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

[Tom Bley]

https://www.tvspecialists.com/optoma-uhz65-projector-comparison-vs-sony-vpl-vw365es/

[ericglo]

You guys know why I am asking. Runt keeps stating the Optoma is a light cannon. I got tired of reading and didn't know if someone legitimate has actually taken a calibrated reading.

https://www.tvspecialists.com/optoma-uhz65-projector-comparison-vs-sony-vpl-vw365es/

I have seen a couple of links to these reviews. Has the reviewer ever calibrated a pj?

[Tom Bley]

You guys know why I am asking. Runt keeps stating the Optoma is a light cannon. I got tired of reading and didn't know if someone legitimate has actually taken a calibrated reading.


I have seen a couple of links to these reviews. Has the reviewer ever calibrated a pj?

Yes, that is why I questioned him in the UHZ owners thread.  He keeps saying 3000-5000 lumen projectors are common.  Really?  He also suggests not to get a screen with anything more than unity gain because it is such a bright projector.  He doesn't own one though.   

I linked to that review because it put the light output rating at something I can at least believe (1500-1800 lumens) d65 maybe versus what (ruined/runt) claims 3000 lumens that's uncalibrated of course.)  I didn't read the entire review I just saw the 1500-1800 d65 number for the UHZ.

[ericglo]

The couple of reviews I have looked at the guy usually says basic calibration. I don't think I have seen a complete review like Kris would do from him.

[stanger89]

Those DLP threads are so frustrating to watch.  Nobody in them cares about what a calibrated image is, and if you start talking about it they get all defensive.   They're all just "OMG DLP ROXORS TEH BIG111!"

I'm seeing repeated references to using the contrast control to reduce brightness, by multiple people over there.  That's just a terrible idea, it will reduce your contrast, which will destroy the image on a projector with only 1000:1 native to begin with. 

And no offense to anyone in particular, but I can't believe the one guy who's posted "calibration" settings in the UHZ65 thread is taken seriously, "calibrating" with dynamic black on?  And I'm sure he's getting 56fL from a UHZ...

[Tom Bley]

Those DLP threads are so frustrating to watch.  Nobody in them cares about what a calibrated image is, and if you start talking about it they get all defensive.   They're all just "OMG DLP ROXORS TEH BIG111!"

I'm seeing repeated references to using the contrast control to reduce brightness, by multiple people over there.  That's just a terrible idea, it will reduce your contrast, which will destroy the image on a projector with only 1000:1 native to begin with. 

And no offense to anyone in particular, but I can't believe the one guy who's posted "calibration" settings in the UHZ65 thread is taken seriously, "calibrating" with dynamic black on?  And I'm sure he's getting 56fL from a UHZ...

I've been waiting for you to ask him how he is getting the out of this world light output reading.     I was thinking about asking but, I just don't feel like it anymore.   

[ericglo]

Stang,
I agree. I think it was you or someone here who said most of these guys are coming from the under $3k forum and could care less about a calibrated image. It is more of the look at how big my screen is and the cool purple leds surrounding the screen.

I went and read that Ronny's posts to see if he had any lumen readings to try to find an actual number. I saw the 56ft/lmbs, but I don't recall seeing what screen he is using. I can't believe Runt has me running around trying to verify these numbers.

Tom,
I was that way for the last couple of months. I must be bored to be back to engaging.

[stanger89]

I've been waiting for you to ask him how he is getting the out of this world light output reading.     I was thinking about asking but, I just don't feel like it anymore.   

I would, I almost did, but a while back I said it was going to be my last post in that thread, so I'm doing my best to stick to that.

Stang,
I agree. I think it was you or someone here who said most of these guys are coming from the under $3k forum and could care less about a calibrated image. It is more of the look at how big my screen is and the cool purple leds surrounding the screen.

It's really just the same vibe I get from threads in that forum, from when I venture there, and what I vaguely remember from my W5000 days when I spent time there.  There were a few folks who were interested in calibrating and accurate images, but the majority were just happy and thrilled with the picture.

And to be clear, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, I almost wish that was me since it seems the more I learn, the more unhappy, or perhaps more easily I become unhappy* with things.  The frustrating part is when you try to inject a bit of science/measurement/accuracy to the thread and then you get attacked for being a negative nancy "We don't want to hear bad things, it looks great!"

I mean I dropped out of the RS640 thread over there because of all the "negativity" but I'm glad those folks posted that info because it saved me an upgrade this year that would probably have been entirely lateral.

I went and read that Ronny's posts to see if he had any lumen readings to try to find an actual number. I saw the 56ft/lmbs, but I don't recall seeing what screen he is using. I can't believe Runt has me running around trying to verify these numbers.

I'm betting he's measuring with his meter pointed at the projector.  You get some crazy high readings that way, but they're completely useless for anything other than relative comparison to other measurements that session.

Tom,
I was that way for the last couple of months. I must be bored to be back to engaging.

I kind of want to, but I got the distinct impression that me and my questions/views were not wanted in that thread.  And who am I to argue with that.

*Like with the theater, I went to The Last Jedi opening Friday.  Really liked the movie, but man was the presentation terrible, blacks looked like about 30IRE and the whole thing looked out of focus.

[Javs]

I mean I dropped out of the RS640 thread over there because of all the "negativity" but I'm glad those folks posted that info because it saved me an upgrade this year that would probably have been entirely lateral.

You are welcome.

[ericglo]

I agree. I have always known that the under $3k forum has been less technical. It is interesting that they are now crossing over to the over $3k forum. Nothing wrong with it, but it sucks when they get upset at those that are trying to have a discussion.

And I agree that sometimes I wish I wasn't concerned about a lot of this. As Darin once told me, when you see rainbows for the first time then you will always see them.

As for Ronny, I will give him the benefit of the doubt for now.

[Dylan Seeger]

You are welcome.

Javs, since I got banned over there I haven't been following things as closely as I used to. What's your take on eshift5. Do you feel an upgrade to the newest generation JVC models is worth it if you have an eshift4 machine? From the photos you posted it looks like eshift5 gives a more "analog" looking image which is something I actually I find appealing. Those were close up shots. Do you feel from a regular seated distance back from the screen you get a noticeable improvement in image quality? I don't just mean detail or sharpness. If eshift5 gives a more pleasing look to the image even if there isn't more detail I wouldn't mind that either.

[Javs]

Javs, since I got banned over there I haven't been following things as closely as I used to. What's your take on eshift5. Do you feel an upgrade to the newest generation JVC models is worth it if you have an eshift4 machine? From the photos you posted it looks like eshift5 gives a more "analog" looking image which is something I actually I find appealing. Those were close up shots. Do you feel from a regular seated distance back from the screen you get a noticeable improvement in image quality? I don't just mean detail or sharpness. If eshift5 gives a more pleasing look to the image even if there isn't more detail I wouldn't mind that either.

Nope not worth it if you have a good sample eshift 4 machine.

Sure the picture may be more analogue, but its at a loss of pure sharpness IMO.

We LOST usable MTF by going to Eshift 5. Thats just a fact. Its clearly visible from where I sit, I see it on PC desktop things clearly, Kodi Menu's my chroma test pattern shows it too. In video the image actually appears a little flatter as a result.

If eshift 5 cannot replicate very small black line spacing between letters as well as previously I don't want anything to do with it. From the chair this is also more obvious, eshift 4 with this pattern from my seating position looks very very crisp and sharp, you actually have to look closer to see that there are truncated pixels there as we all know.

Eshift 5 from the chair looks like its slightly defocused by comparison, but obviously the lettering looks more full and complete.

Its all a step sideways at best. Some will prefer it, I dont.

9900

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

9500

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

Rollover

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/121753

You also have to realise this overall softness (but resolution being ultimately higher) was why I sold my 4K Sony. I kept my JVC because the raw crispness and sharpness coupled with eshift 4 brought me so close to 4k that I felt it was worth giving a little in resolution to gain that, I think eshift 5 gets closer to the full resolution at 4k but it gives up some of that raw sharpness, which is the main reason I have stayed with JVC unto this point.

If I wanted that softness I would just buy a 4K Sony.

[AVSCraig]

" raw crispness " - I think I could use that in a projector review and a sauvignon blanc wine review. 

[Javs]

" raw crispness " - I think I could use that in a projector review and a sauvignon blanc wine review. 

Its a thing!

p.s Watched half of INCEPTION UHD last night. It looks stunning!

The 4K Remaster really pulled all the detail from the negative there, I could see it within seconds.

[AVSCraig]

Its a thing!

p.s Watched half of INCEPTION UHD last night. It looks stunning!

The 4K Remaster really pulled all the detail from the negative there, I could see it within seconds.

That is excellent news. That's one of my and my wife's favorite films ( Interstellar too ). The Nolan re-masters are super charging my 4K Blu-ray collection ! The Prestige should be a great one too.