AVS Forum banner

1 - 20 of 189 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
232 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
Not to ruin the mood, but I've basically realized there is no other option but SDR REC.709 for projection.

I've discussed my setup and environment, the different projectors considered in various owners threads, official threads etc.

Time to open up shop, here is my own thread, let's cut to the chase.


Environment:

+ Living room, dark gray front wall, mid-gray surrounding walls, white ceiling paint that reflects 35% more light than a normal white paint (genius!)
+ Waxed wooden floor, reflective, no carpets, no nothing.
+ Screen is 2 feet from the floor, 2 feet from the ceiling.
+ Window blinds with 100% blackout capabilities.
+ Evening/night-time viewing only.

Setup:

+ 118" 2.40:1 ALR screen of some sort to combat the environment, I've ordered screen samples ranging from 0.9 to 1.4 gain (advertised).
+ 19.6 foot throw distance (adjustable).
+ No anamorphic lens.
+ Zoom method.


Considered Projectors:

+ JVC RS540/X790R/X7900
+ Epson 6050UB/TW9400

I'm using https://webprojectorcalculator.com/ for calculations, and adding some manual calculations to account for my setup/environment.

http://www.unitconversion.org/luminance/foot-lamberts-to-nits-conversion.html
for foot lamberts to nits conversion.


ISSUE:

Not enough brightness! (yes, I'm a rookie)


JVC is rated at 1900 lumens, 1500 calibrated HIGH, 1100 calibrated LOW, maybe 1000 with color filter (HIGH).

Epson is rated at 2600 lumens, 1600 calibrated HIGH, 1200 calibrated LOW, around 1000 with color filter (HIGH).


At a 19.6 feet throw, the JVC gives me 21.6 foot lamberts (74 nits) on a fresh lamp, based on 1000 lumens with filter, 54 nits (26% brightness loss for running 2.40:1).

Decreasing the throw to a full wide zoom, with a 12.7 foot throw (closest possible), I can get 24 foot lamberts (82 nits), only 60 nits in 2.40:1.


At a 19.6 feet throw, the Epson gives me 21.6 foot lamberts (74 nits) on a fresh lamp, based on 1000 lumens with filter, 54 nits (26% brightness loss for running 2.40:1).

Decreasing the throw to a full wide zoom, with a 12.1 foot throw (closest possible), I can get 25.1 foot lamberts (85 nits), only 62 nits in 2.40:1.


I've always heard people say "Your long throw is hurting you" etc.

But really, to be fully honest, I don't gain much by going closer, what's hurting me is not my long throw, but the requirement of adding the filter in place.

REC.2020 / DCI-P3 is the problem.


I have no figure on brightness loss for the JVC with the filter in place.

Epson takes a striking 40-50% brightness loss, completely kills the picture.


QUESTIONS:

1) Am I doing something wrong with my calculations?

2) Are projector manufacturers not giving us enough lumens?

3) Going above 1.0 gain kills black level? I don't dare to go higher.


MY SOLUTION:

Forget the filters, forget REC.2020, forget HDR, go for SDR, no - not SDR2020, SDR709.

REC.709 is the only way with projectors, at least to me it seems.


I would give out cookies and candy, but no one would dare to open up my package due to Corona (I don't have it, but that's just how the world works right now, lol).

Again, cookies and candy!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,734 Posts
QUESTIONS:

1) Am I doing something wrong with my calculations?

2) Are projector manufacturers not giving us enough lumens?

3) Going above 1.0 gain kills black level? I don't dare to go higher.


MY SOLUTION:

Forget the filters, forget REC.2020, forget HDR, go for SDR, no - not SDR2020, SDR709.

REC.709 is the only way with projector, at least to me it seems.


I would give out cookies and candy, but no one would dare to open up my package due to Corona (I don't have it, but that's just how the world works right now, lol).

Again, cookies and candy!
1) seems about right
2) The lumens required for HDR are guidelines, not firm numbers, and I find ~16fl and HDR to look good, in a fully darkened room, similar to yours.
3) Black levels are relative and room dependent, and not something that your room is optimal for.


IIRC, both projectors will display a high % of DCI-P3 without the WCG filter engaged. There will be a reduction in colour accuracy without the WCG.

However, from experience ~1000 lumens should look pretty good on a 118in screen. The BenQ HT9060 will provide about 1600 lumens and full DCI-P3 and would work pretty good in your theatre space.

There's brighter UST projectors available, as well with some sacrifice in DCI-P3 coverage.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
352 Posts
Not to ruin the mood, but I've basically realized there is no other option but SDR REC.709 for projection.

I've discussed my setup and environment, the different projectors considered in various owners threads, official threads etc.

Time to open up shop, here is my own thread, let's cut to the chase.


Environment:

+ Living room, dark gray front wall, mid-gray surrounding walls, white ceiling paint that reflects 35% more light than a normal white paint (genuis!)
+ Waxed wooden floor, reflective, no carpets, no nothing.
+ Screen is 2 feet from the floor, 2 feet from the ceiling.
+ Window blinds with 100% blackout capabilities.
+ Evening/night-time viewing only.

Setup:

+ 118" 2.40:1 ALR screen of some sort to combat the environment, I've ordered screen samples ranging from 0.9 to 1.4 gain (advertised).
+ 19.6 foot throw distance (adjustable).
+ No anamorphic lens.
+ Zoom method.


Considered Projectors:

+ JVC RS540/X790R/X7900
+ Epson 6050UB/TW9400

I'm using https://webprojectorcalculator.com/ for calculations, and adding some manual calculations to account for my setup/environment.

http://www.unitconversion.org/luminance/foot-lamberts-to-nits-conversion.html
for foot lamberts to nits conversion.


ISSUE:

Not enough brightness! (yes, I'm a rookie)


JVC is rated at 1900 lumens, 1500 calibrated HIGH, 1100 calibrated LOW, maybe 1000 with color filter (HIGH).

Epson is rated at 2600 lumens, 1600 calibrated HIGH, 1200 calibrated LOW, around 1000 with color filter (HIGH).


At a 19.6 feet throw, the JVC gives me 21.6 foot lamberts (74 nits) on a fresh lamp, based on 1000 lumens with filter, 54 nits (26% brightness loss for running 2.40:1).

Decreasing the throw to a full wide zoom, with a 12.7 foot throw (closest possible), I can get 24 foot lamberts (82 nits), only 60 nits in 2.40:1.


At a 19.6 feet throw, the Epson gives me 21.6 foot lamberts (74 nits) on a fresh lamp, based on 1000 lumens with filter, 54 nits (26% brightness loss for running 2.40:1).

Decreasing the throw to a full wide zoom, with a 12.1 foot throw (closest possible), I can get 25.1 foot lamberts (85 nits), only 62 nits in 2.40:1.


I've always heard people say "Your long throw is hurting you" etc.

But really, to be fully honest, I don't gain much by going closer, what's hurting me is not my long throw, but the requirement of adding the filter in place.

REC.2020 / DCI-P3 is the problem.


I have no figure on brightness loss for the JVC with the filter in place.

Epson takes a striking 40-50% brightness loss, completely kills the picture.


QUESTIONS:

1) Am I doing something wrong with my calculations?

2) Are projector manufacturers not giving us enough lumens?

3) Going above 1.0 gain kills black level? I don't dare to go higher.


MY SOLUTION:

Forget the filters, forget REC.2020, forget HDR, go for SDR, no - not SDR2020, SDR709.

REC.709 is the only way with projectors, at least to me it seems.


I would give out cookies and candy, but no one would dare to open up my package due to Corona (I don't have it, but that's just how the world works right now, lol).

Again, cookies and candy!

The key is to be willing to make adjustments. Unfortunately, projectors just won’t be as consistent as you’d find with a good TV. Some content may look too dark, other content look fine and it all will change with settings, picture modes and even over time with bulb life.

You should be able to get w very nice, satisfactory picture with either of the choices you’ve outlined.. will it be perfect? No, it won’t .. will you have to sometimes make changes or tweak settings? Most likely yes...

I think the JVC may get you closer to what you expect, but the delta just isn’t that large when it comes down to it... it’s about preference and availability, and which trade offs you’re more likely to tolerate.

Since you’re talking one of the older JVCs , you’re not getting the DTM that seems to work so well in their new gen.

I have a 5050 and after much fretting and tweaking, I simply view everything without the P3 filter and enjoy the brighter image. I can see the difference with the filter engaged , and agree the colors are more accurate.. but everyone else just notices the picture is “too dim”.

I’ll use the filter from time to time, but I really use my projector for everything.. most of my content isn’t 4K HDR movies.. I have a good mix of everything, so to me - a compromise in favor of higher brightness and less tweaking just makes sense.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
  • Like
Reactions: Archibald1

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,452 Posts
1. I think your math is a bit off.
2. You dont actually need to run the filter to get some semblance of BT.2020. You can get almost 90% still with the eshift JVC's which is just as much if not more than the Sony's.
3. 75 nits is just fine for tone mapped HDR. I run that all the time, in low lamp, I could run high, but I just dont need it. 100 is better, but welcome to the world where you really dont need that.

A new JVC (eshift) should give you about 1500-1600 usable lumens in D6500. If you just chuck it in 6500K mode and dont calibrate it you will probably be close enough and then you will lose even less. Also, I dont believe the lamps drop 20% in the first 500 hours, I think its more like 10-15% if that on JVCs. I am over 1000 hours into my 2nd lamp and its still stable as it was at 100 hours.

You should get at least ~1300lm with the filter. There is NOT a 25% brightness loss on those JVC's with the filter, mine loses ~7%.

Run something like a 1.3gain screen, there are many.

I dont get your math for losing even more brightness by using 2.40:1?

Have you used this calculator? Your throw is very long for that screen size, yes, its even looking like its on the extreme end of the range, so I would seriously look at ways to shorten it, you wouldnt want to run out of focus range on the projector.

http://www.webprojectorcalculator.com/


Here are some stats on my X9500.


0 Lamp Hours - New Lamp. High Lamp:

SDR High Bright - 435 LUX - 1713 Lumens
SDR D6500 Preset Mode - 375 LUX - 1447 Lumens

HDR (Filter) High Bright - 403 LUX - 1587 Lumens
HDR (Filter) D6500 Preset mode- 347 LUX - 1367 Lumens


475 Lamp hours:


SDR Calibrated Low Lamp - 27fl - 93 Nits - 1011 Lumens
SDR Calibrated High Lamp - 38fl - 130 NIts - 1400 Lumens


HDR (Filter) Calibrated Low Lamp - 25fl - 85 Nits - 934 Lumens
HDR (Filter) Calibrated High Lamp - 33.6fl - 115 Nits - 1260 Lumens


High Bright Low Lamp - 30.4fl - 104 Nits - 1078 Lumens
High Bright High Lamp - 42.7fl - 146 Nits - 1556 Lumens
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28,796 Posts
Not to ruin the mood, but I've basically realized there is no other option but SDR REC.709 for projection.

I've discussed my setup and environment, the different projectors considered in various owners threads, official threads etc.

Time to open up shop, here is my own thread, let's cut to the chase.


Environment:

+ Living room, dark gray front wall, mid-gray surrounding walls, white ceiling paint that reflects 35% more light than a normal white paint (genuis!)
+ Waxed wooden floor, reflective, no carpets, no nothing.
+ Screen is 2 feet from the floor, 2 feet from the ceiling.
+ Window blinds with 100% blackout capabilities.
+ Evening/night-time viewing only.

Setup:

+ 118" 2.40:1 ALR screen of some sort to combat the environment, I've ordered screen samples ranging from 0.9 to 1.4 gain (advertised).
+ 19.6 foot throw distance (adjustable).
+ No anamorphic lens.
+ Zoom method.


Considered Projectors:

+ JVC RS540/X790R/X7900
+ Epson 6050UB/TW9400

I'm using https://webprojectorcalculator.com/ for calculations, and adding some manual calculations to account for my setup/environment.

http://www.unitconversion.org/luminance/foot-lamberts-to-nits-conversion.html
for foot lamberts to nits conversion.


ISSUE:

Not enough brightness! (yes, I'm a rookie)


JVC is rated at 1900 lumens, 1500 calibrated HIGH, 1100 calibrated LOW, maybe 1000 with color filter (HIGH).

Epson is rated at 2600 lumens, 1600 calibrated HIGH, 1200 calibrated LOW, around 1000 with color filter (HIGH).



At a 19.6 feet throw, the JVC gives me 21.6 foot lamberts (74 nits) on a fresh lamp, based on 1000 lumens with filter, 54 nits (26% brightness loss for running 2.40:1).

Decreasing the throw to a full wide zoom, with a 12.7 foot throw (closest possible), I can get 24 foot lamberts (82 nits), only 60 nits in 2.40:1.


At a 19.6 feet throw, the Epson gives me 21.6 foot lamberts (74 nits) on a fresh lamp, based on 1000 lumens with filter, 54 nits (26% brightness loss for running 2.40:1).

Decreasing the throw to a full wide zoom, with a 12.1 foot throw (closest possible), I can get 25.1 foot lamberts (85 nits), only 62 nits in 2.40:1.


I've always heard people say "Your long throw is hurting you" etc.

But really, to be fully honest, I don't gain much by going closer, what's hurting me is not my long throw, but the requirement of adding the filter in place.

REC.2020 / DCI-P3 is the problem.


I have no figure on brightness loss for the JVC with the filter in place.

Epson takes a striking 40-50% brightness loss, completely kills the picture.


QUESTIONS:

1) Am I doing something wrong with my calculations?

2) Are projector manufacturers not giving us enough lumens?

3) Going above 1.0 gain kills black level? I don't dare to go higher.


MY SOLUTION:

Forget the filters, forget REC.2020, forget HDR, go for SDR, no - not SDR2020, SDR709.

REC.709 is the only way with projectors, at least to me it seems.


I would give out cookies and candy, but no one would dare to open up my package due to Corona (I don't have it, but that's just how the world works right now, lol).

Again, cookies and candy!

There are thousands of people enjoying excellent HDR with front projectors. I am one of them.

The JVC is 1,600+ calibrated high, 1,200 low and 1,440 high with filter.
The Epson is more like 1,800/1,900 calibrated high.

Going above 1.0 does not kill your black levels. That is not how it works. If your screen is 1.0 gain, white, 120" in size and you have the manual iris adjusted so that you have 16FL on screen, your black level is the same if you have a 150" 1.3 gain white screen with manual iris adjusted to 16FL.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,798 Posts
I'm getting according to my i1D3 trained to i1 Pro 2 measured in DisplayCal about 94% DCI-P3 on my JVC NX5 which has no color filter.

I am getting currently aboug 1550 lumens calibrated with a 300 hour bulb in high.

This is giving me about 100 nits on my 140" 1.1 gain white screen.


I run all my HDR movies against the BT.2020 color space and they look great, definitely more color than rec709 and no real noticeable difference to the JVC NX7/9 with color filter at 100% DCI-P3 at least to my eyes in 99% of movie scenes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,911 Posts
Probably should have mentioned earlier, but unless you've had previous projector experience don't choose a screen size until the projector has been used a while on a wall or a viewable surface.

A positive gain material like the ST130 G4 will not artifact at the projector's (mentioned above) minimum throw (~1.3x) because it's white and of good quality. But many ALR screens, even those with negative gain require 1.9x throw ratio. A few require less, ~1.5x, but are more expensive.

Do you have samples from Seymour, Matinee Black?
http://www.seymourav.com/screens.php

A review of a few ALR screens:
https://www.projectorcentral.com/ambient-light-rejection-screens-2.htm?remove_compare_list=10296&article_id=1493


Going on the budget side, I don't know of any ALR fabrics that actually have a positive gain. Carl's ALR claims 1.5 gain, but is said to be similar to the Cinegrey 5D, which has been measured at 1.0.


The Stewart 1.3 gain white screen does have some ALR properties, but not as good as the others.

Can't the ceiling be painted?

Alternatively a relatively cheap and customizable option is paint mixes. These can have ALR properties or not. Can be applied on a smooth wall or a white PVC screen. If it's applied on a wall, the entire wall can be painted for a stealth screen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
232 Posts
Discussion Starter #8 (Edited)
I could quote to the ends of all eternity, I will try to narrow it down to the most critical points.

My understanding from all your inputs is that HDR may very well work, but I want to make clear that my goal is mostly SDR2020.

Why?


Using the Panasonic UB820 would be a great choice for both the Epson and the JVC, better than using fixed curves in the JVC.

Fixed curves are troublesome since they don't fit all content fed to the projector, the Panasonic applies a different curve to each mastering level.

Ultimately, the Panasonic will give me an option to try and fiddle with HDR, at the same time as it can give me the most reliable and consistent quality, SDR2020.



I think the Epson is the better choice between the two projectors in this case, partly based on the potential lumen output if required/wanted.

Also because my room might not be up to the task of taking full use of the native contrast in the JVC.

The Epson could also be pushed back to the rear wall as far as possible because both the air intake/outlet is in the front of the projector.


As some of you mention, I have a feeling that using the Epson without the filter could yield very satisfying results.

Putting the filter in place, based on some of your inputs, the brightness might not be an issue after all, personally I don't like strained eyes.

This combined with my environment most likely not being able to benefit from the JVC, puts me into considering the Epson.


For example, putting the Epson in Natural mode, calibrated, mid-lamp, yields 1700 lumens, this without filter, but with SDR2020 it might look killer.

Too bright? Try putting the filter back in, if too dim, take it out, close the iris somewhat.

I think there is a solution that will make do, but there is no way without the Panasonic.


IIRC, both projectors will display a high % of DCI-P3 without the WCG filter engaged. There will be a reduction in colour accuracy without the WCG.

This is what I think might be able to justify a decent picture, paired with the Epson I could achieve a rather bright image.

The BenQ HT9060 will provide about 1600 lumens and full DCI-P3 and would work pretty good in your theatre space.

Too expensive, would rather buy the new generation of JVC's.

There's brighter UST projectors available, as well with some sacrifice in DCI-P3 coverage.

UST projectors doesn't have lens memory or motorized optics, there is no way to mask for a 2.40:1 screen, this is not an option.


You should be able to get w very nice, satisfactory picture with either of the choices you’ve outlined.. will it be perfect? No, it won’t .. will you have to sometimes make changes or tweak settings? Most likely yes...

With HDR from the Panasonic there would be less tweaking than only using the Epson.

SDR2020 from the Panasonic would require almost no tweaking in the Epson after calibration to a 2.4 gamma.

Since you’re talking one of the older JVCs , you’re not getting the DTM that seems to work so well in their new gen.

The Panasonic UB820 offers satisfyingly good tone mapping, at least these are my guesses right now.

The current generation JVC's is an upgrade, no doubt, but I think these projectors are overpriced right now.

When 4K becomes mainstream (Epson) Panasonic would most likely of developed a player with dynamic tone mapping, similar to JVC's.

JVC's Frame Adapt is only the beginning for great affordable tone mapping for projectors, in my honest opinion.


1. I think your math is a bit off.

Might very well be, I didn't have any solid brightness numbers of the projectors other than the numbers generated from http://www.webprojectorcalculator.com/


3. 75 nits is just fine for tone mapped HDR.

Would the Panasonic UB820 make do for tone mapping?

I know it's static, but at least it maps differently depending on the content.

Also think it's superior to the Epson.

You should get at least ~1300lm with the filter. There is NOT a 25% brightness loss on those JVC's with the filter, mine loses ~7%.

Thanks for sharing the numbers, I was not really sure how much the JVC lost due to the filter, 7% is indeed less than the Epson.

Overall the JVC seems like a more stable projector, no matter where you look.

However, it might be 'overkill' in my environment.

I dont get your math for losing even more brightness by using 2.40:1?

1920*1080=2073600

1920*800=1536000 (800 being 2.40:1)

1536000/2073600=0.74

2:40:1 is only 74% of a native 16:9 panel.

100% - 74% = 26% less of the panel used.

Doesn't this translate to a 26% loss in brightness?

The calculator is based on a 16:9 aspect ratio.


Yes, that's the only calculator I use.

Your throw is very long for that screen size, yes, its even looking like its on the extreme end of the range, so I would seriously look at ways to shorten it, you wouldnt want to run out of focus range on the projector.

This is very interesting, probably the only statement worth quoting in this post.

If you look at the Epson, would I run out of focus range?

The Epson seems to have a maximum throw ratio of 2.84.

My screen would be 109" wide.

109*2.84=309 inches

Makes for a maximum throw distance of 309 inches / 25 feet?


Going above 1.0 does not kill your black levels. That is not how it works. If your screen is 1.0 gain, white, 120" in size and you have the manual iris adjusted so that you have 16FL on screen, your black level is the same if you have a 150" 1.3 gain white screen with manual iris adjusted to 16FL.

This is valuable information, thank you very much.

I always thought going past 1.0 kills your black, I did not account for adjusting the iris.

I'm getting according to my i1D3 trained to i1 Pro 2 measured in DisplayCal about 94% DCI-P3 on my JVC NX5 which has no color filter.

I run all my HDR movies against the BT.2020 color space and they look great, definitely more color than rec709 and no real noticeable difference to the JVC NX7/9 with color filter at 100% DCI-P3 at least to my eyes in 99% of movie scenes.

Very valuable information, thank you very much for sharing.

I do question myself sometimes if I personally can see a real difference between 90% and 100% DCI-P3.

The extra brightness for skipping full DCI-P3 might be the key here.

Do you have samples from Seymour, Matinee Black?
http://www.seymourav.com/screens.php

No, too narrow viewing cone, I'm 15 degree off horizontally on my first row of seating.

I believe that particular fabric got a quite bad viewing cone.

Carl's ALR claims 1.5 gain, but is said to be similar to the Cinegrey 5D, which has been measured at 1.0.

1.0 might be enough, I'm not looking to paint the screen.

My wall has a structure, impossible to project an image on it.

My feeling says CineGrey 3D/5D is of better quality than Carl's, mostly leaning towards those right now.

The Stewart 1.3 gain white screen does have some ALR properties, but not as good as the others.

I've had samples from Stewart's and Screen Innovations at home, none of them are appealing as they're too expensive.

Slate 1.2 is said to be close to CineGrey 3D, even in the real world.

Slate 0.8 beating them both in terms of black.

Stewart 1.3 lights my room up like crazy, not an option.

Can't the ceiling be painted?

No, it's a living room, would have to throw the wife out.

She basically agrees to this projector thing when the screen fabric can match the front wall in terms of color and tone.

She wants a projector too, but not if there is a massive white screen on the wall.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,911 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
232 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
How about a curtain system?

Clever system, however, I have a cat, and my wife falls in the same category, both are not suitable with this kind of solution.


If you can't project on the wall, try a white fabric or something similar.

I might try putting up a cotton sheet or something.



Have you decided on the seating position?

Yes, I don't have the exact numbers, but there's three movable armchairs.

Second row maybe 5 degrees off horizontally, both chairs, no sweet spot, maybe 17 feet away.

First row, single seat to the left, 15 degrees off horizontally, maybe 13 feet away.

My screen will be 9 feet across (horizontally), couldn't really match your recommended 1.9x throw ratio for ALR screens.

Will there be issues?


You seem very helpful, I am sincerely thankful.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,911 Posts
Clever system, however, I have a cat, and my wife falls in the same category, both are not suitable with this kind of solution.





I might try putting up a cotton sheet or something.






Yes, I don't have the exact numbers, but there's three movable armchairs.

Second row maybe 5 degrees off horizontally, both chairs, no sweet spot, maybe 17 feet away.

First row, single seat to the left, 15 degrees off horizontally, maybe 13 feet away.

My screen will be 9 feet across (horizontally), couldn't really match your recommended 1.9x throw ratio for ALR screens.

Will there be issues?


You seem very helpful, I am sincerely thankful.
The throw ratio is for the projector's location. If it's under that there will be artifacts like hotspot and sparkle.

Very generally speaking, 118" scope is rather small for 13 and 17' seating distance. But this is why it should be tested beforehand. The general opinion on AVS says that it should be 10-12" in diagonal for every foot in distance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
232 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
The throw ratio is for the projector's location. If it's under that there will be artifacts like hotspot and sparkle.

Right, so I'm at 2.16x then, fine.


Very generally speaking, 118" scope is rather small for 13 and 17' seating distance. But this is why it should be tested beforehand. The general opinion on AVS says that it should be 10-12" in diagonal for every foot in distance.
The room does not allow for a bigger screen, it's either a 118" 2.40:1 or a 92" 16:9.

I am very limited to height.

Much rather have Blade Runner on a 118" scope screen, than Planet Earth 2 on a 92" 16:9.

I'm trying to make the best possible out of the situation, do you think Epson is the correct choice of projector?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,911 Posts
Right, so I'm at 2.16x then, fine.




The room does not allow for a bigger screen, it's either a 118" 2.40:1 or a 92" 16:9.

I am very limited to height.

Much rather have Blade Runner on a 118" scope screen, than Planet Earth 2 on a 92" 16:9.

I'm trying to make the best possible out of the situation, do you think Epson is the correct choice of projector?
Then maybe move the seating closer.

I think the pros and cons of the Epson and JVC have been described. It's up to you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
232 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
Then maybe move the seating closer.
Room is very special, I have a big fireplace making it unable to move the seating any closer.

Take a look at this link below, it's at a specific timestamp of a video from TVS Pro, comparing JVC-NX7, 6050UB, Optoma Z65.

https://youtu.be/yUroCr7AtDo?t=563





He measures and lists the units in foot candles, can this be converted to nits by using the following converter?

https://www.convert-me.com/en/convert/illuminance/footcandle/footcandle-to-nit.html?u=nit&v=


Quite an interesting video as their showroom is far from optimal, much like my room, or any other living room for that matter.

The JVC, although superior with its native contrast ratio, it seems hard to justify the extra cost of the NX7 compared to the 6050UB in terms of blacks?


I'm not saying I'm going to purchase the NX7, but being worried over the black performance of the 6050UB seems like a non-issue when the environment is not up to par?

Half a nit difference if the calculators are correct.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28,796 Posts
Room is very special, I have a big fireplace making it unable to move the seating any closer.

Take a look at this link below, it's at a specific timestamp of a video from TVS Pro, comparing JVC-NX7, 6050UB, Optoma Z65.

https://youtu.be/yUroCr7AtDo?t=563





He measures and lists the units in foot candles, can this be converted to nits by using the following converter?

https://www.convert-me.com/en/convert/illuminance/footcandle/footcandle-to-nit.html?u=nit&v=


Quite an interesting video as their showroom is far from optimal, much like my room, or any other living room for that matter.

The JVC, although superior with its native contrast ratio, it seems hard to justify the extra cost of the NX7 compared to the 6050UB in terms of blacks?


I'm not saying I'm going to purchase the NX7, but being worried over the black performance of the 6050UB seems like a non-issue when the environment is not up to par?

Half a nit difference if the calculators are correct.
Both are good projectors. The JVC is definitely the better projector, but if you are trying to use the monetary difference to justify the improved performance of the JVC, you pretty much never get there with any product. With what product do you get double the performance for double the price? As you get closer and closer to perfect, the cost increases drastically for every few percent of improvement.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
232 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
Both are good projectors. The JVC is definitely the better projector, but if you are trying to use the monetary difference to justify the improved performance of the JVC, you pretty much never get there with any product. With what product do you get double the performance for double the price? As you get closer and closer to perfect, the cost increases drastically for every few percent of improvement.
Mike, no question, as with any hobby/interest.

However, this thread is solely based upon an environment similar to the one in the video I linked.

I thought more people should of told me there is no point going for the JVC in terms of black, that's mostly why I celebrate the JVC, the black level.

In an environment like mine, similar to theirs, there seems to be absolute minuscule difference between the two.

Sure, the NX7 has half the contrast ratio of the RS540/X790R/X7900, but I doubt that even if that projector would be in the test, we would see much of a difference.


I'm not arguing about the money, I'm all about the black level, concerned partly because I will be using a 2.40:1 screen, projecting the black outside.

If Epson would of had a much worse black level performance than what the video implies, I would be increasingly worried about going with the Epson.

However, that doesn't seem to be the case.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,911 Posts
Room is very special, I have a big fireplace making it unable to move the seating any closer.

Take a look at this link below, it's at a specific timestamp of a video from TVS Pro, comparing JVC-NX7, 6050UB, Optoma Z65.


He measures and lists the units in foot candles, can this be converted to nits by using the following converter?

https://www.convert-me.com/en/convert/illuminance/footcandle/footcandle-to-nit.html?u=nit&v=


Quite an interesting video as their showroom is far from optimal, much like my room, or any other living room for that matter.

The JVC, although superior with its native contrast ratio, it seems hard to justify the extra cost of the NX7 compared to the 6050UB in terms of blacks?


I'm not saying I'm going to purchase the NX7, but being worried over the black performance of the 6050UB seems like a non-issue when the environment is not up to par?

Half a nit difference if the calculators are correct.
There are lots of lots of improvements the JVC has over the Epson. The room does not have to be a black pit to get good black levels. Where black level will still show in any room (with lights off) is when the projected image is dark, so there is no/little in the way of reflections on the walls.

Not saying you can't tell the difference between a JVC and an Epson, but after a certain point it becomes an enthusiast sport. I think you're going to be very impressed by the Epson.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
232 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
There are lots of lots of improvements the JVC has over the Epson. The room does not have to be a black pit to get good black levels. Where black level will still show in any room (with lights off) is when the projected image is dark, so there is no/little in the way of reflections on the walls.

Not saying you can't tell the difference between a JVC and an Epson, but after a certain point it becomes an enthusiast sport. I think you're going to be very impressed by the Epson.
I'm just referring to the video, and I think I might very well be satisfied with the Epson, all things considered.

The extra brightness of the Epson could come in handy due to my longer throw.

A member mentioned the focus range might being an issue with my long throw, could you tell if that's the case with the Epson 6050UB at 19.6'?

Thank you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28,796 Posts
Mike, no question, as with any hobby/interest.

However, this thread is solely based upon an environment similar to the one in the video I linked.

I thought more people should of told me there is no point going for the JVC in terms of black, that's mostly why I celebrate the JVC, the black level.

In an environment like mine, similar to theirs, there seems to be absolute minuscule difference between the two.

Sure, the NX7 has half the contrast ratio of the RS540/X790R/X7900, but I doubt that even if that projector would be in the test, we would see much of a difference.


I'm not arguing about the money, I'm all about the black level, concerned partly because I will be using a 2.40:1 screen, projecting the black outside.

If Epson would of had a much worse black level performance than what the video implies, I would be increasingly worried about going with the Epson.

However, that doesn't seem to be the case.
Never judge picture quality by a video. :) If this is your first projector, both will blow you away. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,911 Posts
I'm just referring to the video, and I think I might very well be satisfied with the Epson, all things considered.

The extra brightness of the Epson could come in handy due to my longer throw.

A member mentioned the focus range might being an issue with my long throw, could you tell if that's the case with the Epson 6050UB at 19.6'?

Thank you.
With those settings the zoom is at ~25%, so still well within the projector's range.
 
1 - 20 of 189 Posts
Top