JVC DLA-N5 (RS1000) Native 4K Projector Review & Comments

[Phil Hinton]

It might be the entry-level native 4K projector from JVC but the DLA-N5 is also one of the best HDR projectors we have seen at the price point. Should you go for the more expensive N7 or does the N5 offer everything you need? Read the full review
Read the review.

Write your own review for JVC DLA-N5

 

[jakimp]

cheers Phil for a great review

I have had my N5 for just over a year and have 900 hours on mine - all have been great and this is easily the best projector I have owned

in the podcast Steve asked if you used low input lag and you said yes - what setting is that? did you both mean low latency mode? if so do you recommend using that all the time as I thought that mode was for gamers?

HDR was good before as out of the box the N range did adjust tone mapping based on the static metadata but that still left a disk like the Meg pretty much unwatchable without constantly fiddling - frame adapt HDR is a great free upgrade by JVC as it really is set it leave it play it and consistently great results. did you use frame by frame mode? did you use auto HDR level?

I did wonder at the time about the N7 but I was already spending twice as much as I had ever spent before on a projector to get the N5 so didn't go the extra £2000 - I am pleased to see that I didn't lose out too badly by "only" going for the N5.

based on my time with an N5 I don't think any one would be disappointed with their purchase of this projector.

 

[northrob]

I thought the max brightness of this projector was about 150-200 nits. How come your figure is so much higher?

 

[Phil Hinton]

cheers Phil for a great review

I have had my N5 for just over a year and have 900 hours on mine - all have been great and this is easily the best projector I have owned

in the podcast Steve asked if you used low input lag and you said yes - what setting is that? did you both mean low latency mode? if so do you recommend using that all the time as I thought that mode was for gamers?

HDR was good before as out of the box the N range did adjust tone mapping based on the static metadata but that still left a disk like the Meg pretty much unwatchable without constantly fiddling - frame adapt HDR is a great free upgrade by JVC as it really is set it leave it play it and consistently great results. did you use frame by frame mode? did you use auto HDR level?

I did wonder at the time about the N7 but I was already spending twice as much as I had ever spent before on a projector to get the N5 so didn't go the extra £2000 - I am pleased to see that I didn't lose out too badly by "only" going for the N5.

based on my time with an N5 I don't think any one would be disappointed with their purchase of this projector.

Yes, it is a great projector and I'm still using it here for my viewing at the moment. The lack of couriers and collections may just work in my favour to hang on to it for a few more weeks
Low latency is for gaming as you suggest, the motion enhance is what I have set to low which takes care of fine image blur without adding any interpolation. Frame adapt is a game-changer in my opinion and set to frame by frame. Auto HDR level is also the best option I feel.
The N7 adds in the WCG filter which while adding more saturation and volume, it also drops the overall image brightness due to the filter in the light path. The N5 doesn't quite get the saturation and volume but is much brighter as a byproduct of that. Deciding between the two really is difficult.

 

[Phil Hinton]

I thought the max brightness of this projector was about 150-200 nits. How come your figure is so much higher?

Did you measure it or are you reading that somewhere online? Our measurements are consistent for our reviews and you really should only compare between those. Comparing to any other source will not be accurate as reviewers/testers use different environments, meters, software, techniques and being bulb based, every projector is different depending on the spectrum produced by each bulb. Use reviews as guides only and comparisons between product test results by the same reviewer and publication only for any accuracy. I hope that helps.

 

[Luminated67]

47000:1 native contrast is an amazing result, great to see JVC does what it claims.

I’ve see a few videos comparing an NX7 with and without filter and frankly it’s hardly to tell the difference in a YouTube video but the guys doing the comparison claim it’s quite noticeable, in your opinion Phil would you agree?

 

[Chris Bellamy]

Nice review and very fair, Phil. This is an excellent projector and I'm really enjoying watching movies with mine (calibrated & running off a Lumagen, courtesy of Gordon). Coming from a 9" crt the pros definitely outweigh the con and this gives a better overall film experience for me on SDR, as well as 4k HDR. Its quiet enough on low lamp mode that I didnt need to fit a hush box for it (unlike the crt!).

 

[Russ 66]

“We also tested with the settings available to the end consumer and a professional calibrator, so did not use the auto cal system which requires the use of a specific low-end meter.”
The Spyder probes are very cheap. It does a reasonable job at grayscale and gamma using the Autocal. This can then be easily tweaked with better software and meters using the JVC’s onboard controls. I would have thought most pro calibrators would do this.
I did this with my X series and you can get reference results, no reason you can’t do the same with the N series.

 

[THX1138UK]

Thanks for the excellent detailed review. I was very interested to see how JVC's current 'entry level' projector would fair.

I have an RS440 (X5900) which was the previous 'entry level' projector which I purchased from Ideal-AV in September 2018. In my opinion, the RS440 has fantastic black levels, and a beautiful image. I've been more than happy with it, and HDR looks good too on my 92" 16:9 screen. Good to see that JVC are maintaining the high quality of the 'entry level' model.

Regards,
James.

 

[Alaric]

Native 4k seems to bring a BIG price hike and a few other trade offs in doing so. I totally get new tech and the latest, but kinda feel this misses out on the greatest here.

I do wonder how many older X series owners will be moving to this or if the older pixel shifters are still the kings of the hill in all but native resolution and maybe HDR?

I feel that we are in the early days of this tech and it certainly needs pushing and I applaud that, but it seems two steps forward and one back in in overall picture quality.

 

[jakimp]

not sure I can agree with you at all - the leaps forward are huge if you watch a lot of HDR as I do both on disk and streaming

by the step back you presumably mean contrast and really at 40,000 to one plus as tested by Phil I am not sure that really is that much of a step back

as a former Epson 9300 user for 2.5 years and 2500 hours I can say without hesitation that the N5 is a major step up but then it should be as it cost me more than 2 times my Epson 9300

 

[Phil Hinton]

“We also tested with the settings available to the end consumer and a professional calibrator, so did not use the auto cal system which requires the use of a specific low-end meter.”
The Spyder probes are very cheap. It does a reasonable job at grayscale and gamma using the Autocal. This can then be easily tweaked with better software and meters using the JVC’s onboard controls. I would have thought most pro calibrators would do this.
I did this with my X series and you can get reference results, no reason you can’t do the same with the N series.

Yes, I'm not arguing with that. What I want JVC to do is adopt the CalMAN AutoCal system that allows the use of all kind of meters and generators to provide the best possible calibration routes for enthusiasts and professionals.

 

[jakimp]

Did you measure it or are you reading that somewhere online? Our measurements are consistent for our reviews and you really should only compare between those. Comparing to any other source will not be accurate as reviewers/testers use different environments, meters, software, techniques and being bulb based, every projector is different depending on the spectrum produced by each bulb. Use reviews as guides only and comparisons between product test results by the same reviewer and publication only for any accuracy. I hope that helps.

Phil did you mention in your review the use of the dynamic iris? any thoughts? I use mine all the time and see very little evidence of it doing anything I can see as detrimental

 

[Phil Hinton]

Phil did you mention in your review the use of the dynamic iris? any thoughts? I use mine all the time and see very little evidence of it doing anything I can see as detrimental

It is noticeable but thankfully quiet in operation. I preferred Auto 2 overall in testing, but then I went back to manual and set it that way. While I didn't see any major negatives, I felt the manual mode worked best for what I want in my system.

 

[jakimp]

I use auto 2 and maybe I have used it for so long I am used to what it does and like the results - agreed it is silent especially compared to my old Epson 9300 where you could not fail to hear it chattering away when engaged

hopefully for your continued enjoyment they will leave it with you for a few more weeks given the current issues with public safety ...every cloud and all that

 

[Abacus]

Why is it that all Native 4K projectors OOTB settings suck, I realise owners will probably get them calibrated but when projectors that cost a fraction of the price have much better OOTB settings, it seems like the Native 4K projector manufactures are just taking the P.

Apart from the above, another excellent review so keep up the good work.

Bill

 

[Luminated67]

Why is it that all Native 4K projectors OOTB settings suck, I realise owners will probably get them calibrated but when projectors that cost a fraction of the price have much better OOTB settings, it seems like the Native 4K projector manufactures are just taking the P.

Apart from the above, another excellent review so keep up the good work.

Bill

Funny I was think the very same thing but didn't want to be the first to mention this.

 

[jakimp]

cant say my view was that the settings sucked out of the box but as expected I have had it calibrated after 100 hours and checked after firmware 3.10 by a well known calibrator

 

[dman_15]

The contrast figure of 47k:1 is based off a peak brightness of 460 nits in HDR, were you able to check the native contrast in SDR? The x5900 hit 20,000:1 in your old review, would be interesting to see how much of a drop in contrast there has been with the new 4k panels

 

[ask4me2]

Why is it that all Native 4K projectors OOTB settings suck, I realise owners will probably get them calibrated but when projectors that cost a fraction of the price have much better OOTB settings, it seems like the Native 4K projector manufactures are just taking the P.

Apart from the above, another excellent review so keep up the good work.

Bill

Funny I was think the very same thing but didn't want to be the first to mention this.

Guess there are many possible answers to that one, here is some of my thoughts on this...

The Native 4K projektors have a higher picture quality potential and therefore need more accurat calibration on sight were it shall be used, and the OOTB is not prioritized.

Projectors that can shut down the light level to almost 0 is more difficult to measure correctly, and need better and more accurate calibration tools. (in reviews and after installation etc.)

4K high end projectors are often more complex build and often uses 3 chips and the way the light is traveling "there and back again" (polarizer/wiregrid, panel, mirror panel polarizer/wiregrid) in these D-ILA, the native contrast is higher and therefor small errors caused by a standard factory setting makes bigger DeltaE errors OOTB.

If a manufacturer shod take the cost and time to brake in the lamp (50+ hours) for a more stable color accuracy and then do a more accurate calibration, that may help the OOTB readings, but these expensive projectors will then cost even more if they do that and in different installations with different screen sizes and material etc. the buyer will need to get the projector calibrated again to be sure it will reproduce the source material correctly again.

Take the Popular EPSON EH-TW9400 with its 5-6000:1 native contrast vs this JVC N5 with almost 10x that contrast.
I think it is quite easy to see why some projectors are measured more "correct" OOTB with a set of standard settings than others....

One thing that was quite important when setting up the X series from JVC was to calibrate after the "gamma drop" had happened. If the new native 4K models get that drop too, a new projectors OOTB accuracy is not something to care much about to begin with...

 

[Luminated67]

^I’m sure the majority spending £6k will get it calibrated anyway, I know I would and did with my machine costing almost £4k less.

 

[Stridsvognen]

Yes, I'm not arguing with that. What I want JVC to do is adopt the CalMAN AutoCal system that allows the use of all kind of meters and generators to provide the best possible calibration routes for enthusiasts and professionals.

You can get average de to around 0,5 if you uses the spyder with the JVC software and manually correct it with a reference meter, important with these no to adjust the low level grayscale using the offset, as soon as they are set for any other purpose than out of black gamma tracking the hole grayscale becomes a mess.
The spyder is not very acurate, but you can create a color profile correcting the primary errors, and put them exactely on target, and the rest basically falls in place without having to touch any other color correction setings in the projector.
Its a bit time consuming, but with a N5 sample with 47000:1 fully open you have a N5 that will beat most NX9 on contrast on a 130" + screen.

Here is a RS2000 after spyder autocal.

Here is the is the results after uploading the created color profile, and corecting the white point, no color correction or offset used in the projector, so its all about understanding and using the JVC software right, and the nice straight response is very visible on content, not even a hint of bandings, or color shifts, + it tracks perfect 1-2-3-4-5% IRE and up, both color and gamma.

This basically apply since the JVC X3, except the first generations you did not get help from the autocal.

 

[jfinnie]

Did you measure it or are you reading that somewhere online? Our measurements are consistent for our reviews and you really should only compare between those. Comparing to any other source will not be accurate as reviewers/testers use different environments, meters, software, techniques and being bulb based, every projector is different depending on the spectrum produced by each bulb. Use reviews as guides only and comparisons between product test results by the same reviewer and publication only for any accuracy. I hope that helps.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who can't understand your nit figures

Can you give details of exactly how you are measuring nits? The way you present the info frankly makes little sense as you don't state the projected image size from corner to corner for the two ends of the zoom range, and nits only make sense in the context of a specific screen size of a specific gain, and would be measured off-screen.

If you go back to first principles and assume you have 1700 lumens (you won't once it is calibrated and you would have to be at maximum zoom for max light output, but anyway) and a screen that real world is giving you 1.0 gain then to get 460 nits your effective screen size for 16:9 must be only somewhat less than 70 inches diagonal? And no-one is projecting that small.

 

[Stridsvognen]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who can't understand your nit figures

Can you give details of exactly how you are measuring nits? The way you present the info frankly makes little sense as you don't state the projected image size from corner to corner for the two ends of the zoom range, and nits only make sense in the context of a specific screen size of a specific gain, and would be measured off-screen.

If you go back to first principles and assume you have 1700 lumens (you won't once it is calibrated and you would have to be at maximum zoom for max light output, but anyway) and a screen that real world is giving you 1.0 gain then to get 460 nits your effective screen size for 16:9 must be only somewhat less than 70 inches diagonal? And no-one is projecting that small.

On a 110" 16:9 neutral gain screen you will max out around 130 nit, the 2 N7 units i have calibrated had both below 1400 lumen calibrated in max zoom.

So the only way to get the nit measurements here is by turning the probe towards the lens, wich also makes sense for acurate contrast measurement, but as you mention it would be very nice with the reviews to add some relationship to a specifik screen size, so if the N5-N7 and NX9 review were done the same way, you could actualy compare results, and as the N5 likely have higher start contrast, but gains less contrast closing the iris, there will be a screen size where the N5 will be prefered over a NX9 in contrast performance, im just not sure JVC will like anyone to document that relation.

 

[jfinnie]

On a 110" 16:9 neutral gain screen you will max out around 130 nit, the 2 N7 units i have calibrated had both below 1400 lumen calibrated in max zoom.

So the only way to get the nit measurements here is by turning the probe towards the lens, wich also makes sense for acurate contrast measurement, but as you mention it would be very nice with the reviews to add some relationship to a specifik screen size, so if the N5-N7 and NX9 review were done the same way, you could actualy compare results, and as the N% likely have higher start contrast, but gains less contrast closing the iris, there will be a screen size where the N5 will be prefered over a NX9 in contrast performance, im just not sure JVC will like anyone to document that relation.

Hopefully Phil can answer as to what the house technique here is as no-one in the real world is getting 460 nits unless they have a crazy gain and / or very small screen size.

You can't "turn the meter round and get a nit measurement facing towards the lens" - it makes no sense as a concept. Nits are actually cd/m2 (candelas per metre square) and while your meter will still report something calibration software will claim is "nits" if you turn the meter round, it's pretty much the projection equivalent of putting your car on a two post lift and reading the speed off the speedometer...!