Home Entertainment & Technology Resource

  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

The JVC, Sony and Epson Winter showdown

Discussion in 'Projectors' started by jagdeepp, Dec 2, 2012.

  1. jagdeepp

    jagdeepp Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2006
    Messages:
    2,414
    Trophy Points:
    116
    Ratings:
    +547
    Ok, so i came online complaining about the fact that I couldn't get to see PJ's fired up in a proper environment. A few weeks later, courtesy of RickyJ one of the kindest, unbiased and most accomodating chaps I've met on the forums I had an opportunity that would have most salivating... To see them all fired up side by side, neck to neck.

    In attendance were Mooro, Ricky J and in a brief cameo the legend that is Kelvin1965. Together we got to fondle the JVC's eshift and indulge in AV foreplay with the Sony's Reality Creation. Also seen in action was the Epson 9000. Add to the mix an anamorphic lens and there was enough to offer any geek a memorable bit of AV heaven.

    It started at just before 10:45 am.. A knock on the door..Joining me were the following:

    [​IMG]

    In a bag hidden away was the Epson 9000 and also gracing us with its presence was a high power 2.4 screen which we didn't play with as the PJ fired up bright enough!

    So, how did the JVC compare to the Sony or Epson? Which wins the vote? I'll let Mooro kick off. I'm sure Kelvin will express an opinion on E-shift 2 as well.

    I've taken a few pics which i'll upload later this evening. We finished at around 6pm. All this hardwork has left me knackered. :DBack after a cuppa..
    • Thanks Thanks x 10
  2. jagdeepp

    jagdeepp Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2006
    Messages:
    2,414
    Trophy Points:
    116
    Ratings:
    +547
    In a rush I'd not checked what i'd typed. Could a mod pretty please amend the title of the thread to take out 'showdown' after the word epson? Many thanks.
  3. kbfern

    kbfern Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2002
    Messages:
    14,051
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +3,031
    Really looking to the findings of the 3 off you, I am sure we will get a fair appraisal although I am fairly sure what the findings SHOULD be, but I may be wrong.:D
  4. mooro1973

    mooro1973 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    715
    Trophy Points:
    46
    Ratings:
    +125
    First of all two thanks. One to RickyJ for the most in depth and accommodating demo I have ever had. Ricky thought nothing of swapping between projectors/sources/darblets etc. Absolutely fantastic service, and he will have my custom from now on.

    Second to Jag for allowing me to come over for the demo and being a good host. It was bad enough going to Jags before with his fantastic room making mine look tiny, but this is now even more true. His 2.4:1, 4m screen is stunning, and now lends his cinema true theatre scale. From the front row especially, the sense of cinema is the best I have seen in the home setting.

    On to the projectors. Jag had knocked up a stage behind his seating area for the projectors to sit. This enabled Ricky to run all three projectors concurrently, and by placing a card in front of the lenses, to swap from one machine to another instantly which allowed for easy comparisons.
    [​IMG]
    At this stage we "rejected" the Epson, which though a great projector had visible screen door because of Jag's screen size. This left the Sony HW50 and the JVC X55 to shootout!

    The shoot out:

    1) Filmic look: Winner JVC. The J.V.C. is famous for its filmic qualities and did not disappoint here. The Sony at first looked quite processed, but after turning down the video processing a notch, it came into its own. Not quite as cinemaesque as the JVC, but extremely close.

    2) Colours: Winner JVC. This was so close as to be a matter of debate, but I thought the JVC edged it. The palate just seemed a little fuller and little stronger, but the difference was tiny.

    3) Motion: Winner Sony. The JVC unfortunately still suffers from the inherent D-ILA motion weakness. It is improved over previous models, but still there. Especially noticeable in pans, and worse still in 3d. Not terrible however. The Sony was smoother in pans, and had less motion artefacts. I am extremely sensitive to these, but was not bothered by them on the Sony.

    4) Reality Creation/E-shift: No clear winner. At first the JVC seemed to have the edge, but dialling down the processing on the Sony, saw it improve massively. A draw in my book.

    4) Brightness: Winner Sony. Much brighter, especially apparent in 3d. As a result the picture appeared less strained.

    5) 3d: Winner Sony. Less crosstalk and brighter. Also the motion was better than the JVC, though worse than when in 2d mode.

    6) Black levels: Draw. There may be a "book" difference, but both projectors gave excellent black level performance which to my mark 1 eyeball could not be differentiated. This is one area where JVC have been clear leaders in the past, but this gap is closing, if not closed.

    7)Ansi-contrast: Winner Sony. This was to me the biggest surprise of the shootout. I thought the JVC with famed contrast ratios and black level performance would win this easily. In actual fact not. There is far more shadow detail visible on the Sony. For example in "The Dark Knight", at 37:12mins, there is an outside panaroma of the cityscape. Just to the left of the tall skyscraper (itself to the left) are two small buildings. At least there are on the Sony. On the JVC there is only one, as the other is completely invisible. We tried to remedy this by altering gamma etc but were unable to do so. The Sony also demonstrated on other shots its superior ability to show detail in the murky depths where the JVC could not.

    Overall winner: The Sony.

    Especially at not far off half the price. The Sony gave a fantastic picture with excellent motion, black levels and ansi contrast. On still frames it does look slightly less filmic than the JVC but in action this is barely discernible. This one inferiority does not detract from its overall superiority however. A brilliant performance at this price point, and despite just having gone from a 750 to an x3, it looks like I will have to upgrade again.

    The Darbee: Excellent I thought. There was a clear improvement in "pop" to almost dlp like levels. I liked that the effect could be turned down also. What was also interesting was that the Darbee added quality to both the reality creation of the Sony, and the e-shift of the JVC. We looked at several scenes, and I preferred the "Darbeed" image on each occasion.

    Once again big thanks to Jag and Ricky. And well done to Sony for in my opinion at least producing a superior product at almost half the price.

    This ain't no phony. Stump up one hundred ponies!
    • Thanks Thanks x 12
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2012
  5. KelvinS1965

    KelvinS1965 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2006
    Messages:
    11,509
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +2,717
    I really did appreciate the 'cameo' as it gave me chance to see the X55 sooner than I might otherwise. :thumbsup: I didn't see the comparison demos so I'll leave it to Jagdeepp and Mooro to give their views between models. I think that the outcome is interesting and shows that three people can have different priorities and expectations, partly also due to their viewing conditions.

    Another big thanks to Ricky for setting this up as he had a very long day today and held back from leaving Jagdeepp's to give me chance to get over as I'd been away for the weekend and thought I'd miss out by being back too late.:thumbsup:

    EDIT: Looks like Mooro and I posted at the same time, so it's good to read the comments. Meant to say that it was good to meet Mooro too and also to say that I don't think I qualify as a 'legend', more a leg-end. :)
    • Thanks Thanks x 3
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2012
  6. mooro1973

    mooro1973 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    715
    Trophy Points:
    46
    Ratings:
    +125
    I disagree Kelvin. Shaking your hand was the highlight of the day. I am never washing it again!
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  7. soupdragon

    soupdragon Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2008
    Messages:
    5,172
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +1,100
    Its a pity you never got to see them all running Kelvin as I would love to have had your views too.

    A big thank you to Mooro, Jagadeep and of course Ricky for providing the toys (I guess sometimes Santa comes early!) and now looking forward to Jagadeep's views as well as Ricky's.

    From a personal point of view, I can reconcile a little with what Mooro has said and I have been equally impressed with Sony's offerings, albeit different models.

    Like Mooro, I had the HD750 and then moved to the X3. After an enjoyable fling with an Optoma HD87 and the BenQ W7000 I bought a used Sony HW10 and just recently, the Sony VW85 (all of this in about 18 months :eek: )

    When I bought the Sony HW10, I was just really having a nosey at the Sony Tech and at £430, it was a cheap way to have a look. I posted somewhere a few months back that I actually preferred the image from this 2008 entry level Sony compared to the 2 JVC's I had which were much more expensive. Just my personal opinion of course and while it isn't exactly a contrast king, it produces a really solid image and the motion really helped in making this a more enjoyable overall viewing experience. My subjective opinion and as always, I'm not knocking the JVC's as beauty is in the eye of the beholder and its also not the most recent tech offerings that are under discussion.

    That said, I enjoyed the Sony so much and when the opportunity came up to buy the Sony VW85 locally, I went ahead and got it to get a look at a more modern and better equipped offering and it was obviously everything the HW10 was and more - improved sharpness with better black levels and shadow detail.

    These interim purchases were always going to be just that, something to help me get a feel for what I might get next and the Sony HW50/JVC X55 are obviously firmly on my radar, along with the possibility of keeping the VW85 and getting a DLP for 3D duties.

    This thread has now resparked my interest in the Sony HW50 as thats quite a glowing report from Mooro. Its just a pity the Sony HW50 doesn't have motorised lens shift which may be a deal breaker for some - I can live with it despite running a CIH setup using zoom but others would find that too much of a pain.

    There has never been a lot of chat about Sony projectors on the forums and therefore we must assume they aren't as popular as the more buoyant owners threads of Epson/Panasonic and of course, the JVC. I'm hoping that will change. Not that I'm a Sony fan boy, no, just a Sony fan. I have absolutely no brand loyalty but having swapped projectors more often than I probably should, I think people should take notice of Sony's adoption of LCOS technology. The improved motion probably helps make the image more solid in my eyes, and now that the HW50 is pulling off improved brightness with great shadow detail - I'm really intrigued and busting to get a look at it.

    The guy that sold me the VW85 has the HW50 so hopefully I'll get a nosey soon. If I do, I'll add my thoughts to this thread. In the meantime, looking forward to see what Jagadeep has got to say.

    Great work guys and thanks for sharing :thumbsup:
    • Thanks Thanks x 4
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2012
  8. Graham

    Graham Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2000
    Messages:
    308
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +45
    I got the Sony HW50 in the last couple of weeks and love it. I'm no expert but the reality creation is great! I upgraded from a Sanyo z3000 and the difference in shadow detail is quite something. It's very quiet too.
  9. mooro1973

    mooro1973 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    715
    Trophy Points:
    46
    Ratings:
    +125

    Yes I forgot to mention that. The Sony was still silent in high lamp mode from only a few feet away!
  10. RTFM

    RTFM Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2003
    Messages:
    1,012
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Ratings:
    +15
    At this stage we "rejected" the Epson, which though a great projector had visible screen door because of Jag's screen size. This left the Sony HW50 and the JVC X55 to shootout!


    Can you elaborate on screen size and viewing distance ?
  11. kbfern

    kbfern Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2002
    Messages:
    14,051
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +3,031
    The first pic showed an X35 box did you not fire that up in a comparison to the HW50 which would have been usefull as they are in the same ballpark price wise.
  12. mooro1973

    mooro1973 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    715
    Trophy Points:
    46
    Ratings:
    +125
    Can you elaborate on screen size and viewing distance ?

    I'll leave the exact measurements to Jag, but the screen is 4m long, and from his front row we could see screen door. It was not visible from his second row.
  13. mooro1973

    mooro1973 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    715
    Trophy Points:
    46
    Ratings:
    +125
    No we didn't. I will await for Jag's review before elaborating on this, as I would not want to put words into his mouth/onto his monitor.

    Also Ricky said that the 55/35 were very comparable other than e-shift and cms.
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2012
  14. KelvinS1965

    KelvinS1965 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2006
    Messages:
    11,509
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +2,717
    Haha, though for hygiene reasons I'd caution against this approach. :D

    Given the screendoor issues of the Epson, then it would come down to the VW50ES or X55, but of course I have quite different requirements to Jagdeepp's. It's a shame I didn't get to see the Sony, but perhaps better for Jagdeepp. ;) The manual lens alone makes it hard for me to consider the Sony, especially as I'm considering going back to zooming. :eek: However, there are other reasons for me sticking with JVC due to my setup and tastes:

    1. The motion on my HD350 doesn't seem to bother me as it does with others and I found the X55 was better anyway.

    2. I don't need the extra brightness like Jagdeepp due to a (slightly ;)) smaller screen and I have gain too. I'd be able to run the X55 at maybe minimum iris (it was on fully open when I arrived) so perhaps this would tilt the absolute black level more in the JVC's favour. It was still very bright on Jag's bigger/lower gain screen on half iris/low lamp which is promising. I'd have to throttle back the Sony's dynamic iris in the service menu to reduce the light output which would lose me overall contrast without reducing the absolute black level.

    3. Pending some comments about the standard colour gamut in another thread, I'd be able to calibrate the colours to rec709 using my Lumagen's 125 point CMS, so either projector would be as close to 'perfect' calibration wise as my meter allows. For me then colours, greyscale and gamma should be near enough equal in my case (though Morro seems to score them similarly anyway).

    4. I didn't see the reality creation so of course can't comment, but I do know that it doesn't do the trick of making the pixels disappear closer to the screen. The relevance for me is that this gives a higher pixel density, which could replace the effect of using my A lens (appearing in Jagdeepp's photo in post 1 :) ). Reverting to zooming, but with Eshift will mean a very discrete installation with a white X55, which gains Browny points with the OH. ;) The Eshift certainly seems to add to the 'filmic' look even sat very close to the screen it doesn't seem like a digital device.

    5. The ANSI contrast is something I would have liked to get that the Sony seems to provide. However, even with my improved living room/devore drop down curtains, I doubt I'll see anything like the kind of blackness that Jagdeepp can enjoy in his lovely dedicated room. So I have to forgo this improvement at the expense of the other choices above due to my room limitations. I will tweak the gamma via my Lumagen (or use the dark level adjust in the X55) but may have to accept it won't be DLP levels or even close. I have a target of hitting 230:1 ANSI contrast in my room as I once hit with all my 'tent' set up, so if I can get back to that level with an easier to setup arrangement, then I think I'll be happy. I've been watching my HD350 in my light coloured living room for quite a long time now, so seeing even the X55 in Jagdeepp's room looked good to me on the ANSI contrast score.
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2012
  15. soupdragon

    soupdragon Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2008
    Messages:
    5,172
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +1,100
    Half iris low lamp could have been changed to closed iris high lamp which would probably have given the jvc more contrast too - easy to think about this in hind sight though and with so many features/options/set up scenarios on these projectors its unreasonable to expect the guys to cover off every option in a few hours.
  16. KelvinS1965

    KelvinS1965 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2006
    Messages:
    11,509
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +2,717
    I meant that I imagine that in my set up the iris could go much more closed. For Jagdeepp's bigger unity gain screen he would need the iris opened up further than me anyway (which is was when I arrived). We closed it down to give me some idea of how much more contrast I would have. I was in a rush when I went over so I forgot my lux meter otherwise I'd have used that to make it a more accurate comparison so that the best black level went along with an equal peak white level if I'd got there when the 3 projectors were fired up.

    I'm sure that the projectors could benefit from more time to eek the best out them, but with 3 to compare it's not really realistic to expect them all to be 100% perfectly calibrated in a strange (to Ricky) environment. The important thing is that it has enabled Jagdeepp to compare them in his room, which in an ideal room I would do too, but my room is in a state of flux anyway. Likewise my Isco lens could have benefited from more set up time, but it gave Jagdeepp chance to see how it worked compared to zooming.
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  17. Rickyj @ Kalibrate

    Rickyj @ Kalibrate Active Member Assured Advertiser

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,955
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +1,014
    Just a quick comment. Need to digest the rest of the thread. The Jvc spent most of the day at -7 or -8 on the iris. It was at 0 when you turned up as we had been trying 3d before just before, and was trying to increase to compete with Sony, and had not changed back. High lamp was a noiser on the JVC,but we did try that. Gladiator was viewed at -7 on the iris at the end;)
    • Thanks Thanks x 2
  18. jagdeepp

    jagdeepp Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2006
    Messages:
    2,414
    Trophy Points:
    116
    Ratings:
    +547
    Ok, here goes...

    The original screen was a Carada 3mtr Brilliant white 1.4 gain screen. Like most things in my life it just didn't feel big enough though i received reassurances from 'er indoors that it was perfectly adequate. To me it wasn't. Pure and simple. The front row is 3 mtrs away from the screen. Thats 3mtr from the eye in a seated position to the actual screen surface. The rear seats are just under 4.25 mtrs from the screen surface. The PJ sits exactly 5.2 mtrs from the centre of the screen.

    The new screen is a Dulux brilliant white flat matt. It's around 1.4 in gain and cost me £27.99 plus a pack of fine sandpaper. It works a treat.

    Here's a shot of the 3 metre screen which was 1:78 (16:9) The actual viewing area was just over 2.9mtrs in width.

    [​IMG]


    Ok, following a re-jig here's my new scope 2.40:1 screen which is exactly 4mtrs in width by 167cm in height.

    [​IMG]

    The screen wall surround has been painted liquorice matt black (Wickes) and is a very decent flat matt. The ceiling is also flat matt. The first 28mtrs are covered in that velvet stuff called Devore.. Anyone heard of it? :devil:

    Ok, thats the setting. Here's another shot of AV porn that had me aroused.

    [​IMG]

    The above is a shot of the PJ's lined up in the theatre.. Oh so sexy wouldn't you agree!

    All PJ's were to be stacked up side by side on a purpose built stand that I'd built just yesterday out of recycled timber that had been used to build the framework around my screen. The stand stood around 8 inches taller than my rear set of sofa's. A 4th PJ was to be housed in my purposed built cinema box which housed my HD350.

    It's been noted that the X35 wasn't put up against the Sony. Thats quite right and well noted. There's a good reason for that. The X35 is essentially an X55 minus the CMS and E-shift. The x35 of course has 100 more lumens.

    Brightness

    It's fair to say that neither the X55, Sony or Epson PJ's struggled to fill out the screen with sufficient pop. Since the X55 was bright enough we didn't bother getting the X35 out. Instead we simply switched off the e-shift to understand how the X35 would perform.

    The JVC was bright even in low lamp mode! Cranked to high and just like earlier JVC models it got noticeably louder. The iris was closed right down and it still offered a very good punchy image. So, its fair to say that even at 4mtrs wide all projectors were plently bright! I was given a scare by the projector central calculator which suggested i aim for a screen with higher gain. On this basis Ricky had brought along a 2.4 High Power Da-Lite screen. We didn't need it.

    Mooro seems to have covered the bulk of the points we'd agreed on so I'll adopt his views wholesale.

    The Epson 9100 wasn't available as Ricky's having it delivered next week. We tried the 9000 briefly. Screendoor/chicken wire was there in full force.. especially on full zoom. It was unbearable. It would not have been so bad on a smaller screen. This PJ was relegated fairly swiftly. It really wasn't in the same league. The 9100 may be a better projector, who knows.

    Reality Creation and E-shift 2 are very different technologies. Both seem to have alot to offer by way of improvement to the image. In very fast motion I found the Sony to produce a few messy artefacts as it struggled to keep up. By toning it down a tad the artefacts were significantly reduced.

    I was pleased to say that we were able to capture the effect produced by E-shift. Look at the following 2 images.


    Image 1: E-shift OFF
    [​IMG]

    Note the grid structure thats visible? Quite apparent isn't it?

    And voila....

    Image 2: E-shift ON

    [​IMG]

    Goodbye grid!

    E-shift seems to tidy up the image. It offers density to the image. It doesn't soften. It's very impressive. It produces a very filmic image. Of the options viewed 'Film' produced the best effect.

    Reality Creation on the other hand brings out detail. It's just as impressive a technology. It doesn't take away the grid as there isn't one visible with the Sony anyway. It sharpens. It can be tweaked and when paused the changes became very apparent indeed.

    The Dark Knight was a great one to watch. As Mooro points out, the Sony brought out a whole new building in Gotham city which didn't even appear to exist on the JVC. Very strange. We checked this out a number of times and all 3 of us agreed that the building just didn't appear on the JVC.

    Black levels
    were brilliant on the...............Sony! Of course they were great on the JVC too, you'd expect them to be with such a high native contrast ratio! Sony however seem to have really improved on what i've seen from them before. I've not seen an LCD projector give such decent blacks. We hadn't even used the dynamic iris. The blacks were brilliant.

    Sony appeared to be the winner for motion. We watched a couple of very fast moving sequences. The Sony pipped it.. just!

    If it were a review of still images produced by the PJ's the JVC would be a winner. On full zoom and taking advantage of E-shift 2 thus eliminating screendoor the JVC is onto a winner when using Lens memory. Taking into account slightly better motion, lesser crosstalk in 3d and a lesser price the Sony seems to be onto an overall winner if you were looking at the under £5k bracket and value for money.

    3d was very impressive on both PJ's. The Sony wins here though simply because it's brighter and punchier. The JVC seems to have improved over earlier models. It's much better. It's not much better than the Sony though. Sony wins for 3d.

    Anamorphic Lens v Zoom
    . The X55 even on full zoom produced an exceptionally sharp image and didn't appear to struggle. The Sony too performed very well. I could fit the Sony into my theatre if i take it back just under a metre. Add in an ISCO lens and I wouldn't need to do that. The pixel density is also improved. The JVC ticks this box simply with the use of E-shift 2. The JVC on full zoom is excellent.

    The Darbee ... Now this is something else. It accentuates image detail remarkably well. It even manages to do so with e-shift/reality creation working full force. We were able to see even more detail. The 15-20% improvement that I saw when switching on either of the brands technologies was improved by another 15-20%. The combination was mindblowing on both the JVC and Sony. Very filmic. No pixel structure. Super sharp images.

    All together we 'played' for just under 7 hours. Ricky is one of the most obliging chaps I've met. Nothing was too much for him. I just wish I'd invited a few more 'guests' over from the Forums for our little event. It was really good to sit down in a room with Ricky, Mooro and Kelvin and talk complete geek.

    [​IMG]

    We also engaged earlier in the day in a bit of blindtesting where Ricky would alternate between the PJ's and ask which we were watching. Mooro was right everytime simply because he's exceptionally sensitive to the slightest of motion. I was wrong most of the time. I was pleasantly surprised when i shouted 'x55' only to turn and see the Sony in action.

    Kudos to Sony and JVC for creating 2 very interesting technologies. Praise also be to the Darbee. I've been quite cynical when reading/hearing about these wonderful little gadgets. Viva la Darbee I say!

    What a great day. Which PJ am I buying? .......Sony HW50E! Why? The 'Sony ain't Pony'.....Higher lumens, brighter 3D and cost. At 4mtrs wide and with the higher lumens i know a bulb could go that little bit further. Sony bulbs are also cheaper. If it were a 2D battle I'd say the E-shift 2 was quite something on full zoom..... Hmmm.. Decisions decisions!

    Please note, the above reflects my subjective opinion. I'm no expert... not yet anyway. :devil:
    • Thanks Thanks x 13
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2012
  19. SED Rules

    SED Rules Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2012
    Messages:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Ratings:
    +1
    Awesome stuff guys! Thanks for doing this. :)

    Now. Question for you Jag: Who wins in the 2D battle? X55 or HW50? By 2D I mean Blu-ray movies. I could care less for 3D. Thanks!
  20. Cliff

    Cliff Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2001
    Messages:
    2,403
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Ratings:
    +433
    Very interesting comparison guys. Thanks for taking the time to write up your findings.

    Just a question about seating distance. You report that screen door was very visible using the Epson from the front seats implying that the screen size/ seating distance is on the margins. With the other projectors was it comfortable to watch fast moving action in those front seats or were the back seats preferred?
    ..
    Yes, it is interesting how Sony never gets many column inches on the forums. As a previous owner of an HW-10 I found that the projector gave such a nice picture that there was little to comment on. Maybe Sony owners are just satisfied and keep quiet?
  21. Steve Stifler

    Steve Stifler Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2001
    Messages:
    906
    Trophy Points:
    46
    Ratings:
    +210
    Fantastic job guys!

    Just what I've been waiting for, and a lot of other members too. Special mention to RickyJ for rustling up the hardware etc.

    What settings were used on the Darblet, and were they different for each pj? Not sure if that was 10-15%.

    Jag - WOW! what an impressive screen. What material did you use to get that 4 meter width please?

    Keith - I'm guessing you are tempted by the HW50?
    Thanks again
  22. mooro1973

    mooro1973 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    715
    Trophy Points:
    46
    Ratings:
    +125
    Both the JVC and Sony gave very watchable pictures from the front row. We were all impressed by this, especially given Jag's massive screen size.

    As for the Darblet, we tried it on a variety of settings, and liked it on most. I think we did scale back a bit on one movie because of artefacts, but after this the effect was brilliant again. It maybe we liked it so much because we were seeing it on such a big screen.
    • Thanks Thanks x 2
  23. kbfern

    kbfern Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2002
    Messages:
    14,051
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +3,031
    Yes Steve the HW50 does sound very tempting.:)

    Again thanks to Ricky and Jag for getting this shootout together.:thumbsup: and for their views on the different pj's.

    My initial take on the 3 pj's without seeing them was:

    X55: to have the best 2D picture and probably the best blacks (with e-shift enabled).Also the most versatile pj due to powered lens/focus and full cms.

    HW50: to offer the best 3D along with a good sharp image with RC engaged and with it's brighter output more suited to larger screens and 3D output.

    X35 to be bringing up the rear but not too far behind especially if using a Darblet.

    So overall winner would be for me the HW50 as it seems the best bang for buck, just a shame it doesn't have powered lens which for me is not too much of an issue as my pj has easy access to tweak the lens.

    I must get out and see them though as soon as possible not that I will be buying until next year.

    Keith
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  24. mooro1973

    mooro1973 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    715
    Trophy Points:
    46
    Ratings:
    +125
    Yes Kieth. If you have a huge 235:1 screen like Jag, the JVC is hard to ignore, given that on full zoom you can lose the pixel structure with eshift, then have lens memory to swap between aspect ratios. To be fair to the Sony, we could have upped the reality creation on full zoom which I believe we didn't do, so it may be the Sony can be made to look great on full zoom also.

    However for non-gigantic screens, or Sony plus anamorphic lens, I feel the Sony is the better projector. Especially at its price point.

    It is fair to say that both units are excellent. We did have a discussion about how far digital projection has come, especially since my Barco CRT days. Its great to have different units to choose from. But unless you specifically want a fully zoomed image on a massive screen, I struggle to see how the JVC is worth anything like twice as much as the Sony.
  25. jagdeepp

    jagdeepp Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2006
    Messages:
    2,414
    Trophy Points:
    116
    Ratings:
    +547
    Concur with Mooro.

    To be clear, when looking to the under £3k bracket the Sony comes ahead due to its reality creation and better motion. Blacks are as good as the Jvc in my theatre. Correct, there's no lens memory but with a manual lens its not too hard for me to lean over. The Sony is also suited to larger screens. You really do need e-shift to get rid of the grid at full zoom so the x55 helps there but costs the extra £2k. Takes seconds compared to the excess tweaking I do by remote. So, in short, Sony hw50e seems to have been preferable in the under £3k price range.

    My screen isn't made up of any fabric... It's a tub of dulux trade matt brilliant white. It's quite literally that. Brilliant!
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  26. soupdragon

    soupdragon Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2008
    Messages:
    5,172
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +1,100
    Can we have some more info on the JVC 3D? I know Mooro has seen the X3 and not sure who has seen the previous gen models but is there a marked improvement in ghosting in the X55 compared to previous models?

    I put on the Dark Knight last night at that time stamp 37:12, as curiousity got the better of me. I wanted to see the 2 buildings (or 1 building depending on how good my VW85 is!)
    Jagdeepp - Any chance you could post a pic of which buildings you are talking about? To the left of the main tower building, there are numerous buildings so wasn't sure exactly which ones were being referred to. Others like me with the same curiosity can then go away and see how well our own projectors are able to show them :)
  27. soupdragon

    soupdragon Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2008
    Messages:
    5,172
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +1,100
    Its great to hear your thoughts Jagadeepp as I'll be running a large screen too. My room is smaller but like you, I'll be using close to full zoom. My screen is currently 3m wide scope but the plan is to make it around 3.4m wide, 16:9 with 4 way masking for various screen sizes and content. The one thing I can't do though is extent the throw distance so I'll not get the full contrast capabilities out of any of these projectors because of this. In this situation, the native contrast benefit of the JVC will be diluted somewhat which points me further towards getting the Sony.

    Also like you, I agree the motorised lens is a nice to have feature but not a deal breaker - as you say, I'll just reach behind and adjust and I can do this easily in less than a minute - probably 20 seconds or so. In fact, I can probably do it quicker manually than I can with my motorised VW85. I've become quite skilled at doing focus with my eye - just bring up a menu or whatever and sharpen it in. I can also stand by the projector, look throught my camera, zoom in to the screen and focus it perfectly just to ensure I've got it right but I've found I'm pretty good at doing it by eye anyway :thumbsup:
  28. kbfern

    kbfern Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2002
    Messages:
    14,051
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +3,031
    The shootout says the blacks/shadow detail on the Sony are as good as the JVC or even better but the Sony has a DI so how did you find the DI did it make any noises during operation and did it appear to pulse or was this not noticeable.
  29. mooro1973

    mooro1973 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    715
    Trophy Points:
    46
    Ratings:
    +125
    Through the test the d.i. was disabled. Blacks and shadow detail were so good we weren't minded to play around with it.
  30. kbfern

    kbfern Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2002
    Messages:
    14,051
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +3,031
    That's good too know that you did not feel the need to use it although you probably were not getting the max CR.

    I an not a fan if DI as they are usually noisy and tend to pulse in operation which I find distracting.

Share This Page