oztheatre Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 Different strokes for different folks. I cant get used to a bright picture, I just dont like it in a dark room. I therefore run the JVC at only half it's available output (low lamp with iris stopped down) on a grey screen. It simply wouldn't be possible to get the Sony down to an acceptable level without an ND filter. Contrast and black level, which are my only complaints with the JVC, would also take a major hit with the Sony which is just totally unacceptable to me. I crave contrast and blacks FAR more than extra pixels. For $10K I would take the JVC X900 over the 4K Sony without a moments hesitation, and if it was easily doable I would remove the E-shift element from the JVC's light path. You can just leave it off.. what difference would it make? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owen Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 (edited) Improved ANSI contrast and potentially a sharper image. Anything extra in the light path degrades both. Edited April 8, 2015 by Owen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oztheatre Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 Improved ANSI contrast and potentially a sharper image. Anything extra in the light path degrades both. Fair enough but I thought the E-shift process was done by virating the panels in a circular motion? What is in the way of the light path? I don't think you'll see anything without it from them from now on. If anything they'll go true 4K end of the year. Like 4K or not, it's happening, the spec has to be in place first.. sure they're cashing in (that's just good business tbh) being first and I know you Owen can get your 1080P panel looking stellar with your scalers and pc etc, but most cannot get a 1080P panel to emulate what a native 4K panel looks like and this is why people are buying them now. Pretty pointless for TV at normal seating distances but for 120-150 inch screens at 3-5 metres the image is stunning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackman1503561291 Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 Very interest thread. For me I prefer the blacks to be as black as possible on a projector even if it effects the overall brightness. This new Sony 4K projector does it come with a screen for just under $10 K or do you have to chase one up dependeing how much $$$ you want to spend Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owen Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 Fair enough but I thought the E-shift process was done by virating the panels in a circular motion? What is in the way of the light path? I don't think you'll see anything without it from them from now on. If anything they'll go true 4K end of the year. Like 4K or not, it's happening, the spec has to be in place first.. sure they're cashing in (that's just good business tbh) being first and I know you Owen can get your 1080P panel looking stellar with your scalers and pc etc, but most cannot get a 1080P panel to emulate what a native 4K panel looks like and this is why people are buying them now. Pretty pointless for TV at normal seating distances but for 120-150 inch screens at 3-5 metres the image is stunning. The E-Shift (Electronic Shift) device is a peace of glass in the projectors light path, between the imaging chips and the lens, that refracts light in response to an electrical signal. There are no moving parts but it is an extra glass element in the light path. If well implemented, and I'm sure it is, it shouldn't cause any noticeable degradation. I am just curious to see what effect taking it out would have, probably negligible. I like the idea of 4K a lot but I really dont expect to have any worthwhile content available to me in the foreseeable future as I dont and wont buy disks, and the chances of being able to hire a 4k Bluray disk in the next few years are very slim. Without real 4K content all a 4K projector offers is digital enhancement (sharpening) of available 1080 content which can be done externally with any projector, a 4K model is not required. Sony's sharpening is obviously effective and popular but charging around $10K for a basic low contrast projector with lots of pixels and some clever sharpening is a bit rich IMHO. It is good marketing and no doubt highly profitable so I dont blame them for taking advantage of the 4K hyp they have spent a lot of money promoting. For really big screens the high brightness and 4K pixel structure of the Sony is no doubt an attractive proposition and just what some people are after. It will be interesting to see what JVC will come up with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoggieHowser Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 JVC will not just need a 4K panel. It will also need to fix the response time of the panels - that affects fluidity of motion particularly for sports and fast motion scenes as well as ghost free 3D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owen Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 (edited) I have no issue with "response time" on the JVC's. Motion is very smooth for film and the interpolation works very well when set properly, better than my 100 and 200Hz Samsung LCD TV's and my VT60 Plasma. Fast response time makes low frame rate jitter more noticeable requiring more aggressive measures to control it. 3D performance is definitely not a strong point of the JVC's, not something that concerns me as I dont like 3D, and I expect that motion clarity for 50/60fps sport could be better for those who use a projector for watching it. If I had an interest in 3D I would purchase a cheap DLP just for 3D viewing. The JVC's are for real movies where contrast really matters so I hope JVC dont have to sacrifice contrast in order to provide 4K, that wont fly with me. Edited April 13, 2015 by Owen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoggieHowser Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 I have a JVC as well but let's not kid ourselves. Have you seen sports programmes on the JVC vs the Sony? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jutta Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 I have a JVC as well but let's not kid ourselves. Have you seen sports programmes on the JVC vs the Sony?NoPlease divulge? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owen Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 (edited) I have a JVC as well but let's not kid ourselves. Have you seen sports programmes on the JVC vs the Sony? I dont watch sport at all on any display, so I haven't seen it on the JVC nor will I ever, its totally irrelevant to me. I did say "I expect that motion clarity for 50/60fps sport could be better (on the Sony) for those who use a projector for watching it" did I not? Therefore I'm not kidding myself at all. I should add that I have owned a Sony SXRD projector for 8 years, and as far as I know the response time of SXRD hasn't changed significantly in that time. The old Sony didn't have any motion interpolation so film was jittery. The native contrast ratio of SXRD hasn't change much in that time either, no way its competitive with even a base model JVC. For me thats the beginning and end of it, the ONLY aspect of performance that I consider in immediate need of improvement on a JVC is native contrast, even though my X3 has 3 times better contrast than any projector from other manufacturers. Resolution doesn't even enter into the discussion as far as I am concerned, its pissing in the wind compared to the importance of contrast. Edited April 13, 2015 by Owen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoggieHowser Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 Sports displays the artifacts more clearly. But if you have fast action scenes and this happens in movies too - the difference is noticeable. I think you can tune out the judder a little mentally but put alongside the Sony, the refresh and motion does look noticeably smoother. And side by side the Sony's contrast doesn't appear to lose out to even the flagship Sony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oztheatre Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 Sports displays the artifacts more clearly. But if you have fast action scenes and this happens in movies too - the difference is noticeable. I think you can tune out the judder a little mentally but put alongside the Sony, the refresh and motion does look noticeably smoother. And side by side the Sony's contrast doesn't appear to lose out to even the flagship Sony. The contrast is good enough for 99% of us from the 55ES and up. They do motion better, out of the box colour requires less tweaking, 3D better. Pixel gap indentical unless you have a microscope. They're brighter by sometimes 40% and allow for large immersive screens. The JVC's are still a decent weapon and are still king of contrast which is probably the hardest thing to achieve but Sony are leading the way in many areas today including being the only home projectors with native 4K panels. And don't forget their reality creation which is sensational. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Javs Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 In this last week and a bit I have watched all four seasons of Game of Thrones with the wife on Bluray, I have been sitting back and enjoying the show! Sure the black level in completely dark content is not out of this world but many times I have commented on how amazing the black level looked WITHIN brighter content particularly all the scenes with the Nights Watch on the wall. The black coats against the snow and ice looks amazing and punchy, way better than my plasma, and never ever have I felt like the contrast was lacking here. Film grain resolves incredibly well on good content, the natural looking image is astounding and I couldnt be happier. Special thanks to Richard from OzTheatre Screens as his screen is amazing, with a vibrant and sharp image, I am really happy with it! My viewing environment itself is now the only weak link in the chain, there are still light issues to be found in the room from reflections but that can be solved in due time. 3D to me is flawless and so bright that I actually watch it on low lamp mode but with 3d brightness on high. It's easily generations ahead of the image I see in the theatres, I have searched for crosstalk and only ever semed to be able to find it on bluray menu screens, otherwise its hidden to me. I have a lot films on Bluray and I am very sensitive to motion issues or judder of any kind especially in 24p and to be honest with you the only time I have seen a problem is with Netflix not actually syncing the PS4 with the Sony's refresh rate and thats got nothing to do with the Sony and everything to do with frame rate mis-matching in the Netflix dash app not supporting it. The motion on this projector destroys what my Panasonic Plasma was previously capable of. Happy camper! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owen Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 Sports displays the artifacts more clearly. But if you have fast action scenes and this happens in movies too - the difference is noticeable. What do you call an "artifact"? I haven't observed anything that I would describe that way. All I notice is less motion clarity but much smoother motion than my VT60 Panasonic Plasma, which is considered a reference display for motion. The Plasma is an impulse drive display which has natively over 3 times the motion resolution of the sample and hold systems used in the Sony and JVC projectors. Its superior motion clarity is noticeable and so is the increase in visible jitter that inevitably results from less motion blur. Movies have deliberately burred motion enforced by slow shutter speeds, without that deliberate motion blur cinema goers would be driven mad with jitter. Remember cinema projectors dont use motion interpolation or motion processing, they just display the source untouched. I think you can tune out the judder a little mentally but put alongside the Sony, the refresh and motion does look noticeably smoother. Judder is the result of displaying 24fps content (movies) at 60, its very off putting and impossible to ignore but its not relevant to this discussion. Jitter is a normal by product of the low frame rate of movies (24fps), which just isn't enough to provide smooth motion, this is where frame interpolation comes in. By interpolating and inserting extra frames we are lifting the effective frame rate to 48fps or more which makes film look smooth like 50/60Hz video and we get the "soap opera effect". (soap operas are shot on 50/60hz video hence the name). Film purists dont like artificial motion smoothing, and while I do like the smoothed look a more smoothed look is not necessarily better. The JVC (in the right mode) has never given me any reason to complain about motion. No broken, doesn't need fixing. And side by side the Sony's contrast doesn't appear to lose out to even the flagship Sony. Side by side is no way to compare projectors as differences in brightness will skew viewer perceptions. Not loosing out to the flagship Sony is no recommendation as the flagship Sony has very ordinary contrast by JVC standards and the flagship JVC is not good enough as far as I am concerned. Ok I'm a self confessed black level-contrast nut, probably because I came from CRT projection. The ONLY aspect of performance that cries out for improvement with my JVC is contrast, and going to an X900 is not a big enough step to be worthwhile as I'm looking for a factor of 10 improvement. The Sony with its poor contrast and excessive light output with no iris to control it is a big step in the wrong direction for my use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owen Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 (edited) The contrast is good enough for 99% of us from the 55ES and up. Agreed, contrast doesn't seem to be a big thing for most consumers, I'm happy to be in the 1%. They do motion better, out of the box colour requires less tweaking, 3D better. Whats "better" for motion is up to the individual, some dont like any motion processing at all. Good out of box colour is great for those who dont calibrate, but for those who do Sony's refusal to include a full set calibration controls is a problem. 3D is definitely a strong point with Sony's, no doubt about that, but a cheap DLP will likely do an even better job. They're brighter by sometimes 40% and allow for large immersive screens. For people with really big screens thats great, but but increased light output combined with relatively low native contrast means black levels is very high, about 15 times higher than a JVC X900 that sells for the same sort of money. The JVC's are still a decent weapon and are still king of contrast which is probably the hardest thing to achieve but Sony are leading the way in many areas today. Unfortunately some of the Sonys advantages are also its disadvantages to some people. including being the only home projectors with native 4K panels. And don't forget their reality creation which is sensational. For most people I recon Reality Creation is Sonys biggest asset for those who dont want to go to the trouble of using external processing. Edited April 14, 2015 by Owen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts