JVC X700 (DLA-X700R) 3D D-ILA Projector Review

Discussion in 'Projectors, Screens & Video Processors' started by Steve Withers, Feb 25, 2014.


    1. Steve Withers

      Steve Withers
      Reviewer

      Joined:
      Oct 18, 2009
      Messages:
      9,988
      Products Owned:
      0
      Products Wanted:
      0
      Trophy Points:
      166
      Location:
      AVForums
      Ratings:
      +9,629
      • Thanks Thanks x 1
      • Useful Useful x 1
      • List
    2. Wookii

      Wookii
      Active Member

      Joined:
      Mar 19, 2007
      Messages:
      1,133
      Products Owned:
      0
      Products Wanted:
      0
      Trophy Points:
      66
      Location:
      Nottingham
      Ratings:
      +236
      Interesting review guys.

      I must admit I was hoping for some direct comparisons of picture quality between the X700 and the Sony model, and also the the lower X500 unit.

      Do you have any plans to complete a shootout between the former two, and any comment now on the performance differences between the two JVC models?
       
    3. HugoFJH

      HugoFJH
      Active Member

      Joined:
      Jan 3, 2007
      Messages:
      2,346
      Products Owned:
      0
      Products Wanted:
      0
      Trophy Points:
      63
      Location:
      London
      Ratings:
      +133
      " Very good 4k playback" - its not 4k but expanded 1080p. (in the same ilk as 720p / Full HD products no doubt)

      some reviews are as bad as the misleading marketing (in the same ilk as 720p / Full HD products no doubt)

      Credit where its due, the black levels and dynamic ranges are probably as good as JVC always make them and well done to them for that, but try and show a little impartiality
       
    4. Phil Hinton

      Phil Hinton
      Editor Staff Member

      Joined:
      Jan 18, 2001
      Messages:
      10,466
      Products Owned:
      3
      Products Wanted:
      0
      Trophy Points:
      166
      Location:
      AVForums
      Ratings:
      +9,163
      The actual quote was: very good 4K playback with eShift3. I point out numerous times throughout the review it is not a native 4K projector, hell even the by-line and pullouts show that to be the case. It does however accept a 4K signal to playback with eShift3.
      I explain how eShift works in the review. Did you read the whole thing or just the pros and cons? I also point out how the JVC marketing does them no favours when it comes to eShift and look at the issues with a native Sony projector being very close in price.
      I don't know how more unbiased or impartial I can be.
       
      • Like Like x 2
      • Thanks Thanks x 2
      • List
    5. Wookii

      Wookii
      Active Member

      Joined:
      Mar 19, 2007
      Messages:
      1,133
      Products Owned:
      0
      Products Wanted:
      0
      Trophy Points:
      66
      Location:
      Nottingham
      Ratings:
      +236


      I think you might want to try reading the article properly and making an attempt to understand the tech.

      Whilst these JVC PJ's are not native 4K, and it is an annoyance that the JVC marketing department try and label them as such, they do accept, and display, 4K video which is precisely the point the comment you have quoted is referring to. This is completely different to upscaling, which is what you are referring to.
       
    6. darinp2

      darinp2
      Active Member

      Joined:
      Aug 29, 2008
      Messages:
      95
      Products Owned:
      0
      Products Wanted:
      0
      Trophy Points:
      18
      Ratings:
      +42
      Phil,

      Thanks for the review.

      Can you provide an example of where you saw reduced shadow detail with Auto 2 along with at least an approximation of what manual iris position you were using at the time? I mention the manual iris position because this can affect the results and I am interested in seeing how the shadow detail was affected.

      BTW: I thought this was a fair treatment of the DI. A reviewer looking for both the positives and negatives of a feature with content that is mostly to cause it problems, average content, as well as content where it is mostly likely to provide benefit, then reporting on any negatives or positives, is all that a lot of people are looking for.

      Thanks,
      Darin
       
      • Agree Agree x 2
      • Thanks Thanks x 1
      • List
    7. eiren

      eiren
      Distinguished Member

      Joined:
      Oct 12, 2007
      Messages:
      11,242
      Products Owned:
      0
      Products Wanted:
      1
      Trophy Points:
      166
      Ratings:
      +2,796
      Had to make the decision myself recently.. and while I've always had JVC projectors... I went for the Sony this time around purely around it being native 4K.

      Movies not such a difference, but with PC gaming I can now game at native 4K (in most games).

      Both were stunning projectors when I had a demo.
       
    8. Phil Hinton

      Phil Hinton
      Editor Staff Member

      Joined:
      Jan 18, 2001
      Messages:
      10,466
      Products Owned:
      3
      Products Wanted:
      0
      Trophy Points:
      166
      Location:
      AVForums
      Ratings:
      +9,163
      I used a lot of content and also experimented with as many settings as possible in terms of the manual iris with the auto settings. I was as thorough as I could be and the content that highlighted the shadow detail issues the most were Prometheus and Voldemort arriving at Hogwarts. Even wide open, shadow detail was lost in the same scenes tested, as well as with various manual settings using auto 1 and 2. As I say in the review for the majority of content there is no obvious issue, but there are also no obvious stand out benefits, to me anyway, after the testing done.
       
    9. darinp2

      darinp2
      Active Member

      Joined:
      Aug 29, 2008
      Messages:
      95
      Products Owned:
      0
      Products Wanted:
      0
      Trophy Points:
      18
      Ratings:
      +42
      Thanks Phil. It will probably be a little while before I will get to do it, but I'll try to take a look at that Hogwarts scene at some point. Sounds like an interesting one.

      Some more questions to understand the setup and environment as they relate to this. If you were to feed the projector a full black image and switch between Hide and not would you see a difference? If so, much of one? If you were to turn the projector off and leave everything else as it is during testing in the room would you be able to see the screen?

      Thanks,
      Darin
       
    10. Cinelover111

      Cinelover111
      Novice Member

      Joined:
      Feb 17, 2014
      Messages:
      12
      Products Owned:
      0
      Products Wanted:
      0
      Trophy Points:
      4
      Ratings:
      +0
      I just ordered my Jvc x500 the 700 is just too rich for me at present.The whole 4k thing does not really bother me that much at present as there is not really any great choice in 4k movies etc.I think by the time it really catches on the 4k projectors will be available from most of the big manufacturers and they will be cheaper.It will be interesting to see Jvc's 4k input next year!!:)
       
    11. Phil Hinton

      Phil Hinton
      Editor Staff Member

      Joined:
      Jan 18, 2001
      Messages:
      10,466
      Products Owned:
      3
      Products Wanted:
      0
      Trophy Points:
      166
      Location:
      AVForums
      Ratings:
      +9,163
      Yes, but not a great deal. I set for video levels.
      Yes, I can faintly see the screen as it is white and as a dedicated projection screen it reflects what light there may be, however small. Also after a few seconds your eyes get used to the environment and it becomes more obvious, even in a bat cave like my room.
      You are never going to get a complete lack of light even for black levels, as you are projecting onto a white (or grey surface), so even the best DI on the best possible projector is not going to improve that, imho.
       
    12. darinp2

      darinp2
      Active Member

      Joined:
      Aug 29, 2008
      Messages:
      95
      Products Owned:
      0
      Products Wanted:
      0
      Trophy Points:
      18
      Ratings:
      +42
      In my black theater room I can sit for a minute with the projector off and not be able to see the screen. I wonder if that along with having a slightly raised brightness may explain that loss of shadow detail and lack of seeing any real improvement with the DI, or whether I would also see loss of shadow detail in my room if I tested that scene (which I can't do at the moment). I really don't know.

      I mentioned in a thread here before that one difficulty with a DI is that its purpose is really to lower the light for level 16 without lowering the light for other levels. I'm going to simplify a little bit, but if the projector is setup so that it is treating an input level of 16 as it would video level 18 with 16 set to put out the minimum amount of light, then the DI system may close the iris and raise that black floor up to try to get it to where it was previously. The reason being is that it isn't treating it as black.

      I don't know what the JVC does there, but I think this could cause an issue where enabling the DI brings all of the negatives, but doesn't bring any positives. One way to check this would be to feed an all black image and switch between Manual and Auto 2. If the light on the screen doesn't change but the iris shuts down some, then I think a problem like this may be occuring.

      Also, if there is light in the room that makes the screen visible when the projector is off this could throw off what a DI is trying to do somewhat also. For JVC's competitors this may not be much of a problem as long as there isn't a lot of other light, but JVC's on/off CR is high enough that it doesn't take much other light in the room to keep the system from actually getting the on/off CR that the JVCs are capable of. Then when a DI closes down an iris I think there could be some assumption in it that the projector is the only thing supplying light to the screen and can take advantage of how our eyes can adjust to different ranges. The other light can then throw this off and make it so that a projector that is providing more intra-image CR by use of a DI is actually providing less system intra-image CR due to the other room lighting.

      I don't know if that is a problem with JVC's Auto 2 implementation and wouldn't be with the Planar implementation from what I know about it, but I think it would be with Sony's implementation and likely with JVC's Auto 1 (although I haven't checked it out enough).

      Not sure if that made sense, but I'll try an example. It may or may not be even close to the conditions you have for testing.

      I'll using something like I think Sony's system works. Let's assume that a projector is providing 10 ft-lamberts for white with 10k:1 on/off CR for about 0.001 ft-lamberts for black. I'll assume the room is adding 0.0005 ft-lamberts for black with the projector off, so system on/off CR is about 6700:1 system on/off CR.

      Now I'll assume a dark image like a 5%/0% checkerboard on the 2nd edition of the Spears and Munsil disk. I'll assume the 5% blocks are about 1/700th as bright as white (due to gamma) and there is reasonable ANSI CR, so the intra-image there would be around 14:1 from the projector and about 9:1 from the screen (due to the extra room light).

      That is without a DI enabled. Now if we enable a DI and this DI is one that for that image will dim the black 4x and adjust the gamma back 2x the 14:1 from the projector would get closer to 28:1. That is with the 5% rectangles about 1/1400th of the original white point, since they dimmed by 2x (from 4 divided by 2). Here the extra room light is going to hurt the image with the DI on more than with the DI off. With the DI off the room light is adding its 0.0005 to about 0.00025 instead of to 0.001. So that 28:1 from the projector becomes about 9:1 again.

      Hopefully I did the math right there. If so, this is a case where just a little bit of room light meant that a DI that would increase the intra-image CR for that dark image from about 14:1 to 28:1 in a room without other lighting actually ended up with it staying about 9:1 off the screen. It would be no surprise if a person did not see any advantages from a DI in such a situation and only saw the negatives of a DI.

      One thing these JVCs can do is show how much other light sources in a room matter. I think one good test is to show a full black image, then switch between blocking the projector and not. If there isn't much difference then the other room lighting is likely affecting the system on/off CR greatly. If there is a big visible difference then the room lighting likely isn't having much effect.

      --Darin
       
    13. Phil Hinton

      Phil Hinton
      Editor Staff Member

      Joined:
      Jan 18, 2001
      Messages:
      10,466
      Products Owned:
      3
      Products Wanted:
      0
      Trophy Points:
      166
      Location:
      AVForums
      Ratings:
      +9,163
      Darin,
      I think the simple answer is that if you want to answer those questions for yourself, in your room etc. then I'm sure people would be interested in the results.
      In terms of the review, the room used for testing is an oppressive place that many wouldn't want to have as their dedicated room, because it is blacked out with black panels on the walls, very dark walls, ceiling and floor (the video was shot with one litepanel at 20w and the lights out in that room, you can see the wall covering, just). I have it like this for reviewing/testing and it is not what the vast majority of projector owners would have. As I said in the review, it was easier to spot things that the DI was doing that were annoying/not good than being able to see any perceivable difference in black levels for the better. And I was being completely objective with the testing, if there was a benefit or even a difference to report, I would have. I can't really give you any more than that.
       
    14. sawzalot

      sawzalot
      Standard Member

      Joined:
      Nov 27, 2008
      Messages:
      4
      Products Owned:
      0
      Products Wanted:
      0
      Trophy Points:
      1
      Ratings:
      +0
      Thanks for the informative review
       
    15. Batdog

      Batdog
      Well-known Member

      Joined:
      Mar 12, 2005
      Messages:
      1,826
      Products Owned:
      0
      Products Wanted:
      0
      Trophy Points:
      84
      Ratings:
      +467
      Must admit these new JVC's sound great. I'm not in the situation where I can upgrade very often, so have been soldering on with my trusty HD350 for 4 1/2 years now. In truth though I'm still pretty happy with it, having a batcave helps close the gap and adding a Darblet 18 months ago really helped my perception of sharpness and detail.

      Two generations back with the introduction of eshift was the first time the upgrade bug hit. Over time I'd moved my seating back from 1x screen width, to 1.25, then settled on 1.33. I initially loved the 'IMAX' effect, but even with the high fill ratio of LCOS and 1080p resolution, sitting so close left the image feeling slightly digital. Moving to 1.25 made it seem 95% analogue, then the final move back left me feeling like I was watching film. I imagine eshift applied to 1080p would let me sit closer again.

      Looking at the compound improvements say an X500 would bring to the table, we have 3D (not really bothered), useable CMD for video material, sharper, brighter, better motion, eshift, twice the native contrast, and finally the ILA. I can't help thinking that this would all add up to a huge improvement, but I hesitate to upgrade now as I imagine that despite accepting a 4k input, these probably won't take a 4k Blu-Ray input whenever that arrives, and maybe 4k machines will finally arrive from JVC this year?

      These decisions are horrible, knowing that my upgrades arrive every 4-6 years for me I think now might be the wrong time, then again, going 4k will mean a new player, more expensive discs, a new receiver....it all just adds up. I also like the Darbee effect and would want their 4k version of that eventually too. A big part of me thinks I should just settle for maximising current Blu-Ray with one of these JVC's and put proper 4k out of my mind until the players hit £100 or so (took about 3 years for Blu-Ray).

      Or maybe I should just rob a bank?
       
      Last edited: Feb 26, 2014
    16. JonStatt

      JonStatt
      Well-known Member

      Joined:
      Nov 18, 2004
      Messages:
      3,352
      Products Owned:
      0
      Products Wanted:
      0
      Trophy Points:
      103
      Ratings:
      +445
      There is still a fundamental issue with 4K material that is not being made clear by reviewers. The JVC projector does not support HDCP 2.2 and does not have an HDMI 2.0 interface. It will not be compatible with most 4k material that has copy protection on it and certainly will not be compatible with Blu-ray 4K when the standard is finalised. Therefore I don't really see this as even a half-way step as the only 4K material it will work with will be primarily PC downloaded demo content
       
    17. gandley

      gandley
      Well-known Member

      Joined:
      Aug 31, 2003
      Messages:
      5,102
      Products Owned:
      0
      Products Wanted:
      0
      Trophy Points:
      106
      Location:
      Paradise Lost
      Ratings:
      +269
      Highly tempted
       
    18. Rich H

      Rich H
      Active Member

      Joined:
      Feb 7, 2007
      Messages:
      790
      Products Owned:
      0
      Products Wanted:
      0
      Trophy Points:
      63
      Ratings:
      +382
      Nice review, Phil. The attention paid to the DI was more in line with what I'd expect, and appreciate, in a review of these models since that feature is pretty much the defining new addition (plus, perhaps 4K input capability) that became the talk of enthusiast forums like these.

      And it's great to see the 4K input/ E-shift 3 tested with 4K sources. Thanks. (I don't know when I'll get the chance...or bother doing so...with my RS57).

      I can certainly understand someone deciding to keep the Intelligent Lens Aperture off. I do see some artifacts - and I'm surprised you didn't mention flickering as one of the artifacts sometimes but as you point out in the review, it's a personal decision as to whether the trade-off seems worth it. And thus far it seems worth it for me, as I see a distinct advantage with the ILA, vs my RS55.

      It would be nice if some reviewer, somewhere, would mention and test the new Clear Black feature. I know you, like many reviewers, seem to be in the "don't mess with the picture, leave off any processing" camp. Some reviewers even felt that way about E-shift and MPC settings, whereas most actual users on these forums have found some of the image processing features to be valuable assets. So it can fall to us enthusiast/owners to alert one another "hey..have you tried this feature? Looks great!" For a number of us, Clear Black has been a terrific addition, in terms of adding clarity and depth to the image (on "low").

      (my emphasis). I'm gonna disagree with Phil on that. Full fade to "blacks" left my screen obviously gray and glowing on my previous JVC RS55. In fact I got very use to just how much the "black" screen glowed because I often use the "hide" feature to keep an image off and get my eyes used to the dark. A quirky habit, but nonetheless, it always amazed me how much "blacks" still glowed "gray" even with the heralded JVC black levels.

      I've found the RS57 to make a substantial difference with fades to black (and also with the "hide" button on). The first time I saw it happen I was wowed as I never experienced such a dark black (screen gone for quite a while) in my home theater.
      I still sort of suck in my breath when it happens because it's just another league vs my RS55. And
      this clearly lower black level when that happens has turned out to be more significant than I thought, as it
      makes the sensation of the black levels overall seem more consistently solid and dark - in other words, the black levels are not "revealed" so much to be gray when the screen fades to black or goes to a really low APL image, they look more consistently deep and dark.

      So I have found the DI to be a substantial improvement for fade to blacks.
       
      Last edited: Feb 26, 2014
    19. seegs108

      seegs108
      Standard Member

      Joined:
      Sep 6, 2008
      Messages:
      1
      Products Owned:
      0
      Products Wanted:
      0
      Trophy Points:
      1
      Ratings:
      +0
      A very interesting review Phil. The most interesting thing for me is how many people are reporting better motion handling. I do have specific question about this. Are you referring to better motion resolution or better handling of pans or things like rolling of credits? I'm aware JVC has new DiLA panels this year and could be the root cause for better motion resolution. In your opinion, Phil, is motion now better on JVC's LCoS panels or does Sony still have the better subjective motion?

      I have an X90 now. I was thinking about maybe upgrading to either the VW500ES or possibly an X700. I'm now of the opinion that I'd rather not deal with a dynamic iris to get a decent black level. I don't think the Sony can achieve that with the DI dis-engaged. I may wait until CEDIA instead and see if JVC announces a true 4K (or more likely UHD) projector for next year.
       
      Last edited: Feb 27, 2014
    20. Rich H

      Rich H
      Active Member

      Joined:
      Feb 7, 2007
      Messages:
      790
      Products Owned:
      0
      Products Wanted:
      0
      Trophy Points:
      63
      Ratings:
      +382
      I was intrigued by the mention of motion as well seegs. It was a bit of a throwaway line "And with a noticeable improvement in motion handling over previous generations,.."

      But that is pretty significant if it's the case, since motion has been something of an issue with JVC projectors, some people buying Sony over JVC for better motion handling, and not a few JVC owners saying if they could improve something it would be the motion (e.g. less blur).

      So I would like to hear more detail on that, how the impression of better motion on the X700 was arrived at.

      For my part, I haven't any "objective" tests, but from the moment I started watching my RS57 I kept getting struck by what seemed to be smoother, cleaner motion. When I investigated it with some of my motion torture tests from 2001 Space Odyssey. Ships that either blurred or stuttered on my previous JVCs looked almost perfectly smooth in motion. There is on very distant shot of a shuttle flying over the moonscape. On my previous JVCs it had always been essentially a blurred blob in the distance. On the RS57 for the first time it looked less like a blob, and actually had some detail and definition (still blurring, but certainly more distinct).
       
    21. Batdog

      Batdog
      Well-known Member

      Joined:
      Mar 12, 2005
      Messages:
      1,826
      Products Owned:
      0
      Products Wanted:
      0
      Trophy Points:
      84
      Ratings:
      +467
      You know what, as much as I can't afford to upgrade my HD350, I would love to watch one of these things in action just to see how things have evolved over a 5 year period......the number of times I've thought about making the journey to IdealAV, only to then put it out of my mind. Given that I'm still often astounded at what the HD350 can produce on screen, if I was to see one of these in action I know I'd be floored and start having irrational thoughts....like selling the house.....or the wife........
       
    22. Rich H

      Rich H
      Active Member

      Joined:
      Feb 7, 2007
      Messages:
      790
      Products Owned:
      0
      Products Wanted:
      0
      Trophy Points:
      63
      Ratings:
      +382
      stuart, I guess some envy is unavoidable in some ways.

      For instance, when I bought my (now two year old) JVC RS55 projector, I sold my older JVC RS20 (4 year old model now) to my friend. Whenever I go to his place to watch movies I'm still taken aback by how great that image looks. My friend is not a home theater hobbyiest, or perpetual upgrader, and is a natural cheap-skate. In fact he had stuck with a crappy low res business projector for many years, and then a cheap second hand 720p panasonic projector for many years, never thinking of upgrading. He only got the itch by coming to my house and seeing what else was possible in terms of image quality. Once he bought my RS20 the improvement over his Panasonic was so dramatic both he and I figured "well, that's that. You can't really ask for much better, so he's set for many years."

      But when my pal learned I wanted to buy this year's JVC projector he immediately asked if I'd sell my RS55 to him. I was totally surprised that he, of all people, would care to buy it. But he'd been to my place enough times to have noticed the difference between it and his projector, so now he feels compelled to upgrade.

      No one is safe. :D
       
    23. Batdog

      Batdog
      Well-known Member

      Joined:
      Mar 12, 2005
      Messages:
      1,826
      Products Owned:
      0
      Products Wanted:
      0
      Trophy Points:
      84
      Ratings:
      +467
      Hmmm......interesting that he is so keen to upgrade from an RS20 to the X55. I've read numerous comments on these forums to the effect of 'it's surprising how much better the newer JVC's are than the older models'.

      Specifically in terms of RS20 vs X55, what would you say are the main factors which make it noticeably better Rich? Off the top of my head, in terms of effects on 2D picture quality, I can think of:

      Brighter
      Better motion
      CMD?
      Btter colour accuracy
      e-shift
      Sharpness?

      Which of these makes the real difference in your opinion, or is it impossible to break down the component parts?
       
    24. Batdog

      Batdog
      Well-known Member

      Joined:
      Mar 12, 2005
      Messages:
      1,826
      Products Owned:
      0
      Products Wanted:
      0
      Trophy Points:
      84
      Ratings:
      +467
      Here's a question for anyone that has viewed both an eshift model like this, and a true 4k unit like the Sonys.

      Now, I know with a true 4k source, the 4k unit is going to reproduce more detail, but in terms of feeding both units 2k, and leaving aside basic differences in quality between units (ie one model may have a better lens), there are 2 factors which interest me:

      Fill factor. As I recall, the higher the resolution, the lower the fill factor of the image.....ie more pixels means more back lines around the pixels. I doubt this is an issue, but I'm sure I recall seeing a table highlighting how fill factor reduced as resolution increased (probably not an issue anyway with LCOS/SXRD machines). Any opinions?

      Analogue nature of the image. So, I for instance moved my seating from 1x screen width, to 1.33, reason being that at 1x, whilst screen door isn't visible on LCOS machines, with a 1080p image you can still perceive that the image is made up of very small pixels. As an example, at that seating distance, diagonal lines or the curves in a person's face would be made up of very small, yet visible, stairstepping. Having seen eshifted images, it seems to make a huge difference in this respect, with much reduced stairstepping. Has anyone looked at this issue on both an eshift machine and a Sony 4k unit......for some reason I'm thinking the eshift, whilst containing no more detail, may smooth out a digital image into more of an analogue type image, better than just throwing more native pixels at it with a native 4k panel? Could be totally wrong on this though!
       
    25. Ideal AV

      Ideal AV
      Distinguished Member AVForums Sponsor

      Joined:
      Jan 12, 2011
      Messages:
      11,092
      Products Owned:
      2
      Products Wanted:
      0
      Trophy Points:
      166
      Location:
      Normanton
      Ratings:
      +6,419
      Stuart

      you would be very welcome to do some testing here, it's a good point you have raised but one I feel could have a different outcome with different individuals
       
    26. Rich H

      Rich H
      Active Member

      Joined:
      Feb 7, 2007
      Messages:
      790
      Products Owned:
      0
      Products Wanted:
      0
      Trophy Points:
      63
      Ratings:
      +382
      Stewart,

      The difference I saw between my old RS20 and the RS55 (which was the first E-shift model) was a more dynamic looking image on the RS55. Black levels looked similar, but bright areas looked more brilliant at the same time, making for a more realistic image. I also noticed an added smoothness and solidity to the image, aiding realism, with E-shift turned on. Further, the E-shift image enhancement controls ("MPC")
      really allowed for an even more detailed and dimensional image. I'm fine with added image processing if it enhances the final presentation of the image. (Though I generally dislike an artificial or artifacty image, but the MPC controls allowed added clarity while maintaining a film like look).

      The differences I'm seeing now between the new RS57 and my RS55 are in general: An even more dynamic image, deeper black levels (especially in very dark low APL scenes, fade outs etc, due to the Intelligent Lens Aperture). And I really like the addition of the new Clear Black processing. It can often be used to enhance the contrast and clarity of an image further, taking away a bit of a "veil" to the image and increasing depth slightly. Occasionally it makes noise more visible so I don't always use it, but it has generally proven to be a boon. In fact in some ways I prefer it's effect over the Darbee processing. With Darbee I always notice a "lightening" of the image, in the sense that I notice the fine hi-light details increasing in brightness. It gets that sharper, lighter "darbee" look to my eyes. Whereas the Clear Black seems to have a more even, all around effect. Darker areas going darker, brighter areas brighter (slightly) and it seems to me more even looking. (Yesterday I was doing some testing of the Clear Black vs Darbee and my Lumagen's video processor's Adaptive Contrast control. The AC control of the Lumagen is a contrast/detail enhancer as well. I chose a shot in Oblivion with the female lead, in which the lighting made one side of her hair fall gradually into shadow. The Lumagen's contrast enhancement, though great in the mid tones, immediately crushed away some shadow detail, even on the setting of "1." Wheras the Clear Black enhanced the contrast of the image maintaining every bit of shadow detail, and in fact actually ENHANCING the shadow detail. Little strands of hair in the shadow area that became lost with the Lumagen control, or which were barely visible with no processing, became slightly more visible with Clear Black.

      Yes the motion seems noticeably better as well. Brighter...yes but in my case probably because it's got a new bulb. Sharpness? I think it's similar to my RS55 with all other controls off.

      But the end result of what the RS57 brings are images I've never seen before in my home theater, in terms of the combination of image detail, clarity, black levels and sense of realistic contrast.

      That's my take anyway, FWIW.
       
    27. Batdog

      Batdog
      Well-known Member

      Joined:
      Mar 12, 2005
      Messages:
      1,826
      Products Owned:
      0
      Products Wanted:
      0
      Trophy Points:
      84
      Ratings:
      +467
      Kind of wish I hadn't asked now......that response has had exactly the same effect as taking a demo, just made me want to upgrade even more!

      Cheers Rich!
       
    28. darinp2

      darinp2
      Active Member

      Joined:
      Aug 29, 2008
      Messages:
      95
      Products Owned:
      0
      Products Wanted:
      0
      Trophy Points:
      18
      Ratings:
      +42
      It isn't, but the issue I mentioned with other light sources doesn't require a black or oppressive place to avoid in many cases. White rooms can often be setup so that with the projector off and no room lights turned on the screen cannot be seen for quite a while. I know there is at least one company that sells neutral density material to go over LEDs on equipment and these can even be doubled or tripled up for more reduction.

      Addressing other light sources doesn't require making a room oppressive in general IMO, although for people who have street lamps or some light outside shining in windows maybe it isn't quite as easy to address that cheaply without making the room somewhat oppressive.

      Black walls and surfaces are mostly about retaining ANSI CR. Low system ANSI CR is an issue and can keep high on/off CR from really doing its thing, but the issue I mentioned with a dynamic iris not being able to improve the intra-image CR (or even reducing it) in that example is about a room with low system on/off CR, not a room with just low system ANSI CR.
      I understand. It is hard to know how much the DI was really able to do its thing given the descriptions though.
      Of course you would have. With that setup maybe there wasn't a benefit to report. It is hard to have a good idea without more information.

      I personally like some scenes from Devil for testing how well a projector holds blackouts. This is a movie where some people are trapped in an elevator and every little while the lights go out completely and something bad happens. There is also a good blackout for The Abyss chapter of Finding Nemo. Both are cases where I think it is clear that the intent is no light coming from the screen. If those don't show any improvement with the DI enabled I think that would be a strong indicator that the environment is holding the DI back.

      --Darin
       
    29. cmclean

      cmclean
      Active Member

      Joined:
      May 29, 2003
      Messages:
      1,011
      Products Owned:
      0
      Products Wanted:
      0
      Trophy Points:
      66
      Ratings:
      +117
      Hi,
      I'm looking at getting the JVC X500 or X700 but reviews for the X500 say gaming input lag is high.
      Question: Does anyone have any experience of gaming with either? Does the X700 have less gaming input lag than the X500?

      Thanks
       
    30. Batdog

      Batdog
      Well-known Member

      Joined:
      Mar 12, 2005
      Messages:
      1,826
      Products Owned:
      0
      Products Wanted:
      0
      Trophy Points:
      84
      Ratings:
      +467
      It will be the same
       

    Share This Page

    Loading...