Software issues are one thing, but hardware issues as big as the one you're referencing is something one could argue shouldn't be there to begin with. Imagine buying a corvette that starts out being able to go 0-60 in 3.5 seconds with a top speed of 175mph and a year later that same car goes 0-60 in 9 seconds and can only go 110mph. Would that be acceptable to you especially when it was advertised to do those speeds? Or would it be acceptable for the manufacturer to not even acknowledge publicly the issues and also not really fix the issue over the next several years? I still don't feel 100% comfortable with Sony. While it may be lessened, I doubt degradation is completely gone. Only time will tell...I wonder if the same guys who give Sony a pass (or try and make it seem as if the issue isn't real) would be doing the same thing if JVC were the ones with the issue? I think not. These people are the reason there's so many arguments on the other forum. I can tell you now, if it were JVC with these issues I'd be just as vocal about it as I am with Sony. It's unacceptable no matter who has the problem and I would never downplay the issue or try and make it seem as if it was a conspiracy with no validity to it. And unfortunately that's what many people do on the other forum. Why would Sony fix the problem when they have fanboys who tell people there's no issue to begin with? It's no wonder why this issue was prevalent for as long as it was...(and probably still there to some degree)Sorry if I'm being aggressive here, but as you can imagine I'm just a bit salty over all of this after having spent years (literally) arguing about this issue with people who've actively tried to make it seem as if the issue wasn't real. The same people also do the same thing about other SXRD related issues. The kicker is, if they treated the issues like most JVC owners do by acknowledging them and discussing them openly, there would be less arguments and the issues would more than likely be resolved much faster. But they won't do that because they own a "perfect" projector. It's really sad.
Just a few thoughts, as we expect a much smaller crowd today. Yesterday was packed - thanks to all that came!From my poll of the six people left at the end of the day, it was 5 out of 6 thought the JVCs were the winner overall, both the RS640 and RS4500. People were coming in and out during the day, so there were some I was not able to query but will be following up.Couple of issues I noticed being right up in the front at the screen:The Sonys all looked slightly soft and "flat" to me. I used my usual closeup of Aaron Eckhart in a shot toward the end of SULLY that reveals fine details in the texture of his shirt. The RS4500 clearly revealed every stitch in the weave, while on both the Sonys the stitches were hard to make out. Of course, this is the stuff that is only noticeable close to the screen, but still was surprising to me. Even here I did not see that much difference with the eShift vs. the native 4K panels on the Sonys.The JVC RS640 did look a bit dark, simply in terms of how it rose out of black (I agree with Jerry here). Another person shared the same thoughts, and Gregg and I thought they had a point. We went in during the last hour and tweaked the picture tone and dark level controls on the JVC and that brought the rise out of black much more in line with what was seen on the Sony. This tweak just adjusted the rise out of black but of course did not affect contrast. Even the two people I know of who preferred the Sony (including Jerry, clearly) acknowledged the clearly better black levels of the JVC RS640 over all the other projectors (inlcuding the 4500).Today with the Sonys I am going to go into the service menu and use ArrowAV's tweak to override Sony's locked panel alignment and see if I can get back some Sony sharpness. RE: Billy Lynn and banding with the 385. I didn't see any in the brief sequences we watched. However, when we played Billy Lynn on the 640, the wider color gamut was clearly visible.Just my thoughts, mixed in with some shared thoughts from several others. Hopefully others will join in.Gregg and I are also going to play with the HDR contrast setting on the Sony's a bit more today. During the scene in SULLY where Tom Hanks jogs through Times Square, we noticed that some of the bright neon signs were getting blown out on the Sonys. We dialed back the HDR contrast setting to bring out the detail in bright areas of the picture, but this did "flatten out" the image somewhat (obviously decreasing overall brightness and "pop" as a result). In fairness, though, the Times Square scene in SULLY is a true torture test for this kind of thing, and this is one of the areas where projector compromises often need to be made, as projection systems are not inclined to handle specular highlights as well as something like a Z series Sony or OLED.IMO, the RS4500 was the overall "winner," but I'd be curious to hear other's thoughts. And I will repeat what I said in my previous review - I can't imagine anyone going wrong with any of these projectors.BTW, anyone at yesterdays shootout who wants to come back for a "redo" with some of the tweaks mentioned above is welcome to return. We still have plenty of food, beer and wine left over
I just read John Schuermann's post on the other forum about the shootout he had at his house over the weekend. He said:This kind of mirrors my thoughts. The 285/385ES simply lack the brightness and contrast compared to the similarly priced JVCs and the result is a somewhat flatter look overall. I also find it odd that Sony is still shipping these Sony's with the fine-pixel convergence software enabled. If you're viewing from a regular seated distance enabling this is superfluous. You're never going to see sub-pixel misconvergence from this far away anyways. Due to the odd moire and color blotch artifacts it introduces into the image, it should be disabled. The whole-pixel adjustment is more than good enough. I feel that people put way too much stock in convergence correction software anyways. You simply aren't going to reap any benefits from fine-convergence correction at normal seated distances back anyways. Sony should do what JVC does; leave all sub-pixel convergence correction off out of the box and give the end user the option to enable it even if they're okay with the artifacts. The fact that Sony forces people to go into the service menu to turn it off is a bit ridiculous.
I see the problem just like you and I would also do exactly the same I have done over the years with the Sony degradation if it was a JVC problem. Many banned users on the other forum is banned because of these Sony Fanboys and I think it is quite sa actually.I am the first to say the JVCs are far from perfect, but I have been called a JVC fanboy by many over there. I am not fan of a brand, I am a fan of projection and I will as long as I keep on buying projectors buy the one I think gives me what I look for inside the limits of my budget. And the last years it is JVC projectors that matches this the closest.
I was only talking about the JVC's. Before the RS40, you fairly regularly read about optical block failure on the JVC's. After the RS40, you do not see people talking about this issue.
Sony should do what JVC does; leave all sub-pixel convergence correction off out of the box and give the end user the option to enable it even if they're okay with the artifacts. The fact that Sony forces people to go into the service menu to turn it off is a bit ridiculous.
This was a test. People asked about multi quote. It is available. To use it, quote the post that you are replying to, then scroll down to the topic summary area and select any posts you want multi quoted.
Or just expose it as a user setting. I don't really have a problem if they want to do it out of the box, I'm sure most of their customers are happier with it on (I'm sure support calls is why they do it), but give the user an easy way to turn it off if they want.
I'm glad most people are coming away from that meet with the same thoughts in that eshift can keep up with Sony's native 4K projectors. As I've alluded to many times (see here about half way down) Sony could be showing more apparent resolution, probably on par with the RS4500, if most of them weren't using a relatively poor lens, had better video processing and didn't have the issue they all have with color information getting lost and artifacts like posterization and banding occurring because of it obfuscating image detail. These reasons alone are the reasons why the 885ES didn't look anywhere near as good as the RS4500. I'm not asking for an Arc-F lens or the lens used in the RS4500, but something worthy of the $25000 asking price. Hell, the lens used in the $4000 JVC RS440 is nicer than the lens in the $25000 885ES. Sony's continued use of this lens, video processing solution and artifact ridden SXRD panels are really starting to show now that JVC has native 4K and a very refined eshift system. It's just nice to see others finally see how these issues affect the image and agree with me that eshift can actually keep up with SXRD 4K with 99% of all content.
That's kind of what I meant. Take it out of the service menu. But I suspect the reason they do it is to allow for less than optimal factory set physical convergence. This is a cost saving measure so more units pass QC. Is blue off a half pixel? That's fine just fix it in software and hide it in the service menu....Unfortunately this comes at a cost in image artifacts. But what does Sony care as most buyers don't have a critical eye. I'm just reading up on the new shootout/comparison thread on the other forum. I'm glad to see some kind of properly setup comparison done. It helps me validate my own comparisons and opinions made over the years having these projectors here. I'm glad most people are coming away from that meet with the same thoughts in that eshift can keep up with Sony's native 4K projectors. As I've alluded to many times (see here about half way down) Sony could be showing more apparent resolution, probably on par with the RS4500, if most of them weren't using a relatively poor lens, had better video processing and didn't have the issue they all have with color information getting lost and artifacts like posterization and banding occurring because of it obfuscating image detail. These reasons alone are the reasons why the 885ES didn't look anywhere near as good as the RS4500. I'm not asking for an Arc-F lens or the lens used in the RS4500, but something worthy of the $25000 asking price. Hell, the lens used in the $4000 JVC RS440 is nicer than the lens in the $25000 885ES. Sony's continued use of this lens, video processing solution and artifact ridden SXRD panels are really starting to show now that JVC has native 4K and a very refined eshift system. It's just nice to see others finally see how these issues affect the image and agree with me that eshift can actually keep up with SXRD 4K with 99% of all content.On their own these Sony 4K models look excellent, but when you compare it to what JVC is doing it's hard not to see the flaws and prefer those projectors. I still haven't seen an RS4500, but reading people's comments about how it looked at the meet, it REALLY makes me want to go out and see one in person.
On their own these Sony 4K models look excellent, but when you compare it to what JVC is doing it's hard not to see the flaws and prefer those projectors. I still haven't seen an RS4500, but reading people's comments about how it looked at the meet, it REALLY makes me want to go out and see one in person.
Hello, We have a 16:9 screen and when playing media like Kong 4K/UHD, it fits perfectly horizontally, but I have the letterboxing (black bands above and below). Also, when Apple TV shows its screensaver, it fits the entire screen perfectly, but once the media is selected when 2.35:1 content, it goes into letterbox mode.I fiddled with many settings, including screen position with Zoom and Shift too. Seems like when I try zoom, the picture gets a little larger vertically while exceeding the horizontal borders, but I can't get it to fill the vertical screen size no matter what I do. What am I missing? This is a great project, isn't there some way to get it to do a fill/full mode similar to most digital TVs, where it will make the media fill the corners of the screen, even if there is some skewing of the media's original aspect ratio? Is there a difference between digital zoom vs. lens zoom? I think that maybe based on my setup with projector on ceiling, I can't solve this with lens zoom and maybe need a digital zoom processor. Any help with the right steps/process/methods will be very helpful and appreciated. I see posts about people trying to fill 2.35:1 screens when playing 16:9 media. I have the opposite, a 16:9 screen but playing 2.35:1 media and wanting to eliminate the top & bottom black bands (letterboxing).Some people talk about a Lumagen device to do this, but with this capable projector, I would think I don't need that additional add on either, do I? I've followed info on using lens memory to create positions, but can't seem to create a custom position which fills the screen vertically once its at the horizontal edges.This surely can't be as hard as it seems....Thanks!
149 Replies
55427 Views