THE BEST 4K Laser projector

[007orac]

Evening all

 

I have lived with a JVC X9 projector for a few years.  I been happy with the picture quality specially the black blacks.  However it has not been a very reliable machine requiring several trips to the repair shop with various issues.      :  (

 

For peace of mind I been thinking of moving to a Laser machine...……..Hooray no bulbs to replace......LOL

 

Because I liked the picture of the JVC X9 I was looking at is latest reincarnation the JVC  X9900   .   It has had good reviews but its not native 4K machine but a "Double your pixel for you money machine"  and its still a bulb machine.

 

Heard it say as I have not had the benefit of a side by side comparison but some say you cant tell a double you pixel machine from a true native 4K machine...…………….what is your thoughts on that sales pitch  ? 

 

Staying with JVC they got a native 4K machine the JVC Z1...……...but hells bells it forty grand   !  !  !

 

And even if I robbed a bank there is the fact the my current JVC has not been a reliable machine which kind of puts you off..

 

Also looking at and also bloody expensive...…...but not as bad a the JVC Z1 is Sony's  VPL-VW760ES   .   It also has had good reviews as with the Z1...…….but apparently the blacks are not as black as my present JVC but it is however a true native 4K machine

 

Anybody got one and care to comment   ?

 

Specially if you have lived for some time with the Sony VPL  VW760ES

 

Your thoughts are most welcome guys.

 

Cheers

 

Paul 

[betty boop]

49 minutes ago, 007orac said:

Evening all

 

I have lived with a JVC X9 projector for a few years.  I been happy with the picture quality specially the black blacks.  However it has not been a very reliable machine requiring several trips to the repair shop with various issues.      :  (

 

For peace of mind I been thinking of moving to a Laser machine...……..Hooray no bulbs to replace......LOL

firstly i am not surprised the x9 was a turkey basically all their machines x30 and before all had some issue or other the x35 onwards were solid machines. keep in mind with a laser once burnt out thats it you put whole machine on a nature strip. for the cost of bulbs and the length of life people are getting with current gen JVCs Xx000 and later ie 4000 hours plus it would take a heck of a lot of bulbs to make up for the massive cost difference of a laser machine. what laser does get you though is no lamp drop off... though which is easily made up for... and some more stability in image but I think be hard time justifying on lamp replacements ! 

 

49 minutes ago, 007orac said:

Because I liked the picture of the JVC X9 I was looking at is latest reincarnation the JVC  X9900   .   It has had good reviews but its not native 4K machine but a "Double your pixel for you money machine"  and its still a bulb machine.

 

Heard it say as I have not had the benefit of a side by side comparison but some say you cant tell a double you pixel machine from a true native 4K machine...…………….what is your thoughts on that sales pitch  ? 

yes very true...but keep in mind with these you can achieve around 3-3.5k which is about all you will realistically get. and in any case its not like you are going to setup an imax setup are you viewing from 1-1.5x screen heights to fully resolve 4k ? 

 

note this review below that sums up well in comparison, between jvc and native sony 4k

 

https://www.avforums.com/review/sony-vpl-vw360es-4k-sxrd-projector-review.14126

 

as they compare in its performance vs the 7900

 

"Performance

The VW360ES is an expensive projector in the home cinema market and of course the big reason for this is the fact that it uses native 4K panels. These are ported over from Sony’s professional cinema division and economies of scale do help in bringing the technology to the consumer marketplace, but there is still a cost associated and that reflects in the RRP here. Sony can quite rightly shout about the fact that they are the only native 4K game in town when it comes to projectors, but as we all know resolution is just one part of a far larger number of attributes that make a good quality image. We also happened to have the JVC DLA-X7900 projector turn up for review while we were testing the VW360ES and as such did a number of comparisons given the similar specs but big difference in price. So let’s get the resolution argument out of the way first of all. During testing and from a normal seating distance there was very little in it when it came down to resolution on its own between the native 4K Sony and the E-Shift JVC. As you get closer to the screen it is a bit more obvious, but again it is not night and day. It is other image attributes such as black levels, shadow detail retrieval, gamma tracking, greyscale, colour accuracy and more, which make for an excellent projected image. "

 

and ultimately as they sum up vs the alternatives,

 

"What are my alternatives?

Well the most obvious alternative, if you can do without the dynamic iris and lens memory functions but still want a native 4K projector, is the VW260ES, which has to be the better choice for £1,800 less than the VW360ES. If you want to keep all the features like manual and dynamic iris controls, with lens memory and add in wide colour, HDR, HLG, better black levels and shadow retrieval, HDMI inputs that are 18Gbps ready and will accept 4:4:4 60 4K signals along with a motorised lens cover and much more it has to be the £5,699 JVC DLA-X7900. It is not a native 4K projector but with E-Shift and at sensible viewing distances you will be hard pushed to see the resolution differences over and above the other attributes like a better black performance and shadow detail retrieval. It's also £1300 cheaper and is available in white and black finishes to match those available on the Sony. Although, if you are happy to lose the filter and lens cover, the £3,999 DLA-X5900 should also be on your demo list."

 

49 minutes ago, 007orac said:

Staying with JVC they got a native 4K machine the JVC Z1...……...but hells bells it forty grand   !  !  !

it is that for good reason... and a great bit of cost is not just the laser but the optics ! these cost what they are for good reason ! 

 

49 minutes ago, 007orac said:

And even if I robbed a bank there is the fact the my current JVC has not been a reliable machine which kind of puts you off..

please dont be put off by that. I owned my x35 for some years and was solid as has been the x7000 have owned now as well few years. as mentioned the jvcs are pretty solid past the early probematic ones like the ones you own

49 minutes ago, 007orac said:

Also looking at and also bloody expensive...…...but not as bad a the JVC Z1 is Sony's  VPL-VW760ES   .   It also has had good reviews as with the Z1...…….but apparently the blacks are not as black as my present JVC but it is however a true native 4K machine

its good that sony has squeezed in a laser but price is still quite a but at over $20k. they have still stuck with the same optics though as the bottom models. which is limitations for these machines I believe to really deliver the gains for 4k nad why comparing with the JVCs as per the review there is really nothing in it. Though I do think Sony's reality/detail creation, detail enhancement system will appeal to some. But on the sonys if you want a sony with the top optics they havent unfortunately replaced their awesome 1100ES that came with the ARC-F all glass optics. if wanting a sony with top optics you need to spend even more than the jvc at $60k +

 

look unless have the money to burn Id say go check out a well setup X9900 Id be suprised if not impressed. it costs a fraction of the sonys will deliver 3-3.5k which is about what there is to deliver and you wont be spending on things like lasers which lets face it are still a bit cutting edge. and a good reason they cost what they are. plus similarly we are only in early days of uhd still id be reluctant to spend up too much at this stage.... unless you are the kind to regularly change over (some or shall we say many dont mind)

[wooferocau]

Call me bias because i own the JVC Z1 , so take my opinion as just that.

 

I HAVE had experience with both the  the Sony 760ES and the Sony 5000ES.  I had the Sony 760ES on loan from a friend in my theatre room for approx 3 weeks to run some comparisons.  I have demoed the 5000ES elsewhere in a private theatre.

 

My opinion is the Z1 comes out on top in all aspects compared to the 2 Sony,s , the 760ES is NOT in the same league as the Z1 ....and ONLY one aspect of the 5000ES that trumps the Z1...."Sheer Brightness" ...

 

The optics on the Z1 are just "Stunning" the image is just super stable and pin sharp..... Contrast, regardless of what you read, it is rivalling the E-Shift series and sometimes exceeding them in real world viewing. I have put the Z1 against both X9500 and X9900 on several occasions...... NOT once has the Z1 looked to be "lacking" contrast performance in relation to the "2" E-Shift units!

 

I came from several E-Shift JVC,s X5000, X7000, X9500, X9900.... 

 

If you have the coin, its a stunning  projector!

 

 

[betty boop]

20 minutes ago, wooferocau said:

Call me bias because i own the JVC Z1 , so take my opinion as just that.

 

I HAVE had experience with both the  the Sony 760ES and the Sony 5000ES.  I had the Sony 760ES on loan from a friend in my theatre room for approx 3 weeks to run some comparisons.  I have demoed the 5000ES elsewhere in a private theatre.

 

My opinion is the Z1 comes out on top in all aspects compared to the 2 Sony,s , the 760ES is NOT in the same league as the Z1 ....and ONLY one aspect of the 5000ES that trumps the Z1...."Sheer Brightness" ...

 

The optics on the Z1 are just "Stunning" the image is just super stable and pin sharp..... Contrast, regardless of what you read, it is rivalling the E-Shift series and sometimes exceeding them in real world viewing. I have put the Z1 against both X9500 and X9900 on several occasions...... NOT once has the Z1 looked to be "lacking" contrast performance in relation to the "2" E-Shift units!

 

I came from several E-Shift JVC,s X5000, X7000, X9500, X9900.... 

 

If you have the coin, its a stunning  projector!

 

 

Woofer Post a pic of the lens cap between the x5000 and z1 ... will give op some idea of difference in optics between the two ! I am no doubt you are impressed !!!

[wooferocau]

Lens cap from the Z1 against the JVC remote...

 

 

[betty boop]

I thought you’d do the dundee ... that’s not a lens cap ! 

 

..... that’s a lens cap

 

 

[TP1]

On 10/7/2018 at 5:14 PM, 007orac said:

 

 

Specially if you have lived for some time with the Sony VPL  VW760ES

 

Your thoughts are most welcome guys.

 

Cheers

 

Paul 

 

No point comparing all the  projectors  with laser light engines  in the world against each other unless they all are seriously under consideration for purchase within your price range.  For example, I would have definitely have bought a JVC Z1 had my budget gone that far but I bought a Sony 760ES and am delighted with it.  All the comparisons between the 760 ES and projectors costing $15- 40K more are not relevant if you are not actually prepared to lay out the cash for them.  What was relevant to me, was the performance compared to other PJ's that were  within my target price range, which were the bulb based projectors from Sony and JVC.  

 

The 760ES is a class act and is noticeably sharper with better colours , greater stability and and better motion than the JVC X9900, and so much better contrast than the lesser Sony machines.    There are definite  differences in resolution using the 4k panels - very big with 4K material but still noticeably sharper with 1080p material.  The differences are more noticeable the larger the screen size.   Laser light engine colours and light evenness are something to behold .   The 760ES is the quantum leap I was looking  over my Sharp XVZ-20000

 

I couldn't get used to E-shift.   DLP knockers are quick to point out RBE but remain silent on the E-shift wobble which is a bigger problem (for me anyway).   The picture is not as stable coming from a single chip DLP or laser 4k machine and I was constantly reminded that i was living with a compromise.Turning off eshift with 1080p material helped but resolution while  very good, was probably not up to the standard I was used to.   But JVC  E-shift gives you the best black levels of any other projector which, lets face it, is the real reason why they are so popular, not their pseudo 4k portrayal.  Still, at their price point, they are still the ones to beat I think - I bought an X9900 over equivalent Sony purely due to contrast considerations.  However, the 760ES  has so much more on offer and although the black levels still aren't up to JVC's e-shift level ( no other projector is) , contrast is outstanding nevertheless. 

 

 

 

Edited July 13, 2018 by Tasso

[Owen]

On 10/07/2018 at 7:14 PM, 007orac said:

Your thoughts are most welcome guys.

Your fear of lamps is not rational mate, modern lamps last so long its not an issue at all so for forget about it. The extra cost of a laser light source will never be recovered in savings on lamps, not even remotely close.

 

Just because you had a few issues with your first gen X series does not mean current JVC projectors are any less reliable then other brands, far from it, and the long term reliability of laser projectors is unknown.

 

As for visible "resolution" differences between E-Shift and "true" 4K, without side by side comparison you will never be aware of any. Image sharpness and visible resolution is dominated by digital sharpening not pixels.

Sony projectors cheat and use sharpening all the time, even when it is turned "off" by the user. They also can't resolve "4K" without hacking the service menu and potentially invalidating the warranty due to convergence correction rubbish used to hide inherent convergence errors.

Sonys "Reality Creation" sharpening system is liked by many and may be preferred over what JVC provides, but for best performance external upscaling and sharpening systems are the way to go.

 

Your old X9 doesn't have the dynamic iris system of the current models and the newer X series models are much brighter, which is a combination that works very well most of the time. In some scenes of some movies the iris can be seen operating which I find distracting so I turn the dynamic iris off for those titles. Even with the iris locked full open contrast is going to be more than double that of the Sony laser based projectors but its still only a fraction of what I am looking for. The notion that JVC X9xxx projector blacks being "black" is farcical, they are not even close as far as I am concerned. I certainly wouldn't use the term "outstanding" to describe JVC X9xxx blacks and contrast so significantly worse isn't an option as far as I am concerned, but thats just me.

The laser based projectors don't use an iris system, just dimming of the laser light source in dark scenes which doesn't actually improve contrast at all, it just makes the whole picture dimmer. Native contrast of the Sony (when new) is not as good as an old JVC X3, although the laser dimming system helps blacks in dark scenes.  If you find the dimming distracting and turn it off you are left with a black level MUCH higher then your old X9 due to low native contrast in combination with a very bright light source. Some may find the compromises acceptable, others not.

 

As for one projector having "better" colour than another, after proper calibration there is going to be stuff all in it. Without direct comparison you will never know and calibration makes more difference then the projector.

There is a problem with narrow band primary colours in that they can cause different people to perceive colours differently even when they measure the same with a colour meter. This is not a good thing as accurate calibration becomes imposible as its viewer dependant. Lamp based projectors don't have that problem.

 

I have never been bothered by image stability issues with lamp based projectors and the same goes for E-Shift at my viewing distance, its therefore not on my "things to fix list", contrast and black levels are. Thats not to say that others are not affected by one or both, its a personal thing. 

 

A point worth mentioning about Sony SXRD based projectors, including the 4K models, is that they have always suffered from a drop in native contrast over time. After as little as a year contrast can drop in half, black level double and gamma go way out, which is a MAJOR and unforgivable issue as far as I am concerned. Its not a usage thing either as the degradation seems to occur even if the projector is not used and continues as time passes.

The top of the line VW5000ES that sells for around $90K is still affected so I would be very confident the lesser models are as well. Its astonishing that Sony has been unable to eliminate this problem even though it has been around since the very first SXRD projector.  JVC's DILA technology is quite different and does not suffer from this issue.

 

As are as I am concerned Sony projectors are unsuitable for purpose due to the degradation issues and I would never consider one until I could be guaranteed the problems have been completely fixed. Its anyones guess how long that will take, if ever.

 

I no doubt comes across as anti Sony but I have good bloody reason. I'm an ex Sony owner that was affected by this problem, plus others, and the issues have not gone away. Do some reading here:

 

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/24-digital-hi-end-projectors-3-000-usd-msrp/2247282-sony-sxrd-degradation-thread-effects-all-current-sony-sxrd-1080p-4k-panels.html

 

I agree there is no point in looking at projectors that are way out of your price range, and you would likely be very happy with a JVC or a Sony (when new). I think it would be wise to carfully analyse what aspects of performance are most important to you and buy on that basis. Don't get hung up on lasers and pixels, its counter productive.

 

Edited July 14, 2018 by Owen

[oztheatre]

Contrast is king. JVC is and always will be the king. Eshift or not, I see no difference, the Eshift is just THAT good.

[TP1]

 

Well I bought JVC  in part  due to the  rumours and  innuendo  being spread  about other brands  ( JVC fanbois at work !)  and found that  the build up was grossly misleading - in terms of my expectations anyway.  

 

Resolution - having had a top flight 1080P single chip DLP projector (with a high quality lens by Minolta), the JVC  resolution  was not an improvement despite being 10 years newer.    4K was better but  the e-shift wobble is annoying as hell.  Some might not notice,  it but live with something better for a while and it becomes unmistakeable.  Sony 4k  is miles ahead   on all material - no comparison there.   This isn't to say that you cant be happy with Eshift , but it depends if you want "good enough" or the best. 

 

Movement/Motion  - JVC  images  look juddery compared to Sony 760ES.   Both have  controls to adjust motion but Sony does it way better.   The result is a more immersive  and enjoyable experience , which is the ultimate aim of the exercise.   This is not discussed much because I dont think many people have actually witnessed the differences.  

 

Contrast -   If buying a bulb based PJ only , JVC Eshift  is streets ahead  for sure.   It is not streets ahead of Sony 760Es and for the vast majority of viewing you wouldnt pick it.   The old tech Eshift panels  are  both a strength and weakness for JVC.   They  do give the best contrast of any PJ but they also give crappier resolution and stability compared to the true 4K panels from both JVC and Sony.    With 4K releases  coming through thick and fast these days, the format is here to stay.   I use a 140" OZ Theatre cinemascope screen and the extra resolution of true 4K panels with 4K material is clearly visible - particularly as you  use auto-zoom  to fill the screen.   

 

laser Vs Bulb -  more even light across the screen,  doesn't dim like globes ,  better colours , fast startup and shutdown,   etc etc etc - no one would actually specify a bulb over laser  if they were the same price.  I don't know what the future path for projectors would be , but I can't see it being globes for the better projectors. 

 

I only raise these issues because the question was asked about the 760 ES so the direct comparisons are in that context.    They are in completely different price brackets however - normally discussions would revolve around similarly priced projectors.   

Edited July 16, 2018 by Tasso

[oztheatre]

It's really strange you know, I couldn't see much if any difference between the E-shift and the 760ES. I had them side by side testing 2K and 4K discs. And I'm talking at normal viewing distances where the human just can't see any difference. The JVC was quite a bit brighter too, first thing I noticed. Then the black levels leave everything else lacking. I found Sony's motion marginally better but for me there wasn't much in it. And yeah some purists don't use the E-shift feature at all. Their pixel gap is that narrow it's hard to tell if it's on or off sometimes.

[TP1]

5 hours ago, oztheatre said:

It's really strange you know, I couldn't see much if any difference between the E-shift and the 760ES. I had them side by side testing 2K and 4K discs. And I'm talking at normal viewing distances where the human just can't see any difference. The JVC was quite a bit brighter too, first thing I noticed. Then the black levels leave everything else lacking. I found Sony's motion marginally better but for me there wasn't much in it. And yeah some purists don't use the E-shift feature at all. Their pixel gap is that narrow it's hard to tell if it's on or off sometimes.

 

With the greatest respect Richard, I have found significant differences in experiences from comparisons in shops  to  actually personally owning and operating each piece of gear intensively over some months. The latter gives you time to fully explore and optimise everything.    Once you set the  Sony motion handling  as the standard , any jerkiness can be intolerable and also gets commented on by the wife and others who are watching too.    In terms of black levels, so much can be done with the 760ES that cant be with lesser Sony models to produce a remarkably contrasty picture.  Ive got it pretty good and am awaiting a professional calibration to see what ( if anything) else can be done.   I didn't like to use  dynamic iris on JVC - I found it annoying as you can pick when the iris opens and closes and occasionally makes things look strange in some scenes.  Still , it gives  you the option and some would find it useful, but  I personally don't think JVC needs it to give decent black levels.  Despite what some have surmised, the dynamic laser does indeed work well on the 760ES - it simply operates too fast to detect  compared to dynamic iris. ( which is I think what one reviewer might have been expecting)   You need to watch  the scenes again with and without it switched in to notice its  effect.   I don't like it on all the time for similar reasons to the dynamic iris but "limited' mode seems to be good generally.

 

 In my case and others that have gone from JVC Eshift  to 760ES/885ES, the light output from 760ES seems significantly higher at first -  a whopping difference if you use the BT2020 filter on JVC.     However, when I adjusted both PJ's for optimum light output with the same material, they looked closer as the specs would suggest .   There are so many settings and positions that affect the apparent brightness of the projectors beyond actual laser/ bulb power and finding those that put the comparison on the same playing field is the key to it. I think this is why when calibrated testing is done the results are pretty close.  However,  you could expect the laser to be consistently brighter for the majority of time as the bulbs wear on.

 

Make no mistake, I still think JVC is the best buy at its price point  and I cant imagine that it will be too long before JVC introduces lower cost full 4K projectors. 

[oztheatre]

Fair call Tasso, but again my 760 was professionally calibrated and my JVC is still 'out of the box' settings and I still found the JVC to be better overall, especially with contrast which is the holy grail of home theatre. The resolution, well the JVC's still deal with each frame of a 4K disc. It's funny you know, I was showing someone the other day the 2K and 4K versions of oblivion (tom cruise) and we both agreed the 2K version was superior as the 4K transfer was full of noise. Neither of us could tell any difference in resolution either. There are no doubt other examples where the 4K version is better but I don't have many shows where I have both versions.

[oztheatre]

And I don't think JVC will do native 4K in the current range as it's undermines their 40K Z1. There is another 4K one coming but it's going to be around 90K.. maybe we'll organise a group buy haha

[Martykt]

44 minutes ago, oztheatre said:

And I don't think JVC will do native 4K in the current range as it's undermines their 40K Z1. There is another 4K one coming but it's going to be around 90K.. maybe we'll organise a group buy haha

Okay I'll bite....  

What does a 90k projector do that a 40k one won't.... ??

Is it for a commercial theatre or something? 

[oztheatre]

Just now, Martykt said:

Okay I'll bite....  

What does a 90k projector do that a 40k one won't.... ??

Is it for a commercial theatre or something? 

I have no idea.. might double as a vacuum cleaner and serve drinks during movie time

[Martykt]

15 minutes ago, oztheatre said:

I have no idea.. might double as a vacuum cleaner and serve drinks during movie time

Jeez I hate it when they start vacuuming before the movies over...... I hope they've trained it well...... 

[Owen]

On 17/07/2018 at 12:44 PM, oztheatre said:

It's really strange you know, I couldn't see much if any difference between the E-shift and the 760ES. I had them side by side testing 2K and 4K discs.

And thats what most people observe. Without side by side comparison, like people would have in their home because they don't buy 2 projectors, any "resolution" difference would simply not be discernible and is therefor irrelevant.

 

 

On 16/07/2018 at 9:08 PM, oztheatre said:

Contrast is king. JVC is and always will be the king. Eshift or not, I see no difference, the Eshift is just THAT good.

Yes JVC is streets ahead for contrast, which is THE most important aspect of performance by far IMHO, however JVC's best still leaves a lot to be desired for contrast and black level as far as I am concerned.

Image clarity and sharpness has more to do with image processing then the projector optical system.

Most people don't notice E-Shift in operation because they don't site close enough to see it. Prospective purchasers can evaluate this for them selves at the screen size to viewing distance ratio they will be using.

 

20 hours ago, Tasso said:

Once you set the  Sony motion handling  as the standard , any jerkiness can be intolerable and also gets commented on by the wife and others who are watching too.

24fps movies are supposed to have jittery motion, its inherent in 24fps capture and display in a cinema. When video is processed to deliver smooth motion you have by definition created the "the soap opera effect" which some people detest and therefor avoid using motion interpolation. Other people, and I am one of them, prefer smoother motion so like motion interpolation, although how much motion smoothing is desirable is up to the individual. Smoother is therefor "better" for some people and worse for others.

I find the low setting on the two JVC's I have owned to be a very good compromise, nothing to "fix" there IMHO.

 

On 16/07/2018 at 10:49 PM, Tasso said:

Contrast -   If buying a bulb based PJ only , JVC Eshift  is streets ahead  for sure.   It is not streets ahead of Sony 760Es and for the vast majority of viewing you wouldnt pick it.

In most scenes the difference between a projector with 2000:1 native contrast and one with 100,000:1 native contrast isn't noticeable because ANSI contrast dominates. However, in low average picture level scenes a high native contrast projector delivers a much better image and thats something that never gets old IMHO. Giving up dark scene performance in order to improve resolution or gain higher brightness is not a compromise I would ever make.

Unfortunately projector manufactures are now fixated on providing ever increasing brightness for sudo HDR and more pixels AT THE EXPENSE of contrast and higher black level. I understand its market driven but they can stick that where the sun don't shine as far as I am concerned, I'm not buying into it.

 

 

On 16/07/2018 at 10:49 PM, Tasso said:

laser Vs Bulb -  more even light across the screen

Really. I haven't had any issues with uneven light across the screen and a laser light source is more likely to cause such a problem then a lamp because its a point source that need a massive amount of diffusion to give an even light.

All lenses suffer from vignetting to some degree or another, but it should not be visible. If you had an un evenness problem the projector was faulty.

 

On 16/07/2018 at 10:49 PM, Tasso said:

 doesn't dim like globes

Lasers do dim, just not as fast as a lamp. Just like lamps lasers dim faster when given to higher levels.

 

On 16/07/2018 at 10:49 PM, Tasso said:

better colours

How does the Sony have "better" colours? Can it be calibrated to a higher standard than the lamp based JVC's?  Different does not mean "better".

 

On 16/07/2018 at 10:49 PM, Tasso said:

no one would actually specify a bulb over laser  if they were the same price.

I definitely would if the projector provided significantly better contrast. Having said that the light source should have no effect on contrast.

 

As I mentioned previously narrow band primary colours as produced by RGB lasers cause problems for the human visual system in that there can be significant differences in how the individual viewer perceives colours compared to wider band primaries used in lamp based projectors and TV's. The result is that the viewer does not see the same colours the production team saw in the studio and intended the viewer to see. Another viewer can see different colour again so accurate colour calibration is not possible as far as the viewer is concerned. So again, different is not "better".

 

20 hours ago, Tasso said:

I didn't like to use  dynamic iris on JVC - I found it annoying as you can pick when the iris opens and closes and occasionally makes things look strange in some scenes.

I agree for some movies, but for others it works very effectively IMHO. Part of the problem is the very large change in brightness that closing the lens iris down from full open achieves, if the iris is adjusted down from full open the change in brightness becomes less noticeable. JVC should provide the user with control over the minimum iris setting not just the maximum, and control over when the iris closes and opens for best results 

The slow operation of the iris is deliberate and is much less intrusive than a fast change would be, especially when a large range of iris opening - closing is being used.

Mechanical iris systems can be very fast, the one in my old Sony could operate within the time interval of a single video frame, BUT the instantaneous change in brightness was very distracting and annoying. I managed to find some un documented service menu controls that allowed me to set the average picture level when the iris opened and closed for far more seamless operation, even though the speed of change was always fast.

For large changes in brightness slow operation is preferable to fast IMHO, but I would like to prevent the iris closing down in anything other then very low average picture level scenes as this would be much less intrusive.

 

At least a lens iris does significant increase native contrast when closed down as it reduces light scatter in the lens elements, but best ANSI contrast is achieved with iris wide open so a single iris setting is not ideal.

A dimming light source on the other hand does nothing but make the image darker, in scene contrast is not improved at all.

 

Maybe one day RGB lasers will be used to create the image directly without the use of imaging chips and lenses. The lasers would scan the screen much like a CRT scans its phosphor covered screen with an electron beam. This would potentially allow very high resolution with zero lens losses, VERY high light output and infinite contrast for perfect blacks as the lasers could be turned off for the pixels that need to be black.

 

I'm not holding my breath for such technology as it may never eventuate. Massive super thin flexalbe direct view TV screens, possible OLED, that could be rolled up for transport and then stretched over a frame like a projector screen are more likely, at a cost.

 

 

Lastly, I note the issue of degrading contrast with Sony projectors has been conveniently ignored. Its a real problem and needs to be factored into any buying decision.

 

Edited July 18, 2018 by Owen

[TP1]

On 18/07/2018 at 1:50 PM, Owen said:

Lastly, I note the issue of degrading contrast with Sony projectors has been conveniently ignored. Its a real problem and needs to be factored into any buying decision.

 

There is so much completely wrong as well as misinformed opinion in your post that there is really no point  wasting time responding in detail.   It is just more of the same claims  following from your previous posts on how other modern developments such as  4K and HDR in projectors are a con and cannot really produce sharper images than 2k.    

[TP1]

On 18/07/2018 at 5:15 AM, oztheatre said:

  Fair call Tasso, but again my 760 was professionally calibrated and my JVC is still 'out of the box' settings and I still found the JVC to be better overall, especially with contrast which is the holy grail of home theatre. The resolution, well the JVC's still deal with each frame of a 4K disc. It's funny you know, I was showing someone the other day the 2K and 4K versions of oblivion (tom cruise) and we both agreed the 2K version was superior as the 4K transfer was full of noise. Neither of us could tell any difference in resolution either. There are no doubt other examples where the 4K version is better but I don't have many shows where I have both versions.

 

It seems different people have different views on what is “better “ for video as they do  for audio.   I do understand the issue of contrast and that not everybody is interested in or bothered as much by other factors such as picture resolution , motion jerkiness, colour accuracy etc, particularly if black levels is the main thing you are judging by. 

 

As far as the 4K disc of Oblivion  goes,  not all 4K discs are up to scratch - just as not all blurays were better than DVD when the format was first released.  But try some newer movies that were produced with 4K in mind like Black Panther  and Murder on the Orient Express.  Once you see those on a big screen there is no going back to 2K,  and once you see the movies on a big screen from a  projector with  full 4K resolution, I suggest there will be no going back to E-Shift for some people.  Remember also streaming services do a lot of 4K too as does ITunes,  so genuine 4K content will become more plentiful as time goes by 

[Owen]

On 21/07/2018 at 10:52 AM, Tasso said:

There is so much completely wrong as well as misinformed opinion in your post that there is really no point  wasting time responding in detail.

How can my personal experience with Sony projector contrast degradation be "misinformed" ?

Are you seriously suggesting that the personal experience and measurements of the most respected members and professional calibrators who post on AVS forum are also "misinformed"?

If you want to live in denial of the problem so be it but don't take people reading here down with you.

 

On 21/07/2018 at 10:52 AM, Tasso said:

It is just more of the same claims  following from your previous posts on how other modern developments such as  4K and HDR in projectors are a con and cannot really produce sharper images than 2k.    

I never said that, show me where I did. What I have said and will repeat here is that image sharpness has stuff all to do with pixels. A 6K image can look very soft and a 1.5K image very sharp.

Sharpness is totally dependant on MTF, which is not dependant on pixels. Its the MTF of the original video source and the sharpening used at the display end, which manipulates MTF, that dominates what we see.

Sony projectors cheat by enhancing MTF by default with no way to turn it off. If one wants to get the best results external PC based sharpening is the way to go and works best with all projector sharpening disabled.

Yes 4K video has some advantages for a small percentage of movie content, but they are minimal when compared to a well sorted out 2K replay system. Given that maybe 5% of new movie releases are available in and mastered in 4K its not a big deal. Even when movies are shot in 4K plus, and mastered in "4K", actual resolution is never even close to 4K and never will be. I'll take 2K video projected with good contrast over 16K video projected with second rate contrast without a moments hesitation because contrast is MUCH more important to me..

At the moment "resolution", be it useful or not,  comes at the expense of contrast, which is a VERY poor trade off IMHO.

 

The people who think HDR is a god send for projectors have no idea of how gamma works or how to adjust it for best results. Projectors are SDR display devices plain and simple and all HDR video MUST be converted down to an SDR like gamma for display on a projector.

[TP1]

16 hours ago, Owen said:

How can my personal experience with Sony projector contrast degradation be "misinformed" ?

Are you seriously suggesting that the personal experience and measurements of the most respected members and professional calibrators who post on AVS forum are also "misinformed"?

If you want to live in denial of the problem so be it but don't take people reading here down with you.

I'm not saying it didn't happen to you but  by all indications and advice from the experts, this is not a problem with current Sony PJ's .   While the chips are still called "SXRD" the actual design and construction of them has changed quite a bit over the years.

 

16 hours ago, Owen said:

Yes 4K video has some advantages for a small percentage of movie content, but they are minimal when compared to a well sorted out 2K replay system. Given that maybe 5% of new movie releases are available in and mastered in 4K its not a big deal. Even when movies are shot in 4K plus, and mastered in "4K", actual resolution is never even close to 4K and never will be. I'll take 2K video projected with good contrast over 16K video projected with second rate contrast without a moments hesitation because contrast is MUCH more important to me..

At the moment "resolution", be it useful or not,  comes at the expense of contrast, which is a VERY poor trade off IMHO

 

I get it that you are happy with what you have.   And if  we were comparing JVC E-shift to Sony 285ES, I would say that you had a valid point of view,  as the 285ES owner would for their preferences. However the 760ES is vastly different to the  285ES and not just because of its laser engine.  It has  the latest video processing "engine" from Sony that was derived from the $80k  VW5000ES.    Panning shots and  motion  are ultra smooth and stable without any of the problems such as soap opera effect that can affect lesser machines. This immediately sets this PJ apart from the pack. The contrast levels are are so much better, that IMO and the opinion of other owners, it is a non -issue.    It is only a very small percentage of scenes that I think differences with JVC would be noticeable.  I should say that I really dislike dynamic IRIS  due to it creating more problems than it solves but I think static iris is a useful feature.  

 

However, coming from a top notch DLP projector, I was a bit dismayed with the contrast of both JVC and Sony. They have much better contrast in an absolute sense  but delineation in dark scenes is poor compared to DLP,  which has much higher ANSI  contrast.  However,  HDR done right does improve things more,  provided the recording is good.  At this stage, as in the early days of Bluray, there is a lot of rubbish coming through in 4k - like early Jason Bourne movies.  But there is some outstanding material too available now, which will become the norm as time goes on, like it did with Bluray.

 

 

[betty boop]

sorry tasso but you lost me a long ways back on a heck of a lot of fronts, but that you were not using dynamic iris on the jvc  ???.... and now talking about contrast differences ... sorry that just takes the cake  

[TP1]

On 27/07/2018 at 5:30 AM, al said:

sorry tasso but you lost me a long ways back on a heck of a lot of fronts, but that you were not using dynamic iris on the jvc  ???.... and now talking about contrast differences ... sorry that just takes the cake  

 

  My point about dynamic iris is that I found it  annoying  at times  and I didnt think JVC needed it  to produce  decent high contrast pictures.    The fact that the that JVC E-shift does have the best contrast of any projector  ( even better than the  JVC Z1)  does not mean that  it is better than the JVC Z1  and every other projector on the market .  

Edited August 2, 2018 by Tasso

[TP1]

 

To illustrate my point better than I have apparently  done, I have quoted a  passage from a review of the 760ES/885ES  on the subject.

 

"Well, folks – it works. This VW885ES still won’t match the top of the line 1080p pixel shifting JVC, and I assume also not match JVC’s $35K laser projector either, but it’s black level performance is first class. It’s not just black level performance I can live with, but performance in general that I am very happy with. Excellent!

I assume JVC’s more expensive projector will have the advantage in a straight black level comparison, but the Sony should be close enough for almost everyone who cares, that other factors will dominate a decision.

Bottom Line: The Sony VPL-VW885ES has the best black level performance I’ve seen yet, other than JVC, (or an old style CRT projector). Well done!"

 

Extract taken from : https://www.projectorreviews.com/sony/sony-vpl-vw885es-4k-laser-projector-review-picture-quality-2/