I know this sounds obvious, but you've disabled the zone convergence correction in the regular menu as well, correct? Even with both off, there will still be some color banding and posterization issues. I don't think this can be completely eliminated unless Sony does a complete overhaul to the hardware. I hope to see this next year. Their model number naming scheme indicates this might happen next year. Where do they go from the 295 and 695?
Here is what I'm seeing with the 695ES disabling the zone convergence correction software. I'm still unsure why your unit isn't responding the same way. I took these a couple days ago:
(https://i.imgur.com/lVPNLO4.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/lVPNLO4.jpg)
Re: 2019 Sony 4K Projector Owners Thread
Re: 2019 Sony 4K Projector Owners Thread
(https://i.imgur.com/ICIyUr2.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/ICIyUr2.jpg)
Re: 2019 Sony 4K Projector Owners Thread
Re: 2019 Sony 4K Projector Owners Thread
(https://i.imgur.com/msQntXC.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/msQntXC.jpg)
Re: 2019 Sony 4K Projector Owners Thread
Re: 2019 Sony 4K Projector Owners Thread
(https://i.imgur.com/obizOTa.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/obizOTa.jpg)
Re: 2019 Sony 4K Projector Owners Thread
Re: 2019 Sony 4K Projector Owners Thread
Dylan, when do you anticipate being able to provide some information on comparing the Sony 695ES with the JVC RS2000? This is assuming you have both in your possession, and of course I may be mistaken.
Thanks.
Don
The pattern was a different one, but it was possible to see a difference, but its not a huge difference.
Yes, both units are here. I'm currently working on reviews for each projector so a long comparative write up is going to have to wait. In the mean time, is there something specific you want to know?
Yeah - which one is better?? ;D ??? :P
So basically, if I knew that the overall picture quality of the Sony matched or exceeded that of the JVC, then that would be very tempting.
But on the other hand, if the JVC provided a clearly better overall picture, then I would either deal with the limitations and work-arounds or just wait for the next generation of JVC projectors that would 'hopefully' address these limitations.
So I guess I'm just looking for the 'real-world' 'big-picture' comparison to help me decide here, rather than the nitty-gritty of a formal review, with all of the technical details, which while important, are not always directly related to what kind of overall visual experience is provided.
The answer depends on the type of content you normally watch. If you're mostly watching movies, I'd pick the JVC. The Sony, in my opinion, is better suited for those who game or for those who watch a lot of sports. I say this because the Sony has lower input lag for gamers by about 15ms and people who watch a lot of sports can benefit from the Sony's slightly better motion handling with higher frame rate content (60p for instance). I also think that Sony has better motion interpolation software which a lot of people who watch sports enable. Sports and video game content is generally higher in APL (brighter overall) which is where the Sony's higher ANSI contrast performance will help as well.
However, I think the JVC's far better native contrast, combined with a slightly better lens, better color performance (with the P3 filter), more extensive HDR controls and overall lack of image artifacts (slight banding and posterization still on the Sony) yield a better experience overall for UHD blu-ray and 1080p blu-ray content.
This is going to be the gist of my comparison review but I plan on going into quite a bit more detail with measurements and other objective information. But, overall, both of these projectors offer excellent image quality and I don't think anyone would be unhappy living with either. It's just one of those things where you need to know the type of content you plan on watching the most and choose based on that information.
Just get a standard Paladin instead of the DCR. You get all the features you want plus the bump in light. You're only losing the 6% or so of light by not going full 4096, but most never use 4096 even without the lens. Less scaling, all the features you want. This should be a no brainer.
Yeah - which one is better?? ;D ??? :P
But seriously, I am wanting to upgrade my RS400, to get more light, detail, better color, contrast, etc., on my large 160" diagonal 2.35:1 screen. My plan was to get the RS2000 with the Paladin DCR lens (providing a better 'bang for the buck,' and theoretically 20% more light output), rather than getting the RS3000.
It has now been determined that while the DCR lens works perfectly with the RS1000/2000/3000 series projectors for scope content, it doesn't have the proper Anamorphic modes for 16:9, nor for 3d in either aspect ratio. There are work-arounds, each with their own advantages and disadvantages, but there are compromises to be made.
And further, the latest information is that JVC does not have plans to address these limitations in this generation of projectors.
In exploring all my options, I wondered about other projector brands. It is my understanding at this point that the Sony 695ES *does* have the proper Anamorphic modes to use with the DCR lens, for all available content, so would solve those problems.
So basically, if I knew that the overall picture quality of the Sony matched or exceeded that of the JVC, then that would be very tempting.
But on the other hand, if the JVC provided a clearly better overall picture, then I would either deal with the limitations and work-arounds or just wait for the next generation of JVC projectors that would 'hopefully' address these limitations.
So I guess I'm just looking for the 'real-world' 'big-picture' comparison to help me decide here, rather than the nitty-gritty of a formal review, with all of the technical details, which while important, are not always directly related to what kind of overall visual experience is provided.
Just get a standard Paladin instead of the DCR. You get all the features you want plus the bump in light. You're only losing the 6% or so of light by not going full 4096, but most never use 4096 even without the lens. Less scaling, all the features you want. This should be a no brainer.Hey Kris,
Like with all digital projection technologies, be it DILA, SXRD, 3LCD or DLP, they all have drawbacks.The Sony seems to be panel/ driver issues, the JVC seems to be lens related/ optical issues, i would love to try put a sony lens on a JVC projector, it looks like all the JVC have some serious issues building a lens with good antireflective properties, where the sony seems close to perfect, ill expect quite a bit of the ANSI contrast performance on the JVC is lost in the lens, its to be honest very bad on JVC, very very close to CRT, to the point you cant actually see the difference.
The Sony seems to be panel/ driver issues, the JVC seems to be lens related/ optical issues, i would love to try put a sony lens on a JVC projector, it looks like all the JVC have some serious issues building a lens with good antireflective properties, where the sony seems close to perfect, ill expect quite a bit of the ANSI contrast performance on the JVC is lost in the lens, its to be honest very bad on JVC, very very close to CRT, to the point you cant actually see the difference.Have you actually compared the sharpness of the 295 and 695 vs the RS1000 and RS2000? Everyone that I know that has made the comparison has said the JVC is sharper. By eye, you think you can tell a difference in ANSI between the 295 and the RS1000?
My next mission will be to find a defective SONY 4K projector to grab the lens from.
The test JVC is ready.
Have you actually compared the sharpness of the 295 and 695 vs the RS1000 and RS2000? Everyone that I know that has made the comparison has said the JVC is sharper. By eye, you think you can tell a difference in ANSI between the 295 and the RS1000?This is not about sharpness, its about reflections, light streaking, look at a JVC with the OPPO screen saver, it looks absolutely terrible, the vertical streaking, the reflection that lights up the screen in other places, the 295 dont suffer that, so im curious if its the lens or the light engine.Antireflective coating might make the optics less transparent, but as lightoutput and sharpness is not a issue i worry about on any of the 4K projectors, its surficiant on all of them for my need.
I don't think you can attribute much of the ANSI differences between the Sony and JVC to the lens. Heck the HW series of projectors all have higher ANSI than the JVC's and those lenes are crap. The HW series has higher ANSI than the RS4500 and RS3000. Only a fool would pick the HW lens over the 3000/4500 lens.
It's actually hard to compare them. The pixel fill on the JVCs is so much higher than the Sony 4Ks. When I first powered up my RS2000 I thought the lens couldn't focus properly because I could barely see any pixel grid. Because of this people may think the JVCs look softer, so I think subjectively many might prefer the Sony with its more pronounced pixel grid. But when you pull up test patterns you can see the JVC clearly wins. It looks perfect. The Sony 4Ks have problems with single pixel patterns.I know, but as my ultimate reference is a CRT i dont have the artificial digital sharpness fetish, and i apriciate 4K more smooth and soft edges. Also why ill never use the Panasonic player on my projector setup, the sharpness ringing looks horrible in my eyes, but im well aware that lots of people prefer that look.
A 1080p JVC that only measures 130:1 in ANSI has something major wrong with it. I have had many 1080p JVC and my last in the 400 series was a 420 and it measured around 250:1 in my batcave. My Cineversum BW2 measures around 300:1 if I dont remember wrong and I dont have the numbers on this computer.Might be a problem with your equipment then, i know my meter measures a bit lower than some others, but not that much, and in the same setup conditions its fairly good guide of the difference.
And I have done many side by sides with Sonys measuring up to 550:1 (VW1100) and it is very difficult to find movie material where you can see a difference accordig to the ANSI difference as ANSI is a non important number when it comes to movies. Doing a side by side with the same JVCs and Sonys shows a clear difference in the dark to very dark material due to the major difference in on/off contrast.
I am not going into a CRT discussion with you ever again. :DYeah with a dynamic iris, but that dont really work in dark scenes as it compleetly messes up your gamma performance out of black, your lucky if you have 70000:1 with auto iris turned off, im talking about true contrast not manipulated gimick contrast.True the JVC most likely measure around 150:1 using the Klein K10A but again the SONY also measure higher.
The reason it is difficult to see the difference when it comes to ANSIcontrast is that it is a pattern and it is not very relevant when it comes to video material. And most rooms can not show more than 200-300:1 at the screen, not even a batcave. That is the reason I cant see much of a difference in bright material when side by side testing Sonys and JVCs.
There is not anything wrong with my equipment, but when a JVC X5900 only mesures 130:1 ANSI there is something wrong with the unit and it is not close to how a JVC in that range should measure.
ANSI is a 50% APL pattern and most movies we watch has a APL of around 10%, even The Art Of Flight has an average of 30% and it is mostly filmed outside in the snow.8)
And my Cineversum has an on/off at around 700000:1.:)
What is the lightoutput on the Sony and JVC when you see the difference?
Most of Oblivion shows quite well the superior ANSI from the SONY, even in low level scenes,
This is not about sharpness, its about reflections, light streaking, look at a JVC with the OPPO screen saver, it looks absolutely terrible, the vertical streaking, the reflection that lights up the screen in other places, the 295 dont suffer that, so im curious if its the lens or the light engine.Antireflective coating might make the optics less transparent, but as lightoutput and sharpness is not a issue i worry about on any of the 4K projectors, its surficiant on all of them for my need.My 3000 does not have the streaking with Oppo screen saver.My RS4500 had next to none and the same with my RS640. 130:1 ANSI on a JVC sounds like a defective JVC. In the darker scenes, the native is the controlling factor, not ANSI. In the brighter scenes, the brightness in the image dilates the pupils, So the black appears darker. That is why you can't tell a difference in lower ANSI contrast.
I clearly see the difference from a JVC with a 130:1 ansi contrast, to the sony with 350:1, its just much more clean contrasty look on all scenes, even fairly dark ones.
I did a experiment with different ND filters on the 295, and it generated a similar issue the JVC optics suffer from.
If i get a SONY lens and if its possible to mount it on a JVC it would be interesting to see the ansi contrast differences, ill also try work on those reflective surfaces in the lamp engine, and the JVC lamp asembly see if that makes a difference.
If im to replace my CRT with 500.000:1 on off contrast and 100:1 ansi contrast, i need something that lifts the ansi contrast significantly above JVC level, and the SONY do that, but the on off is so god awfull on the SONY that its a joke, + the banding issues can be fairly anoying, i adore its stable solid image and high ansi contrast, and to be fair the on off contrast might only be relevant in 3% of all content, but when it is, its far more obvious.
If ansi dont matter i already have the best projector, i just think both on off and ansi contrast is important, and i would be satisfied with 100.000:1 on off with 14fl on scren and 400-500:1 ansi, black bars will be significantly darker, colors cleaner, and highlights not washing out lower level details.
Might be a problem with your equipment then, i know my meter measures a bit lower than some others, but not that much, and in the same setup conditions its fairly good guide of the difference.Kris Deering and others have done side by side tests, using a DLP (Samsung 900) with around 1,000:1 ANSI vs a 1080P JVC with around 230:1 ANSI. Everyone there was hard pressed to be able to tell any difference in the brighter scenes, but you could easily tell in the dark scenes, how much better the JVC was. As I said, your eyes are biased, by the brighter scenes and it made the darker areas of the image appear darker, so it was hard to tell a difference between the two projectors. These were controlled conditions with brightness matched and calibrated projectors.
Didrik got around the same results as i did, its as simple as displaying the ansi testpattern on screen, if its not obviously better on the sony ill say you have some issues in your room.
If you really apriciate the JVC ansi contrast and dont see the difference, you should try a good CRT, it will blow your ming with 5 times better on off contrast than you have ever seen before.
Yeah with a dynamic iris, but that dont really work in dark scenes as it compleetly messes up your gamma performance out of black, your lucky if you have 70000:1 with auto iris turned off, im talking about true contrast not manipulated gimick contrast.True the JVC most likely measure around 150:1 using the Klein K10A but again the SONY also measure higher.Sorry, but this made me laugh. If you are seeing a significant difference, as in the Sony looks better, then the JVC was not set up properly. This is assuming you are looking at comparable models, like VW695 vs RS2000. There have been many shootouts performed side by side and most people picked the JVC as the overall best projector.
What you could do is setup your meter shoot a picture of the setup conditions and the measurements and post it here, only takes 10 min to do.
I do also remember your contrast measurements on the norwegian forum where Gorm had to correct your calculations so im fairly sceptical about your measurements, you seem to be on your own here, if i recall it was actually around 30000:1
Most of Oblivion shows quite well the superior ANSI from the SONY, even in low level scenes, and good ansi also help low level scenes remain more well defined as they elevate as it will push up the point where the bright elements effects the dark areas. Ansi works at any APL, you can try measure a 10% window on your rebadged JVC with a average image surrounding the measuring pattern, and see how it effects all your readings, HCFR have a feature like that, quite interesting. And here ANSI contrast plays a big role keeping the surrounding not poluting the testpattern. Very relevant to how movie content works out.
With CRT i measure around 100:1 ansi contrast, and all the JVC projectors are very identical except a X30 that measured 80:1 the rest is around 130:1 with my equipment, my meter is not optimal for ANSI as it most likely shoots a bit to wide cone, but its consistant, and ill think as good as your meter or maybe even better.
However ill have to take your word for it when you say you cant see the difference as its your eyes, and we all knows some see better or worse than others. Ill still apriciate the benefits of sonys high Ansi contrast, and lack of streaking and spot reflections, to the point ill like to see if i can mount a sony lens on a JVC and see if the issue is the lens itself or in the light engine.
A lot of this falls into the realm where the measurements don't always translate to how the human eye perceives things. When you factor in the fact that the majority of Hollywood content falls under the APL range where ANSI contrast actually matters, it goes to show you why most people still prefer the higher on/off of the JVCs. I'm not saying you aren't seeing the difference you say you are, but I've never seen a "large" difference in perceived contrast in brighter scenes when doing A/B comparisons between a Sony 4K and a recent JVC projector, both eshift and native 4K.Im not totaly disagreeing that on off is important, but a combination of both would make for a better image overall, small difference maybe, i still apriciate it, Hate most of the rest of what the SONY do.
I've also seen 4 different RS2000's now and all of them have a huge reduction in internal reflections. With actual content, I'm not seeing the same tell-tale signs where a small bright part of an image reflects to another part of the screen during a particularly dark scene. Streaking has also been greatly reduced on all 4 of the RS2000s I've seen. ANSI contrast is still pretty low, but I've learned that this is the least meaningful measurement that I normally take.
I don't think you'll get a Sony lens to work. Instead, I would look into a Mitsubishi HC5 or HC9000. I think the lens is manufactured from the same company that JVC uses. The housing and lens in general, looked nearly identical when I had the top off the HC-5.
Sorry, but this made me laugh. If you are seeing a significant difference, as in the Sony looks better, then the JVC was not set up properly. This is assuming you are looking at comparable models, like VW695 vs RS2000. There have been many shootouts performed side by side and most people picked the JVC as the overall best projector.
Here you can see my Cineversum in 2.35:1 mode in 16x9 mode it has even higher on/off as I close the iris down further. 8)
What is the lightoutput on the Sony and JVC when you see the difference?Matched lightoutput at 15fl on screen.
Ill make you a offer, ill call Gorm, the most skilled and best reputed calibrator in Norway, and make him come by your place and calibrate your JVC rebrandet projector, and if he in calibrated mode with 14-16fl on screen, and fixed manual iris setting measures over 300:1 ansi and 120000:1 on off contrast ill pay the calibration and post the report here.So you dont belive me??
Matched lightoutput at 15fl on screen.Then I can assure you there is something major wrong with your JVC either that or you have a golden Sony sample or maybe even both. I have side by side tested many and always use Oblivion when testing and there is almost no visible difference except when it comes to dark scenes.
So you dont belive me??Great so ill try call him this week and see if he will do the calibration and confirm your measurements, just need your aproval, and accept ull have to cover the expenses if your measurements are wrong.
I have known Gorm for 15 years and he has calibrated many projectors for me before I started calibrating myself. And I am sure he can tell you I know what I am doing when it comes to calibrating. 8)
Im not totaly disagreeing that on off is important, but a combination of both would make for a better image overall, small difference maybe, i still apriciate it, Hate most of the rest of what the SONY do.99% of the rooms out there can't hit 300:1 ANSI. And I bet 99.99% can't hit 400:1 ANSI. Now a lot of rooms can hit above 50:1 ANSI, so yes, you do want more than that. It is just that once you get above 300:1, it makes very little difference.
There is a really good reason why i overall prefer the Marquee 9500 CRT projector wich much higher native contrast than any other home cinema projector available on the market today, it just kills any JVC in low level performance, however i still see how the ansi contrast have a impact on brighter scenes, and well aware of its weak parts.
It would not really make sense to mount a different lens from the same manufacture, so first ill try find a SONY lens see if it can be custum fitted on the JVC, not that it needs to be perfect, just to satisfy my curiosity, and maybe determine the lens quality, as nobody realy know where the different projectors suffers, it can just as welll be in the mirror and optical blocks in the lamp engine the biggest limitations are, sony could for that matter have the best sharpest lenses, and the worse lamp engine, and JVC the opposite, or whatever way around, all people know is the sum of it all in a factory asembled projector without beeing able to pinpoint where the weak point in the optical path is.
Fact is SONY holds significantly better ansi contrast, and JVC significantly better on off contrast, i doubt anyone can dispute that, and it all holds some importance to image quality, if not you should be happy with a 50:1 ansi contrast, my bet is that above 500:1 will be fairly impossible to see, but how cool would it be if it was possible to put a lens on a jvc and get sony ansi contrast, and compare it to a identical stock JVC, i happen to have 2 old JVC X3 units, wich in most regards performs as well as the last generation 1080P models except total lightoutput, and better native panel on off contrast on the old series.
I think its sad that some people feel a personal atatchment to thair equipment and need to defend it, i find it helthy to keep a open mind, experiment, also beyond normal contrast and brightness adjustment, the narow mindet mentality on forums these days are kind of limiting the objective aproach, i own JVC SONY and others, and ill not hold back discussing flaws and qualities of different manufactures just so others can feel better about their boy toys, im in this hobby to enjoy both the visual and tecnical aspects, and only by knowing the shortcommings and flaws can i try to work around them and reach a better compromise.
https://www.thescreeningroomav.com/single-post/2019/05/01/Initial-Results-From-Our-April-2019-Sony-and-JVC-4K-Projector-Expo-Shootout-Event?fbclid=IwAR1luGzueJccDd14xp-VxGQ2wXy09wB7DNiWOvS8vU2EXOkN8O-dYzQ7HYgANSI is about the same on the 2000 and the 3000 and on those two particular projectors, the native measured about the same. So it was not ANSI and it was not native that made the 3000 look to have higher perceived contrast. Why it was speculated that the 3000 appeared to have better perceived contrast was the higher MTF of the 3000 lens.
(https://www.thescreeningroomav.com/single-post/2019/05/01/Initial-Results-From-Our-April-2019-Sony-and-JVC-4K-Projector-Expo-Shootout-Event?fbclid=IwAR1luGzueJccDd14xp-VxGQ2wXy09wB7DNiWOvS8vU2EXOkN8O-dYzQ7HYg)These guy notice a percived higher contrast on the RS3000 over the RS2000, wonder why, and what the ansi contrast measures on those 2 units, as far as im informed the RS3000 is actually one of the only JVC models with higher ansi contrast, the on off contrast was the same.. Are you saying ansi contrast has no relevanse to that experience.?
Great so ill try call him this week and see if he will do the calibration and confirm your measurements, just need your aproval, and accept ull have to cover the expenses if your measurements are wrong.
Great so ill try call him this week and see if he will do the calibration and confirm your measurements, just need your aproval, and accept ull have to cover the expenses if your measurements are wrong.
99% of the rooms out there can't hit 300:1 ANSI. And I bet 99.99% can't hit 400:1 ANSI. Now a lot of rooms can hit above 50:1 ANSI, so yes, you do want more than that. It is just that once you get above 300:1, it makes very little difference.A perfect batcave can if you are lucky hit 300:1.
I know what I am doing and I will not let you insult me anymore, I am done with you!Im not sure why you would concider it a insult, i will pay expenses when its confirmed, and you will have the chance to test with your equipment at the same time compare results, and you know and trust the guy, so all should be good.
A perfect batcave can if you are lucky hit 300:1.How are you measuring now, on screen or out of the lens.?
A perfect batcave can if you are lucky hit 300:1.Yep. I have a pretty good room. Walls and ceiling painted flat black. Then covered most of the walls and ceiling with black velvet. Floor is flat black also.
Yep. I have a pretty good room. Walls and ceiling painted flat black. Then covered most of the walls and ceiling with black velvet. Floor is flat black also.Then you have a good room that can show the ANSI of a good JVC, and the reson a Sony or DLP with more than 500:1 will not look any better is because your room will take away the advantage. When it comes to on/off the room has no negative effect as long as no ambient light is present. 8)
ANSI is about the same on the 2000 and the 3000 and on those two particular projectors, the native measured about the same. So it was not ANSI and it was not native that made the 3000 look to have higher perceived contrast. Why it was speculated that the 3000 appeared to have better perceived contrast was the higher MTF of the 3000 lens.MTF relates to resolution not contrast, so its 2 different image parameters, so i guess contrast have a verry different meaning to you guys than what i understand from that word, im looking contrast in a bigger area of the image not pr pixel.
Then I can assure you there is something major wrong with your JVC either that or you have a golden Sony sample or maybe even both. I have side by side tested many and always use Oblivion when testing and there is almost no visible difference except when it comes to dark scenes.As this is aparently very subjective, and you seem to think all my 4 JVC projectors are bad samples, do you think its possible im just more critical about image quality than you are and notice stuff you and some others dont.?
As you can see in the comments above here there are many others with experience that have seen the same results as me.8)
Edit as you can see in the aded picture Oblivion has an ADL of around 10% with a 2.2 gamma and it will be even lover with a 2.3/2.4 gamma. :)
MTF relates to resolution not contrast, so its 2 different image parameters, so i guess contrast have a verry different meaning to you guys than what i understand from that word, im looking contrast in a bigger area of the image not pr pixel.Yes, of course it does. It was speculated that the higher MTF, (sharpness) gave the 3000 higher perceived contrast. Because we know it had nothing to do with ANSI, as you speculated or native contrast, because those two items matched up for those particular projectors.
Maybe you could define your understanding of MTF and contrast so we are sure we are not confusing each other.
Yes, of course it does. It was speculated that the higher MTF, (sharpness) gave the 3000 higher perceived contrast. Because we know it had nothing to do with ANSI, as you speculated or native contrast, because those two items matched up for those particular projectors.You will be able to get a idea about MTF if you display a 4K SMPTE pattern and look at the 1:1 horizontal and vertical resolution boxes, and ill bet you would even be able to measure the light output in that specifik area as its a ½ light ½ dark pattern and the lower mtf should have higher lightoutput on that pattern, unless the projectors have different panel resolution capabilities.
Kris Deering did the calibration for the shootout you were referring to and Kris also posted his thoughts on why the 3000 appeared to have higher perceived contrast, even though native was pretty much the same. kris is the one that speculated it was the higher MTF and I thought it made sense.
You will be able to get a idea about MTF if you display a 4K SMPTE pattern and look at the 1:1 horizontal and vertical resolution boxes, and ill bet you would even be able to measure the light output in that specifik area as its a ½ light ½ dark pattern and the lower mtf should have higher average lightoutput on that pattern, unless the projectors have different panel resolution capabilities.You are being very arrogant and wrong in your assumption that I do not know what I am talking about. It is you that does not understand, if you can't follow this. Just like a brighter image can have a perceived sharpness advantage. Same as a projector with a sharply defined pixel structure can look sharper, even if it is being compared to a projector with equal sharpness. All of this is perceived, because actual measurement show it is not sharper or higher contrast.
I just find the term higher persived contrast a bit misleading if the meaning was higher persived resolution, or maybe 1:1 pixel contrast.
So am i right to understand that the RS2000 and RS3000 looked excactley the same contrast wise, looking a dark and bright area of the image, or the way light played out on the overall frame.?
You are being very arrogant and wrong in your assumption that I do not know what I am talking about. It is you that does not understand, if you can't follow this. Just like a brighter image can have a perceived sharpness advantage. Same as a projector with a sharply defined pixel structure can look sharper, even if it is being compared to a projector with equal sharpness. All of this is perceived, because actual measurement show it is not sharper or higher contrast.What is it specifikly you think is arogant? im trying to understand the meaning of specifik terms so we dont misunderstand each other, adds a few ideas to test MTF.
Added
You would need to talk to Kris, since he calibrated the projectors, or you can go through the thread and read his posts. I know some of the numbers are there. But I recommend you take a different approach (attitude), because always assuming you are right and everybody else is wrong is not going to get you very far.
What is it specifikly you think is arogant? im trying to understand the meaning of specifik terms so we dont misunderstand each other, adds a few ideas to test MTF.You asked about the calibration reports. I said you would have to get them from kris, if he was willing to send them. I also said Kris had some of the calibration info in his posts in that thread, so you could run it down that way. Also I type one thing and you don't seem to grasp what I am saying. You just go back to what you said before. I said those two particular projectors (RS2000 and RS3000) happened to measure nearly the same for native contrast, but when viewing the RS3000 looked like it had better contrast. ANSI contrast on all three of the new JVC's is about the same also. So since the contrast measures about the same and yet one looks like it has better contrast, then it is perceived contrast. This is all explained in the thread that you brought up.
So now you need to help me understand why you think im asuming you dont know what your talking about.? And maybe answer the questions in my last post instead of beeing insulted, or dont you know how to answer the questions and that makes you insulted.. Im confused
""I just find the term higher persived contrast a bit misleading if the meaning was higher persived resolution, or maybe 1:1 pixel contrast.
So am i right to understand that the RS2000 and RS3000 looked excactley the same contrast wise, looking a dark and bright area of the image, or the way light played out on the overall frame.?""
You asked about the calibration reports. I said you would have to get them from kris, if he was willing to send them. I also said Kris had some of the calibration info in his posts in that thread, so you could run it down that way. Also I type one thing and you don't seem to grasp what I am saying. You just go back to what you said before. I said those two particular projectors (RS2000 and RS3000) happened to measure nearly the same for native contrast, but when viewing the RS3000 looked like it had better contrast. ANSI contrast on all three of the new JVC's is about the same also. So since the contrast measures about the same and yet one looks like it has better contrast, then it is perceived contrast. This is all explained in the thread that you brought up.Ok forget about calibration reports, and forget about sharpness for a moment.
Why do I need to measure MTF? Everybody knows the lens in the RS3000 is a much better lens than what is in the RS2000. I just said that Kris speculated the higher MTF of the 3000 lens is probably why the 3000 looked like it had higher contrast.
You keep talking about seeing a difference in ANSI between two projectors that should have ANSI of 230 vs 450 and yet people like Kris Deering and others have set up two projectors with much higher ANSI differences than what you used and had a hard time telling any difference. This is with them even freeze framing scenes to study them. Kris has talked about this numerous times. kris also had others there and they agreed with his findings.
Since I keep having to repeat myself, I am done posting on this.
Im not totaly disagreeing that on off is important, but a combination of both would make for a better image overall, small difference maybe, i still apriciate it, Hate most of the rest of what the SONY do.
There is a really good reason why i overall prefer the Marquee 9500 CRT projector wich much higher native contrast than any other home cinema projector available on the market today, it just kills any JVC in low level performance, however i still see how the ansi contrast have a impact on brighter scenes, and well aware of its weak parts.
It would not really make sense to mount a different lens from the same manufacture, so first ill try find a SONY lens see if it can be custum fitted on the JVC, not that it needs to be perfect, just to satisfy my curiosity, and maybe determine the lens quality, as nobody realy know where the different projectors suffers, it can just as welll be in the mirror and optical blocks in the lamp engine the biggest limitations are, sony could for that matter have the best sharpest lenses, and the worse lamp engine, and JVC the opposite, or whatever way around, all people know is the sum of it all in a factory asembled projector without beeing able to pinpoint where the weak point in the optical path is.
Fact is SONY holds significantly better ansi contrast, and JVC significantly better on off contrast, i doubt anyone can dispute that, and it all holds some importance to image quality, if not you should be happy with a 50:1 ansi contrast, my bet is that above 500:1 will be fairly impossible to see, but how cool would it be if it was possible to put a lens on a jvc and get sony ansi contrast, and compare it to a identical stock JVC, i happen to have 2 old JVC X3 units, wich in most regards performs as well as the last generation 1080P models except total lightoutput, and better native panel on off contrast on the old series.
I think its sad that some people feel a personal atatchment to thair equipment and need to defend it, i find it helthy to keep a open mind, experiment, also beyond normal contrast and brightness adjustment, the narow mindet mentality on forums these days are kind of limiting the objective aproach, i own JVC SONY and others, and ill not hold back discussing flaws and qualities of different manufactures just so others can feel better about their boy toys, im in this hobby to enjoy both the visual and tecnical aspects, and only by knowing the shortcommings and flaws can i try to work around them and reach a better compromise.
Just because the lens is made by the same manufacturer does not mean its the exact same lens. The Mitsubishi HC9000 (HC5) was able to hit about 450:1 ANSI contrast and uses a lens that would more easily integrate within the JVC projector chassis. I highly doubt you'll be able to fit the Sony lens inside JVC's chassis let alone figure out a way to get the motorized lens controls to work.Ill keep a open eye, i doubt its a model widely sold here so finding a cheap or defective unit might be extremely hard.
Ok forget about calibration reports, and forget about sharpness for a moment.
What i understand from MTF is sharpness, but you guys say percived contrast, and when i look at contrast its about how the light plays out on the specifik scene in general not pr pixle sharpness, so i like to understand what MTF really means in your world, as it seems different from what i understand, to me its 2 different image parameters.
If you dont think about MTF and sharpness and look more roughly on the RS2000 and RS3000 from a longer distance, do the persived contrast between bright and dark areas of a frame look the same, or do you also percive a difference there.?
Here is a few samples of frames to ilustrate what contrast, specifikly ansi contrast is to me, where the sony holds better in the low light parts of the sceen and the JVC visible vashes out the dark area, even that my sony have a slightly lower gamma, 2,3 vs 2,33 on the JVC.
I was not there at that shootout, so I can't comment on if there was a difference, with increased distance. As I said, Kris speculated that it was the MTF, since it could not be ANSI nor a difference in native contrast. Also could see the difference with dynamic iris off on both. Perceived, just like a speaker comparison can fool people if one is played louder. One poster said he used to sell audio gear. Said when comparing speaker A to speaker B, sometimes he would switch from A back to A, but increase the volume a little. Everybody always commented on the louder speaker as being much better. So this is a perceived difference, because there is no actual difference. Same with the contrast we are talking about.Small gamma changes, grayscale tracking differences, and as seen on the calibrations posted they were a bit rough in the low end could very well make for a percived difference, also processing can change percived MTF/ pr pixel contrast, thats what Darbee do, and the JVC N series might have some sharpness addet by defoult, maybe more on the NX9/ RS3000 than the other ones, what i wonder is that i have heard from others that the RS3000 actually have higher ansi contrast than the RS2000, + it has a bit of extra optical sharpness.
Here is something no Sony and no JVC can do and as it runs a fairly high gamma it will in many cases look more contrasty and dynamic, and just as a note that was measured with around 12fl so calculate the black level on screen. From this overheated discussion where most agree that ansi dont hold much importance ill guess we can all agree that the CRT must be the best projector in the world ;-) And that both SONY and JVC still only manufacture gray plastic toy projectors.8)
Matched lightoutput at 15fl on screen.I spoke a little with Didrik as he is one of my best friends and he tells me you use the contrast slider to drop the lightoutput on your JVC, is this true? If it is it is not strange you see what you see as you have killed the projector in doing this, and if it is true you just show your ignorance.
Of course any calibrator could adjust two projectors and select material to favor one projector, but that was not the goal here. If doing that, you would not provide any calibration reports as was done here. If you knew anything about Kris, you would know that he turns off all processing. Maybe it is the language barrier, but you seem to come across as condescending or accusing, like something was not on the up and up with that shootout. Kris does not sell projectors. While the guy that hosted the shootout does sell projectors, here in the US, Sony has higher profit than JVC, so it would not make sense to slant a shootout to a product that you made less money on. Heck the host of the shootout is my compitition and yet I am defending him. I certainly have no reason, hidden agenda to do so. Time to move on from this.A part of the percived difference very likely be calibration tolerances and not unlikely software/ JVC processing wich can be very hard to make out, also why comparing 2 different projectors you will need to be carefull not to mix up to many image parameters and percived or subjective points.Wich is why i prefer some objective tests and results.
I spoke a little with Didrik as he is one of my best friends and he tells me you use the contrast slider to drop the lightoutput on your JVC, is this true? If it is it is not strange you see what you see as you have killed the projector in doing this, and if it is true you just show your ignorance.
I am ok with you thinking and meaning your CRT is the best projector in the world and I also think you have a very personal connection to your CRTs. But to 99.9% of people interested in projection it is a thing of the past. I am sure it shows very dark scenes in a very good way, but not much more than that. And personally I think CRTs is a thing in the past. Enjoy your CRT and try to be a little less insulting, condescending and arrogant in the way you write and you will get a lot more positive comments. :)
I spoke a little with Didrik as he is one of my best friends and he tells me you use the contrast slider to drop the lightoutput on your JVC, is this true? If it is it is not strange you see what you see as you have killed the projector in doing this, and if it is true you just show your ignorance.Now that you pick up and sling around words like ignorance insulting and arogant i guess its a way of alowing me to trow a few stones back, and you might explain how the contrast effects the black level gamma and grayscale tracking, if thats not to complicated for you.?
I am ok with you thinking and meaning your CRT is the best projector in the world and I also think you have a very personal connection to your CRTs. But to 99.9% of people interested in projection it is a thing of the past. I am sure it shows very dark scenes in a very good way, but not much more than that. And personally I think CRTs is a thing in the past. Enjoy your CRT and try to be a little less insulting, condescending and arrogant in the way you write and you will get a lot more positive comments. :)
Now that you pick up and sling around words like ignorance insulting and arogant i guess its a way of alowing me to trow a few stones back, and you might explain how the contrast effects the black level gamma and grayscale tracking, if thats not to complicated for you.?For the sake of contrast measurements, you can't expect to get accurate measurements if you have the contrast set so low where you're clipping when you shouldn't be. On the JVCs at least, you don't have to sacrifice your contrast setting to get a well tracking gamma or greyscale.
That would explain why most of his measurements are so low. I hope he realizes he can't treat these digital projectors the same as his CRTs. Lowering the Contrast setting simply clips everything above a particular digital level to be the same, lower, brightness level. He should be using the manual iris instead.Damn i cant find the iris adjustment on the SONY 270, and the X5900 is at -15
That's way too dim. I need a minimum of 18 foot lamberts just for 1080p. CRT's are like Model A's - great back in their day. But yesterday's news. But I'm sure Thomas Edison enjoyed his. ;DI know its to dim specially with bad contrast projectors, come over ill show you how 12 fl looks like with a 500.000:1 on off contrast, and later we can crank it up to 16fl and you can see if you prefer that one, not sure you can measure that high on off contrast in a meaningfull way.
Damn i cant find the iris adjustment on the SONY 270, and the X5900 is at -15
The basic thing the contrast adjustment do is lower lightoutput and make the projector show whiter than white, as long as the gamma still tracks all the way from 0-100% ire there is no loss of information, you can argue that i reduce contrast, as i lower lightoutput and maintain the same black level, anyway its the only way of matching these 2 projectors to a reference level lightoutput, not that i would not prefer a iris or the capability of the iris its simply not a option, and it have absolutely no effect on ansi contrast, and the conclution is the same with both projectors set to 100contrast with 18fl on screen, just that if i wach 18fl for 3 hours ill trow the projector in the bin, poor alcohol on it and set it on fire to never have to use it again.
But your more than welcome to ilustrate what im clipping when everything is calibrated and tracks with a specifik contrast setting, on the JVC currently -7
The contrast slider on a digital projector should not be used in this way, you are killing the projector when doing it, if you dont belive it please tell me what it does??8)It lowers lightoutput and compresses the bit dept a bit, but can be done gently and preserve all information so that you can match lightoutput to a reference level for comparison on these plastic toy projectors.
It lowers lightoutput and compresses the bit dept a bit, but can be done gently and preserve all information so that you can match lightoutput to a reference level for comparison.This is not the way to use the contrast slider on a digital projector, period! 8)
What probe are you using here it only says simulated meter and you claim 500000:1 o/off why does it only say 300000:1 here??Klein K10A profiled to a JETI1501, wich i think was semi defective, we measured multiple scenarios with different brightness settings, that one ilustrated was 300000:1 others as high as 600000:1 and infinite if desired, we just worked on preserving the perfect out of black displaying every level.
This is not the way to use the contrast slider on a digital projector, period! 8)So please tell me what it do if you know.?
So please tell me what it do if you know.?If you really want to match the Sony 270 with the JVC in image brightness, buy an ND filter and then use the manual iris if you need to lower the brightness even further. I don't think you fully understand what the Contrast setting does on a digital projector.
So please tell me what it do if you know.?It adjusts the clipping point, nothing else. And on most digitals today you dont have to adjust it at all.
Klein K10A profiled to a JETI1501, wich i think was semi defective, we measured multiple scenarios with different brightness settings, that one ilustrated was 300000:1 others as high as 600000:1 and infinite if desired, we just worked on preserving the perfect out of black displaying every level.Why does it say simulated meter when it should say Klein K10A?? You know the Yeti was mine when the profile was made, Didrik has bought it from me now so I am sure it is not accurate.8)
We also made a 150000:1 setting wich we tested on various reference low level scenes and agreed that it looked gray like a digital.
Yes, but from a digital standpoint, and how a digital image will be displayed through the projector, you can't lower the contrast setting to clip below level 235 and expect to get accurate contrast measurements. You need to think about these things in a digital way. When taking an on/off or ANSI contrast measurement, the digital level of white in test patterns is 235 so if you're clipping below that, you can't get an accurate measurement because you've artificially lowered how bright level 235 is because you've lowered the contrast setting too much. Does that make sense?It seems you confuse lowering contrast with higher contrast, what i do is a bit the same as the super white function do, or like using a spyder probe for autocalibrating and afterwords having to lower red and loos 2fl compared to a manual calibration, sure im aware that by lowering contrast i lower the digital bit headroom, and has to be carefull with the 90-100% gamma dong start to elevate.
Why does it say simulated meter when it should say Klein K10A?? You know the Yeti was mine when the profile was made, Didrik has bought it from me now so I am sure it is not accurate.8)Not sure how calman works he puled it up again after he came home and send the screenshot, if the measurement was 0.0000 the calculation could not really come out at 300000:1 would it.?The Klein worked perfectly, are you saying that he dont know how to use the software and meters.?
You think the Klein was defective when you get different reading from black when black measures 0.000, this also shows you have a lot to learn when it comes to calibration and equipment.:)
Stridsvognen you also says your CRT has the best analogue video chain, yet you use a Lumagen to calibrate it?? This makes me wonder?? I stopped using the old Lumagens due to all its flaws a long long time ago.Please share whats the Lumagen flaws in details and what it do.? And how native CRT response works.?
It seems you confuse lowering contrast with higher contrast, what i do is a bit the same as the super white function do, or like using a spyder probe for autocalibrating and afterwords having to lower red and loos 2fl compared to a manual calibration, sure im aware that by lowering contrast i lower the digital bit headroom, and has to be carefull with the 90-100% gamma dong start to elevate.You have the JVC in low lamp mode, the iris a -15 and you still have issues with the image hurting your eyes?
Yes its a compromise, and yes it lowers on off contrast due to the lower lightoutput, but if your eyes hurt running to bright do you prefer not using the projector, or set a comfortable lightoutput beeing carefull you maintain flat gamma and grayscale tracking.?What i see on the X5900 its getting a bit problematic below -7 contrast, so thats where i left it, and can set it back to 0 and it will still track, maybe you could measure and ilustrate what happens on your unit whan adjusting contrast, and what informatin your clipping, and explain how you balance the colors without touching gren and blue gain wich is basically a contrast pr color adjustment.?
You have the JVC in low lamp mode, the iris a -15 and you still have issues with the image hurting your eyes?what contrast measurement link please.
The problem is that the contrast measurements you provide aren't valid because you're not setting the projector up like everyone else. You have to measure peak brightness with 235 resolved. Otherwise the measurements you provide are useless to compare to ours.
You have the JVC in low lamp mode, the iris a -15 and you still have issues with the image hurting your eyes?I was wondering how small the screen was and/or how high the gain is?
The problem is that the contrast measurements you provide aren't valid because you're not setting the projector up like everyone else. You have to measure peak brightness with 235 resolved. Otherwise the measurements you provide are useless to compare to ours.
I was wondering how small the screen was and/or how high the gain is?I was thinking the same thing. Somebody might need to see an eye doctor. :-[
I was wondering how small the screen was and/or how high the gain is?110" ADEO plano Reference white, color and gain neutral screen.
I was thinking the same thing. Somebody might need to see an eye doctor. :-[It might be the old wine, i heard it can effect the visual system, age could also be a huge factor so a checkup is highly recommendet if you think your loosing it.;)
It might be the old wine, i heard it can effect the visual system, age could also be a huge factor so a checkup is highly recommendet if you think your loosing it.;)I don't find 20 FL's too bright, or even 45 FL for HDR on a 128" diagonal scope screen. So unless you never go outside during the day in the sun, I'm not sure how a JVC on that size screen at -15 manual iris can be too bright. That doesn't make any sense to me.
110" ADEO plano Reference white, color and gain neutral screen.Which model of JVC are you using? Reason I ask, even on the higher output new models, you would be around 11FL if in low lamp and iris at -15, when shooting onto a 110" 1.0 gain screen.
110" ADEO plano Reference white, color and gain neutral screen.The Adeo Plano White has a 10% gain in red in the grayscale and is far from neutral. :)
The Adeo Plano White has a 10% gain in red in the grayscale and is far from neutral. :)Quote from: Andreas21 on Today at 11:00:59 AM (https://discuss.avscience.com/index.php?topic=1896.msg13514#msg13514)
And you still dont understand how to use the contrast slider on a digital projector. When you use SuperWhite you have to raise the contrast slider to resolve less than 255 and you only mess up the projector. You need to use standard and default values, if you cant get 100% white perfect with the gain control in the projector you migh try to tale away one click on the contrast slider. 7 clicks and the projector image is destroyed. It is as simple as that.
Try to listen to more experienced people and you might learn something.8)
Stridsvognen you also says your CRT has the best analogue video chain, yet you use a Lumagen to calibrate it?? This makes me wonder?? I stopped using the old Lumagens due to all its flaws a long long time ago.
Please share whats the Lumagen flaws in details and what it do.? And how native CRT response works.?This is not what we are discussing and Lumagen might have fixed the problems they had some years ago, I dont know since I have not used a Lumagen in a very long time.
It for sure have less than 5% digital correction in comparison to all digital projectors, maybe you care to explain why digitals need so massive correction and remapping.?
Which model of JVC are you using? Reason I ask, even on the higher output new models, you would be around 11FL if in low lamp and iris at -15, when shooting onto a 110" 1.0 gain screen.X5900, if using the auto calibrate with the spyder i loos 2fl basically as it have a red error and lowers contrast, but sure i can do that if you guys prefer another lable on the contrast slider.
This is not what we are discussing and Lumagen might have fixed the problems they had some years ago, I dont know since I have not used a Lumagen in a very long time.You put the lumagen in question, so now ill like to know when and what model, and what was the actual issue, and reply what the contrast adjustment do in tecnical terms.
You are still using digital manipulation on your CRT and I thought it was a big no no.
You put the lumagen in question, so now ill like to know when and what model, and what was the actual issue, and reply what the contrast adjustment do in tecnical terms.The contrast slider adjustment has been explained to you by two different posters. You use the manual iris to cut the light output. If you still can't get there, you should use an ND filter. Yet you keep asking for an explanation for this when it has been given to you. At some point it just becomes trolling and people are going to stop replying to you.
This is a SONY owners thread and i dont see anything you posted relevant to that so i think its ok you explain your statements about the JVC contrast adjustment and Lumagen issues you experienced that made you stamp it useless.
Then later we can link it all together.
You put the lumagen in question, so now ill like to know when and what model, and what was the actual issue, and reply what the contrast adjustment do in tecnical terms.The Lumagen is not what we are discussing here and actually everything we are discussing is off topic. I also told you it was a while ago and they migh have fixed it by now.:)
This is a SONY owners thread and i dont see anything you posted relevant to that so i think its ok you explain your statements about the JVC contrast adjustment and Lumagen issues you experienced that made you stamp it useless.
Then later we can link it all together.
The Lumagen is not what we are discussing here and actually everything we are discussing is off topic. I also told you it was a while ago and they migh have fixed it by now.:)So please explain why you felt the need to add that coment about the lumagen if you dont know how it works?
I have explained to you what the contrast slider on a digital projector does, but you dont seem to read or understand the basics.
So I see no reason to continue this as this goes the same way all our discussion have during the many years we have done this. I will not respond to more post from you.
So please explain why you felt the need to add that coment about the lumagen if you dont know how it works?Two people have told you not to use the contrast slider adjustment for light output adjustment. Both of them have told you why you should not use this adjustment and that you should use the manual iris. I myself have also posted this and yet you continue. Consider this warning number two to stop or you will be gone.
You have shortly stated that adjusting the contrast destroys the digital, and as usual you fail to explain why, and in specifik terms how, provide some documentation for the common good, its not first or 2nd time you posted ull not respond to more of my posts so ill guess thats as meaningfull as your answers and comments true the hole thread, and i think you owe to clerify many things much more specifikly, i answered every question as well as i could to my capabilities, if you say your capabilities are limited to the answers you posted ill have to accept that and happy to belive that will be the last word from you.:-*
what contrast measurement link please.I have no idea what test pattern that is. Where does it say that bar is 235? I also have no idea if you're sending full 0-255 or limited 16-235. I also have no idea what other settings you have enabled. All I know is, if your chain is set up properly, you shouldn't need to set the Contrast setting that low. As Andreas points out, generally speaking, you don't need to make adjustments to either Contrast or Brightness to clip and crush at the correct digital levels and if you do generally it's only 1 point off, not 7.
I have 235 resolved, to clip 235 you need to adjust contrast in the positive direction to clip, your flipping it.
The cell phone clips it a bit but im sure you get the idea what contrast do when adjusted in different directions from the pictures.
The contrast slider adjustment has been explained to you by two different posters. You use the manual iris to cut the light output. If you still can't get there, you should use an ND filter. Yet you keep asking for an explanation for this when it has been given to you. At some point it just becomes trolling and people are going to stop replying to you.Then please provide a copy of that reply i failed to see any explanation other than it destroys the digital and your measurements are wrong.
Two people have told you not to use the contrast slider adjustment for light output adjustment. Both of them have told you why you should not use this adjustment and that you should use the manual iris. I myself have also posted this and yet you continue. Consider this warning number two to stop or you will be gone.
I have no idea what test pattern that is. Where does it say that bar is 235? I also have no idea if you're sending full 0-255 or limited 16-235. I also have no idea what other settings you have enabled. All I know is, if your chain is set up properly, you shouldn't need to set the Contrast setting that low. As Andreas points out, generally speaking, you don't need to make adjustments to either Contrast or Brightness to clip and crush at the correct digital levels and if you do generally it's only 1 point off, not 7.all is 16-235 all true the chain normal setup, im telling you its clipping perfect at bar 235, do i need to pull up another pattern to show you.?
all is 16-235 all true the chain normal setup, im telling you its clipping perfect at bar 235, do i need to pull up another pattern to show you.?
Maybe you could adjust your contrast -7 and ilustrate what you see on the clipping pattern as ill guess it will be the same, and still my iris is -15 and 18fl so to match a 15fl for comparisons sake ill need to lower contrast, only visual and measureble difference is that i lower on off contrast by lowering lightoutput and slightly compressing the bit resolution in the projector, exactely like you do when you adjust green and blue gain down to balance your colors.
Ill like to understand why your projector clips 235 when you lower your contrast, thats highly unusual.
A few clicks on the remote and the contrast is back to 0 and its all as you guys like it, so whats the actual problem.?
I have 5 projectors up so sometimes compromises is needet to make proper comparisons with identical lightoutput.
Yes, sorry, I misspoke. But the point I was making still holds true in that you're lowering your light output thus creating an issue trying to take an accurate contrast measurement.I cannot find in this thread where anybody tried to claim accurate contrast measurements. Can you please provide me a
I cannot find in this thread where anybody tried to claim accurate contrast measurements. Can you please provide me aWhich particular projector ?
link?
I was thinking the same thing. Somebody might need to see an eye doctor. :-[ So who needs to see an eye doctor?
I cannot find in this thread where anybody tried to claim accurate contrast measurements. Can you please provide me aContrast measurements were provided. When that happens we assume they're taken with the same set of standards used as everyone else. If that's not the case, why post the measurements? They wouldn't be comparable to everyone else's. So, if they aren't "accurate", why post them in the first place?
link?
I Used to be an owner of an 885es/ 760es and had issues with 3 of them. Sony was good too exchange them and I only had to add $4K to get a 995es / 870es Unfortunately that had problems as well. Optical block issue. The whole guts of the system. I would have to say Sony had great service and the projectors did throw a great picture unfortunately I just ended up with 4 duds. I ended up with a full refund but still its a damn shame. Apparently the 270es 570es 760es & the 870es have all the same internals bar 760es and 870es. Their difference was Laser and 870es having the lens. With the 760es and 870es with the amount they charge they should of had a much higher end optical block, processor etc. Just under the 5000es.Sorry to hear about your projector problem. When these things happen it is always a hassle, just to exchange them, but at least you were well taken care of in the end.
I Used to be an owner of an 885es/ 760es and had issues with 3 of them. Sony was good too exchange them and I only had to add $4K to get a 995es / 870es Unfortunately that had problems as well. Optical block issue. The whole guts of the system. I would have to say Sony had great service and the projectors did throw a great picture unfortunately I just ended up with 4 duds. I ended up with a full refund but still its a damn shame. Apparently the 270es 570es 760es & the 870es have all the same internals bar 760es and 870es. Their difference was Laser and 870es having the lens. With the 760es and 870es with the amount they charge they should of had a much higher end optical block, processor etc. Just under the 5000es.
Sorry to hear about your projector problem. When these things happen it is always a hassle, just to exchange them, but at least you were well taken care of in the end.Thanks Mike,
Your experience reminds me of mine with the Epson LS10000. I went through several replacements; all had poor grey uniformity which could not be calibrated out and was very noticeable in content. I ended up getting a refund from them. I will say, their customer service was phenomenal.Too be honest I didnt know it was that bad until I watched Schindlers List. I sent the pics to Sony Tech and he said that’s optical Block issue bring it in. I thought it required calibration, boy was I wrong.