JVC DLA-N7 4K D-ILA Projector – First Look & Comments

Really interesting observations, thanks Steve.

I was all set to get the x7900. But now have an N5 on the way for a demo. What would be the advantages of upping the budget to the N7 over the N5? other than wider colour gamut and more contrast? The stated contrast ratio on the N5 does seem low compared even to the x7900 or am i worrying unnecessarily?

I plan to have the projector for many years to come so want to make the right choice!
I haven't actually seen the N5, but as far as I can tell the only advantages of the N7 are the improved contrast and wider colour gamut. I'd be interested to hear how you think the N5 compares to the X7900.
 
Really interesting observations, thanks Steve.

I was all set to get the x7900. But now have an N5 on the way for a demo. What would be the advantages of upping the budget to the N7 over the N5? other than wider colour gamut and more contrast? The stated contrast ratio on the N5 does seem low compared even to the x7900 or am i worrying unnecessarily?

I plan to have the projector for many years to come so want to make the right choice!

I haven't actually seen the N5, but as far as I can tell the only advantages of the N7 are the improved contrast and wider colour gamut. I'd be interested to hear how you think the N5 compares to the X7900.

I have seen the JVC N5 in action and i can, hand on heart, say that i prefer the performance of my X7900. It's not that the N5 is a bad projector because it isn't. When i viewed 1080p Blu Ray movies upscaled on the N5, although good, i can seem to get very similar and sometimes fantastic results with Blu Ray movies when fed through the Darbee unit at a moderate setting, with the contrast performance on the X7900 looking stunning. When it comes to 4K and resolution, the N5 will always pip the X7900 i suppose but when having viewed 4K content on my X7900, the results are so close to my eyes, that again i'd side with the X7900. For me, there are more important aspects to picture quality than nartive 4K and always have been. I've seen many examples where upscaled Blu Ray has looked miles better than it's 4K version and this has been backed up by everyone else in the room too. The contrast of the X7900 is hard to give up and the only real contender for me would be the N7 but i've yet to see that.
On a side note, I've also seen the Epson 9400 in action and, if i'm totally honest, i preferred the performance of that to the N5 as well. I was actually gobsmacked at how good it was.
 
Last edited:
I have seen the JVC N5 in action and i can, hand on heart, say that i prefer the performance of my X7900. It's not that the N5 is a bad projector because it isn't. When i viewed 1080p Blu Ray movies upscaled on the N5, although good, i can seem to get very similar and sometimes fantastic results with Blu Ray movies when fed through the Darbee unit at a moderate setting, with the contrast performance on the X7900 looking stunning. When it comes to 4K and resolution, the N5 will always pip the X7900 i suppose but when having viewed 4K content on my X7900, the results are so close to my eyes, that again i'd side with the X7900. For me, there are more important aspects to picture quality than nartive 4K and always have been. I've seen many examples where upscaled Blu Ray has looked miles better than it's 4K version and this has been backed up by everyone else in the room too. The contrast of the X7900 is hard to give up and the only real contender for me would be the N7 but i've yet to see that.
On a side note, I've also seen the Epson 9400 in action and, if i'm totally honest, i preferred the performance of that to the N5 as well. I was actually gobsmacked at how good it was.

Hi mate, that’s interesting your comment on the 9400, I had a 9300 and from the get go I was disappointed in black level, I measured on/off contrast at below 6000:1 on my unit. It was a nice sharp image though.
I keep thinking about native 4K but I maybe disappointed with blacks and contrast on an N5 and I’m not in a financial position for an N7.
I do wish there was a normal ‘sharpness control on the JVC instead of the MPC enhance which has some artefacts, I remember the Darbee on my oppo 103D which to be fair I didn’t use but I did use a click of something else :blush::laugh:.
 
Hi mate, that’s interesting your comment on the 9400, I had a 9300 and from the get go I was disappointed in black level, I measured on/off contrast at below 6000:1 on my unit. It was a nice sharp image though.
I keep thinking about native 4K but I maybe disappointed with blacks and contrast on an N5 and I’m not in a financial position for an N7.
I do wish there was a normal ‘sharpness control on the JVC instead of the MPC enhance which has some artefacts, I remember the Darbee on my oppo 103D which to be fair I didn’t use but I did use a click of something else :blush::laugh:.

Hi Martin
I certainly wouldn’t replace my X7900 with a JVC N5, put it that way. I think now having owned the previous X900 and the current X7900 I feel like I’m spoilt with the contrast performance. I honestly wouldn’t obsess about native 4K mate. Like I said in my previous post, I’ve seen plenty of upscaled 1080p Blu Ray movies that have trounced the 4K version. One such film is Tomorrowland. When I play a full quality 1080p rip of that film from my HTPC fed through the Darbee at around 40%, the image is truly stunning mate. I prefer the Darbee and the amount of control it allows me over movies compared to the MPC controls.
It’s just so easy to alter it to suit individual movies.
I know for some people the Darbee wasn’t for them, but used moderately, I honestly think it does a wonderful job and wouldn’t be without it. Having said all that, I am super curious to demo the N7. Not that I have the money for one but at least I’d get an idea where future generations of native JVC projectors would be heading. Hopefully future generations will shrink in size and price. :D:thumbsup:
 
I have seen the JVC N5 in action and i can, hand on heart, say that i prefer the performance of my X7900. It's not that the N5 is a bad projector because it isn't. When i viewed 1080p Blu Ray movies upscaled on the N5, although good, i can seem to get very similar and sometimes fantastic results with Blu Ray movies when fed through the Darbee unit at a moderate setting, with the contrast performance on the X7900 looking stunning. When it comes to 4K and resolution, the N5 will always pip the X7900 i suppose but when having viewed 4K content on my X7900, the results are so close to my eyes, that again i'd side with the X7900. For me, there are more important aspects to picture quality than nartive 4K and always have been. I've seen many examples where upscaled Blu Ray has looked miles better than it's 4K version and this has been backed up by everyone else in the room too. The contrast of the X7900 is hard to give up and the only real contender for me would be the N7 but i've yet to see that.
On a side note, I've also seen the Epson 9400 in action and, if i'm totally honest, i preferred the performance of that to the N5 as well. I was actually gobsmacked at how good it was.

Your experience sounds very similar to my own, especially with the comparison to the 9400 (mine was with a 9300). Do you know if the JVC was at a short throw when you saw it?

I thought the N5 looked a little 'cleaner' than the eshift models but even so, thought it was a bit expensive for the overall image, especially considering how well the 9300 did in split screen comparison. I think the N7 is probably the best value/performance of the new range - I can't see the benefit of the N9s eshift, and if we're already having trouble seeing the difference between eshift with 4k vs native 4K, then I'm not sure how much of a visible difference the better lens will have from normal seating distances.
 
I have seen the JVC N5 in action and i can, hand on heart, say that i prefer the performance of my X7900. It's not that the N5 is a bad projector because it isn't. When i viewed 1080p Blu Ray movies upscaled on the N5, although good, i can seem to get very similar and sometimes fantastic results with Blu Ray movies when fed through the Darbee unit at a moderate setting, with the contrast performance on the X7900 looking stunning. When it comes to 4K and resolution, the N5 will always pip the X7900 i suppose but when having viewed 4K content on my X7900, the results are so close to my eyes, that again i'd side with the X7900. For me, there are more important aspects to picture quality than nartive 4K and always have been. I've seen many examples where upscaled Blu Ray has looked miles better than it's 4K version and this has been backed up by everyone else in the room too. The contrast of the X7900 is hard to give up and the only real contender for me would be the N7 but i've yet to see that.
On a side note, I've also seen the Epson 9400 in action and, if i'm totally honest, i preferred the performance of that to the N5 as well. I was actually gobsmacked at how good it was.
I agree with your comparison on the JVC N5 vs JVC X7xxx series as I did a similar comparison a few months back. With the N5 you win on image quality when playing 4k/hdr stuff but on all the rest and full hd even the JVC X7000 has clearly and visible better contrast and black levels. Since 95%+ of what I watch is 1080p I will not be replacing my projector this year. It will be nice to see what Sony will launch in 5 months time.

Now I do not agree on the Epson 9400 comment since the JVC N5 is really and visible better. Also the Epson throws a harder image in my view.
 
Your experience sounds very similar to my own, especially with the comparison to the 9400 (mine was with a 9300). Do you know if the JVC was at a short throw when you saw it?

I thought the N5 looked a little 'cleaner' than the eshift models but even so, thought it was a bit expensive for the overall image, especially considering how well the 9300 did in split screen comparison. I think the N7 is probably the best value/performance of the new range - I can't see the benefit of the N9s eshift, and if we're already having trouble seeing the difference between eshift with 4k vs native 4K, then I'm not sure how much of a visible difference the better lens will have from normal seating distances.

I agree with your comparison on the JVC N5 vs JVC X7xxx series as I did a similar comparison a few months back. With the N5 you win on image quality when playing 4k/hdr stuff but on all the rest and full hd even the JVC X7000 has clearly and visible better contrast and black levels. Since 95%+ of what I watch is 1080p I will not be replacing my projector this year. It will be nice to see what Sony will launch in 5 months time.

Now I do not agree on the Epson 9400 comment since the JVC N5 is really and visible better. Also the Epson throws a harder image in my view.

@Peter Parker
I don’t think it was at a particularly long throw but don’t know the exact distance. It was projected up on a 130” screen though.
@scoc
As for your experience with the Epson 9400, I can only vouch for my experience of it and the demo I had. I can certainly say that, on that day, based on the demo I had, if it was me spending my money that day, I would of easily chosen the 9400. In fact, two other customers walked away with an Epson 9400 that day based on that demo. Personal preference and what we all like as regards to image quality will always play a factor I find when it comes down to it.
 
I haven’t been on the forum much lately but are the N5 and N7 readily available yet? There are hardly any owners on here and launch was originally supposed to be October!
 
I haven’t been on the forum much lately but are the N5 and N7 readily available yet? There are hardly any owners on here and launch was originally supposed to be October!

No they are not readily available unfortunately. I think there was a small shipment into the UK a month or so ago then nothing. No word from JVC either as to when there will be more. Hopes and expectations from one of the UK distributors are high for orders to be fulfiled by the end of March. It is a similar picture outside the UK.

I think there must be many who are on the fence who will choose to wait for next years model.

Martin
 
A few n5 coming in this week I think so I expect the activity will pick up.
 
@Peter Parker
I don’t think it was at a particularly long throw but don’t know the exact distance. It was projected up on a 130” screen though.

The reason I ask, is that the N5 has measurably more contrast than the Epson (max 40k:1 native/400k:1 dynamic vs 8k:1 native/40K:1 dynamic), but in my experience that doesn't always mean a better black level - with both entry level eshift JVCs and the N5, when they're at their shortest throw, that does seem to limit the black level and the contrast range appears to be more at the brighter end, if that makes sense. I've not been able to get to the bottom of why this is, but I suspect that because when the JVC is at it's shortest throw, the F-stop of the lens means it has around 25% less contrast and 25% more lumens, so that will reduce the max contrast potential and raise the black level compared to if it was at its longest throw. If it's also brighter than the other pj, then that will also make a difference. I just felt like it needed an ND filter when I saw them, but I'd have to look further into it. I doubt I'll get the opportunity though.

I see a lot of people on avs being concerned about the throw of the new N5 and N7 because they are already at the closest throw and the new 4K panel gives a slightly less wide 16:9 image, so if they can't move the pj back, they won't be able to fill the screen, so in those cases they will have a similar set up to the one above with a similar outcome.

Just to add, I think that there may also an element of how much better a black level needs to be before it is visibly noticeable - on avs I often see that contrast has to be double (and I assume with the same white level), so if that's the case, the black floor of the JVC may actually be lower, but not by enough in these instances to appear to be any blacker. As we generally are only judging based on what we see then that may make a difference on what we buy.

The way the DI works, I was wondering after if having the manual iris fully open would make a difference to the black level compared to having it fully closed - I think the JVCs attain max contrast with the manual iris fully open and the DI having more range to work with. I need to ask @jfinnie about that I think as he's been looking more into how it works on his 790 recently.

@scoc
As for your experience with the Epson 9400, I can only vouch for my experience of it and the demo I had. I can certainly say that, on that day, based on the demo I had, if it was me spending my money that day, I would of easily chosen the 9400. In fact, two other customers walked away with an Epson 9400 that day based on that demo. Personal preference and what we all like as regards to image quality will always play a factor I find when it comes down to it.

Similar thing happened at the demo I was at, but the guy with the N5 on preorder went to see an LS10000 right after, and then cancelled his preorder, and now has the LS10000 with a Vertex and UB820.

The mid level eshift pj does have a visibly better black floor than the entry level, and does go darker compared to the 9300 and LS under the above conditions, so I would think the N7 (and N9) should as well.

I think this goes to show that things aren't always as simple and as straightforward as we expect and can throw a spanner in the works :)
 
Last edited:
I'd also be interested to understand what the maximum contrast might be possible in a cinema room. If I shine a torch around in the pitch black, away from the screen the screen glows and lights up very well, as we know light will and does bounce back to kill the contrast. If there was a chessboard being projected with B&W squares on the screen, then the room might have a contrast limit, my torch can do say 450 lumens I bet if I measured the screen when nothing is on and the torch is pointed into the room away from the screen the lumens coming off the screen would be notably raised.

seems on-off contrast is still the main talking point but we all know that ANSI and reals scenes are as important, possibly more important.
 
I'd also be interested to understand what the maximum contrast might be possible in a cinema room. If I shine a torch around in the pitch black, away from the screen the screen glows and lights up very well, as we know light will and does bounce back to kill the contrast. If there was a chessboard being projected with B&W squares on the screen, then the room might have a contrast limit, my torch can do say 450 lumens I bet if I measured the screen when nothing is on and the torch is pointed into the room away from the screen the lumens coming off the screen would be notably raised.

That's a good point - Dolby once referred to that as 'limiting contrast' which is really ANSI contrast I guess, though I think the absolute ANSI limit is probably more restricted to the what the pj can do in a perfect room, and the room may just reduce that by say 10%, so a 200:1 ANSI pj may measure 180:1 from the screen (using the ANSI chequerboard pattern), whereas an 800:1 ANSI pj may measure 720:1. I'm only guessing though.

Black velvet rooms mean the room 'system' ANSI will be about as close as you can get to the projectors ANSI, so that would be the way to go if you wanted to preserve that. I haven't seen any limitations as such with respect to what a good room can do, but maybe around 90% of what the pj can do? I'll have to see what results projection dream got in their test which I linked to below. I think 50:1 ANSI is not uncommon for a bad room though.

With respect to the above and the demo conditions I've compared projectors in, if it was a bad room the effect would be the same for all projectors - the 790 for example though was visibly darker under those conditions so the room wasn't limiting the black floor there. The room is fully light controlled and mostly dark non reflective surfaces, so it wasn't a room ANSI contrast limitation.

seems on-off contrast is still the main talking point but we all know that ANSI and reals scenes are as important, possibly more important.

I think on/off is more important than ANSI with respect to the projectors own performance, but a bad room will negate a lot of the intra image contrast difference. It's only when you get a very low ANSI capable pj like a CRT you'll see the intra image black level visibly changing colour and luminance with changes to the brighter parts of the image - like a bright blue sky raising the black floor and giving it a blue tint. We don't tend to get that even with the JVCs which are more like a CRT with low ANSI but high on/off - they do have some visible internal reflections with white on black type content (mostly test patterns, occasionally end credits), but that's rarely ever visible with normal movie content. With most movie images being low APL, I doubt there are many scenes where a high ANSI capable pj will be able to make a really big visible difference compared to a low ANSI pj. DLP vs JVC would be a good example I think where the on/off difference is clearly visible, but the ANSI isn't. I think Kris Deering over on avs did a lot of comparative testing with high APL scenes and didn't find one where the high ANSI pj made a visible difference.

You'll still see the difference between a high on/off and a low on/off projector in a bad room though, all else being equal. Projectiondream did a comparison of the 9300, 7300 and LS10000 and you could see the black level differences in their bad room, though the differences weren't as big as they were in the room with black velvet:

Epson EH-TW9300, EH-TW7300, EH-LS10000: The Battle! - ProjectionDream.com

Sorry for the long post. :)
 
The reason I ask, is that the N5 has measurably more contrast than the Epson (max 40k:1 native/400k:1 dynamic vs 8k:1 native/40K:1 dynamic), but in my experience that doesn't always mean a better black level - with both entry level eshift JVCs and the N5, when they're at their shortest throw, that does seem to limit the black level and the contrast range appears to be more at the brighter end, if that makes sense. I've not been able to get to the bottom of why this is, but I suspect that because when the JVC is at it's shortest throw, the F-stop of the lens means it has around 25% less contrast and 25% more lumens, so that will reduce the max contrast potential and raise the black level compared to if it was at its longest throw. If it's also brighter than the other pj, then that will also make a difference. I just felt like it needed an ND filter when I saw them, but I'd have to look further into it. I doubt I'll get the opportunity though.

I see a lot of people on avs being concerned about the throw of the new N5 and N7 because they are already at the closest throw and the new 4K panel gives a slightly less wide 16:9 image, so if they can't move the pj back, they won't be able to fill the screen, so in those cases they will have a similar set up to the one above with a similar outcome.

Just to add, I think that there may also an element of how much better a black level needs to be before it is visibly noticeable - on avs I often see that contrast has to be double (and I assume with the same white level), so if that's the case, the black floor of the JVC may actually be lower, but not by enough in these instances to appear to be any blacker. As we generally are only judging based on what we see then that may make a difference on what we buy.

The way the DI works, I was wondering after if having the manual iris fully open would make a difference to the black level compared to having it fully closed - I think the JVCs attain max contrast with the manual iris fully open and the DI having more range to work with. I need to ask @jfinnie about that I think as he's been looking more into how it works on his 790 recently.



Similar thing happened at the demo I was at, but the guy with the N5 on preorder went to see an LS10000 right after, and then cancelled his preorder, and now has the LS10000 with a Vertex and UB820.

The mid level eshift pj does have a visibly better black floor than the entry level, and does go darker compared to the 9300 and LS under the above conditions, so I would think the N7 (and N9) should as well.

I think this goes to show that things aren't always as simple and as straightforward as we expect and can throw a spanner in the works :)

@Peter Parker
I’m not sure on the Epson 9400’s native contrast and I know the published figures aren’t always achievable but I think you may have the dynamic contrast figures for the Epson wrong mate....? The specs say dynamic contrast for the 9400 at 1,200,000 :1. I don’t know what the actual measured figures on screen were but at that demo between the N5 and the 9400, to my eyes anyway, the Epson was visibly better.
 
@Peter Parker
I’m not sure on the Epson 9400’s native contrast and I know the published figures aren’t always achievable but I think you may have the dynamic contrast figures for the Epson wrong mate....? The specs say dynamic contrast for the 9400 at 1,200,000 :1. I don’t know what the actual measured figures on screen were but at that demo between the N5 and the 9400, to my eyes anyway, the Epson was visibly better.

Measured native is around 8,000:1, and the measured dynamic is around 40,000:1 - the DI has a 5x multiplier. I'm not sure, but I think to get anything like the advertised contrast, you have to use a full black test pattern for a long time so the iris can shut down more than it normally would with normal content, so it's a mode that you won't see with normal video and why the Epson DI won't give you as much measured dynamic CR as the JVC will.

But like you, I also saw similar black levels in the demos I've been to, and just by going on actual measured contrast figures, the JVC should be the clear winner, but as you saw for yourself, that wasn't the case.

That's why I think there are other factors involved like those I mentioned. I'll see if I can find some actual and reliable test results for contrast a bit later.
 
Measured native is around 8,000:1, and the measured dynamic is around 40,000:1 - the DI has a 5x multiplier. I'm not sure, but I think to get anything like the advertised contrast, you have to use a full black test pattern for a long time so the iris can shut down more than it normally would with normal content, so it's a mode that you won't see with normal video and why the Epson DI won't give you as much measured dynamic CR as the JVC will.

But like you, I also saw similar black levels in the demos I've been to, and just by going on actual measured contrast figures, the JVC should be the clear winner, but as you saw for yourself, that wasn't the case.

That's why I think there are other factors involved like those I mentioned. I'll see if I can find some actual and reliable test results for contrast a bit later.

Also, when it comes to publicized figures or even respected reviews, I always prefer to demo prospective purchases in person first to make up my own mind. I remember when I went to demo my first JVC projector as a potential buy against a native 4K Sony at the time ( can’t remember the model number). The JVC at the time was the X500. My choice that day was easily the X500 which later led to the X900 and the current X7900. I remember clearly noticing that the picture thrown up by the JVC was at times a little noisier but the contrast and black level performance just blew me away. I’ve sort of been addicted to JVC projectors ever since, because of that contrast/black level performance and found it easy to forgive the slightly noisier image from time to time.
 
Also, when it comes to publicized figures or even respected reviews, I always prefer to demo prospective purchases in person first to make up my own mind. I remember when I went to demo my first JVC projector as a potential buy against a native 4K Sony at the time ( can’t remember the model number). The JVC at the time was the X500. My choice that day was easily the X500 which later led to the X900 and the current X7900. I remember clearly noticing that the picture thrown up by the JVC was at times a little noisier but the contrast and black level performance just blew me away. I’ve sort of been addicted to JVC projectors ever since, because of that contrast/black level performance and found it easy to forgive the slightly noisier image from time to time.

Me too - I'd never buy sight unseen because as you say, specs don't tell the whole story, and you never know what kind of overall image you're going to get until you see them.

What you say sounds similar to my own experience, with the image noise being something that I often noticed vs other projectors, and that kind of helped make up my mind which direction I was going to go in the end.
 
Shame Projectiondream seem to have stopped reviewing !

Looking at the ADL's and the fact that 0-10% is very important and the fact that perhaps 1% ADL is more interesting than full on off, makes me think that viewing and seeing is tremendously important at this level of PJ. Being reminded that you are watching a digital image with the odd artefact can be distracting.

I really like the real world lounge vs Batcave information on Projectiondream as well. That is very meaningful as I know how much difference this makes in real life
 
The way the DI works, I was wondering after if having the manual iris fully open would make a difference to the black level compared to having it fully closed - I think the JVCs attain max contrast with the manual iris fully open and the DI having more range to work with. I need to ask @jfinnie about that I think as he's been looking more into how it works on his 790 recently.
I did map fully the DI vs static iris behaviour on my X7900 as a result of a conversation over behaviour on N7 and my previous understanding of how the DLA-X worked, which wasn't completely applicable to the X7900.

At some point JVC has changed the DI behaviour. It used to be that with the DI enabled, regardless of the iris static setting for the DI you'd get the same black iris position (notionally referred to as MAX or -16 or -17 depending on who you talk to, but it is basically more closed than -15). So regardless of setting you'd get the same black level, the big difference was the peak white. Hence more contrast.

JVC have changed this behaviour. Now (at least on X7900) for static iris settings from 0 to -9 the iris appears to close down for black to the -15 position. If your iris setting is less than -9 then black moves on a sliding scale towards the MAX setting.

This is an interesting change because as far as I can tell this probably means it is impossible to measure the specified DI contrast ratio, whereas I think in the past with good meters and measurement technique you could have probably got very close if my unit is anything to go by. At the end of the day though it has been changed to reduce pumping, so it is probably a good thing - however the specs should match some kind of reality.

From what I understand from measurements by others the N5 / N7 / NX9 carry on this trend and have further reduced the maximum DI multiplier that can be measured. This probably accounts for a reported reduction in pumping.

Screenshot 2019-03-09 at 14.06.42.png
 
At some point JVC has changed the DI behaviour. It used to be that with the DI enabled, regardless of the iris static setting for the DI you'd get the same black iris position (notionally referred to as MAX or -16 or -17 depending on who you talk to, but it is basically more closed than -15). So regardless of setting you'd get the same black level, the big difference was the peak white. Hence more contrast.

Right - that's what I thought was happening, but until recently I had thought that the manual iris decided the native contrast, and then the DI gave that a ten times multiplier for max dynamic contrast, so max dynamic contrast would be with the manual iris at -15, but that understanding was kinda backwards. Thanks for clarifying that.

JVC have changed this behaviour. Now (at least on X7900) for static iris settings from 0 to -9 the iris appears to close down for black to the -15 position. If your iris setting is less than -9 then black moves on a sliding scale towards the MAX setting.

So if the manual iris is set to less than -9, the DI black may only close down to say -12?

This is an interesting change because as far as I can tell this probably means it is impossible to measure the specified DI contrast ratio, whereas I think in the past with good meters and measurement technique you could have probably got very close if my unit is anything to go by. At the end of the day though it has been changed to reduce pumping, so it is probably a good thing - however the specs should match some kind of reality.

Couldn't you measure the dynamic contrast for every manual iris position or am I oversimplifying?

I think it was Diddern/DJGeek that was only getting around 200,000:1 dynamic CR on the N7 (or was it N9?). I assumed it was because he was having trouble getting the meter in the right place to measure it, but maybe it's because they've limited the multiplier to reduce pumping as you suggest. I wonder if that's why the Epson LS only has a five times multiplier. I just assumed it was because they weren't yet as good as Sony or JVC with the algorithms that were probably needed for the larger multiplier.

From what I understand from measurements by others the N5 / N7 / NX9 carry on this trend and have further reduced the maximum DI multiplier that can be measured. This probably accounts for a reported reduction in pumping.

Well, if the extra multiplier and contrast ends up with more artefacts and distractions which result with people turning it off, then it's hardly worth having, so if you're going to sell it you probably want to make it usable. Otherwise people are paying more for something they won't use and it's a bit of a waste all round, except for maybe contrast bragging rights.
 
Right - that's what I thought was happening, but until recently I had thought that the manual iris decided the native contrast, and then the DI gave that a ten times multiplier for max dynamic contrast, so max dynamic contrast would be with the manual iris at -15, but that understanding was kinda backwards. Thanks for clarifying that.
Correct (I think, the words often confuse me, so I just look at the numbers in the table). On the X7900 the lowest black level is only available in DI on, -14 or -15. You can see in the table that at that settings the black level achieved is 0.0027, which is ~twice as dark as -15 manual which can only achieve 0.0051. (I should add, these numbers are relative, not absolute, as they're facing the lens with diffuser on. All taken at exactly same position though in a single session, so good for relative contrast calcs).

The highest contrast is available at DI on, iris set to 0. But this does not have the lowest black level.
So if the manual iris is set to less than -9, the DI black may only close down to say -12?
The joys of imprecision of language... :) . less than -9? so -10 to -15? ;) . I guess you really meant higher than -9 (ie -8 up) (aka more open / less closed).
If we're talking about my X7900, the answer is no. For -9 and "higher" (ie from 0 to -9) they all close down to the -15 position. (compare the black auto 2 to the black manual column in my table).

I've not seen anyone catalogue every iris position at a high measurement resolution yet for an N5 or N7. The only good data I'm aware of (from @Manni01 's very detailed thread on calibration at JVC Autocal Software V11 calibration for 2019 RS1000/RS2000/RS3000/NX5/NX7/NX9 - page 1 - Premium Projectors - AVS Discussions) shows similar behaviour to my X7900 but I don't think it is possible to be sure exactly where the step change behaviours are as it is "only" at 0,-5,-10,-15 settings, and his meter is running out of digits due to positioning.

Taking the results at face value it looks like there could be some difference in iris 0 dynamic to -5 not closing down so far as static -15 (0.07 vs 0.06 black level) (from @Manni01 JVC Autocal Software V11 calibration for 2019 RS1000/RS2000/RS3000/NX5/NX7/NX9 - page 1 - Premium Projectors - AVS Discussions). But that is also within the error bounds of the meter at that distance from the lens.

Couldn't you measure the dynamic contrast for every manual iris position or am I oversimplifying?
That's exactly what I did for my X7900 in that table... :) . I've not seen it done in this detail for an N5/N7/NX9 yet.

I think it was Diddern/DJGeek that was only getting around 200,000:1 dynamic CR on the N7 (or was it N9?). I assumed it was because he was having trouble getting the meter in the right place to measure it, but maybe it's because they've limited the multiplier to reduce pumping as you suggest. I wonder if that's why the Epson LS only has a five times multiplier. I just assumed it was because they weren't yet as good as Sony or JVC with the algorithms that were probably needed for the larger multiplier.

Well, if the extra multiplier and contrast ends up with more artefacts and distractions which result with people turning it off, then it's hardly worth having, so if you're going to sell it you probably want to make it usable. Otherwise people are paying more for something they won't use and it's a bit of a waste all round, except for maybe contrast bragging rights.

Indeed, there is no point having unusable contrast. There has been discussion that you could have another mode with very high contrast available just for full fade to black, but that the dynamic iris would either be completely inactive for anything other than FFTB, or act in a more limited mode than the units do currently. Of course this has issues with response time as the iris can only move quite slowly if you want it to be quiet, so coming out of black would either be slow or noisy.

Please temper the above comments with my experience only being directly of the X7900 unit. There probably are differences in exactly where the algorithms are pegged for N5/N7/NX9.
 
Last edited:
The highest contrast is available at DI on, iris set to 0. But this does not have the lowest black level.

Right - so the contrast is more at the bright end than the dark end of the range if you know what I mean - black level not so good but more fL for white. With the iris closed down, you get a better black level but less contrast, so a dimmer image - less white fL.

The joys of imprecision of language... :) . less than -9? so -10 to -15? ;) . I guess you really meant higher than -9 (ie -8 up) (aka more open / less closed).
If we're talking about my X7900, the answer is no. For -9 and "higher" (ie from 0 to -9) they all close down to the -15 position. (compare the black auto 2 to the black manual column in my table).

Lol, true - to me, less than 9 is 8 or 7 etc, but I can see what you mean :D

I've not seen anyone catalogue every iris position at a high measurement resolution yet for an N5 or N7. The only good data I'm aware of (from @Manni01 's very detailed thread on calibration at JVC Autocal Software V11 calibration for 2019 RS1000/RS2000/RS3000/NX5/NX7/NX9 - page 1 - Premium Projectors - AVS Discussions) shows similar behaviour to my X7900 but I don't think it is possible to be sure exactly where the step change behaviours are as it is "only" at 0,-5,-10,-15 settings, and his meter is running out of digits due to positioning.

Taking the results at face value it looks like there could be some difference in iris 0 dynamic to -5 not closing down so far as static -15 (0.07 vs 0.06 black level) (from @Manni01 JVC Autocal Software V11 calibration for 2019 RS1000/RS2000/RS3000/NX5/NX7/NX9 - page 1 - Premium Projectors - AVS Discussions). But that is also within the error bounds of the meter at that distance from the lens.

Do you know why he went over to discussion rather than posting that on avs? Was it to try and get more traffic to discussion because it's pretty dead there - I stopped going because it was getting worse than avs.

That's exactly what I did for my X7900 in that table... :) . I've not seen it done in this detail for an N5/N7/NX9 yet.

Indeed, there is no point having unusable contrast. There has been discussion that you could have another mode with very high contrast available just for full fade to black, but that the dynamic iris would either be completely inactive for anything other than FFTB, or act in a more limited mode than the units do currently. Of course this has issues with response time as the iris can only move quite slowly if you want it to be quiet, so coming out of black would either be slow or noisy.

Please temper the above comments with my experience only being directly of the X7900 unit. There probably are differences in exactly where the algorithms are pegged for N5/N7/NX9.

Thanks for the clarifications etc. :)
 
Right - so the contrast is more at the bright end than the dark end of the range if you know what I mean - black level not so good but more fL for white. With the iris closed down, you get a better black level but less contrast, so a dimmer image - less white fL.
That's it.
Lol, true - to me, less than 9 is 8 or 7 etc, but I can see what you mean :D
The JVC units have always gone from 0 (fully open) down to -15 (fully closed). Gets me all the time though.
Do you know why he went over to discussion rather than posting that on avs? Was it to try and get more traffic to discussion because it's pretty dead there - I stopped going because it was getting worse than avs.
I've no idea, you'd probably have to ask him. The only reason I like AVS for some things over this site is because stuff there attracts enough eyeballs for really fringe subjects to get some traction which is hard on smaller sites, though given the popularity of the old JVC thread and how quickly threads seem to unwind and snowball over at AVS these days I can see why he might not want to put the new calibration thread there.

If it wasn't for that thread I probably wouldn't have joined discussion as there is basically almost nothing there and seemingly no eyeballs - most of the posts seem to come from folk who work at AVS, or folk on the AVS naughty step...!
 
It looks like the JVC shades it for movies and the Sony for sports & gaming. not quite at the black levels of some previous models & not perfect but v strong in most areas
 

The latest video from AVForums

Is 4K Blu-ray Worth It?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom