2019 - 2020 projector releases ?

[flamjam]

On 12/08/2018 at 12:22 PM, wooferocau said:

 

From Nigel  ...ARROW-AV 

 

 

 

New SONY and JVC Projectors | IFA & CEDIA – FURTHER UPDATE

 

Here’s the latest up to date information with respect to new projectors to be launched at IFA and CEDIA:

 

SONY:

• SONY 870ES: New 4K laser projector to sit above the 760ES. RRP £35,000.

 

DUAL Laser with (finally) a proper dynamic iris and significantly higher contrast performance.  

 

JVC:

• New native 4K lamp-based projector range to replace existing eShift lamp-based projector range which is to be discontinued; wherein, the new flagship X9900/RS640 replacement will be eShift 8K.

 

There is a possibility, but yet to be confirmed, an eShift lamp-based projector might be retained at a lower new entry level price point.

 

• HDR10+ support to be added to existing JVC Z1

 

Please kindly note that this is the indicative information so is yet to be definitively confirmed. I will provide the full details live from IFA

 

 

Again From Nigel ..........on the NEW mystery projector ( From JVC Teaser Video) Chassis size..

 

I am thinking it's actually significantly smaller as compared with the JVC RS4500/Z1 and relates to the new chassis and housing with respect to the native 4K lamp-based projector range that will be replacing the existing 4,5,6 / X5, X7, X9 series eShift projectors range; which has been designed to compliment the design of the JVC RS4500/Z1...

JVC:

• New native 4K lamp-based projector range to replace existing eShift lamp-based projector range which is to be discontinued; wherein, the new flagship X9900/RS640 replacement will be eShift 8K.

I'm considering buying a 7900 or 9900 but this almost makes me wonder if I should wait until the new ones are released if they are going to be native 4k. 

[oztheatre]

Let's hope. I think we should wait for the actual specs to be released.. I was told similar but not the 8K thing.. that's the special suprise I gather then.

 

If they don't go native 4K now they're going to miss the boat.. Not that I think they need to, e-shift is incredibly clever and these models from the past 2 years deliver the best pictures in the game (if you factor in they have the highest native contrast of any projectors anywhere)

[flamjam]

2 minutes ago, oztheatre said:

Let's hope. I think we should wait for the actual specs to be released.. I was told similar but not the 8K thing.. that's the special suprise I gather then.

 

If they don't go native 4K now they're going to miss the boat.. Not that I think they need to, e-shift is incredibly clever and these models from the past 2 years deliver the best pictures in the game (if you factor in they have the highest native contrast of any projectors anywhere)

I should have looked into projectors earlier in the year instead of looking so close to release!!! 

I might kick myself if I spend a packet on one now only to have a native 4k available in a couple of months. On the other hand, will the difference between e-shift and native 4k really matter. 

[betty boop]

19 minutes ago, flamjam said:

I should have looked into projectors earlier in the year instead of looking so close to release!!! 

I might kick myself if I spend a packet on one now only to have a native 4k available in a couple of months. On the other hand, will the difference between e-shift and native 4k really matter. 

IFA is just end of this month....

[oztheatre]

11 hours ago, flamjam said:

I should have looked into projectors earlier in the year instead of looking so close to release!!! 

I might kick myself if I spend a packet on one now only to have a native 4k available in a couple of months. On the other hand, will the difference between e-shift and native 4k really matter. 

Some say there's a difference if you find the right UHD disc ie not a fake 4K one, have perfect convergence, a great lens and get everything else in the universe lined up perfectly, then there's about a 2% difference whilst sitting 1 meter away.. Obviously I see stuff all difference myself.. contrast is something VERY noticeable however.

[flamjam]

Some say there's a difference if you find the right UHD disc ie not a fake 4K one, have perfect convergence, a great lens and get everything else in the universe lined up perfectly, then there's about a 2% difference whilst sitting 1 meter away.. Obviously I see stuff all difference myself.. contrast is something VERY noticeable however.

Good call. These current ones tick so many boxes, it might be better to take the deals instead of paying more for a tiny gain

[Owen]

18 hours ago, Tasso said:

The cinemascope movies were smaller still with black bars and the extra resolution from  native 4K panels was  noticeable  ( with 1080p material as well although the difference here isn't massive in overall terms)

So you can get more resolution out then you put in, thats a good trick.

A 4K projector can't get any more resolution out of 1080 video than a 2K projector, in fact a 2K projector has WAY more resolution than any 2K video.

You still can't get your head around the the concept that resolution and sharpness are seperate issues, why is that?

18 hours ago, Tasso said:

There is a world of difference in projected resolution  between the 4K masters vs upscaled 2K  projected through 4k panels.

I don't find "a world of deference" between a properly processed 2K Bluray and the same title on 4K Bluray when viewing on a LCD flat panel 1 to 1 pixel mapped, and the LCD achieves 100% MTF at 4K rather than less than 10% with that Sony projector of yours. Whats vitally important in such a comparison is that the 2K and 4K versions are calibration matched, if you don't do that any comparison is pointless as its apples to oranges.

When brightness, gamma, colour and sharpness are all matched its shocking how small a difference resolution alone makes.

[Owen]

15 hours ago, flamjam said:

I should wait until the new ones are released if they are going to be native 4k. 

Wait and find out if contrast takes a dive in the native 4K model, if it does its not a clear cut decision at all.

[oztheatre]

58 minutes ago, Owen said:

So you can get more resolution out then you put in, thats a good trick.

A 4K projector can't get any more resolution out of 1080 video than a 2K projector, in fact a 2K projector has WAY more resolution than any 2K video.

You still can't get your head around the the concept that resolution and sharpness are seperate issues, why is that?

I don't find "a world of deference" between a properly processed 2K Bluray and the same title on 4K Bluray when viewing on a LCD flat panel 1 to 1 pixel mapped, and the LCD achieves 100% MTF at 4K rather than less than 10% with that Sony projector of yours. Whats vitally important in such a comparison is that the 2K and 4K versions are calibration matched, if you don't do that any comparison is pointless as its apples to oranges.

When brightness, gamma, colour and sharpness are all matched its shocking how small a difference resolution alone makes.

Isn't this 'extra res' simply line doubling? No extra res, just extra pixels with the same information in them as the other pixels.

 

Two movies now come to mind where I MUCH prefered the 2K version - mad max fury road and oblivion. I've even shown others this. No difference in visible resolution detected at seating positions from 3 to 5.5 metres which pretty much covers 90% of viewing distances.. The 2K transfers were much cleaner without the image grain. Both films on the same projector, watching the same scene, so you're familiar with it, back and forth.

 

At the end of the day if 4K hadn't come out at all, nobody would be complaining about the quality of blu rays on giant screens. They did however shove it down our throats and people soaked it up.

 

JVC's pixel gap is like fishing line, you don't even need the E-shift thing turned on.. in fact many don't ever use it... Sometimes when I've demoed this, I've left it off after the demo and didn't even know it was off next time I went to use it. Different story with the lcds as pixel gap is pretty noticeable.

[TP1]

6 hours ago, Owen said:

So you can get more resolution out then you put in, thats a good trick.

A 4K projector can't get any more resolution out of 1080 video than a 2K projector, in fact a 2K projector has WAY more resolution than any 2K video.

You still can't get your head around the the concept that resolution and sharpness are seperate issues, why is that?

Don't be ridiculous.   I dont have time to indulge your craziness - in fact I doubt anyone does.     You really need to stop making stuff up and passing it off as knowledge to support your theory that your obsolete projector cannot be bettered.  

[TP1]

5 hours ago, oztheatre said:

At the end of the day if 4K hadn't come out at all, nobody would be complaining about the quality of blu rays on giant screens. They did however shove it down our throats and people soaked it up.

I would like to place a bet that you will change your mind once you have become familiar with JVC's new native 4k panel projectors.     I agree that there is nothing wrong with 2K blu-ray resolution on a big projection screen and I am  very happy with those results, but  some of the genuine 4K releases  are simply better.

[Javs]

10 hours ago, Tasso said:

Don't be ridiculous.   I dont have time to indulge your craziness - in fact I doubt anyone does.     You really need to stop making stuff up and passing it off as knowledge to support your theory that your obsolete projector cannot be bettered.  

I know right! What a joke.

[Javs]

16 hours ago, oztheatre said:

Isn't this 'extra res' simply line doubling? No extra res, just extra pixels with the same information in them as the other pixels.

 

Two movies now come to mind where I MUCH prefered the 2K version - mad max fury road and oblivion. I've even shown others this. No difference in visible resolution detected at seating positions from 3 to 5.5 metres which pretty much covers 90% of viewing distances.. The 2K transfers were much cleaner without the image grain. Both films on the same projector, watching the same scene, so you're familiar with it, back and forth.

 

At the end of the day if 4K hadn't come out at all, nobody would be complaining about the quality of blu rays on giant screens. They did however shove it down our throats and people soaked it up.

 

JVC's pixel gap is like fishing line, you don't even need the E-shift thing turned on.. in fact many don't ever use it... Sometimes when I've demoed this, I've left it off after the demo and didn't even know it was off next time I went to use it. Different story with the lcds as pixel gap is pretty noticeable.

Oblivion UHD bluray is significantly worse than the bluray version, its a TON softer. Detail is literally missing, so you are not wrong thee on your hunch. See here:

 

http://www.caps-a-holic.com/c.php?a=1&x=431&y=200&d1=11748&d2=11747&s1=115765&s2=115787&l=0&i=7&go=1

 

and here:

 

http://www.caps-a-holic.com/c.php?a=1&x=509&y=203&d1=11748&d2=11747&s1=115764&s2=115785&l=0&i=6&go=1

 

Lucy however is one where there is a good deal of difference between the two versions if you know where to look.

 

http://www.caps-a-holic.com/c.php?a=1&x=535&y=236&d1=11823&d2=11822&s1=116518&s2=116505&l=0&i=6&go=1

 

http://www.caps-a-holic.com/c.php?a=1&x=604&y=328&d1=11823&d2=11822&s1=116519&s2=116506&l=0&i=7&go=1

 

Cant wait for Owen to tell me there is no difference between the the comparisons above....

Edited August 15, 2018 by Javs

[oztheatre]

Yeah there are differences seen in still images, like you said previously, if you switched them out when nobody was looking or looked away it would be hard to tell the difference. The E-shift thing has worked extremely well for JVC but if they don't go native 4K they're going to miss the boat.. so either way it will happen.. I think they call it progress haha

[Javs]

5 minutes ago, oztheatre said:

Yeah there are differences seen in still images, like you said previously, if you switched them out when nobody was looking or looked away it would be hard to tell the difference. The E-shift thing has worked extremely well for JVC but if they don't go native 4K they're going to miss the boat.. so either way it will happen.. I think they call it progress haha

I was referring to the 4K Sony I used to own vs the best eshift can do both with a UHD source. The same could be said about Audio though, if you dont listen to something back to back you are almost never going to be able to articulate differences in quality, so yes, everything must be done in a live A/B comparison to really see.

 

Here, I am referring to 2k source vs a 4k source of the same film viewed natively.

 

Now, MadVR can get these much closer, but the 4K version still wins 100% of the time, so long as the transfer is done well and the actual master exists in 4k. It has MUCH better colour and the detail is simply better no doubt about it.

 

Oblivion is the one where not only does the 2K Bluray look far better than the broken 4K version of the film, if you were to introduce MadVR, then it completely destroys the UHD version.

 

Lucy and Sully can get very, very close with MadVR, but the UHD version again beats it with subtle differences. One can be played on any UHD player, the other requires a hectic graphics card and PC to do.

[TP1]

2 hours ago, oztheatre said:

Yeah there are differences seen in still images, like you said previously, if you switched them out when nobody was looking or looked away it would be hard to tell the difference. The E-shift thing has worked extremely well for JVC but if they don't go native 4K they're going to miss the boat.. so either way it will happen.. I think they call it progress haha

 

I think its important to differentiate between the images that a projector is capable of delivering vs whether someone cares about the differences.   People who don't care are fortunate  IMO and destined to save more money than those that do. But there are many that given the chance, will love what UHD can do through native 4K panels . 

 

 

[Owen]

On 15/08/2018 at 3:33 PM, oztheatre said:

Isn't this 'extra res' simply line doubling? No extra res, just extra pixels with the same information in them as the other pixels.

Line doubling and up scaling are very different. Line doubling simply sends the same video data to 2 pixels in stead of one, which is pretty much useless. Up scaling on the other hand is a resampling and interpolation process that fills in the gaps between the real pixel data with interpolated data which smooths the on screen image for a more pleasing and realistic result. Upscaling on its own will soften the image slightly so corrective sharpening needs to be applied, and when this is done well the results are very impressive and much better then displaying 1080 natively, we can get a significantly cleaner, clearer and sharper image that does not look over cooked or artificial.

Unfortunately the way JVC where handling this task internally left a LOT to be desired IMHO and MUCH better results are attainable using a PC to do the upscaling and sharpening. This is an area where Sony's "reality creation" had the edge over the X series JVC's, and I suspect still does.  Reality Creation is not without issues either and can make a mess of an image if using aggressively, which many people seem to do. It amplifies noise and can make the image unnatural.

The solution, use external processing.

 

No matter what scaling and sharpening system is used we can NEVER get more "resolution" than the video contained originally. However, increasing the MTF of the image with sharpening can improve sharpness and "pop" very significantly by increasing in scene contrast, this makes details stand out and makes them much easer to see so people think "resolution" has been increased even though it has not.

Sharpness (MTF) dominates what we see NOT resolution. I linked some very informative videos on the subject here:

 

 

 

On 15/08/2018 at 3:33 PM, oztheatre said:

At the end of the day if 4K hadn't come out at all, nobody would be complaining about the quality of blu rays on giant screens. They did however shove it down our throats and people soaked it up.

Agreed.

[betty boop]

maybe lets all get back to 2019 projector releases please, 

 

rather than a rehash of same old boring arguments hey ? 

[Michael391]

[betty boop]

@Michael391

 

new 9 series I imagine...or the z2 or whatever mythical beast it is  

[flamjam]

3 hours ago, Michael391 said:

I wonder what they will do with the X series. If they will be native 4k, I wonder how the black levels will be. Perhaps the current models will end up having an overall better picture quality. With the Z1 being so much more money, I can't see how they can make the differentiation between the ranges and the price difference unless its just based on one being lamp and the other laser. Should be an interesting release

 

Edited August 17, 2018 by flamjam
spelling

[TP1]

 

5 hours ago, flamjam said:

I wonder what they will do with the X series. If they will be native 4k, I wonder how the black levels will be. Perhaps the current models will end up having an overall better picture quality. With the Z1 being so much more money, I can't see how they can make the differentiation between the ranges and the price difference unless its just based on one being lamp and the other laser. Should be an interesting release

 

 

The JVC Z1 contrast is not as good as JVC E-shift but I dont think anyone would suggest that the E-shift projector is better than the Z1.  So its  overall image quality that  will swing  buyers I think but provided that the projectors get to be demoed correctly. I haven't seen one projector at any AV dealer I have visited that is set up properly for UHD/HDR.  Things might be different in other parts of the country, but most didnt even have HDR engaged if displaying UHD content, let alone properly calibrated.   The images were washed out and when I spoke to the salespeople about it, there was disbelief or apathy.  I think the better modern PJ's have technology that many dealers ( and reviewers) don't understand so it means that buyers have to look elsewhere to gain knowledge about their prospective purchases. 

[poppybob]

Agreed. Haven’t seen any good displays in dealer premises, only at private homes with tweakers that won’t leave the remote alone long enough to watch the movie [emoji28]

[flamjam]

3 hours ago, Tasso said:

 

 

The JVC Z1 contrast is not as good as JVC E-shift but I dont think anyone would suggest that the E-shift projector is better than the Z1.  So its  overall image quality that  will swing  buyers I think but provided that the projectors get to be demoed correctly. I haven't seen one projector at any AV dealer I have visited that is set up properly for UHD/HDR.  Things might be different in other parts of the country, but most didnt even have HDR engaged if displaying UHD content, let alone properly calibrated.   The images were washed out and when I spoke to the salespeople about it, there was disbelief or apathy.  I think the better modern PJ's have technology that many dealers ( and reviewers) don't understand so it means that buyers have to look elsewhere to gain knowledge about their prospective purchases. 

I wasn't meaning that the X range would be better than the Z1, I was thinking that perhaps the current E-shift range might still have a better PQ to the new X series if they go to native 4k and the contrast levels don't stack up.

[poppybob]

JVC:

• New native 4K lamp-based projector range to replace existing eShift lamp-based projector range which is to be discontinued; wherein, the new flagship X9900/RS640 replacement will be eShift 8K.

I'm considering buying a 7900 or 9900 but this almost makes me wonder if I should wait until the new ones are released if they are going to be native 4k. 

For me contrast is more important than Rez. That’s why they are keeping 9 series as a eshift to keep those beautiful blacks that the Z1 can’t get to.