Question JVC X30 / X35 vs Epson EH-TW9300

bladeIre

Standard Member
Hi guys,

Need some help & advice on this one. Is the Epson EH-TW9300 a much better projector than the JVC X30 / X35. Or, does the JVC X30 / X35 offer a better 2D picture even if it's an older model. I only plan to use it for movies in 2D. The room is an attic conversion and I can darken it out as much as is required. Any thoughts / recommendations / advice?

Thanks

John
 

alebonau

Distinguished Member
theres been a bit of discussion on this already in the thread below,


just depends what chasing really and condition of above projectors if buying 2nd hand. a X30 - x35 is not a young projector at this stage :) a 9300 will also be some years old though a younger a more later specd unit.

though an x35 if just wanting to do 2D and 1080p is a very capable unit...one in good condition that is ...

x30 had some balast issues if i remember and 3D is not as good as x35 but thats not a concern to you :)
 

bladeIre

Standard Member
I would definitely prefer to get an X35 over the X30 due to the reliability issues if I could source one but they are hard to find.

I did read that thread you mentioned and it wasn't obvious to me if the Epson 9300 has a better 2D picture than the JVC X35 for movies in 2D in a darkened room. I would have thought the Epson should give a better picture overall for movies as it's newer by 4 years but maybe the X35 stills holds it own or possibly better in most peoples opinion?
 

alebonau

Distinguished Member
I would definitely prefer to get an X35 over the X30 due to the reliability issues if I could source one but they are hard to find.

I did read that thread you mentioned and it wasn't obvious to me if the Epson 9300 has a better 2D picture than the JVC X35 for movies in 2D in a darkened room. I would have thought the Epson should give a better picture overall for movies as it's newer by 4 years but maybe the X35 stills holds it own or possibly better in most peoples opinion?
have to keep in mind the 9300/9400 are still using the same 1080p dark chip as the old 9000/9200 series with the newer models just using e-shift to handle greater than 1080p and achieve something in order of 3k or so, the wider colour gamut capability and also HDR...but. that said if just looking at 1080p and not using all that ...the x35 was and still is quite an accomplished 1080p unit. but its possible these units being 2nd hand..that time and use has not been kind on them so hard to really say...I owned myself a 9000 series epson, seen 9400 in dedicated and non dedicated settings. owned a x35 for some year and also seen what can do in some pretty serious dedicated rooms. its not as clear cut as the epson is newer and so gives a better picture ...
 

bladeIre

Standard Member
So would it fair to say that there's not much in it 1080p wise? Blacks, shadow detail, colours, filmatic picture all very similar for 1080p if you had them side by side?
 

alebonau

Distinguished Member
So would it fair to say that there's not much in it 1080p wise? Blacks, shadow detail, colours, filmatic picture all very similar for 1080p if you had them side by side?

Pure PQ in 1080p id stick with JVC on all those counts, but contingent on a unit that’s faired well with age ... that’s the gamble with 2nd hand and buying older units !
 

bladeIre

Standard Member
Yeah I hear you - I think the issue is going to be finding a good X35. I'm in Ireland so not many to choose from locally. Not many 9300's ether but at least they should be in a better condition.
 

JamesBaby

Well-known Member
I have an x30 for sale in classifieds that’s had the ballast repaired, and fully serviced inside and cleaned out. Plus a spare lamp. Mint. :)
 

alebonau

Distinguished Member
I have an x30 for sale in classifieds that’s had the ballast repaired, and fully serviced inside and cleaned out. Plus a spare lamp. Mint. :)
if buying 2nd hand for 1080p, this is just kind of thing id get.
 

Andy360

Active Member
The JVCs really benefit from calibrating the gamma as they all ’droop’. You wont truly see what they’re capable of without sorting it but it’s a simple to fix with a meter.
 

Tight Git

Distinguished Member
I would definitely prefer to get an X35 over the X30 due to the reliability issues if I could source one but they are hard to find.

If the reliability issues you are worried about concern the ballast board, I believe they are the same.
 

Andy360

Active Member
X35 had a newly designed power supply and uses a different lamp to the x30. I know because I recently bought a new lamp for my x35. It uses the same ballast and lamp as the x500.
 

bladeIre

Standard Member
I have an x30 for sale in classifieds that’s had the ballast repaired, and fully serviced inside and cleaned out. Plus a spare lamp. Mint. :)
Thanks - I think the biggest problem is there is now import duty and VAT coming into Ireland from the UK since Brexit so I really have to look locally or in Europe now - a real shame
 

bladeIre

Standard Member
Yeah from the reading up i did I thought the X35 resolved the issues with the ballast and has a new power supply + lamp.

Just on the Epson 9300 if I feed it 4k signal would you then think the Epson would product a better picture than the x30 or x35 1080p for the same movie?

Also I'm confused by the AVforum review of the 9300 projector a few years back where it said it was the best projector sub 5k at that time and might just even beat the x500 in terms of blacks. Would that not mean it was better then the x30, x35 as they were much earlier models? Or am I missing something?

Interested in peoples thoughts
 

alebonau

Distinguished Member
Just on the Epson 9300 if I feed it 4k signal would you then think the Epson would product a better picture than the x30 or x35 1080p for the same movie?
i helped someone move to 9400 from x35 as wanted to get into 4k. his was a very tired x35 and uncalibrated and the x35 obviously cant do 4k. that said things like pure picture quality, film like nature of x35, contrast and such the epson cant beat. what 9400 will take further is detail, clarity, light output, go wider colour gamut and hit higher highlights. you'd have to go to x5000/x7000 in jvc to improve on the epson in my opinion.

Also I'm confused by the AVforum review of the 9300 projector a few years back where it said it was the best projector sub 5k at that time and might just even beat the x500 in terms of blacks. Would that not mean it was better then the x30, x35 as they were much earlier models? Or am I missing something?

I dont understand that one frankly, in 4k uhd, the 9300 lacked full band width hdmi that the jvc didnt. the 9300 gets wcg that the x5000 didnt have, but otherwise id say x5000 is a superior projector in every way. get both calibrated and i do think both need calibration with multi curves for HDR 1000, 4000, 10000 and like and both would be very good machines for 4k hdr.
 

kenshingintoki

Distinguished Member
Epson 9300 Pros:
Higher lumen output
HDR
Better detail and sharpness for 4K content
Lower input lag for games
Much better 3D due to the insane lumen count
Wider colour gamut
4K support
Will come with warranty outstanding most likely due to age

JVC X35 Pros:
Better blacks
Better contrast
Better motion
More filmic PQ


I think it really depends on the room. In a pitch black room with black walls etc., only viewing 2D 1080p material, the JVC will be really really good value. The low lumen count of this PJ might be a problem with an ALR screen for example or a low gain screen.

But the 9300's HDR, 4K, extremely high lumen output for 3D (and 2D), lower input lag and wider colour gamut gives it a strong edge in many other use cases. However, it won't match the blacks and contrast of JVC.

This is really testament to JVC as the X35 and 9300 are from different generations and current price tags.
 

bladeIre

Standard Member
I’m definitely seeing a trend here from everyone who has posted that the JVC is better for 1080p. Interesting that even with the eshift, the epson still doesn’t make it the more desirable picture when compared to the X35 for films.

I haven’t seen any HDR material or 4K on any projector yet so not sure what I am missing, especially with regards to the 9300 and how much better it is when feeding it hdr /4K source compared to the picture it produces when just fed 1080p

Just on the JVC x30 vs x35. Bar reliability issues any difference in the picture or are the two comparable to each other? It’s harder to get a x35 than it is an x30 if I go that route.
 

kenshingintoki

Distinguished Member
I’m definitely seeing a trend here from everyone who has posted that the JVC is better for 1080p. Interesting that even with the eshift, the epson still doesn’t make it the more desirable picture when compared to the X35 for films.

I haven’t seen any HDR material or 4K on any projector yet so not sure what I am missing, especially with regards to the 9300 and how much better it is when feeding it hdr /4K source compared to the picture it produces when just fed 1080p

Just on the JVC x30 vs x35. Bar reliability issues any difference in the picture or are the two comparable to each other? It’s harder to get a x35 than it is an x30 if I go that route.


The E-shift has nothing to do with 1080p content. Its for 4K.

If you don't care about 4K/HDR/High lumen count, get an X35. Saves a lot more money.


I went from a HW40Es to a Epson 9300 and the lumen count in my envrionment with an ALR screen was a night and day difference but in a dedicated room YMMV.
 

Stridsvognen

Well-known Member
Epson even with the E shift have less pixel fill than a old JVC X35, and Eshift dont add resolution, if you dont need the light output from the Epson, the old JVC will be better all around, even a JVC X3 outperforms a Epson TW9400 as long as the screen size is not to big.
Pixel fill.png
 

bladeIre

Standard Member
I went with an X30 in the end. Very happy with the picture with regards 1080P.

Interesting chart above. I didn't realise there was that much of a difference in the pixel gap between LCD and the other 2 technologies
 

Stridsvognen

Well-known Member
I went with an X30 in the end. Very happy with the picture with regards 1080P.

Interesting chart above. I didn't realise there was that much of a difference in the pixel gap between LCD and the other 2 technologies
If you look at the difference on a JVC and a Epson pixel fill its quite obvious, i see it quite a lot on bright objects from seating distance when watching LCD projectors, others dont notice it at all.
 

bladeIre

Standard Member
I never actually thought about the technologies in this way before. I suppose there are a whole lot of things that come together as to how we perceive the image but this is a very interesting take on it
 

The latest video from AVForums

AVForums Movies Podcast: Streaming Theatrical Releases And The Future Of Cinema
Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Latest News

Magico announces Titan 15 subwoofer
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Ajax Systems adds UK Socket to expand smart home options
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Best TVs of 2021 - Editor's Choice Awards
  • By Phil Hinton
  • Published
Melco update improves N10, N100 and N1 EX digital libraries
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Loewe launches We.See TVs under new 'We. by Loewe' sub-brand
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published

Full fat HDMI teeshirts

Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom