SONY VW885ES / VW760ES : In Depth Review & Comparisons - Page 41 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 2290Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1201 of 1972 Old 12-11-2017, 12:00 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
christoffeldg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,375
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1310 Post(s)
Liked: 526
Quote:
Originally Posted by Javs View Post
Jvc wasn’t crushing blacks. The photos were exposed for highlights I explained that.

I even took a new photo of the same scene to prove it but I wont even bother posting it.
Anyway, those pictures were posted to illustrate one thing, and one thing only: The VW760ES has a sharp lens.

That is all.

Any other conclusion people are trying to derive from that comparison are just fantasies, self fulfilling prophecies and wishful thinking.
Spizz, phara, RickAVManiac and 4 others like this.

Video: Sony VPL-VW760ES, Elite screen Aeon 135" Cinewhite + JVC X7900, Magicscreen Reference ALR 120"
Speakers: Bowers and Wilkins 802 D3 front, JBL 580, JBL 520c, JBL 550p
Amplifiers: Lyngdorf stereo TDAI 2170, Lyngdorf SDA 2400, Denon 4300H Home Theatre
Equipment: PC/PS4/Xbox One/Switch/Synology 2415+
christoffeldg is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #1202 of 1972 Old 12-11-2017, 12:04 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Javs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Sydney
Posts: 7,749
Mentioned: 470 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6706 Post(s)
Liked: 6342
Quote:
Originally Posted by christoffeldg View Post
Anyway, those pictures were posted to illustrate one thing, and one thing only: The VW760ES has a sharp lens.



That is all.



Any other conclusion people are trying to derive from that comparison are just fantasies, self fulfilling prophecies and wishful thinking.


Bingo.
ARROW-AV likes this.

JVC X9500 (RS620) | 120" 16:9 | Marantz AV7702 MkII | Emotiva XPA-7 | DIY Modular Towers | DIY TPL-150 Surrounds | DIY Atmos | DIY 18" Subs
-
MadVR Settings | UHD Waveform Analysis | Arve Tool Instructions + V3 Javs Curves
Javs is offline  
post #1203 of 1972 Old 12-11-2017, 12:11 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 6,422
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1294 Post(s)
Liked: 1043
Quote:
Originally Posted by Javs View Post
Jvc wasn’t crushing blacks. The photos were exposed for highlights I explained that.

I even took a new photo of the same scene to prove it but I wont even bother posting it.
The pics I was referring to were posted by Arrow - at least I thought they were and were supposed to be representative of the Sony vs JVC of the same scene in the same room etc - at least that's what they were supposed to be representing as far as the context of posts seemed to be saying - but without going back I could be wrong as to who was posting them, but either way, the Sony pic isn't representative of what I've seen of a Sony 760/885, and the JVC didn't have the same visible detail in the dark jackets. Neither looked to be set up right and the colours/greyscale showed that.

Otherwise I'm not sure what the purpose of the pics was in that case.

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 online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #1204 of 1972 Old 12-11-2017, 12:16 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Javs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Sydney
Posts: 7,749
Mentioned: 470 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6706 Post(s)
Liked: 6342
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot View Post
The pics I was referring to were posted by Arrow - at least I thought they were and were supposed to be representative of the Sony vs JVC of the same scene in the same room etc - at least that's what they were supposed to be representing as far as the context of posts seemed to be saying - but without going back I could be wrong as to who was posting them, but either way, the Sony pic isn't representative of what I've seen of a Sony 760/885, and the JVC didn't have the same visible detail in the dark jackets. Neither looked to be set up right and the colours/greyscale showed that.



Otherwise I'm not sure what the purpose of the pics was in that case.


Link to the pics?

There was a set he posted that were my photos so not same room same time and not same gear. There is a footnote on that post saying they were mine, unless I missed another newer post.

JVC X9500 (RS620) | 120" 16:9 | Marantz AV7702 MkII | Emotiva XPA-7 | DIY Modular Towers | DIY TPL-150 Surrounds | DIY Atmos | DIY 18" Subs
-
MadVR Settings | UHD Waveform Analysis | Arve Tool Instructions + V3 Javs Curves
Javs is offline  
post #1205 of 1972 Old 12-11-2017, 12:27 PM
Advanced Member
 
baseball0618's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Chadds Ford PA
Posts: 613
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 421 Post(s)
Liked: 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot View Post
The pics I was referring to were posted by Arrow - at least I thought they were and were supposed to be representative of the Sony vs JVC of the same scene in the same room etc - at least that's what they were supposed to be representing as far as the context of posts seemed to be saying - but without going back I could be wrong as to who was posting them, but either way, the Sony pic isn't representative of what I've seen of a Sony 760/885, and the JVC didn't have the same visible detail in the dark jackets. Neither looked to be set up right and the colours/greyscale showed that.

Otherwise I'm not sure what the purpose of the pics was in that case.
I think I know what you are referencing, but the JVC pictures that you are thinking of are from an X9900 not an RS4500, which is why they don't show the detail that the 885 clearly does in them.

JVC RS4500 projector/LG 65B7P/LG 55B7P/ Pannasonic UB820/Oppo 203/Oppo 103D/Apple tv 4K
St 130 138" scope screen
Marantz 7704 /Integra DTA 70.1
7.2.2 Atmos (3) B&W CWM 7.3 fronts (4) B&W CCM 7.4 surrounds
(2) B&W CCM 682 Atmos (2) JL Audio E112 subs
baseball0618 is offline  
post #1206 of 1972 Old 12-11-2017, 12:27 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 6,422
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1294 Post(s)
Liked: 1043
Quote:
Originally Posted by Javs View Post
Link to the pics?

There was a set he posted that were my photos so not same room same time and not same gear. There is a footnote on that post saying they were mine, unless I missed another newer post.
I could do that if i could be bothered, but the point still stands that until Arrow posts some calibrated data and pics for those that want them, there is a lot of conjecture based on anecdotal evidence - and Bandyka had made some conclusions based on uncalibrated projectors that were in out of the box settings other than the Sony, which had been tweaked in the service menu for max brightness which seemed to flatten the image as a result. I think Bandy even said the trouble for the Sony started as soon as the JVC was removed from the box...

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 online now  
post #1207 of 1972 Old 12-11-2017, 12:46 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
ccool96's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Panama City, FL
Posts: 1,496
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 781 Post(s)
Liked: 1110
SONY VW885ES / VW760ES : In Depth Review & Comparisons

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Garrett;
That is not how you calculate it. If that was correct, then everybody would be using an A-lens, because using your method, adding a lens gave me a 34.88% boost in lumen output if both methods gave me 18FL on screen.


Well I can tell you I have measured A-lens over the last 10 years. And I still have my Isco 3. It does not lose 12-15% of the light when you add it to the light path, which is what you have your lens doing. That’s just wrong.

I don’t know what lens you have but there are tons of references of A-lens and their measurement.

My way correctly allows for all of the projector light to match the aspect of the screen. Then you can subtract the loss of the lens. It’s easy to measure.

That is the correct way you get an exact answer. But you say 944, I say 890. So a 6% disagreement.

The longer throw, used with the A-lens could account for some of that, but from my experience in the past, using A-lens with high-end 3 chip DLPs, there wasn’t much light loss in throw range because you had so many lens options.

But you could just measure your setup, both with and without the lens, and adjusting for the image size accordingly in your measurement. Your way of calculation is by no means exact, based on your own variable.

Either way the fact is that the light output on your projector in mid-laser and iris -10 is doing something around 890-950 lumens.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Last edited by ccool96; 12-11-2017 at 01:22 PM.
ccool96 is offline  
post #1208 of 1972 Old 12-11-2017, 12:48 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 6,422
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1294 Post(s)
Liked: 1043
Quote:
Originally Posted by baseball0618 View Post
I think I know what you are referencing, but the JVC pictures that you are thinking of are from an X9900 not an RS4500, which is why they don't show the detail that the 885 clearly does in them.
I think this was the one:

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/86-ult...l#post55296844

The Sony looks flat with a a magenta push. The JVC seems to be crushing detail - not unusual for a JVC as a lot tend to be set up that way, and makes more sense now that you say it's a 9900.

Either way, people can't really come to any meaningful conclusions based on uncalibrated projectors or pics from those projectors in those conditions, but yet there seems to be a lot of conclusions being drawn despite that.

I think Bandy needs to go back and have a look at the Sony calibrated while he's still in the UK, or it will have been a mostly wasted journey by the looks of things.
d.j. 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 online now  
post #1209 of 1972 Old 12-11-2017, 12:56 PM
Advanced Member
 
baseball0618's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Chadds Ford PA
Posts: 613
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 421 Post(s)
Liked: 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot View Post
I think this was the one:

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/86-ult...l#post55296844

The Sony looks flat with a a magenta push. The JVC seems to be crushing detail - not unusual for a JVC as a lot tend to be set up that way, and makes more sense now that you say it's a 9900.

Either way, people can't really come to any meaningful conclusions based on uncalibrated projectors or pics from those projectors in those conditions, but yet there seems to be a lot of conclusions being drawn despite that.

I think Bandy needs to go back and have a look at the Sony calibrated while he's still in the UK, or it will have been a mostly wasted journey by the looks of things.
Yes those are of the X9900 not RS4500.

JVC RS4500 projector/LG 65B7P/LG 55B7P/ Pannasonic UB820/Oppo 203/Oppo 103D/Apple tv 4K
St 130 138" scope screen
Marantz 7704 /Integra DTA 70.1
7.2.2 Atmos (3) B&W CWM 7.3 fronts (4) B&W CCM 7.4 surrounds
(2) B&W CCM 682 Atmos (2) JL Audio E112 subs
baseball0618 is offline  
post #1210 of 1972 Old 12-11-2017, 01:00 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 6,422
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1294 Post(s)
Liked: 1043
Quote:
Originally Posted by baseball0618 View Post
Yes those are of the X9900 not RS4500.
And the new laser Sony, which is my main point - I'm not too bothered about the JVC, other than things aren't calibrated yet, so can't really draw any conclusions.

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.

Last edited by Gary Lightfoot; 12-11-2017 at 01:04 PM.
Gary Lightfoot is online now  
post #1211 of 1972 Old 12-11-2017, 01:22 PM
Advanced Member
 
jqmn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 741
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 394 Post(s)
Liked: 139
I realize this would probably go in an owners' thread so in the meantime...

This may be unit specific. I just went through the same exercise using the UHD pattern (single pixel, 2..3) and similar to my earlier 350ES units changing the "21 AREG/SERVICE" to "0" made a very large, positive difference. Despite what Sony might say, this difference was apparent in JAV's "Fox and Dog" text and color pattern. On the other hand, changing "15 DE/WB SW" introduced some nastiness back into the pattern and changing "2 DE/UF SW" introduced the green tint which this unit has never shown. So of this bunch I left everything BUT 21 the same. Finally, checking items 6, 7, 8 and 9 also resulted in a couple of clicks needed from the pre-loaded settings to improve things. All of these changes are so easy to do and the benefit (or not) for each item is so easy to see I would encourage others to take a look.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kaaga View Post
Here is my 2 cents of the black level and flat picture debate of the VW760 vs 4500

I let "my dealer" to make the Arrow-AV modifications in the VW760 service menu. We don't have the UHD pixel charts so i cannot compare change with these.
We changed the 21th option in service menu to 0. No visible difference in picture.
Then we changed the 15th option (white balance) in service menu to 0. There was big change in picture. Overall picture went brighter, the black floor rised and picture went flatter like it had less contrast. But actually all the colors went from having some red back round to normal. Also the white had red back glow and white went to pure white. The skin tones looked much natural and i felt the picture had more resolution etc. I tried many different movies and changed it 1 to 0 many many times and hours to compare because it was hard to decide what i liked more. Better contrast vs right colors. And at the end i left it to 0 because of right and natural colors. But definitely the blacks are not that black anymore.
And at the end we changed 2th option in service menu to 0. The change in picture where suddle but still the white had some green to it and this removed that green. Now colors are spot on, there is more brightness in picture in hdr mode etc. But picture is flatter less colorful and blacks are not at maximum.
jqmn is offline  
post #1212 of 1972 Old 12-11-2017, 02:06 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Javs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Sydney
Posts: 7,749
Mentioned: 470 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6706 Post(s)
Liked: 6342
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot View Post
I think this was the one:

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/86-ult...l#post55296844

The Sony looks flat with a a magenta push. The JVC seems to be crushing detail - not unusual for a JVC as a lot tend to be set up that way, and makes more sense now that you say it's a 9900.

Either way, people can't really come to any meaningful conclusions based on uncalibrated projectors or pics from those projectors in those conditions, but yet there seems to be a lot of conclusions being drawn despite that.

I think Bandy needs to go back and have a look at the Sony calibrated while he's still in the UK, or it will have been a mostly wasted journey by the looks of things.
I did say I expose for highlights, not shadow detail when I take photos. Whats on my screen has a little more shadow detail. Photos need to be exposed exactly the same for brightness matched projectors if you are looking at shadow detail. They were meant to look at sharpness only, in fact the sony was lifting shadow detail too.

Also its a 9500. Not a 9900.

Its just different Gamma. the Source frame here is obviously Gamma 2.2.

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/126070

Here is the printer shot everybody was saying was clipping shadow detail too. But here I have lifted the black level in the photo a lot to show what is actually on the camera sensor. Remember if the projector was truly clipping ANY shadow detail, there would be nothing but black in the shadow areas here.

First here is how a more recent one was exposed.

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/126071

Then the lifted version to prove the shadow detail IS there on the screen in real life. Its just very high contrast, high dynamic range and my camera has trouble capturing it all, but in person there is absolutely zero crushed shadow detail.

Nothing is missing.

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/126072

JVC X9500 (RS620) | 120" 16:9 | Marantz AV7702 MkII | Emotiva XPA-7 | DIY Modular Towers | DIY TPL-150 Surrounds | DIY Atmos | DIY 18" Subs
-
MadVR Settings | UHD Waveform Analysis | Arve Tool Instructions + V3 Javs Curves
Javs is offline  
post #1213 of 1972 Old 12-11-2017, 02:09 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Mike Garrett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 25,068
Mentioned: 230 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11468 Post(s)
Liked: 9059
Send a message via Skype™ to Mike Garrett
Quote:
Originally Posted by ccool96 View Post
Well I can tell you I have measured A-lens over the last 10 years. And I still have my Isco 3. It does not lose 12-15% of the light when you add it to the light path, which is what you have your lens doing. That’s just wrong.

I don’t know what lens you have but there are tons of references of A-lens and their measurement.

My way correctly allows for all of the projector light to match the aspect of the screen. Then you can subtract the loss of the lens. It’s easy to measure.

That is the correct way you get an exact answer. But you say 944, I say 890. So a 6% disagreement.

The longer throw, used with the A-lens could account for some of that, but from my experience in the past, using A-lens with high-end 3 chip DLPs, there wasn’t much light loss in throw range because you had so many lens options.

But you could just measure your setup, both with and without the lens, and adjusting for the image size accordingly in your measurement. Your way of calculation is by no means exact, based on your own variable.

Either way the fact is that the light output on your projector in mid-laser and iris -10 is doing something around 890-950 lumens.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
No, I said 985, about a 15% increase, due to the A-lens. I said it would be 944 if you thought the lens increased the brightness by 20%, which is too high. Think about the numbers you posted. you said it would take 1,133 lumens if using the zoom method to get the 18FL on my screen, but only 840 lumens using an A-lens to get 18FL on my screen. That is a 34.88% increase, just by adding an A-lens. That is not going to happen. Like I said if you could get a 34.88% increase by adding an A-lens, then an A-lens would be a hot selling item.

Added
Anyway, enough on this, time to move on. I think the contrast issue will resolve it's self once everything gets sorted out.

Last edited by Mike Garrett; 12-11-2017 at 02:12 PM.
Mike Garrett is online now  
post #1214 of 1972 Old 12-11-2017, 02:15 PM - Thread Starter
We're Nuts About AV
 
ARROW-AV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 4,108
Mentioned: 222 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3784 Post(s)
Liked: 6204
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaaga View Post
Here is my 2 cents of the black level and flat picture debate of the VW760 vs 4500

I let "my dealer" to make the Arrow-AV modifications in the VW760 service menu. We don't have the UHD pixel charts so i cannot compare change with these.
We changed the 21th option in service menu to 0. No visible difference in picture.
Then we changed the 15th option (white balance) in service menu to 0. There was big change in picture. Overall picture went brighter, the black floor rised and picture went flatter like it had less contrast. But actually all the colors went from having some red back round to normal. Also the white had red back glow and white went to pure white. The skin tones looked much natural and i felt the picture had more resolution etc. I tried many different movies and changed it 1 to 0 many many times and hours to compare because it was hard to decide what i liked more. Better contrast vs right colors. And at the end i left it to 0 because of right and natural colors. But definitely the blacks are not that black anymore.
And at the end we changed 2th option in service menu to 0. The change in picture where suddle but still the white had some green to it and this removed that green. Now colors are spot on, there is more brightness in picture in hdr mode etc. But picture is flatter less colorful and blacks are not at maximum.

So I think Sony default setting will give more "contrast and better blacks" but i think the Arrow-AV modifications makes the picture "correct". So because in the test with 4500 ,760 had arrows modifications so it can be also reason for the lower black level. PS! I run my projector at 80% laser or lower

What are other options regarding Arrow-AV modifications and ho they compare changing the 15th (white balance) option in the service menu?
Appearances can be deceiving... There is absolutely zero difference with respect to contrast and black level performance when switching between the two white balance presets via service menu #15

Also, you need to recalibrate your projector back to D65 white point after switching the white balance preset. Following which there will be absolutely zero difference with respect to the white balance and chroma.

ARROW-AV is offline  
post #1215 of 1972 Old 12-11-2017, 02:21 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Mike Garrett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 25,068
Mentioned: 230 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11468 Post(s)
Liked: 9059
Send a message via Skype™ to Mike Garrett
Quote:
Originally Posted by ccool96 View Post
Well I can tell you I have measured A-lens over the last 10 years. And I still have my Isco 3. It does not lose 12-15% of the light when you add it to the light path, which is what you have your lens doing. That’s just wrong.

I don’t know what lens you have but there are tons of references of A-lens and their measurement.

My way correctly allows for all of the projector light to match the aspect of the screen. Then you can subtract the loss of the lens. It’s easy to measure.

That is the correct way you get an exact answer. But you say 944, I say 890. So a 6% disagreement.

The longer throw, used with the A-lens could account for some of that, but from my experience in the past, using A-lens with high-end 3 chip DLPs, there wasn’t much light loss in throw range because you had so many lens options.

But you could just measure your setup, both with and without the lens, and adjusting for the image size accordingly in your measurement. Your way of calculation is by no means exact, based on your own variable.

Either way the fact is that the light output on your projector in mid-laser and iris -10 is doing something around 890-950 lumens.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
No my method is not exact. You can't do exact, because it is going to vary, based on throw and where you are with projector zoom. In my system my lens gets me about 15%. Your numbers do not make any sense. I said the A-lens increases brightness about 15%, not cost me brightness. Your math is saying my lens is adding 34.88%. Just look at the numbers you posted. I am using your numbers. You said with lens I only need 840 lumens to get the 18FL and without lens I need 1,133 lumens to get 18FL. Sorry but that is wrong. No lens is ever going to increase the lumen brightness an equivalent of 34.88%.

Added
the 944 number was just to show how far off your 840 number was. Nobody hints at greater than 20% gain by adding an A-lens. I noticed in this post, you raised your 840 to 890. Raise it another 100 and then you will be correct.

Last edited by Mike Garrett; 12-11-2017 at 02:29 PM.
Mike Garrett is online now  
post #1216 of 1972 Old 12-11-2017, 02:23 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 6,422
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1294 Post(s)
Liked: 1043
Quote:
Originally Posted by Javs View Post
I did say I expose for highlights, not shadow detail when I take photos. Whats on my screen has a little more shadow detail. Photos need to be exposed exactly the same for brightness matched projectors if you are looking at shadow detail. They were meant to look at sharpness only, in fact the sony was lifting shadow detail too.

Also its a 9500. Not a 9900.

Its just different Gamma. the Source frame here is obviously Gamma 2.2.

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/126070

Here is the printer shot everybody was saying was clipping shadow detail too. But here I have lifted the black level in the photo a lot to show what is actually on the camera sensor. Remember if the projector was truly clipping ANY shadow detail, there would be nothing but black in the shadow areas here.

First here is how a more recent one was exposed.

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/126071

Then the lifted version to prove the shadow detail IS there on the screen in real life. Its just very high contrast, high dynamic range and my camera has trouble capturing it all, but in person there is absolutely zero crushed shadow detail.

Nothing is missing.

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/126072
The pics I linked to were from Arrows place weren't they? They had a comment by bandyka related to them so that was my assumption. Or are they your pics?

And the Sony pic is the laser Sony 760 isn't it?

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 online now  
post #1217 of 1972 Old 12-11-2017, 02:29 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Javs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Sydney
Posts: 7,749
Mentioned: 470 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6706 Post(s)
Liked: 6342
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot View Post
The pics I linked to were from Arrows place weren't they? They had a comment by bandyka related to them so that was my assumption. Or are they your pics?

And the Sony pic is the laser Sony 760 isn't it?
Gary, the only images in this thread that put a JVC next to a Sony 760 for comparison are in fact Arrows 760 in Europe, and my JVC X9500 in Australia.

So, again, the images were taken at different locations with different gear.

If they were done in the same room at the same time, then you could compare the shadow detail since if done correctly, the projectors would be brightness matched and the photography would only then be comparable if looking specifically at shadow detail.

As it is, we were just trying to get an idea on sharpness, but even that can be slippery slope because of even simple things like camera picture profiles settings, and even Lightroom's default sharpening and processing added.

I think we did make this pretty clear, but unfortunately yes people look past it and latch on to different things when they look at the image, so I had to jump in when people start saying the usual 'JVC is crushing shadow detail compared to the Sony' and I can tell you without a doubt that it is not crushing shadow detail. I can resolve every bar I want to resolve on the black clipping patterns in HDR and SDR.
invad3r likes this.

JVC X9500 (RS620) | 120" 16:9 | Marantz AV7702 MkII | Emotiva XPA-7 | DIY Modular Towers | DIY TPL-150 Surrounds | DIY Atmos | DIY 18" Subs
-
MadVR Settings | UHD Waveform Analysis | Arve Tool Instructions + V3 Javs Curves
Javs is offline  
post #1218 of 1972 Old 12-11-2017, 02:31 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Mike Garrett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 25,068
Mentioned: 230 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11468 Post(s)
Liked: 9059
Send a message via Skype™ to Mike Garrett
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot View Post
The pics I linked to were from Arrows place weren't they? They had a comment by bandyka related to them so that was my assumption. Or are they your pics?

And the Sony pic is the laser Sony 760 isn't it?
Sony pics are the 760 that Arrow has. All JVC pics were from Javs 790.
Mike Garrett is online now  
post #1219 of 1972 Old 12-11-2017, 02:33 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Javs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Sydney
Posts: 7,749
Mentioned: 470 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6706 Post(s)
Liked: 6342
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike garrett View Post
sony pics are the 760 that arrow has. All jvc pics were from javs 790.
x9500/970

JVC X9500 (RS620) | 120" 16:9 | Marantz AV7702 MkII | Emotiva XPA-7 | DIY Modular Towers | DIY TPL-150 Surrounds | DIY Atmos | DIY 18" Subs
-
MadVR Settings | UHD Waveform Analysis | Arve Tool Instructions + V3 Javs Curves
Javs is offline  
post #1220 of 1972 Old 12-11-2017, 02:43 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
ccool96's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Panama City, FL
Posts: 1,496
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 781 Post(s)
Liked: 1110
SONY VW885ES / VW760ES : In Depth Review & Comparisons

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Garrett View Post
No my method is not exact. You can't do exact, because it is going to vary, based on throw and where you are with projector zoom. In my system my lens gets me about 15%. Your numbers do not make any sense. I said the A-lens increases brightness about 15%, not cost me brightness. Your math is saying my lens is adding 34.88%. Just look at the numbers you posted. I am using your numbers. You said with lens I only need 840 lumens to get the 18FL and without lens I need 1,133 lumens to get 18FL. Sorry but that is wrong. No lens is ever going to increase the lumen brightness an equivalent of 34.88%.


You can absolutely do exact measure if you take the time.

All I can tell you is with multiple DPI Titan units the Isco 3 lens yielded a loss of light loss of around 5%.

With multiple lens options with minimal difference in throw range, those lenses keep the light output from the projector from varying to a large degree from min/max throw, which will absolutely effect overall efficiency.

I have seen other document this as well. If your units has a huge variable in light output between Min/max throw then that can certainly effect the overall efficiency. And it looks like the JVC RS4500 loses approx 40% light output between min/max throw. So that would certainly limit the efficiency of your A-lens.

But an A-lens doesnt ever add to projector brightness. It re-shapes the light output to match a different aspect ratio.

But again, I don’t know why we are arguing this anyways.

As it has nothing to do with the fact that you have less lumens available with the RS4500 in high laser mode when contrast matched to the light output of the Sony.

That is all I have said from the beginning and is factual.

You have to close your iris to -10 to get 23k:1 and less than 1000 lumens at mid laser. At max laser you will you will have less than 1300.

Again since you seem to never agree but your own number show, the JVC RS4500 with the iris just halfway closed will yield a contrast of 15k:1 - 20k:1 based on throw and a max of around 1400 lumens in high laser mode.

So the Sony has at least equal and most likely higher native contrast than the JVC at max output. The one I measured at 100 laser does right at 19k:1 and almost 1700 lumens.

If you are so dead set that 15% is the max efficiency of an A-lens, I can’t help but wonder why AV Science is flat out lying to clients, by quoting a 30% increase in brightness using an A-lens. I guess when the number suits you

Taken directly from AV science website.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Last edited by ccool96; 12-11-2017 at 04:40 PM.
ccool96 is offline  
post #1221 of 1972 Old 12-11-2017, 02:46 PM - Thread Starter
We're Nuts About AV
 
ARROW-AV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 4,108
Mentioned: 222 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3784 Post(s)
Liked: 6204
OK folks, well with respect to the whole comparative contrast and black level mystery, I can confirm that...

...there is no mystery. Everything is precisely as it should be

I hate to say it, but I have been saying all along that we need to wait for proper measurements, wherein as the previous post ^^^ wherein I said appearances can be deceiving it would appear that the same applies in this instance... because these are the measurements folks of the SONY 885/760ES with 1830 Lumens light output as per the unit currently is, unaltered:

Laser Level = Maximum (100)
Black Level = 0.013 nits
White Level = 219.26 nits / 64 fL
Native Contrast Ratio = 16,842:1

In comparison here are the measurements for the JVC Z1/RS4500, which as previously mentioned was/is running uncalibrated out-of-the-box:

Laser Level = Maximum (high); with Iris closed down to -5
Black Level = 0.013 nits
White Level = 232.66 nits / 65.6 fL (N.B. This is as close to being brightness matched as is achieveable via adjusting the settings)
Native Contrast Ratio = 17,905:1

The black levels are quite literally identical and in this particular instance the JVC was/is outputing slightly more light and hence has a very slightly higher native contrast as compared with the SONY

@Bandyka is going to have difficulty believing this, so when he revisits either tomorrow (Tuesday) or Wednesday I will show him. You can't argue with the measurements.

My two cents as to what has transpired here is this... Because the JVC is uncalibrated, and the SONY is calibrated there is different grayscale, gamma, and chroma. This combined with the fact the images are both over 200 nits / 65 fL gives the illusion of elevated black level and the difference in grayscale, gamma, and chroma means that despite phyically measuring the same light level one looks darker than the other, when in fact it isn't. It's an optical illusion like how metamerism can alter our perception creating illusions with respect to comparative chroma.

Furthermore, it transpires that the appearance of there being 'less stars' visible with the SONY 760/885ES as compared with the JVC Z1/RS4500 isn't to do with black level per se but due to near-black stars being crushed to black by the SONY's contrast enhancer, which does have the potential to do that. There are ways around that and I had implemented one of these but @Bandyka had me turn that off because it entails giving up some light, the result of which was/is that some of the stars were being crushed to black.

So there you have it there's absolutely nothing wrong with the SONY 760/885ES unit being used here at all whatsoever. And the good news is that you CAN make use of the full 1830 lumens light output with the SONY 760/885ES without compromising native contrast performance.

Chris @ccool96 you were absolutely correct in saying that there should not be any significant difference in contrast performance when being run at 100 laser setting because there isn't.

Spizz, phara, ccool96 and 10 others like this.

Last edited by ARROW-AV; 12-11-2017 at 03:05 PM.
ARROW-AV is offline  
post #1222 of 1972 Old 12-11-2017, 02:50 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
ccool96's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Panama City, FL
Posts: 1,496
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 781 Post(s)
Liked: 1110
SONY VW885ES / VW760ES : In Depth Review & Comparisons

Quote:
Originally Posted by ARROW-AV View Post
OK folks, well with respect to the whole comparative contrast and black level mystery, I can confirm that...



...there is no mystery. Everything is precisely as it should be



I hate to say it, but I have been saying all along that we need to wait for proper measurements, wherein as the previous post ^^^ wherein I said appearances can be deceiving it would appear that the same applies in this instance... because these are the measurements folks of the SONY 885/760ES with 1830 Lumens light output as per the unit currently is, unaltered:



Laser Level = Maximum (100)

Black Level = 0.013 nits

White Level = 219.26 nits / 64 fL

Native Contrast Ratio = 16,842:1



In comparison here are the measurements for the JVC Z1/RS4500, which as previously mentioned was/is running uncalibrated out-of-the-box:



Laser Level = Maximum (high); with Iris closed down to -5

Black Level = 0.013 nits

White Level = 232.66 nits / 64 fL (N.B. This is as close to being brightness matched as is achieveable via adjusting the settings)

Native Contrast Ratio = 17,905:1



The black levels are quite literally identical and in this particular instance the JVC was/is outputing slightly more light and hence has a very slightly higher native contrast as compared with the SONY


@Bandyka is going to have difficulty believing this, so when he revisits either tomorrow (Tuesday) or Wednesday I will show him. You can't argue with the measurements.



My two cents as to what has transpired here is this... Because the JVC is uncalibrated, and the SONY is calibrated there is different grayscale, gamma, and chroma. This combined with the fact the images are both over 200 nits / 65 fL gives the illusion of elevated black level and the difference in grayscale, gamma, and chroma means that despite phyically measuring the same light level one looks darker than the other, when in fact it isn't. It's an optical illusion like how metamerism can alter our perception creating illusions with respect to comparative chroma.



Furthermore, it transpires that the appearance of there being 'less stars' visible with the SONY 760/885ES as compared with the JVC Z1/RS4500 isn't to do with black level per se but due to near-black stars being crushed to black by the SONY's contrast enhancer, which does have the potential to do that. There are ways around that and I had implemented one of these but @Bandyka had me turn that off because it entails giving up some light, the result of which was/is that some of the stars were being crushed to black.



So there you have it there's absolutely nothing wrong with the SONY 760/885ES unit being used here at all whatsoever. And the good news is that you CAN make use of the full 1830 lumens light output with the SONY 760/885ES without compromising native contrast performance.



Chris @ccool96 you were absolutely correct in saying that there should not be any difference in contrast performance because there isn't.





Thank you Nigel!

And like I said earlier, it’s not easy to have everyone begging for different pictures and endless info, and to also deal with endless critiques.

You have handled it all with a level of class well beyond many others. It is simply almost impossible to fill the endless appetite of info that everyone has for a new product.

Keep up the good work!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Spizz, OzHDHT, Craig Peer and 5 others like this.
ccool96 is offline  
post #1223 of 1972 Old 12-11-2017, 02:52 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 6,422
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1294 Post(s)
Liked: 1043
Quote:
Originally Posted by Javs View Post
Gary, the only images in this thread that put a JVC next to a Sony 760 for comparison are in fact Arrows 760 in Europe, and my JVC X9500 in Australia.

So, again, the images were taken at different locations with different gear.

If they were done in the same room at the same time, then you could compare the shadow detail since if done correctly, the projectors would be brightness matched and the photography would only then be comparable if looking specifically at shadow detail.

As it is, we were just trying to get an idea on sharpness, but even that can be slippery slope because of even simple things like camera picture profiles settings, and even Lightroom's default sharpening and processing added.

I think we did make this pretty clear, but unfortunately yes people look past it and latch on to different things when they look at the image, so I had to jump in when people start saying the usual 'JVC is crushing shadow detail compared to the Sony' and I can tell you without a doubt that it is not crushing shadow detail. I can resolve every bar I want to resolve on the black clipping patterns in HDR and SDR.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Garrett View Post
Sony pics are the 760 that Arrow has. All JVC pics were from Javs 790.
You seem more interested in the pics than the point I am making.

And my point, which has been my point all along, is that people were drawing huge conclusions about uncalibrated projectors - mainly the Sony which I have seen calibrated, and the uncalibrated image we were seeing which was clearly not representative and had been stated so by Arrow. Why Bandyka was giving the lengthy review he did based on an uncalibrated pj I don't really know. The JVC image was also not representative of what I had seen either but if that was due to the photography, that highlights problems I think we've all made about trying to use photographs to determine genuine projector performance - often like trying to demo high end audio over the phone. That's why I rarely spend time looking at pics unless they are showing something specific. The rollover pics Javs does are a good example of having something worth looking at.

Until we get calibrated data and first hand accounts of comparisons with calibrated projectors it's all kinda pointless. As it is, some people seem to be saying the Sony 760 is disappointing but either haven't seen it in the flesh, or have but haven't seen it calibrated.
Reddig 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 online now  
post #1224 of 1972 Old 12-11-2017, 03:03 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
ccool96's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Panama City, FL
Posts: 1,496
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 781 Post(s)
Liked: 1110
SONY VW885ES / VW760ES : In Depth Review & Comparisons

Quote:
Originally Posted by ARROW-AV View Post


SONY 885/760ES with 1830 Lumens light output as per the unit currently is, unaltered:

Laser Level = Maximum (100)

Black Level = 0.013 nits

White Level = 219.26 nits / 64 fL

Native Contrast Ratio = 16,842:1



In comparison here are the measurements for the JVC Z1/RS4500, which as previously mentioned was/is running uncalibrated out-of-the-box:



Laser Level = Maximum (high); with Iris closed down to -5

Black Level = 0.013 nits

White Level = 232.66 nits / 65.6 fL (N.B. This is as close to being brightness matched as is achieveable via adjusting the settings)

Native Contrast Ratio = 17,905:1






So that was all that I have tried to get across to everyone for the last two days.

Those are great numbers for both units.

The JVC is preforming slightly above my my measurements for a specific iris setting so it looks like it can match the brightness of Sony at max output while trying to closely contrast match the two units.

The Sony contrast is now much more in line of where it should be at 100% power.

No one could see a visible difference between those two numbers. And the JVC would in no way “Destroy” the Sony in regards to contrast.

Again the JVC will have plenty of light to spare, but at reduced contrast.

But thank you again for taking time to go through all of this again to confirm.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Last edited by ccool96; 12-11-2017 at 03:46 PM.
ccool96 is offline  
post #1225 of 1972 Old 12-11-2017, 03:54 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Mike Garrett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 25,068
Mentioned: 230 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11468 Post(s)
Liked: 9059
Send a message via Skype™ to Mike Garrett
Quote:
Originally Posted by ccool96 View Post
You can absolutely do exact measure if you take the time.

All I can tell you is with multiple DPI Titan units the Isco 3 lens yielded a loss of light loss of around 5%.

With multiple lens options with minimal difference in throw range, those lenses keep the light output from the projector from varying to a large degree from min/max throw, which will absolutely effect overall efficiency.

I have seen other document this as well. If your units has a huge variable in light output between Min/max throw then that can certainly effect the overall efficiency. And it looks like the JVC RS4500 loses approx 40% light output between min/max throw. So that would certainly limit the efficiency of your A-lens.

But an A-lens doesnt ever add to projector brightness. It re-shapes the light output to match a different aspect ratio.

But again, I don’t know why we are arguing this anyways.

As it has nothing to do with the fact that you have less lumens available with the RS4500 in high laser mode when contrast matched to the light output of the Sony.

That is all I have said from the beginning and is factual.

You have to close your iris to -10 to get 23k:1 and less than 1000 lumens at mid laser. At max laser you will you will have less than 1300.

Again since you seem to never agree but your own number show, the JVC RS4500 with the iris just halfway closed will yield a contrast of 15k:1 - 20k:1 based on throw and a max of around 1400 lumens in high laser mode.

So the Sony has at least equal and most likely higher native contrast than the JVC at max output. The one I measured at 100 laser does right at 19k:1 and almost 1700 lumens.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Of course you can do measurements. I say something but you hear what you want to hear. I said calculation. When someone calls you up and asks about how many foot lamberts will they get on their screen using xyz projector at throw distance of w shooting onto a 120" wide 2.35 ST130 screen using Acme lens Z, do you tell them, give me a few days to get the projector set up, buy the lens and I will measure or do you run calculations to give an estimate? As for never agree how about admitting when you are wrong? Did you or did you not say the following:

On your screen zoom method would require 1,133 lumens to get 18FL?
On your screen using an A-lens would require 840 lumens to get the same 18FL

The second statement is ludicrous and I can't believe you are still arguing. That is saying my A-lens made up for for 293 lumens. 293/840 is 0.3488. So my lens gave me a 34.88% boost in light output? Sorry but your math is wrong. No reason to keep this up. Just look at what you said. Just tell me yes or no, do you think those two numbers are correct? Either way, I will not respond, but everybody will know.
Mike Garrett is online now  
post #1226 of 1972 Old 12-11-2017, 03:57 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Mike Garrett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 25,068
Mentioned: 230 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11468 Post(s)
Liked: 9059
Send a message via Skype™ to Mike Garrett
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot View Post
You seem more interested in the pics than the point I am making.

And my point, which has been my point all along, is that people were drawing huge conclusions about uncalibrated projectors - mainly the Sony which I have seen calibrated, and the uncalibrated image we were seeing which was clearly not representative and had been stated so by Arrow. Why Bandyka was giving the lengthy review he did based on an uncalibrated pj I don't really know. The JVC image was also not representative of what I had seen either but if that was due to the photography, that highlights problems I think we've all made about trying to use photographs to determine genuine projector performance - often like trying to demo high end audio over the phone. That's why I rarely spend time looking at pics unless they are showing something specific. The rollover pics Javs does are a good example of having something worth looking at.

Until we get calibrated data and first hand accounts of comparisons with calibrated projectors it's all kinda pointless. As it is, some people seem to be saying the Sony 760 is disappointing but either haven't seen it in the flesh, or have but haven't seen it calibrated.
Why would me telling you the 885 pics are Arrow and the JVC pics are Javs, have anything to do with my interest. I was never interested in the pictures, other than to comment that the 885 pics looked nice. I have never made a single comment on comparing them. Because you can't.
scyto likes this.
Mike Garrett is online now  
post #1227 of 1972 Old 12-11-2017, 04:12 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
ccool96's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Panama City, FL
Posts: 1,496
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 781 Post(s)
Liked: 1110
SONY VW885ES / VW760ES : In Depth Review & Comparisons

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Garrett View Post
Of course you can do measurements. I say something but you hear what you want to hear. I said calculation. When someone calls you up and asks about how many foot lamberts will they get on their screen using xyz projector at throw distance of w shooting onto a 120" wide 2.35 ST130 screen using Acme lens Z, do you tell them, give me a few days to get the projector set up, buy the lens and I will measure or do you run calculations to give an estimate? As for never agree how about admitting when you are wrong? Did you or did you not say the following:



On your screen zoom method would require 1,133 lumens to get 18FL?

On your screen using an A-lens would require 840 lumens to get the same 18FL



The second statement is ludicrous and I can't believe you are still arguing. That is saying my A-lens made up for for 293 lumens. 293/840 is 0.3488. So my lens gave me a 34.88% boost in light output? Sorry but your math is wrong. No reason to keep this up. Just look at what you said. Just tell me yes or no, do you think those two numbers are correct? Either way, I will not respond, but everybody will know.


You clearly don’t understand what effects the overall efficiency. The A-lens has a vey specific efficiency. Call Isco and ask them what the efficiency is of their lens.


What varies is how much a specific projector loses when adjusting the throw range between zooming and non zooming positions. This varies projector to projector. I never used A-lens on these consumer based units which seem to have a large variable in light output from min to max throw. With the RS4500 losing almost 40% between min/max throw that will certainly effect efficiency.

But I can tell you with my DPI Titan with a lens with a very specific throw range which had very little variable in light output, was certainly well above 20% efficient.

But I’ll agree I wasn’t thinking about the total efficiency being so low with the RS4500. Even so the difference is minimal.

I had already stated numerous times you would be under 1000 lumens before doing the math. Go look back. That was spot on.

But I can see how the efficiency with an A-Lens would certainly be less on these consumer grade units without inter-changeable lens.

Actually thinking of how low your overall efficiency is, I can’t imagine why anyone would want to put an A-lens in front of the RS4500. Seems like a huge sacrifice for a 15% gain.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
roxiedog13 likes this.
ccool96 is offline  
post #1228 of 1972 Old 12-11-2017, 04:15 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
christoffeldg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,375
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1310 Post(s)
Liked: 526
Why are we even still talking about those old pictures posted by Arrow at the very beginning of this thread? I feel like you guys are just beating a dead horse here.
glabelle17 likes this.

Video: Sony VPL-VW760ES, Elite screen Aeon 135" Cinewhite + JVC X7900, Magicscreen Reference ALR 120"
Speakers: Bowers and Wilkins 802 D3 front, JBL 580, JBL 520c, JBL 550p
Amplifiers: Lyngdorf stereo TDAI 2170, Lyngdorf SDA 2400, Denon 4300H Home Theatre
Equipment: PC/PS4/Xbox One/Switch/Synology 2415+
christoffeldg is offline  
post #1229 of 1972 Old 12-11-2017, 04:19 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Wookii's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 3,365
Mentioned: 56 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2801 Post(s)
Liked: 1992
Quote:
Originally Posted by ARROW-AV View Post
OK folks, well with respect to the whole comparative contrast and black level mystery, I can confirm that...

...there is no mystery. Everything is precisely as it should be

I hate to say it, but I have been saying all along that we need to wait for proper measurements, wherein as the previous post ^^^ wherein I said appearances can be deceiving it would appear that the same applies in this instance... because these are the measurements folks of the SONY 885/760ES with 1830 Lumens light output as per the unit currently is, unaltered:

Laser Level = Maximum (100)
Black Level = 0.013 nits
White Level = 219.26 nits / 64 fL
Native Contrast Ratio = 16,842:1

In comparison here are the measurements for the JVC Z1/RS4500, which as previously mentioned was/is running uncalibrated out-of-the-box:

Laser Level = Maximum (high); with Iris closed down to -5
Black Level = 0.013 nits
White Level = 232.66 nits / 65.6 fL (N.B. This is as close to being brightness matched as is achieveable via adjusting the settings)
Native Contrast Ratio = 17,905:1

The black levels are quite literally identical and in this particular instance the JVC was/is outputing slightly more light and hence has a very slightly higher native contrast as compared with the SONY

@Bandyka is going to have difficulty believing this, so when he revisits either tomorrow (Tuesday) or Wednesday I will show him. You can't argue with the measurements.
This is excellent work, thanks Nigel.

It also highlights one very important point that I mentioned earlier, that got overlooked. When Bandyka viewed the SDR scene in Interstellar, he was viewing it on a projector calibrated for a peak luminance if 64FtL. With the best will in the world, viewing SDR content on such a high brightness setting (more than double what it is mastered at, and four times what we would normally set a projector at) is always going to generate such an artificially high black floor as to look pretty terrible.

Finally for reference, what is your screen size and approximate gain (I take it the measurements were off screen rather than off lens?)?
phara and ARROW-AV like this.
Wookii is online now  
post #1230 of 1972 Old 12-11-2017, 04:24 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 6,422
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1294 Post(s)
Liked: 1043
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Garrett View Post
Why would me telling you the 885 pics are Arrow and the JVC pics are Javs, have anything to do with my interest. I was never interested in the pictures, other than to comment that the 885 pics looked nice. I have never made a single comment on comparing them. Because you can't.
My point exactly

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 online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Ultra Hi-End HT Gear ($20,000+)

Tags
laser , projector , Sony , vw760es , vw885es

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