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/)
-   -   Will the new JVC LX-NZ3 be native 4K? (https://www.avsforum.com/forum/24-digital-hi-end-projectors-3-000-usd-msrp/3088006-will-new-jvc-lx-nz3-native-4k.html)

jake51 08-31-2019 09:07 AM

Will the new JVC LX-NZ3 be native 4K?
 
It says so in the specifications for the laser projector that is to be released at the end of the year
But maybe it's fake 4K?
https://www.avforums.com/news/jvc-an...rojector.16504

zombie10k 08-31-2019 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jake51 (Post 58496538)
It says so in the specifications for the laser projector that is to be released at the end of the year
But maybe it's fake 4K?
https://www.avforums.com/news/jvc-an...rojector.16504

This projector is using the .47 TI DMD which is a native 1920x1080 panel. The image is shifted 4 times to simulate 4K.

historically these smaller DMD's have taken a large hit on native contrast, some in the 400-600:1 native contrast ratio range. The larger .66 2x shift DMD's have a bit better native some closer to 1000:1.

hopefully JVC did good work with the laser modulation which could help with the perceived contrast.

https://www.benq.com/content/dam/b2c...technology.jpg

jake51 08-31-2019 09:39 AM

So, fake 4K
I already have that

Toe 08-31-2019 09:54 AM

Meh....I'm sure this will excite some, but nothing I'm in the market for. Looks like manual lens controls as well.....sweet.:rolleyes::p

Mike Garrett 09-01-2019 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toe (Post 58496724)
Meh....I'm sure this will excite some, but nothing I'm in the market for. Looks like manual lens controls as well.....sweet.:rolleyes::p

BUT but but it is laser and DLP. That is all that some seem to care about. :rolleyes:

Frank714 09-02-2019 04:06 AM

Here is the official JVC press release: http://pro.jvc.com/pro/pr/2019/consu...3_release.html


... and I feel compelled to add an image of the (black version) LX-NZ3:


http://pro.jvc.com/pro/pr/2019/consu..._STD_final.png


In addition I think that this part of the press release deserves special attention:

  1. Dynamic light source control achieves high image quality and : 1 contrast
With mechanical apertures, there is some delay when adjusting light output, but JVC’s laser light source can control light output instantaneously, so dynamic brightness adjustment is possible with little or no delay. By controlling the output of the laser according to the brightness of the scene, the LX-NZ3 can reproduce images closer to reality. Moreover, when a complete black signal is input, contrast of : 1 can be achieved by controlling the laser output.


Should be very interesting to see what native or dynamic contrast JVC will be able to get out of the 0.47" DMD. ;)


The Xiaomi UST laser projector supposedly yielded a dynamic contrast of 2,548:1 with the 0.47" DMD, in the hands of an able projector manufacturer like JVC it might even get higher.

pottscb 09-02-2019 04:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jake51 (Post 58496538)
It says so in the specifications for the laser projector that is to be released at the end of the year
But maybe it's fake 4K?
https://www.avforums.com/news/jvc-an...rojector.16504

Article says 0.47” DMD which is a DLP. It won’t be true 4K, won’t be D-ILA, and won’t have anywhere near the contrast of any of the JVC pjs for the past 10 years. The lasers pretty cool, wish they’d bring it to the NX series.

markmon1 09-02-2019 04:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jake51 (Post 58496654)
So, fake 4K
I already have that

This is a tough one. It's not really fake 4K either. It produces 3840x2160 unique addressable pixels unlike any other e-shift type technology. DLP doesn't display all 3 colors (Red green blue) on screen at the same time either. It quickly flashes through them with a color wheel yet no one calls those fake color.

Most pixel shifting tech isn't the same as this. Eshift and epson's copycat shifting don't produce 4K worth of addressable pixels. The 0.66 version claims it does, but it's not a multiple of 4 and its still just pixel shifting 2 way so while it's better than e-shift, its still not what I'd consider true 4K. But anything that uses the 0.47 DMD chip I consider close enough to true 4K as they have a full 3840x2160 pixels that make up the whole image and something like 4K desktop looks 4K like. The only negative from this vs Sony/JVC true 4K panels is the pixels are larger on the 0.47 chip so it's got some level of overlap.

Mike Garrett 09-02-2019 06:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank714 (Post 58502232)
Here is the official JVC press release: http://pro.jvc.com/pro/pr/2019/consu...3_release.html


... and I feel compelled to add an image of the (black version) LX-NZ3:


http://pro.jvc.com/pro/pr/2019/consu..._STD_final.png


In addition I think that this part of the press release deserves special attention:

  1. Dynamic light source control achieves high image quality and : 1 contrast
With mechanical apertures, there is some delay when adjusting light output, but JVC’s laser light source can control light output instantaneously, so dynamic brightness adjustment is possible with little or no delay. By controlling the output of the laser according to the brightness of the scene, the LX-NZ3 can reproduce images closer to reality. Moreover, when a complete black signal is input, contrast of : 1 can be achieved by controlling the laser output.


Should be very interesting to see what native or dynamic contrast JVC will be able to get out of the 0.47" DMD. ;)


The Xiaomi UST laser projector supposedly yielded a dynamic contrast of 2,548:1 with the 0.47" DMD, in the hands of an able projector manufacturer like JVC it might even get higher.

The new JVC has typical 1,000:1 native, just like all the rest of the XPR DLP's, not using Christie's technology.

Frank714 09-02-2019 06:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Garrett (Post 58502530)
The new JVC has typical 1,000:1 native, just like all the rest of the XPR DLP's, not using Christie's technology.


https://www.avsforum.com/forum/24-di...l#post58502546


Then apparently there is an over-emphasis on "native" contrast, if the native contrast deficiences are overcome by the use of laser technology, enabling laser-dimming and yielding a better "dynamic" contrast which IMHO is all that counts at the end of the day and our home theaters. ;)


Frankly, I haven't been aware of the DLP contrast improvement capabilities because of dynamic laser-dimming and somehow feel that comparing such a laser-based XPR DLP projector with the mass of bulb-based XPR DLP projectors is then more like comparing apples and oranges... :rolleyes:

Mike Garrett 09-02-2019 06:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank714 (Post 58502574)
https://www.avsforum.com/forum/24-di...l#post58502546


Then apparently there is an over-emphasis on "native" contrast, if the native contrast deficiences are overcome by the use of laser technology, enabling laser-dimming and yielding a better "dynamic" contrast which IMHO is all that counts at the end of the day and our home theaters. ;)


Frankly, I haven't been aware of the DLP contrast improvement capabilities because of dynamic laser-dimming and somehow feel that comparing such a laser-based XPR DLP projector with the mass of bulb-based XPR DLP projectors is then more like comparing apples and oranges... :rolleyes:

Then you have missed a ton of discussion in the forums. Because of laser dynamic dimming, measurement technique has changed. Now days, you measure a laser projector with a single pixel lit in the corner, so that you can get the native contrast of the projector. Also dynamic is not all that matters, because with one single lit pixel, it all goes away and you are back to native contrast.

markmon1 09-02-2019 06:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Garrett (Post 58502602)
Then you have missed a ton of discussion in the forums. Because of laser dynamic dimming, measurement technique has changed. Now days, you measure a laser projector with a single pixel lit in the corner, so that you can get the native contrast of the projector. Also dynamic is not all that matters, because with one single lit pixel, it all goes away and you are back to native contrast.

I'm sorry but this is wrong, but probably not what you really meant to say. With 1 lit pixel you avoid going into full black mode where the unit shuts off the laser. Taking a dynamic contrast measurement when the laser is off on black yields that BS infinity to 1 measurement that no one buys into. So putting one pixel on the screen gets you a realistic dynamic contrast measurement not a native contrast measurement. Native contrast measurement requires disabling the dimming system entirely and repeating the test. One pixel being lit on the screen definitely does not make it "all go away" and you still can get some pretty deep blacks with 1 pixel lit due to dynamic laser dimming. At least with JVC.

JVC's laser dimming algorithm is quite aggressive at least on the RS4500 so if they applied any of that to the DLP laser, they may get some crazy high dynamic numbers for DLP like 10K:1.

Mike Garrett 09-02-2019 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by markmon1 (Post 58502672)
I'm sorry but this is wrong, but probably not what you really meant to say. With 1 lit pixel you avoid going into full black mode where the unit shuts off the laser. Taking a dynamic contrast measurement when the laser is off on black yields that BS infinity to 1 measurement that no one buys into. So putting one pixel on the screen gets you a realistic dynamic contrast measurement not a native contrast measurement. Native contrast measurement requires disabling the dimming system entirely and repeating the test. One pixel being lit on the screen definitely does not make it "all go away" and you still can get some pretty deep blacks with 1 pixel lit due to dynamic laser dimming. At least with JVC.

JVC's laser dimming algorithm is quite aggressive at least on the RS4500 so if they applied any of that to the DLP laser, they may get some crazy high dynamic numbers for DLP like 10K:1.

You are right, I was thinking about how it all goes away for native contrast.

Craig Peer 09-02-2019 07:49 AM

JVC themselves have said this projector is aimed at media room / living rooms for folks that use projectors as a TV replacement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

MDesigns 09-02-2019 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by markmon1 (Post 58502310)
But anything that uses the 0.47 DMD chip I consider close enough to true 4K as they have a full 3840x2160 pixels that make up the whole image and something like 4K desktop looks 4K like. The only negative from this vs Sony/JVC true 4K panels is the pixels are larger on the 0.47 chip so it's got some level of overlap.

Have you seen how it looks in real life? I mean the individual pixels are FullHD-size, can it look something like 4K desktop looks? I haven't seen these, just wondering...

Lähetetty minun SM-G930F laitteesta Tapatalkilla

Aztar35 09-02-2019 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Garrett (Post 58500894)
BUT but but it is laser and DLP. That is all that some seem to care about. :rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig Peer (Post 58502856)
JVC themselves have said this projector is aimed at media room / living rooms for folks that use projectors as a TV replacement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you and Mike are telling us this about this JVC, that's good enough for me. Really, I wasn't interested in this prospect to begin with, so no sour grapes chapter taken from an Aesop fable here. :)

Mike Garrett 09-02-2019 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aztar35 (Post 58503010)
If you and Mike are telling us this about this JVC, that's good enough for me. Really, I wasn't interested in this prospect to begin with, so no sour grapes chapter taken from an Aesop fable here. :)

My comment was a joke. :)
This projector should be a good DLP projector. It will have the negative of low native contrast like all XPR DLP's, but on the positive side it will be able to perform full fade to black, and have JVC's good HDR tone mapping. Also laser light source. I forgot to ask about color space, so will follow up with JVC on this. But this should be a good DLP sample. One issue the UH1 had was a lot of light scatter around the image. JVC said they have eliminated this problem with this new model.

Aztar35 09-02-2019 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Garrett (Post 58503098)

My comment was a joke. :)
This projector should be a good DLP projector. It will have the negative of low native contrast like all XPR DLP's, but on the positive side it will be able to perform full fade to black, and have JVC's good HDR tone mapping. Also laser light source. I forgot to ask about color space, so will follow up with JVC on this. But this should be a good DLP sample. One issue the UH1 had was a lot of light scatter around the image. JVC said they have eliminated this problem with this new model.

I understand...I think you both were just suggesting not to expected something like the contrast on the Lcos line.

Craig Peer 09-02-2019 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aztar35 (Post 58503386)
I understand...I think you both were just suggesting not to expected something like the contrast on the Lcos line.



Correct. It’s DLP and while JVC is good, they can’t perform miracles.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

12GAGE 09-02-2019 11:03 AM

JVC knows projectors. I am pretty sure this unit will be the best of its breed. They can't work miracles but it should work very well in certain rooms.

DunMunro 09-02-2019 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jake51 (Post 58496654)
So, fake 4K
I already have that

It's not fake 4K if it presents 8.3 million addressable pixels on screen. Here's three comparison images:

NX-7:

https://rehders.de/wp-content/upload...B.-Rehders.jpg

and

UHD300X:

https://rehders.de/wp-content/upload...B.-Rehders.jpg

VW270:

https://rehders.de/wp-content/upload...g-Detail-1.jpg

I would rank the Sony first, then the UHD300X and then the NX-7. The NX-7 is worse than the VW270, so does that mean that the NX-7 is fake 4K? In this comparison video:
, the NX-7 is compared to a TheoZ65, with the .67 4k XPR DMD at 17:14 and comes away distinctly 2nd best. So again is the NX-7 fake 4K, or is it simply that there are differences between true 4K display technology?

Mike Garrett 09-02-2019 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DunMunro (Post 58503890)
It's not fake 4K if it presents 8.3 million addressable pixels on screen. Here's three comparison images:

NX-7:

https://rehders.de/wp-content/upload...B.-Rehders.jpg

and

UHD300X:

https://rehders.de/wp-content/upload...B.-Rehders.jpg

VW270:

https://rehders.de/wp-content/upload...g-Detail-1.jpg

I would rank the Sony first, then the UHD300X and then the NX-7. The NX-7 is worse than the VW270, so does that mean that the NX-7 is fake 4K? In this comparison video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUroCr7AtDo&t=1807s
, the NX-7 is compared to a TheoZ65, with the .67 4k XPR DMD at 17:14 and comes away distinctly 2nd best. So again is the NX-7 fake 4K, or is it simply that there are differences between true 4K display technology?

You are welcome to your opinion, wrong as it may be. :D Keep in mind the RS2000 and VW695 have already been compared and the vast majority prefered the RS2000. Nobody is arguing the sharpness of XPR DLP. Being single chip it has a huge advantage over three panel designs. Throw in the shorter throw ratio, meaning it can use a simpler (cheaper) lens design which lowers the cost. But much more to an HDR image than sharpness.

DunMunro 09-02-2019 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Garrett (Post 58503918)
You are welcome to your opinion, wrong as it may be. :D Keep in mind the RS2000 and VW695 have already been compared and the vast majority prefered the RS2000. Nobody is arguing the sharpness of XPR DLP. Being single chip it has a huge advantage over three panel designs. Throw in the shorter throw ratio, meaning it can use a simpler (cheaper) lens design which lowers the cost. But much more to an HDR image than sharpness.

So you agree that 4K XPR can be sharper (higher resolution) than other 4K display technologies. This is what I was discussing.

Aztar35 09-02-2019 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DunMunro (Post 58503954)
So you agree that 4K XPR can be sharper (higher resolution) than other 4K display technologies. This is what I was discussing.


Hi, Dun. To be fair, I would say that sharpness is constituted by more than one attribute. Lens, precision, resolution, and (believe it or not) even contrast contribute. I am a fan of single chip DLPs because of their ability to display precise lines, well at least better than a three chip display that has less than absolutely flawless convergence. However, full detail rendering also depends on higher resolution and ultimately the quality of the lens.

So, while a single chip XPR can put up 1528x2 more precisely, and it may look sharper for some things, it can also look less sharp for others due to the panel's resolution limitations.

Aztar35 09-02-2019 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12GAGE (Post 58503586)
JVC knows projectors. I am pretty sure this unit will be the best of its breed. They can't work miracles but it should work very well in certain rooms.


Gage, you still should try to get a demo of the BenQ HT9060 too. It really is a masterpiece as far as any single chip DLPs go: that lens, that smooth dimming of the LEDs, colors...and it uses the larger .66/.67 chip.

DunMunro 09-02-2019 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aztar35 (Post 58504072)
Hi, Dun. To be fair, I would say that sharpness is constituted by more than one attribute. Lens, precision, resolution, and (believe it or not) even contrast contribute. I am a fan of single chip DLPs because of their ability to display precise lines, well at least better than a three chip display that has less than absolutely flawless convergence. However, full detail rendering also depends on higher resolution and ultimately the quality of the lens.

So, while a single chip XPR can put up 1528x2 more precisely, and it may look sharper for some things, it can also look less sharp for others due to the panel's resolution limitations.

That's basically what I'm arguing as well, namely that 4K XPR, in the .47 and .67 DMDs can be sharper than other 4K technologies, but is not always sharper. However, just because on a particular test, one 4K system looks better than another, doesn't imply that the losers are "fake 4K".

12GAGE 09-02-2019 02:06 PM

Yep, for sure. I put the 9060 in another category I think this will end up being a leader for the smaller chipset.



Quote:

Originally Posted by Aztar35 (Post 58504126)
Gage, you still should try to get a demo of the BenQ HT9060 too. It really is a masterpiece as far as any single chip DLPs go: that lens, that smooth dimming of the LEDs, colors...and it uses the larger .66/.67 chip.


Mike Garrett 09-02-2019 02:47 PM

Even the .47" DLP's have good sharpness, when used with a good lens. The JVC LX-UH1 is nice and sharp.

Aztar35 09-02-2019 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12GAGE (Post 58504226)
Yep, for sure. I put the 9060 in another category I think this will end up being a leader for the smaller chipset.

I agree with you. In fact, I flat out prefer bigger chips when it comes to DLP.

The smaller chip was compared with an XPR .66 chip in this video by TVS. The lamp-based Optoma UHD65 with the .66 chip kept doing better in the sharpness department than the lamp-based JVC LX-UX1 which has the .47 chip. Go to the 20 minute mark of the video.



Ericglo 09-02-2019 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DunMunro (Post 58503890)
It's not fake 4K if it presents 8.3 million addressable pixels on screen. Here's three comparison images:

NX-7:

https://rehders.de/wp-content/upload...B.-Rehders.jpg

and

UHD300X:

https://rehders.de/wp-content/upload...B.-Rehders.jpg

VW270:

https://rehders.de/wp-content/upload...g-Detail-1.jpg

I would rank the Sony first, then the UHD300X and then the NX-7. The NX-7 is worse than the VW270, so does that mean that the NX-7 is fake 4K? In this comparison video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUroCr7AtDo&t=1807s
, the NX-7 is compared to a TheoZ65, with the .67 4k XPR DMD at 17:14 and comes away distinctly 2nd best. So again is the NX-7 fake 4K, or is it simply that there are differences between true 4K display technology?


Is it 8.3 million addressable pixels at the same time?

You seem to reference TVS non-pros a lot. Do you work for the company? I find their reviews about as good as PJC. In other words not good.

Kris discussed the .67 chip in this article.
https://www.soundandvision.com/conte...s-4k-really-4k


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:58 PM.

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.