ftL Difference between Calibrated Sony 55ES & JVC X500R

Sittler27

Standard Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2015
Messages
45
Reaction score
3
Points
34
Age
53
Location
Oakville, Ontario, Canada
Could someone tell me the ftL difference between these two as follows:

Both projectors fully calibrated and on their lowest lamp mode

Sony 55ES 15' throw 115" 16:9 1.0 gain screen iris Off

Vs

JVC X500R 15' throw 130" 2.35:1 1.0 gain screen iris Off

If you don't know the actual ftL I'm just looking to ensure the JVC won't be significantly dimmer and would still meet the min. FtL for movie viewing.

I attached a couple pics of the room which currently has the Sony and 16:9 screen in it, so you can see the room treatments for light reflectance. Not quite a bat cave, but not too bad.
There is no wall behind me (from where I'm taking the picture from) for another 35', so reflecting back isn't bad there.
 

Attachments

  • 1.jpg
    1.jpg
    55.6 KB · Views: 73
  • 2.jpg
    2.jpg
    125.4 KB · Views: 57
I think the closest you will come to an answer (baring a Pro calibrator who just happens to have done the two scenarios you are asking about) is to look on Cine4home for their reviews. They measure light output at min/max/mid throw and with the aperture max/min, high/low lamp and various modes including D65. The best you can then do is extrapolate the figures to see how they compare.

You could also use Projector central screen calculator for both models, but I don't think they are very accurate (ie not based on actual measurements, just manufacturer's claimed specs).

In any case I think you might be pushing the X500 to achieve a decent light output on 130" screen. I run mine on a 112" wide 2.35:1 screen (equivalent to a 128" diagonal 16:9). I run in low lamp, with the aperture at about half way, fully calibrated and achieve 12-13fL. However my screen has 1.3 gain at least (claimed 1.5 but doesn't seem to measure that high in practice.

I found that if I fully open the aperture in low lamp I can get nearly 30% more light output, so just about the same fL as now if I change to an AT screen with a 1.0 gain. However, this doesn't allow for any further dimming of the lamp. While the (same) lamp in X35/55/75 and X500/700/900 is very stable in terms of dimming it will still drop further than I'm currently at on about 280 hours. Therefore I will expect to have to use high lamp if I get a lower gain AT screen next year, so I think you should expect similar.

You may gain a little more light output if you have a shorter throw than me (I'm back at minimum zoom for 16:9 content and around 1.33 for 2.35:1 (128" diagonal), but it might only be the equivalent of one or two clicks on the aperture setting.

PS. No reason why you can't use the Dynamic iris on the X500 even if the manual one is fully open, so you'll still get very good fade to black and dark scene performance.
 
I think the closest you will come to an answer (baring a Pro calibrator who just happens to have done the two scenarios you are asking about) is to look on Cine4home for their reviews. They measure light output at min/max/mid throw and with the aperture max/min, high/low lamp and various modes including D65. The best you can then do is extrapolate the figures to see how they compare.

You could also use Projector central screen calculator for both models, but I don't think they are very accurate (ie not based on actual measurements, just manufacturer's claimed specs).

In any case I think you might be pushing the X500 to achieve a decent light output on 130" screen. I run mine on a 112" wide 2.35:1 screen (equivalent to a 128" diagonal 16:9). I run in low lamp, with the aperture at about half way, fully calibrated and achieve 12-13fL. However my screen has 1.3 gain at least (claimed 1.5 but doesn't seem to measure that high in practice.

I found that if I fully open the aperture in low lamp I can get nearly 30% more light output, so just about the same fL as now if I change to an AT screen with a 1.0 gain. However, this doesn't allow for any further dimming of the lamp. While the (same) lamp in X35/55/75 and X500/700/900 is very stable in terms of dimming it will still drop further than I'm currently at on about 280 hours. Therefore I will expect to have to use high lamp if I get a lower gain AT screen next year, so I think you should expect similar.

You may gain a little more light output if you have a shorter throw than me (I'm back at minimum zoom for 16:9 content and around 1.33 for 2.35:1 (128" diagonal), but it might only be the equivalent of one or two clicks on the aperture setting.

PS. No reason why you can't use the Dynamic iris on the X500 even if the manual one is fully open, so you'll still get very good fade to black and dark scene performance.

Thanks for the great insight and recommendations...best I've received so far on this topic from two forums I've posted on.

Couple clarifications:
-the screen I'm targeting is a 130" diagonal 2.35. So when you say that's pushing it did you mean 130" diagonal or 130" width? If it was width, then I'd say I'm in a safer zone with the X500R right?
-is your screen 128" diagonal 2.35? or 112" diagonal 2.35?
-when you mention "aperture", do you mean setting the iris manually at half way?
-my throw is 15'; what is yours?
-when you mention using dynamic iris even if manual one is fully open, what do you mean? Isn't it the same iris, so it can either be manual OR dynamic but not both, right?
 
Typically 2.35:1 screens are quoted in widths rather than diagonal (mine is 112" wide, I don't know the 2.35:1 diagonal, just that it is the same width as a 128" diagonal 16:9 screen if that makes sense?).

I was assuming that 130" was the 16:9 diagonal, so this means in practice that you are planning an even bigger area than I'd assumed (since when you zoom 2.35:1 to fill the screen, the projector will effectively be producing a bigger [taller] image). I don't know the maths, but you may be talking about an effective 16:9 diagonal of 145". I think an X500 on a 1.0 gain screen at this size would be pushing it, especially in low lamp and more so once the lamp dims a bit with age. I'm sure there is someone who has gone this big with an X500, but I prefer quality over quantity and working within the projector's limitations and to allow for lamp dimming is my preference.

Aperture is the name JVC gives the 'iris' so yes, that's what I mean and I set it to -7 currently (checked with a light meter, so I've opened it from -5 when it was new to hit the same peak white level).

My throw is about 20'.

You set the apeture in manual mode to set the opening, then you can switch the DI back on. This therefore limits the peak white to the value that you want to target. The DI can close the aperture further than the lowest manual setting (I've compared black level at -15 manual and then engaged the DI which is darker). I'm not sure if the manual value also affects the black level when using the DI (too low to measure with my meter anyway).
 
Typically 2.35:1 screens are quoted in widths rather than diagonal (mine is 112" wide, I don't know the 2.35:1 diagonal, just that it is the same width as a 128" diagonal 16:9 screen if that makes sense?).

I was assuming that 130" was the 16:9 diagonal, so this means in practice that you are planning an even bigger area than I'd assumed (since when you zoom 2.35:1 to fill the screen, the projector will effectively be producing a bigger [taller] image). I don't know the maths, but you may be talking about an effective 16:9 diagonal of 145". I think an X500 on a 1.0 gain screen at this size would be pushing it, especially in low lamp and more so once the lamp dims a bit with age. I'm sure there is someone who has gone this big with an X500, but I prefer quality over quantity and working within the projector's limitations and to allow for lamp dimming is my preference.

Aperture is the name JVC gives the 'iris' so yes, that's what I mean and I set it to -7 currently (checked with a light meter, so I've opened it from -5 when it was new to hit the same peak white level).

My throw is about 20'.

You set the apeture in manual mode to set the opening, then you can switch the DI back on. This therefore limits the peak white to the value that you want to target. The DI can close the aperture further than the lowest manual setting (I've compared black level at -15 manual and then engaged the DI which is darker). I'm not sure if the manual value also affects the black level when using the DI (too low to measure with my meter anyway).

Thanks. I think there's some confusion on my intended setup, so here's a try at clarifying it:
-15' throw
-I currently have a 115" diagonal 16:9 1.0 gain screen with a Sony 55ES
-I'd like to go to a 120" wide (130" diagonal) 2.35 screen with a JVC X500R
-this is all in relation to what I know for sure: that the Sony 55ES with 120hrs bulb on 115" 16:9 is too bright and I run manual Iris clamped down at 30% on it

For what it's worth, I compiled the following summary from the projector central calculator. All screen sizes are diagonal measurements as quoted.
It seems to show that all things being equal, than the X500R is actually brighter than the 55ES.
I actually plotted yours on here too, and using your statements earlier that you find it's fine for now but at the edge of dimness and you will need to go to high-lamp mode as the bulb ages, then I'd say I'm better with either the 128" 2.35 or the 120" 2.35 scenario, and that the 130" 2.35 scenario would be very marginal for brightness, wouldn't you agree?
Brightness (Projector Central Calculator): X500R X500R Zoom 55ES 55ES Zoom
115" 16:9 1.0 Gain 27fL 1.55x 18fL 1.18x
130" 2.35 1.0 Gain 22fL 1.87x 14fL 1.41x
128" 2.35 1.4 Gain 31fL 1.84x 20fL 1.38x
120" 2.35 1.0 Gain 24fL 1.72x 16fL 1.29x
122" 2.35 1.3 Gain (KelvinS1965's) 25fL 1.35x

*Sorry: the columns didn't paste well and the edits aren't sticking, so please do your best to interpret.
 
Last edited:
Yes I agree, 130" is marginal for brightness. Go a touch smaller and you can run at a reduced aperture and open it as the lamp ages to retain the peak white output.
 
Yes I agree, 130" is marginal for brightness. Go a touch smaller and you can run at a reduced aperture and open it as the lamp ages to retain the peak white output.

Does increasing the gain of the screen (1.0 to 1.4) reduce the black level of a projector? Wondering if by going with a 1.4 gain Carada Brilliant White screen may mean the black level of the JVC X500R would end up being close to the same of the Sony 55ES on a 1.0 gain screen of the same size.
 
The black level is related to the peak white level (set by the aperture) and the contrast ratio of the projector. Therefore if the 55ES and 500 had the same peak white in two set ups then the 500 would still have a lower black level. If you use the DI then the black level in the 500 then it will be considerably lower than the 55.

A side issue: As you close the aperture on the JVC, the contrast ratio improves due to reduced light scatter within the projector. Therefore if you had a screen with some gain (though not too much, which might cause other issues such as hotspotting, colour shift, narrow viewing angle) then you can close the aperture and retain the same peak white, but get an improved contrast ratio. This would mean that you'd have a lower black level than the same JVC set up to use a 1.0 gain (same size) screen if you matched the peak white levels using the aperture. In extreme cases you might get around 45,000:1 contrast with a high gain/smaller screen and the aperture fully closed down compared to perhaps 30,000:1 with a low gain/larger screen and the aperture fully opened.

You can find more detail about this by reading Cine4home's review of the X500 as they put these measured figures in the review (German website, so you'll need a translator).
 
The black level is related to the peak white level (set by the aperture) and the contrast ratio of the projector. Therefore if the 55ES and 500 had the same peak white in two set ups then the 500 would still have a lower black level. If you use the DI then the black level in the 500 then it will be considerably lower than the 55.

A side issue: As you close the aperture on the JVC, the contrast ratio improves due to reduced light scatter within the projector. Therefore if you had a screen with some gain (though not too much, which might cause other issues such as hotspotting, colour shift, narrow viewing angle) then you can close the aperture and retain the same peak white, but get an improved contrast ratio. This would mean that you'd have a lower black level than the same JVC set up to use a 1.0 gain (same size) screen if you matched the peak white levels using the aperture. In extreme cases you might get around 45,000:1 contrast with a high gain/smaller screen and the aperture fully closed down compared to perhaps 30,000:1 with a low gain/larger screen and the aperture fully opened.

You can find more detail about this by reading Cine4home's review of the X500 as they put these measured figures in the review (German website, so you'll need a translator).

So, would there be any negatives to going with a 2.4 gain 2.35 screen rather than the default 1.0 gain 2.35 screen at 130" with the JVC X500R?

I'm specifically concerned about the black level, but any change details on the overall pq aspects would help me determine if I should go with 2.4 over 1.0.
I do not have an option in my particular projector/screen bundle from my dealer to go with a lower gain screen (between 1.0 & 2.4).

Link to screen info is here:
EluneVision PureBright 4K 240 - 2.4 Gain Material - Welcome to EluneVision.com
 
There are negatives with every screen option; you just have to work out which negative impacts you the most. A high gain screen can tend to suffer from hotspoting, or a change of brightness for different seats (due to narrow viewing cone) or even if you move your head in extreme cases, sometimes texture to the screen too. This is where a demonstration is important because once you get it installed you are stuck with your choice.

I don't know what the particular drawbacks are with the screen you linked to, so I can't comment further, but expect something of the above.

You seem to be focussing on 'black level' but I should mention that dark scenes are just as affected by the room conditions. Not just that you don't have any ambient light (should be a given really), but that light coloured decor will reflect light back to the screen and wash out the dark areas, making black parts look grey.

The only time that the room doesn't affect the 'black level' is when there is nothing on the screen (and some projectors can switch off the picture such as the Epson LS10000 that uses a laser). However, my X500 still goes very dark in my currently lightly decorated room, so the DI does a great job there, just that once there is a bit of light in the image the reflections tend to cause it to wash out. Hence I have plans to improve my room in this regard next year.
 
There are negatives with every screen option; you just have to work out which negative impacts you the most. A high gain screen can tend to suffer from hotspoting, or a change of brightness for different seats (due to narrow viewing cone) or even if you move your head in extreme cases, sometimes texture to the screen too. This is where a demonstration is important because once you get it installed you are stuck with your choice.

I don't know what the particular drawbacks are with the screen you linked to, so I can't comment further, but expect something of the above.

You seem to be focussing on 'black level' but I should mention that dark scenes are just as affected by the room conditions. Not just that you don't have any ambient light (should be a given really), but that light coloured decor will reflect light back to the screen and wash out the dark areas, making black parts look grey.

The only time that the room doesn't affect the 'black level' is when there is nothing on the screen (and some projectors can switch off the picture such as the Epson LS10000 that uses a laser). However, my X500 still goes very dark in my currently lightly decorated room, so the DI does a great job there, just that once there is a bit of light in the image the reflections tend to cause it to wash out. Hence I have plans to improve my room in this regard next year.

I have done what I could due to WAF factor to darken the room. It has dark grey painted ceiling 5' out from the screen wall, dark grey painted screen wall itself, very dark grey carpeting, and black velvet directly below the screen on the TV cabinet and centre channel speaker.
There is also no wall opposite the screen for 50' (very large open concept basement), which helps.
So I wouldn't say it's a bat cave, but it's be best I could do.

I'm thinking now that I should maybe go with the 1.0 gain 130" 2.35 screen. I think at a 15' throw the JVC X500R is going to be ok, even as the bulb ages.

I'm also thinking I'd sell the Sony 55ES (rather than trade it up for the X500R) and buy an X5000 instead, which is a bit brighter and may be all the difference I need in my room for brightness.
It feels silly though as I literally just bought the 55ES, and would likely take some hit on it with 160hrs on the bulb.
 
I think going for the X5000 might be a better option, especially given your larger screen and 1.0 gain. As you say, you will take a hit on the VW55ES, so that's a consideration. I know in the past I've sold a 3 month old projector (it was just the wrong choice for me) and lost 1/3 of the value. If you sell on here, then expect a similar or worse loss as buyers tend to expect a bargain and won't pay any more than the amount the last one sold for (useful to check previous sales for a guide there).
 
One thing to bear in mind is the noise. On the HW55, when going for high lumens you can use high lamp mode with little impact on noise. The JVC's on the otherhand I find very noisy in high lamp mode. I had a very large screen with a JVC but it needed to be run in high lamp mode and in the end, I built a hush box for it as it was so disctracting. Something else to consider :)
 
One thing to bear in mind is the noise. On the HW55, when going for high lumens you can use high lamp mode with little impact on noise. The JVC's on the otherhand I find very noisy in high lamp mode. I had a very large screen with a JVC but it needed to be run in high lamp mode and in the end, I built a hush box for it as it was so disctracting. Something else to consider :)
Is the JVC in low lamp quieter than the 55ES in low lamp?
 
Is the JVC in low lamp quieter than the 55ES in low lamp?
Sony has a slight edge here, but both reasonably quiet. Once you go high lamp, Sony gets a tad louder, Jvc get a LOT louder.
 
I think going for the X5000 might be a better option, especially given your larger screen and 1.0 gain. As you say, you will take a hit on the VW55ES, so that's a consideration. I know in the past I've sold a 3 month old projector (it was just the wrong choice for me) and lost 1/3 of the value. If you sell on here, then expect a similar or worse loss as buyers tend to expect a bargain and won't pay any more than the amount the last one sold for (useful to check previous sales for a guide there).

My challenge on selling the 55ES on here is I'm in Canada.
 
Yes I realised earlier today when I saw your parallel post on AVS that you might not be UK based. I wouldn't even bother trying to run an advert on here in that case, you'd be made stupidly low offers to counter the hassle of shipping and import taxes.

EDIT: Just saw you've already placed the advert...see how it goes, but don't hold your breath.
 
Last edited:
Yes I realised earlier today when I saw your parallel post on AVS that you might not be UK based. I wouldn't even bother trying to run an advert on here in that case, you'd be made stupidly low offers to counter the hassle of shipping and import taxes.

EDIT: Just saw you've already placed the advert...see how it goes, but don't hold your breath.

I've also posted it on some forums here in Canada too.
 

The latest video from AVForums

TV Buying Guide - Which TV Is Best For You?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom