Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

134 Good

About Javs

  • Rank
    250+ Post Club

Profile Fields

  • Location
  • Country

Recent Profile Visitors

751 profile views
  1. Mount as close as possible to still fill your screen. More brightness the better. 4m is a safe distance. Mine is at about 3.8m and its great.
  2. Is it wrong that I am really excited that there is a new JVC remote?
  3. Its the 2.5ms panel response time. No fancy Extreme chips. As I have literally told you just a couple posts above. The Sony still has 300 lines of motion resolution at 24hz without motion interpolation. Fact. Same with the JVC. Its been long known. I am also pretty sure Vincent Teoh tested the 760ES in this respect too. To quote... DLPs have the BEST motion of any projection technology, they have like a 1ms panel response time or less. Its well known actually, its a huge reason why they are in every cinema.
  4. First of all, Contrast enhancer in the Sony does not increase contrast ratio... So there is no magic trick to setting up the 760ES. Maybe more like there are tricks to get around some lacklusture shortcomings to make it perceptually better... It also should not be used at all, you are throwing image grading out the window when doing that, you will also potentially crush detail unintentionally, it reads the image waveform and if the director has intentionally graded the image a certain way, the Sony will grab either end of it and pull it right to the edges of the waveform. This is not much different to doing the same thing in photography, or hitting the 'enhance' button. Its a sure departure from the original image intentions. If you need to use that in HDR, then you are not using a good HDR tone mapping solution or curve. Also the Z1 measures like it does at a full 2600-3000 lumens which only the 5000ES can match and beat, but thats where it ends. What about when you lumen match them, its much, much closer, and even surpasses the Sony's (all of them) when you stop down the iris.
  5. That chip is not why the Sony's motion is different. The raw SXRD panels with the Sony have a 2.5ms panel refresh time vs JVCs 4ms. Its really as simple as that. The longer refresh time allows JVC to get the higher contrast. Sonys faster response can lead to less persistence with frame updates leading to a little better percieved motion. If you are talking motion interpolation, you need to make that distinction, that is NOT how you differentiate a projectors motion capability from another. Interpolation is a specific feature, which, when people talk about the video motion usually they refer to the native motion response. Both Sony and JVC can render 300 lines of motion in 24p. Honestly, I have seen them literally stacked and overlaid in focus playing at the very same time, and the motion was essentially identical. I could have watched an entire movie like that, the motion was that identical.
  6. I think we will be pleasantly surprised there. JVC have never ever overestimated native contrast figures. If it's in literature it's almost always accurate, in fact the last few generations have easily beaten the quoted numbers.
  7. I've actually put 2000 hours on a native 4k Sony. So I know its benefits. But on THOSE models the lens was really bad, and there was too much processing and degradation to the incoming signal. I moved to JVC because the contrast improvement was absolutely COLOSSAL and it negated the small but obvious differences I could see on the screen on that unit when pixel peeping, the lens was stellar, uniformity was excellent and to be frank, its calibration control system is completely unmatched in projectors. I will remind the forum that this is the first time that a native 4k projector has become available with ANYTHING north of 20k:1 contrast and 4K panels. In the case of the NX7 with its 80k:1 and Dynamic most likely in the 300,000:1+ category, it should make for a killer combination and tremendous image balance. The force has been unbalanced until recently that's for sure. We should make the distinction that those who lobbied for JVC (me firmly in that camp) did so because the overall image BALANCE was not all about resolution solely. NOW, I also dont buy, and dont like, when people outright refuse to address the benefits to 4K as a resolution and technology. As I said, its utterly ridiculous to use a 3k eshifting technology to display an image composed of 8 million pixels and only be able to show 4 million of them at best... There IS going to be information missing if you know where to look for it. I have only shared one example, I can share more if you like, and I have the photos to prove it. With a very old Sony 320ES to boot, still the detail was there if you know where to look. This kind of thing goes beyond brands and enters the realm of common sense. In saying that, there is always another side to that coin, If you have an absolutely velvet treated bat cave like I do, you may place a very high importance on contrast. I did, I do, and I haven't been ready to go backwards at all until the scales are at least partially balanced as they seem to be now.
  8. Anything shot with the RED Weapon or the Arri Alexa 65 would be the best. Planet Earth is nice, but it does have some source banding and noise in the image, I found it inconsistent at times, there are much better shots in films IMO. Yep I have done something similar before in the past. I have only shared a snippet of those past experiments here. Over on AVS I have been doing this for years. I will be doing a pretty in depth comparison between my 9500 and the NX7 when it arrives. I will have both stacked and plan to use a $17k medium format Hassleblad digital camera which I have access to, to photograph the differences. If anything is going to put to bed the usefulness of a native 4k panel vs eshift, that will. Nothing like a bit of good empirical evidence. Here is one example regarding eshift 4 showing 1080p input, 1080p with eshift and UHD input with eshift all of the same source footage. This was my older X7000 btw. I will do this exact test again with the X9500 and the NX7 stacked and calibrated. Here is the original master image. Here is the same image photographed from my screen from just behind the main viewing position. Now here is a close up from that image, I moved right up to the screen for these, and the pixel grid is clearly visible in all modes. I will use these same 3 images on the new model to compare, along with some further back eye candy I will post below. View them FULL SIZE to see the pixel grids. NO, my screen has zero texture, its a smooth surface, so any texture you see it pixel grid. Very clear to see when viewed full size UHD (E-Shift) Here is 1080p E-Shift Here is 1080p And some more random shots of my screen. You wouldnt even think these are projector shots, but they are:
  9. I have no skin in the game in regards to justifying a purchase.This thread, and others is about the idea that 4k is even worthy at all since there is 'no resolution in film above 3k' and as such eshift is more than enough. Well I have data and experience to show otherwise. I am not posting EXIF. I totally could, but I have nothing to prove to you, the suggestion I edit my photos is absolutely preposterous if you know my history on forums. I cut right through the BS and I am proud of it.
  10. I am Javs, who are you? Have you actually read this thread and the others around here? Tell that to people like Owen btw. I have seen this in real time with stacked projectors, others have not and decide to post to the contrary from behind their keyboards. Its rubbish honestly.
  11. Look at his suit bottom right.... The 760ES obviously needs to be calibrated since it was not at the time. But calibration does not change resolution. There are details in his suit the JVC didnt resolve, simple as that. 28mm from 1.6 crop camera same thing... ~44mm full frame. I take them from about 3.2m.
  12. Please ignore colours. We are focusing on a grey suit right now anyway, the HDR image is tone mapping to Rec709 so its completely not the colour you see in projection at P3. I want to stress before I post this, comparisons as you say need to be photographed in person at the same time. But, I do have a pretty good camera, Canon 7D Mark II and good lenses. When my images are in focus, (the ones I posted are) the resulting image is very close to what I see in person. So in saying that, here is the 760ES with the same shot. I cannot get close to this image on my JVC's and I have looked at this shot on 4 different JVC's so I am very familiar with it. The 760 (colour aside obviously) is closer to the source in this shot (in terms of actual resolution visible) than the JVC hands down. 760ES:
  13. This topic was posted in response to my comments in another thread. This is silly. I have actually looked at this in the real world. It is folly to state a pixel shifting 3k image is fine when the source image is in fact 4k input resolution, forget the content MTF, think about 1:1 pixel mapping. It is ridiculous fundamentally to display 4k pixels at 3k. There is simple degradation there, end of story. As for weather eshift can display all the MTF that is there in 4K UHD films. It simply CANNOT. End of story. I have seen it with my own eyes. Here: 4K Lucy. Look at the fibres in his suit on the right at 100%, zoom in, do whatever you need to do. This information is NOT there in the 2K image. 2K Image Here is MadVR NGU Sharp up-scaling to 4K. Better but the detail is still not there. Even the very best up-scaling does not restore this information. Now you might say that the 4k image on an eshift machine renders the detail just fine if you use the UHD source (I thought everyone on here thinks UHD is BS?), well, sorry, I have looked at this with eshift 4 and eshift 5, it does not render the fibres still. Add to that, there is moire on the very fine fibers in his suit going in the wrong direction, and the detail is completely blurred away. 4K resolution displays the fibers exactly as they are present in the source. The fact is, the detail present in this frame at anything lower than a 4k native display cannot be rendered faithfully. This is not even animation! Here is how the X9500 renders the UHD shot. Almost there, but a lot of detail is truncated. I dont have the 9900 shot handy, but its the same deal,. those extra fine fibers are missing or severely truncated. Case closed, sorry guys. If you want to present me with actual source frames and real world experience to the contrary above, I am all ears. All I am reading is postulation and theory and no experience.
  14. QC has been improved, tolerances in the manufacturing process tightened. And I've also heard that its being made at a different factory now. The same factory in which the Z1 lens is made. The previous lenses were made elsewhere. Different factory means different glass. I can't share the factory name Al, but let's say you have absolutely heard of the manufacturer!