JVC RS4500 (native 4K laser projector)

[Tom Bley]

Correct - and the RS4500 also has native 4096 x 2160 resolution. Here's some handy info -

https://www.panamorph.com/projector-compatiblity-guide/

Thanks Craig, that's what was baffling me.  I didn't know the 4500 had the same width panel as the Sony models.  I thought that was a Sony thing.  I wonder when JVC comes out with lower priced actual 4k models if they will use the same resolution as the Sony and JVC RS-4500 models.

[AVSCraig]

Thanks Craig, that's what was baffling me.  I didn't know the 4500 had the same width panel as the Sony models.  I thought that was a Sony thing.  I wonder when JVC comes out with lower priced actual 4k models if they will use the same resolution as the Sony and JVC RS-4500 models.

Most of these native 4K projectors are set up assuming that what you watch is 4K UHD - 3840 x 2160, leaving the other pixels unused. So it's hard to say but if they do come with the current 4096 x 2160 chips, hopefully they can scale internally to use it. But you may still want a Lumagen for HDR tone mapping - that's the other thing I'm really curious to see. It's like hot rodding and adding NOS to my RS4500 ! 

[Tom Bley]

Most of these native 4K projectors are set up assuming that what you watch is 4K UHD - 3840 x 2160, leaving the other pixels unused. So it's hard to say but if they do come with the current 4096 x 2160 chips, hopefully they can scale internally to use it. But you may still want a Lumagen for HDR tone mapping - that's the other thing I'm really curious to see. It's like hot rodding and adding NOS to my RS4500 ! 

When you get everything dialed in I'm interested in your thoughts of how much extra light output you gain by this setup.  A little noticable, very noticable.  Looking at the standard Paladin it says 30%, not sure how much that is in the real world.

[AVSCraig]

When you get everything dialed in I'm interested in your thoughts of how much extra light output you gain by this setup.  A little noticable, very noticable.  Looking at the standard Paladin it says 30%, not sure how much that is in the real world.

With the lens in place but no Lumagen to properly scale the picture, the brightness on Guardians of the Galaxy 2 on 4K Blu-ray was noticeable to the eye. Watching on my 128" diagonal 2.35:1 screen with 4K UHD resolution and zooming gives me about 6,220,800 pixels on the screen. Just adding the lens and using anamorphic stretch gives me 8,294,400 pixels - 2,073,600 more lumens. The Lumagen will add another 552,960. So I should go from around 35 foot lamberts for 4K HDR to 45 foot lamberts ( in mid laser ), and nearly 25 foot lamberts in low laser for 2.35:1 Blu -rays. The little testing I did so far looked like 4K HDR has the more dramatic increase in brightness than Blu-ray.   

[Tom Bley]

With the lens in place but no Lumagen to properly scale the picture, the brightness on Guardians of the Galaxy 2 on 4K Blu-ray was noticeable to the eye. Watching on my 128" diagonal 2.35:1 screen with 4K UHD resolution and zooming gives me about 6,220,800 pixels on the screen. Just adding the lens and using anamorphic stretch gives me 8,294,400 pixels - 2,073,600 more lumens. The Lumagen will add another 552,960. So I should go from around 35 foot lamberts for 4K HDR to 45 foot lamberts ( in mid laser ), and nearly 25 foot lamberts in low laser for 2.35:1 Blu -rays. The little testing I did so far looked like 4K HDR has the more dramatic increase in brightness than Blu-ray.

Wow, that's a nice bump!  So, when you finally have the Lumagen/lens all set up do you think you will spend the money and make the upgrade to your system, or would you rather wait until the next version of the RS4500 comes and upgrade the projector? 

[AVSCraig]

Wow, that's a nice bump!  So, when you finally have the Lumagen/lens all set up do you think you will spend the money and make the upgrade to your system, or would you rather wait until the next version of the RS4500 comes and upgrade the projector? 

I'm thinking the lens and Lumagen ( which Kris Deering swears is the only way to go with the HDR Tone Mapping - even with an RS640 ) could be a bigger improvement than most projector upgrades I've done. I'll take you guys along on this test run over the next 2 weeks as best I can.

And knowing that a new improved version of the RS4500 was still leaving a lot of light and pixels on the table would be somewhat sad, wouldn't it ? I'd still want the lens and Radiance Pro. I don't much like compromising.

[alangouger]

When you get everything dialed in I'm interested in your thoughts of how much extra light output you gain by this setup.  A little noticable, very noticable.  Looking at the standard Paladin it says 30%, not sure how much that is in the real world.

On average you should gain roughly 25% ( or slightly less ) adding an anamorphic attachment. I wish scope movies were encoded using the full 1080 or 2160 vertical pixel height, no black bars, just like film.

[Dylan Seeger]

And how much extra brightness is gained when doing the zoom method? We're much closer to max zoom when doing the zoom method so I'd be curious to see how much of a difference in measured brightness there is between these two methods.

[AVSMike]

That is why I like my curved screen and A-lens. I am able to place my projector much closer than you can, using zoom method. I pick up 10% to 15% on throw alone. Add in the light you gain from the extra pixels and I get a nice noticeable boost in brightness.

[Madfloyd]

And how much extra brightness is gained when doing the zoom method? We're much closer to max zoom when doing the zoom method so I'd be curious to see how much of a difference in measured brightness there is between these two methods.

I'd be interested in the answer to that also.  I could not discern any brightness benefits when using my ISCO over the zoom method.  And while the ISCO was convenient (e.g. much faster than zooming) and looked very good, I could tell that (in my situation) zooming produced a better picture. 

[AVSCraig]

I'd be interested in the answer to that also.  I could not discern any brightness benefits when using my ISCO over the zoom method.  And while the ISCO was convenient (e.g. much faster than zooming) and looked very good, I could tell that (in my situation) zooming produced a better picture.

That's the interesting thing about the Paladin DCR vertical compression lens I have here - I'm already about as close as I can get to the screen, so I'm not loosing any brightness by not zooming. I'm picking up all the pixels not being used with the lens. So it's the best of both worlds. 

[alangouger]

I'd be interested in the answer to that also.  I could not discern any brightness benefits when using my ISCO over the zoom method.  And while the ISCO was convenient (e.g. much faster than zooming) and looked very good, I could tell that (in my situation) zooming produced a better picture.

Technically there should be a 20 to 25% more light using an anamorphic due to you are adding the light from the pixels that were used to make up the black bars top/bottom using the zoom method. Not everyone sees this gain equally.

That's the interesting thing about the Paladin DCR vertical compression lens I have here - I'm already about as close as I can get to the screen, so I'm not loosing any brightness by not zooming. I'm picking up all the pixels not being used with the lens. So it's the best of both worlds.

The vertical compression option is interesting and different. If you put up a grid text pattern do you notice any distortion between the size of the square boxes top to bottom. I would think as you roll the lens you can adjust for this but if not carefull, top to bottom or vice versa could be larger. I hope I explained that right. Good to hear the vertical compression is avail.

[Madfloyd]

Ahhh, so instead of the lens spreading out the horizontal pixels to cover more area, this lens works on the vertical plane squishing pixels so that they cover less area, requiring a scaling algorithm to expand the content to fill all 2160 pixels.

I get it now.

The quality of the scaling is going to be important.  I would personally want to use madVR for this... 

Exciting nevertheless.

[AVSCraig]

Technically there should be a 20 to 25% more light using an anamorphic due to you are adding the light from the pixels that were used to make up the black bars top/bottom using the zoom method. Not everyone sees this gain equally.

The vertical compression option is interesting and different. If you put up a grid text pattern do you notice any distortion between the size of the square boxes top to bottom. I would think as you roll the lens you can adjust for this but if not carefull, top to bottom or vice versa could be larger. I hope I explained that right. Good to hear the vertical compression is avail.

Looking at the Diversified Video " Single Black Pixel " pattern that I typically use to fine tune focus, it looks the same through the lens. Barrel distortion is minimal. I spent some time fine tuning the lens angle and height / position and that helped a lot with that.   

[Dylan Seeger]

Technically there should be a 20 to 25% more light using an anamorphic due to you are adding the light from the pixels that were used to make up the black bars top/bottom using the zoom method. Not everyone sees this gain equally.

The vertical compression option is interesting and different. If you put up a grid text pattern do you notice any distortion between the size of the square boxes top to bottom. I would think as you roll the lens you can adjust for this but if not carefull, top to bottom or vice versa could be larger. I hope I explained that right. Good to hear the vertical compression is avail.

True as far as the extra pixels go adding more light, but you also gain more lumen output when using more zoom. So there is more light to be had with either method. The question remains, how much is the difference and does the anamorphic lens beat it out still. I have an ISCO anamorphic lens here. If I have time I'm going to take some measurements later.