True 4K / Native 4K - Pixel Shift - Help me understand it all?

[Owen]

That's right, no down scaling. There is a very obvious advantage in feeding a JVC projector 4K video IF the video source is good enough to need 4K, and plenty are not.

 

Don't get sucked in by the whole 4K thing, its not what its seems. For a start there is no such thing as "4K" video captured from the real world with a camera that actually has 4k visible resolution, its just a marketing number that does not relate to actual achievable visible resolution. 4K video is limited to about 3K or less for luma resolution by design due to digital sampling limitations and about 1.5K or less for chroma (colour) resolution due to the colour sub sampling used in all domestic video sources. And thats best case under laboratory perfect capture conditions with zero motion of camera or subject.

For most movies, especially anything shot on film actual visible resolution is much less.

[Javs]

50 minutes ago, Owen said:

That's right, no down scaling. There is a very obvious advantage in feeding a JVC projector 4K video IF the video source is good enough to need 4K, and plenty are not.

 

Don't get sucked in by the whole 4K thing, its not what its seems. For a start there is no such thing as "4K" video captured from the real world with a camera that actually has 4k visible resolution, its just a marketing number that does not relate to actual achievable visible resolution. 4K video is limited to about 3K or less for luma resolution by design due to digital sampling limitations and about 1.5K or less for chroma (colour) resolution due to the colour sub sampling used in all domestic video sources. And thats best case under laboratory perfect capture conditions with zero motion of camera or subject.

For most movies, especially anything shot on film actual visible resolution is much less.

Plenty of things can take full use 4k resolution.

 

PC Desktop environment, animations, games... even video that you claim is not 4k has low pass filters ramping all the way to the edge of 4k, so the container as it were is still needed.

 

Nobody cares if the visible resolution turns out to be less due to MTF etc, the fact is the container allows for more information within, the low pass filter or what not. Otherwise you would not be upscaling anything to 4k, would you?

 

I am not sure why you continue to post this rehearsed paragraph. Its frankly misleading. I think you keep getting hung up on the common use of the word 4k, what would you have us call it Owen?

[Owen]

Come on mate, we have been through this before.

There is a public misconception that "4K" video is actually "4K" resolution when nothing could be further from the truth and you know that. It is as I stated and nowhere near "true" 4K and never will be.

Therefore there is no point people getting all worked up about the need for a "true" 4K projector, its counter productive as other factors are far more important to picture quality as you well know and have said. That's why you own a JVC and not a "true" 4K Sony is it not?

 

As for PC Desktop and games, they are a separate issue. I dont play games but have no problem with a 4K desktop other then small text is too small to read comfortably which makes it not very practical IMHO.

Others can comment of how the JVC's performs with games. I expect that lag would be an issue more than anything else.

If you sat down to play a 4K game on the JVC do you really think you would be aware of any lack of resolution?

Edited November 5, 2017 by Owen

[Javs]

21 hours ago, Owen said:

Come on mate, we have been through this before.

There is a public misconception that "4K" video is actually "4K" resolution when nothing could be further from the truth and you know that. It is as I stated and nowhere near "true" 4K and never will be.

Therefore there is no point people getting all worked up about the need for a "true" 4K projector, its counter productive as other factors are far more important to picture quality as you well know and have said. That's why you own a JVC and not a "true" 4K Sony is it not?

 

As for PC Desktop and games, they are a separate issue. I dont play games but have no problem with a 4K desktop other then small text is too small to read comfortably which makes it not very practical IMHO.

Others can comment of how the JVC's performs with games. I expect that lag would be an issue more than anything else.

If you sat down to play a 4K game on the JVC do you really think you would be aware of any lack of resolution?

You are wrong Owen.

 

The 4k Sony's DO have a resolution advantage over the JVC, I have participated in shootout sessions with stacked 4k units vs an eshift JVC, I would be a fool to say there was no difference in actual resolution. How do you account for that if the JVC supposedly has 3.5k of resolution already, is good enough according to you, and there is no real 4k? Obviously there is detail there and very visible up to the maximum that 4k resolution video files contain...

 

I could show you a couple images where the Sony pulls clearly ahead with UHD Bluray if you like?

 

Here, look at the building windows, all of them are fat on eshift:

 

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/122763

 

Here, look at her earrings and her hair:

 

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/122764

 

There is nothing to call this other than a deficiency in resolvable resolution on the JVC vs the Sony, I don't live in a bubble about this, I don't deny it. Thats a film shot in 4k with a 4k DI, its even more apparent when you look at films with MUCH higher MTF such as Passengers UHD Bluray since that was shot at 5k. Or Allied, shot at 8k with 4k DI.

 

The Sony has issues with the panels that I don't like, banding, posterization, shitty zone correction applied from factory totally breaking test patterns and very low contrast, image degradation issues etc... those are the main reasons I don't own them, when I stack that against the JVC pro's resolution falls a little in importance because the other issues for me take precedence. Of course I would own a native 4k projector if it ticked all the right boxes.

 

Also, JVC's have had a low latency mode since the last generation, so gaming is not a problem now due to lag, the lag is now the same as Sony's at ~35ms.

Edited November 6, 2017 by Javs

[Owen]

5 hours ago, Javs said:

The 4k Sony's DO have a resolution advantage over the JVC, I have participated in shootout sessions with stacked 4k units vs an eshift JVC, I would be a fool to say there was no difference in actual resolution. How do you account for that if the JVC supposedly has 3.5k of resolution already, is good enough according to you, and there is no real 4k? Obviously there is detail there and very visible up to the maximum that 4k resolution video files contain...

Around and around we go.

Please show where I have EVER said the Sony does NOT have a resolution advantage, I NEVER have so dont put words in my mouth. I have also NEVER said the JVC's are 3.5K, others came up with that number. I have said they are limited to around 3K which means MTF will be low at 3K.

 

My main point, which you seem to be deliberately avoiding, is does a small reduction in projector resolution matter when actually viewing a 4K movie and will the viewer be aware of it.

When you compared a JVC to a "true 4K" Sony in the same room you came to this conclusion. To quote you: "However its important to note that in person, you CANNOT tell the difference if you close your eyes for about 5 seconds and the image is switched and the colour was identical, the difference on a 120" screen from about 1 screen width away was totally negligible, that either says the Sony has a crap lens (which it does) or the JVC E-shift is seriously good (which it is). "

 

So if the visible difference in resolution is "negligible" when viewing on a 120" screen from 1 screen width (thats about 2.7m for a 16:9 screen) WHAT BLOODY USE IS THE EXTRA RESOLUTION?  The use of a good external sharpening system makes a FAR more noticeable difference then that, as does the MUCH greater contrast of the JVC. Getting all worked up about resolution numbers and the need for "true 4K" is madness and highly counter productive.

 

People should be looking at the picture NOT numbers on a spec sheet. When they do that they will see that the JVC's are head and shoulders above the competition, including the "true 4K" competition for picture "quality". That's the conclusion you came to, is it not?

 

 

Edited November 6, 2017 by Owen

[Javs]

6 minutes ago, Owen said:

Around and around we go.

Please show where I have EVER said the Sony does NOT have a resolution advantage, I NEVER have so dont put words in my mouth. I have also NEVER said the JVC's are 3.5K, others came up with that number. I have said they are limited to around 3K which means MTF will be low at 3K.

 

My main point, which you seem to be deliberately avoiding, is does a small reduction in projector resolution matter when actually viewing a 4K movie and will the viewer be aware of it.

When you compared a JVC to a "true 4K" Sony in the same room you came to this conclusion. To quote you: "However its important to note that in person, you CANNOT tell the difference if you close your eyes for about 5 seconds and the image is switched and the colour was identical, the difference on a 120" screen from about 1 screen width away was totally negligible, that either says the Sony has a crap lens (which it does) or the JVC E-shift is seriously good (which it is). "

 

So if the visible difference in resolution is "negligible" when viewing on a 120" screen from 1 screen width (thats about 2.7m for a 16:9 screen) WHAT BLOODY USE IS THE EXTRA RESOLUTION?  The use of a good external sharpening system makes a FAR more noticeable difference then that, as does the MUCH greater contrast of the JVC. Getting all worked up about resolution numbers and the need for "true 4K" is madness and highly counter productive.

 

People should be looking at the picture NOT numbers on a spec sheet. When they do that they will see that the JVC's are head and shoulders above the competition, including the "true 4K" competition for picture "quality". That's the conclusion you came to, is it not?

 

 

 

I noticed I forgot to upload one of the previous post links correctly, here they are again...

 

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/122764

 

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/122763

 

Of course its hard to remember what you are looking at, who can mentally recall how many microns ones hair is on the screen? As such you need to do proper stacked shootouts if you want to truly compare a display device.
 

Quote

My main point, which you seem to be deliberately avoiding, is does a small reduction in projector resolution matter when actually viewing a 4K movie and will the viewer be aware of it.

 

 

Yep, it does matter to me, I MISS not having a native 4k panel on a daily basis, especially since I have OWNED one before, put 2000 hours on it, and was forced to offload it due to degradation, I cannot afford the only remaining (IN my mind) option out there, and frankly I don't think its the right purchase anyway because the same tech is going to filter down into the affordable models in the next couple of years.

 

Quote

People should be looking at the picture NOT numbers on a spec sheet. When they do that they will see that the JVC's are head and shoulders above the competition, including the "true 4K" competition for picture "quality". That's the conclusion you came to, is it not?

 

They are not head and shoulders, there is issues with the 4k Sony's that prevent me from owning one again right now. If I were to choose a 4k projector right now it would be the JVC Z1 since its panels render images flawlessly without issue at all.

 

When choosing a projector you have to weigh up a massive list of pro's and cons, unfortunately, the extra 1k in perceivable resolution from eshift to native panel is forced below my other major issues with the other band in importance, not to say its not important.

 

Regarding Sony, namely, issues like this, any time you walk right up to the screen you are greeted by a mess of ugly posterisation:

 

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/120394

 

The JVC currently wins at the end of the day when you look at the compromises you are forced to make.

You shout the same rhetoric all the time Owen, look at the pics, are you going to tell me that resolving that extra detail is a bad thing?

And, then, please enlighten me as to how there is more detail there at all on the Sony if the 'whole 4K thing' as you put it is a bunch of marketing??

 

Wanna see the same exact shots through MadVR upscaled to 4k?

 

Here:

 

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/122772

 

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/122773

 

Now since they are both 4k screen resolution, how is the UHD disc significantly more detailed?

Quote

 

Come on mate, we have been through this before.

There is a public misconception that "4K" video is actually "4K" resolution when nothing could be further from the truth and you know that. It is as I stated and nowhere near "true" 4K and never will be.

Therefore there is no point people getting all worked up about the need for a "true" 4K projector, its counter productive as other factors are far more important to picture quality as you well know and have said. That's why you own a JVC and not a "true" 4K Sony is it not?

 

 

Do you want to step back and perhaps rethink or rephrase all the negativity you seem to generally have towards 4k in general? Clearly you are making your position on it into a super complicated concept, when its not. Anybody that seems to mention 4k sends you off into a rampage on how 4k is BS to begin with...

 

I have literally shown you a native 4k projector rendering more detail than a JVC Projector sitting at about 3k, you seem to be of the position nothing is 4k to begin with, so explain to people in laymens terms exactly what your position on the matter is in light of the evidence I have shown you where it can not be any clearer, that there is in fact detail there when you move past an imager that can render 3k and one that can render 4k.

 

If its as simple as the fact that you do not like the term 4k, then just say so. But an imager with 3840x2160 individually addressable pixels, or, video composed of 3840x2160 pixels and NOT granules on a frame of film is, like it or not, a 4k image by definition at the end of the day. Well UHD if you want to get really technical.

 

So why is it you choose to go off on a tangent of what real 4k means when the entire film industry has embraced what it is today? If your position was to be the only relevant thing, then MTF would hit a literal brick wall and any fine steps in the image would turn into a mess of aliasing would it not? Part of showing/recording video without artefacts requires a low pass filter, this low pass filter MUST be included in the bigger picture. Do you disagree with that?

 

[betty boop]

interesting reading a 3rd hand report on avs courtesy off Kaotikri about a shoot out between and the jvc RS640 and sony VW385ES. the jvc being the us equivalent of the x9900 and being the price equivalent of the sony making for an obvious comparison, below are some of the overall thoughts and personal thoughts conveyed. 

 

"Overall thoughts:
 
The difference in image contrast was obvious in almost every single shot, which is where the JVC excelled. As a result, the JVC image had more “pop” and a greater sense of three dimensionality. However, with fine details like clothing texture and street signs in the distance, etc, the Sony was sharper when you walked up to the screen. However, most of those "fine detail" differences disappeared at a typical seating distance. 
 
There were four of us present for the shootout.
 
Personal thoughts from John:
 
"I think most people would prefer the JVC image (as did all of us), as during the shootout the most common observation was that the Sony looked “flat” in comparison to the JVC. When it came to fine details, the Sony did reveal fine textures more readily, but in most cases you needed to walk right up to the screen to see them. The JVC E-shift 5 seems to be an upgrade over previous iterations, and the new “HDR” preset presents a wider color gamut than the Sony while retaining brightness and contrast.
 
So, while the Sony has true 4K resolution at $5K and $8K price points, the JVC at almost the same price points has a wider color gamut and deeper contrast - plus will accept a 60P 4K HDR signal, which the Sony will not. This is due to the fact that the JVC models will all accept 18 Gbps inputs, while the Sony units are limited to 10 Gbps - until you get up to the flagship Sony VPL-VW885 laser projector, at $24,999. (NOTE - we found out that the Sony VW885 laser also features "new improved" SXRD panels with greater native contrast than the panels found in the Sony VW285, 385, and 675)."

 

the "John" referred to is John Schuermann,

 

I am totally not surprised in the impressions walked away with.... 

 

one ridiculous aspect of the sony I think is that it is limited with its hdmi chipset. to the point the guys reported that billy lynn had to be reduced to 8 bit to actually display which is plain ridiculous for the kind of money the sony projector goes for. 

[Mobe1969]

Hmm I wonder how that Sony 885 will shape up then. A newer SXRD panel also.

 

I agree it is ridiculous they used a limited bandwidth chipset, although for me it wouldn't affect the material I view

[betty boop]

12 minutes ago, Mobe1969 said:

Hmm I wonder how that Sony 885 will shape up then. A newer SXRD panel also.

 

I agree it is ridiculous they used a limited bandwidth chipset, although for me it wouldn't affect the material I view

shame of the 885/760Es is they havent done anything with the optics i.e. it doesnt score the ARC-F optics of the 1100es. infact all sony admitted to chris deering is that they fiddled around in what just sounds to me more tweaking of the reality creation engine ? ! for what?  more posterisation ? 

 

anyways its a cheaper laser engine projector, not that is such a priority I dont think. can buy a heck of a lot of lamps for the $12k cost hike up to the 760ES ! 

[Kezzbot]

Most people here are enthusiasts, arguing the finer details is what they love to do!

[oztheatre]

@:) al There's a sony 885 as well? Is that what we are getting in the 760? Why do they still continue trying to confuse people with numbers?

I spoke with them about the lens in the 760, they say it's a ripper! Has undergone 3 changes/upgrades since the 500ES. It was also price point, the 1100ES was just over 30, the 760 will be 22999 here in oz.

[betty boop]

8 minutes ago, oztheatre said:

@:) al There's a sony 885 as well? Is that what we are getting in the 760? Why do they still continue trying to confuse people with numbers?

I spoke with them about the lens in the 760, they say it's a ripper! Has undergone 3 changes/upgrades since the 500ES. It was also price point, the 1100ES was just over 30, the 760 will be 22999 here in oz.

hi oz, the 885 is the 760ES.

 

I have no interest in purchasing one, too rich for my boots, I have no doubt its a lovely projector in a lot of ways, 

 

however note a few points Kris deering makes re projectors below 5000ES....

 

"I talked to the Sony engineers at CEDIA. I was told same SXRD chip and lens for all models under the 5000ES."

 

and specifically re the 885/760ES

 

"Guess it depends on who you talk to. I talked to two of the head guys from Sony and asked specifically about the lens and what kind of improvements were made. To say that they downplayed or talked around the question would be an understatement. I was told stability was a bit better, and as I mentioned before most of their comments made it sound like the improvements were more in the control of the lens than the lens itself (motor functions). 

I also asked why the 885 at the price point of the 1000ES didn't get the better Arc lens. They said it was a cost consideration."

 

definitely an option for people looking for something up from the underling sony's that are all deficient in some way, and the the upper end 5000Es which is out of world in price and no doubt in capability ! 

 

[Mobe1969]

Just a couple of questions on Sony vs JVC. Which has the better 3D? Crosstalk, etc.

And the JVC, do you need to buy the 3D transmitter separately? Are they easy to get? I tried searching locally and found one place with them, but no stock.

[Kezzbot]

I had the Sony 40es, crosstalk was shocking. But I've also heard that it can be a bit random from unit to unit depending on how well the display panels are aligned.
I haven't owned a JVC but the early ones were rubbish concerning crosstalk. I've heard the newer ones are better but not perfect

[Mobe1969]

Ah great. 

 

How hard can it be to get 3D right? Does anyone have any recommendations for GOOD 3D capable? Are the new ones OK?

[Kezzbot]

DLP = Perfect 3D. Zero crosstalk.

Ideal setup for me is two projectors one for 2D and a cheap DLP for 3D

Although I'm sure some of these guys with the latest gen projectors will chime in soon to tell us the state of 3D in 2017. Although sometimes, with everyone's tolerance for cross talk being different, it's hard to know when somebody just says "the 3D is really good".

For me any crosstalk is too much crosstalk.[emoji52]

[betty boop]

23 minutes ago, Mobe1969 said:

Ah great. 

 

How hard can it be to get 3D right? Does anyone have any recommendations for GOOD 3D capable? Are the new ones OK?

zombie is worth chasing on AVS he runs multiple rigs on including for 3D. 3D on JVCs in my opinion about as good as it gets. 3D on the x35 from some years ago got quite a step up and the x7000 onwards have been really good in this regard. unless going some rare DLPs e.g. a sharp that zombie runs from yesteryear or something.

 

7 minutes ago, Kezzbot said:

Ideal setup for me is two projectors one for 2D and a cheap DLP for 3D

only problem with this is the cheap DLPs are pretty meh and you take a massive hit in pure PQ dropping from jvc back to DLP. I for one have been pretty happy with 3D on the JVCs from x35 onwards and the x7000 current series are really good. that model was quite a step up and if read my original perspective when first got it, certainly best I've seen on a projector. 

 

 

with the current JVC you need about 4-6 min of warm up as mentioned this is vs around 20min with previous x35 jvc for panels to come upto temp. 

 

3 hours ago, Mobe1969 said:

And the JVC, do you need to buy the 3D transmitter separately? Are they easy to get? I tried searching locally and found one place with them, but no stock.

likes of oz theatre will see bundle in 3D with sales. the beauty with JVC is you only buy once as I did and you just carry over the emitter and glasses if ever upgrade in the future you cary over to new unit and certainly is what i did when upgraded from my x35 to x7000 few years ago. and if updated say next year would do the same  

[betty boop]

51 minutes ago, Kezzbot said:

I haven't owned a JVC but the early ones were rubbish concerning crosstalk. I've heard the newer ones are better but not perfect

prior to jvc x35 e.g. x30 or x3 before were rubbish for 3D. however that was first model in the x35 I went gee this is good and could move on from the epson I ran that was very good 3D wise. X7000 with new panels light engine etc is a step up again.

37 minutes ago, Mobe1969 said:

How hard can it be to get 3D right? Does anyone have any recommendations for GOOD 3D capable? Are the new ones OK?

its not hard. I certainly buy look out for both uhd and 3D releases and very much appreciate.. it does indeed bring a whole another dimension and kind of thing a flat panel just cant replicate because of the sheer size of screen a projector setup can create, especially if working to say thx spec for immersion...it is a very immersive experience and one I very much appreciate. 

[Javs]

29 minutes ago, Kezzbot said:

DLP = Perfect 3D. Zero crosstalk.

Ideal setup for me is two projectors one for 2D and a cheap DLP for 3D

Although I'm sure some of these guys with the latest gen projectors will chime in soon to tell us the state of 3D in 2017. Although sometimes, with everyone's tolerance for cross talk being different, it's hard to know when somebody just says "the 3D is really good".

For me any crosstalk is too much crosstalk.

Here is what the JVC can do with a 3D test pattern and optimal 3D settings in the projector:

 

 

 

Here is what the same test looks like when you change the settings in a way that induces crosstalk...

 

 

Edited November 6, 2017 by Javs

[Kezzbot]

Looks good. Almost no crosstalk. 

Im guessing its unnoticeable while playing a movie?

[Kezzbot]

Looks good. Almost no crosstalk. 

Im guessing its unnoticeable while playing a movie?

 

*Edit. double post again!??

Edited November 6, 2017 by Kezzbot

[Mobe1969]

Yeah I can't notice any in the first two, looks really good. I'll have to check up on what you mean be "optimal 3d settings" though.

[Javs]

1 hour ago, Kezzbot said:

Looks good. Almost no crosstalk. 

Im guessing its unnoticeable while playing a movie?

Yeah the settings I use, there is completely zero crosstalk. But they are the maximum 'Crosstalk Cancel' settings on the projector, which results in the dimmest 3d image, but I have enough brightness and screen gain where its not a problem for me, still getting 12fl or so in 3d mode through the glasses. If I want to go brighter I would get a very mild amount of crosstalk, definitely not as bad as the one I posted second.

[Kezzbot]

 

Noticeable crosstalk is in red circles.

 

would look worse on the big screen.

 

and you're saying typical viewing settings are worse.

 

still, not too bad.

[Javs]

21 minutes ago, Kezzbot said:

 

Noticeable crosstalk is in red circles.

 

would look worse on the big screen.

 

and you're saying typical viewing settings are worse.

 

still, not too bad.

Thanks, I know what to look for, but It actually depends where you are looking, your eyes are in the center of the lenses in the glasses, these photographs are taken with a big camera lens pushed up to the glasses, the glasses fail on the far outer edges of the lenses, so in actual fact, when I say I cant see any crosstalk at all when I view the images for real its because my eye is in the center of the lens and they seem to work better there, if I move my head and look in the top corner of the frame, what crosstalk is there in this photo, is gone, its easy to test with any display, something I noticed with the Xrite glasses (which in my opinion are the best glasses).