2019 - 2020 projector releases ?

[Mr Diamond]

6 hours ago, PerryV said:

Does anyone know whether JVC is planning to continue with the x7900 model or is the N5 the lowest rank now in the JVC range? If the N5 is around $4500 would certainly consider it.

Check the previous posts in this thread regarding this.

It was stated that all remaining stock (about 30 odd units of the x7900 if you count both the black and the white versions) are still available and need to be sold before the new models will be introduced here.

[betty boop]

1 hour ago, Tasso said:

 

Have JVC said that it is the same lens?   All  I saw was that it was a "new lens design" for the NX9.  That is a bit ambiguous I guess but it would be good to know definitively. 

NX9 is a new lens for 9 series, but ive seen confirmed same as the Z1 ie the 18 element  16 group all glass 100mm lens vs the all glass 65mm using 15 groups of 17 lenses that all the other JVC projectors use

[Owen]

On 11/09/2018 at 7:12 AM, Javs said:

A bit narrow minded as to what has actually changed since then.

I was simply pointing out that it will likely take another two generations of JVC just to get back to the level of contrast we had with the X900 in 2014. Since then contrast has hit a brick wall, yet contrast is THE most important aspect of performance IMHO. I find the lack of progress very disappointing, and I'm not alone.

 

[Javs]

7 minutes ago, Owen said:

I was simply pointing out that it will likely take another two generations of JVC just to get back to the level of contrast we had with the X900 in 2014. Since then contrast has hit a brick wall, yet contrast is THE most important aspect of performance IMHO. I find the lack of progress very disappointing, and I'm not alone.

 

I mostly agree, I definitely put contrast higher on the scale than resolution, but the scale has a tipping point, there must be a balance. You cant say contrast is solely the most important, without acknowledging the other aspects and placing weight on their importance in the overall image, otherwise that suggests that 480p would be fine as long as you have infinity contrast. I completely disagree with that, I am sure you do to if I were to frame it as such.

 

For me, I have always said if they manage to get something like 80k:1 and native 4k chips, I would be definitely jumping ship. Pretty much any lower than that and IMO the scales tip much more favourably in the way of the eshift machines. Laser is difficult to quantify because the dimming can work so well that near black can be incredibly convincing which is why when I made that statement it was with laser in mind. We are not quite there yet, but the only way I am going to know for sure which I really prefer is to get an N7 in my room and pit it against my 9500. Which in SDR I know for a fact I am getting 95k:1 contrast, and the DI does a fantastic job to boot. Having said that, when the DI is off, I think it looks like crud, so I am really hoping the DI on these new machines does a fantastic job, its based around the performance of that in which I will decide weather the machine stays or not. I think if I can get near 250k:1 with the use of the DI I will be pretty satisfied.

 

When it was just Sony being native 4K with 15k:1, forget about it. 10x more contrast than that and 75% of the resolution of native 4k as you get with the eshift machine was hands down the winner in terms of image balance overall.

 

Every day when I look at my HTPC desktop I am reminded of the limitations of eshift, so that's one aspect I am ready to move to native 4k for. There are scenes from LUCY for eg which when the UHD version is sharpened to a point, there is content I can see on my UHDTV screen which eshift can not replicate at all, so I am interested to see that aspect of the image once again.

 

Its all about balance.

[Owen]

On 11/09/2018 at 12:14 PM, Tasso said:

Wait till you see them in action,  quoted contrast numbers do not tell the entire story of how the picture will look.

After proper calibration there will be very little visible difference between the current models and the "new" ones in areas other than contrast. So much so that I seriously doubt most people would be able to reliably tell one from the other in a double bind test. Any "difference" that small is not worth spending money on IMHO.

 

For the average consumer who will just connect up a Bluray player and go the auto tone mapping feature will likely be beneficial for HDR content, but its yet to be seen if 1080 Bluray performance is even as good as the current models due to the contrast drop.

For the enthusiast who will use external scaling, sharpening and tone mapping these "new" models don't offer much at all. The extra pixels may make a slight difference to some select 4K titles but a drop in contrast will negatively affect everything we view.

 

[betty boop]

9 minutes ago, Javs said:

I mostly agree, I definitely put contrast higher on the scale than resolution, but the scale has a tipping point, there must be a balance. You cant say contrast is solely the most important, without acknowledging the other aspects and placing weight on their importance in the overall image, otherwise that suggests that 480p would be fine as long as you have infinity contrast. I completely disagree with that, I am sure you do to if I were to frame it as such.

i think its logarithmic so 10k:1 vs 40k:1 or vs 80k:1 I'll likely notice. but 80k:1  vs say 100k am not sure....

11 minutes ago, Javs said:

Its all about balance.

definitely agree on this one. i remember my x35 with its 50k:1 native(I remember wondering if could get any better than it) vs my x7000, couldnt believe how much better x7000 was  even in my non dedicated room

[Owen]

3 hours ago, Javs said:

Its all about balance.

That's true, and for each individual user the balance point will differ.

I place no importance what so ever on native 4K as I know for a fact it will not improve my viewing pleasure, especially when over 90% of my viewing is 1080, but a significant increase in native contrast most definitely would. By the same token a significant drop in native contrast would be a major negative and not an option I would even consider let alone pay money for.

 

The 15,000:1 (approx) contrast of even the top end Sony's puts them completely out of contention for my use, and the potential for contrast to degrade over time, as has happened to all Sonys' up to the current models is completely intolerable.

 

Edited September 13, 2018 by Owen

[Owen]

27 minutes ago, Javs said:

Every day when I look at my HTPC desktop I am reminded of the limitations of eshift, so that's one aspect I am ready to move to native 4k for. There are scenes from LUCY for eg which when the UHD version is sharpened to a point, there is content I can see on my UHDTV screen which eshift can not replicate at all, so I am interested to see that aspect of the image once again.

I'v been running dedicated PC's connected to my TV's and projector's for 18 years now, right back to the days of CRT projectors. Less then best desktop performance has never been an issue because the display's and PC's where and still are strictly used for displaying video not general PC tasks.

As for pixel peeping at test patterns or still frames of movies I gave that up a decade ago as being pointless. The movie picture either looks good or it doesn't, and when it doesn't its 100% due to the video source never the display.

If the original video source is first rate, not common, and the display gamma is optimized I cant fault the picture, other than imperfect contrast and blacks.

[TP1]

30 minutes ago, Owen said:

For the enthusiast who will use external scaling, sharpening and tone mapping these "new" models don't offer much at all. The extra pixels may make a slight difference to some select 4K titles but a drop in contrast will negatively affect everything we view.

If the video was mastered in 4K you will notice a big difference with 4K panels.  The only people who deny it are the ones who haven't seen it in action.   The 4k panels will also be perfect for external scaling of 1080p material.   You really need to see how good the images can be.    JVC have also improved lens quality to take advantage of the extra resolution potential. 

[Owen]

55 minutes ago, Tasso said:

If the video was mastered in 4K you will notice a big difference with 4K panels.

Its not a "big difference" to my eyes mate, even when viewing top quality content 1:1 pixel mapped on an LCD monitor at the same relative viewing distance I view a projector screen.

Movies are NEVER 4K resolution and never will be in 4K video, its impossible. Mastering in 4K doesn't mean squat either if the original footage was not shot in way that made high resolution possible. If it was shot on film its going to be less than 2K actual visible resolution and most film titles are a LOT less. Only the very best digitally shot titles can achieve 3K for luma with high enough MTF to be useful, and chroma is limited to half that, or about 1.5K.

 

55 minutes ago, Tasso said:

JVC have also improved lens quality to take advantage of the extra resolution potential. 

Unless you buy the NX9 you get the same lens as used in the E-Shift models, and probably one not as good as a hand picked lenses used in older X9xx and X9xxx models. All JVC say they have done is address a quality control problem that manifested its self in the last couple of generations where sub standard lenses where finding there way into top models, a very poor state of affairs I must say and it should never have occurred.

There was never anything wrong with a well built X series lens.

 

As for the NX9, the expensive new lens offers more light throughput (larger maximum aperture) but its yet to be seen if it has any other noticeable advantages. Often lenses with a larger aperture suffer from reduced sharpness and good sharpening can make up for less than best lenses.

If you look at a RAW unprocessed digital image direct from a high end SLR digital camera sensor its very soft, but after processing it looks wonderfully sharp because good appropriately applied sharpening makes a huge difference. If the RAW conversion software knows the shortcomings of the camera lens it can compensate for it as well.

Edited September 13, 2018 by Owen

[wooferocau]

1 hour ago, Owen said:

 

 

As for the NX9, the expensive new lens offers more light throughput (larger maximum aperture) but its yet to be seen if it has any other noticeable advantages. 

@Owen    I just dont know how you can even begin to qualify  that statement!!

 

The lens used in the NX9 is " apparently" the same lens used in the Z1. If you do a direct comparison  ( which i have done on more occasions than i care to admit ) to the X9500 and X9900 E-Shift projectors, the difference the sharpness and clarity of the image is NOT subtle!  It is "chalk and cheese" when comparing the images.... The results from the Z1 and its lens are vastly superior .

 I have not heard of ANY negativity in relation to the lens used in the Z1, on the contrary nothing but high praise from everybody that has had any experience with the Z1 lens.

 

It has advantages, it just that YOU have not  seen them because you have no actual experience with it.

 

 

[Owen]

Since there are no production NX9's to evaluate there is not evidence one way or the other mate, and as I said sharpening can level the playing field to a large extent.

Lets wait and see.

[TP1]

2 hours ago, Owen said:

even when viewing top quality content 1:1 pixel mapped on an LCD monitor at the same relative viewing distance I view a projector screen.

In other words  you haven't  seen a  native 4k projector displaying  4k material.   You are therefore in  no position to comment.

 

2 hours ago, Owen said:

Mastering in 4K doesn't mean squat

Oh dear, you do have a lot to learn about this.   

 

2 hours ago, Owen said:

As for the NX9, the expensive new lens offers more light throughput (larger maximum aperture) but its yet to be seen if it has any other noticeable advantages.

JVC ( and every other manufacturer)  know a lot more about good lens design for 4K projectors than you do .   If I were you I would park the negativity, and wait until you have had a proper demo. In the meantime there are people who have the actual experience with native 4k  projectors  basing opinions on actual experiences. 

[TP1]

8 hours ago, al said:

ts the sony that have had the plastic elements

'Element' - not plural.   It was a move to reduce the cost of a more expensive lens design for use in mainstream projectors. I would add that part of my original decision to buy JVC included  its all glass lens.    But there was nothing about it's performance that would suggest that its lens was as good as Sony's.  I think JVC would know that hence the lens upgrade across the board. 

[Owen]

11 minutes ago, Tasso said:

In other words  you haven't  seen a  native 4k projector displaying  4k material.   You are therefore in  no position to comment.

I have seen Sony native 4k projectors displaying 4K mastered content and it didn't look noticeably "different" to me when viewed as it was in isolation.

Comparing video resolution on a single LCD flat panel is more revealing of differances because almost all variables are removed. The flat panel display also has 100% MTF (lossless) right out to 4K, no projector does at any price.

Having done many controlled comparisons over the years I am in a much better position too comment than most.

 

24 minutes ago, Tasso said:

Oh dear, you do have a lot to learn about this.   

Really? The resolution has to be there in the original source at sufficient MTF to be useful and with 35mm film its not. We can scan film at 8K and we still wont get much useful information above 2K, if that.

For the majority of older films resolution is very low and no where near 2K. We don't even need any measurements to prove that, its bloody obvious when viewing. The original Blade Runner remastered in 4K is a good example, it looks more like a bloody DVD than a Bluray. 4K, what a joke.

 

38 minutes ago, Tasso said:

In the meantime there are people who have the actual experience with native 4k  projectors  basing opinions on actual experiences. 

And quite a few of those people, including very experienced members of AVS forum with deep pockets sold their top line 4K Sony's at a serious loss after extensive side by side testing in their own systems against top line JVC E-Shift projectors. They didn't find the resolution difference significant but the contrast difference was.

Its hoped that these new JVC's will provide enough contrast to make a native 4K projector worthwhile. I'm not at all convinced of that yet.

[mazman1503559902]

All i hear here is, unless you have a projector like Owens, its **** and not worth it lol.

Someone here said it, if contrast was be all and end all, we would still be using , lets say 720P.. why go to trouble making higher resolution!

[betty boop]

54 minutes ago, Tasso said:

But there was nothing about it's performance that would suggest that its lens was as good as Sony's.  I think JVC would know that hence the lens upgrade across the board. 

huh ?  the JVC lens hasnt changes across the board. the n5 and n7 still use the same 

 

6 hours ago, al said:

all glass 65mm using 15 groups of 17 lenses that all the other JVC projectors use

as they always have.

 

its the NX9 that has gone up to the 100mm 

 

6 hours ago, al said:

NX9 is a new lens for 9 series, but ive seen confirmed same as the Z1 ie the 18 element  16 group all glass 100mm lens

capish ? 

[Owen]

2 minutes ago, mazman1503559902 said:

why go to trouble making higher resolution!

Its all about balance., not one aspect of performance alone.

Beyond a certain point the resolution of the display becomes irrelevant. Most of what we view is source limited not display limited.

Contrast affects everything we view.

[Javs]

2 hours ago, Owen said:

Since there are no production NX9's to evaluate there is not evidence one way or the other mate, and as I said sharpening can level the playing field to a large extent.

Lets wait and see.

I now of at least 5 people that have been to Cedia and IFA and they have it from JVC themselves the lens is the same design as the Z1 lens, but with potentially a couple updates to it since it looks slightly different from the front, you can think of it as a revision, they have also been able to put up test patterns on the NX9 and see just how razor sharp it is. 4 of these people are also Z1 owners and all agree that the lens in the NX9 is indeed the same quality and performance, that is, completely and utterly razor sharp from edge to edge of the screen.

 

This lens is not a joke. Dont pretend sharpening can fix optical issues in lens design. Sony is making the mastiake of trying to do that this round with its edge optimiser thingy bob.

 

You cannot polish a turd.

[TP1]

2 hours ago, Javs said:

Sony is making the mastiake of trying to do that this round with its edge optimiser thingy bob.

Don't fall for the mis-information on AVS.  Sony is  doing what the world's leading digital camera makers have been doing with their top lenses for years - that is developing software tailored to each lens to enhance the image further.  Having  experienced what Canon have done in this regard  for their Pro series of lenses, I doubt anyone will be able to pick differences.   Tweakable options like this are a big hit in Japan and Asia.   And  it will delight those who will  spend many hours with magnifying glasses examining test patterns and resolution charts comparing  sections from  the extremities of the screen.   Remember,  its the the ARC-F Sony lens which has the long established  reputation  for excellence.  Nothing  has changed. 

[TP1]

3 hours ago, al said:

the JVC lens hasnt changes across the board. the n5 and n7 still use the same 

 

Oh,  I thought I saw an announcement by JVC claiming  that they had improved the lens  while retaining the same design. I took that to mean they did what Sony did and revamp manufacturing processes, supply chain etc to get the best out of the design on a consistent bases.    It would be cool if they did.

[betty boop]

5 minutes ago, Tasso said:

 

Oh,  I thought I saw an announcement by JVC claiming  that they had improved the lens  while retaining the same design. I took that to mean they did what Sony did and revamp manufacturing processes, supply chain etc to get the best out of the design on a consistent bases.    It would be cool if they did.

All i have seen mention of what they have done is beef up it’s support. There has been some drift/droop. Read 0 nothing to suggest optically anything has been done.

[betty boop]

[moderator post] 2019 projector releases are what we are posting here about. Continual Off topic posts removed[end moderator post]

[Javs]

All i have seen mention of what they have done is beef up it’s support. There has been some drift/droop. Read 0 nothing to suggest optically anything has been done.

QC has been improved, tolerances in the manufacturing process tightened. And I've also heard that its being made at a different factory now. The same factory in which the Z1 lens is made. The previous lenses were made elsewhere.

Different factory means different glass. I can't share the factory name Al, but let's say you have absolutely heard of the manufacturer!

[betty boop]

19 minutes ago, Javs said:

QC has been improved, tolerances in the manufacturing process tightened. And I've also heard that its being made at a different factory now. The same factory in which the Z1 lens is made. The previous lenses were made elsewhere.

Different factory means different glass. I can't share the factory name Al, but let's say you have absolutely heard of the manufacturer!

how very interesting. like the sounds of this