AVS Forum banner

14221 - 14240 of 31276 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
29,413 Posts
I agree with that. But personally speculating that there may be release delays is not the same as saying "people are saying this won't be out for another year". There are no insiders that have any information on this so everyone is only speculating. In this case, there are no "people". The only inside information we have had is madshi, a member of this forum. And he says it'll be this year.

Perhaps if the main engineers at JVC were active members of this forum, there wouldn't have been needless speculation on the release schedule for this year's projectors, either.
That is not true. Those that know anything, have signed Non Disclosures. :)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,466 Posts
I haven't seen any signs of headway on getting Dolby Vision implemented for home projection. Will it eventually come? Maybe, but Dolby wants to ensure that the system gives the best results possible, which is difficult with the variables associated with projection. The only way I can see them doing it is if the mode is locked down (similar to ISF modes) and only activated by a qualified tech/calibrator that takes the necessary measurements for it to work properly. I could also see that mode being completely locked out once it's activated (similar to THX). Dolby also wants full control of the dynamic system, which could cause other issues for manufacturers. So hard to say if or when we'll see DV for projection.
It seems to me that some form of sensors built into the projector could be used to do some sort of off screen measurements to configure DV. The technology exists for a projector to know what level of nits is coming off the screen in its current configuration. It's also possible for a projector to know other things like how much ambient light is present.
For DV the actual DV processing has to know peak light output, gamut luminance and saturation capabilities and have full control of any dynamic contrast system. The first two are measured and input into the processor where the final tone mapping is generated for the system’s measured abilities. The latter is to control any artifacts and to maximize contrast on a scene by scene basis.

Just like flat panels this would require measurements from a tech or calibrator. I don’t see them implementing sensors on the projector to compute this. Cost prohibitive and leaves to many variables to chance.
 

·
aka jfinnie
Joined
·
4,357 Posts
And same specifications, which say there should be no problem.
I don't think this is very hard to explain at all if you study the specs carefully.

The specifications ARE NOT the same, so it is quite possible to have these kind of issues going from 65mm lens eShift to 65mm lens native 4K (N5/N7).

Firstly, the panels are 17x9 and the lens throw is the same and tied to the screen WIDTH. This means that at the same zoom position, you have less IMAGE HEIGHT. Vertical Lens shift amount then is a %age of IMAGE HEIGHT so straight away you can see that if you are setting your zoom to make the 17:9 panel width fill a certain width screen you will have lost vertical lens shift capability in inches.

Also, though the lens shift % is the same, note though there is a +/- 5% tolerance on throw and shift if I recall, so two units could be 10% apart in their capabilities and be within notional spec.

The two mean that the worst case scenario is going from an eShifter to an N5/N7 in an installation where the full zoom and panel width is being used eg scope screen like the OP, and you need the full 17:9 width because you were previously at max zoom. Add to that being a little unlucky with having two units at either end of the tolerance spec and you could be many inches out.

We can work an example:

100inch wide screen at maximum zoom using full panel width:
Panel image height for eshifter is ((100/16)*9) = 56.25". Nominal shift available is 56.25 * 80% = 45"
Panel image height for 4k 65mm is ((100/17)*9) = 52.94". Nominal shift available is 52.94 *80% = 42.35"

So you are already almost 3" down on vertical shift at the nominal shift position.

Now add best case tolerance to the eShift and worst case to the 4k:
eShift 45 * 1.05 = 47.25"
4k 65mm 42.35 * 0.95 = 40.23"

So worst case with 100" wide scope screen that was at full zoom on an eShifter you could be up to 7" short of lens shift range, so if you are already at the bottom of your shift you could easily be in need of a new mount or keystone (yuk).

That equates to a greater than 17% loss of lens shift if you were unlucky with the lens shift tolerance and you need the full panel width due to limited throw.
 

·
aka jfinnie
Joined
·
4,357 Posts
For DV the actual DV processing has to know peak light output, gamut luminance and saturation capabilities and have full control of any dynamic contrast system. The first two are measured and input into the processor where the final tone mapping is generated for the system’s measured abilities. The latter is to control any artifacts and to maximize contrast on a scene by scene basis.

Just like flat panels this would require measurements from a tech or calibrator. I don’t see them implementing sensors on the projector to compute this. Cost prohibitive and leaves to many variables to chance.
There were some mumblings around the launches of the Sony 760 etc lasers that the autocalibration sensor they had built in would be enough for a DV capability, though I see Sony bill it as a colour sensor, not a luminance sensor. Do you know how that sensor works? Is it aimed at the screen (so could measure peak luminance) or is it taking a measure direct out of the optical engine without leaving the unit?

Not withstanding of course all the other discussions about whether Dolby see this as a market they could ever make a ROI from (given the comparatively tiny volumes).
 

·
Registered
JVC RS4500 | ST130 G4 135" | MRX 720 | MC303 MC152 | B&W 802D3, HTM1D3, 805D3, 702S2 | 4x15 IB Subs
Joined
·
8,821 Posts
That is not true. Those that know anything, have signed Non Disclosures. :)
If there are those that have inside info and cant say anything due to signing NDAs, how is that different than having no insiders at all? Or are you saying that those same folks are the ones on here that have violated the NDAs and said it's shipping in 2020?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,233 Posts
It seems to me that some form of sensors built into the projector could be used to do some sort of off screen measurements to configure DV. The technology exists for a projector to know what level of nits is coming off the screen in its current configuration. It's also possible for a projector to know other things like how much ambient light is present.
can't the peak luminance not be just bunged in as a number ? or slid across on a scale ?

cant the projector then do its scaling / tone mapping from there to suit ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
68 Posts
Mounting RS400 vs RS1000

I had a RS400 and now the RS1000 and yes it was less on the 1000 and had to get a pole projecting from the same distance.
I used the same mount on my new RS1000 that was used on my RS400. I had to move the projector back about 8 1/2 inches to fill my 134 inch 16 x 9 screen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,896 Posts
I used the same mount on my new RS1000 that was used on my RS400. I had to move the projector back about 8 1/2 inches to fill my 134 inch 16 x 9 screen.
Thanks, r u suggesting without moving your pj back, the new pj would not have filled the screen the way your rs400 did?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29,413 Posts
If there are those that have inside info and cant say anything due to signing NDAs, how is that different than having no insiders at all? Or are you saying that those same folks are the ones on here that have violated the NDAs and said it's shipping in 2020?
I am just saying, anybody that knows anything about the product has signed an NDA and is not talking about what was discussed with them. Stuff outside of what was told to them can be speculated. Your statement about it only being Madshi is not correct. There are several people involved and will know the specifics, they just are not going to talk.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
550 Posts
As my current input chain is not good enough, is there a way to test the optical quality of my N7 standalone ?

I mean is the focus menu good enough ?

With my old X75 (e-shift off) I could focus to actually see the pixel structure, with this N7 I cannot however hard I try.
The red and blue convergence seem to be good as in the centre there's no red or blue visible, just the plain white cross lines, however I find them a bit fuzzi , still as good up to the top right screen limit without correction, but not so on the left side, I'd say 1/2 to 3/4 of a pixel zone adjust should be required there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
947 Posts
I don't think this is very hard to explain at all if you study the specs carefully.

The specifications ARE NOT the same, so it is quite possible to have these kind of issues going from 65mm lens eShift to 65mm lens native 4K (N5/N7).

Firstly, the panels are 17x9 and the lens throw is the same and tied to the screen WIDTH. This means that at the same zoom position, you have less IMAGE HEIGHT. Vertical Lens shift amount then is a %age of IMAGE HEIGHT so straight away you can see that if you are setting your zoom to make the 17:9 panel width fill a certain width screen you will have lost vertical lens shift capability in inches.

Also, though the lens shift % is the same, note though there is a +/- 5% tolerance on throw and shift if I recall, so two units could be 10% apart in their capabilities and be within notional spec.

.........
You're overthinking this.

Although, the new panels are indeed 17:9, the RECOMMENDED size is still 3840x2160. In fact, there seems to be no device other than a HTPC which can go beyond 16:9. I have Oppo, Panasonic and Sony players, Roku and Tivo and none of them have and option for 4096x2160. Even in the case of the HTPC, the RECOMMENDED size is 3840x2160. So, unless JVC states EXPLICITLY that the specifications are now based on 4096, a reasonable assumption is that they are based on 3840.

In addition, nothing in the discussion that went before indicated that the OP was working with anything other than 3840x2160.

I have never seen anything that puts a +/-5% tolerance on the 80% vertical shift. Instead, it seems to be universally accepted as a MINIMUM. It's certainly possible that the OP was beyond 80% on his original installation and that the new projector would not go that far, but that is obviously beyond the scope of my argument.

Your numbers based on 17x9 are certainly useful for anyone setting things up that way, but, in my opinion, are beyond anything stated in the manual. As far as the +/-5% tolerance, you will have to give a specific reference before I will accept that.

I don't expect this to make you change your opinion, but I do want to make it clear to anyone reading this that it is only one opinion and that it is probably not shared by the majority of users.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,149 Posts
You're overthinking this.

So, unless JVC states EXPLICITLY that the specifications are now based on 4096, a reasonable assumption is that they are based on 3840.
Indeed they do. The throw distance of the RS1000 is the same as the e-shift models only when you use the full width of 4096 pixels. As an example, for a 120” diagonal screen, the minimum distance of the RS1000 is 3.62m for 17:9 and 3.82m for 16.9, whereas for the e-shift models it is 3.62m for 16:9.

This means that from the same distance the RS1000 image height is less than before.

Source: JVC owners manuals.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,466 Posts
There were some mumblings around the launches of the Sony 760 etc lasers that the autocalibration sensor they had built in would be enough for a DV capability, though I see Sony bill it as a colour sensor, not a luminance sensor. Do you know how that sensor works? Is it aimed at the screen (so could measure peak luminance) or is it taking a measure direct out of the optical engine without leaving the unit?

Not withstanding of course all the other discussions about whether Dolby see this as a market they could ever make a ROI from (given the comparatively tiny volumes).
ROI could definitely influence as well. They may look at the additional R&D involved and how many units move and think that it isn't worth it in the long run. Hard to say.

As for the sensor in the Sony, it is in the light path and is used to measure the internal properties and return wherever you are to what it was when it left the factory. So it doesn't "calibrate" per se, only get you back as close as possible to factory. This wouldn't work for DV. I also don't think the idea people have of some sensor on the outside that measure the screen would work. Distance, angle to screen and more would compromise that way too much. If they installed a Spectro on a lens cap (ala Marantz back in the day) it might give them colorimetry, but you'd still have to take into account the quality of a sensor that is used. And once you start getting more solid state options, that becomes even more difficult based on wavelength.

can't the peak luminance not be just bunged in as a number ? or slid across on a scale ?

cant the projector then do its scaling / tone mapping from there to suit ?
If you want to half ass it, sure. But Dolby isn't going to stake the reputation of their HDR system on a half ass implementation like that.
 

·
aka jfinnie
Joined
·
4,357 Posts
You're overthinking this.

Although, the new panels are indeed 17:9, the RECOMMENDED size is still 3840x2160. In fact, there seems to be no device other than a HTPC which can go beyond 16:9. I have Oppo, Panasonic and Sony players, Roku and Tivo and none of them have and option for 4096x2160. Even in the case of the HTPC, the RECOMMENDED size is 3840x2160. So, unless JVC states EXPLICITLY that the specifications are now based on 4096, a reasonable assumption is that they are based on 3840.

In addition, nothing in the discussion that went before indicated that the OP was working with anything other than 3840x2160.

I have never seen anything that puts a +/-5% tolerance on the 80% vertical shift. Instead, it seems to be universally accepted as a MINIMUM. It's certainly possible that the OP was beyond 80% on his original installation and that the new projector would not go that far, but that is obviously beyond the scope of my argument.

Your numbers based on 17x9 are certainly useful for anyone setting things up that way, but, in my opinion, are beyond anything stated in the manual. As far as the +/-5% tolerance, you will have to give a specific reference before I will accept that.

I don't expect this to make you change your opinion, but I do want to make it clear to anyone reading this that it is only one opinion and that it is probably not shared by the majority of users.
These are not opinions, they are facts. You are seeing several posts here from folk who have had to adapt their mount position (either drop or throw).

For what it is worth 17:9 is the first listed column in the user manual throw tables and is the only aspect with throw - screen width parity with the outgoing series.
The N5/7 manual is decidedly non-committal and itself states "Up to about 80%" for lens shift.
The 5% tolerance is discussed in this calculator spreadsheet from JVC Europe:
http://habitech.s3.amazonaws.com/Excel/JVC_Projector_Calculator_v4.xls
Additionally the +/-5% tolerance has made it onto several bits of JVC documentation (brochures, flyers, manuals) in the past.
(google 5% JVC PROJECTOR TOLERANCE)

By all means, feel free to discount this information's validity for your own installation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29,413 Posts
These are not opinions, they are facts. You are seeing several posts here from folk who have had to adapt their mount position (either drop or throw).

For what it is worth 17:9 is the first listed column in the user manual throw tables and is the only aspect with throw - screen width parity with the outgoing series.
The N5/7 manual is decidedly non-committal and itself states "Up to about 80%" for lens shift.
The 5% tolerance is discussed in this calculator spreadsheet from JVC Europe:
http://habitech.s3.amazonaws.com/Excel/JVC_Projector_Calculator_v4.xls
Additionally the +/-5% tolerance has made it onto several bits of JVC documentation (brochures, flyers, manuals) in the past.
(google 5% JVC PROJECTOR TOLERANCE)

By all means, feel free to discount this information's validity for your own installation.
Yes, but your math is based on the two extremes. Pretty remote odds of buying two projectors and one ending up +5% and the other ending up being -5% on the range. But yes, it is possible. Just like winning the lottery is possible.
 

·
aka jfinnie
Joined
·
4,357 Posts
Yes, but your math is based on the two extremes. Pretty remote odds of buying two projectors and one ending up +5% and the other ending up being -5% on the range. But yes, it is possible. Just like winning the lottery is possible.
The lottery thing is a false equivalence. There is 50% chance that your new projector will have some amount less lens shift than your existing projector, disregarding factors of 17:9 vs 16:9, so if you are on the limit a 50% chance you wouldn't hit the same position. That is why you should allow the 5% in your installation against the spec.

The reason for using the extremes was to show why the amount of movement the original poster had said they'd needed to deploy was a reasonable amount to have had to move their projector. Of course I'm not suggesting all projectors will be this far apart (in fact I was very clear this was a worst case). But the poster I was replying to was saying there was no reason in the specs for why it could have happened, and I'm showing that quite clearly there is.
 
14221 - 14240 of 31276 Posts
Top