JVC DLA-X5900 D-ILA HDR Projector Review & Comments

I might have missed it in the review, but did you check the brightness and how close it is to the posted specs?

I remember reading that the Sony VPL-VW260ES was surprisingly close to it's advertised brightness.
 
Nice review Steve, the JVC's have me tempted I must admit, I'm impressed you found the S&M 3D crosstalk tests pass with flying colours, you know how much I I like 3D. Pity the trans and a pair of glasses are not included to encourage new owners to try out 3D though.

Out of curiosity did you use high or low lamp for 3D ?, can you remember how the high fan noise compares with the Epson TW9300 ?,

Cheers.
With my X5500 compared to the Sony HW40 I would say low lamp is quieter in the JVC but high lamp noisier than the Sony but not by much.
 
I might have missed it in the review, but did you check the brightness and how close it is to the posted specs?

I remember reading that the Sony VPL-VW260ES was surprisingly close to it's advertised brightness.
Here you go
"In terms of brightness, we measured the X5900 at 600 lumens in the calibrated SDR mode with the low lamp setting and the manual iris fully closed, along with a maximum brightness of 1000 lumens with the manual iris fully open instead. We also measured the maximum brightness at 1,400 lumens using an HDR signal, with the manual iris fully open and the projector in high lamp mode. All these measurements were taken in a completely black room off a 1:1 unity screen that was 7 feet by 4 feet."
 
The panel alignment was spot-on, the lens sharpness excellent for the price point and there were no bright corners. Like all JVC projectors there is the occasional internal lens reflection though, I'll add that to the review.

Thanks. Considering some of the higher end X7900 and X9900 don't have perfect panel alignment or lens sharpness this is really a lottery thing. Can you please confirm if the sample you were given was it brought off a retail store, or was it a review sample provided by JVC UK? If it is a review sample, they may have hand picked one with better QC than the random one off the shelf.
 
As someone has already pointed out, the Optoma is not a native 4K projector, despite some very misleading marketing. However, in Phil's review of the Optoma UHD65 he does compare it directly with the JVC X7000.

Hi Steve, I provided feedback on projectorcentral.com on their views on Optoma/BenQ using the faux 4K DLP chips. Here is their position - I tend to agree and stand corrected. What is AVforums position?

"I appreciate that this pixel shift thing is a big emotional issue. You are correct that the chip has 2716x1528 mirrors. You are incorrect that it cannot deliver 3840x2160 pixels to the screen. The technology has the ability to define one pixel b/w line test patterns with no bleeding--defining discrete individual pixels, and the projector sends predefined 3840x2160 frames to the device. In a side by side comparison with a Sony native 4K projector there is no visible difference in 4K resolution -- and in fact the 4K DLP chip can actually look slightly sharper.


The same is not true of the Epson/JVC pixel shift due to the native 1080p starting point on the chips.


We have advanced into a new place in the industry where the number of elements on the chip is not relevant to the perceived resolution on the screen. That of course was never true before. The only thing that a focus on the mirror array on the chip itself will accomplish is confuse people into thinking that the projector is 1/2 the native 4K resolution. That would be highly misleading. So we do not fault the DLP vendors for claiming that their products deliver a full 8.3 million pixels to the screen. In point of fact, they do."
 
I stand by my own opinion that it's not a true 4k display. However it's all irrelevant at normal viewing distance.
 
Thanks. Considering some of the higher end X7900 and X9900 don't have perfect panel alignment or lens sharpness this is really a lottery thing. Can you please confirm if the sample you were given was it brought off a retail store, or was it a review sample provided by JVC UK? If it is a review sample, they may have hand picked one with better QC than the random one off the shelf.
The majority of our review samples are provided by the manufacturer but they are normally new sealed retail units and never cherry-picked samples.
 
Hi Steve, I provided feedback on projectorcentral.com on their views on Optoma/BenQ using the faux 4K DLP chips. Here is their position - I tend to agree and stand corrected. What is AVforums position?

"I appreciate that this pixel shift thing is a big emotional issue. You are correct that the chip has 2716x1528 mirrors. You are incorrect that it cannot deliver 3840x2160 pixels to the screen. The technology has the ability to define one pixel b/w line test patterns with no bleeding--defining discrete individual pixels, and the projector sends predefined 3840x2160 frames to the device. In a side by side comparison with a Sony native 4K projector there is no visible difference in 4K resolution -- and in fact the 4K DLP chip can actually look slightly sharper.


The same is not true of the Epson/JVC pixel shift due to the native 1080p starting point on the chips.


We have advanced into a new place in the industry where the number of elements on the chip is not relevant to the perceived resolution on the screen. That of course was never true before. The only thing that a focus on the mirror array on the chip itself will accomplish is confuse people into thinking that the projector is 1/2 the native 4K resolution. That would be highly misleading. So we do not fault the DLP vendors for claiming that their products deliver a full 8.3 million pixels to the screen. In point of fact, they do."
There's a degree of semantics here but the fact is the Sony projectors are the ones that use chips with 8 million pixels and thus are genuinely native 4K. The DLP chips only have 4 million pixels, so whilst their native resolution is higher than the Epson and JVC models they still aren't genuine native 4K.
 
Hi Steve, I provided feedback on projectorcentral.com on their views on Optoma/BenQ using the faux 4K DLP chips. Here is their position - I tend to agree and stand corrected. What is AVforums position?

"I appreciate that this pixel shift thing is a big emotional issue. You are correct that the chip has 2716x1528 mirrors. You are incorrect that it cannot deliver 3840x2160 pixels to the screen. The technology has the ability to define one pixel b/w line test patterns with no bleeding--defining discrete individual pixels, and the projector sends predefined 3840x2160 frames to the device. In a side by side comparison with a Sony native 4K projector there is no visible difference in 4K resolution -- and in fact the 4K DLP chip can actually look slightly sharper.
"
I'd like to know what device they are talking about.
I'd be very surprised if the full 4K pixels were being sent to the DLP chip device. I would expect the DLP chip device to be receiving native device pixels (ie number of mirrors).

There is an FPGA chip in the 4K DLP ecosystem before the DLP chip; perhaps that is the device they're referring to.
 
So long as you can but a grid of 3840 x 2160 with 8.3 million pixels on screen (How it does this is irrelevant) then it can be classed as 4K, (As that is the definition of 4K) however, the DLP system in domestic projectors is NOT Native 4K which is what differentiates the 2 technology’s. (Only Sony claim Native 4K on their projectors (Which is 100% correct) all the others just say True 4k (Epson only claim Enhanced 4K though) which is technically correct, but is definitely confusing for the general public.

A PDF with details of the original DLP 4K system can be found here https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&r...df.pdf?la=en&usg=AOvVaw2xbHm5i25kXTNS8ioE1rtb however this doesn’t include the new Benq 0.47 DLP which is due out in January. (Should be interesting to see how this works)

Bill
 
My Spanish isn't great but the X5900 can deliver 100% of DCI-P3 without the use of a filter, which makes it brighter than models that do use a filter but the downside is that the Rec.709 colour gamut is just as wide, making it impossible to get 100% saturation accurate. I believe that the X7900 and X9900 do use a filter which should mean 100% of DCI-P3 but more accurate colours with Rec.709, although they won't be as bright (but JVC claim that the X7900/9900 are 20% brighter with the filter in place compared to the X7500/9500).
Steve sorry but this doesn't make sense , 709 gamut can be calibrated and targeted in another color profile accurately, just upload a custom 709 no filter profile and it will track excellent. are you a 1000% sure the 5900 can achieve 100%of P3??
 
Steve sorry but this doesn't make sense , 709 gamut can be calibrated and targeted in another color profile accurately, just upload a custom 709 no filter profile and it will track excellent. are you a 1000% sure the 5900 can achieve 100%of P3??
Yes it did according to CalMAN (did you look at the graphs in the review) and I'm only referring to calibrating the X5900 using the built-in controls, which most people won't do, let alone upload custom colour profiles.
 
Reading through this:

"I appreciate that this pixel shift thing is a big emotional issue. You are correct that the chip has 2716x1528 mirrors. You are incorrect that it cannot deliver 3840x2160 pixels to the screen. The technology has the ability to define one pixel b/w line test patterns with no bleeding--defining discrete individual pixels, and the projector sends predefined 3840x2160 frames to the device. In a side by side comparison with a Sony native 4K projector there is no visible difference in 4K resolution -- and in fact the 4K DLP chip can actually look slightly sharper.


The same is not true of the Epson/JVC pixel shift due to the native 1080p starting point on the chips.


We have advanced into a new place in the industry where the number of elements on the chip is not relevant to the perceived resolution on the screen. That of course was never true before. The only thing that a focus on the mirror array on the chip itself will accomplish is confuse people into thinking that the projector is 1/2 the native 4K resolution. That would be highly misleading. So we do not fault the DLP vendors for claiming that their products deliver a full 8.3 million pixels to the screen. In point of fact, they do."

The un-shifted and shifted pixel arrays overlap, so there has to be a reduction in resolution.
Back in the days of CRT projectors, people were used to juggling the width of the scan lines with the number (hence separation) between lines. The sweet spot being a scan line thickness=separation, without overlap.
 
Yes it did according to CalMAN (did you look at the graphs in the review) and I'm only referring to calibrating the X5900 using the built-in controls, which most people won't do, let alone upload custom colour profiles.
Yes I saw those however if that is truly the case what's the filter for in the higher siblings? Also 709 can be targeted easily. Sorry it does not make sense.
 
Reading through this:

"I appreciate that this pixel shift thing is a big emotional issue. You are correct that the chip has 2716x1528 mirrors. You are incorrect that it cannot deliver 3840x2160 pixels to the screen. The technology has the ability to define one pixel b/w line test patterns with no bleeding--defining discrete individual pixels, and the projector sends predefined 3840x2160 frames to the device. In a side by side comparison with a Sony native 4K projector there is no visible difference in 4K resolution -- and in fact the 4K DLP chip can actually look slightly sharper.


The same is not true of the Epson/JVC pixel shift due to the native 1080p starting point on the chips.


We have advanced into a new place in the industry where the number of elements on the chip is not relevant to the perceived resolution on the screen. That of course was never true before. The only thing that a focus on the mirror array on the chip itself will accomplish is confuse people into thinking that the projector is 1/2 the native 4K resolution. That would be highly misleading. So we do not fault the DLP vendors for claiming that their products deliver a full 8.3 million pixels to the screen. In point of fact, they do."

The un-shifted and shifted pixel arrays overlap, so there has to be a reduction in resolution.
Back in the days of CRT projectors, people were used to juggling the width of the scan lines with the number (hence separation) between lines. The sweet spot being a scan line thickness=separation, without overlap.
This is a very old argument, seeing is believing ;)
 
I'd like to know what device they are talking about.
I'd be very surprised if the full 4K pixels were being sent to the DLP chip device. I would expect the DLP chip device to be receiving native device pixels (ie number of mirrors).

There is an FPGA chip in the 4K DLP ecosystem before the DLP chip; perhaps that is the device they're referring to.

The Optoma UHD65. I asked why it was being called as native 4k.
 
The Optoma UHD65. I asked why it was being called as native 4k.

Sorry, you missed my point:

"...the projector sends predefined 3840x2160 frames to the device."
What "device" does the "projector" (really?) send 3840x2160 frames to? sounds like marketroid pish-pash to me. The BARCO diagrams don't show these many pixels going to the DLP device.

Edit:
You can see in the below that the DLP device is sent two LVDS streams of 1280x1600 pixels @ 120Hz for the east and west portions of the DLP chip. Typical loose marketroid language.
Screen Shot 2017-11-15 at 20.08.20.png
 
Last edited:
Steve-

Thank you for the review as always. I own the x5500 and was wondering if it's safe to say that the 7500k (instead of 6500k) color profile would be more accurate on that model as well?

Also, the Nvidia Shield allows an option for bt.2020 color mapping in default settings for all content. Would you recommend using that option and selecting the JVC bt.2020 color profile (for all content including SDR)? Or should I just set the Shield to output rec.709 and use JVCs' standard color option?

thanks again
 
Sorry, you missed my point:


What "device" does the "projector" (really?) send 3840x2160 frames to? sounds like marketroid pish-pash to me. The BARCO diagrams don't show these many pixels going to the DLP device.

If you read my original post, these are not my words, but from the editor at projectorcentral.com (being one of the largest projector review sites). This is their explanation:

4K DLP Projectors -- is the chip really 4K?

What I really care about is if each of the pixels in a 4K image can be discreet without being overlapped on screen. According to TI DLP documentation, no as pixel shifting naturally overlaps the 2 frames. According to your schematic, it's not even sending 2716x1528 frames. But then how is the projector able to resolve 1-line 4K test patterns cleanly?

I don't want to derail this thread - as it should be about the X5900.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, you missed my point:


What "device" does the "projector" (really?) send 3840x2160 frames to? sounds like marketroid pish-pash to me. The BARCO diagrams don't show these many pixels going to the DLP device.

Edit:
You can see in the below that the DLP device is sent two LVDS streams of 1280x1600 pixels @ 120Hz for the east and west portions of the DLP chip. Typical loose marketroid language.
View attachment 938904
It makes no difference what diagram you put up here but what makes a difference is real life experience with countless comparisons which we have done :) ...again its old news eshift vs 4K it's been done over and over...
 
If you read my original post, these are not my words, but from the editor at projectorcentral.com (being one of the largest projector review sites). This is their explanation:

4K DLP Projectors -- is the chip really 4K?

What I really care about is if each of the pixels in a 4K image can be discreet without being overlapped on screen. According to TI DLP documentation, no as pixel shifting naturally overlaps the 2 frames. According to your schematic, it's not even sending 2716x1528 frames. But then how is the projector able to resolve 1-line 4K test patterns cleanly?

I don't want to derail this thread - as it should be about the X5500.

5900 you mean ? ;)
 
Pretty poor that Sony are still the only ones doing a native 4k projector.

I used to buy a new JVC projector every year, but switched to Sony after giving up waiting for JVC to do a proper 4K projector. It's 2017. Get with the times.
 
Pretty poor that Sony are still the only ones doing a native 4k projector.

I used to buy a new JVC projector every year, but switched to Sony after giving up waiting for JVC to do a proper 4K projector. It's 2017. Get with the times.
JVC has one too the Z1. It's just not exactly cheap.
 

The latest video from AVForums

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