AVS Forum banner

18441 - 18460 of 29479 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,828 Posts
Supposedly "enhanced" is the correct one, but from what I've seen from others on here, and in my own experience, "standard" looks noticeably better.
In a D&M AVRs, enhanced should be selected if the cables can support 18gb/s. This is strictly a bandwidth setting, it doesn't affect video levels.

In the PJ, standard vs enhanced decides video levels, not bandwidth. Which is best depends on the source. Levels need to match, so settings should be checked with patterns. If you don't know, select auto which will choose the right setting depending on the source 99% of the time.

I prefer using standard, others (especially HTPC users who are also gamers or use their PC for non-video tasks) prefer enhanced. There again, it has to match if auto isn't used.

So there is not one recommendation that is best for all sources / situations re video levels, except auto if you don't know.

But re the AVR, it's definitely enhanced (higher bandwidth) for 4K content if your cables can take it, especially at 4K60p.

It is to limit incompatibility risks that the default in the AVR is set to standard (lower bandwidth).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,587 Posts
I never said it was broken, so please don't put these words in my mouth. I only said that once you notice what it does, if it does it with your sources/settings/TM, it's ugly and can't be unseen.
Saying something is unusable is essentially saying it's broken. It wasn't meant to put words in your mouth or cause offense.

The issue(crushing of highlights) has been spotted by many enthusiasts besides myself, for example @Javs, with earlier models, it's just not something that we keep mentioning because again, what's the point once JVC is aware and is working on a fix?

As for the other argument, there are many other elements at play than something being "noticed" by professionals or not.

I had been, for years, complaining about the CMS that was badly flawed as it causes an undersaturated picture when you target 100% sat. The saturations tracking is simply wrong, so you get nice looking charts at 100% sat, but an undersaturated picture if you check 75% sat and below. All those years, I mentioned it to JVC, to "professional" reviewers providing reports to JVC about possible flaws, it was NEVER aknowledged or fixed, UNTIL 3D LUTs and the JVC Autocal provided a solution/fix. Then, as soon as there was a way (against more money) to fix the issue, everyone agreed that the CMS was flawed and shouldn't be used.

Same for the gamma droop, that was a real issue that few people discussed or mentioned in reviews, until JVC provided the answer with the JVC Autocal.

These points are moot now, because with the JVC Autocal the CMS isn't necessary (and those who use the saturation control for more than a few clicks without checking their saturations are likely to make things worse), and you can fully address the gamma droop. But yes, the number of professional "seeing" a problem, when many of them rely either on projectors being sold to make a living or a review not being too negative to keep their job or sell advertisement or get the next review unit is not a reference.

There are very few reviewers I trust regarding JVCs, @Kris Deering is one of them, so when he tells us that there are no such artifacts on the rs3000 (which is confirmed by other users), I entirely trust him. I also trust Vincent Teoh, unfortunately he doesn't do projectors. In the UK, there is not a single reviewer I trust apart from him. The level of incompetence and bias is simply mindblowing.

So yes, when these artifacts are fixed (I'm sure they will be at some point) and a new f/w or a new model will address the issue, I expect they will be aknowledged by more people, simply because once there is a solution, there are more sales/installations/calibrations/reviews to be made.

In the meantime, as I said, if you don't see them, don't look for them and enjoy the DI. It's only ugly if you see them. I didn't see them for a long time, and I enjoyed my rs500 with the DI for a long time.

Again, over and out.
No one is saying there are not problems and that the DI couldn't use effort. I'm simply saying that your opinion feels exaggerated to me when all of us amateurs and professionals alike went years not observing this issue.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
920 Posts
The pumping is gone thanks to the higher black floor and lower dynamic contrast. There is no free lunch. /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif

The contrast is fine, but the black floor is significantly higher on fade to black. I don't mind about this given all the other improvements, but someone else could if for example they care more about picture quality when there is nothing on the screen (full black) than when there is something /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif.

When present, the yellowing is minor and only very brief in some situations. Most people would miss it unless they know what to look for and look at specific shots.

The highlights crushing depends on many things, primarily iris settings (most present with iris open, down to insignificant at -10 and closer), sources used and tonemapping/calibration settings.

You have to look at specific situations to see this happen, mostly very dark scenes with bright small objects (headlights, spotlights, etc). You have to compare DI on/DI off to actually see the amount of detail that vanishes when the DI is switched on. Otherwise, if does it job, it gives more apparent contrast to the picture, and if you don't know what's missing, you might never notice it. It took me a very long time to spot these on my rs500, before that I was very happy with the DI in HDR even with the iris fully open.

It not because you don't notice these artifacts that they are not present. And it's not because they are present in some setups with some settings that they are present in your setup, so you might not see them because there is nothing to see.

So if you don't see them, good for you, by all means don't look for them, but please don't make it sound that those who do see them invent them, or that it doesn't matter. In the projection world, what you see is never what someone else is going to see.

Once you see what it does, it's very ugly and frankly the DI becomes unusable, especially if you calibrate and care about an accurate picture. which is why if you don't see them, don't look for them.

I'm happy that you don't seem to be affected, and it doesn't matter if it's because the highlights crushing are present or not, but you keep posting as if you were on a mission to convince others that there aren't any DI artifacts on the new models. When someone asks specifically about DI artifacts, I don't think it's cool to send the message that these units are entirely artifact free. They are better than the previous models pumping-wise, but all DI artifacts are not gone (except for the rs3000 that seems to fair better).

Given that older models have exactly the same issue regarding highlights crushing, it's fair to say that if Coxy2416 doesn't see these on his X790, he probably won't mind them on the new units, should they be present with the sources/settings he'll use.
Unfortunately, I think the only thing that's misleading are your misinterpretations in your post above.

Nobody's ever said there was a free lunch or said that FTB on these models is equal to or better than the outgoing series. In fact, I posted my contrast measurements for the NX7 and X990. For HDR use with iris wide open, per practical use for better brightness, the perceptual difference in onscreen contrast was difficult to differentiate for me between the two models and in fact the black uniformity looks better on my NX7 than it did on my X990, and I attributed that to smaller pixel gaps. Coxy and I were having discussions about the two series in PMs yesterday evening. Hopefully, he can demo one.

As far as artifact-free, or a "mission," as you call it, I only speak or have spoken of what I've seen, mine and mine alone, pointed out that my findings sit more in Al's camp.

I'm sorry you're not having a good experience with your DI, I really am; but there's no need for rudeness and please stop reading into my posts and ascribing your own interpretations. Thank you.
I was able to demo an NX7 at a dealer near me but for some reason the only 4K content they have is through Netflix on an Apple TV. And their bandwidth must be terrible in the store as there was so much compression.

In order to truly see what this projector can do I would have to bring in my Shield and 4K content. I asked them why they just wouldn’t have a 4K Blu-ray player hooked up to it and they really didn’t have a great answer. They thought that the Netflix and Blu-ray looked really good. They are so wrong as my X790 would put their NX7 to shame they way it was showing.

But here are some of my impressions:

1) Very quiet operation. I’d say it’s equivalent to an eShift projector in 1080p mode with eShift off. So thats quiet enough for me.
2) On the limited content I was watching I did not notice the DI operation on HDR or SDR. But without viewing material I know can trick up my current DI I can not say for sure how much better it is.
3) The DI is waaaaay less aggressive then previous models. I actually had to check to see if I had it turned on at times.
4) The DI steps are much smaller. I stepped the NX7 down to -15 and the steps are certainly smaller then what the X790 will do.
5) I didn’t notice any corner bleeding on a black screen on this unit

I’ve seen the RS3000 properly setup and it is outstanding but well out of my price range. Properly setup I think the RS2000 can come close.

On a side note.

The new generation of projectors have a less aggressive DI so in turn you will get less pumping but ultimately less contrast. I think JVC has done this as they know the older generation had issue with HDR material and I am good with that. My viewpoint is that it will probably stay this way until they can somehow create a DI that works faster so it’s less noticeable.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,828 Posts
Saying something is unusable is essentially saying it's broken. It wasn't meant to put words in your mouth or cause offense.
This is what I said:

Once you see what it does, it's very ugly and frankly the DI becomes unusable, especially if you calibrate and care about an accurate picture. Which is why if you don't see them, don't look for them.
I stand by it.

I guess fair enough. Like the Greatest Showman screenshot I posted in response to this about a month ago, I don't see any blown out highlights. And I find it hard to call something that went unnoticed for years "unusable" and "very ugly".
If you don't see anything wrong in that clip, then you clearly don't see the issue, which is my point. That's great. Treasure that feeling. Don't look for it. If I could go back to that state, I would. Really.

Imagine me singing "I want to be like you" like King Louis to Mowgly in Jungle Book... :)

I mean it :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,587 Posts
This is what I said:



I stand by it.



If you don't see anything wrong in that clip, then you clearly don't see the issue, which is my point. That's great. Treasure that feeling. Don't look for it. If I could go back to that state, I would. Really.

Imagine me singing "I want to be like you" like King Louis to Mowgly in Jungle Book... :)

I mean it :)
I wouldn't expect you not to stand by it. Just clarifying that correlating unusable to broke wasn't meant to offend.

I posted a screen shot of that very scene in high lamp with the DI in Auto-1. Not a blown highlight to be found. I can repost it if you like. But really it's not needed. I believe what you're reporting. I simply don't feel that issue is nearly as severe as you feel it is.

But we can both agree that we hope it gets corrected and enhanced in the near future.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,828 Posts
I wouldn't expect you not to stand by it. Just clarifying that correlating unusable to broke wasn't meant to offend.

I posted a screen shot of that very scene in high lamp with the DI in Auto-1. Not a blown highlight to be found. I can repost it if you like. But really it's not needed. I believe what you're reporting. I simply don't feel that issue is nearly as severe as you feel it is.

But we can both agree that we hope it gets corrected and enhanced in the near future.
If there is no blown highlights in your setup, how can you disagree on how severe it is for those who DO have the issue? :confused:

I don't need you or anyone else to repost a picture showing no issue in your set-up with your sources and settings, more than I feel the need to post a picture showing she issue in my setup with my sources and settings.

I have said many times that depending on sources, settings (especially manual iris setting) and tonemapping, it can be present or not. Some even find that using BT2020 solves the issue for them (it doesn't for me).

Between those who don't see any issue because there is nothing to be seen, and those who don't see the issue because they don't notice it, that makes many happy people with the DI, which is great.

But until you actually see what it does, I really don't see how you can comment on the severity of the artifact. @SirMaster has posted a video of The Greatest Showman clearly showing what we see, hopefully if you were seeing this you would agree that it's ugly and would stop using the DI in HDR with the iris fully open. But if you think that even that is fine, more power to you :).

Anyway, let's agree that it can be corrected and enhanced in the future. I'll drink to that :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
172 Posts
I have warmed up the N5 just now and reset the pixel adjustment. I have attached some pictures showing how far it is out without any adjustment, surely it should be better than this from the factory so I wonder if it has taken a knock. I have then attached a photo after adjustment. I have also attached photos showing my final adjustments.

You can see why the blue needs a lot of fine adjustment because it is much further away from the green than the red is.

I forgot at the time but afterwards I held a piece of paper up to the screen and confirmed that my screen is holding back the sharpness slightly. I suppose this is to be expected with the paper being smooth and the "filmex" screen (a type of Spandex) being acoustically transparent.

To recap from earlier posts. The first time I turned on the N5 was after it was ceiling mounted. It was set for right side up and the menu was looking good. It was when I inverted the picture to Ceiling F in the menu that the convergence went completely out of whack. After resetting it just now I inverted it again after the pixels had been reset (from the menu) and it was way out both ways up.


Rather than ask directly for a replacement (initially anyway) I will contact the seller and JVC with my photos and see what they say.
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,799 Posts
as I said many times, it's certainly not a showstopper given the three workarounds...
I'm confused by your use of the term "showstopper" in several posts. Do you mean "deal breaker"???? It sort of reminds me of Inigo Montoya responding to Vizzini regarding "inconceivable", "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means" :rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,148 Posts
The only difference between the NX7 and NX5 are the extra HDR color filter that bring you from about 90% coverage to 100% coverage and the dual iris in the NX7 that brings more contrast especially as you close it down. There is also s bit more contrast naively due to maybe a different polarizer or better panel binning, but the difference to my eye between the 2 both at full open iris was pretty much indistinguishable.

For 160" IMO I would also go for the NX5 personally. You will be running full open iris as well as probably opting for not using the wide color filter.
Thanks just wondering whats your screen size?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
511 Posts
I'm confused by your use of the term "showstopper" in several posts. Do you mean "deal breaker"???? It sort of reminds me of Inigo Montoya responding to Vizzini regarding "inconceivable", "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means" :rolleyes:
Yes, he does mean deal breaker. It's a common term and he's using it correctly.. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,799 Posts
Yes, he does mean deal breaker. It's a common term and he's using it correctly.. :)
When something is referred to as a "show stopper", it typically means that everyone has to sit up and take notice. So, if the PJ is being described as "not a show stopper, considering the 3 available work arounds..." it confuses me. I'm asking whether or not it's correct to interpret his post as meaning that it's still a worthwhile investment, considering the available mechanisms to get around known deficiencies. Therefore, the deficiencies do not constitute a "deal breaker". No??
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,797 Posts
Thanks just wondering whats your screen size?
I only have a 140" 1.9:1 1.1 gain with my NX5.

My friend with a NX7 though has a 163" 2.35:1 0.94 gain.

He definitely uses the iris fully open and HDR wide filter off. Even with that he is only getting about 16 foot lamberts with a fresh bulb. There would be very little difference if even noticeable between a NX7 and NX5 in his setup conditions.

The only possible difference would be a slight better contrast with the NX7 for him but it's hard to saw how noticeable it would even be when comparing full open iris to full open iris. Best measurements I have seen show that it's maybe 50% more contrast at best and usually people say that it takes around 100% more to really notice a difference.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
511 Posts
When something is referred to as a "show stopper", it typically means that everyone has to sit up and take notice. So, if the PJ is being described as "not a show stopper, considering the 3 available work arounds..." it confuses me. I'm asking whether or not it's correct to interpret his post as meaning that it's still a worthwhile investment, considering the available mechanisms to get around known deficiencies. Therefore, the deficiencies do not constitute a "deal breaker". No??
Yes, that's correct. He was describing a flaw in the projector (DI) as not a show stopper, ie not a reason to not buy, given the workarounds to help resolve the issue.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,171 Posts
Yes, that's correct. He was describing a flaw in the projector (DI) as not a show stopper, ie not a reason to not buy, given the workarounds to help resolve the issue.
Definition of showstopper

1: an act, song, or performer that wins applause so prolonged as to interrupt a performance

2: something or someone exceptionally arresting or attractivethe gold crown was the showstopper of the exhibition

3: one that stops or could stop the progress, operation, or functioning of something





Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
511 Posts
Definition of showstopper

1: an act, song, or performer that wins applause so prolonged as to interrupt a performance

2: something or someone exceptionally arresting or attractivethe gold crown was the showstopper of the exhibition

3: one that stops or could stop the progress, operation, or functioning of something



Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Exactly. He was correctly using definition 3.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,628 Posts
Does the NX7 play 23.976 fps AND 24 fps? According to the manual, it says 24 fps but I don't know if it's 24 fps or 23.976 or both.


Sent from my iPhone X
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,148 Posts
I only have a 140" 1.9:1 1.1 gain with my NX5.

My friend with a NX7 though has a 163" 2.35:1 0.94 gain.

He definitely uses the iris fully open and HDR wide filter off. Even with that he is only getting about 16 foot lamberts with a fresh bulb. There would be very little difference if even noticeable between a NX7 and NX5 in his setup conditions.

The only possible difference would be a slight better contrast with the NX7 for him but it's hard to saw how noticeable it would even be when comparing full open iris to full open iris. Best measurements I have seen show that it's maybe 50% more contrast at best and usually people say that it takes around 100% more to really notice a difference.
that's still considered a big screen, just saw your setup looks nice and cozy!

i hope if i get the NX5 it will light up my 160...
 

·
aka jfinnie
Joined
·
4,233 Posts
Does the NX7 play 23.976 fps AND 24 fps? According to the manual, it says 24 fps but I don't know if it's 24 fps or 23.976 or both.
I beleive they do.
A related and interesting question for observant owners - does 25fps input cause disabling of low latency and some element of unavoidable MPC being enabled? On the X7900 it does. 50fps is fine and you get all the options you'd expect, but at 25fps you lose the ability to enable low latency and there is some detectable SOE regardless of MPC setting.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,587 Posts
If there is no blown highlights in your setup, how can you disagree on how severe it is for those who DO have the issue? :confused:

I don't need you or anyone else to repost a picture showing no issue in your set-up with your sources and settings, more than I feel the need to post a picture showing she issue in my setup with my sources and settings.

I have said many times that depending on sources, settings (especially manual iris setting) and tonemapping, it can be present or not. Some even find that using BT2020 solves the issue for them (it doesn't for me).

Between those who don't see any issue because there is nothing to be seen, and those who don't see the issue because they don't notice it, that makes many happy people with the DI, which is great.

But until you actually see what it does, I really don't see how you can comment on the severity of the artifact. @SirMaster has posted a video of The Greatest Showman clearly showing what we see, hopefully if you were seeing this you would agree that it's ugly and would stop using the DI in HDR with the iris fully open. But if you think that even that is fine, more power to you :).

Anyway, let's agree that it can be corrected and enhanced in the future. I'll drink to that :)
I've seen the video posted by SirMaster and am aware of the issue. It's what prompted posting the screenshot I took. I don't have an answer as to why I don't see it. As for whether or not it would keep me from using the DI I'd have to experience how often and how long the issue presented itself in a broad sampling of material. Is it something that could be solved with a minor tweak to something else? I'm sure if it happened frequently and I noticed it, I would turn it off.

As far as the severity, I don't have a breakdown of how many people are impacted to the point of considering the DI "ugly" and "unusable" vs. finding it unobtrusive and effective (or somewhere in between). And I realize that different settings can mitigate it to some degree. I do feel like something that was an issue for years without any of us really noticing may indicate it's more likely that people aren't going to find severe issues with it. But that's simply my opinion.

Hopefully the take away is that DI is something that an individual should experiment with to determine whether or not it's a benefit or a detriment to the picture. I don't mean to belabor this point, but it often feels like the DI is readily dismissed as a broken feature. But perhaps that's just a misinterpretation on my part.

I definitely agree it is something that warrants fixing and improved.
 
18441 - 18460 of 29479 Posts
Top