AVS Discussions
  Go Down

"4K UHD", "True 4K", "Real 4K", and "Native 4K"

Re: "4K UHD", "True 4K", "Real 4K", and "Native 4K"
« Reply #105 on: April 20, 2018, 06:12:20 PM »

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.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2018, 08:42:30 PM by Dylan Seeger »

tp1

Re: "4K UHD", "True 4K", "Real 4K", and "Native 4K"
« Reply #106 on: April 25, 2018, 12:32:21 PM »
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. 
« Last Edit: April 25, 2018, 12:41:08 PM by tp1 »

Re: "4K UHD", "True 4K", "Real 4K", and "Native 4K"
« Reply #107 on: April 25, 2018, 07:46:38 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2018, 07:54:33 PM by Dylan Seeger »

tp1

Re: "4K UHD", "True 4K", "Real 4K", and "Native 4K"
« Reply #108 on: April 25, 2018, 10:37:56 PM »
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.

Re: "4K UHD", "True 4K", "Real 4K", and "Native 4K"
« Reply #109 on: April 26, 2018, 03:39:18 PM »

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.

tp1

Re: "4K UHD", "True 4K", "Real 4K", and "Native 4K"
« Reply #110 on: April 26, 2018, 06:39:37 PM »

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.   

AVSCraig

  • *****
  • 2373
  • Home Theater Lover / Sales / Advice
    • AV Science, Inc
Re: "4K UHD", "True 4K", "Real 4K", and "Native 4K"
« Reply #111 on: April 27, 2018, 10:36:02 AM »
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.
Direct (585) 671-2972 8:30am - 4:30pm Pacific 
www.avscience.com  craig@avscience.com
We carry projectors, screens, speakers, receivers etc. !!
Twitter - @AVS_Craig

Re: "4K UHD", "True 4K", "Real 4K", and "Native 4K"
« Reply #112 on: April 27, 2018, 11:17:03 AM »
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.

AVSCraig

  • *****
  • 2373
  • Home Theater Lover / Sales / Advice
    • AV Science, Inc
Re: "4K UHD", "True 4K", "Real 4K", and "Native 4K"
« Reply #113 on: April 27, 2018, 11:57:16 AM »
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.
Direct (585) 671-2972 8:30am - 4:30pm Pacific 
www.avscience.com  craig@avscience.com
We carry projectors, screens, speakers, receivers etc. !!
Twitter - @AVS_Craig

Javs

Re: "4K UHD", "True 4K", "Real 4K", and "Native 4K"
« Reply #114 on: April 27, 2018, 03:48:59 PM »
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.
JVC X9500 (RS620) | OZTS Majestic 120" 16:9 | Marantz AV7702 MkII | Emotiva XPA-7 | Rotel RMB-1555B | iNuke 3000DSP | DIY Javelin Audio TPL-150 L/C/R | DIY Faital MTM TPL-150 Surrounds | DIY Dolby Atmos MKII Modules | 30cf/Net Quad 18" Subs

Re: "4K UHD", "True 4K", "Real 4K", and "Native 4K"
« Reply #115 on: April 27, 2018, 04:50:25 PM »
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?

Javs

Re: "4K UHD", "True 4K", "Real 4K", and "Native 4K"
« Reply #116 on: April 27, 2018, 06:38:06 PM »
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.
JVC X9500 (RS620) | OZTS Majestic 120" 16:9 | Marantz AV7702 MkII | Emotiva XPA-7 | Rotel RMB-1555B | iNuke 3000DSP | DIY Javelin Audio TPL-150 L/C/R | DIY Faital MTM TPL-150 Surrounds | DIY Dolby Atmos MKII Modules | 30cf/Net Quad 18" Subs

Re: "4K UHD", "True 4K", "Real 4K", and "Native 4K"
« Reply #117 on: April 28, 2018, 10:04:52 AM »
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.
« Last Edit: April 28, 2018, 10:06:37 AM by Dylan Seeger »

Re: "4K UHD", "True 4K", "Real 4K", and "Native 4K"
« Reply #118 on: April 28, 2018, 11:10:38 AM »
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 :)

Re: "4K UHD", "True 4K", "Real 4K", and "Native 4K"
« Reply #119 on: April 28, 2018, 05:15:05 PM »
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.

  Go Up