AVS Forum banner

2141 - 2160 of 13667 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,375 Posts
I’ve considered picking up a Sony 45es strictly to game on. 16-22 ms is pretty decent.
It would save some life on the JVC and I could leave the JVC set for 2.40 and Sony pillarboxed for 16:9 gaming.
Oof, I would at least go for a 4k Sony. In hindsight I didn't think the hw40es was really that good of a projector.

But if games input lag are that important to you. You should really wait for the upcoming Nvidia BFG series which were made specifically with this in mind. 10ms input lag running on 4k with NATIVE 120hz and gsync , very interesting specs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,862 Posts
Oof, I would at least go for a 4k Sony. In hindsight I didn't think the hw40es was really that good of a projector.
The hw40 and more so the vw90 and vw95 represented very good tech and value in their day. A vw95 with undegraded panels is still a decent 1080p performer albeit inferior to contemporary projector tech.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,375 Posts
Oof, I would at least go for a 4k Sony. In hindsight I didn't think the hw40es was really that good of a projector.
The hw40 and more so the vw90 and vw95 represented very good tech and value in their day. A vw95 with undegraded panels is still a decent 1080p performer albeit inferior to contemporary projector tech.
The lamp life was not good at all, as well as brightness uniformity and color uniformity issues. I originally exchanged my hw40es 2 times due to a green blotch tainting the image in the center in all of these projectors. Even the last one I got had the problem, just the least.

The x7900 I have is by far a superior device as a 1080p projector. I would personally prefer the x5900 over any non 4k Sony.
 
  • Like
Reactions: markmon1

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,019 Posts
They're not internally masked off; just if you have a 16:9 screen and you want to use the full height they are going to be in area of the screen off scanned off the sides of your screen.

Really the lumens are only valid for 17:9 screens (which absolutely nobody has...) . So unless you view on your 16:9 screen with black bars top and bottom you're really only going to see 94% of the specified lumens.

That's exactly why we're interested if JVC supports panamorph DCR which does both horizontal and vertical squeeze. Some of top end Sony's support it.

from what you experienced guys are saying about JVC scaling, even if they support DCR option the scaling won't be as good as madvr or lumagen. But do you think it would be passable if they did?
 

·
aka jfinnie
Joined
·
4,229 Posts
That's exactly why we're interested if JVC supports panamorph DCR which does both horizontal and vertical squeeze. Some of top end Sony's support it.

from what you experienced guys are saying about JVC scaling, even if they support DCR option the scaling won't be as good as madvr or lumagen. But do you think it would be passable if they did?
I don't know the answer to your question, but for such a close scaling ratio you'd really want to use as good a scaler as possible - it is a non-trivial task to get good results.

I really hope someone can put to JVC the question on the 16:9 throw changes. It looks like quite a few folk are going to be left with some construction work to accommodate an N5 or N7 in an existing DLA-X installation.

I must say that given the amount of pixels available and seating distances involved I really don't get the use of A-lenses on native 4K projectors - it's not like anyone needs the extra vertical resolution in the image, and these compression lenses don't gain you any extra throw. What is the point? (I'm not trying to be controversial - I really don't understand the benefit).
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,019 Posts
I find that electronics manufacturers use the word "New" very loosely. It could be considered "new" for this range of projectors. Or it was "new" last year but they still feel it is recently enough to call it "new".
Agree. 1st gen .69 4k chip came out in 2016, but engineers could still call it their "newest". Then when editing brochure, marketing shortened it to "new" just to save space mind you :rolleyes:

I do think better planarization is doable in two years, and its synergistic with an imroved wire grid polarizer. Relatively low hanging fruit to tweak existing set up instead of a whole new chip. As their chief engineer Rod Sterling says, they alternate between evolution and revolution on their designs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bobof

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,019 Posts
I don't know the answer to your question, but for such a close scaling ratio you'd really want to use as good a scaler as possible - it is a non-trivial task to get good results.

I really hope someone can put to JVC the question on the 16:9 throw changes. It looks like quite a few folk are going to be left with some construction work to accommodate an N5 or N7 in an existing DLA-X installation.

I must say that given the amount of pixels available and seating distances involved I really don't get the use of A-lenses on native 4K projectors - it's not like anyone needs the extra vertical resolution in the image, and these compression lenses don't gain you any extra throw. What is the point? (I'm not trying to be controversial - I really don't understand the benefit).

A lot of extra light without blowing out contrast. Squeeze the light of all the pixels down into the scope sized sceen. No wasted pixels just sitting there turned off. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,981 Posts
The hw40 and more so the vw90 and vw95 represented very good tech and value in their day. A vw95 with undegraded panels is still a decent 1080p performer albeit inferior to contemporary projector tech.
Right on there @Bytehoven. I had a HW40 and was great for gaming. I did not have any issues, and sometimes with I would have kept it. If one could be had for $500 or less, that would be a great buy, especially for 1080P gaming.
 

·
aka jfinnie
Joined
·
4,229 Posts
A lot of extra light without blowing out contrast. Squeeze the light of all the pixels down into the scope sized sceen. No wasted pixels just sitting there turned off. :)
OK, I get it now; for a PJ where you can keep the aperture closed a bit more for the same light output it does represent a significant contrast upgrade :). It sounds like in the 4K world that is the only real argument for it though as you are unlikely to actually need the extra pixels per inch thanks to limits of Eyeball 1.0.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,019 Posts
It seems that you have no space between your pixels and your fill ratio is 100%. Trigonometry also create too much rounding errors, I set up the formula X^2(16^2+9^2)=0.69^2 and solved for X. This gives the exact height and width of the chip. I then used the 3.8 micron gap and resolution to calculate the area used by the grid line to determine fill ratio. I also used other techniques to avoid unforced errors and the resulting fill ratio looks legitimate.

Edit: a quick and dirty check using dimensional analysis lead me to believe that if the chip has thousands of vertical/horizontal resolution (1*10^3) the pixel pitch should be in milli and not microns for units; or closer to 157 microns.

I still respect your good intent in fact checking my comments.


I respect your contribution and effort to keep the Science in AVS! :):):)




the chip is not 16:9, its 17x9.
That's why I used 4096 and 2160 in my calculations. And we don't want to solve for X, since its already known at .69"

a .69" chip is about .6103" horizontal X .3219" vertical
(roughly, JVC probably rounded .69" off lol)


There are 4096 horizontal pixels.
The absolute biggest pixel that we can fit 4096 of them in only .6103" inches room is a 3.78um pixel.


yes, exactly, good catch, this is indeed assuming a 100% fill ratio. Reason: what's the biggest that will fit assuming a perfect 0.0 gap? The actual pixel has to be smaller of course, but have to find the physical limit first. This defines the pixel pitch which in a 4K .69" inch chip ends up 3.78um (~ 3.8um)

If the gap is 3.8um, is not possible to fit any pixels in at all since the gap would be larger than the largest possible 3.78um pixel we can physically cram in! Maybe that's the secret of JVC's contrast, the pixels are negative in size and are sucking up light! :):rolleyes:;)


The only way to calculate fill ratio is if we knew what the actual gap is, or what the actual pixel size is. We do know pixel pitch is 3.78um. I supplied synopsis of calculations previously. Perhaps there's a fat finger in there.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,828 Posts
I may have missed it, but do we know what percentage of P3 the N5 covers without the color filter?
At least what the current models cover without a filter, which is around 90% of P3 (same as 4xx models without a filter). That’s what JVC says, but of course it needs to be confirmed independently.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,434 Posts
Seems silly to me to go to all the effort to get a native 4K panel and then scale by a small amount like that. Scaling to double fine, down scaling fine, but scaling up by a small fraction isn't a great idea for image fidelity, even with a Lumagen (I have a Pro).
It depends on the scaler. IIRC, the guys at Anchor Bay (DVDO) said that they don't scale up for small amounts like that, but scale up to say double, then scale back down. Scaling destroys all original pixels anyway, so it doesn't make much difference how you do it as long as the results are good (as per the video you've seen, and part two showed that). I don't know how projectors do it when doing the vertical stretch (or horizontal squish for 16:9 with the lens left in place), but if they're scaling to double then scaling back down that's probably not too difficult to do now, especially as it's not exactly new and it's just a single instance of scaling, rather than variable like in something like a Lumagen (which will possibly also do that better). I know using the Denon 7200 scaler for 1080 to 4k added image noise and wasn't as good as the scaler in the Panasonic UB700 for example.

With 4k and an A lens, you're making use of 2 million pixels that would otherwise get thrown away by zooming. I've not seen an A lens with 4k, but with 720, 1080 and 1080 with eshift there is a visible improvement over zooming (for me at my seating distances anyway) - the image appears more solid, probably due to the increased pixel density. Image noise will also be less intrusive due to it being smaller.

Although scaling can soften an image, when using more pixels and scaling compared to zooming, the image appears sharper and more detailed because the pixels being used to render the image are smaller (and more of them). They're not adding any detail of course, just interpolated, but the image doesn't look as coarse as a zoomed image which has 33% larger pixels over using an A lens on the same screen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
402 Posts
OK, I get it now; for a PJ where you can keep the aperture closed a bit more for the same light output it does represent a significant contrast upgrade :). It sounds like in the 4K world that is the only real argument for it though as you are unlikely to actually need the extra pixels per inch thanks to limits of Eyeball 1.0.
Yep, extra light and extra pixels. Paying for all those 4K disks and wasting light and resolution projecting black bars is a kick in the shorts. Right now i’m using the zoom method and it’s not terrible, I just know it could be that much better getting full resolution and 30% more light output from the projector on the screen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28,783 Posts
That's exactly why we're interested if JVC supports panamorph DCR which does both horizontal and vertical squeeze. Some of top end Sony's support it.

from what you experienced guys are saying about JVC scaling, even if they support DCR option the scaling won't be as good as madvr or lumagen. But do you think it would be passable if they did?
I guess you missed my earlier post regarding the scaling. The JVC projectors may use the scaling from the RS4500. We will find out about this at CEDIA. The reason this is of huge importance, Kris deering found the RS4500 was the only native 4k projector that could correctly display the 1080P single pixel pattern on the AVS 709 disc. That means the scaling in the 4500 is better than the scaling in the Sony projectors.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,019 Posts
I guess you missed my earlier post regarding the scaling. The JVC projectors may use the scaling from the RS4500. We will find out about this at CEDIA. The reason this is of huge importance, Kris deering found the RS4500 was the only native 4k projector that could correctly display the 1080P single pixel pattern on the AVS 709 disc. That means the scaling in the 4500 is better than the scaling in the Sony projectors.
Ah, did see your post about 4500 scaling being good with was indeed heartening. and now feel even better after your further clarification to a newbie, thanks :)

What I totally missed was just reusing 4500 scaling. With no changes that would be bad for DCR support since stock 4500 scaler doesn't support both horizontal and vertical squeeze right? Like you DCR helps my throw distance.


Thanks to you, arrow and ran for putting it on the long list of questions at IFA. Understand JVC could only answer so many in time available. Hopefully you and arrow can reveal this and more at cedia!

Thanks for all you guys do! :)

Edit: wow, just reread your point about AVS 709 single pixel pattern. Wow, still wrapping my head around that, I read it, but brain must have filtered it since just so bloody unexpected. Now I see why you say huge importance. Thanks for your patience with me and perseverance in matter :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28,783 Posts
I don't know the answer to your question, but for such a close scaling ratio you'd really want to use as good a scaler as possible - it is a non-trivial task to get good results.

I really hope someone can put to JVC the question on the 16:9 throw changes. It looks like quite a few folk are going to be left with some construction work to accommodate an N5 or N7 in an existing DLA-X installation.

I must say that given the amount of pixels available and seating distances involved I really don't get the use of A-lenses on native 4K projectors - it's not like anyone needs the extra vertical resolution in the image, and these compression lenses don't gain you any extra throw. What is the point? (I'm not trying to be controversial - I really don't understand the benefit).
The throw on the NX9 will be the same as the throw of the RS4500. But I forgot about one thing with the N5 and N7. The throw will be slightly different on the N5 and N7 compared to the current JVC lamp based projectors, because of the 17:9 chip size in the new JVC projectors.

The DCR lens can gain you a huge amount of added brightness.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28,783 Posts
I may have missed it, but do we know what percentage of P3 the N5 covers without the color filter?
Probably will not find out until tested. I suspect it will be at least the same if not greater than the RS440.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
54 Posts
I promised myself I wouldn't upgrade my x7900 unless it's laser but I'm really considering a n7 now lol.

Anyone know how much of an improvement a lumagen is over madvr? I currently have madvr doing my movies at very high settings on a 1080ti. Should I switch to lumagen with the n7 or is madvr better?

Sent from my SM-N950F using Tapatalk
 
2141 - 2160 of 13667 Posts
Top