Here is the post I quoted in my reply to you:With the utmost respect I do think my observations make sense. So let's agree to disagree regarding this if that's OK
I made very clear that I was referring specifically to SDR with respect to the -10 iris setting, so you have not corrected my statement, but have simply repeated what I already said. You might want to go back and reread my posts
It was the second time (at least) that you stated it was a non issue, mentioning typical screen sizes, without mentioning SDR. Sorry but that's exactly what you wrote. If you had qualified your statements as applying only to SDR or UK sized screen, why would I have corrected you? We've all been saying this for weeks And if you did state this in previous posts and I missed it, then I apologize.Nice theory, but in practice if deliberate you would not choose to boost the red, because red light is the weakest regards increasing image luminance; so you would choose to boost blue and/or green.
No I really don't think this is deliberate, but a unintentional flaw/fault, and as such it is something that needs fixing. Although, as far as the latest JVC RS3000/NX9 that I evaluated is concerned the issue is for all intensive purposes with respect to typical screen sizes pretty much a non-issue.
No, I haven't tested all three models, but unlike you (from your own admission) I read this thread, so I have compiled feedback from many users reporting various issues and various degrees of issues and I have read feedback from reviewers and users I trust. I have commented on the impact on the manual iris setting for *all* models, including the previous gen. They had similar issues, and the workaround has always been the same. I haven't found that earlier post, but I explained clearly (other had done so before, I might even have linked to an earlier reference post) that as you reduce close the manual iris, the artifacts are reduced, simply because the iris has less work to do. It was the same when we had pumping on credits, or gamma artifacts on the first models with a DI: reduce the manual iris setting, hence reduce the amount of work for (and benefit from) the DI, and the artifacts progressively go away. If you look at the iris, you will see that below -10 it barely moves anyway on the new models. It's most closed position if much more open than with previous gens.Yes, you have clearly previously posted your own observations and feedback, including the fact that very few artefacts are seen when the iris is closed to -10 or below... HOWEVER, and please correct me if I am wrong, were you referring to a JVC RS3000/NX9, which is what I have been evaluating? Or was it by any chance a JVC RS2000/N7? Because we cannot assume that different models will behave in precisely the same exact manner; where in fact, it would appear that there are aspects that affect the latter which do not seem to afflict the former, such as the gamma crush that you have previously astutely observed and pointed out.
Have you personally comprehensively evaluated all three models yourself, namely JVC RS3000/NX9, JVC RS2000/N7, and JVC RS1000/N5? If not, then what is your problem regarding there being more than one person carrying out investigations regarding the different models?
And I certainly don't have any problem with more than one person making observations (many others have done so in the thread), as long as they don't come up with the wrong conclusion (this is a non issue on typical screen sizes) or make it look like they have found some kind of workaround which 1) has been discussed many times and 2) is not a workaround for most/many people, at least in HDR.
Again, please reread my posts properly. You will note that I do not recommend setting the iris to anything lower than 0 for HDR. In fact, I state that most people won't want to reduce the iris setting with HDR due to needing the higher light output.
Yes, in old posts, for sure. Not in your recent posts declaring the yellowing a non-issue for typical screen size, as if closing the iris was a solution for HDR content as well. Reread your quote above in bold....
Question: Is "the calibration thread for the new models" on this forum? It isn't... is it? Because 'here' = this forum, not over 'there' in another forum.
If you've previously posted something that is the same as I have, but in a completely different forum, then you are hardly in a position to criticize me for posting something similar on this forum
Either way, sorry to have clearly irritated you by posting "nothing new" but it looks like some folks found what I posted to be of interest and at least some usefulness... But anyway
When will you read my posts?
1) I posted quite a few links from this forum (at your request)
2) I reminded you that I sent you a month ago by email the full report I sent to JVC, in which I mentioned all the tests and the workaround
3) Yes, there is on top of that a full thread in another forum where you can get some information if you are interesting in these new models. I mentioned it in addition to the other sources (at your request by the way), two from this forum and one email in your mailbox, to which your replied just to remind you
4) You haven't irritated me at all. The bold and large letters in the previous post were *not* directed at you. I even said that, clearly, but you're not reading what I write
Again, it's clear you haven't read my posts properly, so let's leave it there... I have never said "there is no issue with the DI" have I? Go and read what I actually said will you, without twisting it or taking stuff out of context. Thanks
Pot? Kettle? Black? Read my previous post, you will see that the bold wasn't directed at you!!!!!!!!!
No, you simply haven't read my last post entirely. I guess that the danger when you put big bold letters is that some people will only read theseAnd again, sorry to have irritated you by apparently posting "what has been posted many times". I must have missed your posts with all the same measurements and data that I posted
I stated the exact opposite, so I'm not sure where that comes from. I said clearly that your measurements were useful to confirm what we had visually observed. Again, read my posts (not only the part in big, large letters that was NOT intended to you), that should clear things up.Well sorry to hear that you consider my posts to be "pointless"... I clearly must try harder in future!
I was asking you to do something about this, as you were asking for some links to put in the first post. Again, anything you can do IN THE FIRST POST to limit these posts due to people who don't read the thread would be useful. But they probably won't read the first post either I guess
Hopefully you'll be even happier when you'll realize how much of this was a misunderstandingEither way, glad you feel better. If you're happy, I'm happy