The 2019 Model SONY vs JVC Projectors Comparison Thread - Page 42 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 1913Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1231 of 1814 Old 05-06-2019, 09:19 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Craig Peer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 15,681
Mentioned: 106 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6557 Post(s)
Liked: 7581
Quote:
Originally Posted by console View Post
How do you eliminate black bars on either a 2.35 or 1.78 non-masking screen when the source is 2.00?
With the JVC's " mask " feature, you could crop a 2.00:1 film to 2.35:1 if you wanted to, to watch on a scope screen. No black bars.
Craig Peer is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #1232 of 1814 Old 05-06-2019, 12:13 PM
Advanced Member
 
Luminated67's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 779
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 475 Post(s)
Liked: 294
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reddig View Post
I wish when mods deleted your posts they explained why? Anyway i guess ill post something else and see if it gets deleted again.

My RS540 lens shift drifts. Everytime I start it up the lens has drifted down about 1/2 inch. Ill correct it and then after its warmed up its off a 1/2 inch the way in which I corrected it. Other JVC owners said this is normal. Also when I change directions of lens shift it wont move for about 5 clicks then it will suddenly bounce those 5 clicks all at once, instead of slowly moving each click I press. Just curious if this is normal and if the Sonys with lens shift do that too?
Can’t speak for these brands but my Epson works perfectly. (j/k)

Epson EH-TW9400 - QualGear Fixed Frame 100” - IPL Acoustics M1TLs & IPL Acoustics AVC Pro Centre, Four KEF surrounds & 2 Sub boxes (10” Sub + 10” Radiator)
Luminated67 is offline  
post #1233 of 1814 Old 05-06-2019, 12:51 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Reddig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Central U.S.
Posts: 2,817
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 494 Post(s)
Liked: 980
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luminated67 View Post
Can’t speak for these brands but my Epson works perfectly. (j/k)
My friends Epson5020 bricked after about 100 hours. He bought a Sony. I had a Sony. It bricked after about 4 years. Its all relative.

JBL Pro Cinema/JTR/JVC/Denon/Oppo/Roku Ultra/Elite Screens/Furman/Seatcraft/Acoustimac/AudioQuest
Reddig is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #1234 of 1814 Old 05-06-2019, 02:59 PM
Advanced Member
 
Luminated67's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 779
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 475 Post(s)
Liked: 294
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reddig View Post
My friends Epson5020 bricked after about 100 hours. He bought a Sony. I had a Sony. It bricked after about 4 years. Its all relative.
I thought everyone would understand the universal sign for a joke = (j/k).

Obviously not.
Reddig likes this.

Epson EH-TW9400 - QualGear Fixed Frame 100” - IPL Acoustics M1TLs & IPL Acoustics AVC Pro Centre, Four KEF surrounds & 2 Sub boxes (10” Sub + 10” Radiator)
Luminated67 is offline  
post #1235 of 1814 Old 05-06-2019, 03:07 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Reddig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Central U.S.
Posts: 2,817
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 494 Post(s)
Liked: 980
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luminated67 View Post
I thought everyone would understand the universal sign for a joke = (j/k).

Obviously not.
I knew you were joking. Just kinda talking out loud really. Just seeing if my post would get deleted or not like it did before so posted something I already knew the answer to.Im actually gunna just delete it

JBL Pro Cinema/JTR/JVC/Denon/Oppo/Roku Ultra/Elite Screens/Furman/Seatcraft/Acoustimac/AudioQuest

Last edited by Reddig; 05-06-2019 at 03:11 PM.
Reddig is offline  
post #1236 of 1814 Old 05-06-2019, 05:03 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
coderguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,929
Mentioned: 61 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2349 Post(s)
Liked: 1271
Quote:
Originally Posted by console View Post
How do you eliminate black bars on either a 2.35 or 1.78 non-masking screen when the source is 2.00?
I only watched 2 shows in that aspect thus far. I used the electric, the top and bottom of my electric are covered with black velvet, they have a self-made border.
Because my electric is actually a 16:10 screen - this actually works slightly better, because NOW there is no 'cheaper non-velvet' border at the top like some electric screens.

I make the screen shorter using the electric, and then I mask the bottom using the projectors mask settings to clip it, and then throw the top bars into the black velvet zone (which is the screen case + entire wall), the extra bottom black bar (after setting the PJ masking settings) is much smaller, and any remaining likely hits my smaller black velvet border at the bottom of the electric.

For 16:9 viewing, the electric drops down and has its own border, so I don't have to use the side masking panels if I don't want to (it's much better than watching 16:9 on a 2.35 since I have a 'hard border' and I get a bigger 16:9 image than my scope screen would allow). However, if I am going to watch something on the 16:9 with lots of dark scenes, I may occasionally get out of my chair and put up the magnetic side masking panels. Although, the benefit of masking in my setup with the panels is TINY compared to other setups because there is less white area than there would normally be, and there is a border as well.

For 2.35 viewing, my electric is raised up entirely and only my flush wall scope screen is shown, and since the electric case is covered in black velvet, it is invisible in the dark.

**Updated Projector Calculator Released NOV 2017**
-- www.webprojectorcalculator.com --

Last edited by coderguy; 05-06-2019 at 05:39 PM.
coderguy is offline  
post #1237 of 1814 Old 05-07-2019, 03:00 AM
Senior Member
 
cemo62's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 458
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 173 Post(s)
Liked: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Peer View Post
I just watch the two 2.00:1 films I have ( Green Book, and A Simple Favor ) on my 16:9 screen. The black bars are small. I have also watched both on my scope screen with the DCR lens. That works too, but I like them better on my 123" diagonal 16:9 screen.
Hello whats your distance between your eyes and your 123inch screen? Thank you
cemo62 is offline  
post #1238 of 1814 Old 05-07-2019, 06:57 AM
Senior Member
 
console's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 457
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 199 Post(s)
Liked: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post
I only watched 2 shows in that aspect thus far. I used the electric, the top and bottom of my electric are covered with black velvet, they have a self-made border.
Because my electric is actually a 16:10 screen - this actually works slightly better, because NOW there is no 'cheaper non-velvet' border at the top like some electric screens.
Are you saying that you somehow permanently attached black velvet to the borders of your retractable electric screen? And it rolls up and down with no issues?
console is offline  
post #1239 of 1814 Old 05-07-2019, 07:00 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
coderguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,929
Mentioned: 61 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2349 Post(s)
Liked: 1271
Quote:
Originally Posted by console View Post
Are you saying that you somehow permanently attached black velvet to the borders of your retractable electric screen? And it rolls up and down with no issues?
Not exactly...

There is no border at the top because it is 16:10 (border won't show up with 16:9 due to height), so the case (which is covered in black velvet) is the border.
For the bottom, yes the bottom has some black velvet tape, but only the last 2 inches or so, and part of that is on the cylinder end itself, so only a tiny bit above the bottom.

However, the entire wall is also covered in black velvet, so only the sides have some of my other screen exposed behind it.

**Updated Projector Calculator Released NOV 2017**
-- www.webprojectorcalculator.com --
coderguy is offline  
post #1240 of 1814 Old 05-07-2019, 07:12 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
coderguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,929
Mentioned: 61 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2349 Post(s)
Liked: 1271
Here is a picture of what the electric looks like rolled up.

Note that in real life it is much darker looking, but I had to use the flash since this is black on black.

Also note that with the lights on it looks almost as dark as the black velvet material behind it,
even though it reflects more light from the camera flash (that is because it is extruded and angled).
With the lights off, it's pretty much invisible.

humbland and Craig Peer like this.

**Updated Projector Calculator Released NOV 2017**
-- www.webprojectorcalculator.com --
coderguy is offline  
post #1241 of 1814 Old 05-07-2019, 08:26 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Craig Peer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 15,681
Mentioned: 106 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6557 Post(s)
Liked: 7581
Quote:
Originally Posted by cemo62 View Post
Hello whats your distance between your eyes and your 123inch screen? Thank you
Ten feet.
Craig Peer is offline  
post #1242 of 1814 Old 05-07-2019, 08:44 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 6,432
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1301 Post(s)
Liked: 1053
Quote:
Originally Posted by markmon1 View Post
This isn't a statement you can really make, though. What one person thinks are acceptable blacks can be what another considers a grey, milky mess. This is why numbers are measurements are used. You cannot argue with those.

I also disagree that numbers and measurements cant tell the whole story. Anything you can see can be measured. If you think that something is performing better in spite of poor measurements, it only means the measurements we are using are a poor measure for that performance. This is why Arrow is now posting a chart of contrast from 0% up to 50%.

I also don't think you can argue "you have to see it to believe it". Thats the same crap line the people selling $1000 ethernet cables for your router say when they indicate it will improve your audio quality.
I disagree

When doing side by side comparisons you can see things like image noise and flicker with eshift JVCs which don't show up on measurements. You yourself noticed how bad it was after you got the 4500. After i did numerous side by side comparisons with calibrated JVCs and Epson lasers and Sony's, I found that for around 1 to 1.5%% of ADL the JVC had better dark greys than the Epson laser, but for around 98+% of the rest of the ADL range, the Epson had a better image because it was cleaner, calmer and more solid (the image noise makes the JVC look 'thin' in comparison). The dark greys looked much the same in content. So although the JVC had better dark greys for around 1% of the time, the rest of the time it went to the Epson, including full fade to black - with the JVCs your eyes adapt pretty quick but the with the laser being off you have nothing to adapt to.

I didn't have a projector for a few years but was able to attend many demos and spend a lot of time with many projectors, but when the time came, I put my money where the overall image was, not the blacks.

I recently had a calibrated 7900 in my room so was more able to compare and nothing has really changed for me.

So just having the best dark greys doesn't mean you necessarily have the best image.

Quote:
Originally Posted by console View Post
How do you eliminate black bars on either a 2.35 or 1.78 non-masking screen when the source is 2.00?
If you have a 2.35 screen and you zoom, you just zoom the image larger or smaller so the height is always filled, and just the width changes. If you have an anamorphic lens you can use an external scaler or HTPC, or remove the lens and zoom. As has already been said, side masking isn't a big deal (I've had it both ways and it's a nice finish but but doesn't add much overall IMHO with a scope screen).

If you have a 16:9 screen then you have to deal with the black bars top and bottom which as has already been said, do appear more intrusive IMHO.
jherring69, bobof and Archibald1 like this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by elmalloc
Who says Cameron is "right" and why do we care about him so much - lol!

I trust Gary Lightfoot more than James Cameron.
Gary Lightfoot is offline  
post #1243 of 1814 Old 05-07-2019, 11:25 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Seattle, WA, USA
Posts: 217
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 258 Post(s)
Liked: 158
There seems to be disagreement about where good contrast numbers matter the most; low ADL vs higher ADL.

How does it apply to OLED screens? They have the best black levels AND the best contrast. If you compare an OLED to an LCD screen, surely the OLED always looks better no matter what ADL the scene is. However, does the OLED differentiate itself more during low ADL scenes than it does during high ADL scenes? For example, would the OLED really stand out during the Interstellar starfield scene but be more open to debate during a daylight scene with some bright highlights?

My take is that if OLEDs live up to their hype mostly during lower ADL scenes, then JVC's D-ILA priority on lower black levels and better contrast during low ADL scenes is good engineering. If not, then... ?
wombats is offline  
post #1244 of 1814 Old 05-07-2019, 12:03 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
coderguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,929
Mentioned: 61 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2349 Post(s)
Liked: 1271
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot View Post
If you have a 2.35 screen and you zoom, you just zoom the image larger or smaller so the height is always filled, and just the width changes. If you have an anamorphic lens you can use an external scaler or HTPC, or remove the lens and zoom. As has already been said, side masking isn't a big deal (I've had it both ways and it's a nice finish but but doesn't add much overall IMHO with a scope screen).

If you have a 16:9 screen then you have to deal with the black bars top and bottom which as has already been said, do appear more intrusive IMHO.
For me, masking to 16:9 on a scope screen is usually too small, and I still needed masking when only using a SCOPE screen because it lacks a border without it.
However, my new setup using 2 screens solved that problem for the most part, now I only get up and mask the side if I am in a picky mood, before I always did it.

The main reason to have 2 screens though is to get the bigger 16:9 image rather than the masked image.
humbland likes this.

**Updated Projector Calculator Released NOV 2017**
-- www.webprojectorcalculator.com --
coderguy is offline  
post #1245 of 1814 Old 05-07-2019, 01:08 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 6,432
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1301 Post(s)
Liked: 1053
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post
For me, masking to 16:9 on a scope screen is usually too small, and I still needed masking when only using a SCOPE screen because it lacks a border without it.
However, my new setup using 2 screens solved that problem for the most part, now I only get up and mask the side if I am in a picky mood, before I always did it.

The main reason to have 2 screens though is to get the bigger 16:9 image rather than the masked image.
Usually, if the 16:9 image feels too small when using a scope screen CIH, then you're sitting too far back - you should really use the height to determine how far back you should sit, not the width. If the 16:9 image you currently have feels right, then determine what the screen height to seating distance ratio is and replicate that for the scope image (move your seats closer), then the 16:9 image is visibly the same size on your retina as it was before (as are the viewing angles), but now scope is the same height and wider, just as designed and intended.

For example, if you had a 7ft wide 16:9 image (approx 4ft tall) and sat 12 feet back that would be a 3 x Screen Height to seating distance ratio. If you then got an 8ft wide scope screen (3.33ft tall), you just move your seating forward to 3xSH which is 10 feet from the screen, then you'll have the same viewing angles and the image size on your retina will be the same, and with the same amount of immersion as before.

A rule of thumb for THX guidelines for a scope screen CIH approach is 2.4xSH, or to sit as far back as the scope screen is wide. I personally find 2xSH to work better, and it also allows me an IMAX option as my screen is 16:9 but masked down to scope, and I watch everything CIH (except for IMAX) using an A lens.

That way I get to see scope wider than 16:9, and IMAX wider and taller than 16:9 (they are not the same so should be viewed at different sizes). Scope really should have more visual impact than 16:9 as should IMAX.

That usually works for most people, but not for everyone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by elmalloc
Who says Cameron is "right" and why do we care about him so much - lol!

I trust Gary Lightfoot more than James Cameron.
Gary Lightfoot is offline  
post #1246 of 1814 Old 05-07-2019, 01:36 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
coderguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,929
Mentioned: 61 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2349 Post(s)
Liked: 1271
Our vision is biased to width. It is normal to feel the 16:9 is too small when the scope size feels correct.
That's why I have 2 screens.

Sitting any closer to the 2.35 image would not be good, as the zoom method already degrades the image enough from where I sit.
seanbryan likes this.

**Updated Projector Calculator Released NOV 2017**
-- www.webprojectorcalculator.com --
coderguy is offline  
post #1247 of 1814 Old 05-07-2019, 01:43 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Archibald1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 2,984
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1808 Post(s)
Liked: 1004
Quote:
Originally Posted by wombats View Post
There seems to be disagreement about where good contrast numbers matter the most; low ADL vs higher ADL.

How does it apply to OLED screens? They have the best black levels AND the best contrast. If you compare an OLED to an LCD screen, surely the OLED always looks better no matter what ADL the scene is. However, does the OLED differentiate itself more during low ADL scenes than it does during high ADL scenes? For example, would the OLED really stand out during the Interstellar starfield scene but be more open to debate during a daylight scene with some bright highlights?

My take is that if OLEDs live up to their hype mostly during lower ADL scenes, then JVC's D-ILA priority on lower black levels and better contrast during low ADL scenes is good engineering. If not, then... ?
I remember reading somewhere that when coming out of pure black, OLEDs can have trouble showing low level shadow detail.
They may have improved now, but even though OLEDs are considered the reference for blacks, they still have their own issues and have a limited brightness range compared to LEDs and the likes.

“Remember to look up at the stars and not down at your feet. Be curious. And however difficult life may seem, there is always something you can do and succeed at. It matters that you don’t just give up."
Stephen Hawking.
Archibald1 is offline  
post #1248 of 1814 Old 05-07-2019, 02:12 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Mike Garrett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 25,309
Mentioned: 231 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11652 Post(s)
Liked: 9213
Send a message via Skype™ to Mike Garrett
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archibald1 View Post
I remember reading somewhere that when coming out of pure black, OLEDs can have trouble showing low level shadow detail.
They may have improved now, but even though OLEDs are considered the reference for blacks, they still have their own issues and have a limited brightness range compared to LEDs and the likes.
Compromises to every technology, but for TV's there is no dispute that OLED currently is the top dog for image quality, but you still need a good room to get the most out of it.
Mike Garrett is offline  
post #1249 of 1814 Old 05-07-2019, 04:04 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
DLCPhoto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Mooresville, NC
Posts: 2,322
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1535 Post(s)
Liked: 686
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archibald1 View Post
I remember reading somewhere that when coming out of pure black, OLEDs can have trouble showing low level shadow detail.
They may have improved now, but even though OLEDs are considered the reference for blacks, they still have their own issues and have a limited brightness range compared to LEDs and the likes.
I recently was able to attend a Sony presentation, where they had 5 TV's on display: 800 series, 900 series, 950 series, Z9F and A9F (the last being the OLED).

They played, simultaneously, a variety of excellent HDR content, and while I didn't have time or opportunity to rigorously make comparisons, the added 'Pop' for HDR produced by the extra brightness of the Z9F was dramatic, with any differences in blacks not particularly noticeable.

Now I'm not saying that the OLED blacks weren't better, and can't confirm that each TV was setup properly, the room lighting conditions weren't ideal, etc. And the content they showed might not have been ideal to demonstrate the differences in black levels. But the contribution of the extra brightness of the Z9F really captured my attention, with a much more 'exciting' picture.

It just caught me by surprise, given the reputation of OLED's.

JVC RS400, Marantz SR7010, Screen Innovations 160" 2.35:1 Screen
Front L/R: Duntech Sovereigns, powered by 2 bridged Adcom GFA-555
Center: Revel C208 powered by Cambridge Audio Azur 851W
Dolby Bed (4): Sony Core SS-CS5, Atmos (4): Ascend Acoustics CBM-170 SE
Subwoofer: DIY 8' sub with 4 18" SI Drivers, powered by iNuke 6000
DLCPhoto is offline  
post #1250 of 1814 Old 05-07-2019, 06:35 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Mike Garrett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 25,309
Mentioned: 231 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11652 Post(s)
Liked: 9213
Send a message via Skype™ to Mike Garrett
Quote:
Originally Posted by DLCPhoto View Post
I recently was able to attend a Sony presentation, where they had 5 TV's on display: 800 series, 900 series, 950 series, Z9F and A9F (the last being the OLED).

They played, simultaneously, a variety of excellent HDR content, and while I didn't have time or opportunity to rigorously make comparisons, the added 'Pop' for HDR produced by the extra brightness of the Z9F was dramatic, with any differences in blacks not particularly noticeable.

Now I'm not saying that the OLED blacks weren't better, and can't confirm that each TV was setup properly, the room lighting conditions weren't ideal, etc. And the content they showed might not have been ideal to demonstrate the differences in black levels. But the contribution of the extra brightness of the Z9F really captured my attention, with a much more 'exciting' picture.

It just caught me by surprise, given the reputation of OLED's.
As I posted, you still need a good room to get the most out of an OLED. If you have a room with ambient light, you will not be able to see all of the shadow detail on an OLED, but once you black out the room, you will be able to see all the shadow detail.
DLCPhoto likes this.
Mike Garrett is offline  
post #1251 of 1814 Old 05-07-2019, 07:02 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 6,432
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1301 Post(s)
Liked: 1053
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post
Our vision is biased to width. It is normal to feel the 16:9 is too small when the scope size feels correct.
That's why I have 2 screens.
I agree - our vision is biased to width as we can see considerably more width than height for prolonged comfortable viewing (120 degrees binocular vision, but vertical viewing angles tend to start feeling uncomfortable above 15 degrees), so you should base your seating on the image height, not the width, but it sounds like you kinda did it the other way round and based it on the width of the scope screen and then found your 16:9 was too small. Usually, if you can view a taller 16:9 image comfortably, then your scope screen can be the same height as well.

That's why you should base your seating distance on the height. If you have your seats as close as you feel is comfortable for 16:9, then scope is just wider and more immersive, and you don't need a second screen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post
Sitting any closer to the 2.35 image would not be good, as the zoom method already degrades the image enough from where I sit.
That depends on a few factors, but with fauK and 4K sitting at 2xSH works fine, moreso if you use an A lens of course, but zooming works almost as well. When I watch IMAX movies I don't use the A lens and I'm sitting at 1.5xSH, and although it's tad coarser than with the A lens for the scope content it's still perfectly watchable. 1080 not so much of course.

Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post
Per seating guidelines, those are very rough formulas someone made up and is only applicable to newbies that don't know where they want to sit.
I can see why you deleted that as the likes of SMPTE, THX, CEDIA, Fox etc etc all use those guidelines for designing and building theatres and screening room. Seems it's not just applicable to newbies.
jeahrens likes this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by elmalloc
Who says Cameron is "right" and why do we care about him so much - lol!

I trust Gary Lightfoot more than James Cameron.
Gary Lightfoot is offline  
post #1252 of 1814 Old 05-07-2019, 07:18 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
coderguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,929
Mentioned: 61 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2349 Post(s)
Liked: 1271
If I were designing a theater for others, that's when you have to use a formula.
They are only using those formulas to follow a relative standard, not because it's the best place for where they will personally sit.

I completely disagree that I don't need a second screen, I have tried every combination, I definitely DO need the second screen, and there are a lot more reasons for it than just size.
It's also more convenient not feeling the need to get out of my chair to set masking because it is partial auto-masking and provides an automatic border, and it also handles 2.0 better. Only thing that beats it is 4-way masking, and that's a lot of trouble and expense. There are also other ways to do the dual screen setup where you get FULLY automatic masking.

I also don't agree that the scope size being the same height as the 16:9 is good, the image is too wide for my preferences if I put my scope screen the same height as my 16:9.

I don't go by formulas to determine where I want to sit, there is no need when you just sit where you feel is best...
Besides, my chairs move, I can set it to any distance I need to.

It sounds like your trying to convince me I myself don't know what I prefer, well that's just not the case as I've been using projectors for 20 years...

I deleted my comment not because formulas are 'so good', but because I didn't feel like arguing about the formula.
seanbryan likes this.

**Updated Projector Calculator Released NOV 2017**
-- www.webprojectorcalculator.com --

Last edited by coderguy; 05-07-2019 at 07:58 PM.
coderguy is offline  
post #1253 of 1814 Old 05-07-2019, 07:38 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
coderguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,929
Mentioned: 61 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2349 Post(s)
Liked: 1271
If basing viewing distance on height, for a 106" 16:9, you are watching a 134" scope...
That's too much difference in area coverage, the preferred CIH for MOST people from that size would be around 120" to 128", not 134".

I have tested that theory before, and I personally prefer 125" to 130" (whereas most others preferred around 125" or smaller, but still wanted the bigger 16:9),
but I settled on 120" because my speakers are in the way a bit otherwise. Most of us don't even have the luxury of using a formula due to room size constraints.

Either you sit too close to the scope screen, or too far back from the 16:9.
They live with the smaller 16:9 because it's what people using masking have to do.

Besides, if formulas actually knew what everyone liked, then we wouldn't have the different aspect ratios being so randomly used.

**Updated Projector Calculator Released NOV 2017**
-- www.webprojectorcalculator.com --

Last edited by coderguy; 05-07-2019 at 07:55 PM.
coderguy is offline  
post #1254 of 1814 Old 05-07-2019, 08:02 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Craig Peer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 15,681
Mentioned: 106 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6557 Post(s)
Liked: 7581
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post
Our vision is biased to width. It is normal to feel the 16:9 is too small when the scope size feels correct.
That's why I have 2 screens.

Sitting any closer to the 2.35 image would not be good, as the zoom method already degrades the image enough from where I sit.
Yup, two screens allows for scope to be wide and 16:9 films like Pacific Rim / life of Pi / Shape of Water / Avatar to be big and both aspect ratios equally immersive. Best thing I ever did. The closet for the projector runs a close 2nd.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_0403.jpg
Views:	45
Size:	656.7 KB
ID:	2564014   Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_0402.jpg
Views:	49
Size:	647.6 KB
ID:	2564016   Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_0401.jpg
Views:	39
Size:	648.6 KB
ID:	2564018  
Craig Peer is offline  
post #1255 of 1814 Old 05-07-2019, 08:13 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
coderguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,929
Mentioned: 61 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2349 Post(s)
Liked: 1271
With your setup you never have to get out of your chair and you never have to mask, they just don't understand.
However, if I had to do it over again, I'd go with a 16:9 flush wall and a 2.35 electric maybe (for 100% coverage in masking like you have).
I got the electric screen on closeout for almost free so I didn't have that choice. I was initially just experimenting, then I realized, well this actually is a very good way to do it.

Although I don't have 100% automatic masking like your setup provides, mine is the next closest thing,

**Updated Projector Calculator Released NOV 2017**
-- www.webprojectorcalculator.com --

Last edited by coderguy; 05-07-2019 at 08:24 PM.
coderguy is offline  
post #1256 of 1814 Old 05-07-2019, 08:21 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
coderguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,929
Mentioned: 61 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2349 Post(s)
Liked: 1271
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Peer View Post
Yup, two screens allows for scope to be wide and 16:9 films like Pacific Rim / life of Pi / Shape of Water / Avatar to be big and both aspect ratios equally immersive. Best thing I ever did. The closet for the projector runs a close 2nd.
Funny, I also use a closet, though my reasons are not by choice, otherwise I don't have enough throw for my screen size.
We both shoot from a closet and both have dual screens, apparently you are going to have to 'school' some of these other folks.
humbland and Craig Peer like this.

**Updated Projector Calculator Released NOV 2017**
-- www.webprojectorcalculator.com --
coderguy is offline  
post #1257 of 1814 Old 05-08-2019, 01:29 AM - Thread Starter
We're Nuts About AV
 
ARROW-AV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 4,157
Mentioned: 227 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3823 Post(s)
Liked: 6242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Peer View Post
Yup, two screens allows for scope to be wide and 16:9 films like Pacific Rim / life of Pi / Shape of Water / Avatar to be big and both aspect ratios equally immersive. Best thing I ever did. The closet for the projector runs a close 2nd.
Very cool. Will never get old seeing this

Essentially it's akin to a Constant Image Area (CIA) screen that makes use of automated 4-way masking to achieve the same thing

I note that the screen moves vertically upwards... What is the ceiling height in that room?

ARROW-AV is offline  
post #1258 of 1814 Old 05-08-2019, 04:58 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
markmon1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,241
Mentioned: 100 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4418 Post(s)
Liked: 2768
Quote:
Originally Posted by wombats View Post
There seems to be disagreement about where good contrast numbers matter the most; low ADL vs higher ADL.

How does it apply to OLED screens? They have the best black levels AND the best contrast. If you compare an OLED to an LCD screen, surely the OLED always looks better no matter what ADL the scene is. However, does the OLED differentiate itself more during low ADL scenes than it does during high ADL scenes? For example, would the OLED really stand out during the Interstellar starfield scene but be more open to debate during a daylight scene with some bright highlights?

My take is that if OLEDs live up to their hype mostly during lower ADL scenes, then JVC's D-ILA priority on lower black levels and better contrast during low ADL scenes is good engineering. If not, then... ?
This debate can be thought through logically. Lets start at the extremes. Which of the two would demonstrate a situation where one could notice better blacks? A pure black image or a pure white image? Now which would demonstrate a situation where one could notice better blacks? A pure white image with 1 black pixel? Or a pure black image with 1 white pixel? I think from this exercise, alone, one could see how the more black the image possess, the better one can tell if the black performance is good vs poor when compared to another display device.

That OLED will look incredible with interstellar 53:30 star field. The blacks will be pure black and the stars super bright.

Video: JVC RS4500 135" screen in pure black room no light, htpc nvidia 1080ti.
Audio: Anthem mrx720 running 7.1.4, McIntosh MC-303, MC-152, B&W 802d3 LR, B&W HTM1D3 center, B&W 805d3 surround, B&W 702S2 rear, B&W 706s2 x 4 shelf mounted for atmos, 2 sub arrays both infinite baffle: 4x15 fi audio running on behringer ep4000 + 4x12 fi audio running on 2nd ep4000.
markmon1 is online now  
post #1259 of 1814 Old 05-08-2019, 07:42 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 3,637
Mentioned: 85 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1725 Post(s)
Liked: 1084
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolgeek View Post
Exactly why i even bother to argue here.. because without someone willing to speak up, anyone who comes in here will think they'll be looking at a grey mist by buying the Sony projector, which isn't the case... but you see how much anyone who dares say anything different gets flamed here?
Please link posts to these flames. All I see are the same people claiming there is this "JVC cult" out to persecute them for not owning one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by coolgeek View Post
If you're implying that BECAUSE I own a sony i'll defend it, you're wrong... i came in here months before trying to decide which projector to buy... i have had the chance to audition all the JVCs and the Sonys and even the Epsons... it was a long road to choosing... First, my plan was to just get the 5040UB because i could get it dirt cheap and call it a day until both Sony or JVC has better and cheaper offerings a couple years down the road,... then i auditioned the N5, and NX9, i thought there were pretty good and said so in my initial review.. and ONLY then I saw the 760 and 870... (and also the sony 360)... from that i personally made the decision that the Sony laser 760 brings the most to the table... and ended up buying that...
You made the right choice for you. Which is the best choice you can make.


Quote:
Originally Posted by coolgeek View Post
Exactly right... there is a bias on these forums for JVC.. it's apparent to anyone who's actually neutral... anything not JVC and they'll go directly to the weakest point... .
You want bias, look in the mirror. The shootout in Colorado was as fair as you could ask and no one, professional or not, has (so far) said they preferred the picture on the Sony units. Must have spiked the punch with JVC mind control drugs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by coolgeek View Post
I remember when JVC didn't have true 4K, the point was that 4K doesn't even matter.. contrast is everything
Contrast ranks higher in importance for overall image quality than resolution. When I auditioned the 4K Sony units they could not resolve single pixel tests and their lenses suffered from uniformity and sharpness issues. Regardless of the panel resolution they did not have a huge visible resolution difference vs. the Epson 5040 or JVC e-shift units I compared them with. The contrast and brightness advantages of the JVC were apparent and, to me, gave a better overall image.

I've owned more Sony displays than any other and if their projectors had looked better to me I would have one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by coolgeek View Post
Then, when JVC did have 4K, and their contrast isn't as good as their 1080p, suddenly hey, 4K brings more to the table than just contrast...
The lens in my current NX7 is better than any bulb based Sony 4K unit I've seen. And these units do bring more to the table than resolution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by coolgeek View Post
Then, Sony has cheaper lasers, oh, hey, lasers don't matter that all much.. it's back to contrast...

You see what i mean...
Who's saying this? All I'm seeing is the new bulb implementation in the new JVC lineup is surprisingly close to the stability offered by laser.

This whole cult of JVC nonsense needs to go. I'm not seeing anyone being attacked. If you see more people with JVC projectors touting their virtues it just might be because they actually believe it's a better product and not because they want a group think merit badge.

Sony makes amazing projectors. Competition is good for all of us. Whatever you end up with is fine as long as it is the best choice for you.

jeahrens is offline  
post #1260 of 1814 Old 05-08-2019, 08:20 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
coolgeek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,341
Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1613 Post(s)
Liked: 890
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Peer View Post
Sony has cheaper lasers ? I wish. I wish Sony and JVC had cheaper lasers. But from where I'm sitting, both the VW885 and RS4500 are within 10% of each other ( street price ). Which is too small a difference to matter IMO.
Maybe in the US, but not in the rest of the world! The price is literally half!
coolgeek is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP

Tags
2019 , Jvc , projector , Projectors , Sony

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