4K Projector Wolf TXF-1100 vs. JVC RS2000

[GillesMuys]

I am building a custom home with a dedicated theater room. The room is 17' 8" x 15' 8". I have full light control. The projector will be located just outside the room on a shelf. My throw distance is therefore about 17' 8". I am targeting a 16:9 screen with 160" to 169" diagonal (the screen will be either a Stewart Film or Screen Innovations with 1.3 gain). I have narrowed down my choice of projector between the Wolf Cinema TXF-1100 or the JVC RS2000.

Given the JVC is native 4k and has integrated tone mapping, that would be my preference. However, I am worried that the 1900 lumens of the JVC might not be sufficient for my room.

On the other hand, the Wolf is using laser light with 3000 lumens (great benefit obviously) but is not native 4k. I was told that despite not being native 4k, the Wolf would provide a much better image for it higher lumens on one side, but most importantly because of the better quality of its video/image processing.

If anyone has had the possibility to compare these 2 projectors, I would appreciate some advice to make my final choice.

I have a couple other questions:
1) Is there really benefit investing in a video scaler/processor such as Lumagen Radiance Pro for the JVC RS2000, or Wolf's own ProScaler MK7 for their TXF-1100 projector?
2) Can the video scaler replace an anamorphic lens for viewing cinemascope movies without losing pixels?

Thanks for any input you can provide.

 

[alebonau]

the wolf is a DLP so be aware if you are susceptible with rainbows also these DLPs are pretty average with contrast. so in both cases a demo to see what getting would be a must. and especially vs a jvc which do contrast so well. also id check what projector is actually inside with the wolf badge as one of them is just an optoma uhz65 which is an affordable projector paying a lot of money for a badge !

re lumagen both will benefit. the jvc obviously does come with its dynamic tone mapping so less of a jump as it is set forget and does a fantastic job with the projector many including me are not getting lumagen given it would cost more than projector in itself.

anamorphic lens will get you a bit more light. that a scaler cant get you

in my opinion 160-169" 16:9 screen is just too big for likes off a domestic projector to do HDR justice. you can get something like wolf but it has own compromises (which would want to be comfortable with).

do you have to go such a large screen ? screens size is only one factor... screens can look same size depending on viewing distance ? can you sit a bit closer and get away with a smaller screen ? most folk tend to get pretty good results with say 130" scope screen and commercial projectors and decent sized rooms

 

[Luminated67]

For the money of the Wolf if wanting to go DLP and Laser you could/should also look at the BenQ LK970 and add a Lumagen to it, that PJ is meant to have some of the optics on the market... the only negative will be lack of blacks compared to the JVC but it’s superior brightness will allow for the bigger screen.

 

[kenshingintoki]

I think the JVC might struggle at that screen size.

 

[GillesMuys]

Thanks all for the feedback. It's really appreciated!

I just learned that I have an opportunity to get a JVC RS3000 at an acceptable price. At 2,200 lumens compared to the RS2000 1,900 lumens, do you think the RS3000 will still struggle?

If yes, what if I reduce the screen size to 150" diagonal instead of 160"?

 

[Luminated67]

The combination of reducing the screen size and the increased lumens will all go a long way. Plus it’s superior native contrast even over the superb N7 will all help benefit its HDR too.

What screen brands and type are you considering?

A good place to ask about running these projectors with big screens would be AVSForums, big screens in home theatres seem to go hand in hand in the USofA so chances are loads of members over there will have already done what you are considering.

 

[alebonau]

Thanks all for the feedback. It's really appreciated!

I just learned that I have an opportunity to get a JVC RS3000 at an acceptable price. At 2,200 lumens compared to the RS2000 1,900 lumens, do you think the RS3000 will still struggle?

If yes, what if I reduce the screen size to 150" diagonal instead of 160"?

hi giles, if look on avs likes of zombie even with older x9000 (1900 lumens) are running high gain screens eg gain 2.8

also folks go scope lens eg DCR which are made now for jvc... this also gains you luminance as using the entire panel not wasting light on black bars

 

[GillesMuys]

I agree about the anamorphic lens. It would bring additional brightness but only for wide screen viewing which is only about 5% of my viewing habits. On 16:9 content (90% of my viewing habits), the anamorphic lens would not be used. So I really need to be comfortable for 16:9 viewing overall.

I checked with the Projector Central calculator with gain of 1.3 and it seems that the RS3000 would be well within range of acceptable brightness for both SDR and HDR content with a 160" screen: I would be at 29 FL with 160". The improvement with a 150" screen seems minimal, at 32 FL.

I also taped both screen sizes on the wall of my current media room, and the 160" size will give me a better immersive experience IMHO, even though the difference is not that big compared to 150".

 

[alebonau]

checked with the Projector Central calculator with gain of 1.3 and it seems that the RS3000 would be well within range of acceptable brightness for both SDR and HDR content with a 160" screen: I would be at 29 FL with 160". The improvement with a 150" screen seems minimal, at 32 FL.

just aware that is iris wide open lamp on high nothing to spare so only down hill from there

29fl or near 30Fl will have HDR covered and take you down to 22fl with ease. I’d suggest calibration and also let dynamic tone mapping home theatre optimiser take care of things from there. You enter in screen size and gain. It looks at throw via zoom and iris and lamp settings plus lamp hours to optimise hdr and hopefully takes care things from there

sdr definitely covered ...