AVS Forum banner
  • Get an exclusive sneak peek into our new project. >>> Click Here
  • Our native mobile app has a new name: Fora Communities. Learn more.

JVC projectos -- HX1 vs HX2 ... and the HD2k

2171 Views 23 Replies 14 Participants Last post by  raoul

I am considering purchasing a new projector for a 'CONSTANT height 2:35-1' screen ratio.

So this would mean a 16x9 projector 'one of the three noted above' and anamorphic lens....

However I am on the fence as to which one?

1- the HX1 rated at 1000 lumens, has 16x9 but has 800:1 CR (I am not even sure if this projector is technically still avaialble)


2- the HX2 rated at only 500 lumens has 16x9 (seems to be the same chip at least resolution wise) has 1500:1 CR ....how come they droped the lumen rating so much? was the HX1 really overrated with respect to the lumens?


3- the HD2k..which technically in this comparison is not a fair one..however I am not sure of the lumen rating, 500 to 800 ..though not sure yet.

Now do all of these projectos permit the ability to expand the image to use the full chip? ...ie: say a 2:35-1 DVD was used, I assume i can get the full chip to be used by streching the image over the entire vertical pixel count?

Has anyone considered using the full 1080 on the HD2k with a anamorphic lens? it seems a shame to spend the extra money for a hd2k 'which is nativly 16x9 and only use the 720 max pixels vertically to obtain the 2:35-1 ratio with out black bars...?? why bother buying this projector...of course the 1920 over the 1400 pixels on the horizontal axis is something...but is it really?

any advice on this matter would be interesting to here...


p.s. i have sene a SX21 with a anamorphic lens, very nice, reason it has me thinking about going this path. However the Sx21 is 4:3, so the 1050 vertical will be scaled down to 720 as well before the vertical squeeze is applied with an anamorphic lens...remember i want to see 2;35-1 constant height.

p.s2 does anyone know what anamorphic lens Runoc uses...are they ISCO?

p.s3 has anyone seen the ISCO III yet? ....from what i can tell it simply is larger diameter, perhaps with better optics? the JVC units noted here image device all of them are smaller then 1.3" ...would the III not be a waste in this case? or are we talking a significant optics differnce over the II? (and yes i know the ISCO are horizontal type anamorphic) ....
See less See more
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
HX-1, you are right is not avaiable

HX-2, not sure of course but one of the side effects of increasing the contrast was that the lumens dropped. Of course maybe that was the only way, at least for them. Real nice projector and is definitely an improvement on the SX021 (although its a great projector) and the HX-1. You will need to get an external scaler to have constant height. Seems to be all the rage today as everyone is looking into that. To answer you question, the HX-1 wasnt overated in lumens at least not compared to anyone else. Its just like I mentioned it had to be done to get the proper contrast. I have to tell you that I have seen this projector several times now and while 500 lumens seem low, it is more than enough for a dedicated home theater. This projector will work well with an anamorphic lens but of course you have to get a scler

Now with the HD2k, this has an incredible picture especially when you have it calibrated by William PHelps. Same story with lumens and contrast allthough the contrast is higher on this projector. As the projector comes with a Faroujda scaler, I would assume you dont need anything else. In respect to the lens, I would assume that their would be no issues doing 2.35 but since no one has tried doing it yet (as far as I know) I cant be positive it will work fine although I cant imagiine why not

I think Alan, the owner of the forum may have one, but not positive. I think people are going with the Prismonsonic lens when wanting contast height

Let me know if I can help you with anything
See less See more

As to an external scaler, this will be HTPC that I am already using with TheaterTek 2.1 as the player. I understand the ability to alter the image to compensate for the change in aspect ratio - perspective.

I was asking as I wish to project on to 10 foot wide 2:35-1 screen. Brightness is a concern for me, YES this will be in a dedicated home theater with total light control, ie: none... ;-)

The cost difference between the HD2k and the HX2 is significant, but is it worth it at this time...(retorical question really...I am wondering if the costing of the HD2k or its future siblings will put this argument null and void, and a 1080p projector will be the only real choice) ...anyways...

I wanted to be sure that I could utilize the full vertical high of the JVC projector either that being Hx2 or the HD2k ..along with a vertical compression anamorphic lens like the prissonic or the panamorph...i guess I have to wait for the anamorphic lens shootout part 2 ...to find out.

thank you.


p.s. Does AVS sell the JVC line?
See less See more
please note, what I meant in my previous posting was 'total light control' meaning NONE -- as in no light , completely black --- . I am in the process of designing my home theater in a dedicated room, no windows, proper sound control, the whole works, but the investment is significant, and the projector has to play obviously a very large part, at the same time it has to be able to have a long throw; greater then 20 feet; I intend to place the projector behind in my control room, with the lens only appearing through a hole in the wall, so along with 2:35-1 'though provding a bright excellent image on a 10 foot WIDE screen is must.

thank you

We have tested the HX2U and HD2K side-by-side (along with a G150), and there's a very obvious, immediately noticeable difference in image detail and contrast ratio. We have not tested it with an anamorphic lens, but Daniel's right: technically, there's no reason to believe it wouldn't work. Also, we've tested the HD2K with an HTPC, and as long as you can set your DVI output to 1920x1080 at 60Hz then you can bypass the Faroudja processor and feed the projector directly from the HTPC.

That said, your image height calculation is off. A 2:35:1 aspect ratio using the full 1920 pixel width of the HD2K panel yields an image which is 817 pixels high (not 720), so you'd only be losing 131 pixel rows off the top and bottom of the screen (~25%). Adding a 1.33 anamorphic lens would increase image brightness by 33%, but from personal experience I can tell you this projector has brightness to spare: we're using ours on a 10' wide Stewart Firehawk (gray) screen, and it's significantly brighter than our G150 (which is rated at 1000 lumens). In fact, it's so bright that we can even leave the room lights on and still produce an extremely watchable picture despite the 20' throw distance.
See less See more
i use a panamorph with my hd2k, when i have material that is 2:35, i vertically stretch it to full panel and then let the panamorph correct the picture to 2:35
Which model of panamorph are you using with t he HD2k ..is this the PSU-0100?

How far is your throw distance?

what settings did you do on the projector itself? or are you feeding it directly from an HTPC?

if from an HTPC is the output set to 1920x1080 ...and then when a dvd movie of 2:35-1 is played your panel is filled by the projector, and the panamorph uncomrpesses the verticcal and produces the constant hight?


are you using the included scaler? technically the end result is always 1920x1080 ..but the projector fills the panel?

Can you give me some more details...this is the setup I am most considering using...and would like to know about your setup...

thank you

See less See more
BTW --- from my understanding of a 'constant height' use the following should be true:

"the projector itself can handle an ability to expand to the full panel no matter what i sent it. I intend to run a constant height 2:35-1 resolution with a panamorph 'or simular' lens so that i do not have to remove it. if smaller then 2:35-1 is used, it should simply display the image with the same height but with less width 'reason for my masking curtains on my stage' . what would essentially be happening is the vertical portion of the panel will always be 1080 in pixels, no matter the aspect ratio of the movie (just the amount of vertical stretching really) what would be used more or less would be the horizontal side of the panel, in 2:35-1 movies the full 1920 pixels will be used with 1:85-1 ..less and 1:66-1 less, and so on....from what i have read this is how it works."

Since i do not intend to remove the panmorph, why would you need to...since we are running a constant height screen....

The issue here, is the htpc setting the height for the full panel via theatertek 2.1 'with its internal aspect ratio control, you can simple click the mouse to stretch the image vertically, and then use the panamorph to restore it to normal...hence you use the whole chip....

alternativly, if you did not use theatertek to alter the aspect ratio, is there a way on the projector itself to FORCE the full panel no matter what you sent it , and i am speaking of the vertical axis ofthe panel, the 1080 vertical array?

This is an interesting problem, unless you actually see it working it sometimes hard to grasp. I have a friend who has a SX21 with a panamorph and is using a constant screen 2:35-1 height, and uses theatertek to adjust the aspect ratio to fill the screen, but NEVER removes the panamorph just brings in his curtains to mask the sides of the screen depending on the aspect ratio sent to the projector.

thank you

See less See more
Originally posted by charles2006

2- the HX2 rated at only 500 lumens has 16x9 (seems to be the same chip at least resolution wise) has 1500:1 CR ....how come they droped the lumen rating so much? was the HX1 really overrated with respect to the lumens?

The light output of the projector goes down when you tune it for better contrast ratio

and gray scale tracking.

For example, I had my JVC projector calibrated by William Phelps [ AVS forum name "wm"].

He told me that my PJ was typical of most, and was "short" on blue. In other words, the

Red and Green chains were too strong and putting out too much light as compared to

the Blue chain. So when William calibrated the projector for better CR and gray scale

tracking; he "dialed down" the Red and Green chains so they would be consistent with

the lower output of the Blue chain. The PJ lost about 30% of its output.

When he did that, of course; the projector lost light output power; i.e. "lumens".

I would think the same thing is happening with the HX-2 vis-a-vis the HX-1.

They seem to be closely related in terms of chip and lamp - so the HX-2 may be

mostly a better calibrated HX-1; with the concurrent drop in lumen output.
See less See more
what about the MAXX 1400 is that basically an SX21?
With a 10 feet wide screen, you will probably have to go with a slightly higher gain screen . Something like the Stewart Ultramat 200 or the Vutec Silverstar will work well with the 500 lumens projector. At a local show, JVC was showing the HD2K with a 135 diag screen and it look plenty bright. I think they were using the Stewart screen
I think i answered the majority of the questions in a pm, as for why remove the panamorph for the 16:9 material, i just hate to give up pixels and brightness. My screens are 185:1 and i mask them for 235:1 material.
brightness is key for me since i have a fixed width on my screens, if i used my panamorph and scaled back to 16:9 i would give up pixels and have white/black bars on both sides of my picture.
Great discussion about these projectors....

I am thinking of the exact same projectors with the same lenses.

Answered all of my questions!
The HD2K is something to behold. The higher resolution is really evident with any good HD source material. it just is a "magnitude" more detailed. And since its pixels are effectively invisible, I wouldn't worry too much about using every pixel, if it comes to that.

When I reviewed the HD2K the first, obvious thing was that its 500 lumens had plenty of punch. My own projector, a BenQ 8700+, claims 1000 lumens (and 2500:1 contrast). Despite that, the JVC was the very slightly brighter projector, before and after they were calibrated (Avia disk).

the HD2K is a budget buster, but so far its my dream projector. After going back and forth between the 2K and my BenQ, I just turned off my BenQ. I got so spoiled that once the JVC went back to them, it took me about a weekof watching before I felt good about my BenQ again.

You state that "It's the same unit with a different label" and that is incorrect. There were a couple of things changed in the projector to improve the contrast and allow for calibration at D65. These were improvements to the "tuning" of the light from the light source via optical component(s) and a change to the way the liquid crystal itself performs. Both are proprietary. The DLA-HX2 is an improvement to the DLA-HX1 based on development improvements engineered into the DLA-HD2K.
My wm calibrated HX2 gets b/t 500 and 550 lumens and 1250-1150 CR respectively with and w/o a CC filter. Don't ask me how it looks yet, we hang it in a few days...

Originally posted by Audie Scott

You state that "It's the same unit with a different label" and that is incorrect. There were a couple of things changed in the projector to improve the contrast and allow for calibration at D65. These were improvements to the "tuning" of the light from the light source via optical component(s) and a change to the way the liquid crystal itself performs. Both are proprietary. The DLA-HX2 is an improvement to the DLA-HX1 based on development improvements engineered into the DLA-HD2K.
Daniel was talking about the MAXX 1400. Are you talking about that one or the HX2?

You are correct. After I re-read Daniels post, I found the logic. It's been a baaaaaaad week.
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
Not open for further replies.