2019 Sony 4K Projector Owners Thread

[AVSMike]

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.

You really should drop this.

[Andreas21]

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.

[stridsvognen]

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.

[stridsvognen]

A perfect batcave can if you are lucky hit 300:1.

How are you measuring now, on screen or out of the lens.? 
Ill say if the JVC measures 300:1 ill prefer about 800:1 before the effect is invisible in a perfectly dark room.
Ill get a light meter for more acurate results and ill gues the CRT then gets closer to 200:1 and hopfully 300:1 on the different JVC and ill guess 750:1 on the SONY.

[AVSMike]

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. 

[Andreas21]

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.

[stridsvognen]

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.

Maybe you could define your understanding of MTF and contrast so we are sure we are not confusing each other.

[stridsvognen]

By the way wondering how many of your guys owns and have a 2019 4K sony projector in your setup right now.?

[stridsvognen]

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 you can see in the comments above here there are many others with experience that have seen the same results as me.

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.

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.?
And what exactlely do ADL mean? Would it not be more apropriate to make a screenshot of a specifik scene that you think is impossible to detect a ansi contrast difference between sony and jvc on, and we might be able to measure specifik areas of the image and make a movie scene ansi measurement, or see if the camera might be able to pick up and show it in a screenshot, to get the debate more objective.
In general the SONY belongs in the trash can, its not a joy to wach movies on, no sony ever been in my eyes, but i really like 2 things about it, the high ansi contrast and the totaly quiet solid image with no update flicker, even the 2019 models have less processed and destorted image than previous models, the JVC have other issues, just as no projector is perfect, the JVC eshifters are also a huge compromise and the auto iris is like a pain in the eye, eshift adds noise in the image, and 1080P lack some smoothness compared to a real 4K projector or the CRT.
The only reason i have the SONY is to play with it, unfortunate the 270 lens is to big for the experiment, so cant use it for that.

[AVSMike]

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.

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.

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.

[stridsvognen]

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.

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 lightoutput on that pattern, unless the projectors have different panel resolution capabilities.

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.?

What was the specifik ansi contrast measurements on those 2 JVC projectors, possible to get the full calibration reports.?

[AVSMike]

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.

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.

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.

[stridsvognen]

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.

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.
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.?""

[AVSMike]

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.
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. 

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.

[stridsvognen]

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.

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.

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.