The 8200 was never released in the UK, and I don't think we will see the 8300 in the UK either (as it would have been announced with the 7300, 9300 and 9300W).Theres also a 8300 mentioned in the manual which hasn't been announced yet which I'm guessing will be around £2499 if it gets released.
Ah fair enough didn't know that. I was wondering how they would have shoehorned it into a price point between the other two as lets face it someone who's considering a £3k projector isn't likely to worry about the £400 or £500 ish difference between those two top models.The 8200 was never released in the UK, and I don't think we will see the 8300 in the UK either (as it would have been announced with the 7300, 9300 and 9300W).
There are numerous side by side comparisons that have been done for the JVC against the full 4k Sony's and just about everyone has said there is little difference unless you get up very very close (i.e. inches from the screen). Under normal viewing conditions at normal viewing distances even in a bat cave any difference is so insignificant as to not be relevant.Really? What 4K source and display have you seen that gave you this conclusion?
Good question. I was recently looking at Cine4homes website with the test of the previous model, where they say that the advertised figure can be achieved with test patterns and aggressive use of the auto iris, but not with watchable video content. In real terms they show a native of 8000:1 and dynamic of 50,000:1, and I think that model had a manual iris as well as a dynamic one. That doesn't bode well for the 7300 with just the auto iris and less advertised contrast unless the same can be achieved in video mode. It may also have something to do with the increased brightness at the expense of contrast.Do we think the claimed difference in contrast ratio is marketing or will there be a noticeable difference?