%, then 1% through 4% is critical information and will actually tell us a lot.

For Eg, my X7000 at Low lamp -10 it does this:

0% - 48,571:1
1% - 45,945:1
2% - 15,962:1
3% - 6,273:1
4% - 3,238:1


If you could grab those measurements and let us know, I know it would just put a lot of us at ease.

By Kris Deering:
For my calibrated viewing (17 fL) using the laser in mid power, aperture at -8, near long throw and with the dynamic dimming activated in mode 2:

0=67K:1
1%=20K:1
2%=10K:1
3%=6300:1
4%=3500:1

Wizziwig 01-19-2019 07:19 PM

Right. You're pulling those numbers out of context of prior posts. That's 1% APL approximated via a 1% gray slide. Totally different from 1% ADL done via some combination of 100% white boxes that we've been discussing. Before the ADL patterns were posted for download by projectiondream, Javs was using gray fields instead. You can't effectively use most dimming algorithms with the white box style patterns while the gray slides are tailor made for laser dimming.

They were essentially testing whether their projectors can track full screen gamma down to 1%. Without dynamic dimming via iris or laser you could infer some minimum level of native on/off contrast that the projector was able to achieve. With dynamic dimming, it tells us very little about real-world content that isn't just a gray slide.

Taking Kris's numbers for sake of discussion:

17 fL at a flat power gamma 2.4, would require the following calibrated readings at each gray level:

1% = 0.00027 fL ( >=63,000:1 native contrast required without black crush).
2% = 0.0014 fL ( >=12143:1 native contrast required without black crush).
3% = 0.0037 fL ( >=4595:1 native contrast required without black crush).
4% = 0.0075 fL ( >= 2267:1 native contrast required without black crush).

So you can see that the projector was not actually capable of displaying 1% correctly, even with dynamic dimming. It displayed it at ~3x higher black level than required. 2% was also a bit elevated. I don't remember what gamma formula they were targeting. I'm assuming 2.4 for sake of discussion. Most displays that can't track a flat 2.4 will usually roll it off to a lower gamma near black - something like BT.1886. In any case, none of these contrast numbers are achievable in most regular content that contains brighter elements mixed into the frame since the dynamic dimming would eventually crush and/or compress some brighter or darker content that doesn't exist in these simple gray slides.

Reddig 01-19-2019 08:41 PM

Really looking forward to it Arrow!!!

Kris Deering 01-20-2019 02:55 PM

2 Attachment(s)
So I thought I would throw a bit of info up. I have two projectors here at the house, the Sony VW995ES and the Sony VW885ES. I did contrast measurements for both, including brand new CR measurements for the 885ES today after a fresh calibration.

Sony 995ES max native contrast (min zoom): 20K:1
Sony 995ES max native contrast (min zoom single pixel): 13,700:1

Sony 885ES max native contrast (min zoom): 15,400:1
Sony 885ES max native contrast (min zoom single pixel): 13,800:1

Sony 995ES contrast ratio measurements at setup zoom (for my throw, close to max zoom):

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/attac...0&d=1548026699

Sony 885ES contrast ratio measurements at setup zoom (for my throw, close to max zoom):

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/attac...2&d=1548026703

All of these measurements were done at exactly the same throw and with the white point calibrated with the laser in full power. BUT, the Sony 885 gave me a peak white of 29 fL when measured with a 10% window. The Sony 995ES gives me a peak white level of 24 fL, so it measures lower in peak brightness. If you lower the laser power you will lose contrast, so I wanted to show the absolute maximum contrast that can be achieved. If you use a laser power less than 100, these numbers drop, so keep that in mind for your usage case.

Kris Deering 01-20-2019 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wizziwig (Post 57467630)
Right. You're pulling those numbers out of context of prior posts. That's 1% APL approximated via a 1% gray slide. Totally different from 1% ADL done via some combination of 100% white boxes that we've been discussing. Before the ADL patterns were posted for download by projectiondream, Javs was using gray fields instead. You can't effectively use most dimming algorithms with the white box style patterns while the gray slides are tailor made for laser dimming.

They were essentially testing whether their projectors can track full screen gamma down to 1%. Without dynamic dimming via iris or laser you could infer some minimum level of native on/off contrast that the projector was able to achieve. With dynamic dimming, it tells us very little about real-world content that isn't just a gray slide.

Taking Kris's numbers for sake of discussion:

17 fL at a flat power gamma 2.4, would require the following calibrated readings at each gray level:

1% = 0.00027 fL ( >=63,000:1 native contrast required without black crush).
2% = 0.0014 fL ( >=12143:1 native contrast required without black crush).
3% = 0.0037 fL ( >=4595:1 native contrast required without black crush).
4% = 0.0075 fL ( >= 2267:1 native contrast required without black crush).

So you can see that the projector was not actually capable of displaying 1% correctly, even with dynamic dimming. It displayed it at ~3x higher black level than required. 2% was also a bit elevated. I don't remember what gamma formula they were targeting. I'm assuming 2.4 for sake of discussion. Most displays that can't track a flat 2.4 will usually roll it off to a lower gamma near black - something like BT.1886. In any case, none of these contrast numbers are achievable in most regular content that contains brighter elements mixed into the frame since the dynamic dimming would eventually crush and/or compress some brighter or darker content that doesn't exist in these simple gray slides.

For SDR I calibrate to 1886 so those measurements were done with a gamma target of 1886. Most likely would have been using a full 21 point LUT via the Radiance as well.

I am hoping to do another full set of measurements on the RS4500 soon though.

Dominic Chan 01-20-2019 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kris Deering (Post 57471372)
All of these measurements were done at exactly the same throw and with the white point calibrated with the laser in full power. BUT, the Sony 885 gave me a peak white of 29 fL when measured with a 10% window. The Sony 995ES gives me a peak white level of 24 fL, so it measures lower in peak brightness. If you lower the laser power you will lose contrast, so I wanted to show the absolute maximum contrast that can be achieved. If you use a laser power less than 100, these numbers drop, so keep that in mind for your usage case.

How does one measure the peak white for the “1 pixel” contrast? Do you assume it remains the same as 10% window?

Kris Deering 01-20-2019 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wizziwig (Post 57466572)
If those numbers Mike G posted are the numbers I'm remembering (posted here a long time ago), they have virtually nothing to do with contrast. The measurements used fields or windows at each specific gray level (1%, 2%, etc.) and compared them to peak white. They are simply showing gamma tracking of each particular projector. To infer any type of contrast from those measurements, you would first have to establish whether the projector tracked gamma correctly down low and what the peak white level was.

These are not the ADL or APL percentages we've been discussing the past few weeks.

Yeah, I don't remember if I had used the same kind of patterns we've been using lately that are similar to the PD patterns. I don't think they were though. When I measure soon, it will be with the same patterns we've been talking about lately and the same ones I used for the Sony measurements above.

Kris Deering 01-20-2019 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dominic Chan (Post 57471538)
How does one measure the peak white for the “1 pixel” contrast? Do you assume it remains the same as 10% window?

I measure using a full field white, like all on/off contrast measurements should be. I am just using the single pixel pattern for black instead. This was designed to eliminate the misconception of full black with a system that turns off the light source (LED and Laser) but I've found that some projectors actually have higher black floors even with a single pixel lit on screen (out of nearly 9 million).

Dominic Chan 01-20-2019 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kris Deering (Post 57471550)
I measure using a full field white, like all on/off contrast measurements should be. I am just using the single pixel pattern for black instead. This was designed to eliminate the misconception of full black with a system that turns off the light source (LED and Laser) but I've found that some projectors actually have higher black floors even with a single pixel lit on screen (out of nearly 9 million).

Would that lead to an "inflated" contrast ratio if the projector closes down the dynamic iris? I thought the ADL contrast ratios are measured using the actual white and black levels for the respective pattern.

Kris Deering 01-20-2019 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dominic Chan (Post 57471612)
Would that lead to an "inflated" contrast ratio if the projector closes down the dynamic iris? I thought the ADL contrast ratios are measured using the actual white and black levels for the respective pattern.

I am not talking about ADL contrast measurements. I am talking about full on/off contrast (full white screen followed by full black screen) and full/single pixel (full white screen followed by black screen with one pixel lit). The ADL measurements are done with both native and dimming modes engaged. The measurements above that are listed as dynamic are done with the ADL patterns that take gamma into account. The Native measurements are done with full white/black.

I also do the full white/single pixel measurement with the dynamic modes engaged to show how they are affected as well. To me this shows the real "best case" contrast ratio you can expect other than an absolute full black screen. I will do these same measurements when I get the new JVC NX9 in and any other projector I test from here on out.

Pultzar 01-20-2019 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kris Deering (Post 57471628)
I am not talking about ADL contrast measurements. I am talking about full on/off contrast (full white screen followed by full black screen) and full/single pixel (full white screen followed by black screen with one pixel lit). The ADL measurements are done with both native and dimming modes engaged. The measurements above that are listed as dynamic are done with the ADL patterns that take gamma into account. The Native measurements are done with full white/black.

I also do the full white/single pixel measurement with the dynamic modes engaged to show how they are affected as well. To me this shows the real "best case" contrast ratio you can expect other than an absolute full black screen. I will do these same measurements when I get the new JVC NX9 in and any other projector I test from here on out.

Do you know when you are to receive an NX9?

Kris Deering 01-20-2019 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pultzar (Post 57471722)
Do you know when you are to receive an NX9?

Haven't heard yet. I think they were trying to get the initial units to pre-order clients, but I'm hoping soon!

silver700 01-20-2019 07:42 PM

Will there be a 995es vs 885es comparison in this thread while there is a wait for the NX9 to show up for Kris or will that comparison happen in the 20,000+ "995 In Depth Comparison" thread?

Kris Deering 01-20-2019 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by silver700 (Post 57472474)
Will there be a 995es vs 885es comparison in this thread while there is a wait for the NX9 to show up for Kris or will that comparison happen in the 20,000+ "995 In Depth Comparison" thread?

I think Arrow will probably have something along those lines in this thread at some point. I just threw some numbers up that I had to show some comparison. My review has been turned in, so hopefully that will publish online in the next couple weeks (takes a bit to go through editing and fact checking). Considering that these two projectors have far more in common than different, I figured this was one of the key differences people were looking for with the new dynamic iris/laser system, so it may provide a bit of what they were looking for.

silver700 01-20-2019 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kris Deering (Post 57472738)
I think Arrow will probably have something along those lines in this thread at some point. I just threw some numbers up that I had to show some comparison. My review has been turned in, so hopefully that will publish online in the next couple weeks (takes a bit to go through editing and fact checking). Considering that these two projectors have far more in common than different, I figured this was one of the key differences people were looking for with the new dynamic iris/laser system, so it may provide a bit of what they were looking for.




Can't wait to read the published review. I maybe over thinking it as most have stated there is more similarities between the projectors than differences, and the differences are not so pronounced as one would think when paying the extra $10k US dollars. BUT, I will wait to read Arrow's and your comments on the comparisons as well as others who have posted about the two projectors (such as Roxiedog13 and others). Again thanks!

markmon1 01-20-2019 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kris Deering (Post 57471372)
So I thought I would throw a bit of info up. I have two projectors here at the house, the Sony VW995ES and the Sony VW885ES. I did contrast measurements for both, including brand new CR measurements for the 885ES today after a fresh calibration.

Sony 995ES max native contrast (min zoom): 20K:1
Sony 995ES max native contrast (min zoom single pixel): 13,700:1

Sony 885ES max native contrast (min zoom): 15,400:1
Sony 885ES max native contrast (min zoom single pixel): 13,800:1

Sony 995ES contrast ratio measurements at setup zoom (for my throw, close to max zoom):



Sony 885ES contrast ratio measurements at setup zoom (for my throw, close to max zoom):


All of these measurements were done at exactly the same throw and with the white point calibrated with the laser in full power. BUT, the Sony 885 gave me a peak white of 29 fL when measured with a 10% window. The Sony 995ES gives me a peak white level of 24 fL, so it measures lower in peak brightness. If you lower the laser power you will lose contrast, so I wanted to show the absolute maximum contrast that can be achieved. If you use a laser power less than 100, these numbers drop, so keep that in mind for your usage case.

How was the 1 pixel measurement taken? Since the laser shuts off on full on / off, you get infinite. Id find a more useful measurement to be full white screen to full black screen but with 1 white pixel in a corner or somewhere. That will show the max laser dimming. Is this what the 1 pixel test is?

Edit: nevermind I see you answered this above. So 18K:1 full dynamic contrast feels pretty sucky to me :(

Kris Deering 01-20-2019 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by markmon1 (Post 57472854)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Kris Deering (Post 57471372)
So I thought I would throw a bit of info up. I have two projectors here at the house, the Sony VW995ES and the Sony VW885ES. I did contrast measurements for both, including brand new CR measurements for the 885ES today after a fresh calibration.

Sony 995ES max native contrast (min zoom): 20K:1
Sony 995ES max native contrast (min zoom single pixel): 13,700:1

Sony 885ES max native contrast (min zoom): 15,400:1
Sony 885ES max native contrast (min zoom single pixel): 13,800:1

Sony 995ES contrast ratio measurements at setup zoom (for my throw, close to max zoom):



Sony 885ES contrast ratio measurements at setup zoom (for my throw, close to max zoom):


All of these measurements were done at exactly the same throw and with the white point calibrated with the laser in full power. BUT, the Sony 885 gave me a peak white of 29 fL when measured with a 10% window. The Sony 995ES gives me a peak white level of 24 fL, so it measures lower in peak brightness. If you lower the laser power you will lose contrast, so I wanted to show the absolute maximum contrast that can be achieved. If you use a laser power less than 100, these numbers drop, so keep that in mind for your usage case.

How was the 1 pixel measurement taken? Since the laser shuts off on full on / off, you get infinite. Id find a more useful measurement to be full white screen to full black screen but with 1 white pixel in a corner or somewhere. That will show the max laser dimming. Is this what the 1 pixel test is?

Edit: nevermind I see you answered this above. So 18K:1 full dynamic contrast feels pretty sucky to me [IMG class=inlineimg]/forum/images/smilies/frown.gif[/IMG]

Yes, that is exactly what I tested. I asked Stacey Spears to make me a pattern with a single pixel lit near the upper right corner so no way it would be in the measurement window. Didn’t expect it to affect the black level with anything but the full laser off mode, but it affects them all surprisingly.

markmon1 01-20-2019 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kris Deering (Post 57472878)
Yes, that is exactly what I tested. I asked Stacey Spears to make me a pattern with a single pixel lit near the upper right corner so no way it would be in the measurement window. Didn’t expect it to affect the black level with anything but the full laser off mode, but it affects them all surprisingly.

Yea its really bad. It means the interstellar star field on those projectors will have about 1/2 the contrast of my RS640 with iris on manual 0 fully open. I tested that star field like that and it looked absolutely terrible. I couldn't enjoy those projectors :(

woofer 01-20-2019 11:46 PM

3 Attachment(s)
Purely for interest sake... :)

Z1/RS4500 vs NX9 with 8K E-Shift OFF/ON

MPC set to 0

What the still images of the NX9 DO NOT show is the excessive image noise with 8K E-Shift ON..

Just to clarify a point......

If you were to display the image from the NX9 ( with 8K E-Shift OFF) first, your response will be "WOW!" it looks very good :)

Its only when you switch to the image displayed from the Z1/RS4500 that you will then go.... OH !

Jerry Bruckheimer Fan 01-21-2019 12:19 AM

I hope this is not too off-topic. I was curious to know if the lumens in an LCD projector like the Epson Pro Cinema 4050 can be compared apples-to-apples with lumens in LCoS projectors like the new JVC and Sony projectors.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:47 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.