AVS Forum banner

1521 - 1540 of 2410 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,060 Posts
Here's how he measured his contrast. He used the AEMC 813 metre.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/24-di...ony-sxrd-1080p-4k-panels-20.html#post43109434

Well now more desperation. Yes I did use the AEMC 813 , was recommended by forum members many of whom are noteworthy I might add. Funny how no one questions others about equipment used. Why the sudden interest in what I am using. Is the AEMC 813 not fit, or just when it applies to those with reasonable values ? No one EVER questions equipment or methodology when negative contrast values are posted, that is only appropriate for someone that posts positive numbers. Wouldn't you think that odd??


So, far Ekki is the only credible not biased professional , that is totally impartial . He still supports moisture as the root cause for SXRD and I believe he repeated this just recently , even asked others to lay off me , took a number of you to task on your comments.


When someone comes up with a credible reason for degradation based on credible data I guarantee Ekki will accept it . That's the difference I see between him and the many posting here.


Bring on the theories , all welcome , but until something more substantiated is realized, I'm going to hold my ground with someone I know is trustworthy.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,060 Posts
Really??? Then why did you say this?



Im confused as to where in that post it says 10,500:1?

Part of the problem with this process, many cross posts. Back a few Seegs posted something about my contrast dropping 3000:1, as if
I am deliberately posting different values .


Sorry if it wasn't you direct on this one but you did take me out of context in another post. Have to go back and respond to that one
too I suppose.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,424 Posts
Well now more desperation. Yes I did use the AEMC 813 , was recommended by forum members many of whom are noteworthy I might add. Funny how no one questions others about equipment used. Why the sudden interest in what I am using. Is the AEMC 813 not fit, or just when it applies to those with reasonable values ? No one EVER questions equipment or methodology when negative contrast values are posted, that is only appropriate for someone that posts positive numbers. Wouldn't you think that odd??


So, far Ekki is the only credible not biased professional , that is totally impartial . He still supports moisture as the root cause for SXRD and I believe he repeated this just recently , even asked others to lay off me , took a number of you to task on your comments.


When someone comes up with a credible reason for degradation based on credible data I guarantee Ekki will accept it . That's the difference I see between him and the many posting here.


Bring on the theories , all welcome , but until something more substantiated is realized, I'm going to hold my ground with someone I know is trustworthy.
Your meter is good enough, I use it myself sometimes when I only do contrast measurements, but this seldom happens as I almost always do calibration at the same time and then I use my Klein or Jeti.

What you say about Ekki accepting credible data I am not so sure as he wiped me off by saying I had the wrong conclusion. I also have many backing up my data so I think he should trust our results as well.

Moisture might be the problem with Sonys as the drift don´t, but it has never been confirmed. I don´t think it is the problem with the JVC´s as the drift stops at a point. But this is of corse pure speculation from me as I don´t have the data to draw any conclusion about the reason why it happens. I only measure the projectors I calibrate and follow.

Also a problem with your measurements is that you come to the conclusion your had no degradation by using only contrast measurements, you need to follow up with grayscale/gamma and gamut as there are big problems with those parameters as well. I have measured Sonys with almost no contrast loss (still they have some), but with grayscale/gamma drifts and shrinking gamut that can not be fixed (older 1080p models like the HW50 and 55). This can be fixed with the Sony Pro Calibration software on the HW65 and 4K models, but it is not something everybody can do. The contrast loss can not be fixed!

You must also remember the Science in the name of this forum.:)
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
10,827 Posts
Discussion Starter #1,524
Part of the problem with this process, many cross posts. Back a few Seegs posted something about my contrast dropping 3000:1, as if
I am deliberately posting different values .


Sorry if it wasn't you direct on this one but you did take me out of context in another post. Have to go back and respond to that one
too I suppose.
When did I say it dropped 3000:1? What I said was that you measured around 7500:1 in a previous post and now you're saying it measures 10500:1. So what I said was that your unit gained 3000:1 in contrast. Pretty remarkable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
456 Posts
Sometimes i wish there was a downvoting system on this forum so i could downvote posts like the one above me. You do realise that posts like this contributes to absolutely zero?
If you have a problem with Roxie, why don`t you take it over PM instead?

Get serious and come up with ideas for a solution to the contrast degradation instead of the constant negativity and making fun of others users.
The ignore list works much better! ;) :D

By the way I have a Sony SXRD now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
427 Posts
Also a problem with your measurements is that you come to the conclusion your had no degradation by using only contrast measurements, you need to follow up with grayscale/gamma and gamut as there are big problems with those parameters as well. I have measured Sonys with almost no contrast loss (still they have some), but with grayscale/gamma drifts and shrinking gamut that can not be fixed (older 1080p models like the HW50 and 55). This can be fixed with the Sony Pro Calibration software on the HW65 and 4K models, but it is not something everybody can do. The contrast loss can not be fixed!
Exactly. And as @Javs well pointed out in his excellent post above here, gamma drop is another part of the degradation of SXRD, and one that can't be corrected by the end-user as the projector quickly runs out of adjustment range. I recall the shootout Bandyka and Javs did, Bandyka's Sony with only 600+ hours on it had already shifted quite a lot and dropped in gamma, making it easy to see the difference between the JVC and Sony - that's how far it had drifted after just a few hundred hours. Which begs the question... Why are we only talking about contrast loss here? There is more to degradation than contrast loss.

Does the gamma drift with Sony's eventually settle like it does with JVCs? One thing is that you can send your Sony in for repair and have them adjust the gamma in a similar way that JVC allows the customer themselves to do with auto-cal, but that seems like a very tedious process if it just keeps drifting - and drifts a lot just after a few hundred hours, and never settles.

Panel instability like this is seriously a big problem for Sony. Have they fixed it on their new machines? I hope so, but I wouldn't risk my money on one yet. They should communicate properly the steps that has been taken to fix it, if they have really did so. That would at least go a long way in building up some confidence in their product, confidence of which I have zero of right now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,391 Posts
  • For the affected JVC's, you can do a gamma only auto correction to resolve the issue using the freely available software and a $100 meter. This will not affect the color gamut if only doing a gamma cal. Any spyder 4/5 can handle this task, it does not have to be a referenced meter for this purpose.
Let's not give JVC too much credit here. They picked a piss poor piece of crap meter with significant unit to unit variation to build their auto calibration software for. There is a much better similarly priced meter to support but they refuse to change course and abandon their mistake.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,663 Posts
I have measured Sonys with almost no contrast loss (still they have some), but with grayscale/gamma drifts and shrinking gamut that can not be fixed (older 1080p models like the HW50 and 55).

You must also remember the Science in the name of this forum.:)
:mad: 55ES owner coming from a 60 prior. Mine still looks great in all regards at 800 hours, though not measured.

I guess if I spin it a little I can convince myself the glass is half full. If my 55ES goes bonkers, I'll have a good reason to tell my wife we need to look into a new JVC. ;)

She'll find my optimism irregular.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
10,827 Posts
Discussion Starter #1,530 (Edited)
Really??? Then why did you say this?



Im confused as to where in that post it says 10,500:1?
The funny part of this post is that he says that he wanted to wait and make sure he understood on how to do it properly before he wanted to post his results and also that he wanted to be sure they were repeatable. How is he all of a sudden getting over 10000:1? Were those early measurements incorrect? If that's the case, then how do we know he did his 10500:1 measurement correctly? How can we trust any numbers he posts? His early numbers fit way closer to what other pro-reviews got with the VW600. In fact, I don't remember seeing any review show more than 10000:1 native contrast, max zoom, iris open with that unit.

Edit:

Sound and Vision: 6077:1

Cine4home 5800: 1 (zoom max / iris open)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,060 Posts
When did I say it dropped 3000:1? What I said was that you measured around 7500:1 in a previous post and now you're saying it measures 10500:1. So what I said was that your unit gained 3000:1 in contrast. Pretty remarkable.

So very , very happy you brought this up, especially you , thank you . It shows precisely and exactly what I've been saying all along. When you read that post I made you will see that I said " this is my first measurement."


During this same series of posts another poster showed up with his first time measurements of his RS500 , 15,000:1 as I recall. You and Andreas21 and others went into crisis mode helping the guy in every which way, extending all the help and resources the two of you combined could muster to fix that embarrassing problem right away. He got all the assistance necessary, because that number had to be fixed right away .


What I got for posting my measurements was a stone wall . No help only questions, insults and demands for proof. It was this very situation that proved
exactly what the real agenda of the thread was, uphill battle ever since.


All negative measurements of Sony product accepted without question . When a positive contrast measurements is posted they always unanimously condemned without question.


So yes sir that was my first measurement and it was indeed inaccurate. With the help of other true impartial people I quickly learned how to do the process and was easy enough, just needed a little refinement. When that was done I posted again, 10500:1 on average measured probably a dozen different times, that number the average. I had a range of measurements from 10,900:1 down to 10,200:1 averaged it to 10,500:1. I've posted this many times before but you all conveniently overlook that, instead go on a witch hunt for something . Oh,and by the way, my first measurements much higher, which now I had posted those first.


If my first measurement of 7500:1 is acceptable in your minds ( actually it was too high), what about the 15,000:1 on the JVC, is that written in stone too?


Give you credit for all the digging through old posts though.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
10,827 Posts
Discussion Starter #1,532 (Edited)
So very , very happy you brought this up, especially you , thank you . It shows precisely and exactly what I've been saying all along. When you read that post I made you will see that I said " this is my first measurement."


During this same series of posts another poster showed up with his first time measurements of his RS500 , 15,000:1 as I recall. You and Andreas21 and others went into crisis mode helping the guy in every which way, extending all the help and resources the two of you combined could muster to fix that embarrassing problem right away. He got all the assistance necessary, because that number had to be fixed right away .


What I got for posting my measurements was a stone wall . No help only questions, insults and demands for proof. It was this very situation that proved
exactly what the real agenda of the thread was, uphill battle ever since.


All negative measurements of Sony product accepted without question . When a positive contrast measurements is posted they always unanimously condemned without question.


So yes sir that was my first measurement and it was indeed inaccurate. With the help of other true impartial people I quickly learned how to do the process and was easy enough, just needed a little refinement. When that was done I posted again, 10500:1 on average measured probably a dozen different times, that number the average. I had a range of measurements from 10,900:1 down to 10,200:1 averaged it to 10,500:1. I've posted this many times before but you all conveniently overlook that, instead go on a witch hunt for something . Oh,and by the way, my first measurements much higher, which now I had posted those first.


If my first measurement of 7500:1 is acceptable in your minds ( actually it was too high), what about the 15,000:1 on the JVC, is that written in stone too?


Give you credit for all the digging through old posts though.
I didn't dig to find that post, someone else did. I just quoted it. Also, we proved that the 15000:1 measurement on the RS500 wasn't measured correctly. Even the poster of that measurement came to that same conclusion. But it's nice of you to not mention that part. And I'll pose the same question as I did before. Given your measurements are all over the place, and that I haven't seen anyone else claim over 10000:1 native contrast on a VW600ES, why are we to believe that these are valid measurements? You've said you've done them wrong in the past. Couldn't this measurement be incorrect also? This isn't a personal attack. It's a serious question given your all-over-the-place measurements. Cine4home measured an entire series of units, they mention in their review the average out of all the units was 6100:1 and a "cine4home edition" unit, which is a hand selected better performing unit, averages 7100:1. Seeing how you've grown fond of what Ekki has to say on things lately, are you going to say that your unit has more than 30% greater contrast than even the better performing units that cin4home was selling as hand picked for performance? Are you going to say Ekki's measurements were wrong? Again, this is not a personal attack. I'm genuinely curious what you think on the matter.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,767 Posts
Well now more desperation. Yes I did use the AEMC 813 , was recommended by forum members many of whom are noteworthy I might add. Funny how no one questions others about equipment used. Why the sudden interest in what I am using. Is the AEMC 813 not fit, or just when it applies to those with reasonable values ? No one EVER questions equipment or methodology when negative contrast values are posted, that is only appropriate for someone that posts positive numbers. Wouldn't you think that odd??


So, far Ekki is the only credible not biased professional , that is totally impartial . He still supports moisture as the root cause for SXRD and I believe he repeated this just recently , even asked others to lay off me , took a number of you to task on your comments.


When someone comes up with a credible reason for degradation based on credible data I guarantee Ekki will accept it . That's the difference I see between him and the many posting here.


Bring on the theories , all welcome , but until something more substantiated is realized, I'm going to hold my ground with someone I know is trustworthy.
I wouldn't call it desperation, I was just answering a question on what readings you were getting and what metre you used, and I had saved a link to that post.
If Ekki measured two projectors (all things being equal) one with good contrast and with bad, I would question him too.
I would want to why one was normal and the other wasn't, I would question God himself, if I had too.

This is a thread about panel contrast degradation, so if someone's unit tests what is considered normal, then of course those readings will be questioned.
What metre was used, how it was done, where it was placed etc.
It's only natural to want to know these things so others can remove the variables from the equation when they measure their
unit(s).

You have to admit though that there is quite a discrepancy between you first readings of 7500:1 then to 10,500:1 and I just wanted to know why.
If it's type "O", then I'll accept that and I would question Ekki if the same thing happened to his readings.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,395 Posts
Let's not give JVC too much credit here. They picked a piss poor piece of crap meter with significant unit to unit variation to build their auto calibration software for. There is a much better similarly priced meter to support but they refuse to change course and abandon their mistake.
yes, no arguments there, I went through 3 before I found one that was very close to my other referenced meters. Ideally it would have been the display pro 3. They are adding X-Rite's i1 Pro 2 for the new models just released.

the point is still the same though. if someone runs into the JVC gamma issue, it can be resolved relatively quickly for not much cost as the color accuracy of the meter is not needed for the gamma cal.

There is no easy option for the Sony since JP6 is not getting access to the necessary software.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,767 Posts
So yes sir that was my first measurement and it was indeed inaccurate. With the help of other true impartial people I quickly learned how to do the process and was easy enough, just needed a little refinement. When that was done I posted again, 10500:1 on average measured probably a dozen different times, that number the average. I had a range of measurements from 10,900:1 down to 10,200:1 averaged it to 10,500:1. I've posted this many times before but you all conveniently overlook that, instead go on a witch hunt for something . Oh,and by the way, my first measurements much higher, which now I had posted those first.


If my first measurement of 7500:1 is acceptable in your minds ( actually it was too high), what about the 15,000:1 on the JVC, is that written in stone too?
What were the refinements and processes that you used to achieve the average reading of 10,500:1 ?
In the other thread you had the metre 3 feet away from the lens, did you move it closer, what other things did you change, if any ?

I used your data (instructions of you will) from that post to measure my unit, so if you changed you methodology to better your results, I would like to know what you did. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30,230 Posts
yes, no arguments there, I went through 3 before I found one that was very close to my other referenced meters. Ideally it would have been the display pro 3. They are adding X-Rite's i1 Pro 2 for the new models just released.

the point is still the same though. if someone runs into the JVC gamma issue, it can be resolved relatively quickly for not much cost as the color accuracy of the meter is not needed for the gamma cal.

There is no easy option for the Sony since JP6 is not getting access to the necessary software.
But since you are facing the lens of the projector, does the Display Pro 3 or X-Rite i1 Pro 2 have enough range?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
6,553 Posts
We stayed in an Air B n B near the Fairmont, so my wife could check out the Ironman 70.3 while we were there - http://www.ironman.com/~/media/1037ac4b84294746be735a16f1ee4946/2016honurun3.jpg



We then went to Maui for a wedding. Then back home.

Yes, that's VERY close to where I am and know the area well. :)

We volunteer for the iron man world championships every year. Let me know if you come back.

On page 68 in the user manual for VPLVW1100ES these environment date is shown:



Operating temperature 5°C to 35°C (41°F to 95°F)

Operating humidity 35% to 85% (no condensation)

Storage temperature –20°C to +60°C (–4°F to +140°F)

Storage humidity 10% to 90%



From these numbers, it does not seems like Sony is concerned about the humidity for the SXRD system....



The humidity has in the past been problematic for other projector technologies.

Some CRT projectors had for example trouble with the cooling chambers on the tubes because the bellows/seals let water from the air in, but did not let the water return that easy back out again. The coolant had properties of absorbing water, the volume of the coolant increased and pressure build up until the chamber start to leak or something else burst. The humidity in the environment and how often the chamber was heated up was factors that could speed up or slow down this process. The CRT coolant (70% ethylene glycol and 30% glycerine) is not in it self corrosive, but if spilled it does not evaporate from the surfaces and it starts to absorb moisture from the air, this turn it to be highly corrosive.



Speculation mode ON:



The Sony SXRD contrast problem may have some of the same water absorption properties.



Materials like Silica gel have water absorbing properties because of the nano-porous micro-structure. What if the high density SXRD panels or the polarizes have some of the same micro-structure properties and absorbs water from the air and accumulates it not only because of high or low humidity, but also the time between when the light engine is heated up.



If water is accumulated, it may cause some sort of oxidation or convert some of the material to be more corrosive iwhen in contact to water.



The evenly distributed contrast reduction over the entire picture at the same time, and typically changing the RGB balance away form the calibrated D65 towards a RGB balance of the UHP Mercury lamp with typical more blue than red.



All this may point to a sort of oxidation or start of a chemical reaction by the humidity and time between heating and drying out the light engine. The users that lives in dry environment and uses the projector regularly and still see a high loss of CR, that may have been caused by the level of moisture one time in the projectors life (new in the box) and that has started a chemical reaction that only need a very low humidity and time to keep on degrade the CR.



Speculation mode Off.

Interesting theory. I remember the contaminated glycol CRT issues well. What a PITA that was! Ruined boards and tubes, Draining and resealing and refilling it! :eek:

......
So, far Ekki is the only credible not biased professional , that is totally impartial . .......

Hey, what am I, chopped liver? ;)

Exactly. And as @Javs well pointed out in his excellent post above here, gamma drop is another part of the degradation of SXRD, and one that can't be corrected by the end-user as the projector quickly runs out of adjustment range. I recall the shootout Bandyka and Javs did, Bandyka's Sony with only 600+ hours on it had already shifted quite a lot and dropped in gamma, making it easy to see the difference between the JVC and Sony - that's how far it had drifted after just a few hundred hours. Which begs the question... Why are we only talking about contrast loss here? There is more to degradation than contrast loss.



Does the gamma drift with Sony's eventually settle like it does with JVCs? One thing is that you can send your Sony in for repair and have them adjust the gamma in a similar way that JVC allows the customer themselves to do with auto-cal, but that seems like a very tedious process if it just keeps drifting - and drifts a lot just after a few hundred hours, and never settles.



Panel instability like this is seriously a big problem for Sony. Have they fixed it on their new machines? I hope so, but I wouldn't risk my money on one yet. They should communicate properly the steps that has been taken to fix it, if they have really did so. That would at least go a long way in building up some confidence in their product, confidence of which I have zero of right now.

Which actually begs the question...."why did they use a degraded Sony machine in a comparison shootout and take the results as valid???" No one answered that question when I posed it previously (don't recall If it was on this thread though.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
427 Posts
Which actually begs the question...."why did they use a degraded Sony machine in a comparison shootout and take the results as valid???" No one answered that question when I posed it previously (don't recall If it was on this thread though.)
Since the goal of the test was showing how much detail and information both projectors managed to display from a 4k source, I think the test is valid. The degradation of the Sony had more to do with drifting colors and the like, but that didn't really affect the point of the test. I agree though, the perfect test would've been both projectors perfectly calibrated, but seeing as this was just two guys from the forum doing this for fun and not some magazine publication, I think the test was fantastic for what it was. :)

What is interesting is how far from reference the Sony had drifted after only roughly 600 hours, and that to fix this properly over time you have to send it in to Sony, as compared to JVC which allows for this to be corrected by the user, which obviously is the better solution. Adding to this, do we know if the Sony ever stops drifting and eventually stabilizes like the JVC does? Contrast is one thing, but this is also a pretty big deal IMO.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
10,827 Posts
Discussion Starter #1,539 (Edited)
Which actually begs the question...."why did they use a degraded Sony machine in a comparison shootout and take the results as valid???" No one answered that question when I posed it previously (don't recall If it was on this thread though.)
The comparison wasn't to show contrast differences between the two units. All the photos he took were to show how the two looked with apparent resolution in the image between the two. The degradation issue won't change that aspect of the comparison in that regard. Even if the Sony were brand new, the JVC would still have destroyed it in contrast performance.

Edit: kohe321 beat me to it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
What is the experience with Sony Prime with VW500 which are affected from Gamma drift and Contrast loss?

Does Sony change the Projector within the 3 years of warranty or what are the experience? I wonder if Sony really measure the Gamma and the contrast to test the projector!?
 
1521 - 1540 of 2410 Posts
Top