JVC DLA- X7900 vs Sony VPL-VW360ES vs Epson EH-LS10000

[Javs]

4 hours ago, Quark said:

If it's like recent JVC series, the top two models have dual irises, so you can set one manually and have the other on dynamic.

When you manually set the iris they both still do move together. The one you can actually see is manually controlled and also will move when its in dynamic mode, the inner most iris which you cant see, also moves manually but that will be static depending on where the iris was set in manual mode before you engage the DI mode. Either that or they will still both move when the DI is active.

 

"With every click, the front iris closes one click and with every 2 clicks the rear iris moves. When set to Auto 1 or Auto 2, the rear iris stays fixed wherever you have the numerical setting but the front iris still functions dynamically"

 

[Mobe1969]

31 minutes ago, Javs said:

Yes, closing down the iris is how the JVC 9900 can natively go from 40k to 160k:1 and this is even before you turn on the DI, when you do, it will go up to nearly 400,000:1

 

The Sony 360 will do more like 16k-19k:1, and then with the DI to maybe 60-70k:1 (they have a MUCH lower dynamic multiplier real world than JVC) depending on iris setting, much less.

 

The JVC 7/9 series has a 2nd iris which you cant see well inside the light path, when you close down the iris both of these work together to drastically increase the contrast ratio as the light output lowers.

 

The common scenario for a 7 or 9 series at the throw I know you are going to put it, you would likely be watching SDR in low lamp -8 or -10 on the iris to get 16fl peak white, that will get you between 60 and 80k:1 most likely. The Sony in the same spot would be around 17k:1 and the Sony 760 in the same spot due to the fact you would need to reduce the laser power would likely only be around 15k:1. The Sony actually loses contrast when you turn down the laser output.

Geez, both the Sony and JVC figures sound pretty good to me, coming from an edge LED flat panel with a poor, very inconsistent, uneven 3k:1

[TP1]

12 minutes ago, Mobe1969 said:

Geez, both the Sony and JVC figures sound pretty good to me, coming from an edge LED flat panel with a poor, very inconsistent, uneven 3k:1

Tech moves fast doesn't it?   I  happened to catch a demo of  a Panasonic OLED UHD with individual pixel mapping and a contrast ratio of 1,000,000:1  with HDR material. It was breathtaking. I know they played a carefully selected video to show it at its best, but I didnt care!

[Mobe1969]

10 minutes ago, Tasso said:

Tech moves fast doesn't it?   I  happened to catch a demo of  a Panasonic OLED UHD with individual pixel mapping and a contrast ratio of 1,000,000:1  with HDR material. It was breathtaking. I know they played a carefully selected video to show it at its best, but I didnt care!

I was waiting so long for OLED to become realised for televisions, since the 90s. Then they came along, and first thing they did was these silly curved screen, followed by one decent generation, but too small for HT, followed by them then unneccessarily dropping 3D support (something I'm pretty certain they could still all do with an optional JVC like 3D dongle and RF and firmware, and no additional hardware). I had planned my movie room nearly as long, and was originally planning for a projector, but a few years back I thought I wouldn't have to worry, I could just get a huge direct view OLED and be done with it. Now, if you want 3D, you only have one option.

[Javs]

I was waiting so long for OLED to become realised for televisions, since the 90s. Then they came along, and first thing they did was these silly curved screen, followed by one decent generation, but too small for HT, followed by them then unneccessarily dropping 3D support (something I'm pretty certain they could still all do with an optional JVC like 3D dongle and RF and firmware, and no additional hardware). I had planned my movie room nearly as long, and was originally planning for a projector, but a few years back I thought I wouldn't have to worry, I could just get a huge direct view OLED and be done with it. Now, if you want 3D, you only have one option.

So you're saying you have been stuck in analysis paralysis since the 90's??

Dude.

Just get something and sit back and enjoy life.

[Mobe1969]

2 minutes ago, Javs said:

So you're saying you have been stuck in analysis paralysis since the 90's??

Dude.

Just get something and sit back and enjoy life.

No, I have been enjoying myself. This was my long term plan and I had a hell of a lot to get done on the house including having it raised, extended and built under, and other projects before I did the room. This is the last room. So no interference from spouse or other projects. I've been following the tech for that time, and buying and upgrading lounge room gear. As far as projector research and analysis, only since September last year when I started room construction and fit out, and I've been busy with that since. And my pan was to leave the projector until last when I was ready giving me the most time to decide and find something.

[betty boop]

mobe if you have put off getting a projector and a fan of 3D you are likely in for a treat. I have had 3D on a projector since when first released on consumer projectors and can tell you there is no way flat panels can compete. with a projector you get a whole room experience just like do with 3D audio. by comparison a flat panel for 3D  is like looking at one of those pop up kids book in the such smaller scale it is ! 

3D has also come a long way in generations and have seen that myself in in projectors I own. and to the point I do not miss at all that flat panels dont do 3D as really dont miss that they cant ! 

 

[Mobe1969]

7 minutes ago, al said:

mobe if you have put off getting a projector and a fan of 3D you are likely in for a treat. I have had 3D on a projector since when first released on consumer projectors and can tell you there is no way flat panels can compete. with a projector you get a whole room experience just like do with 3D audio. by comparison a flat panel for 3D  is like looking at one of those pop up kids book in the such smaller scale it is ! 

3D has also come a long way in generations and have seen that myself in in projectors I own. and to the point I do not miss at all that flat panels dont do 3D as really dont miss that they cant ! 

 

Honestly I am looking forward to 3d on it more than 4k hdr...

 

I haven't put it off at all. I just left it until I was ready, time, projects, and financially. My room is more or less ready. I am just waiting on my couch order (another 4 weeks damn it), and the screen (shipping tomorrow). If I had the projector right now, I wouldn't be ready to use it.

[Javs]

And my pan was to leave the projector until last when I was ready giving me the most time to decide and find something.

That's definitely the right way to do it...

[Mobe1969]

I take it the consensus on 3d with the JVC is better than Sony? Cross talk etc?

[betty boop]

2 hours ago, Mobe1969 said:

I take it the consensus on 3d with the JVC is better than Sony? Cross talk etc?

people have already answered this for you ?. both here and avs. 3D is pretty mature on these unless you are starting to want to split hairs or something. 

[ward0112]

My JVC 7900 arrived yesterday and OMG

 

It is currently projecting only an almost black wall and the picture still looks awesome! Can't wait until I get a real screen.

 

Speaking of screens, am I being ridiculous considering at 135cm cinemascope screen (2.35:1), with a seating distance of 3.5 - 3.6m?

 

It looks great while projected onto a dark wall - do you think it will cause us to fatigue when it is projected onto https://www.projectorscreens.com.au/index.php?dispatch=products.view&product_id=42

 

 

[Quark]

46 minutes ago, ward0112 said:

My JVC 7900 arrived yesterday and OMG

 

It is currently projecting only an almost black wall and the picture still looks awesome! Can't wait until I get a real screen.

 

Speaking of screens, am I being ridiculous considering at 135cm cinemascope screen (2.35:1), with a seating distance of 3.5 - 3.6m?

 

It looks great while projected onto a dark wall - do you think it will cause us to fatigue when it is projected onto https://www.projectorscreens.com.au/index.php?dispatch=products.view&product_id=42

 

 

I'm using an earlier model but projecting onto a 130" scope screen and sitting ~4m away. Moving house soon and will be moving closer to the screen in new room. I think you're on the right track.

[betty boop]

1 hour ago, ward0112 said:

My JVC 7900 arrived yesterday and OMG

 

It is currently projecting only an almost black wall and the picture still looks awesome! Can't wait until I get a real screen.

 

Speaking of screens, am I being ridiculous considering at 135cm cinemascope screen (2.35:1), with a seating distance of 3.5 - 3.6m?

 

It looks great while projected onto a dark wall - do you think it will cause us to fatigue when it is projected onto https://www.projectorscreens.com.au/index.php?dispatch=products.view&product_id=42

 

 

congrats ward !!

 

you are ideally placed with a blank wall to try out for size...

 

if want buy a cheap bedsheet and tape up to the wall and use for a little while with a variety of viewing as you would watch. decide for yourself whether the size considering suits you for viewing distance. its quite a personal thing and we all have our own thresholds  

[IMDave]

1 hour ago, ward0112 said:

My JVC 7900 arrived yesterday and OMG

 

It is currently projecting only an almost black wall and the picture still looks awesome! Can't wait until I get a real screen.

 

Speaking of screens, am I being ridiculous considering at 135cm cinemascope screen (2.35:1), with a seating distance of 3.5 - 3.6m?

 

It looks great while projected onto a dark wall - do you think it will cause us to fatigue when it is projected onto https://www.projectorscreens.com.au/index.php?dispatch=products.view&product_id=42

 

 

I'm the same as @Quark. Currently sitting at 4m viewing a 130 inch cinemascope screen. When I say "sitting " , I mean my eyes are at 4m.

I just tried sitting on the front of the seat so my eyes are at 3.5m.

I would have no problem with this.( swmbo not so much,lol)

Ymmv.

Btw, congratulations. Enjoy.

Edited February 15, 2018 by IMDave

[TP1]

2 hours ago, ward0112 said:

My JVC 7900 arrived yesterday and OMG

 

It is currently projecting only an almost black wall and the picture still looks awesome! Can't wait until I get a real screen.

 

Speaking of screens, am I being ridiculous considering at 135cm cinemascope screen (2.35:1), with a seating distance of 3.5 - 3.6m?

 

It looks great while projected onto a dark wall - do you think it will cause us to fatigue when it is projected onto https://www.projectorscreens.com.au/index.php?dispatch=products.view&product_id=42

 

 

Congrats on the new PJ!   With screen size, dont forget that there will be 16X9 material and if that will be a lot of what you watch, I think its better to go as big as you can.  My reasoning is that there is a minimum size of 16x9 I am happy with, and then use a cinemascope screen with the same height .   For example, if 110" is the magic 16x9 screen, then 140" cine will  give the same height 

 

 

Edited February 15, 2018 by Tasso

[br0d0]

On 15/02/2018 at 9:54 PM, Tasso said:

Congrats on the new PJ!   With screen size, dont forget that there will be 16X9 material and if that will be a lot of what you watch, I think its better to go as big as you can.  My reasoning is that there is a minimum size of 16x9 I am happy with, and then use a cinemascope screen with the same height .   For example, if 110" is the magic 16x9 screen, then 140" cine will  give the same height 

Speaking as a newbie, that's fantastic advice! Making sure that the narrower format is acceptable first is the way to go. The scope size will fall out of that. Thanks.

[Owen]

The fact is "scope" is a reduced height format in all video, scope is never "wider".

The width of the image in pixels is a constant for 16:9 and scope, only the height varies.

[cashflag]

On 29/04/2018 at 11:53 PM, Owen said:

The fact is "scope" is a reduced height format in all video, scope is never "wider".

The width of the image in pixels is a constant for 16:9 and scope, only the height varies.

Technically, this is true.

 

But whether or not the image density loss of the presentation is more significant than the added impact of a scope presentation (or is even discernable, for that matter) is for the individual to determine.

 

Personally, I feel that any scope image above SD (ie. "720p" - or, rather, 1280p horizontal - and up) holds up exceptionally well to a 16:9 image of the same horizontal resolution and any fears I may entertain about compromising the "in theory" resolution quality (since more pixels does not necessarily equate to more meaningful detail) are instantly negated by the increased "in practice" visceral quality.

 

Your experience may differ.

[Owen]

I see no reason to cripple 16:9 movies, of which there are plenty, by using a scope screen.

Pick and image width (viewing angle) you like for scope then use a 16:9 screen that width. You then have the scope image you wanted and a significantly taller and more impressive 16:9 image that looses no quality at all. You get the extra height for free.

 

It also depends on the viewing angle people want or are comfortable with. For people who are viewing 16:9 content with a horizontal viewing angle of 40 degrees for example, a scope screen that provided the same image height will provide a horizontal viewing angle of about 55 degrees which is REALLY big, front row of cinema big. Not many people choose to view from the front row and image quality definitely suffers when you do.

[br0d0]

16 hours ago, Owen said:

I see no reason to cripple 16:9 movies, of which there are plenty, by using a scope screen.

Pick and image width (viewing angle) you like for scope then use a 16:9 screen that width. You then have the scope image you wanted and a significantly taller and more impressive 16:9 image that looses no quality at all. You get the extra height for free.

 

It also depends on the viewing angle people want or are comfortable with. For people who are viewing 16:9 content with a horizontal viewing angle of 40 degrees for example, a scope screen that provided the same image height will provide a horizontal viewing angle of about 55 degrees which is REALLY big, front row of cinema big. Not many people choose to view from the front row and image quality definitely suffers when you do.

Oh wow. I think I mentioned in another thread that I would work out my favoured 16:9 width and let the scope screen fall out of that; so your second paragraph. I didn't consider just how big the viewing angle could get. I'm glad I'm going to get to experiment with all of this 

[betty boop]

47 minutes ago, br0d0 said:

Oh wow. I think I mentioned in another thread that I would work out my favoured 16:9 width and let the scope screen fall out of that; so your second paragraph. I didn't consider just how big the viewing angle could get. I'm glad I'm going to get to experiment with all of this 

your viewing angle should always be based on screen size going with  partly why i went with 16:9... the viewing angle is fixed and optimised for immersion

 

constant image height scope really comes from using anamorphic lenses, but most dont bother with that, however it is definitely optimised for cinematic presentaitons... and idea is you mask the unused screen for when watching 16:9 ofcourse 16:9 image is then compromised for viewing angle. just as if you go 16:9 you are width constrained.

 

i tend to look at it differently if you are width contrained go 16:9 (no benefit with scope). if you are height constrained go scope... as likely you are not going to be able to fit a larger 16:9 screen in anyways 

[br0d0]

3 minutes ago, al said:

your viewing angle should always be based on screen size going with  partly why i went with 16:9... the viewing angle is fixed and optimised for immersion

 

constant image height scope really comes from using anamorphic lenses, but most dont bother with that, however it is definitely optimised for cinematic presentaitons... and idea is you mask the unused screen for when watching 16:9 ofcourse 16:9 image is then compromised for viewing angle. just as if you go 16:9 you are width constrained.

 

i tend to look at it differently if you are width contrained go 16:9 (no benefit with scope. if you are height constrained go scope... as likely you are not going to be able to fit a larger 16:9 screen in anyways 

So I'm familiar with a 16:9 screen with black bars top and bottom when viewing scope (21:9?) content. I'm used to the scope image not using the full height.

 

Though I have no experience with scope screens, with CIH it seems I'll have to get used to a 16:9 image not using the full width of a scope screen. So there's a compromise either way.

 

With a scope screen, it seems like it might be best to find my absolute largest scope viewing angle, my limit, and let the 16:9 angle fall out of that. Or just get the biggest 16:9 screen I like and watch scope content as per the current standard with black bars top and bottom.

[cashflag]

17 hours ago, Owen said:

Pick and image width (viewing angle) you like for scope then use a 16:9 screen that width. You then have the scope image you wanted and a significantly taller and more impressive 16:9 image that looses no quality at all. You get the extra height for free.

 

Ha. That's one way too look at it. By that rational, we should've just stuck with 4:3!

 

Problem is, if I had a 16:9 screen with the same width as my 150" scope screen, it would almost be the equivalent of an IMAX theatre. Great for immersion, but overwhelmingly large and no doubt fatiguing with non-IMAX-centric compositioning which incorporates non-essential headroom imagery both above and below the area of interest.

 

Scope has always been a compromise of sorts. Optical distortion, focal inconsistencies, reduced "resolution" when shooting 2 perf per frame instead of standard 4 perf, reduced "resolution" when simple hard matting of the Super35 format is employed and so on. There had to be a reason why so many filmmakers thought it an acceptable compromise, despite all that.

 

At any rate, it's agreeable to my sensibilities and why I've chosen that route. And, yes, I have had a CIW set up in the past.

 

Happy viewing, Owen.

[Andrew Andrew]

Hey guys, im new to this forum and i've seen both the JVC DLA- X7900 & Sony VPL-VW360ES side by side. I must admit the Sony looked like a clearer/sharper screen, but the JVC overall looked like closer to what it is seen in a cinema. The Sony showed all the imperfections in the movie i was viewing, the computer effects looked very fake. On the other hand, the JVC hid those imperfections well and as a result i didn't notice the cheap CGI effects and enjoyed the scene more.

 

The blacks popped and I was blown away at the quality. I did watch the JVC on a cinemascope screen which looked fantastic. I prefer the cinemascope because the top and bottom bars take away from the contrast because they are not 100% black, kinda of a washed out grey, which take away from the viewing experience in my opinion.