AVS Forum banner

7601 - 7620 of 7624 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,415 Posts
What sort of price are you talking. Or rather percentage off retail price? Seriously if you can get it about the same price as an nx7 I'd be on the nx7 thread asking them to convince me to get a bulb unit over a laser. I wouldn't be here....
55 percent off retail...33 percent more than my best price on the nx-7...if the Sony came with a Sony 1 year warranty, I’d probably jump but 90 days is insufficient in my mind...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,881 Posts
55 percent off retail...33 percent more than my best price on the nx-7...if the Sony came with a Sony 1 year warranty, I’d probably jump but 90 days is insufficient in my mind...
Then your choice is surely already made. (y)
I mean, if the warranty simply doesn't stack up for you financially or value wise, then why waste time trying to be convinced about it when such an intrinsic and important part of your purchase making decision won't be changed by anything said here?:confused:
 

·
ABSOLUTE ULTIMATE AV
Joined
·
5,699 Posts
I've done LOTS of side-by-side comparisons of calibrated and light matched Sony vs JVC for crowds and private showings. Probably at least 8-10 of them now. Painstakingly going through to make sure each projector is as optimized as possible in respect to their performance. And I'm sorry, on-screen contrast performance is not very close, and we're not talking about just a black screen. The JVC outperforms the Sony in every single test we do for super dark, somewhat dark and anything in between. The difference is extremely obvious too. The last one I did was an event in Denver with (I believe) a Sony 885 or 995 against a NX5 and the difference was still substantial in side by side viewing. We spent at least an hour looking at mixed content from super dark to super bright nature videos. No one could EVER find content that dynamic range looked better on the Sony than the JVC. Eventually you hit a point where they both look about the same for dynamic range, but you never see the Sony pull ahead. But there is A LOT of content the JVC looks substantially better.

This is one of the main reasons that the CR graphing that Arrow uses (I have them in my reviews as well) is easy to interpret as something more than it is. I've seen it reference WAY too much as some indicator or performance that I honestly don't think it represents. It does not take at all into account the actual black floor and it doesn't show you ANYTHING about how the human eye response is to rising APL and optical comparison. I've been doing controlled objective contrast testing for well over a decade now with so many comparisons to different display technologies in environments that actually support high ANSI and have painstaking methods for ensuring nothing is compromising the tests from the room/equipment. And time and again the results bear out the same. So many naysayers have come to see the tests first hand only to realize the results speak for themselves (including projector manufacturers).

Now these comments don't mean the Sony 885 is a bad projector, it is easily one of the best on the market today. But there is no way I can even remotely agree with people saying they look similar in contrast to a JVC or outperform it visually with respect to dynamic range. Both the Sony and JVC line have their faults for sure, and I'm more than happy to list the ones that come to mind for either anytime, but this contrast talk is way off.
Couple of things here.

Firstly, my measurements do indeed take into account the black floor. I publish the white level measurement and hence the black level is simply this divided by the ON/OFF contrast. Simples.

Secondly, the only way of knowing what is going on with respect to contrast / dynamic range and correspond black level with respect to all video content is by taking the corresponding full range contrast measurements wherein 99.5% of video content resides between 0% ADL (= ON/OFF) and 50% ADL (= ANSI).

Thirdly, I think your A-B comparison results that you have experienced have more to do with the measured difference in full range ADL contrast performance than it does with respect to the difference in behaviour by the human eye in response to rising ADL. Wherein, what you have been subjectively observing with respect to your side-by-side comparisons of calibrated and light matched Sony vs JVC is not actually at all surprising and is in fact objectively confirmed by the full range contrast measurements and charts.

See here for example... this is the Sony 885/760ES as compared directly with the JVC RS540/X7900:



As you can clearly see the Sony crosses over the JVC at circa 3.5% ADL. Therefore with respect to the sizeable range 0% - 3.5% ADL the JVC is king and outperforms the Sony. Furthermore, despite the fact that the Sony crosses over the JVC the difference in contrast performance thoughout the rest of the range is tracks pretty close to the JVC.

Consequently it can be inferred from the comparative full range contrast data that the JVC will have better contrast and black level performance throughout the sizeable range of 0% - 3.5% ADL and with respect to vast majority of the rest of the range the perceived performance will be similar.... which directly correlates with your subjective observations.

Now THIS on the other hand is an entirely different kettle of fish:



The Christie Griffyn AS crosses over the Sony GTZ380 at only 0.4% ADL with significantly higher performance throughout the rest of the range with up to 4.8 times greater ADL contrast performance. Now THIS most certainly IS perceivable, and significantly so! 🙂
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,415 Posts
Then your choice is surely already made. (y)
I mean, if the warranty simply doesn't stack up for you financially or value wise, then why waste time trying to be convinced about it when such an intrinsic and important part of your purchase making decision won't be changed by anything said here?:confused:
I’m really trying to choose between an NX-9 or the 885...The NX-9 is substantially more than the 885...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,881 Posts
I’m really trying to choose between an NX-9 or the 885...The NX-9 is substantially more than the 885...
Ahhh right. The point still remains though. The warranty is not acceptable to you, so I assume the 885 would have to be a LOT cheaper for it to make sense. There is always the chance it won't need warranty work however. These are the choices we make and the chances we take. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: asharma

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,881 Posts
Couple of things here.

Firstly, my measurements do indeed take into account the black floor. I publish the white level measurement and hence the black level is simply this divided by the ON/OFF contrast. Simples.

Secondly, the only way of knowing what is going on with respect to contrast / dynamic range and correspond black level with respect to all video content is by taking the corresponding full range contrast measurements wherein 99.5% of video content resides between 0% ADL (= ON/OFF) and 50% ADL (= ANSI).

Thirdly, I think your A-B comparison results that you have experienced have more to do with the measured difference in full range ADL contrast performance than it does with respect to the difference in behaviour by the human eye in response to rising ADL. Wherein, what you have been subjectively observing with respect to your side-by-side comparisons of calibrated and light matched Sony vs JVC is not actually at all surprising and is in fact objectively confirmed by the full range contrast measurements and charts.

See here for example... this is the Sony 885/760ES as compared directly with the JVC RS540/X7900:



As you can clearly see the Sony crosses over the JVC at circa 3.5% ADL. Therefore with respect to the sizeable range 0% - 3.5% ADL the JVC is king and outperforms the Sony. Furthermore, despite the fact that the Sony crosses over the JVC the difference in contrast performance thoughout the rest of the range is tracks pretty close to the JVC.

Consequently it can be inferred from the comparative full range contrast data that the JVC will have better contrast and black level performance throughout the sizeable range of 0% - 3.5% ADL and with respect to vast majority of the rest of the range the perceived performance will be similar.... which directly correlates with your subjective observations.

Now THIS on the other hand is an entirely different kettle of fish:



The Christie Griffyn AS crosses over the Sony GTZ380 at only 0.4% ADL with significantly higher performance throughout the rest of the range with up to 4.8 times greater ADL contrast performance. Now THIS most certainly IS perceivable, and significantly so! 🙂
The older JVC's are an order of magnitude better in contrast to even their own native 4k models, so it is a shame the 885 wasn't being compared to a newer model in that chart.
The extra pixel fill alone reduces contrast on native 4k devices.
I was referring to your 995/nx9 chart. Which showed a larger differential.
Unit variance notwithstanding of course. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: HoustonHoyaFan

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,987 Posts
I'm.... I'm sorry, but @ARROW-AV has said on many occasions there is no other way to interpret that chart other than what it is/shows.
And I've said many times that I don't agree with him on that, and continue to do so. While some here may take Nigel at 100% for everything he says, I don't. I respect Nigel and have had many conversations with him on the phone and a few in person, we do not see eye to eye on everything.

Moreover though, it is how they look to the eye that really matters. Charts measurements and doohickeys can give you all the data in the world but when your eyes tell you that one looks great even though the specs, charts and measurements say it isn't happening, well, I will go with my eyes thanks.
And I am not saying you are wrong for this. I've said many times that most projectors nowadays look great, especially when viewed on their own. If side by side comparisons were not done, the differences in viewing a Sony and a JVC wouldn't be nearly as striking, and most people will never see that direct comparison done properly or at all. And I already mentioned that the Sony is better than the majority of the projectors on the market today. Again, my comments were not meant to disparage the Sony, only this misnomer that dynamic range on the Sony is going to be visibly better at any point because the chart says so.

You are basically discounting peoples personal accounts and findings as not possible.
If the Sony's are as bad as you seem to often imply contrast wise, how the hell do they even manage to sell any?
What personal accounts? How many people have done true objective side by side comparisons? VERY few. I find it funny how EVERY time I do them with people, including Sony owners, the results more than speak for themselves. It is only the people who didn't attend or have never done it that we go round and round with. And I've already mentioned why they sell lots of them, THEY ARE EXCELLENT PROJECTORS. There are other factors as well, but we won't get into that.

As for the contrast, I don't care about measurements etc, when what you see can contradict them. When you watch a device with twice the contrast on any scene above 1.5% ADL it makes itself obvious. It really does.
No comment.

I still can't see how Nigel's charts can be misinterpreted, as they clearly show what is happening. Also what it to stop the black floor rising as brightness increases? Maybe that is happening in the JVC?
I am pretty sure you would quote Nigel's contrast chart all the time if it gave a result you could fully get behind.
Pretty sure I do my own measurements of projectors and don't need to rely on Nigel for anything. Pretty sure I do my own side by side testing (and have been for LONG before Nigel was even in this game) and don't need Nigel for that. I also understand there is more going on with perception of contrast that what that chart plots out. Again, it doesn't take into account eye perception of contrast or even how the room influences it. There are lots of other factors that time and time again show those charts are not a de facto standard for how we experience dynamic range.

Anybody can twist any chart or data set to fit their narrative if they really want to, that it why it is important for anyone and everyone to watch your prospective purchases in person if at all possible before deciding.
I'm well aware, it has a lot to do with this current conversation.

What your eyes see can belie the measurements.
I'm well aware, it has a lot to do with this current conversation.

It's funny really, I pick apart any and every make on here, having recently been rounded on by the Sony 'fan base/reseller buddies' for my observations on the GTZ380 (even though I constantly stated how good it was in it's own right) and I will now no doubt get rounded on by the much larger JVC 'army' after this, but I say it like I SEE it not how numbers tell me I should see it. I can only look at the world through my own (rather fantastic, even if I say so myself ) eyes. :cool:

A DLP with only 10,000:1 contrast should not look better than a JVC with x00,000:1 contrast. Ummm, but it does.

But it's brighter I hear you say.... But, brightness can be detrimental can it not? Make your minds up!
You fall into the same trap. It wasn't long ago I was arguing with you because you were falling for the Sony marketing trap hook, line and sinker, and insisting that because a marketing sheet said one thing and my testing was another, I was only saying it because I'm some JVC fanboy and now I see you on your crusade saying the same things I was saying back then about issues with their processing and such. It always comes around. I don't sell projectors so I honestly don't care which one people buy. I recommend Sony and JVC projectors all the time, I set up and calibrate both models all the time. If I WAS selling projectors it would make WAY more sense to push Sony given the much higher margins they offer (which is why I find it funny that people accuse AVScience sales of being JVC shills when they'd make way more money pushing Sony).

I also understand that when you are trying to compare contrast, you have to brightness match projectors. Nigel knows this as well. If you are comparing brightness directly, by all means, don't match them. Anyone that knows what they are doing would never spec a JVC for a screen it shouldn't be spec'ed for (I go through this A LOT with my business). The JVC is not a perfect projector for every project out there and you'd never hear me say that. And I also don't really see the point in comparing it to a projector that is obviously designed for a MUCH different application (Gryffyn/380) and price points that are not even remotely in the same galaxy. However, I'd be really interested in seeing a brightness matched comparison of them so I could see these "huge differences".

So......
Sony and lasers; A winning combo it would seem even though they still have brought nothing truly new to the table, except different shades of lipstick, since 2017.
I guess we'll agree to disagree on this. Far better than the vast majority of projectors out there, but still with LOTS of issues that continue to go unresolved. There is not a chance that I would recommend ANY of the projectors Sony has with a retail less than $50K over the JVC lineup at this moment. It just doesn't make any sense when you look at the pros and cons of each (and pricing here in the US). However I would recommend them over the vast majority of anything else out there. The 5000/380 are different because they are competing for a different market of high brightness projectors and clearly differentiate themselves from the rest of that market.

JVC; Contrast kings, except when they're not, but they have done their customers proud with the free DTM updates.
Please. Even by going by Nigel's charts the JVC's trounce anything sub what, $100K?? And after that only one is better at black than them. And the JVC's have a lot more than just contrast that is making them a better projector than something like the Sony 885. If I did an across the board direct comparison of the Sony 885 and the JVC NX7 (at a fraction of the price), things are not looking good for the 885 at all.

DLP; Poor mans contrast and rainbows, except when it isn't and there aren't any. Then it shows it's true potential.
Please. Look at the reality of DLP. You have one that you've seen in person that looked great, which is an after-market modified projector that costs 150% more than the standard model. The Eclipse costs more than most people's houses. DLP has had this potential for years now and time after time it hasn't made its way to market. When TI developed their new DLP chipsets dynamic range went DOWN, not up. Instead they decided to prop ANSI contrast, which makes ZERO sense for this application other than it looks good for marketing. DLP hasn't been doing itself any favors at all and I doubt we'll see anything that changes that as a whole for that market segment. I'd love to see AUAV continue to work with Christie and deliver exciting products for this market, but that has nothing to do with the DLP market as a whole, which is massive.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,987 Posts
Now THIS on the other hand is an entirely different kettle of fish:



The Christie Griffyn AS crosses over the Sony GTZ380 at only 0.4% ADL with significantly higher performance throughout the rest of the range with up to 4.8 times greater ADL contrast performance. Now THIS most certainly IS perceivable, and significantly so! 🙂
I'm looking at the Gryffyn measurements here and I don't think they are largely that much different than the contrast ratios we were seeing with the Marantz 11S1/S2 or even the Joe Kane Samsung DLP when you had their dynamic contrast system. Peak on/off is in the same ballpark (may have been higher back then with their dynamic engaged) and ANSI is in the same ballpark (still way beyond what you'd get in just about EVERY room on the planet). And having compared ALL of those designs in direct A/B comparisons to JVC projectors at that time and still seeing MASSIVE differences in perceived contrast all in favor of the JVC, I am still extremely skeptical that if you did a true brightness matched A/B comparison there would be substantial differences to be seen. I'm more than happy to see a direct comparison (even though again, I don't feel that these are designs that are even in the same market with each other) though to see them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,881 Posts
And I've said many times that I don't agree with him on that, and continue to do so. While some here may take Nigel at 100% for everything he says, I don't. I respect Nigel and have had many conversations with him on the phone and a few in person, we do not see eye to eye on everything.
I don't think anyone would expect you to either. But if you have seen his gear and what he has to work with, you would know he knows his onions and has the means to test theories out thoroughly.

And I am not saying you are wrong for this. I've said many times that most projectors nowadays look great, especially when viewed on their own. If side by side comparisons were not done, the differences in viewing a Sony and a JVC wouldn't be nearly as striking, and most people will never see that direct comparison done properly or at all. And I already mentioned that the Sony is better than the majority of the projectors on the market today. Again, my comments were not meant to disparage the Sony, only this misnomer that dynamic range on the Sony is going to be visibly better at any point because the chart says so.
I don't care if you disparage Sony or not, they are a faceless manufacturer of consumer electronics. I am just interested in what I see with my eyes. And my eyes say it IS visible.

What personal accounts? How many people have done true objective side by side comparisons? VERY few. I find it funny how EVERY time I do them with people, including Sony owners, the results more than speak for themselves. It is only the people who didn't attend or have never done it that we go round and round with. And I've already mentioned why they sell lots of them, THEY ARE EXCELLENT PROJECTORS. There are other factors as well, but we won't get into that.
Above, a couple of people (or at least those that are willing to stick their head above the parapet anyway) I think have said how they compared directly to NX*s and the found they preferred the Sony.

Pretty sure I do my own measurements of projectors and don't need to rely on Nigel for anything. Pretty sure I do my own side by side testing (and have been for LONG before Nigel was even in this game) and don't need Nigel for that. I also understand there is more going on with perception of contrast that what that chart plots out. Again, it doesn't take into account eye perception of contrast or even how the room influences it. There are lots of other factors that time and time again show those charts are not a de facto standard for how we experience dynamic range.
Fair enough, but it doesn't change the fact a chart does not necessarily directly translate into one image being better than another to the eyes.

I'm well aware, it has a lot to do with this current conversation.
Yes, that is how conversations work. ;):p

You fall into the same trap. It wasn't long ago I was arguing with you because you were falling for the Sony marketing trap hook, line and sinker, and insisting that because a marketing sheet said one thing and my testing was another, I was only saying it because I'm some JVC fanboy and now I see you on your crusade saying the same things I was saying back then about issues with their processing and such. It always comes around. I don't sell projectors so I honestly don't care which one people buy. I recommend Sony and JVC projectors all the time, I set up and calibrate both models all the time. If I WAS selling projectors it would make WAY more sense to push Sony given the much higher margins they offer (which is why I find it funny that people accuse AVScience sales of being JVC shills when they'd make way more money pushing Sony).
Hmmmm, the only thing I ever 'fell' for was the marketing on the 550 when I was first starting to look at 4K units in 2016. It turned out to be very misleading. I had waited until they mentioned the specific mode and said it was supported and 'fell' for it. I haven't 'fallen' for anything since and I only did that time, as ZERO reviews (of the many I read whilst doing my due diligence) flagged up the woeful processing in 60hz HDR.
I simply cannot see you ever recommending a Sony over a JVC in any circumstance when by your own admission they are inferior in basically every way, even though they are still 'very good'.
Why would you recommend someone buy a product you don't think hits any of the right marks? (See below, it turns out you actually wouldn't either).
As for the sales bit, everyone knows that some on here sell these things and the likes of us normal members will never know what margins are to be had and where. But a margin can be what you want if one gets something cheap enough before selling it on. I never mentioned anything about selling myself though.

I also understand that when you are trying to compare contrast, you have to brightness match projectors. Nigel knows this as well. If you are comparing brightness directly, by all means, don't match them. Anyone that knows what they are doing would never spec a JVC for a screen it shouldn't be spec'ed for (I go through this A LOT with my business). The JVC is not a perfect projector for every project out there and you'd never hear me say that. And I also don't really see the point in comparing it to a projector that is obviously designed for a MUCH different application (Gryffyn/380) and price points that are not even remotely in the same galaxy. However, I'd be really interested in seeing a brightness matched comparison of them so I could see these "huge differences".
My only reason for mentioning it in the NX9 in same breath as the Gryffin, was because it is installed in the self same theatre as the machines Nigel was testing. It was in its permanent home and was perfectly suited to the screen size etc. I only wanted to see it to see how it looked compared to mine, not the high brightness beasts that were also there.
I thought I made that abundantly clear at the time.

I guess we'll agree to disagree on this. Far better than the vast majority of projectors out there, but still with LOTS of issues that continue to go unresolved. There is not a chance that I would recommend ANY of the projectors Sony has with a retail less than $50K over the JVC lineup at this moment. It just doesn't make any sense when you look at the pros and cons of each (and pricing here in the US). However I would recommend them over the vast majority of anything else out there. The 5000/380 are different because they are competing for a different market of high brightness projectors and clearly differentiate themselves from the rest of that market.
Hang on, you said above that you recommend Sony (and JVC) projectors all the time.... Which is it?
So, are you 'agreeing to disagree' on the fact that we apparently agree that they have put nothing truly new on the table for 4 or 5 years?

Please. Even by going by Nigel's charts the JVC's trounce anything sub what, $100K?? And after that only one is better at black than them. And the JVC's have a lot more than just contrast that is making them a better projector than something like the Sony 885. If I did an across the board direct comparison of the Sony 885 and the JVC NX7 (at a fraction of the price), things are not looking good for the 885 at all.
Maybe you should..... But I would suggest doing the comparison with currently available models, just to make it even availability wise. Not that it would change anything in the results, granted.

Please. Look at the reality of DLP. You have one that you've seen in person that looked great, which is an after-market modified projector that costs 150% more than the standard model. The Eclipse costs more than most people's houses. DLP has had this potential for years now and time after time it hasn't made its way to market. When TI developed their new DLP chipsets dynamic range went DOWN, not up. Instead they decided to prop ANSI contrast, which makes ZERO sense for this application other than it looks good for marketing. DLP hasn't been doing itself any favors at all and I doubt we'll see anything that changes that as a whole for that market segment. I'd love to see AUAV continue to work with Christie and deliver exciting products for this market, but that has nothing to do with the DLP market as a whole, which is massive.
I know full well the reality of DLP for the majority. Horrid rainbows and grey blacks. Thing is, these super expensive machines show that the potential is there to beat absolutely everything else.
Yes, TI have not helped, But it has been shown to be the best if properly engineered and applied.
Now, if only they could cram it into something costing less than an arm and a kidney, it would be game over for all other reflective tech. (unless someone invents a new kind of course). :)

I respect you and your findings in general. You know I am not a fanboy of any particular brand and have no vested interest in anything other than helping people get the results they want for as little cash as possible. But if some 'improvement' doesn't jump out at me on screen, (like simultaneous high brightness and contrast does, which literally punches you in the face) then it stands to reason it is going to likely take much more effort to spot any differences than is worth the time in doing so. :)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,987 Posts
Above, a couple of people (or at least those that are willing to stick their head above the parapet anyway) I think have said how they compared directly to NX*s and the found they preferred the Sony.
Almost every time this is dug into, direct comparisons were not made. It was one at one place, the other somewhere else. One was a few years old, the other brand new. One was calibrated, the other wasn't and on and on and on. Always some big BUT in there.

Hmmmm, the only thing I ever 'fell' for was the marketing on the 550 when I was first starting to look at 4K units in 2016. It turned out to be very misleading. I had waited until they mentioned the specific mode and said it was supported and 'fell' for it. I haven't 'fallen' for anything since and I only did that time, as ZERO reviews (of the many I read whilst doing my due diligence) flagged up the woeful processing in 60hz HDR.
Might want to look back at your track record here. I remember the round and round on the "frame adaptive" stuff when it came to HDR and also the digital focus optimizer BS.


I simply cannot see you ever recommending a Sony over a JVC in any circumstance when by your own admission they are inferior in basically every way, even though they are still 'very good'.
Why would you recommend someone buy a product you don't think hits any of the right marks? (See below, it turns out you actually wouldn't either).
If a client came to me and said they were cross shopping JVC vs Sony directly and wanted to know the pros and cons of each, I would tell them exactly what the pros and cons of each are. They both have them. But that conversation may also have other variables such as what they can buy the projector for or even availability of one brand or the other with the dealer they are working with. I don't remember EVER saying to any client EVER that they should flat out never buy a Sony. But I would be lying to them if they were asking me a direct Sony vs JVC and said that I thought the Sony would give them better performance. And again, that comment isn't just because JVC's have better blacks.

My only reason for mentioning it in the NX9 in same breath as the Gryffin, was because it is installed in the self same theatre as the machines Nigel was testing. It was in its permanent home and was perfectly suited to the screen size etc. I only wanted to see it to see how it looked compared to mine, not the high brightness beasts that were also there.
I thought I made that abundantly clear at the time.
I guess our definition of perfectly suited screen size is completely different because I don't think Nigel's screen size or material is even remotely suitable for an NX9. But I think it speaks volumes that he chose the NX9 for that screen before the Gryffyn was available. I've had conversations with Nigel talking about the Eclipse before the Gryffyn was ever mentioned and heard him say directly that short of the Eclipse the NX9 was the best performing projector on the market (and he isn't the only one). But there is NO WAY I would have EVER spec'ed that projector for that screen size/material.

Hang on, you said above that you recommend Sony (and JVC) projectors all the time.... Which is it?
So, are you 'agreeing to disagree' on the fact that we apparently agree that they have put nothing truly new on the table for 4 or 5 years?
I do recommend Sony and JVC projectors all the time. Are you making the assumption that inside my business bubble they are the only brands anyone ever asks about? Not recommending certain Sony models over certain JVC models is not the same as Sony vs brand X. Plus there are LOTS of instances where a client wants to squeeze a NX9 or 4500 onto a screen they shouldn't and I tell them a 5000/380 would be much better suited.

I agree that Sony's core SXRD architecture hasn't changed much in awhile. They've improved on their heat issues or else we'd be seeing WAY more issues in the field. Outside of that most of their changes have been either some kind of digital "image enhancement" that work to varying degrees or obviously adding new options for light engines. I would love for them to focus on the core performance and get away from trying to fix that side of the house with digital manipulation that doesn't really work well.



Maybe you should..... But I would suggest doing the comparison with currently available models, just to make it even availability wise. Not that it would change anything in the results, granted.
I have already. And never mind that I am CONSTANTLY doing testing and calibrations in the field on these projectors looking at their new firmware and such. In just the last month alone I've done Sony 885's, 5000's and the 380. How many Sony's have you tested in the last month? I had the Sony 995 in my own system for the better part of a year. I've worked directly with Sony's engineers on two of their projectors. Hell, the majority of the big update that Sony did on the 885/5000 a year ago was the direct result of the feedback I gave them in my meetings with them on things that I felt they needed to implement. I've gone out of my way many times to try and help Sony, I would like nothing more than to see them succeed and improve their products.



I know full well the reality of DLP for the majority. Horrid rainbows and grey blacks. Thing is, these super expensive machines show that the potential is there to beat absolutely everything else.
Yes, TI have not helped, But it has been shown to be the best if properly engineered and applied.
But that potential has been there since day one. I was talking about dual DMD stuff well over a decade ago (or even an inline LCD panel) when I was meeting with Brightside in Canada before Dolby bought them and started down their HDR path. I was there when they were developing the first ever FALD technology and the early prototypes of the Pulsar displays. There was actually MORE potential back then because the DLP chips had better dynamic range then. And cost no object DLP projectors are nothing new, so there has been MORE than ample time and budget to do these things in the past. Sticking another aperture in the lens to increase native contrast is nothing new, DarinP was doing it with Optoma projectors WELL over a decade ago with fantastic results. But the native dynamic range of that solution still cripples it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,881 Posts
Might want to look back at your track record here. I remember the round and round on the "frame adaptive" stuff when it came to HDR and also the digital focus optimizer BS.
Not sure what you mean there as I only recall ever saying that Sony's HDR/contrast enhancer handling is frame by frame (and adaptive in that sense), but I have never said anything about it being like DTM on the JVC's, as it isn't. It is just Sony being Sony and doing things their own way.
And as for DFO, I argued strongly for having it enabled simply so the choice was there as it makes way more sense with the standard 4K lenses, but in practice I have never said it is anything other than detrimental in the majority of cases.
It can make the image look hideous. And it sharpens across the entire screen not just the corners/edges as they say it does.

If a client came to me and said they were cross shopping JVC vs Sony directly and wanted to know the pros and cons of each, I would tell them exactly what the pros and cons of each are. They both have them. But that conversation may also have other variables such as what they can buy the projector for or even availability of one brand or the other with the dealer they are working with. I don't remember EVER saying to any client EVER that they should flat out never buy a Sony. But I would be lying to them if they were asking me a direct Sony vs JVC and said that I thought the Sony would give them better performance. And again, that comment isn't just because JVC's have better blacks.
I never said you did. I said, I cannot see why you would ever recommend one when you think they are nearly completely inferior.

I guess our definition of perfectly suited screen size is completely different because I don't think Nigel's screen size or material is even remotely suitable for an NX9. But I think it speaks volumes that he chose the NX9 for that screen before the Gryffyn was available. I've had conversations with Nigel talking about the Eclipse before the Gryffyn was ever mentioned and heard him say directly that short of the Eclipse the NX9 was the best performing projector on the market (and he isn't the only one). But there is NO WAY I would have EVER spec'ed that projector for that screen size/material.
It is not my definition of a perfectly suited screen size. It is @ARROW-AV s theatre not mine and I think he knows what it is suited to better than I.
What reason would I have to assume anything other than it being perfectly suited? It wasn't being tested against the other two, I just wanted to see it for personal reasons. The other two just happened to be on as well and comparisons happened merely because it was easy to do. The NX9 was only fired up as I wanted to see it with my own eyes not to test against the others.
I know not what material he is using either. I was shown a small piece of it, and it looked like a piece of fabric to me. I can offer no more on it than that. The NX9 is a great performing projector, but one I found I thankfully didn't need to buy after viewing. Personal thing.

I do recommend Sony and JVC projectors all the time. Are you making the assumption that inside my business bubble they are the only brands anyone ever asks about? Not recommending certain Sony models over certain JVC models is not the same as Sony vs brand X. Plus there are LOTS of instances where a client wants to squeeze a NX9 or 4500 onto a screen they shouldn't and I tell them a 5000/380 would be much better suited.
But above you said There is not a chance that I would recommend ANY of the projectors Sony has with a retail less than $50K over the JVC lineup at this moment.
I never mentioned anything about any other brands and nor did you until now. Why throw in an aspect of what you do that neither of us previously made any reference to?
A bit unfair as I made no such assumption. You have just thrown that in there now.

I agree that Sony's core SXRD architecture hasn't changed much in awhile. They've improved on their heat issues or else we'd be seeing WAY more issues in the field. Outside of that most of their changes have been either some kind of digital "image enhancement" that work to varying degrees or obviously adding new options for light engines. I would love for them to focus on the core performance and get away from trying to fix that side of the house with digital manipulation that doesn't really work well.
Indeed, as I keep saying they have a lot of work to do in the area. Somehow I doubt they will though. :(

I have already. And never mind that I am CONSTANTLY doing testing and calibrations in the field on these projectors looking at their new firmware and such. In just the last month alone I've done Sony 885's, 5000's and the 380. How many Sony's have you tested in the last month? I had the Sony 995 in my own system for the better part of a year. I've worked directly with Sony's engineers on two of their projectors. Hell, the majority of the big update that Sony did on the 885/5000 a year ago was the direct result of the feedback I gave them in my meetings with them on things that I felt they needed to implement. I've gone out of my way many times to try and help Sony, I would like nothing more than to see them succeed and improve their products
But you said 'IF I did' an across the board comparison', not 'when I did' , which means you haven't yet.
Looking at the new firmware and such? Why have you not updated your 885 review since the major firmware update in 2019 then? You know, like you did for the JVC models when they introduced DTM? It is really hard for a rational person not to infer some sort of bias on your part when things like that happen I'm afraid.
I highly doubt it was just you who changed the stalwart Sony's mind. I know I directly asked for those features on several emails and Nigel also interacted with 'people what can' at Sony too. Who knows how many others also got in on the act.

Beyond that, I am sorry if I upset anyone by giving my opinions and views.
My opinions are what they are though, like them or loathe them. No one can take them from me.
You can try to change them if you want though, who knows you may even manage it, but I like everyone else, reserve the right to change my mind if my eyes show me that needs to happen. :)(y)

My eyes are my ultimate judges over everything else when it comes to images however. :):cool:

BTW, are you going to be able to do a full on review of the 380 at any point? I would like to see that happen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,001 Posts
Simply cannot be over emphasised in my opinion. Game changer in how the image hits your eyes.
I have owned bulb and now the 885ES. I get the comment in the context of older bulb technology, bulbs that have noticeable cycle rates due to poor build, flicker from insufficient mains, or a bulb that is out of spec due to wear. I also get running at different peak white levels. But when you say laser color has more "pop" (previous post) how can this be and what does it mean? When a specific color is reproduced by laser or bulb and its chromaticity is measured, along with its luminosity, it either is reproduced correctly or it isn't. This is a factual determination of the measured wavelength. Do you mean "purity"? Even then, with respect to a particular color reproduced by bulb or laser, when a spectro says that the difference (dE) is undetectable to the human eye what is this "pop"? By reference, Barco lists three advantages to laser vs bulb: brightness life (including color fidelity due to aging), higher initial cost of laser over bulbs vs bulb replacement, and sustainability. In their comments they mention that "color fidelity" is an advantage over bulbs as bulbs wear very differently than laser. However, shouldn't a new laser vs a new, in spec bulb produce a given color identically for Rec709? Or are you saying that you can see the difference between the cycle rates of laser vs bulb and that is the effect you are commenting on? I'm all for laser and its benefits but in a system adjusted to Rec709 or BT2020 (not to taste) I just don't understand your comment.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,881 Posts
I have owned bulb and now the 885ES. I get the comment in the context of older bulb technology, bulbs that have noticeable cycle rates due to poor build, flicker from insufficient mains, or a bulb that is out of spec due to wear. I also get running at different peak white levels. But when you say laser color has more "pop" (previous post) how can this be and what does it mean? When a specific color is reproduced by laser or bulb and its chromaticity is measured, along with its luminosity, it either is reproduced correctly or it isn't. This is a factual determination of the measured wavelength. Do you mean "purity"? Even then, with respect to a particular color reproduced by bulb or laser, when a spectro says that the difference (dE) is undetectable to the human eye what is this "pop"? By reference, Barco lists three advantages to laser vs bulb: brightness life (including color fidelity due to aging), higher initial cost of laser over bulbs vs bulb replacement, and sustainability. In their comments they mention that "color fidelity" is an advantage over bulbs as bulbs wear very differently than laser. However, shouldn't a new laser vs a new, in spec bulb produce a given color identically for Rec709? Or are you saying that you can see the difference between the cycle rates of laser vs bulb and that is the effect you are commenting on? I'm all for laser and its benefits but in a system adjusted to Rec709 or BT2020 (not to taste) I just don't understand your comment.
Lasers produce light at specific and controllable wavelengths. The light is also dead straight and not diffuse by definition. Bulbs, not so much.
Bulbs need filters and many lenses to get rid of UV/IR and to straighten the light sufficiently.
I am not the only one who reports more 'pop' from the colours produced by laser. It seems to hit almost everyone who goes from bulb to laser in the face.
As you say a colour is a colour, but maybe it is the higher overall brightness and the rock solid stability that gives that perception.
Again, only saying what I see. (y)
 
  • Like
Reactions: MOberhardt

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,464 Posts
The older JVC's are an order of magnitude better in contrast to even their own native 4k models, so it is a shame the 885 wasn't being compared to a newer model in that chart.
The extra pixel fill alone reduces contrast on native 4k devices.
I was referring to your 995/nx9 chart. Which showed a larger differential.
Unit variance notwithstanding of course. :)
I believe this is the chart that you are referring to. ;)

3133747


Lines up pretty much with what I saw comparing the GTZ240(VW995) with the NX9 and with the RS4500.
 

·
ABSOLUTE ULTIMATE AV
Joined
·
5,699 Posts
I'm looking at the Gryffyn measurements here and I don't think they are largely that much different than the contrast ratios we were seeing with the Marantz 11S1/S2 or even the Joe Kane Samsung DLP when you had their dynamic contrast system. Peak on/off is in the same ballpark (may have been higher back then with their dynamic engaged) and ANSI is in the same ballpark (still way beyond what you'd get in just about EVERY room on the planet). And having compared ALL of those designs in direct A/B comparisons to JVC projectors at that time and still seeing MASSIVE differences in perceived contrast all in favor of the JVC, I am still extremely skeptical that if you did a true brightness matched A/B comparison there would be substantial differences to be seen. I'm more than happy to see a direct comparison (even though again, I don't feel that these are designs that are even in the same market with each other) though to see them.
And I've said many times that I don't agree with him on that, and continue to do so. While some here may take Nigel at 100% for everything he says, I don't. I respect Nigel and have had many conversations with him on the phone and a few in person, we do not see eye to eye on everything.

And I am not saying you are wrong for this. I've said many times that most projectors nowadays look great, especially when viewed on their own. If side by side comparisons were not done, the differences in viewing a Sony and a JVC wouldn't be nearly as striking, and most people will never see that direct comparison done properly or at all. And I already mentioned that the Sony is better than the majority of the projectors on the market today. Again, my comments were not meant to disparage the Sony, only this misnomer that dynamic range on the Sony is going to be visibly better at any point because the chart says so.

What personal accounts? How many people have done true objective side by side comparisons? VERY few. I find it funny how EVERY time I do them with people, including Sony owners, the results more than speak for themselves. It is only the people who didn't attend or have never done it that we go round and round with. And I've already mentioned why they sell lots of them, THEY ARE EXCELLENT PROJECTORS. There are other factors as well, but we won't get into that.

No comment.

Pretty sure I do my own measurements of projectors and don't need to rely on Nigel for anything. Pretty sure I do my own side by side testing (and have been for LONG before Nigel was even in this game) and don't need Nigel for that. I also understand there is more going on with perception of contrast that what that chart plots out. Again, it doesn't take into account eye perception of contrast or even how the room influences it. There are lots of other factors that time and time again show those charts are not a de facto standard for how we experience dynamic range.

I'm well aware, it has a lot to do with this current conversation.

I'm well aware, it has a lot to do with this current conversation.



You fall into the same trap. It wasn't long ago I was arguing with you because you were falling for the Sony marketing trap hook, line and sinker, and insisting that because a marketing sheet said one thing and my testing was another, I was only saying it because I'm some JVC fanboy and now I see you on your crusade saying the same things I was saying back then about issues with their processing and such. It always comes around. I don't sell projectors so I honestly don't care which one people buy. I recommend Sony and JVC projectors all the time, I set up and calibrate both models all the time. If I WAS selling projectors it would make WAY more sense to push Sony given the much higher margins they offer (which is why I find it funny that people accuse AVScience sales of being JVC shills when they'd make way more money pushing Sony).

I also understand that when you are trying to compare contrast, you have to brightness match projectors. Nigel knows this as well. If you are comparing brightness directly, by all means, don't match them. Anyone that knows what they are doing would never spec a JVC for a screen it shouldn't be spec'ed for (I go through this A LOT with my business). The JVC is not a perfect projector for every project out there and you'd never hear me say that. And I also don't really see the point in comparing it to a projector that is obviously designed for a MUCH different application (Gryffyn/380) and price points that are not even remotely in the same galaxy. However, I'd be really interested in seeing a brightness matched comparison of them so I could see these "huge differences".

I guess we'll agree to disagree on this. Far better than the vast majority of projectors out there, but still with LOTS of issues that continue to go unresolved. There is not a chance that I would recommend ANY of the projectors Sony has with a retail less than $50K over the JVC lineup at this moment. It just doesn't make any sense when you look at the pros and cons of each (and pricing here in the US). However I would recommend them over the vast majority of anything else out there. The 5000/380 are different because they are competing for a different market of high brightness projectors and clearly differentiate themselves from the rest of that market.

Please. Even by going by Nigel's charts the JVC's trounce anything sub what, $100K?? And after that only one is better at black than them. And the JVC's have a lot more than just contrast that is making them a better projector than something like the Sony 885. If I did an across the board direct comparison of the Sony 885 and the JVC NX7 (at a fraction of the price), things are not looking good for the 885 at all.

Please. Look at the reality of DLP. You have one that you've seen in person that looked great, which is an after-market modified projector that costs 150% more than the standard model. The Eclipse costs more than most people's houses. DLP has had this potential for years now and time after time it hasn't made its way to market. When TI developed their new DLP chipsets dynamic range went DOWN, not up. Instead they decided to prop ANSI contrast, which makes ZERO sense for this application other than it looks good for marketing. DLP hasn't been doing itself any favors at all and I doubt we'll see anything that changes that as a whole for that market segment. I'd love to see AUAV continue to work with Christie and deliver exciting products for this market, but that has nothing to do with the DLP market as a whole, which is massive.
I think you will find that we are on the same page about most things and it is only rare instances where we don't see eye-to-eye. And even in this instance we are in agreement regarding most aspects. Wherein the fact of the matter is that as far as native 4K projection is concerned with respect to the range 0% - 1.5% ADL the JVCs have the best contrast performance second only to the Christie Eclipse.

Where you and I appear to disagree is regarding the importance of upper-lower and mid-range contrast performance. Wherein the fact of the matter is that as compared with the Sony GTZ380 the Christie Griffyn AS measures greater contrast performance with respect to the entire range 0.4% - 50% ADL with the majority of this range measuring 200% - 480% greater contrast performance... with the mid-range contrast peformance being 200% - 300% greater. When the difference is of this magnitude you can most certainly perceive the difference, and it is not slight. You seem to be of the opinion that you won't see any difference and that contrast performance above 1.5% ADL doesn't matter. I look forward to showing you at some point in the hopefully not too distant future that you can see a difference and it does matter. @Archibald1 has seen this with his own eyes. I look forward to you seeing it as well 🙂
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,464 Posts
Given that this is the 885/760 owners' thread I would be remiss to not point out that according to those intra-frame ADL measurements the 885es has significantly better intra-frame contrast than the GTZ380! Sony has always had ANSI CR of >400:1. Many of us have been waiting for them to get to 600:1, instead they seem to have gone the opposite direction with the GTZ380. LCOS limitations I guess.

The other thing that the ADL measurements confirm is that very high sequential (native) on/off contrast is only important for very dark scenes (<1% ADL). ANSI contrast, which measures light scatter in the engine, is a better predictor of overall image contrast over the 2% to 10% range. Of course we have know that fact since the early CRT days which was why the ANSI measurement was invented in the first place.

Sony and JVC would deliver significantly better IQ if they could manage to double their ANSI contrast instead of doubling their sequential contrast at this point in time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
777 Posts
Unfortunately, I think that measurements can only tell you so much. The most comprehensive and well-rounded charts are the ones that have been presented by Nigel in my opinion. I think those give a consumer a good idea of the contrast range of a projection unit over various ADL content. I think that one area that is not captured very well is the the brightness variation within a scene. Even a scene with a low average ADL can have areas of high brightness that may bias the eye perception. (Large std deviation) I think that a point that some on the forum make is that after a certain ADL crossover most projectors look more or less the same. From my experience, I would respectfully disagree although I would agree that black level differences are more easily discernible at ADL % lower than 2.
 

·
ABSOLUTE ULTIMATE AV
Joined
·
5,699 Posts
Please. Look at the reality of DLP. You have one that you've seen in person that looked great, which is an after-market modified projector that costs 150% more than the standard model...
This is not correct. The Christie Griffyn AS is 33% more expensive than the standard model.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
245 Posts
So something very weird just happened I finished watching an episode of the mandalorian and decided to turn off the projector while I make some popcorn. Anyways I turn it back on and I get the replace filter message which I know is a bug but what's really bad is the brightness of the projector dropped drastically. I tried powering the thing on and off and even leaving it unplugged from power for about a minute but the issue remains. I did hear the iris click a couple of times before it happened but that's been happening for some time now. Any ideas what this could be? Anyone else had something similar happen? Sdr is basically dim and hdr is unwatchable now.

I only have 1326 hours on the projector and it definitley should not be this dim.

Edit: after turning it off and on for the sixth time everything is back to normal. I did turn on altitude mode which I didn't think I'd need to do tbh. Does the projector get dim if it overheats?
So unfortunately this happened again out of the blue. This time it happened after a cold boot so not due to turning it off and on again. Picture is super dim tried power cycling a couple of times and no solution so far. Even tried turning on altitude mode again which I do not even think is needed due to how cold my room is. Nobody here experience anything similar with their projectors where suddenly the image is super dim?

Edit: Figured out what the problem was. I don't recommend anyone doing this but desperate times call for desperate measures. Projector is out of warranty so what's the worst that could happen the picture is too dim for it to be usable.

Anyways after booting it on and off a couple of times I noticed the iris was stuck. I'd hear the same clicking as before but the iris would not open and was almost fully closed up which was causing the dim image. So I then turned it off and turned it on and while it was turning on I gave it a couple of not so gentle smacks with the remote on top of the lens housing and the iris opened up again.

Added bonus? No more clicking so I'm guessing maybe some dust was stuck on the iris cover since I first got the projector or something. Now it opens up and closes smoothly.
 
7601 - 7620 of 7624 Posts
Top