AVS Discussions
Projectors => Premium Projectors => Topic started by: darinp on December 04, 2017, 03:19:03 PM
-
I originally posted this on the avsforum, but I got an infraction and looks like the thread was deleted, so I figured I would post it here. Here is basically what I posted there:
We don't have universal agreement about what some of these 4K terms mean and I see quite a bit of confusion out there (including on websites other than this one) about some of these terms and how some of these projectors work. Also, it seemed that it would be good to have one location to discuss these matters instead of spreading across multiple threads. So, I figured I would start a thread where we can discuss it.
Resolution is a complicated matter in our current world with non-standard approaches to getting resolution into images that humans see, so much of where we draw lines for what we call things is opinion and not hard fact. Much of the below and probably some of what others post on this will contain opinions. Some of this will be facts, but people could argue that the threshold for definitions could be drawn one way or another way.
On this website it seems that "True 4K" and "Real 4K" are allowed for projectors that fill the screen with 4 million pixels, then fill it again with another 4 million shifted pixels, which overlap with the first set, as the DLP XPR projectors with DMDs that are 1528p do. These chips have mirrors in a 2716x1528 configuration and an eShift element to shift the pixels between sub-frames. They do not leave gaps for the 2nd set of 4 million pixels. They let the pixels from each sub-frame overlap with multiple pixels from the other sub-frame.
This is similar to JVC and Epson eShift projectors, except that those start with chips/panels with a 1920x1080 layout of pixels.
The CTA started out defining the term "4K UHD" for displays as follows for the resolution requirement:
"Has at least eight million active pixels, with at least 3840 horizontally and at least 2160 vertically."
Others have decided to use terms like "True 4K" or "True 4K UHD" in place of "4K UHD". The CTA may be fine with those, but I have not seen an opinion from them on those or variations other than the one they did define ("4K UHD"). I didn't get any clarification on that when I asked somebody with the CTA whether they were okay with terms other than "4K UHD".
After the CTA came up with their original requirement for display resolution to qualify for the term, "4K UHD" they added a second sentence:
"Physical pixels shall be individually addressable such that the horizontal and vertical resolution above can be demonstrated
over the full range of colors provided by the display."
I've been exchanging emails with somebody from the CTA and have suggested to them that it would be good to clarify whether the horizontal and vertical resolutions have to be achievable on a single image or whether manufacturers can use 2 different test patterns for measuring those (as it seems TI does). I suggested that they make a choice between a 3rd sentence somewhat like one of the following:
1: The horizontal and vertical resolution requirements must be demonstrable on a single test image.
2: The horizontal and vertical resolution requirements can be demonstrated with separate test images.
If I hear any more I may suggest that they also draw a line in the sand for MTF, such as 25% MTF to count a resolution, or explicitly say that MTF doesn't matter.
TI has announced projectors with 1080p chips and 4 shift positions, but at this point I haven't heard anything about their performance, so I'm not sure if all pixels (outside the edges of the screen) will overlap with 12 other pixels, as would seem somewhat likely.
I was thinking of doing a Q and A here with my answers, but my original comments would get much longer than they will already be. So, I am going to list some questions I think are relevant in the 2nd post and give other people a crack at providing their answers.
Before I end this, I'm going to add one thing. There is one poster here who is a huge advocate for DLP XPR projectors who in my opinion will say pretty much anything to make them seem better, no matter how illogical or even if he just has to make stuff up out of thin air. I'm talking about the kind of spin I expect from marketing departments and car salesmen. I can't recall him taking responsibility for misinformation he posted even once. My view is that he just leaves his misinformation and moves on to think of more things.
People can of course like whatever technology and image characteristics they want, but I hope he (and anybody else) will keep BS and nonsense out of this thread. There are clearly many threads here where people can post those things to their hearts content. Please don't post claims here that you could have realized were false if you had just thought for another nanosecond. :)
--Darin
-
Here are some questions I consider relevant:
Q: Are the XPR projectors "Native 4K"?
Q: If "No" to the above, and they put up 8.3 million pixels, why aren't they "Native 4K"?
Q: Are the 8.3 million pixels with XPR projectors independent?
Q: Does qualifying as "Native 4K" require that 8.3 million pixels be displayed simultaneously?
Q: Would it change things if there was no pixel overlap? In other words, what if TI used a low fill ratio so that there was room leftover for other
sub-frame to only fill in black parts of the image on screen?
Q: Is DLP projector model xxxx for well under $20k one that uses pixel shifting to qualify as 4K UHD, or does it have 8.3 million
mirrors on the DMD(s)?
Q: Are the 8.3 million pixels from the 1528p plus 2x eShift projectors "properly aligned", as one person posted?
Q: Is it irrelevant how the pixels are projected on the screen, as long as the correct number of pixels are projected, as one
person posted?
Q: Does projector qualifying as "4K UHD" mean it will have better image quality than a projector that doesn't qualify for that high
a resolution?
Q: There are reports that some Sony projectors with 8.3 million pixels on each chip can't do a single pixel checkerboard
correctly. Are these "Native 4K"?
Others can add questions if they want.
--Darin
-
Why on earth did this get you an infraction ? Too much of a possibility for arguing ?
Q: Does qualifying as "Native 4K" require that 8.3 million pixels be displayed simultaneously?
A: in my opinion, yes. The standard up until now has been the number of pixels on the chip = the native resolution. Everything else could be considered " 4K compatible " .
-
Darin, this is an interesting topic and I suspect most people will answer these questions based upon what projector they own or what display technology they prefer. I've seen that several people can't give objective answers on the matter.
XPR, just like e-shift on Epson and JVC, is NOT native 4K. The reason is very simple. You cannot display discreet information to all 4 portions of each "new" pixel through XPR. The only way this would be possible is if XPR flashed four or more subframes to try and fix this issue, but as it currently stands, that's not how XPR works.
I see some people say that XPR is "CTA certified to be native 4K" as if that means anything. I could tell you that my speakers are THX certified, but what does that have to do with being accurate to the source material?
-
Why on earth did this get you an infraction ?
It said I insulted another member. They then deleted the whole thread, including answers to many questions from one member.
Q: Does qualifying as "Native 4K" require that 8.3 million pixels be displayed simultaneously?
A: in my opinion, yes. The standard up until now has been the number of pixels on the chip = the native resolution. Everything else could be considered " 4K compatible " .
My view is that the pixels don't need to be displayed simultaneously, much like I would consider a CRT to be native 1080p if it really could do 1080p properly, even though it takes time to paint the whole screen.
My issue with the XPR projectors and whether they qualify as "Native 4K" isn't about when the pixels are put up. It is that they overlap, which they do not in the source. So, they are not displayed correctly from a spatial standpoint.
I've referred to the "composite images" before. That is what I think really matters. Just like with single chip DLP, where they can show colors to a human viewer that a high speed camera doesn't see. As long as people aren't seeing rainbow artifacts or detecting both sub-frames separately, what matters is what the person or a low speed lightmeter sees.
If TI changed their algorithm and chips so that they had less than 50% fill ratio and made it so that none of the 8.3 million pixels overlapped with each other then I would call them "Native 4K". However, TI would never do that because it would kill the light output ratings and make native on/off CR even worse.
--Darin
-
I see some people say that XPR is "CTA certified to be native 4K" as if that means anything. I could tell you that my speakers are THX certified, but what does that have to do with being accurate to the source material?
While I can see the argument with going by what a standard's group says (especially since I am a voter for one :) ), in this case I think it is kind of interesting that their specification seems to have been written with TVs in mind. Maybe flat panel computer monitors too, but I think the odds are high that not a single person who worked on that standard even knew that projectors would overlap pixels. This just isn't something that TVs do. I have tried to explain how the technology works to a person in the CTA group and why I think they should clarify their standard given what projectors are now doing.
What are the odds that the CTA would have certified a projector with 1080p chips that shifts them 4 times for a lot of overlap between pixels, and not much independence in the 4K space to human vision, as "4K UHD", back in 2014, if they had known something like this might be coming? My guess is that they wouldn't have. It seems like they left a big enough crack in the definition for somebody to interpret things as this qualifying as "4K UHD".
--Darin
-
I could see how your thread/post might be interpreted as antagonistic towards Runt even though you didn't mention him by name. Based on his history, I am sure he hit the report button more than once. Also, I am sure he doesn't want clarification on the subject.
I noticed one CRT owner decided to go digital recently. He said he went with the Optoma because it is 4k. My guess is he received most of his info from the AVS thread. It is info like that that one could correct in the past so readers could make a more informed decision. It doesn't look like that is possible any more.
-
I could see how your thread/post might be interpreted as antagonistic towards Runt even though you didn't mention him by name. Based on his history, I am sure he hit the report button more than once. Also, I am sure he doesn't want clarification on the subject.
I noticed one CRT owner decided to go digital recently. He said he went with the Optoma because it is 4k. My guess is he received most of his info from the AVS thread. It is info like that that one could correct in the past so readers could make a more informed decision. It doesn't look like that is possible any more.
It's interesting that this CRT owner went with the Optoma. I've had the Optoma UHD65 and it's not a terrible projector, it's just not great by today's standards. It would be pretty good for casual viewing of TV and sports. I also think the UHD65 is priced well given the performance. I don't think it would function well for movies as the APL of that content usually needs more contrast to look subjectively good and the Optoma's are not up to the task, especially if you're coming from a CRT projector. However, it was very sharp with classic DLP pop, motion and a clean image.
-
Well, I had answers to all these before the other forum deleted an interesting thread >:(
Here are some questions I consider relevant:
Q: Are the XPR projectors "Native 4K"?
Nope.
Q: If "No" to the above, and they put up 8.3 million pixels, why aren't they "Native 4K"?
Q: Are the 8.3 million pixels with XPR projectors independent?
No they are not, and that's why they are not "Native 4K". While electronically, 8.3 million pixels may be individually addressable, optically/physically they are not. Just like e-Shift, XPR produces an image from two subframes, it uses an optical actuator to shift the second subframe 1/2 pixel diagonally, which means each pixel of the second subframe overlaps 4 pixels from the first. This means the two subframes interfere with each other. This actually multiplies the resolution, meaning XPR actually produces 17.2 Million pixels, however they are not individually addressable.
Q: Does qualifying as "Native 4K" require that 8.3 million pixels be displayed simultaneously?
Not necessarily, consider the case of a scanning laser projector. If it were to scan 2160 lines (without overlap), and were to modulate fast enough to produce 3840 distinct sections per line, then I think we could safely call that a "Native 4K" device.
Q: Would it change things if there was no pixel overlap? In other words, what if TI used a low fill ratio so that there was room leftover for other
sub-frame to only fill in black parts of the image on screen?
Sure, I think the criteria is if you can render 3840x2160 individual pixels on screen, independent of each other, then that should count as Native 4K.
Q: Is DLP projector model xxxx for well under $20k one that uses pixel shifting to qualify as 4K UHD, or does it have 8.3 million
mirrors on the DMD(s)?
I'm pretty sure any DLP under $100k isn't native 4K.
Q: Are the 8.3 million pixels from the 1528p plus 2x eShift projectors "properly aligned", as one person posted?
Not sure what this means.
Q: Is it irrelevant how the pixels are projected on the screen, as long as the correct number of pixels are projected, as one
person posted?
It's irrelevant how the pixels are projected, so long as on screen all 3840x2160 (or 4096x2160) are independently visible and measurable.
Q: Does projector qualifying as "4K UHD" mean it will have better image quality than a projector that doesn't qualify for that high
a resolution?
As with everything, it's more complicated than that.
Q: There are reports that some Sony projectors with 8.3 million pixels on each chip can't do a single pixel checkerboard
correctly. Are these "Native 4K"?
Now here's a tough one, I want to say both yes and no. On the one hand, yes it's native 4K because it uses 4096x2160 panels, on the other if it fails to get all those to screen independently, well then it's not. I guess I'd say it is, with an asterisk.
-
Why on earth did this get you an infraction ? Too much of a possibility for arguing ?
Q: Does qualifying as "Native 4K" require that 8.3 million pixels be displayed simultaneously?
A: in my opinion, yes. The standard up until now has been the number of pixels on the chip = the native resolution. Everything else could be considered " 4K compatible " .
Like we said above, consider the case of a scanning laser projector (there are a couple out there), arguably it only projects one pixel at a time, but if it were to scan 2160 lines and modulate fast enough to resolve 3840 pixels per line, I think it would qualify.
Although at the same time, I agree that since such a projector can produce many resolutions, it doesn't have a "native" resolution. Arguably you could say that that's "True" 4K, where as "Native" or not refers specifically to the imaging device used, and if it has a physical resolution of 3840x2160 (or 4096x2160).
-
I could see how your thread/post might be interpreted as antagonistic towards Runt even though you didn't mention him by name. Based on his history, I am sure he hit the report button more than once. Also, I am sure he doesn't want clarification on the subject.
I will give him a small amount of credit, if he were the type to report posts, I'm fairly certain I'd be banned already, considering how many times I've confronted him.
OT - is there a way to multiquote with this forum software?
-
I do not consider any projector that uses 1080P panels a native 4K projector. Does not matter how many pixels are put on screen, when you have to shift and overlap them. You could take 720P panels and shift them multiple times to get the CTA definition, but that certainly would not be 4K.
These new faux k DLP's would be nice projectors, if they had decent contrast, even though they are not true 4K.
-
I will give him a small amount of credit, if he were the type to report posts, I'm fairly certain I'd be banned already, considering how many times I've confronted him.
OT - is there a way to multiquote with this forum software?
You may be correct, but I have only had posts removed and infractions incurred on those DLP threads.
I agree with the individually addressable pixels independent of each other would be my criteria.
-
You may be correct, but I have only had posts removed and infractions incurred on those DLP threads.
Interesting, maybe I'm just diplomatic enough :o
-
Not sure what this means.
This was posted by longhornsk57 in one of the UHZ65 threads:
If you get 8 million unique pixels aligned properly at 60hz no matter how it's accomplished it's 4K.
I'm not sure if he actually thinks they are properly aligned with the XPR method, but that is my guess. I would respond there, but I was banned from that thread for correcting misinformation.
Now here's a tough one, I want to say both yes and no. On the one hand, yes it's native 4K because it uses 4096x2160 panels, on the other if it fails to get all those to screen independently, well then it's not. I guess I'd say it is, with an asterisk.
I agree. I asked this because it is a tough one. Maybe 4K*, like you said. Basically, the pixel level is native 4K, but there may be a bottleneck elsewhere in the chain that can't actually support that much properly. If it is just a matter of going into the service menu and disabling pixel alignment then I would call it native 4K.
I agree with your other answers.
--Darin
-
This was posted by longhornsk57 in one of the UHZ65 threads:
[qoute]If you get 8 million unique pixels aligned properly at 60hz no matter how it's accomplished it's 4K.I'm not sure if he actually thinks they are properly aligned with the XPR method, but that is my guess. I would respond there, but I was banned from that thread for correcting misinformation.
That one all depends on what one means by aligned properly. For example, if it means something like your theoretical 50% fill factor case, then sure.
I agree. I asked this because it is a tough one. Maybe 4K*, like you said. Basically, the pixel level is native 4K, but there may be a bottleneck elsewhere in the chain that can't actually support that much properly. If it is just a matter of going into the service menu and disabling pixel alignment then I would call it native 4K.
I guess it's like everything else, there's: does it meet some threshold, and I'd say since it uses 4096x2160 panels, that makes it native 4K. But once you get there, there's the issue of how well, etc, etc. Just like how there's a wide range of performance for 1080p projectors, all with native 1080p panels. Of course the distinction is those can all individually address each pixel on screen.
XPR in no way, shape, or form, produces 3840x2160 pixels on screen (or 4096x2160). 2516x1528 In reality it produces 5032x3056 (2516x1528 * 2) pixels (unique areas of color).
And frankly, I don't know what the big deal is. What's the big deal if XPR is "true 4K" or not? Does it really matter? No, it's the image on screen, and DLP has much bigger issues than whether XPR is "true 4K" or not. Unless the whole focus on the "true 4K" issues is intentionally to distract from its other disastrous performance issues. I mean you don't see JVC fans getting all up in arms when people make it clear that e-Shift isn't "true 4K", I don't know why it's such a taboo topic for DLP. I mean it's not. It can't render all 4K images properly. It does some very well, and some rather poorly, why can't folks just accept that and move on.
-
That one all depends on what one means by aligned properly. For example, if it means something like your theoretical 50% fill factor case, then sure.
I agree. However, I think the guy actually believes that the XPR projectors align the pixels properly, which they clearly don't.
--Darin
-
But it's like sequential color guys. ;)
You wouldn't complain about artifacts from the color wheel would you?
-
I see that Ruined is over on AVS telling people that with XPR the human eye sees 4K just like it sees the integrated colors from a single chip DLP. Just more BS from him.
I doubt he would claim that the human eye sees 3K images with JVC eShift projectors.
If XPR projectors had gaps for the other sub-frame(s) then it would be like single chip DLP colors, but we know it doesn't work that way (for the reasons I mentioned), and Ruined knows it doesn't work that way.
Seems like AVS is catering to the deceivers, so they get BS like that. The truth doesn't seem to have much relevance there.
--Darin
-
I see that Ruined is over on AVS telling people that with XPR the human eye sees 4K just like it sees the integrated colors from a single chip DLP. Just more BS from him.
I doubt he would claim that the human eye sees 3K images with JVC eShift projectors.
If XPR projectors had gaps for the other sub-frame(s) then it would be like single chip DLP colors, but we know it doesn't work that way (for the reasons I mentioned), and Ruined knows it doesn't work that way.
Seems like AVS is catering to the deceivers, so they get BS like that. The truth doesn't seem to have much relevance there.
--Darin
Those of us who try and correct the misinformation get banned. Such is life. Sooner or later all of us will be forceably relegated to this forum. In the end, that's not such a bad thing. So far this forum has been very objective in pretty much all the topics discussed. I would hope the "deceivers" would not be allowed to deceive people here. More and more people will begin to see all the deception and come here.
-
Just in case that new thread gets deleted too, I just posted this reply to the second "what is 4K" thread.
What are your opinions?
There are really two issues at hand here:
Whether a given machine is "true/native" 4K, which I think is defined as being able to accurately render each 3840x2160 (or 4096x2160) pixel individually/independently on screen.
Whether a given machine can produce a great, competitively sharp image with 4K content.
XPR and all pixel shifting technologies fail miserably at 1. This is shown clearly with test pattern results that have been posted, and single-pixel text (like PC desktops) screenshots. These technologies work by creating an image out of the composite of two subframes. Just like how a single chip DLP projector makes color out of the composite of three color subframes. In both cases (pixel shifting and sequential color) what is perceived is a composite image, not individual subframes. You can't in one breath say that sequential color projectors (single-chip DLP) produce real color because our eyes integrate the three subframes together, and then in the next breath say that XPR produces 8.3 million pixels because it flashes 4.15 million twice, so fast you can't tell they're different.
XPR does not produce 8.3 million pixels on screen, it in fact produces 17.2 million pixels, since the second subframe effectively multiplies the first's resolution by 4. It's the same with e-Shift, it produces 8.3 million pixels on screen. Of course those pixels aren't all individually addressable. But don't take my word for it, take it from Barco:
http://cineramax.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/BARCO-whitepaper-4K-UHD.pdf
Particularly make note of the "Processed Display Resolution" of 5120x3200, that's what actually ends up on screen, since if you look after the optical actuator step, the two subframes overlap.
You'll also notice that Barco's explanation is essentially identical to JVC's explanation of e-Shift:
https://www.soundandvision.com/content/jvc-procision-dla-x70r-d-ila-3d-projector-e-shifting
XPR and e-Shift (and Epson's "4K Enhancement") are all fundamentally the same technology, lower native resolution imager, plus and optical actuator shifting a second subframe 1/2 pixel diagonally to multiply the effective on screen resolution. The only difference between XPR and e-Shift is the imager's physical resolution, 2716 x 1528 vs 1920x1080. No one calls e-Shift true/native 4K, and neither is XPR.
It might be of interest what Kris Deering of Sound & Vision has to say:
Comparing the DLP XPR solution with the native 4K displays showed obvious artifacts using both the Sharpness and Overscan patterns and the Single Black Pixels set. When I used the simple horizontal and vertical single-line patterns, I noticed obvious softening or artifacts that prevented clean delineation of the pattern, which was present with both native displays. The Single Black Pixels pattern was the most obvious of the group, with pronounced artifacts visible when compared with the native displays. Other parts of the patterns fared better, such as text. But it was clear—at least with these two projectors—that the XPR technology wasn’t delivering the same level of performance as the native chips, which didn’t require any tricks to achieve their resolution.
https://www.soundandvision.com/content/dlps-4k-really-4k
When it comes to 2, well that's where the rubber meets the road so to speak. And unless you've got a PC desktop type use case, probably the more important question, and from everything I've read and seen, XPR does a very good job here. Probably better than JVC/Epson due to the higher native resolution, possibly even better than some "native 4K" machines due to limitations in their design.
Kris addressed this to:
So, I moved on to subjective testing of regular video content, using a variety of material on UHD Blu-ray. Here, the differences in picture detail between the displays rarely manifested. Resolution as a whole looked comparable, though the lack of native contrast with either of the DLP projectors gave the image a flat, washed-out appearance that was hard to ignore with most of the content. The XPR designs also had an ever so slight inherent softness that reminded me of the native 4K designs I’ve tested from Sony. Both the recent Sony projectors I’ve tried and these XPR designs required some fine-tuning of their image-enhancement features to deliver the sharpness one would expect from a native 4K design—an issue I never had with my reference projector. With some careful tuning, image fidelity looked better, with improved image delineation, though minor ringing was evident if I looked hard enough.
https://www.soundandvision.com/content/dlps-4k-really-4k-page-2
What I don't get is why a certain few posters seem to be trying to convince everyone that XPR is "true 4K", that it can render each pixel in a 3840x2160 image independently and accurately, who want to seem to cover that fact up. XPR is an approximation of a 4K imager, and like all approximations it can be tripped up in certain circumstances. That doesn't make it bad. Pixel shifting is a great technology, it's been working great for JVC and Epson, and seems to be working well for TI. It's proven to be an effective means of increasing apparent resolution on screen, while allowing the use of less expensive components, why some can't accept that it's just an approximation (but a very good one), I just don't understand. Why can't we just call a spade a spade: XPR is an approximation of true 4K, one that does a very good job in most circumstances but can be tripped up in some specific cases.
Frankly whether a given machine is "true 4K" or "Native 4K" or not really tells you nothing about what sort of UHD image it's going to produce, and should probably be the least important factor in your decision on which product to buy. Shootouts and comparisons have shown time and time again that there is very little visible difference between pixel shifting machines and native 4K machines in terms of resolution/detail with real world content, probably due largely to limitations in the content itself.
-
I don't see the thread.
-
It's in the < 3K forum. Which sort of backs up my theory that most of those DLP fans are from the < $3k forum and don't really know what a $5000 machine should be capable of.
-
Good post here and on AVS stanger89.
I see that Ruined his continuing with his deceptions in the UHZ65 thread on AVS and some people who don't seem too swift look like they believe his BS.
He is continuing with his, "CTA ... felt that TI's technology met the requirements." He keeps repeating this. As I've said, I've been in contact with the CTA. They have told me that companies can self certify, so unless somebody has some evidence that the CTA actually looked into this, then it is wrong to keep claiming that the CTA felt that it qualified. As I've also said, the representative for the CTA that I have been discussing this with had never even heard of eShift (or at least didn't know how it worked if he had heard the term).
The CTA writing a spec for televisions and then having a projector manufacturer say, "We qualify too" doesn't mean that the CTA actually looked into it or even knows how those projectors work.
Aztar35 is over there claiming, "... the space in between the pixels is being filled with new pixels at the speed of 1/120 second". Clearly he doesn't know how it works, but I'm guessing that is just ignorance.
Ruined knows how it works, yet claimed that this post from Aztar35 was correct. Is Ruined really stupid or knows better, but will say just about anything to help his side? I'm guessing the latter. I wouldn't believe a word the guy says.
Sad how on AVS it seems that there are quite a few people who want readers to be tricked by marketing talk or the misrepresentations of some posters about how the technology works.
--Darin
-
The biggest short coming of the UHD60 I had here wasn't resolution though - the picture looked surprisingly good ( other than the contrast ). It was rainbows, light leakage out the exhaust vent big time, limited lens shift and wonky HDR. And of course no power zoom or focus.
-
I saw a BenQ HT2050 in my room once and it was rainbow galore for me. I even saw rainbows just looking at the side of the lens from an angle.
-
You should have thrown The Wizard of Oz on ! ::)
-
The biggest short coming of the UHD60 I had here wasn't resolution though - the picture looked surprisingly good ( other than the contrast ). It was rainbows, light leakage out the exhaust vent big time, limited lens shift and wonky HDR. And of course no power zoom or focus.
And HDR on a 1000:1 contrast projector can not look good in any way, it is called High Dynamic Range for a reason and it is not possible with 1000:1.
-
It's in the < 3K forum. Which sort of backs up my theory that most of those DLP fans are from the < $3k forum and don't really know what a $5000 machine should be capable of.
Ok, I went and looked at the thread. It doesn't look like many people are responding.
Darin,
I think you incur the wrath when you mention someone by name. I know it sucks, but if you say something like "some people or several people" then it is more vague and the mods have a more difficult time saying you are persecuting a certain individual.
-
I saw a BenQ HT2050 in my room once and it was rainbow galore for me. I even saw rainbows just looking at the side of the lens from an angle.
Rainbows have never been a problem for me.
I thought it interesting and humorous that the $20k DP XPR 1 chip projector had several people here seeing rainbows. I think Craig was one of them. :)
-
Rainbows have never been a problem for me.
I thought it interesting and humorous that the $20k DP XPR 1 chip projector had several people here seeing rainbows. I think Craig was one of them. :)
Back in the day, my dad and sister each owned a 1080p Samsung DLP RPTV and I never saw a rainbow on those.
-
You should have thrown The Wizard of Oz on ! ::)
I was looking for that pot of gold but no luck. :'(
-
Good post here and on AVS stanger89.
I see that Ruined his continuing with his deceptions in the UHZ65 thread on AVS and some people who don't seem too swift look like they believe his BS.
He is continuing with his, "CTA ... felt that TI's technology met the requirements." He keeps repeating this. As I've said, I've been in contact with the CTA. They have told me that companies can self certify, so unless somebody has some evidence that the CTA actually looked into this, then it is wrong to keep claiming that the CTA felt that it qualified. As I've also said, the representative for the CTA that I have been discussing this with had never even heard of eShift (or at least didn't know how it worked if he had heard the term).
I still think that TI had a hand in the writing of those "requirements", and made sure they were worded in a way that was advantageous to them. Further, as you posted above, this is not a scientific standard, it's a marketing standard and companies self-certify. CTA is a marketing organization, they don't surve customers, they're not like SMPTE trying to establish quality/performance standards, CTA's mission is to assist their members in marketing and selling products. At least UHD Premium includes has measurable criteria (on that subject, I wonder how UHD Premium defines resolution, I see the stories reference 3840x2160 or greater, but how is that measured?).
Aztar35 is over there claiming, "... the space in between the pixels is being filled with new pixels at the speed of 1/120 second". Clearly he doesn't know how it works, but I'm guessing that is just ignorance.
Most likely, I mean it is filling the gaps, but the gaps are much smaller that the pixels that are filling them, so there's a lot of overlap going on there.
Ruined knows how it works, yet claimed that this post from Aztar35 was correct. Is Ruined really stupid or knows better, but will say just about anything to help his side? I'm guessing the latter. I wouldn't believe a word the guy says.
Ever time I read one of his posts I get the impression he works for Optoma (most likely), Coretronic, or TI.
Sad how on AVS it seems that there are quite a few people who want readers to be tricked by marketing talk or the misrepresentations of some posters about how the technology works.
Honestly, Ruined (while he bugs me) doesn't really bother me that much, what really bugs me is all the people who step in to tell those who are trying to correct his misinformation to get out of the thread. I completely understand the desire to not have a thread poluted by a largely academic debate, but it's disappointing that no one is calling out Ruined to stop with his misinformation, it's like nobody realizes "we" only post in there to correct his information. We don't go around just crapping on DLP threads because we don't like DLPs.
-
The biggest short coming of the UHD60 I had here wasn't resolution though - the picture looked surprisingly good ( other than the contrast ). It was rainbows, light leakage out the exhaust vent big time, limited lens shift and wonky HDR. And of course no power zoom or focus.
I was really kind of tempted to pick that up from you just to see how it worked. I just can't fathom how the contrast is acceptable on those, not when it's basically not acceptable on my Planar and it's got about 2-3x the contrast of the UHD60/65.
-
Ok, I went and looked at the thread. It doesn't look like many people are responding.
The cynic in me says that they put it in that forum on purpose to bury it. But really, I take it as more evidence that the majority of the folks who are really excited about 4K DLP are owners of sub $3k DLPs who have no clue what's possible at the UHD65 and especially UHZ65 price points, and they just don't like hearing negative things about their favored technology. They haven't witnessed DLP's fall from the position of prestige it held about 10 years ago.
-
And HDR on a 1000:1 contrast projector can not look good in any way, it is called High Dynamic Range for a reason and it is not possible with 1000:1.
I posted in the Projector vs OLED thread over there, but I just got an LG B7 OLED about a week ago, and I'm more convinced than ever that brightness can't save HDR. Maybe it's the long seating distance, but I'm just not blown away by the HDR on that B7, the videos I've watched just don't scream HDR to me. I haven't actually calibrated the HDR on it yet, but the HDR doesn't look that much different than SDR.
I've seen the same thing on my RS600 with a custom curve. On the flip side, bad contrast, and especially bad black level (not FTB) jumps out at me right away. My Planar 8150, every time I watch it I think I've got the input levels wrong because the elevated black level looks terrible, but no, that's just all it can do. I can't imagine watching a projector, even with similar contrast capabilities (like the UHDZ65 supposedly has), but that's 2-3 times brighter.
-
Most likely, I mean it is filling the gaps, but the gaps are much smaller that the pixels that are filling them, so there's a lot of overlap going on there.
I've exchanged some PMs with Aztar35 and he seems like a nice guy who just didn't understand how the technology worked. I don't believe he was talking about the gaps from having a little less than 100% fill ratio and actually thought real gaps were left in one subframe for the other subframe. I think your post with pictures of the overlap likely helped him understand it better.
Seems like the mods will help Ruined with his misinformation. I don't think it is a coincidence that Ruined didn't correct Aztar35's misunderstanding and instead tried to make it look like what Aztar35 had posted was true.
I also think it is pretty pitiful how many people over there want misinformation to stay uncorrected. I remember the same kind of thing with contrast ratio discussions. Not everybody cares about the truth and it is clear that a whole group of people will attack those posting the truth while defending the deceivers.
--Darin
-
I also think it is pretty pitiful how many people over there want misinformation to stay uncorrected. I remember the same kind of thing with contrast ratio discussions. Not everybody cares about the truth and it is clear that a whole group of people will attack those posting the truth while defending the deceivers.
I think it, unfortunately, is more a case of people just don't like hearing bad things about their owned/desired/favored product, and when a debate, especially if it's a distracting one, most folks just don't appear to have the intellectual curiosity to evaluate the debate, they just seem to lash out against whoever's stance appears "negative".
I had a few PM's with Aztar too, he seemed nice enough, but not the technical type. I wasn't going to question his observations because he's seen it and I haven't. But I'll definitely question Ruined because he hasn't seen any of the XPR DLPs and hasn't seen 90% of the other machine he talks about.
-
But I'll definitely question Ruined because he hasn't seen any of the XPR DLPs and hasn't seen 90% of the other machine he talks about.
That would definitely suggest he doesn't work for Optoma or Coretronics wouldn't it?
-
That would definitely suggest he doesn't work for Optoma or Coretronics wouldn't it?
Well true :-[
-
Well true :-[
That of course presumes he's telling the truth about not having seen them. He sure doesn't seem to have a problem stretching and manipulating it in regards to the facts of DLP tech.
-
BTW, we're probably going to need another one of these threads for 10-bit color real soon. :P
-
That of course presumes he's telling the truth about not having seen them. He sure doesn't seem to have a problem stretching and manipulating it in regards to the facts of DLP tech.
FWIW, I kind of doubt he works for Optoma or Coretronic, but the way Optoma can do no wrong according to his posts (while he's OK throwing other XPR manufacturers like Acer under the bus) and his apparent access to not widely available Coretronic information really just has the feel of being an insider.
At the same time, it just seems like he spouts all kinds of things without any first hand knowledge. Maybe he works for Optoma but in a position where he gets access to hardware.... Who knows.
-
You guys are more patient than I am.
I looked at Runt's history and couldn't find anything to give away his affiliation except maybe this.
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/24-digital-hi-end-projectors-3-000-usd-msrp/1434826-projector-mini-shootout-thread-460.html#post41156801
-
You guys are more patient than I am.
I'm just hoping to get a bite on the color part of this post.
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/68-digital-projectors-under-3-000-usd-msrp/2940638-benq-9050-gets-destroyed.html#post55288088
-
Ok, I went and looked at the thread. It doesn't look like many people are responding.
Darin,
I think you incur the wrath when you mention someone by name. I know it sucks, but if you say something like "some people or several people" then it is more vague and the mods have a more difficult time saying you are persecuting a certain individual.
I agree, keep it vague, as far as who you are responding to, but have your response directly address the issue. Everyone will know who you are talking about, but the poster will not be able to go to a mod and complain.
-
Ruined is continuing his spinning in the <$3k forum over on AVS.
He claims that a car analogy of a person going to a dealer, asking for a V8, but getting a V6+Turbo is a good one for a person looking for a 4K projector and being sold one with a logo that says "4K UHD", but is 1528p+eShift (or I guess 1080p plus 4 way eShift). Strangely, he then claimed that it wouldn't be okay to not tell the V8 requesting customer that what you are selling them isn't actually a V8, but is okay to sell the customer asking for a 4K projector one of these XPR projectors while telling them it is 4K.
--Darin
-
He can spin it any way he wants. But that makes no sense.
-
Buckle up! Someone gave their explanation of the Infocomm standard. :)
-
You know I can't resist when people post false info about that. :)
There goes that claim again about a single candle in theater resulting in only 50:1 CR. Where do people get this stuff?
--Darin
-
Ruined also has once claimed that ~2,000:1 native contrast is fine since that is typical in commercial movie theaters. I guess we're supposed to base our standards on less than ideal viewing environments because they are modern day theaters? Comical. I briefly had a BenQ HT2050 in my room which has around that contrast level and it was completely unacceptable coming from experience with higher contrast projectors (JVCs and Epson LS10000). It goes without even saying that when blacks are just a moderate shade of grey, it kills any depth and range to many movies and really hurts the viewing experience no matter how "sharp" the image is.
-
Ruined also has once claimed that ~2,000:1 native contrast is fine since that is typical in commercial movie theaters.
Not just that this was "fine", but that he was actually trying to match the contrast ratio of commercial theaters, where he was using the on/off CR of SD commercial theaters and not HDR commercial theaters as what he was trying to achieve. I figured this was nonsense and responded to his claim, but got an infraction.
Later it was confirmed that he hadn't actually been telling the truth when he posted that if a projector had 2k:1 native on/off CR he wouldn't buy it unless it also had a good dynamic dimming system to give much higher dynamic on/off CR.
I figured one of those was a lie and I think it was his claim that he was actually aiming to replicate the SD commercial theater experience.
I can see Ruined's brain working overtime at times with, "How can I make DLP sound better? How can I make DLP sound better? How can I make DLP sound better? ..."
His brain's answer doesn't have to be logical or true.
--Darin
-
You know I can't resist when people post false info about that. :)
There goes that claim again about a single candle in theater resulting in only 50:1 CR. Where do people get this stuff?
--Darin
I was ready to say something, but I knew you contrast sense went off. :) Kind of like that time Craig, Mike, Mark and I were listening to that idiot at the Barco booth talking about the Infocomm standard. We knew you could hear him from across the convention center. ;)
Not just that this was "fine", but that he was actually trying to match the contrast ratio of commercial theaters, where he was using the on/off CR of SD commercial theaters and not HDR commercial theaters as what he was trying to achieve. I figured this was nonsense and responded to his claim, but got an infraction.
Later it was confirmed that he hadn't actually been telling the truth when he posted that if a projector had 2k:1 native on/off CR he wouldn't buy it unless it also had a good dynamic dimming system to give much higher dynamic on/off CR.
If figured one of those was a lie and I think it was his claim that he was actually aiming to replicate the SD commercial theater experience.
I can see Ruined's brain working overtime at times with, "How can I make DLP sound better? How can I make DLP sound better? How can I make DLP sound better? ..."
His brain's answer doesn't have to be logical or true.
--Darin
-
Surely, everyone knows marketing a car as having V8 power when equipped with a turbo V-6, wouldn't mislead anyone into thinking it has a V8.
-
Sigh...
I just saw this in the Dell UST thread:
"...the current chip due to each mirror {pixel} being able to move 9000 times a second is actually able to put 8 million pixels on screen so im not sure how much resources they will put to come out with a 8 million+ mirrors chip..."
It's really sad we can't even have a discussion over there about whether XPR actually does that, without certain posters responding with straw man arguments... Or resorting to toddler "but it does", or parent "because I said so" logic.
-
Does anyone have the calibrated lumens for the UHZ65?
-
I'm not sure I've seen any.
-
Does anyone have the calibrated lumens for the UHZ65?
Don't worry, it's really bright because the spec sheet says so and lasers! ;)
-
I'm not sure I've seen any.
Yes you have. Wasn't in like 75 ft lamberts calibrated? ;D
-
Yes you have. Wasn't in like 75 ft lamberts calibrated? ;D
I don't know, I can't see after that 8)
-
https://www.tvspecialists.com/optoma-uhz65-projector-comparison-vs-sony-vpl-vw365es/
-
You guys know why I am asking. Runt keeps stating the Optoma is a light cannon. I got tired of reading and didn't know if someone legitimate has actually taken a calibrated reading.
https://www.tvspecialists.com/optoma-uhz65-projector-comparison-vs-sony-vpl-vw365es/
I have seen a couple of links to these reviews. Has the reviewer ever calibrated a pj?
-
You guys know why I am asking. Runt keeps stating the Optoma is a light cannon. I got tired of reading and didn't know if someone legitimate has actually taken a calibrated reading.
I have seen a couple of links to these reviews. Has the reviewer ever calibrated a pj?
Yes, that is why I questioned him in the UHZ owners thread. He keeps saying 3000-5000 lumen projectors are common. Really? He also suggests not to get a screen with anything more than unity gain because it is such a bright projector. He doesn't own one though. :(
I linked to that review because it put the light output rating at something I can at least believe (1500-1800 lumens) d65 maybe versus what (ruined/runt) claims 3000 lumens that's uncalibrated of course.) I didn't read the entire review I just saw the 1500-1800 d65 number for the UHZ.
-
The couple of reviews I have looked at the guy usually says basic calibration. I don't think I have seen a complete review like Kris would do from him.
-
Those DLP threads are so frustrating to watch. Nobody in them cares about what a calibrated image is, and if you start talking about it they get all defensive. They're all just "OMG DLP ROXORS TEH BIG111!"
I'm seeing repeated references to using the contrast control to reduce brightness, by multiple people over there. That's just a terrible idea, it will reduce your contrast, which will destroy the image on a projector with only 1000:1 native to begin with.
And no offense to anyone in particular, but I can't believe the one guy who's posted "calibration" settings in the UHZ65 thread is taken seriously, "calibrating" with dynamic black on? And I'm sure he's getting 56fL from a UHZ...
-
Those DLP threads are so frustrating to watch. Nobody in them cares about what a calibrated image is, and if you start talking about it they get all defensive. They're all just "OMG DLP ROXORS TEH BIG111!"
I'm seeing repeated references to using the contrast control to reduce brightness, by multiple people over there. That's just a terrible idea, it will reduce your contrast, which will destroy the image on a projector with only 1000:1 native to begin with.
And no offense to anyone in particular, but I can't believe the one guy who's posted "calibration" settings in the UHZ65 thread is taken seriously, "calibrating" with dynamic black on? And I'm sure he's getting 56fL from a UHZ...
I've been waiting for you to ask him how he is getting the out of this world light output reading. ;) I was thinking about asking but, I just don't feel like it anymore. :-\
-
Stang,
I agree. I think it was you or someone here who said most of these guys are coming from the under $3k forum and could care less about a calibrated image. It is more of the look at how big my screen is and the cool purple leds surrounding the screen.
I went and read that Ronny's posts to see if he had any lumen readings to try to find an actual number. I saw the 56ft/lmbs, but I don't recall seeing what screen he is using. I can't believe Runt has me running around trying to verify these numbers.
Tom,
I was that way for the last couple of months. I must be bored to be back to engaging. ;)
-
I've been waiting for you to ask him how he is getting the out of this world light output reading. ;) I was thinking about asking but, I just don't feel like it anymore. :-\
I would, I almost did, but a while back I said it was going to be my last post in that thread, so I'm doing my best to stick to that.
Stang,
I agree. I think it was you or someone here who said most of these guys are coming from the under $3k forum and could care less about a calibrated image. It is more of the look at how big my screen is and the cool purple leds surrounding the screen.
It's really just the same vibe I get from threads in that forum, from when I venture there, and what I vaguely remember from my W5000 days when I spent time there. There were a few folks who were interested in calibrating and accurate images, but the majority were just happy and thrilled with the picture.
And to be clear, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, I almost wish that was me since it seems the more I learn, the more unhappy, or perhaps more easily I become unhappy* with things. The frustrating part is when you try to inject a bit of science/measurement/accuracy to the thread and then you get attacked for being a negative nancy "We don't want to hear bad things, it looks great!"
I mean I dropped out of the RS640 thread over there because of all the "negativity" but I'm glad those folks posted that info because it saved me an upgrade this year that would probably have been entirely lateral.
I went and read that Ronny's posts to see if he had any lumen readings to try to find an actual number. I saw the 56ft/lmbs, but I don't recall seeing what screen he is using. I can't believe Runt has me running around trying to verify these numbers.
I'm betting he's measuring with his meter pointed at the projector. You get some crazy high readings that way, but they're completely useless for anything other than relative comparison to other measurements that session.
Tom,
I was that way for the last couple of months. I must be bored to be back to engaging. ;)
I kind of want to, but I got the distinct impression that me and my questions/views were not wanted in that thread. And who am I to argue with that.
*Like with the theater, I went to The Last Jedi opening Friday. Really liked the movie, but man was the presentation terrible, blacks looked like about 30IRE and the whole thing looked out of focus. :(
-
I mean I dropped out of the RS640 thread over there because of all the "negativity" but I'm glad those folks posted that info because it saved me an upgrade this year that would probably have been entirely lateral.
You are welcome.
-
I agree. I have always known that the under $3k forum has been less technical. It is interesting that they are now crossing over to the over $3k forum. Nothing wrong with it, but it sucks when they get upset at those that are trying to have a discussion.
And I agree that sometimes I wish I wasn't concerned about a lot of this. As Darin once told me, when you see rainbows for the first time then you will always see them.
As for Ronny, I will give him the benefit of the doubt for now.
-
You are welcome.
Javs, since I got banned over there I haven't been following things as closely as I used to. What's your take on eshift5. Do you feel an upgrade to the newest generation JVC models is worth it if you have an eshift4 machine? From the photos you posted it looks like eshift5 gives a more "analog" looking image which is something I actually I find appealing. Those were close up shots. Do you feel from a regular seated distance back from the screen you get a noticeable improvement in image quality? I don't just mean detail or sharpness. If eshift5 gives a more pleasing look to the image even if there isn't more detail I wouldn't mind that either.
-
Javs, since I got banned over there I haven't been following things as closely as I used to. What's your take on eshift5. Do you feel an upgrade to the newest generation JVC models is worth it if you have an eshift4 machine? From the photos you posted it looks like eshift5 gives a more "analog" looking image which is something I actually I find appealing. Those were close up shots. Do you feel from a regular seated distance back from the screen you get a noticeable improvement in image quality? I don't just mean detail or sharpness. If eshift5 gives a more pleasing look to the image even if there isn't more detail I wouldn't mind that either.
Nope not worth it if you have a good sample eshift 4 machine.
Sure the picture may be more analogue, but its at a loss of pure sharpness IMO.
We LOST usable MTF by going to Eshift 5. Thats just a fact. Its clearly visible from where I sit, I see it on PC desktop things clearly, Kodi Menu's my chroma test pattern shows it too. In video the image actually appears a little flatter as a result.
If eshift 5 cannot replicate very small black line spacing between letters as well as previously I don't want anything to do with it. From the chair this is also more obvious, eshift 4 with this pattern from my seating position looks very very crisp and sharp, you actually have to look closer to see that there are truncated pixels there as we all know.
Eshift 5 from the chair looks like its slightly defocused by comparison, but obviously the lettering looks more full and complete.
Its all a step sideways at best. Some will prefer it, I dont.
9900
(https://i.imgur.com/XtfyswC.jpg)
9500
(https://i.imgur.com/f7dOkVe.jpg)
Rollover
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/121753
You also have to realise this overall softness (but resolution being ultimately higher) was why I sold my 4K Sony. I kept my JVC because the raw crispness and sharpness coupled with eshift 4 brought me so close to 4k that I felt it was worth giving a little in resolution to gain that, I think eshift 5 gets closer to the full resolution at 4k but it gives up some of that raw sharpness, which is the main reason I have stayed with JVC unto this point.
If I wanted that softness I would just buy a 4K Sony.
-
" raw crispness " - I think I could use that in a projector review and a sauvignon blanc wine review. :)
-
" raw crispness " - I think I could use that in a projector review and a sauvignon blanc wine review. :)
Its a thing!
p.s Watched half of INCEPTION UHD last night. It looks stunning!
The 4K Remaster really pulled all the detail from the negative there, I could see it within seconds.
-
Its a thing!
p.s Watched half of INCEPTION UHD last night. It looks stunning!
The 4K Remaster really pulled all the detail from the negative there, I could see it within seconds.
That is excellent news. That's one of my and my wife's favorite films ( Interstellar too ). The Nolan re-masters are super charging my 4K Blu-ray collection ! The Prestige should be a great one too.
-
Just finished watching Passengers again. looked great on the 4500. Even the space scenes looked good. :)
-
Nope not worth it if you have a good sample eshift 4 machine.
Sure the picture may be more analogue, but its at a loss of pure sharpness IMO.
We LOST usable MTF by going to Eshift 5. Thats just a fact. Its clearly visible from where I sit, I see it on PC desktop things clearly, Kodi Menu's my chroma test pattern shows it too. In video the image actually appears a little flatter as a result.
If eshift 5 cannot replicate very small black line spacing between letters as well as previously I don't want anything to do with it. From the chair this is also more obvious, eshift 4 with this pattern from my seating position looks very very crisp and sharp, you actually have to look closer to see that there are truncated pixels there as we all know.
Eshift 5 from the chair looks like its slightly defocused by comparison, but obviously the lettering looks more full and complete.
Its all a step sideways at best. Some will prefer it, I dont.
9900
(https://i.imgur.com/XtfyswC.jpg)
9500
(https://i.imgur.com/f7dOkVe.jpg)
Rollover
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/121753
You also have to realise this overall softness (but resolution being ultimately higher) was why I sold my 4K Sony. I kept my JVC because the raw crispness and sharpness coupled with eshift 4 brought me so close to 4k that I felt it was worth giving a little in resolution to gain that, I think eshift 5 gets closer to the full resolution at 4k but it gives up some of that raw sharpness, which is the main reason I have stayed with JVC unto this point.
If I wanted that softness I would just buy a 4K Sony.
I'm working on my 885ES review right now and the few times I've compared it to the RS4500 with content, the "softness" is VERY easy to see. If you didn't have the other to compare to I could completely understand the raves, but in direct comparison with them properly setup it isn't very hard to tell the difference.
-
I'm working on my 885ES review right now and the few times I've compared it to the RS4500 with content, the "softness" is VERY easy to see. If you didn't have the other to compare to I could completely understand the raves, but in direct comparison with them properly setup it isn't very hard to tell the difference.
Kris, do you feel this is due to how Sony is displaying information on their panels or do you feel it's due mostly to lens quality? The 285ES I had here had some issues with test patterns (even with the fine-pixel convergence software turned off in the service menu). My theory is that Sony is doing some wonky things to try and feed their 4K SXRD panels information on a discreet per-pixel basis. Some digital resolution loss seems to be occurring. Mostly chroma information. It's something I've seen as far back as the 1000ES. It would be interesting to see you touch on this comparison in your review if your word count isn't too limited. I think people would find it interesting to know why the 885ES isn't as sharp, because I think a lot of people are going to presume it's wholly based on lens quality differences. From my experience a good lens sample in a 2xx/3xx/6xx/8xx SXRD projector can get pretty close in terms of pixel delineation to the lens found in the 1xxx/5xxx models. A 665ES I had here actually surprised me in this regard. The 285ES was not as good (despite all the talk of a "better" lens) but I'm going to assume they're handpicking better built lenses for the 6xx/8xx models.
If you get a chance, can you take a look at these 10 bit gradient tests on the 885ES? The second one I think is more revealing (the rotating one). The 285ES did not pass this test. Lots of banding could be seen. The JVC eshifters passed with flying colors. I'm wondering how the 885ES looks (and even the RS4500).
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/139-display-calibration/2269338-10-bit-gradient-test-patterns.html
-
I'm working on my 885ES review right now and the few times I've compared it to the RS4500 with content, the "softness" is VERY easy to see. If you didn't have the other to compare to I could completely understand the raves, but in direct comparison with them properly setup it isn't very hard to tell the difference.
Be prepared for the angry mob. I hear Roxie is sharpening his pitchfork as I type. :)
On another note, Darin said you were busy till after the first of the year. Was there any discussion about getting together with the guy from AVS that has the UHZ65?
-
Be prepared for the angry mob. I hear Roxie is sharpening his pitchfork as I type. :)
On another note, Darin said you were busy till after the first of the year. Was there any discussion about getting together with the guy from AVS that has the UHZ65?
Roxiedog will claim a bad lens or something like that. I will put money on it now.
-
I'm not worried about Roxie. Honestly, so far I've been pretty impressed with the 885ES from a subjective standpoint. I haven't gotten too far into the measurements and objective testing yet. I only plan on some passing comments when comparing it to the 4500, and only because they are both laser and native 4K. Their price points set them apart quite a ways, but they definitely have performance differences (especially peak brightness). I wish I had a 385ES on hand to be honest. It would help me more in evaluating value in comparison to the rest of their line.
-
I'm not worried about Roxie. Honestly, so far I've been pretty impressed with the 885ES from a subjective standpoint. I haven't gotten too far into the measurements and objective testing yet. I only plan on some passing comments when comparing it to the 4500, and only because they are both laser and native 4K. Their price points set them apart quite a ways, but they definitely have performance differences (especially peak brightness). I wish I had a 385ES on hand to be honest. It would help me more in evaluating value in comparison to the rest of their line.
I think the VW885 is going to fit a lot of people's needs, and it certainly looked good at Cedia. But you're right - they don't exist in the same price catagory, and some people will have trouble physically fitting an RS4500 in their theater. I had to re-build my projector closet just to get it in! I am looking forward to reading your review !
-
I'm not worried about Roxie. Honestly, so far I've been pretty impressed with the 885ES from a subjective standpoint. I haven't gotten too far into the measurements and objective testing yet. I only plan on some passing comments when comparing it to the 4500, and only because they are both laser and native 4K. Their price points set them apart quite a ways, but they definitely have performance differences (especially peak brightness). I wish I had a 385ES on hand to be honest. It would help me more in evaluating value in comparison to the rest of their line.
I'm sure the 885ES looks great. All the Sony 4K models I've seen looked very very good. Is it possible to test that Stacey Spears rotating 10 bit pattern for me? I'm just curious how a higher up Sony model handles it.
-
It looks like Runt is going after Kris now. :(
-
I'm sure the 885ES looks great. All the Sony 4K models I've seen looked very very good. Is it possible to test that Stacey Spears rotating 10 bit pattern for me? I'm just curious how a higher up Sony model handles it.
Yes, I will be evaluating how it does with those patterns.
-
As for Ronny, I will give him the benefit of the doubt for now.
To be clear, I don't think he's doing anything intentional, I think he's just inexperienced, as are the folks who are using his settings.
-
To be clear, I don't think he's doing anything intentional, I think he's just inexperienced, as are the folks who are using his settings.
I understood that and agree.
Now Runt is really going after Kris. I am biting my tongue.
-
Yes, I will be evaluating how it does with those patterns.
Thanks Kris, much appreciated!
-
I understood that and agree.
Now Runt is really going after Kris. I am biting my tongue.
Who is Runt? Is that Ruined?
-
Who is Runt? Is that Ruined?
Yes, like runt of the litter. He has went after Kris in the Optoma thread for his "biased" review of the Benq. Admittedly everyone has biases, but that is like the pot calling the kettle black (or light grey in this case ;D).
-
Yes, like runt of the litter. He has went after Kris in the Optoma thread for his "biased" review of the Benq. Admittedly everyone has biases, but that is like the pot calling the kettle black (or light grey in this case ;D).
What I find to be utterly funny is how he is telling us how wonderful these DLP´s are with HDR, HDR needs a lot more than 1000:1 on/off contrast. HDR is so much more than brightness (not that these are very bright when calibrated to D65 as far as I have read), he is clearly clueless. :)
To me there is no doubt this guy (Ruined) is the most DLP biased guy on the other forum, I think he works for a DLP provider or he has some kind of stock or owns a business in the DLP branch. The way he is calling Kris Deering biased is simply stupid, and saying a 1000:1 (4000:1 dynamic) projector can show fantastic black levels clearly shows how biased Ruined is.
And to give a projector deserved critique in a review does not make it a negative review, that is if the projector deserved the critique. And these DLP clearly deserve it in my opinion even if I have never seen one of these XPR ones. I have seen my share of low end 1080p DLP´s and I am not close to interested in seeing one of these so called 4K ones.
-
Someone posted an image in the other thread, and this is the second time we've been able to compare/measure pixel sizes. And again, when you count pixels on an XPR machine, it's clearly putting 2716x1528 pixels on screen, not 3840x2160.
There's something really weird going on with these XPR DLPs, it seems most of the image doesn't even get shifted at all.
-
For the Sony's, I would say the panels are obviously native, but the end-result may not be, given bad enough color addressing is similar to a pixel mapping issue. That's how I would distinguish it, but I've never tried a test pattern.
Here is how I would define it:
The pixels must be addressable and must produce the true pixel's color with a pixel pitch that does not greatly differ (ratio-wise) from the native pixel pitch of the native panel. Hence by ratio adjusted, I mean taking into account the tighter fill @ higher res.
The panel doesn't necessarily have to be native, but the end-result does. I'm not sure there is any tech that ever could produce a native result with a non-native panel, so it's somewhat hyperbole.
As far as MTF, I think the shifted pixel would have to be near equal to the non-shifted pixel. Though this does get a bit muddier, as you could also say just within some %.
AFIK, there are no Native 4k DLP's in the consumer space, trickery just like e-shift. It may be superior to e-shift, but there are still some issues with patterns.
I am pretty much in full agreement with Stranger89 I believe (or really close)...
-
The panel doesn't necessarily have to be native, but the end-result does. I'm not sure there is any tech that ever could produce a native result with a non-native panel, so it's somewhat hyperbole.
Well, there's scanning laser machines, like the Picobit. Technically they only display one pixel at a time, but they can produce much higher "native" resolutions. Of course, I think 720p is about the limit of these for now.
-
To me there is no doubt this guy (Ruined) is the most DLP biased guy on the other forum, I think he works for a DLP provider or he has some kind of stock or owns a business in the DLP branch.
I think he is probably doing all that spinning for free. He posts misinformation and then when I point it out he refuses to address it or claims it is okay for him to say those things based on a technicality, even if he gets readers to believe something that isn't true. He tells people that XPR works like 1080i and the 2nd subframe for XPR fills in gaps in the 1st subframe, based on the fact that the fill ratio is less than 100%. He seems happy to make people believe that pixels don't overlap.
There is another poster who clearly has trouble understanding my posts who asked me if I have no shame because I called out Ruined's misinformation, as if I am in the wrong for doing that while it is fine that Ruined posts false information and won't address it when called on it.
One of the assumptions has been that TI calls these 4K UHD projectors based on a CTA spec. Ruined claims that the CTA makes the specs (as if nobody else does) and that he will defer to what the CTA says. He says that his reason for calling them 4K UHD is that the CTA is the authority on this and reportedly these pass the CTA requirements. However, I haven't found anywhere that TI or their partners use the CTA logo and I don't think the 2 way shift products actually pass the current CTA requirements.
The original CTA requirements only included 8.3M active pixels, 3840 horizontal pixels and 2160 vertical pixels. However, that was changed later. Now there is a requirement that when proving the resolutions the display needs to be able to show the full color range.
I don't think that the 2 way shift models can do the full color range when demonstrating the horizontal or vertical resolutions. The reason I say that is that I think they need to make half the pixels in a vertical white line black and so the "white" line can't go brighter than 50% luminance. Since 50% luminance and 100% luminance are different colors IMO, I don't think they currently qualify.
I mentioned this to a CTA representative and he said that if there was a complaint they would probably ask for industry input, since they didn't explicitly discuss that with their latest update. I figure that if things went that way and the CTA group wanted these to qualify, then they could change the spec.
That doesn't really matter if TI and their partners don't use the CTA logo though.
I would have to think some more about whether the 4 way shift units meet all the CTA requirements.
Anybody think Ruined would actually stop calling these 4K UHD with no qualification if it turns out that TI isn't confident enough to use the CTA logo and they don't really meet all the CTA requirements?
--Darin
-
FWIW, I don't recall seeing the CTA logo anywhere.
-
The new DLP chips being called " 4K " is certainly working from a marketing point of view. I get people callng saying " now that true 4K projectors are under $3K, which one should I buy ? ". :-X
-
The new DLP chips being called " 4K " is certainly working from a marketing point of view. I get people callng saying " now that true 4K projectors are under $3K, which one should I buy ? ". :-X
Do you futilely try to explain the truth to them and eventually end up taking their money in frustration?
-
Do you futilely try to explain the truth to them and eventually end up taking their money in frustration?
I do explain it to them. Then, suddenly, their choices expand, seeing as JVC and Epson become viable again in their mind. And the Sony 4K projectors. ::)
I don't see my job as selling someone anything in particular. It's about helping folks make informed purchases. Of course some of you are already informed - then I'm just an order taker / toy purchase enabler !
-
What I always tells people that say "I wonder what 4k would look like on my screen or would I benefit"...
I tell them to go to their normal viewing position and take a close look at a paused image, now take 2 steps back, that's 4k...
I'm not sure I have the number of steps right, but they get the idea...
-
I'm not worried about Roxie. Honestly, so far I've been pretty impressed with the 885ES from a subjective standpoint. I haven't gotten too far into the measurements and objective testing yet. I only plan on some passing comments when comparing it to the 4500, and only because they are both laser and native 4K. Their price points set them apart quite a ways, but they definitely have performance differences (especially peak brightness). I wish I had a 385ES on hand to be honest. It would help me more in evaluating value in comparison to the rest of their line.
Sorry to bring up an older post but as person who just bought a Sony VPL-VW760ES (885ES) , I thought I should comment on the decision making process in relation to the JVC -Z1/4500 vs Sony 885ES/760ES. Firstly, if my budget extended to the JVC laser PJ, I would have bought it in a heartbeat. However, since it only extended to around $20k AU - or USD 15,500 , my choices were limited to all projectors up to and including that price-point - which is around the average discounted price for the Sony Laser in Australia. So for me, the only competition for the Sony was JVC's top E-shifter ( which I already owned) and lesser Sonys etc. I think context and purpose is relevant here. Your review will be useful in identifying performance increments for people who's budget stretches to the JVC 4500, but at some point I think it would be useful to do a review with Sony 885ES and cheaper PJ's to show what ( if anything) people can get as an upgrade path from the bulk of the globe based projectors and cheaper laser models.
Regarding Sony "Softness" - this is only relevant next to JVC 4500 and Sony 5000, next to JVC X9900 /x9500 (X990/x950) Sony is sharper in every way , including 1080p material. Sony have introduced a new lens for the 2018 models and while I cant be sure, I would suggest it could be better than JVC's E-shift lens. Sony laser also seems to have better video processing than its globe based equivalents but not to the standard of the 5000
I have gone out of my way not to be a brand loyalist with projectors. Been there - I was previously a DLP convert which kept me on one side of the fence for too long. I would buy JVC again without any equivocation and I still recommend JVC E-shifters to friends over Sony's globe based PJs. I would upgrade if a better affordable alternative popped up, but for now the Sony Laser is simply producing the most awesome images I have had in my theatre.
-
Sorry to bring up an older post but as person who just bought a Sony VPL-VW760ES (885ES) , I thought I should comment on the decision making process in relation to the JVC -Z1/4500 vs Sony 885ES/760ES. Firstly, if my budget extended to the JVC laser PJ, I would have bought it in a heartbeat. However, since it only extended to around $20k AU - or USD 15,500 , my choices were limited to all projectors up to and including that price-point - which is around the average discounted price for the Sony Laser in Australia. So for me, the only competition for the Sony was JVC's top E-shifter ( which I already owned) and lesser Sonys etc. I think context and purpose is relevant here. Your review will be useful in identifying performance increments for people who's budget stretches to the JVC 4500, but at some point I think it would be useful to do a review with Sony 885ES and cheaper PJ's to show what ( if anything) people can get as an upgrade path from the bulk of the globe based projectors and cheaper laser models.
Regarding Sony "Softness" - this is only relevant next to JVC 4500 and Sony 5000, next to JVC X9900 /x9500 (X990/x950) Sony is sharper in every way , including 1080p material. Sony have introduced a new lens for the 2018 models and while I cant be sure, I would suggest it could be better than JVC's E-shift lens. Sony laser also seems to have better video processing than its globe based equivalents but not to the standard of the 5000
I have gone out of my way not to be a brand loyalist with projectors. Been there - I was previously a DLP convert which kept me on one side of the fence for too long. I would buy JVC again without any equivocation and I still recommend JVC E-shifters to friends over Sony's globe based PJs. I would upgrade if a better affordable alternative popped up, but for now the Sony Laser is simply producing the most awesome images I have had in my theatre.
There is no "new" lens for the 2018 Sony 4K models. The consensus is that it's the same lens, however, Sony now has better quality control on the lens that goes into these units. Kris asked the Sony reps if that was true (or maybe it was his friend Daren, I forget) and Sony did not confirm that a "new" lens is being used. What happened was there were a large number of projectors that had a lens that visibly softened the image because it was so far off from spec. Ekki of cine4home mentioned some ridiculously large number (in the several tens of percent of all units) had this issue. So basically what this means is that the 2018 models will now give the buyer a better chance of receiving a lens closer to full specification because they're tightening quality control on the lens.
From my own experience, I can tell you the 285ES sample I had looked worse off than a 665ES I had before in both focus uniformity and how well it could focus down on pixels overall. So while more Sony 4K units have a better chance of getting a lens closer to spec, I still don't think their QC is up there with the likes of JVC and Epson. The lens in the HW 1080p Sony units had very similar issues. Instead of fixing it, they introduced reality creation to artificially sharpen the image to overcome the lens deficiencies. The lens used in the cheaper Sony 4K models is definitely better than the HW 1080p Sony models, so the need for reality creation is not there, however, from what I've seen (many Sony's and many JVCs) the JVC lens used in the eshift units is objectively better. It's all glass (the Sony uses a plastic exit element) and there seems to be WAY less variance in quality and focus uniformity. Overall the lens used in the JVCs is better. I would imagine a large portion of the price difference between the RS4500 and 885ES is in the lens the JVC has. The same could be said about the 5000ES.
-
I don't know where you got your information, but there is not a "new" lens for the 2018 Sony 4K models. The consensus is that it's the same lens, however, Sony now has better quality control on the lens that goes into these units.
There have been several reports of a new lens across the range for Sony , not just in the USA. Notwithstanding the reason for the improved lens quality, nothing I have seen from owning JVC's top globe based projector would indicate that its lens was as good as, let alone better than the one in the Sony 885ES. That is because the Sony has better edge to edge uniformity and has clearly sharper images on 1080P material with the gap widening for 4K material.
You need to live with these side by side for some time to fully appreciate whats going on and based on what I have seen from actually owning the units at the same time and side by side, it would be misleading to suggest that Sony has an inferior lens. There seems to be zero actual evidence that JVC's is "better" as of the current production units. But if JVC owners want to claim that the JVC lens is the best, then thats fine by me because I only care about the projected image.
-
There have been several reports of a new lens across the range for Sony , not just in the USA. Notwithstanding the reason for the improved lens quality, nothing I have seen from owning JVC's top globe based projector would indicate that its lens was as good as, let alone better than the one in the Sony 885ES. That is because the Sony has better edge to edge uniformity and has clearly sharper images on 1080P material with the gap widening for 4K material.
You need to live with these side by side for some time to fully appreciate whats going on and based on what I have seen from actually owning the units at the same time and side by side, it would be misleading to suggest that Sony has an inferior lens. There seems to be zero actual evidence that JVC's is "better" as of the current production units. But if JVC owners want to claim that the JVC lens is the best, then thats fine by me because I only care about the projected image.
I never said the JVC's lens is "best", but definitely better than the Sony's. I'm sure JVCs lens could be improved in certain areas like optical coatings to improve ANSI contrast.
With that said, I would take Kris's report from when he spoke to the Sony reps at CEDIA saying they could not confirm a new lens over anecdotal evidence (spread by pro-Sony people) where they took one line from a CEDIA report and ran away with wild fantasies about what that ambiguous line actually meant. The line that was reported by Scott Wilkinson where all of these "new lens" rumors came from says:
"Finally, an improved lens offers even better focus and stability than before."
What this is in reference to are issues with previous VW3xx and VW5xx models. See here where Ekki of cine4home goes over the focus and uniformity issues that a large percentage of lenses that made it into previous models had. You'll need to translate it into english:
http://cine4home.de/sony-vpl-vw520-in-der-cine4home-highend-edition/
Ekki states (translated):
"Unfortunately, it does not look that good in terms of optical clarity: Four projectors we viewed did not allow optimal sharpness and were not able to bring the full 4K brilliance to the screen...the large series variance in the optical sharpness did not meet us in the predecessor generations so. This is particularly annoying since affected devices there is no fix."
So this statement that Scott made was in reference to better quality control, NOT a new lens design. The very fact that the 285ES I had here, which has this supposed "new" lens, looked subjectively worse off for uniformity and pixel delineation compared to the 665ES I had the previous year, I can't help but conclude that this is not in fact a new lens design that improves optical performance. So while very far from spec lenses may not make into projectors, there still seems to be a decent amount of variance among the lenses that do make it into projectors. I've compared this "new" lens to two different JVC eshift units and objectively and subjectively the JVCs is nicer. JVCs lens has better focus uniformity, better pixel delineation and is all-glass. There seems to be very little variance with the JVCs lens. I've seen around a dozen JVCs with this lens and have seen very little variance in optical performance. I've spent just as much time comparing them as I'm sure most people who've had two of these projectors here have. That is my take on the matter. If you get specific confirmation from Sony themselves that says otherwise, please be sure to post that here. Otherwise I'm sticking to my quality control mentality. The reports of a new lens stems from two people who are Sony fanboys taking one ambiguous line on a forum post. and somehow making it into claims of a totally new lens. It's a game of telephone gone wild and now tons of people assume there is a new lens in these projectors. I'm sure Sony is very happy about that.
-
There have been several reports of a new lens across the range for Sony , not just in the USA. Notwithstanding the reason for the improved lens quality, nothing I have seen from owning JVC's top globe based projector would indicate that its lens was as good as, let alone better than the one in the Sony 885ES. That is because the Sony has better edge to edge uniformity and has clearly sharper images on 1080P material with the gap widening for 4K material.
You need to live with these side by side for some time to fully appreciate whats going on and based on what I have seen from actually owning the units at the same time and side by side, it would be misleading to suggest that Sony has an inferior lens. There seems to be zero actual evidence that JVC's is "better" as of the current production units. But if JVC owners want to claim that the JVC lens is the best, then thats fine by me because I only care about the projected image.
I own the Z1/RS4500 and the X9900, and have had many of the previous E-Shift JVC,s.
A friend who also has had several of the E-Shift JVC,s ..X5000,X7000,X7500 and lastly the X9500 decided to purchase the Sony 760ES, his "first " Sony .
His decision was that he was so impressed with my Z1/RS4500, BUT couldn't quite afford the Z1/RS4500, so the Sony 760ES was the next best option.
He was kind enough to "loan" me the 760ES for a couple of weeks ...we compared it directly against the Z1/RS4500 and the X9900 and X9500.
The Z1/RS4500 is most definitely at another level.
The 760ES is hands down "sharper" more "detailed" in every way than ANY of the E-shift projectors... I dont know if this is due to its lens or processing, but on my 143" scope screen its VERY apparent!
The 760ES does struggle for contrast in some instances, BUT overall the image from it is terrific...my friend has NO regrets on going from the X9500 to the 760ES.
I am definitely NOT a Sony "Fanboy" , but i do think the 760ES copes more "flak" than is justified.
-
I own the Z1/RS4500 and the X9900, and have had many of the previous E-Shift JVC,s.
A friend who also has had several of the E-Shift JVC,s ..X5000,X7000,X7500 and lastly the X9500 decided to purchase the Sony 760ES, his "first " Sony .
His decision was that he was so impressed with my Z1/RS4500, BUT couldn't quite afford the Z1/RS4500, so the Sony 760ES was the next best option.
He was kind enough to "loan" me the 760ES for a couple of weeks ...we compared it directly against the Z1/RS4500 and the X9900 and X9500.
The Z1/RS4500 is most definitely at another level.
The 760ES is hands down "sharper" more "detailed" in every way than ANY of the E-shift projectors... I dont know if this is due to its lens or processing, but on my 143" scope screen its VERY apparent!
The 760ES does struggle for contrast in some instances, BUT overall the image from it is terrific...my friend has NO regrets on going from the X9500 to the 760ES.
I am definitely NOT a Sony "Fanboy" , but i do think the 760ES copes more "flak" than is justified.
Most of the differences were talking about can only be seen at the screen anyways. Its next to impossible to see nonuniformity issues or even problems with pixel delineation from a seated distance. Both the eshift and cheaper sxrd 4k units have competent lenses. It's really pixel peeping I'm referring to with the lens differences I've noticed over the years with these JVCs and Sony 4K units. A lot of the sharpness differences I've seen on the Sony 4Ks is due to the reality creation system being a little more aggressive and essentially always being on in some form or another.
-
I never said the JVC's lens is "best", but definitely better than the Sony's. I'm sure JVCs lens could be improved in certain areas like optical coatings to improve ANSI contrast.
With that said, I would take Kris's report from when he spoke to the Sony reps at CEDIA saying they could not confirm a new lens over anecdotal evidence (spread by pro-Sony people) where they took one line from a CEDIA report and ran away with wild fantasies about what that ambiguous line actually meant. The line that was reported by Scott Wilkinson where all of these "new lens" rumors came from says:
"Finally, an improved lens offers even better focus and stability than before."
What this is in reference to are issues with previous VW3xx and VW5xx models. See here where Ekki of cine4home goes over the focus and uniformity issues that a large percentage of lenses that made it into previous models had. You'll need to translate it into english:
http://cine4home.de/sony-vpl-vw520-in-der-cine4home-highend-edition/
Ekki states (translated):
"Unfortunately, it does not look that good in terms of optical clarity: Four projectors we viewed did not allow optimal sharpness and were not able to bring the full 4K brilliance to the screen...the large series variance in the optical sharpness did not meet us in the predecessor generations so. This is particularly annoying since affected devices there is no fix."
So this statement that Scott made was in reference to better quality control, NOT a new lens design. The very fact that the 285ES I had here, which has this supposed "new" lens, looked subjectively worse off for uniformity and pixel delineation compared to the 665ES I had the previous year, I can't help but conclude that this is not in fact a new lens design that improves optical performance. So while very far from spec lenses may not make into projectors, there still seems to be a decent amount of variance among the lenses that do make it into projectors. I've compared this "new" lens to two different JVC eshift units and objectively and subjectively the JVCs is nicer. JVCs lens has better focus uniformity, better pixel delineation and is all-glass. There seems to be very little variance with the JVCs lens. I've seen around a dozen JVCs with this lens and have seen very little variance in optical performance. I've spent just as much time comparing them as I'm sure most people who've had two of these projectors here have. That is my take on the matter. If you get specific confirmation from Sony themselves that says otherwise, please be sure to post that here. Otherwise I'm sticking to my quality control mentality. The reports of a new lens stems from two people who are Sony fanboys taking one ambiguous line on a forum post. and somehow making it into claims of a totally new lens. It's a game of telephone gone wild and now tons of people assume there is a new lens in these projectors. I'm sure Sony is very happy about that.
Dear me, its only the JVC fanboys without real experience with the subject matter that come up with such negativity. I was such a JVC fanboy until I did what most have not - compared projectors side by side! Any other form of comparison or speculation is worthless. This applies for referencing 2018 model Sony's and the 885ES in particular.
-
Dear me, its only the JVC fanboys without real experience with the subject matter that come up with such negativity. I was such a JVC fanboy until I did what most have not - compared projectors side by side! Any other form of comparison or speculation is worthless. This applies for referencing 2018 model Sony's and the 885ES in particular.
Sony has confirmed that ALL 2018 models (except the 5000ES) share the exact same lens. I've compared a 2018 model (the 285ES) against the current JVC e-shift lens. It's not about fanboyism, it's simply the truth. I only add Ekki's information to give some objective facts on the matter but also to prove why this is not a "new" lens. I've sourced where the rumor of a new lens came from (not Sony) and explained why it's incorrect. I don't know what else to tell you. If you don't believe me, that's fine. But that doesn't mean I'm going to stop correcting misinformation when it's being spread. So again, if you hear direct from Sony that this is a new lens design, please report here, but from the 5 or 6 Sony 4K models that I've personally seen and compared to current and past generation JVC models combined with the objective information given in my last post, I can confidently say that there is no new lens. You owning an 885ES shouldn't make any difference as it's using the same lens as the bottom end 285ES. This has been confirmed by Sony themselves unlike the "new lens" misinformation that I've seen talked about.
I also want to point out that the lens used in these cheaper 4K modesl from Sony can look good if you end up with a lens close to specification. One of the 665ES units I had here looked almost indistinguishable from the 1100ES I had previously. And that's saying something considering that lens is amazing all around. This 665ES lens could focus down on pixels very well uniformly across the entire image with only some minor roll off at the edges of the screen. The issue is not the lens itself but rather the lax quality control Sony seems to have with this lens. The other 4 or 5 Sony's I saw that share this lens had varying degrees of nonuniformity and problems focusing down on pixels well. That is the issue with this lens and why I don't think most Sony's have a better lens than the JVCs. Ekki's information helps further my point of view as he himself has seen a lot of variability with this lens as well. You simply have a better chance at getting a good lens close to spec with a JVC projector. That seems to be a fact and not just an opinion that I have.
-
I only add Ekki's information to give some objective facts on the matter but also to prove why this is not a "new" lens.
Firstly Ekki's comments are irrelevant - irrespective of the reason for the improvement in Sony lenses, Ekki's review is for a 2015 projector, and not the 2018 models so it cannot be used as a basis for comparison of current Sony PJ's.
Secondly, I truly dont care whether or not the Sony lens is a new design or just improved quality in the 885ES, I just much prefer what I see compared to JVC's best globe based projector which I also owned. Quite frankly, there could be a number of reasons for differences in perceived sharpness between projectors and I cant see how a realistic 1:1 comparison between different projectors' lenses can be made without removing them and testing the optics on their own.
My whole point in posting is that I purchased the X990 after listening to all the stories about how JVC was superior to Sony in so many ways including superior lens. This led me to believe that on 1080p material ( if not 4k) JVC should be better- this has not been supported by direct comparisons. Of course this does not take into account the potential for so many other factors such as panel alignment , image processing etc that can play a role in perceived resolution but it does reinforce the position that discussions on comparative lens quality are highly speculative at best. Of more interest to me ( and I suspect to a number of others) is the picture quality actually delivered, which IMO is really what purchasing decisions should be based on.
-
Firstly Ekki's comments are irrelevant - irrespective of the reason for the improvement in Sony lenses, Ekki's review is for a 2015 projector, and not the 2018 models so it cannot be used as a basis for comparison of current Sony PJ's.
Secondly, I truly dont care whether or not the Sony lens is a new design or just improved quality in the 885ES, I just much prefer what I see compared to JVC's best globe based projector which I also owned. Quite frankly, there could be a number of reasons for differences in perceived sharpness between projectors and I cant see how a realistic 1:1 comparison between different projectors' lenses can be made without removing them and testing the optics on their own.
My whole point in posting is that I purchased the X990 after listening to all the stories about how JVC was superior to Sony in so many ways including superior lens. This led me to believe that on 1080p material ( if not 4k) JVC should be better- this has not been supported by direct comparisons. Of course this does not take into account the potential for so many other factors such as panel alignment , image processing etc that can play a role in perceived resolution but it does reinforce the position that discussions on comparative lens quality are highly speculative at best. Of more interest to me ( and I suspect to a number of others) is the picture quality actually delivered, which IMO is really what purchasing decisions should be based on.
Well, you seemed pretty adamant at the beginning of this exchange that it was a new lens. Me bringing up Ekki's information had nothing to do with proving or disproving that the 2018 models had a new lens. I brought that up to show why the statement made by Scott Wilkinson, which is where the rumors of a new lens came from, had nothing to do with a new lens but rather better quality control of the same lens.
To your next point about the 885ES having better image quality, have you seen this thread?
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/24-digital-hi-end-projectors-3-000-usd-msrp/2937682-great-jvc-vs-sony-projector-shootout-dec-9-10-no-price-talk-please.html
Every person there, except one person, thought the JVC models at the shootout put up a better image overall compared to 885ES. This includes a model costing less than half of what the 885ES does. Overall, this happens to be my opinion as well after having many of these recent JVC and Sony models here. That doesn't make your opinion on the matter any less factual as you're entitled to your own opinion, I just think it's fair to point this out that *most* people currently prefer a JVCs image due to the many inherent strengths they possess over the Sony's. If the tables were turned I'd have a Sony projector here (or a projector from any other manufacturer) if it possessed the better image overall. Enjoy your 885ES, it's a great machine overall and it seems you find aspects of its image better than the current JVCs. That just doesn't seem to be the norm with most people who've compared them.
-
To your next point about the 885ES having better image quality, have you seen this thread?
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/24-digital-hi-end-projectors-3-000-usd-msrp/2937682-great-jvc-vs-sony-projector-shootout-dec-9-10-no-price-talk-please.html
Every person there, except one person, thought the JVC models at the shootout put up a better image overall compared to 885ES. This includes a model costing less than half of what the 885ES does. Overall, this happens to be my opinion as well after having many of these recent JVC and Sony models here. That doesn't make your opinion on the matter any less factual as you're entitled to your own opinion, I just think it's fair to point this out that *most* people currently prefer a JVCs image due to the many inherent strengths they possess over the Sony's. If the tables were turned I'd have a Sony projector here (or a projector from any other manufacturer) if it possessed the better image overall. Enjoy your 885ES, it's a great machine overall and it seems you find aspects of its image better than the current JVCs. That just doesn't seem to be the norm with most people who've compared them.
Not so.
Clearly you have not done the comparison, as I and others have done. With respect, your opinion on the subject does not carry weight where you simply interpret and interpolate others comments from one thread on the internet. In fact the misinformation being spread about the 885ES was the reason I suggested to Kris Deering that 885ES should be reviewed against E-Shift, not just RS-4500, to better reflect real world purchasing decisions. In my buying decision, I spoke to 2 other JVC E-Shift owners who had switched to 885ES before me and I read professional reviews. With forum comments I ignore negative comments from both owners and non-owners who appear to be more interested in brand promotion than assisting others in an unbiased manner.
For the record, and based on my own experience, the difference Between E-Shift and Sony 885ES is not even close. While on its own it produces very fine images, next to the Sony Laser, E-shift produces visible video noise and the image has less overall stability, Sony light distribution is more even from centre to edge of screen, Sony Colours look superior ( as you should expect with laser ) , Sony motion is superb and E-shift motion is jittery by comparison. And of course, resolution on all material on 885ES is superior while 4K on 885ES is simply stunning. Black levels on JVC are better as we know, however contrast on 885ES is so good, most would find it easy to live with. I certainly do. These are only things you notice when living with both of them side by side for a while. However all the reviews have been 885ES vs RS4500 to date where the RS4500 is vastly superior to E-shift.
I dont think there is much point in me continuing this exchange since I have explained what I know through experience, and hopefully that can balance the comments that have been made by those with no experience of the subject matter. I sincerely hope you can see this as a comparison of technologies at different price points, which is how I like to look at it and leaving brand names out of it. With a bit of luck and in time, we might see a JVC 4k laser at the same price point as 885ES and a new Sony at the same price as RS-4500.
-
Not so.
Clearly you have not done the comparison, as I and others have done. With respect, your opinion on the subject does not carry weight where you simply interpret and interpolate others comments from one thread on the internet. In fact the misinformation being spread about the 885ES was the reason I suggested to Kris Deering that 885ES should be reviewed against E-Shift, not just RS-4500, to better reflect real world purchasing decisions. In my buying decision, I spoke to 2 other JVC E-Shift owners who had switched to 885ES before me and I read professional reviews. With forum comments I ignore negative comments from both owners and non-owners who appear to be more interested in brand promotion than assisting others in an unbiased manner.
For the record, and based on my own experience, the difference Between E-Shift and Sony 885ES is not even close. While on its own it produces very fine images, next to the Sony Laser, E-shift produces visible video noise and the image has less overall stability, Sony light distribution is more even from centre to edge of screen, Sony Colours look superior ( as you should expect with laser ) , Sony motion is superb and E-shift motion is jittery by comparison. And of course, resolution on all material on 885ES is superior while 4K on 885ES is simply stunning. Black levels on JVC are better as we know, however contrast on 885ES is so good, most would find it easy to live with. I certainly do. These are only things you notice when living with both of them side by side for a while. However all the reviews have been 885ES vs RS4500 to date where the RS4500 is vastly superior to E-shift.
I dont think there is much point in me continuing this exchange since I have explained what I know through experience, and hopefully that can balance the comments that have been made by those with no experience of the subject matter. I sincerely hope you can see this as a comparison of technologies at different price points, which is how I like to look at it and leaving brand names out of it. With a bit of luck and in time, we might see a JVC 4k laser at the same price point as 885ES and a new Sony at the same price as RS-4500.
At this point in time, in the US, the RS4500 and VW885 are nearly the same price ( street price ), so comparing them is valid.
-
Agreed with Craig, I don't see how you can compare a $25,000 Sony to an eshift JVC when talking price. The only valid comparison would be more a purely technical academic type of comparison, but certainly not price.
The Sony 285 and 385 would be the models to compare to the JVC eshift units in terms of price range.
-
Agreed with Craig, I don't see how you can compare a $25,000 Sony to an eshift JVC when talking price. The only valid comparison would be more a purely technical academic type of comparison, but certainly not price.
The Sony 285 and 385 would be the models to compare to the JVC eshift units in terms of price range.
The current price is nearly the same now. If anyone wants to know the price of the RS4500 vs the VW885es, call me or Mike. 8) The VW885 is going to be 4x the price of an RS640, so not a good comparison.
-
Not so.
Clearly you have not done the comparison, as I and others have done. With respect, your opinion on the subject does not carry weight where you simply interpret and interpolate others comments from one thread on the internet. In fact the misinformation being spread about the 885ES was the reason I suggested to Kris Deering that 885ES should be reviewed against E-Shift, not just RS-4500, to better reflect real world purchasing decisions. In my buying decision, I spoke to 2 other JVC E-Shift owners who had switched to 885ES before me and I read professional reviews. With forum comments I ignore negative comments from both owners and non-owners who appear to be more interested in brand promotion than assisting others in an unbiased manner.
For the record, and based on my own experience, the difference Between E-Shift and Sony 885ES is not even close. While on its own it produces very fine images, next to the Sony Laser, E-shift produces visible video noise and the image has less overall stability, Sony light distribution is more even from centre to edge of screen, Sony Colours look superior ( as you should expect with laser ) , Sony motion is superb and E-shift motion is jittery by comparison. And of course, resolution on all material on 885ES is superior while 4K on 885ES is simply stunning. Black levels on JVC are better as we know, however contrast on 885ES is so good, most would find it easy to live with. I certainly do. These are only things you notice when living with both of them side by side for a while. However all the reviews have been 885ES vs RS4500 to date where the RS4500 is vastly superior to E-shift.
I dont think there is much point in me continuing this exchange since I have explained what I know through experience, and hopefully that can balance the comments that have been made by those with no experience of the subject matter. I sincerely hope you can see this as a comparison of technologies at different price points, which is how I like to look at it and leaving brand names out of it. With a bit of luck and in time, we might see a JVC 4k laser at the same price point as 885ES and a new Sony at the same price as RS-4500.
Just going to correct a couple things...
The colour is not superior on laser. How are you even quantifying that? Calibration will put both machins into a state where colour is statistically impossible to tell apart.
Also, the Sony does not reach 98/99% of the P3 gamut last I checked, where the JVC does.
Sony appears to have less video noise because of its undefeatable processing. The mico eshift mosquito noise is not visible from a distance on a normal screen size since its about the same size as pixels, you are seeing film grain which the Sony subdues.
Sony's greyscale uniformity is very bad compared to JVC also. So, its not exactly even there either.
The other points are accurate though.
-
Just going to correct a couple things...
The colour is not superior on laser. How are you even quantifying that? Calibration will put both machins into a state where colour is statistically impossible to tell apart.
Also, the Sony does not reach 98/99% of the P3 gamut last I checked, where the JVC does.
Sony appears to have less video noise because of its undefeatable processing. The mico eshift mosquito noise is not visible from a distance on a normal screen size since its about the same size as pixels, you are seeing film grain which the Sony subdues.
Sony's greyscale uniformity is very bad compared to JVC also. So, its not exactly even there either.
The other points are accurate though.
You would qualify his statement on 'jittery' motion to be accurate as well?
-
You would qualify his statement on 'jittery' motion to be accurate as well?
Missed that one.
There was a post on AVS just this morning relating to the motion:
" I attended a shootout with a Sony 385 and RS640 JVC earlier this year and native motion (no FI) was one of the things we compared and I could not see any difference doing instant A/B back and forth between the two. I was surprised by this as I was expecting to see a difference from what I'd read, but it just wasn't there to my eyes."
There is a raw panel response difference though between the brands (2.5ms vs 4ms), any observable difference in motion is probably down to that.
-
Missed that one.
There was a post on AVS just this morning relating to the motion:
" I attended a shootout with a Sony 385 and RS640 JVC earlier this year and native motion (no FI) was one of the things we compared and I could not see any difference doing instant A/B back and forth between the two. I was surprised by this as I was expecting to see a difference from what I'd read, but it just wasn't there to my eyes."
There is a raw panel response difference though between the brands (2.5ms vs 4ms), any observable difference in motion is probably down to that.
Motion performance between the current crop of Sony's and JVC's are extremely close. But I would still give the nod to Sony for native (no FI engaged) motion. It's ever so slightly better. I don't know if this has to do with the 1.5ms grey-to-grey response time difference or if it has to do with the 120hz vs 240hz refresh rate difference. It's flashing twice as many "frames" on screen in the same amount of time the JVCs are. Maybe on some kind of subconscious level, similar to black frame insertion, we perceive the motion better on the Sony's. Possibly it's a combination of the two. With that said, I would never make a claim that motion on the JVCs is "jittery". That is a ridiculous statement and makes me wonder if he didn't realize he was feeding the JVC a 60hz image where 3:2 pulldown was being used adding artificial judder to the image.
-
On my old JVC LCOS (RS1) the motion performance is pretty horrible. Does anybody know what the response times of those olders units are? I'm hoping it has been improved with the latest incarnation :)
-
On my old JVC LCOS (RS1) the motion performance is pretty horrible. Does anybody know what the response times of those olders units are? I'm hoping it has been improved with the latest incarnation :)
It has been increased dramatically since the RS1. That was my biggest complaints with the JVC models prior to the RS45. Motion used to be horrible.