Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
IMDave

Next Generation Jvc's: X5000/7000/9000

Recommended Posts

Mate, really happy that you have shared your adventure trying to nail down the "right projector for you" ( here and some of the O/S forums).

I reckon it's a great researching and learning all the tech stuff, but the proof is always in the pudding, and being able to see ( or hear if we're talking audio) what you feel suits your specific requirements best is even better.

I think your 4k GoPro stuff is a really important in this case, because you could actually appreciate, why, for you, the Sony 4k was going to be the best choice.

Great stuff.

Enjoy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No probs at all I get lots of help on these forums I am glad to share and help any way I can. I think this shoot-out was long overdue and I am now confident with my decision and hope it helps others too. The Epson is still a cracker PJ though but it just confirmed to me that 4K and faux 4K are vastly different things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Found this vvv about HDR compatibility ; apparently the new jvc's will have hdr10 compatibility which is the minimum . Will be interesting to see how many discs get mastered in dolby vision :question: Clever move by jvc to pick hdr10 as thats the baseline with phillips or dolby only possible HDR disc add ons :logik:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/24-digital-hi-end-projectors-3-000-usd-msrp/2173825-jvc-cedia-2015-a-8.html#post38310985

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Yeah I think JVC made a smart move with their new PJ range. I was really excited about HDR on PJ but slowly finding out the its not that big of a bang, but I hope I am wrong and it turns out spectacular.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hehe I'm the opposite.... precisely am interested actually to benefit HDR will bring, as opposed to 4k but also hope to be shown otherwise D:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think its a question whether either brings any benefit as they both do. The question is if PJ will be capable of actually making it happen? (HDR that is).

4K has the biggest benefit on large screens as opposed to TV but HDR is better on TV due to much better contrast ratio and brightness.

Hop over to the UK forum and you will see that a few new 520ES owners are not blown away at all by HDR so far which is why I decided not to spend the extra cash on the 520 it seems PJ will need one more generation to come up to speed which I suspect will be laser.

Edited by bandyka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think its a question whether either brings any benefit as they both do. The question is if PJ will be capable of actually making it happen? (HDR that is).

4K has the biggest benefit on large screens as opposed to TV but HDR is better on TV due to much better contrast ratio and brightness.

Hop over to the UK forum and you will see that a few new 520ES owners are not blown away at all by HDR so far which is why I decided not to spend the extra cash on the 520 it seems PJ will need one more generation to come up to speed which I suspect will be laser.

would have to be a mighty big screen since your looking at beyond imax resolution with 4k. and viewing at 1-1.5 screen heights to fully resolve just not the thing realistic in your typical home. infact in my own home I wouldn't be able to fit a screen big enough even with my high ceiling.

TVs are pointless in this regard. good for fta tv as hide the faults and imperfections due to the starved bitrates we get. but simply just way too small for the kind of distances most view at to even fully resolve 1080p let alone 4k we're talking here.

and then theres the whole argument of just how much real 4K there really is.

there are articles and articles can point you to that make just this point that its HDR that will bring gains and not 4K in the home.

all that said the x35 of mine is simply stunning in rendition now ! so look forward to see what the new JVCs might bring. and particularly with HDR. when we actually have some material to demonstrate when UHD blu-ray actually launches…first disc and player land next month. we will start to get some reviews with indications coming then :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


well on my 120" screen at about 1.5 screen height I see pixels on 1080p but can't see any using 4K even if I am standing at 30cm. Besides the image is more punchy and colours pop more there is just much more viewable content on the screen creating a more lifelike image. And yes the Sony projectors are true 4K as opposed to UHD TV. I can certainly see a huge difference in image quality and resolution especially with games and computer viewing but of course its not everyone's piece of cake:) Imax is now introducing dual projector 4K laser which they have been using in the US and just premièred in the UK. Just read the reviews they were blown away. I am certainly going 4K as my eyes just love it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but your not seriously going to be viewing a 120" at 1.5 screen heights as in around 2m ? or let alone 30 cm ? all you will be looking at for majority of your viewing will be artifacts and imperfections. ps worth reading the article below re pixels vs resolution, 2k vs 4k

https://library.creativecow.net/galt_john/John_Galt_2K_4K_Truth_About_Pixels/1

I certainly won't be sitting 1-1.5 screen heights to watch 4k and hence not a major priority for me. in anycase yet to see any consumer available material even for 4k. there might be some benefit from it at my viewing distance, but it will not be the primarily because of 4k resolution am pretty sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ps re imax lasers

http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2015/03/imaxs-new-laser-projectors-make-me-wish-i-lived-in-a-movie-theater/

we're talking beasties for projectors alright,

gnojzzufsicigedlwsdg.jpg

qgi53oyfddocnazy848g.jpg

even epsons laser is a monster and costs what it does for good reason. theyre kind of thing very much needed depending on application but not kind of thing would be looking to put in home any time soon. theyre very much needed by imax for the massive screen they run them for good reason as described in the article. but am not sure anything similar needed or justified in home setups.

its good theyre developing them for home application. but happy enough for them to keep doing that. only justification is lamps replacement. but lamps are cheap and getting long life too given jvc and sonys new efforts. not that life a huge issue for me, with 2.5 years on my jvc not even close to 1000 hours and with iris still only half open still plenty of life there not to be worried about :)

conventional jvc/sonys/epsons and the like have still quite some years in life in the consumer space I would say :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lovely looking projectors these are:) I am sitting at around 3m and still see the pixels. I don't think its worth the discussion as I am very happy with 4K it brings a lot more to the game for me, its not just about resolution it provides a much much clearer and more natural image there is a good reason why the industry is heading that way. Its also easier on the eyes as its closer to reality. Anyone who has experienced a proper 4K home theater PJ can probably back that up but again it might just be my eyes that see those pixels and differences in quality;)

As for the artifacts yes when processing is not done right there are artifacts which is why I am not buying the Epson precisely.

Funny how there was the exact same type of discussion about VR and Projectors on the other forum, some members are just really wanting to stick with old tech no matter what others just itching to upgrade;) I completely understand both camps for their different reasons.

By the way I use the PJ everyday for all sort of purposes and use up to 3000 hours per year and is not just for watching movies you need to think about different users and different usage scenarios as well, laser is much better suited for me for example when it comes to lamp life.

I simply trust my eyes and brain instead of reviews and articles.

Edited by bandyka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Lovely looking projectors these are:) I am sitting at around 3m and still see the pixels. I don't think its worth the discussion as I am very happy with 4K it brings a lot more to the game for me, its not just about resolution it provides a much much clearer and more natural image there is a good reason why the industry is heading that way. Its also easier on the eyes as its closer to reality. Anyone who has experienced a proper 4K home theater PJ can probably back that up but again it might just be my eyes that see those pixels and differences in quality;)

As for the artifacts yes when processing is not done right there are artifacts which is why I am not buying the Epson precisely.

Funny how there was the exact same type of discussion about VR and Projectors on the other forum, some members are just really wanting to stick with old tech no matter what others just itching to upgrade;) I completely understand both camps for their different reasons.

By the way I use the PJ everyday for all sort of purposes and use up to 3000 hours per year and is not just for watching movies you need to think about different users and different usage scenarios as well, laser is much better suited for me for example when it comes to lamp life.

I simply trust my eyes and brain instead of reviews and articles.

I am not sure you bothered to read that article because if you are sitting at 3m there is no way in heck you would be resolving 4k. infact at 1-1.5x screen heights required you are looking at 2-3m high screen ! i.e. a 165-250 " screen I kid you not !

and you shouldn't be sitting at 3m and seeing pixels ! maybe 300mm or 0.5m and no it won't be your eyes unless you have some hyper super optical capabilities ! pixels at 3m we saw when running standard definition projectors on a far too big screen maybe. but shouldn't be seeing pixels at 3m wiht a 120" screen no way ! .

and again if read the article it will tell you how sitting far too close i.e. to resolve 4K what you are viewing with non 4K material i.e. artefacts and imperfections. that was the point. and our fta and non 4K material is plenty these days. more the majority.

4K if read the article is developed for the movie theatres in mind. wiht the massive screens they run they want to provide the benefit and its there to be enjoyed in the environment they can setup and I for one am most pleased thats happening, give more reason to go to the movies :)

why the industry is bringing it to the home., so we can enjoy some of it. lets not kid ourselves we will be experiencing the full benefits of 4k in our typical lounge room environments sitting at 3m and such. there will be benefits no doubt. some of it res and others as well e.g. HDR wider gamut and such that am all interested in myself. but am not about to kid myself either.

and its not about upgrades and itches and stuff, I for example have owned 3 projectors even in last 5 years of projector ownership, and I suspect theres not much for many around here holding back on excuses to upgrades :lol:

and am not sure the need to hold back discussion on the topic to say its not worth discussion as it is a very real one wiht clearly some misconceptions.

also I know couple of people running jvc hd1's by the way for the last 10 years...that is their only form of display and they just keep changing lamps. $300 or so once a year is small expense for them to keep enjoying. and yes we have all sorts of users and why its great we have all sorts of products around :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are spot on I did not read the article in its entirety I've read too many of these already, As mentioned I am not really interested in articles and scientific explanations anymore I've read enough of those I simply like what I experience that is all that matter, IMHO in the AV world especially high end, one of the golden rules I believe is "trust your own ears and eyes" as we have our sense differently tuned.

...and yes I see those pixels especially when viewing computer graphics;) and yes I do have more then average sight and hearing which is often a curse as my wife remarked recently.

What I meant about the discussion was for me only as I do appreciate 4K very much but I respect everyone else's view, I've got a good friend in TV production who is on the same page and just loves the awesome amount of detail 4K can produce compared to HD. Again its much more than just resolution and pixels the image is information to our eyes and 4K simply delivers 4 times as much.

The issue here is that its hard to put emotions in writing so its easy to misinterpret but nevertheless I enjoy these discussion I am just over the scientific explanations I am more for real life experience. I believe 99% of people who comment on 4K have never actually had a chance to do a real side by side comparison.

The reason why I respect the other camp is because I've put up the same argument (I was pretty much coming up with the same reasoning as yourself) with that friend of mine in TV production and I was only convinced that 4k was worth it when I finally was able to do a real head to head comparison. But again you need to appreciate the finer things to have a good enough reason to upgrade. And all this is IMHO:)

Edited by bandyka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How and what did you compare and what 4K movies have you seen and from what source?

Have you eve seen a 4K movie down scaled to 2K in real time and compared to the 4K version on the same projector? That's the only way to see what difference the projector alone makes. Comparing 1080 source to 4K source is an apples to oranges comparison, high quality 4K source will look better on any display not just a 4K unit.


PC graphics have nothing in common with video shot with a film or digital camera. There are no pixel sharp edges in video and all but a few Hollywood movies struggle to achieve 2K actual visible resolution let alone 4K. Movies are not shot with "resolution" in mind and as long as 24fps capture is used actual resolution will be very limited.

Even in a lab with a totally motionless camera and scene a 4K capture system can only provide about 3K actual usable resolution with perfect focus and optimum lens aperture setting, thats not a practical expectation for a camera in actual use shooting a movie at 24fps. Its a dream.

Video source is by far the largest limitation on what we see, not a 1080 projector. 4K projectors will be vastly under utilized ALL the time with movies even with 4k Bluray. Since 4:2:0 colour encoding looks like being the norm for 4K Bluray colour resolution will be less than 1920x1080, so when down scaling to 1080 no colour detail will be lost. A 4K projector can only provide more luma resolution, and then only if the original source contains it.

An E-Shift JVC projector has a less noticeable pixel structure than a Sony 4K projector, and even without E-Shift the JVC's look clean on a 100" screen at 3m. Contrast is also much better with the JVC's and that is far more important then a notional resolution improvement IMHO.

Edited by Owen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are spot on I did not read the article in its entirety I've read too many of these already, As mentioned I am not really interested in articles and scientific explanations anymore I've read enough of those I simply like what I experience that is all that matter, IMHO in the AV world especially high end, one of the golden rules I believe is "trust your own ears and eyes" as we have our sense differently tuned.

.~

well I do hope you do get to read it sometime because it isn't just some article it is from panavision no less and from someone whom really knows his stuff. its an industry rag that its posted from not some commercial website or something

as far as experiencing and trusting your ears and such your probably conversing here to one of the biggest proponents of this, if checking my posts on this forum over the years, I would be very surprised if you didnt find a large proportion suggesting just that to go check out for yourself, find out for yourself, trust your ears/eyes and such. its one of the reasons I actually asked…being a jvc thread after all whether you had checked them out. but understand with your subsequent answer that it doesn't fit a particular need. but thats why I asked :)

~

...and yes I see those pixels especially when viewing computer graphics;) and yes I do have more then average sight and hearing which is often a curse as my wife remarked recently.

~

sorry but visible pixel structure at 3m from a 120" screen doesn't sound right at all ! absolutely not ! even with with the LCDs in epsons have owned that wasn't the case. so either we are talking dirty big pixels or something else going on. but 1080p and definitely not for 4k for should you be seeing pixels at 3m from a 120" screen. and I don't care how good your eye sight is. it just shouldn't be the case :)

~

What I meant about the discussion was for me only as I do appreciate 4K very much but I respect everyone else's view, I've got a good friend in TV production who is on the same page and just loves the awesome amount of detail 4K can produce compared to HD. Again its much more than just resolution and pixels the image is information to our eyes and 4K simply delivers 4 times as much.

The issue here is that its hard to put emotions in writing so its easy to misinterpret but nevertheless I enjoy these discussion I am just over the scientific explanations I am more for real life experience. I believe 99% of people who comment on 4K have never actually had a chance to do a real side by side comparison.

The reason why I respect the other camp is because I've put up the same argument (I was pretty much coming up with the same reasoning as yourself) with that friend of mine in TV production and I was only convinced that 4k was worth it when I finally was able to do a real head to head comparison. But again you need to appreciate the finer things to have a good enough reason to upgrade. And all this is IMHO:)

you probably also don't realise that I was amongst I'm quite sure some here as well..were one of the few that got to see the very first public airing of the sony 4K trio including the flagship demoed in probably the premier demo facility in this country.

and as far as side by side…well with projectors that is near on impossible I will have to say. and with the sony flagship for instance even trusting my eyes as awesome it was, the jvc flagship x90 I saw previously I found more amazing. infact apart from a small screen barco the jvc is probably the best have ever seen of a projected image from a domestic projector. not without flaw though. while amazing for 2D for 3D it was completely cr@p and thats not an understatement. am very glad jvc did something about it with the next gen machines.

in a jvc thread, I will reserve judgement till seen them, and when uhd matieral and player exists. and am not shy on comparisons either. if doing a search you will find comparisons done by myself going from epson owned previous to jvc now for instance.

not that comparisons are always possible though, in which case we have to make the best judgement on what is available to us :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


That's why I said there was no need for further discussion as I know what I like and want and am not here to convince anyone otherwise and I do respect everyone else's opinion on the matter. I see those pixels at 3m on 1080 and don't see them on 4K as simple as that;) Letters and numbers appear jagged but on 4K smooth as but I agree for simple movie watching its not as important. I am getting my new Sony and yes it initially started out a s JVC topic and as I've mentioned several times I would get them only if they were suitable for gaming and still hoping they will be (doubt it though).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see those pixels at 3m on 1080 and don't see them on 4K as simple as that;

On what? Surely not on a E-Shift JVC, or a normal JVC viewing video.

Edited by Owen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
sorry but visible pixel structure at 3m from a 120" screen doesn't sound right at all ! absolutely not ! even with with the LCDs in epsons have owned that wasn't the case. so either we are talking dirty big pixels or something else going on. but 1080p and definitely not for 4k for should you be seeing pixels at 3m from a 120" screen. and I don't care how good your eye sight is. it just shouldn't be the case :)

I'm calling this as BS. I see 'em. They don't really bother me, like others' opinions. :)

But maybe some here should see an optometrist. A good one will make you realise what you're missing, I've had 2 bad ones in the past so they are not all the same. Get over it, we're not all the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm calling this as BS. I see 'em.

You can see pixels using a JVC E-Shift projector on a 120" screen viewed from 3m??????????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the main point of 4K and why is it needed?

The upside of the Sony and JVC 2K projectors is narrow pixel gap creating a more seamless and filmlike image.

The downside of LCD is poor pixel gap making the image more artificial looking.

Somewhere in there, somewhere between 3 and 5 metre viewing distances with 110-160 inch screens, pixels can become visible, even on Sony and JVC projectors (not so much with the E-shift feature turned on, but many turn it off as it tends to soften the image too much for some)

We know that watching 4K TV is kind of pointless as the pixels are just too tiny to see any major difference, but it gets to a point when the image size of cinema projection can benefit from either something like a pseudo 4K or true 4K panel.

I had the X500 JVC and Sony 500ES side by side for a year or more on a 130 inch screen at 3.5-3.8 metres and the Sony was a step up from the JVC when it came to upscaled blu ray and true 4K footage. The Sony was clearer and crisper, period, no matter what I did within the limits of both machines, the Sony would always be that step up. But when you got back to 5 metres or so the detail was much harder to resolve and it became less important, and why we tend to agree that 4K TV at 4 or 5 metres is quite pointless. But if you want to sit 1-1.3 x image width for example, which isn't that over the top, then 4K is simply better to look at. Does it represent value for money? that's up to the individual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On what? Surely not on a E-Shift JVC, or a normal JVC viewing video.

as I said on1080p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the main point of 4K and why is it needed?

The upside of the Sony and JVC 2K projectors is narrow pixel gap creating a more seamless and filmlike image.

The downside of LCD is poor pixel gap making the image more artificial looking.

Somewhere in there, somewhere between 3 and 5 metre viewing distances with 110-160 inch screens, pixels can become visible, even on Sony and JVC projectors (not so much with the E-shift feature turned on, but many turn it off as it tends to soften the image too much for some)

We know that watching 4K TV is kind of pointless as the pixels are just too tiny to see any major difference, but it gets to a point when the image size of cinema projection can benefit from either something like a pseudo 4K or true 4K panel.

I had the X500 JVC and Sony 500ES side by side for a year or more on a 130 inch screen at 3.5-3.8 metres and the Sony was a step up from the JVC when it came to upscaled blu ray and true 4K footage. The Sony was clearer and crisper, period, no matter what I did within the limits of both machines, the Sony would always be that step up. But when you got back to 5 metres or so the detail was much harder to resolve and it became less important, and why we tend to agree that 4K TV at 4 or 5 metres is quite pointless. But if you want to sit 1-1.3 x image width for example, which isn't that over the top, then 4K is simply better to look at. Does it represent value for money? that's up to the individual.

exactly my point and what I've experienced thank you, Just don't see why some members are so against it? You've clearly had some real life experience which I was referring to. Also the blurry image is what put me off E-shift against true 4K. I was going to buy the Epson LS 10000 until I saw it head to head with the Sony.

Edited by bandyka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

exactly my point and what I've experienced thank you, Just don't see why some members are so against it? You've clearly had some real life experience which I was referring to. Also the blurry image is what put me off E-shift against true 4K. I was going to buy the Epson LS 10000 until I saw it head to head with the Sony.

I think you miss the whole point. its not that people are against it. its just not the be all and end all. its one factor. a factor I for one dont put all that up there. others might see otherwise. is that difficult to appreciate ?

there are other reasons I see for uhd projectors e.g. the new jvcs with color depth and dynamic range. regardless of 4k this is well worth considering. If upgrading projectors I for one will simply not be upgrading for 4k in itself. but then have to keep in mind typically when upgrading 4K is not the only factor you step upto.

a base model x500 JVC running at rrp $6k(typically going for closer to $4k) vs a 500e sony with a rrp of $15k yep you'd hope that to be an upgrade for your money :D

for me having experienced the 500es with 4K, for me though impressed in a lot of ways, 4k wise and overall it was a bit meh ....

10867796334_e3598eb24a_b.jpg

actually thought the flagship sony a lot more impressive, just doing blu-ray,

10867978243_d9d463bd73_b.jpg a lot of money though....

but you do get what you pay for :) not that any plans to be spending upwards of $10k for a 500es let alone the flagship and above,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I had the X500 JVC and Sony 500ES side by side for a year or more on a 130 inch screen at 3.5-3.8 metres and the Sony was a step up from the JVC when it came to upscaled blu ray and true 4K footage. The Sony was clearer and crisper, period, no matter what I did within the limits of both machines, the Sony would always be that step up.

I've got no argument with this advice, it's good to know, thanks oz-t. But I still recommend an optometrist, as general life activities go. Tell them a fake bad-experience story to get the best out of them! (Which lens looks better indeed, they're both blurry and I can't tell which is better, how about we start over again but in a different order?)

I can still easily see SDE at 3m on a 120" screen with a single chip DLP projector. Mouse pointer is clearly built up of square white blocks. Enough said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...