[bass addict]

Isn't it 'convenient' that the variance has not swung in the other direction even once just yet?

Inter-unit variance or what you are calling it should swing both ways, then I am sure we would all just admit that's the nature of things.

We have three 9500 samples and three 9900 samples.

My 9500 has 800 hours on it. Woofers has 450 hours, yours has how many?

In all three cases, the 9900 was the dimmer projector by a minimum of 10%.

Woofers would actually be the worst, since he measured 22% BUT did not take into account a known reading when the 9500 was new, so accounting for that, sounds like his is the dimmest of the lot.

Mine is ~17% accounting for known 9500 OOTB measurements to compare them to.

Bingo. Not enough units yet to make a definitive assessment but you are bang on; the preliminary numbers aren't looking good.

 

[Highjinx]

You thinking aloud on these things with zero basis knowledge on what is going on turns into a page worth of replies, and thread newcomers reading things out of context and thinking its true and factual... Do you see how that can be a problem?

Brainstorming possibilities are never a problem!...I went to lengths to state I was thinking aloud.

Investigate the possibilities. Nothing is set in stone.

 

[Javs]

Brainstorming possibilities are never a problem!...I went to lengths to state I was thinking aloud.

Investigate the possibilities. Nothing is set in stone.

Well then, allow me to come up with something equally random..

Umm... The Ballast in the 9900's no longer provides the same voltage as before! Boom. Cost saving. Boom. Thats totally whats happening here.

 

[Highjinx]

Well then, allow me to come up with something equally random..

Umm... The Ballast in the 9900's no longer provides the same voltage as before! Boom. Cost saving. Boom. Thats totally whats happening here.

Now you're being silly! There would be zero cost saving!....but the lamp may last longer!

BTW you forgot to mention you were thinking aloud!

 

[ARROW-AV]

Isn't it 'convenient' that the variance has not swung in the other direction even once just yet?

Inter-unit variance or what you are calling it should swing both ways, then I am sure we would all just admit that's the nature of things.

We have three 9500 samples and three 9900 samples.

My 9500 has 800 hours on it. Woofers has 450 hours, yours has how many?

In all three cases, the 9900 was the dimmer projector by a minimum of 10%.

Woofers would actually be the worst, since he measured 22% BUT did not take into account a known reading when the 9500 was new, so accounting for that, sounds like his is the dimmest of the lot.

Mine is ~17% accounting for known 9500 OOTB measurements to compare them to.

Your right. It's a conundrum.

We are informed the hardware is unchanged.

Hence the assumption is that the hardware is unchanged.

Therefore, by deduction according to that assumption it can only be inter-unit variance.

However, if it transpires that irrespective of the quantity of units tested without exception ALL of the units tested are comparatively dimmer, then this can mean only one thing... namely that the assumption is incorrect...

Which would mean that the hardware is NOT unchanged... In which case, that means they've changed something, such as cheaper parts producing lesser performance for instance

However, I feel the need to stress that we are dealing with only a few samples here, so we can't even begin to draw any conclusions from this IMO...

:wink:

 

[Highjinx]

Which is why I have made a very deliberate point of stating in my deduction ^^^: "assuming it's the same hardware"

Because, of it transpires that it's NOT due to inter-unit dependent, then again by deduction that can mean only one thing... it's NOT the same hardware... They changed something!

Consequently, there are only two possibilities here, namely:

(1) It's inter-unit variance;

OR

(2) It's inter-model variance, because something hardware related has changed (e.g. a same part but manufactured elsewhere/more cheaply with lesser performance)

:wink:

Don't dismiss the possibility that firmware changes that control mechanical devices may have an effect!

Are any of these units meeting their advertised light output spec?

 

[ARROW-AV]

Don't dismiss the possibility that firmware changes that control mechanical devices may have an effect!

Firmware changes can be eliminated by deduction... I outlined this in my post ^^^^

:wink:

 

[ARROW-AV]

Fixed

I see what you did there...

.

 

[Highjinx]

Firmware changes can be eliminated by deduction... I outlined this in my post ^^^^

:wink:

They implemented a firmware change when they enabled the DI to function in HDR mode on the X9900. :wink: A rewrite/amendment to the firmware would have been required. That's a fact. So there was a firmware change.

Did they reduce the size of the 'fully open aperture setting' to aid a reduction in artifacts in HDR, hence could this contribute to the light loss we are seeing across the board possibly. Again only thinking aloud! ...No one, no one knows cause except for JVC.

So don't chastise me!

 

[bass addict]

JVC - What's most important to a consumer?

JVC tech - Black levels

JVC - How do we increase black levels without increasing cost?

JVC tech - Decrease the output

Next years models include a free roll of velvet to hang on your walls. Stated contrast increases by 100,000.

 

[Javs]

They implemented a firmware change when they enabled the DI to function in HDR mode on the X9900. :wink: A rewrite/amendment to the firmware would have been required. That's a fact. So there was a firmware change.

Did they reduce the size of the 'fully open aperture setting' to aid a reduction in artifacts in HDR, hence could this contribute to the light loss we are seeing across the board possibly. Again only thinking aloud! ...No one, no one knows cause except for JVC.

So don't chastise me!

Then dont write 2000 lumens on the box!

I think the theory you are suggesting is ridiculous, especially since I tested the brightness in SDR mode with no filter in the path and no HDR gamma selected.

 

[Highjinx]

Then dont write 2000 lumens on the box!

I think the theory you are suggesting is ridiculous, especially since I tested the brightness in SDR mode with no filter in the path and no HDR gamma selected.

Perhaps 'not sound' instead of 'ridiculous' is more apt verbiage, such territoriality! NOTHING is ridiculous is this type of investigation/discussion. Anyway.

Particularly interested in the brightness levels between the units(x9500/X9900), forget HDR, just SDR same settings, same globe, I know you swapped the globes.

Was there a difference between the light output between the two projectors using the very same globe and the identical settings.

Interested in the figures. Were they identical? if they were identical, my theory is not valid. If they were not equal(within a few % points), what is your hypothesis? Thanks.

 

[Tamas]

Speaking of bulbs!

Did any swap the bulb from a 9900 into a 9700 and remeasured the light output from the 9700?

That should confirm or eliminate Bulb variance.

 

[Javs]

Speaking of bulbs!

Did any swap the bulb from a 9900 into a 9700 and remeasured the light output from the 9700?

That should confirm or eliminate Bulb variance.

Yes, my outputs were essentially the same. I am not the best person to do this since my projectors were already the same brightness (but the 9900 should have been 17% brighter OOTB vs the 800 hours 9500.) But that could still point to a lamp issue!

Woofer did also switch bulbs, I believe he said the 9900 was still dim. This does not point to a lamp issue if so.

 

[Hellohowareyou]

Yes, my outputs were essentially the same. I am not the best person to do this since my projectors were already the same brightness (but the 9900 should have been 17% brighter OOTB vs the 800 hours 9500.)

Woofer did also switch bulbs, I believe he said the 9900 was still dim.

If that is the case, then you and woofer are coming out with two different results.
As in, if this was bulbs issue only, then woofer's results should have shown the 9900 to be about 20% brighter than the 9500 the moment he swapped the 9500 bulb in the 9900, but that did not happen. So, woofer's projector hardware has some definite issues.
On the other hand, if the reduced brightness was a projector hardware issue only, then the bulb swap on your projectors should have revealed a distinct reduction of light output on your 9900 the moment you placed the older 9500's bulb in it.

My hypothesis based on your and woofer only samples is that, the batch of 9900's that you all received have bad bulbs. Woofer has received a defective/bad projector, which additionally has a bad bulb.

 

[rlarsen462]

So was woofer's 9500 dimmer when he put the 9900 bulb in it? If not, it's something in the (his) 9900 hardware (or firmware) causing reduced output, QED...

 

[Javs]

So was woofer's 9500 dimmer when he put the 9900 bulb in it? If not, it's something in the (his) 9900 hardware (or firmware) causing reduced output, QED...

@woofer will have to answer with certainty.

 

[ARROW-AV]

@woofer will have to answer with certainty.

I will swap mine around here as well and let you know what happens...

:wink:

 

[ARROW-AV]

So was woofer's 9500 dimmer when he put the 9900 bulb in it? If not, it's something in the (his) 9900 hardware (or firmware) causing reduced output, QED...

I don't think it's the firmware, because I've tried turning off everything that's affected by the differences in the firmware and the luminance difference is exactly the same... I've measured it.

Therefore, if it's not inter-unit variance, then IMO something's been changed in the hardware...

:smile:

 

[Hellohowareyou]

I will swap mine around here as well and let you know what happens...

:wink:

I suspect, upon swapping, you will now see dimmer 9500 than the 9900, by about the same ballpark values as you were observing with the original bulbs. This should prove that this is simply a case of a bad batch of bulbs :smile: