News: JVC unveils new NZ9, NZ8 and NZ7 laser projectors

CaroleBaskin

Well-known Member
Outside of the initial inspection and ‘ohhh look 8K’ you wouldn’t see it? Only person I can think of is @kenshingintoki but even he might find it uncomfortably close.

204B2180-8355-407F-802F-0BB5A5EB6DF2.jpeg
 

Stridsvognen

Well-known Member
Why do you say they can’t resolve 4K?
First the panels cant do a 1:1 on off pixel, 2nd the lenses dont have the MTF to fully resolve 4K, if you seen a N series up close with a 1:1 pixel phase pattern you will understand.
The Sony 270ES have higher MTF and better pixel separation, but horrible bit resolution and processing, i really like the N series look, i think the combination of MTF and pixel on off capabilities is the glue that makes the image look so analog/ organic on the N series.
 

Rickyj at Kalibrate

Distinguished Member
AVForums Sponsor
But that doesn’t answer why even offer it, like how close must you need to sit from the screen to even see the added resolution

I think scientific tests estimated around 3.8k was the optimum resolution based on seating position 20/20 eye sight etc, and 8K is not really needed for film, but I expect it is there for the gamers. 8K is a big thing for the PS5 and Xbox Series X. You are often focused on a part of the screen at any one time rather than the whole screen, so 8K can work here.
 

Luminated67

Distinguished Member
I think scientific tests estimated around 3.8k was the optimum resolution based on seating position 20/20 eye sight etc, and 8K is not really needed for film, but I expect it is there for the gamers. 8K is a big thing for the PS5 and Xbox Series X. You are often focused on a part of the screen at any one time rather than the whole screen, so 8K can work here.
I suppose that’s also the reason for HDMI2.1. As an old man I never realised gaming was that big but clearly it’s a huge market even in the projector world.
 

Stridsvognen

Well-known Member
But that doesn’t answer why even offer it, like how close must you need to sit from the screen to even see the added resolution
4K vs 8K will depend on the screen size, pixel fill factor, MTF and so on, if you run a 800" screen with 8K projector who have a 50% pixel fill and high MTF you will for sure see pixels.
A good CRT projector on a 130" screen running 1920X1080 you just see a painted image on screen. And comparing a JVC N series with good upscaled 1080P vs native 4K source, you wont see any added resolution/ information even if you press your nose against the screen.
 

ask4me2

Active Member
But that doesn’t answer why even offer it, like how close must you need to sit from the screen to even see the added resolution
My guess is that JVC likes to use what they have learned from producing projectors over the years, so now when they have managed to create good native 4K panels, they also want to use their e-shift systems and add a propper 8K pixel addressable e-shift to create a pixel less image with a look and theoretical resolution close to the pinnacle of analog film.

Theoretical 35mm film resolution is about 6K
Theoretical "15/70" film (IMAX) resolution is about 12K

more pixels do not only add resolution but also adds how many colors and gray tones can be shown at once in each movie frame or picture.

So I guess a propper 8K projected picture can be made to look even more natural than a 4K picture, even if our eyes are not fully capable to resolve the resolution from our normal viewing distances.

I do somewhat agree with you Luminated, at the moment 4K seems to be good enough for home cinema with the current video and movie sorces.

Even if Bill Gates did not say something like "640K of memory is enough for everybody", I do like to remember moments in time when "truth" like that existed. Because as long that there are customers, smart salespersons, and good engineers out there, there will be an evolution in the AV and digital world, and it can be hard to know what's good enough for a projector with a light source of 20 000+ hours.
 

Luminated67

Distinguished Member
4K vs 8K will depend on the screen size, pixel fill factor, MTF and so on, if you run a 800" screen with 8K projector who have a 50% pixel fill and high MTF you will for sure see pixels.
A good CRT projector on a 130" screen running 1920X1080 you just see a painted image on screen. And comparing a JVC N series with good upscaled 1080P vs native 4K source, you wont see any added resolution/ information even if you press your nose against the screen.
CRT is great and wonderful but it’s had its day, very few want to give up the space or re-enforce the joists to hang one from the ceiling.

In the REAL WORLD 4K is all that’s needed for watching movies and NO ONE has a 800” screen in In their home. Ricky made a valid point about gaming as I don’t game I can’t argue either way but for movie watching I doubt the world needs 8K.
 

Stridsvognen

Well-known Member
CRT is great and wonderful but it’s had its day, very few want to give up the space or re-enforce the joists to hang one from the ceiling.

In the REAL WORLD 4K is all that’s needed for watching movies and NO ONE has a 800” screen in In their home. Ricky made a valid point about gaming as I don’t game I can’t argue either way but for movie watching I doubt the world needs 8K.
The point is you can not simplify it as only pixel count if you dont look at the mtf and panels capability to have 1:1 on off.
At the current JVC series you are struggling to optically resolve the pixel grid, and on top you have convergence that is slightly off.

So the extra addressable pixels also have to be complemented with better 1:1 on off, convergence and optical resolution, the downside will then be that eshift eats update frequency and processing power, so you likely see reduced motion resolution and added pixel flicker.

There is no free lunch. You get some and loos something else.
 

Furnace Inferno

Well-known Member
CRT is great and wonderful but it’s had its day, very few want to give up the space or re-enforce the joists to hang one from the ceiling.

In the REAL WORLD 4K is all that’s needed for watching movies and NO ONE has a 800” screen in In their home. Ricky made a valid point about gaming as I don’t game I can’t argue either way but for movie watching I doubt the world needs 8K.
8Kx8K I believe is what Tim Sweeney (Epic CEO and mad programmer) has stated is above what humans can resolve and once we get there will be indistinguishable from looking through a window (pixel wise). Although I can’t remember if that was also in relation to VR where you are looking at a screen through magnifying lenses which needs even higher resolution.

This was also back in 2015 and when he predicted VR would look like real life in 10 years which I can’t see happening when normal 2D games haven’t even matched CGI yet!
 

Luminated67

Distinguished Member
My guess is that JVC likes to use what they have learned from producing projectors over the years, so now when they have managed to create good native 4K panels, they also want to use their e-shift systems and add a propper 8K pixel addressable e-shift to create a pixel less image with a look and theoretical resolution close to the pinnacle of analog film.

Theoretical 35mm film resolution is about 6K
Theoretical "15/70" film (IMAX) resolution is about 12K

more pixels do not only add resolution but also adds how many colors and gray tones can be shown at once in each movie frame or picture.

So I guess a propper 8K projected picture can be made to look even more natural than a 4K picture, even if our eyes are not fully capable to resolve the resolution from our normal viewing distances.

I do somewhat agree with you Luminated, at the moment 4K seems to be good enough for home cinema with the current video and movie sorces.
My argument only really works in the domestic home environment where screen size very seldom go beyond 150-160” but your comment about making the image look even more natural is interesting. I’ve never thought of 4K looking unnatural in appearance the times I have viewed them but I look forward to seeing the difference based on what your suggested as a possible reason for it.
Even if Bill Gates did not say something like "640K of memory is enough for everybody", I do like to remember moments in time when "truth" like that existed. Because as long that there are customers, smart salespersons, and good engineers out there, there will be an evolution in the AV and digital world, and it can be hard to know what's good enough for a projector with a light source of 20 000+ hours.
It does make me laugh the whole 20000+ hour thing because I’ve yet to meet a single person who would ever need such a thing, I’ve had my Epson since Jan’19 and it’s only got 840hr on the bulb. LOL
 

CaroleBaskin

Well-known Member
It does make me laugh the whole 20000+ hour thing because I’ve yet to meet a single person who would ever need such a thing, I’ve had my Epson since Jan’19 and it’s only got 840hr on the bulb. LOL
Some people use them like televisions for several hours in the evening.
 

markymiles

Distinguished Member
Also had a quick look at NZ7.....just got back in the door 20 mins ago and am a bit zapped. Not got full in depth stuff to tell you other than i liked it. More if i have time tomorrow

Thats ok we can wait til you've had a little siesta. No pressure :)
 

mb3195

Distinguished Member

Thatsnotmynaim

Distinguished Member

Luminated67

Distinguished Member

The latest video from AVForums

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

Latest News

Sky reveals content lineup for 2022
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Panasonic TVs now feature Apple TV+
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
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

Full fat HDMI teeshirts

Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom