JVC DLA-NZ8 4K Laser Projector Review & Comments

kenshingintoki

Distinguished Member
@Steve Withers Is the above true of any inbound hdmi connection, or is the improvement in signal lock only realised in fellow 2.1 devices?


The N series lock on for HDMI devices is already quite fast IMO. I only had issues with X series. If they've improved it, they've improved something whcih was already fairly fast. :) ur NX9 is gonna be great.
 

Furnace Inferno

Well-known Member
Steve, one thing you said in the review:
"The addition of HDMI 2.1 has an unexpected but welcome benefit when it comes to the projector locking on to a signal. While the N7 frequently left me looking at a black screen for four or five seconds, the NZ8 locks on to a signal almost immediately."
In order to experience this presumably you would also need a suitable HDMI cable? Also would you need an HDMI 2.1 receiver? - I have the (unmodified) Lyngdorf MP-50.
Given that I’m pretty sure Steve has a Trinnov which doesn’t yet have HDMI 2.1 I’m guessing you don’t need HDMI 2.1 for the improved switching but let’s see what Steve says to get confirmation.
 

Rock Danger

Distinguished Member
You don't need it for faster switching. But it may get even faster with everything 2.1
 

groesbeek

Active Member
With the NZ the switching is near instantaneous, significantly quicker than on the NX (N) series, on older HDMI too, not just on HDMI 2.1. I don’t have any HDMI 2.1 in my set up.
 

hati

Active Member
I recently changed from scope to a 2:1 screen as well, and find I prefer the resultant image sizes with non scope formats as I found 16:9 image A bit small before.

I don't want to start pages long aspect ratio debate but is your room width limited ie. you can't get as high scope image as 16:9? It seems to me that in every aspect ratio the height of the picture is where the limit comes which leads to situation where you can have as high 2.35:1 image as 16:9 (or 4:3) image.
 

burtonpark

Well-known Member
I don't want to start pages long aspect ratio debate but is your room width limited ie. you can't get as high scope image as 16:9? It seems to me that in every aspect ratio the height of the picture is where the limit comes which leads to situation where you can have as high 2.35:1 image as 16:9 (or 4:3) image.
My room width is 3.8m, and I could have (just about) fitted a 3.3m wide 16:9 format screen in, however at my seating distance of 11ft a 16:9 picture is too big an image at 3.3 wide, and is too eye boggling to watch, I find viewing a constant image area (same area @ 235 & 16:9) preferable as its big enough in scope and ALSO big enough in 16:9 to be cinematic, whereas I previously found 16:9 small on a 3.3m scope screen, so yes I think the maximum desired image height and its bottom border location relative to eye level and to seating distance is the primary factor determining screen size. PS Of course You can’t just increasing the width of 235 screen to make 16:9 the same height as a 2:1 screen as you run out of PJ throw and/or lumens.
 

kenshingintoki

Distinguished Member
My room width is 3.8m, and I could have (just about) fitted a 3.3m wide 16:9 format screen in, however at my seating distance of 11ft a 16:9 picture is too big an image at 3.3 wide, and is too eye boggling to watch, I find viewing a constant image area (same area @ 235 & 16:9) preferable as its big enough in scope and ALSO big enough in 16:9 to be cinematic, whereas I previously found 16:9 small on a 3.3m scope screen, so yes I think the maximum desired image height and its bottom border location relative to eye level and to seating distance is the primary factor determining screen size. PS Of course You can’t just increasing the width of 235 screen to make 16:9 the same height as a 2:1 screen as you run out of PJ throw and/or lumens.


I think its all personal preference.

I wouldn't find watching a 135'' mind boggling at all. I believe @sebna runs smething similar.

I personally love scope as a format but I feel for 16:9 content and specifically IMAX, its lovely being able to have that additional height to distinguish between 2:35:1 and IMAX.

So 16:9 IMAX always feels big and tall, and 2:35:1 always feels wide and expansive. Whichever format it is, it therefore has a tangible positive over the other for experience (except formats which change the ratio constantly which we all hate).
 

CaroleBaskin

Distinguished Member
Whichever format it is, it therefore has a tangible positive over the other for experience (except formats which change the ratio constantly which we all hate).
Nolan bothers me so much with this. I often wonder if auto masking solutions can adapt quickly enough with films like his.
 

kenshingintoki

Distinguished Member
The thing is, 16:9 content (so that's not IMAX) isn't supposed to be as immersive as Scope.




Having IMAX content on a Scope screen, with black bars on the sides, would of course have completely the opposite effect of it's intent. And exactly the same is true if showing Scope content on a 16:9 screen (when that screen is usually used full sized for 16:9 content).

When a director films something to be shown on a large IMAX screen, they're probably not doing much fast paced hand-held camera work, because it would all be a bit much. And when antiques roadshow is filing in 16:9, they're not expecting us to watch it in an IMAX cinema (or on a similarly immersive screen). An IMAX image should be bigger than a Scope image, which should in turn be bigger 16:9 content.




Indeed, but just about all of us have limits preventing us from having an absolutely perfect setup.


I disagree re: 16:9 content. As Mark suggested, some 16:9 content is clearly designed to be as immersive. 16:9 content as a format holds advantages re: height when mapped to a 16:9 display (compared to 21:9/2:35:1) which a director would likely appreciate in home environments given most displays are that size.

I know customer when I used an OLED TV, I always loved 16:9 films and hated 2:35:1. Now is the opposite.

Whether a film goes IMAX or not, isn't based on just the directors intent for immersion but budget and artistic intent re-framing.

If by 16:9 content, you mean Eastenders, sure I can agree. However most films, high-end production TV shows and games in my experience massively benefit from more size.

I personally wouldn't hold back my 16:9 image just to make IMAX more impactful because there are only a couple of true full IMAX films out there.


Agreed on room limitations. If someone is stating they're holding back their image size massively due to room/throw/PJ limitations, sure thats an obvious point but to say they're holding it back because they think is the far more superior experience is a bit dodgy and I'm sure blind A/B testing will not support it.
 
Last edited:

GrazzaB

Distinguished Member
As previously said each to their own. I find 110" 16:9 plenty from my viewing distance of 3.2m. I can't imagine 145" that would be extremely uncomfortable. Surely you would be constantly looking up and down due to the height of the image. No thanks.
Mine is very similar to yours, 113” 16:9 screen from about 9 feet away. It feels huge most of the time!
 

kenshingintoki

Distinguished Member
As previously said each to their own. I find 110" 16:9 plenty from my viewing distance of 3.2m. I can't imagine 145" that would be extremely uncomfortable. Surely you would be constantly looking up and down due to the height of the image. No thanks.


I've tried both. For me, bigger is better. If it wasn't, I'd just make it smaller as its only a zoom lens option away. I could honestly go bigger by a few inches but sadly throw ratio limitations are there.

Would also give me a lot more brightness back which I could use towards HDR.

110'' I have in my front room from a similar distance. Its good but its incomparable to the bigger sizes IMO.

But again.. its all meaningless if someone doesn't have the throw distance. I remember when I was stuck with a 95'' screen a 12 months ago. That felt massive back in the day but I never didn't think I wouldn't mind going bigger.
 

markymiles

Distinguished Member
Yeah it's definitely a personal thing. I tried 120" 16:9 and didn't like it. Sure you get that wow it's big sensation. But for me bigger isn't better, it has to be comfortable for my eyes. I hate having to move my eyes too much to watch. It gets very tiring.
 

kenshingintoki

Distinguished Member
Yeah it's definitely a personal thing. I tried 120" 16:9 and didn't like it. Sure you get that wow it's big sensation. But for me bigger isn't better, it has to be comfortable for my eyes. I hate having to move my eyes too much to watch. It gets very tiring.


Strange, never really find any fatigue at all or moving eyes and no one has mentioned it before. I'll watch out for it. I'm always willing to change setup, increase/decrease size for whats best.

My 110'' screen in front room, people go "oh thats cool" or "oh nice".
The dedicated room 99% of people are jaw dropped and I think a lot has to do with the size.


Maybe I'm more sensitive to size but even having to go down from 155 to 147 has been a bit of a downgrade for me I'm 100% willing to admit. Especially in 4:3 IMAX. BVS IMAX scenes don't feel the same now even with the masking applied. but I had to do it for fit the framing in for MVEL to hide the masking track and the bottom I always felt was a bit low for 2:35:1 content.

Image height suggestions definitely go out of the window with projection hence me having to increase the height of the bottom masking.
 

panman40

Distinguished Member
Yeah it's definitely a personal thing. I tried 120" 16:9 and didn't like it. Sure you get that wow it's big sensation. But for me bigger isn't better, it has to be comfortable for my eyes. I hate having to move my eyes too much to watch. It gets very tiring.
I’m only at 106” diag 16.9 from 10 feet ish but I feel it’s about right, however with 3D it’s much better if I go 2 to 3 feet closer but I can’t alter my seats.
 

markymiles

Distinguished Member
I’m only at 106” diag 16.9 from 10 feet ish but I feel it’s about right, however with 3D it’s much better if I go 2 to 3 feet closer but I can’t alter my seats.
You watch 3D? :D
 

kenshingintoki

Distinguished Member
I’m only at 106” diag 16.9 from 10 feet ish but I feel it’s about right, however with 3D it’s much better if I go 2 to 3 feet closer but I can’t alter my seats.
3d I agree. Just makes everything feel smaller.
 

sebna

Member
My room width is 3.8m, and I could have (just about) fitted a 3.3m wide 16:9 format screen in, however at my seating distance of 11ft a 16:9 picture is too big an image at 3.3 wide, and is too eye boggling to watch, I find viewing a constant image area (same area @ 235 & 16:9) preferable as its big enough in scope and ALSO big enough in 16:9 to be cinematic, whereas I previously found 16:9 small on a 3.3m scope screen, so yes I think the maximum desired image height and its bottom border location relative to eye level and to seating distance is the primary factor determining screen size. PS Of course You can’t just increasing the width of 235 screen to make 16:9 the same height as a 2:1 screen as you run out of PJ throw and/or lumens.

I sit 8ft from 133" 16:9 screen and I love it. If room would allow for it I would go bigger.

There is good few forum member who recently either increased their screen sizes or moved closer to existing ones or both at the same time, all in range of viewing angles and perceived screen size as my is and all find it amazing. I mean why would we not? After all there was a reason why we moved from 65" TVs to projection so why limit ourselves now when there is no real reason for it.

As one other forum member said. I have never read or heard anybody complaining that their screen is too big. We only read about those who wished they have gone bigger or about those planning to do so :). And there is certainly something to it.

For me personally 16:9 > fixed scope screen. By going fixed scope you loose something without anything in return. At the same time I understand the appeal of jet black bars (which of course can be achieved with masking anyway).

EDIT: I typed this post without reading all the newest replies and apparently we have one malcontent (@markymiles i am looking at you ;) ) who did not like bigger screen in his room ;). Jokes aside. I sometimes also had adjustment period when going larger with TVs. I was getting headaches for the first week or so but I knew from experience those would pass so I endured. I don't know for how long you had your 120" but maybe it was something like my adjustment period that caused your dissatisfaction? Saying this I had 0 adjustment period when moving from 65" OLED @5ft to 133" @8ft. It was love and joy at first sight and honeymoon ever after :D
 
Last edited:

kenshingintoki

Distinguished Member
I sit 8ft from 133" 16:9 screen and I love it. If room would allow for it I would go bigger.

There is good few forum member who recently either increased their screen sizes or moved closer to existing ones or both at the same time, all in range of viewing angles and perceived screen size as my is and all find it amazing. I mean why would we not? After all there was a reason why we moved from 65" TVs to projection so why limit ourselves now when there is no real reason for it.

As one other forum member said. I have never read or heard anybody complaining that their screen is too big. We only read about those who wished they have gone bigger or about those planning to do so :). And there is certainly something to it.

For me personality 16:9 > fixed scope screen. By going fixed scope you loose something without anything in return, but I of course understand the appeal of those jet black bars (which of course can be achieved with masking anyway).

Growing trend seems to be people are happy with whatever screen size they have and then they go bigger, they're even happier.

This is sadly one of the cases where most of us are dictated by our room/throw distance.
 

kenshingintoki

Distinguished Member
I sit 8ft from 133" 16:9 screen and I love it. If room would allow for it I would go bigger.

There is good few forum member who recently either increased their screen sizes or moved closer to existing ones or both at the same time, all in range of viewing angles and perceived screen size as my is and all find it amazing. I mean why would we not? After all there was a reason why we moved from 65" TVs to projection so why limit ourselves now when there is no real reason for it.

As one other forum member said. I have never read or heard anybody complaining that their screen is too big. We only read about those who wished they have gone bigger or about those planning to do so :). And there is certainly something to it.

For me personality 16:9 > fixed scope screen. By going fixed scope you loose something without anything in return, but I of course understand the appeal of those jet black bars (which of course can be achieved with masking anyway).


I think best option is to make entire screen your wall and then just have electronic masking with MVEL22 to make the wall whatever screen size you need dependant on content. No doubt the more complicated option and maybe more expensive but I think its worth it.
 

hati

Active Member
I had a small room where I had a 100" 16:9 screen with viewing distance of 2*screen height. 2:35 movies felt small so when I build dedicated viewing space for new house screen choice was 3,6m wide 2.35:1 screen. First phase was completed last week and next step is to determine comfortable viewing distance, I started with 2*screen height and initially it seems OK but problem is that I don't have the new projector yet and, as everybody else, no clue when it will arrive. (Originally I calculated that biggest I can fit is 4,2m wide but I started to worry about it being too dim so I went for smaller screen, after watching couple of films with old projector that is much dimmer than NZ8 I regret a little for going small.)
 

mb3195

Distinguished Member
You've moved closer than when I visited, and you also have masking on 3/4 sides, so you don't need to watch 1.85 films on a small screen.
I've moved the seats forward 5cm, I was actually closer than I thought previously, so the difference isn't huge from when you came.

Either way, this is all personal, I was considering increasing my screen width by 5" but both @Apollo and I feel I'd be pushing it beyond comfortable viewing, I'm definitely now having to move my eyes around the screen to follow what's going on. Current 1.85:1 content still also looks within the limits also.

No different to going to the cinema, some people by choice sit in the first couple of rows, others sit as close to the back as possible.

In GENERAL terms 1:1 screen width to viewing distance seems to suit most people.
 

PiadaLurida1981

Novice Member
Hi everyone, I'm new to the forum and I'd like to ask you a question.
What do you think about replacing a JVC N5 + envy pro with a new JVC NZ7 + envy pro?
Could it make sense or isn't it worth it?
Thank you.
 
Hi everyone, I'm new to the forum and I'd like to ask you a question.
What do you think about replacing a JVC N5 + envy pro with a new JVC NZ7 + envy pro?
Could it make sense or isn't it worth it?
Thank you.
Depends what you are wanting, if you lack light output yes it makes sense, also if your N5 is a very bad performing sample, maybe if you get a good NZ7.

The NZ7 is a N5 with laser lamp engine and a few HDMI upgrades, nothing more if you run a 150-180" screen, sure go for the NZ7, if its a 120" screen, i don't see any good reason.
 

The latest video from AVForums

Paramount + UK launch: Halo, Star Trek and Beavis, and all the latest 4K + Movie/TV News
Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Latest News

Netflix confirms ad-supported option is on the way
  • By Ian Collen
  • Published
Rotel announces 60th Anniversary Diamond Series Hi-Fi duo
  • By Ian Collen
  • Published
Paramount+ launches in the UK and Ireland
  • By Ian Collen
  • Published
Hisense launches A9H 4K OLED TV
  • By Ian Collen
  • Published
What's new on UK streaming services for July 2022
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published

Full fat HDMI teeshirts

Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom