AVS Forum banner

61 - 80 of 189 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
232 Posts
Discussion Starter #61 (Edited)
[/SPOILER]What city do you live in or what city would be near your town? My reason for asking is that we over a million members at AVS. It maybe that someone within a reasonable drive might have one or both of the projectors you are looking at? I know I've hosted and gone to members homes in Kansas City to view their set up. We have a forum dedicated to regional/city meets.

As far as JVC....I'm a huge fan, so I definitely have bias. I wouldn't be able to compare the JVC to the epson. I haven't owned an epson in years. That being said, I recently sold our home, which included all the home theater equipment. When it came time to restart my HT and pick out a projector, I decided to stay with the same model vs the newer JVC's. Why? I liked the image and knew it's pros and cons. I didn't want to deal with relearning a new projector and working through the bugs of a new model. It's a lazy proposition, but firing up my JVC 540, I was happy to (re)own that model.
Ron mate, bless.

I do not live in the United States, I live in Sweden, the cost for traveling outweigh the consideration of buying an NX5/NX7.

Not that easy for you to know, well, at least now you do.

I'm incredibly thankful for your offerings and suggestions, I'm basically on the same level as you, I think if I would see these in reality, I would pick the JVC over and over again.

I do not feel the need of the newer JVC line up, I think I'm fully satisfied with the older generation, also considering it to be a GREAT entry-level projector, if you even can call it that.

2 years ago it was the second best there ever was, basically like todays NX7 in price/performance ratio.


I could not complain, I even get to try out the JVC at home, sending it back as long as it doesn't have 20 hours on the lamp, very generous offer.

I would have the time to decide myself, my screen samples should be arriving long before the projector, cannot wait to try some stuff out.

Thanks, Ron!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
232 Posts
Discussion Starter #62
I’m very happy with my setup. I have a 110 inch alr screen with a x790r in a non light controlled room as well. I have white ceilings and a wood floors. I get a incredible picture and could not be more happy. I have no issues with brightness in hdr. My screen is supposed to be 1.5 gain but people say it’s more like a 1.2. I used to have a 77 oled before I went to the projector and I would do it again in a second. I also mounted a frame tv for days I don’t want the room in darkness.
Pictures never justify a JVC, or an Epson for that matter, but more so a JVC.

I can tell by your feet that you're satisfied, you have a higher gain screen than what I plan to use, I'll see what a 1.0 gain fabric might yield me in my environment.

It's good to know you're coming from an OLED, I myself come from a 65" C7, couldn't complain about the picture, but it's super small at 17 feet back.

I know 118" 2.40:1 is rather small at 17 feet too, but it's the best I can do, I don't think it'll disappoint.


Do you know how long your throw is?

Thanks for your input and pictures!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,209 Posts
I’️m very happy with my setup. I have a 110 inch alr screen with a x790r in a non light controlled room as well. I have white ceilings and a wood floors. I get a incredible picture and could not be more happy. I have no issues with brightness in hdr. My screen is supposed to be 1.5 gain but people say it’️s more like a 1.2. I used to have a 77 oled before I went to the projector and I would do it again in a second. I also mounted a frame tv for days I don’️t want the room in darkness.
Pictures never justify a JVC, or an Epson for that matter, but more so a JVC.

I can tell by your feet that you're satisfied, you have a higher gain screen than what I plan to use, I'll see what a 1.0 gain fabric might yield me in my environment.

It's good to know you're coming from an OLED, I myself come from a 65" C7, couldn't complain about the picture, but it's super small at 17 feet back.

I know 118" 2.40:1 is rather small at 17 feet too, but it's the best I can do, I don't think it'll disappoint.


Do you know how long your throw is?

Thanks for your input and pictures!
It’s right at 12 feet. The Jvc does not match oled picture quality of course but it’s still an amazing picture. And what you get in size and cinematic look more then makes up for it. I’ve had this setup for 3 months or so and have put on 300 hours. I do not use the DI so I have not seen any pumping just a very stable beautiful picture. With masking the contrast on this thing is as close as your going to get to oled picture for a projector. Gaming on the x790r is really good. Really low input lag in 4k mode.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
232 Posts
Discussion Starter #64
It’s right at 12 feet. The Jvc does not match oled picture quality of course but it’s still an amazing picture. And what you get in size and cinematic look more then makes up for it. I’ve had this setup for 3 months or so and have put on 300 hours. I do not use the DI so I have not seen any pumping just a very stable beautiful picture. With masking the contrast on this thing is as close as your going to get to oled picture for a projector. Gaming on the x790r is really good. Really low input lag in 4k mode.
Thank you!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
232 Posts
Discussion Starter #65
Projector Central's throw calculator says 1.37x zoom (telephoto) while @coderguy calculator says 1.54x zoom (wide).

Same input data, different results.

Which one is correct?

I tried calculating on my own, but I think the formula is more complex and with more variables than just throw and screen width.

Help is appreciated.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,936 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.
Comment of the week for me there! I laughed out loud at that one. I feel you man, I feel you. ;):D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,909 Posts
I can’t speak for setting the projector at its minimum zoom (maximum distance away from screen) but I’m running mine just sly of maximum zoom and I can tell you that HDR is not a problem for me in the slightest. In fact if I wished I can run with filter and low lamp mode but it’s actually been calibrated for mid lamp mode.

Can it run as bright as my OLED in the main living room? NO but when the screen is approximately 60% bigger I could not cope if it was as bright, the guy who calibrated mine gave me two setups for HDR, one with the filter and one without, frankly no one can watch more than 20 minutes on the setup without the filter because it would burn the eyes out of your. I think the big difference with using a projector with screen and watching a TV is that with the projector you generally turn all the lights off for serious movie watching and your eyes adjust to this darker environment so you don’t seem to need the same amount of lumens to achieve a convincing HDR experience.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,071 Posts
Projector Central's throw calculator says 1.37x zoom (telephoto) while @coderguy calculator says 1.54x zoom (wide).

Same input data, different results.

Which one is correct?

I tried calculating on my own, but I think the formula is more complex and with more variables than just throw and screen width.

Help is appreciated.
If you are referring to the actual Zoom value, well 1.5x zoom distance or using the F-stop value to show the zoom range, that's semantics. It doesn't affect the calculation as both the total RANGE of zoom is the same in both cases, as long as the throw is calculated the same. The zoom range is just shown there as a represented value, and it doesn't affect any position calculations. Generally, for visual calculators at least, the zoom value should be the mathematical difference in distance, rather than showing the F-stop value as PJC does it (read why below).

I have had all these discussions in the past with others, such as why do I not use F-stops. Well, for the same reason that review sites use T-stops and not F-stops. Since my calculator uses data from review sites (not estimating), then I use the T-stop method in the calculator as well, which is based on averaging multiple reviewers measurements and figuring the distance based on averaging the mid-zoom and extreme ranges, rather than the actual F-stop affect of the lens. PJC is not consistent here, as they are mixing together both methods (T-stop measurements and F-stop estimates). I am honestly not sure why they do it this way, as it increases the error margins greatly, because trying to mix F-stops and T-stops together requires statistical correction and is beyond the scope of a projector calculator. For instance, if a pro lighting guy needs to set something up based on a lens ability, he will want the T-stop number and not the F-stop number.

Except for lens memory (which AFIK PJC does not support), then both my calculator and PJC give roughly the same results in 16:9 for Epson 5050 and JVC RS-540, based on throw numbers. I usually use MFR spec in most of the values, there is usually a couple inches of wiggle room, but the calculations should be the same, or usually within a few inches depending on which throw numbers we used.

See screenshot:



For instance, if I select 120" 16:9 on the JVC RS-520, it shows 12'3 to 24'6, exactly the same on both calculators.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,071 Posts
If you are still not sure, then this article below explains it better than I can:

https://petapixel.com/2016/12/30/f-stops-vs-t-stops-difference-explained-plain-english/

Edit
Just noticed also on the new PJC calculator, their slider has a sensitivity bug. I'm not sure if they are trying to calculate the zoom based on F-stop mods or if they are just having issues with their zoom slider. In the old version, they were definitely mixing F-stops and T-stops together though, and sometimes using only F-stops, while other times using a mix.

It is unnecessary and improper to give any F-stop data in correlation with the T-stop light transmission with a projector calculator, because there is no simple baseline without using a logarithm combined with other corrective math, which makes it too hard to visualize the data, especially for someone that uses these things casually (which is most people). The markers are also not often available on projector lenses, so it doesn't actually provide any reference point. It also incorrectly infers the idea that we should be using F-stops instead of T-stops. Now in camera lenses there is a somewhat acceptable error magnitude, but in projector lenses the magnitude of error is much greater when speaking about F-stops vs T-stops.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
232 Posts
Discussion Starter #70
I can’️t speak for setting the projector at its minimum zoom (maximum distance away from screen) but I’️m running mine just sly of maximum zoom and I can tell you that HDR is not a problem for me in the slightest. In fact if I wished I can run with filter and low lamp mode but it’️s actually been calibrated for mid lamp mode.

Can it run as bright as my OLED in the main living room? NO but when the screen is approximately 60% bigger I could not cope if it was as bright, the guy who calibrated mine gave me two setups for HDR, one with the filter and one without, frankly no one can watch more than 20 minutes on the setup without the filter because it would burn the eyes out of your. I think the big difference with using a projector with screen and watching a TV is that with the projector you generally turn all the lights off for serious movie watching and your eyes adjust to this darker environment so you don’️t seem to need the same amount of lumens to achieve a convincing HDR experience.
Very well put, useful information for someone like me with zero previous experience with projectors.

This has actually been one of my concerns as well, ending up with a too bright of an image, unable to lower it to a comfortable 3 hour session.

On the other hand, my first concern was not having/getting enough brightness, so both these arguments are in conflict with eachother.

The most sensible way would be not going crazy on brightness as this seems to be what most people recommend.

It's quite logical as well, with a TV, you tend to light up the environment to ease the strain on the eyes.

With projectors, the opposite is most likely going to be the case, as the screen gets larger and takes up more of your vision.

I could not of put it better, well done!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,071 Posts
My personal max screen size for the JVC would be 130" 16:9 at 1.0 gain or 1.3 gain for up to about 150", basing this on my experience with my RS-420. I wouldn't want to change the lamps every 1500 hours. Although these JVC lamps are quite amazing compared to every other projector I've ever owned, they still lose brightness gradually. Anything bigger than 130" 16:9, needs gain to be optimal, sure you can still use it, but it's not going to be as punchy in all circumstances.

That is Epson's big advantage, the lumens, also the HDR is easier than the older JVC's.

Most people would get used to worse black levels easier than the features you lose with the higher resolution on the NX. Also, if you are a gamer (sorry didn't read the entire thread), but then the NX series is better for the higher-res, as e-shift isn't useful in games.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
232 Posts
Discussion Starter #72
If you are still not sure, then this article below explains it better than I can.

https://petapixel.com/2016/12/30/f-stops-vs-t-stops-difference-explained-plain-english/
I'm speechless, you're doing Gods work, mate.

I didn't even get half of what you wrote, but you've convinced me more than enough to use and trust your calculator instead of PJC's.

Seems logical to have data based on both MFR's and reported numbers, and filtering out the noise that doesn't make sense or add up to a proper equation.

You seem to of thought of everything in there, can't do nothing but to thank you!

I'll rely on 1.54x zoom, nothing else.

I wish I could contribute similarly to what you've all done in this thread, however my knowledge is very limited but I try as much as possible to calculate on my own.

One should not ignore what's already been done and what's already accessible out there, but hey, no wrong in asking!

I had a good question, your answer was even better!

Thank you, kudos!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,071 Posts
I'll rely on 1.54x zoom, nothing else.
Believe it or not, most of the projectors, including JVC, don't have any way to show you what zoom position or lens shift you are using.

I wish the MFR's did show zoom and lens shift usage #'s, it would be great if my PJ said I am using 1.2x zoom of 2.x available, or I am at X/Y pos. The zoom on the lens isn't even marked on most units, so there is no way to actually know how much zoom you are using, except by relative distance, or unless you hit the max. Well, there are other ways, but I mean simple reference methods.

So even if you know your zoom, it won't matter much as long as you just know you are in the allowable range of zoom and not exceeding your mounting location potential.

Thanks for the comments, but I haven't worked on the calculator in a long time, it's a lot of maintenance work that doesn't pay anything. PJC has a monetizable method and review site, so they are able to keep adding new projectors as it helps their revenue, I have no projector revenue as I am not in this industry.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
232 Posts
Discussion Starter #74 (Edited)
My personal max screen size for the JVC would be 130" 16:9 at 1.0 gain or 1.3 gain for up to about 150", basing this on my experience with my RS-420. I wouldn't want to change the lamps every 1500 hours. Although these JVC lamps are quite amazing compared to every other projector I've ever owned, they still lose brightness gradually. Anything bigger than 130" 16:9, needs gain to be optimal, sure you can still use it, but it's not going to be as punchy in all circumstances.

That is Epson's big advantage, the lumens, also the HDR is easier than the older JVC's.

Most people would get used to worse black levels easier than the features you lose with the higher resolution on the NX. Also, if you are a gamer (sorry didn't read the entire thread), but then the NX series is better for the higher-res, as e-shift isn't useful in games.
Good post, I would be at 124" 16:9, to put into perspective, although, after masking/blanking I would be 26% less in the vertical meaurement, decreasing height to 118" 2.40:1.

That at least within your preference, and to my advantage.

I'm not sure HDR is what I want out of projection, sure it's nice if it's possible to get there with good tone mapping, but I think I put other aspects in front of that as a first time projector owner.

To name a few, black level, color, motion etc.

I don't think I would complain with a 2.4 gamma and SDR2020, heck, I don't think I would complain with 20fL and SDR709!

I'm not a gamer, I'm all about movies and all about cinemascope 2.40:1, there is such a feeling in that presentation that cannot be put into words combined with the things I pointed out above.

Immersion, maybe?

I would love to be able to show a home- (marketing) IMAX presentation, meaning a variable aspect ratio, switching between 16:9 and 2.40:1 or similar.

But let's not dwell into that, I have no room for 16:9, so I'm more than satisfied with a 118" 2.40:1 presentation.

Also, I could not live with a 16:9 screen having lit up letterbox bars in bright scenes once going through 2.40:1 scenes, they would not be black!

With an Epson, going with a physical 2.40:1 screen, the letterboxing might not be an issue as the brightness coming from the image area sits in front of the wall (screen sitting a few inches out from the wall) so the brightness would have to do quite the work to bend and go around the edge to lit it up.

The JVC would probably have much easier to cope with a 16:9 screen, but it might still light up, no guarantee.

With the Epson there are however other parts you need to take into consideration, such as dark scenes when black needs to be projectes on the actual screen, and here there is no forgiveness.

Let's not forget I'm coming from a 65" OLED which in 2.40:1 maybe equals to an image height similar to 50" 16:9.

I'm getting twice the height of that with 2.40:1.

Finally I don't think Epson's brightness will make me cooperate with the blacks that it performs/supplies.

As said previously, blacks, colors, motion.

I think JVC wins in those categories.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28,798 Posts
Very well put, useful information for someone like me with zero previous experience with projectors.

This has actually been one of my concerns as well, ending up with a too bright of an image, unable to lower it to a comfortable 3 hour session.

On the other hand, my first concern was not having/getting enough brightness, so both these arguments are in conflict with eachother.

The most sensible way would be not going crazy on brightness as this seems to be what most people recommend.

It's quite logical as well, with a TV, you tend to light up the environment to ease the strain on the eyes.

With projectors, the opposite is most likely going to be the case, as the screen gets larger and takes up more of your vision.

I could not of put it better, well done!
Too much brightness? That is pretty funny, since 99.9% of the projector owners out there, would not complain, if they had even more brightness. The JVC and Epson have a manual iris that is used, along with lamp power to adjust the brightness.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
352 Posts
Good post, I would be at 124" 16:9, to put into perspective, although, after masking/blanking I would be 26% less in the vertical meaurement, decreasing height to 118" 2.40:1.

That at least within your preference, and to my advantage.

I'm not sure HDR is what I want out of projection, sure it's nice if it's possible to get there with good tone mapping, but I think I put other aspects in front of that as a first time projector owner.

To name a few, black level, color, motion etc.

I don't think I would complain with a 2.4 gamma and SDR2020, heck, I don't think I would complain with 20fL and SDR709!

I'm not a gamer, I'm all about movies and all about cinemascope 2.40:1, there is such a feeling in that presentation that cannot be put into words combined with the things I pointed out above.

Immersion, maybe?

I would love to be able to show a home- (marketing) IMAX presentation, meaning a variable aspect ratio, switching between 16:9 and 2.40:1 or similar.

But let's not dwell into that, I have no room for 16:9, so I'm more than satisfied with a 118" 2.40:1 presentation.

Let's not forget I'm coming from a 65" OLED which in 2.40:1 maybe equals to an image height similar to 50" 16:9.

I'm getting twice the height of that with 2.40:1.

Finally I don't think Epson's brightness will make me cooperate with the blacks that it performs/supplies.

As said previously, blacks, colors, motion.

I think JVC wins in those categories.

The consensus in this forum is that the only projector worth buying is a JVC. One gets an Epson or Sony for special reasons or perhaps cost.

Just the way it is... if I had $8k or so right now to throw at a projector I’d have an NX7 too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,071 Posts
Much of the content is HDR these days, but you can watch HDR in SDR mode and do different things to the image.

As your first projector, I would really push you back towards the NX series, but it's your preference, so I'm not sure what someone else would really prefer. The main difference is if you sit close enough, then otherwise it's not a big difference other than all the conveniences.

The biggest feature I miss from the NX series besides the automatic tone-mapping is the ability to save manual masking settings in the lens memory. Those 2 features are one reason to consider the NX series.

120" CIH is what I'm using as well, it's more than bright enough, even at 1.0 gain or even with slight negative gain.

As a matter of fact, the first 200 hours, it was TOO bright for me even with the lens aperture all the way closed. However, it's fairly easy to compensate for too much brightness just with some gamma mods, too little brightness is the REAL problem. We rarely discuss too much brightness in here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
232 Posts
Discussion Starter #78
As your first projector, I would really push you back towards the NX series, but it's your preference, so I'm not sure what someone else would really prefer. The main difference is if you sit close enough, then otherwise it's not a big difference other than all the conveniences.

The biggest feature I miss from the NX series besides the automatic tone-mapping is the ability to save manual masking settings in the lens memory. Those 2 features are one reason to consider the NX series.
At 17' I have a hard time justifying the NX series in terms of resolution.

DTM is nice and all, but I think we're in the very early days of affordable DTM solutions for projectors.

I have my fingers crossed for a Panasonic with DTM, maybe IFA2020?


About lens memory, I understand that the older generation JVC's are more 'global' in their masking than the NX series.

I basically just need a very simple solution.

2 buttons on the remote, 1 button where I remove 2.40:1 masking and reveal the whole 16:9 image, and one button where the masking is applied.

No need for lens adjustment or motorized movements.

This sure must be possible with the X790R?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,071 Posts
There are a lot of variables in that question, it depends how you will be doing masking panels.

Also, you should check out the Blacker is better thread below...
https://www.avsforum.com/forum/24-digital-hi-end-projectors-3-000-usd-msrp/1465053-blacker-theater-better-image-245.html

Yes and no, the RS-540 definitely does everything you need, but as a first time user...

How you think you will use the PJ is likely slightly different than how you may actually use it. You may end up sitting closer?

At 17' from that screen size, I agree, the NX series offers no resolution benefit, even after using the zoom method.

I would guess you will want to sit closer eventually, that's way too far back, I sit 8-10' from that screen size (varies on what I'm doing, PC vs movies).

The different aspect ratios with streaming content is VERY annoying, so being able to just watch slightly different aspects without re-adjusting the masking settings and just clipping some stuff out is easier than on my RS-420. With my RS-420, I have to manually adjust sometimes, or move physically move my panels slightly if I want to watch things perfectly masked.

So a lot of it just depends. I got my RS-420 for a very low price, so the difference was like 5x more for the NX-5 and 4x more for the RS-540. So it was an easy decision for me just to live with it.

Plus I am not watching as much on my projector as I used to watch, I think I've seen EVERY movie I want to see right now. Or, at least I've seen every movie I know about that I want to see... Need to wait until the inventory ramps back up, as I've run out of things to watch, burnout.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,917 Posts
Vitus4K there are a lot of assumptions that will change once you spend some time with the unit. It would be better to get a very cheap model instead of jumping head first into a JVC projector.
 
61 - 80 of 189 Posts
Top